Also Compare the Epistle of James and salvation through works with Epistles of Paul and salvation through faith.
Under what Roman law was he excused from this normal citizen's duty, please? And were you around to see what was happening before the Scriptures were written? Why did the Early Church have all things in common if they weren't socialists? Gestures are not arguments, you know. Think of what the Popes made of Christianity, or the American Mammon-worshippers called 'fundamentalists' before you lay down the law in this wild way.
Perhaps. But there is one thing that you must acknowledge: Paul of Tarsus was a MAN; not the Son of GOD (or GOD). The four true apostles who witnessed the words of Jesus provided those direct words in scripture. Paul of Tarsus writes his own interpretations of doctrine in his letters to various church groups.
One cannot compare Paul to Jesus as "man to man" like the OP is trying to do.
The four gospels have the greatest teachings in all of scriptures as would be expected as all scriptures point to Christ, and His Atonement is the focal point. But I don't think people should diss Paul. He also was called by God, and as a servant of God fulfilled his mission. That dude worked. His letters to the churches were not meant to be on the same spiritual impact level as the four gospels. It doesn't mean he didn't have an important mission to fulfill in bringing the gospel to the Gentiles. I also think some people misinterpret a lot of what he says in the letters, and wrongly criticize him.
Commonly people think of Jesus being the free wheeling hippie figure concerned with being nice and egalitarianism and going against authority and law and the such, being about love and brotherhood and so on whereas Paul was more rigid and concerned with authority and making the "church" and moving away from a more lovey dovey christianity. So people talk about Jesus' christianity vrs Pauline, the former being supposedly more egalitarian and based on ethics the latter being more clerical and based on rules and the hereafter.
Problem is this has nothing to do with history.
Jesus was a Jew who thought that Jews and ONLY Jews were Gods chosen people, his message was only for the Jews, Paul was a universalist, who thought all men were equal before God.
Paul spoke a whole lot more on personality traits and kindness than Jesus did, (at least from what he have in writing), and emphasised love over all.
Jesus kept the law and didn't want to get rid of the law, Paul was against the law and thought it should be abolished for christians. Infact the big dispute between James (brother of Jesus) and Paul was over Jewish legalism.
Jesus was born into a poor family, Paul was born into the professional class and CHOSE poverty (he went from being an ancient version of a lawer to a tent maker).
Jesus was never blatently political against Rome, he was focused on opposing the Jewish high priesthood and aristocracy. Paul talked about the powers and governments as being enemies, (people always bring up his pragmatic letter to the Romans and ignore the condemnations of worlly powers other places).
Paul consistantly focused on redistribution of wealth and caring for the poor (as did Jesus of coarse), but in pauls case it was in the context of an actual institution, and just like Jesus condemned persuit of wealth.
Paul, even though you can find some "sexist" parts of his letters (some of which some scholars think are later additions), he was very egalitarian, he supported female prophets and leaders, and had the famous "there is neither male nor female, jew nor greek" and so on.
Paul was not the leader of the church, infact he was very often in conflict with the leadership (Peter, James, John and others from the 12).
Jesus was apocolyptic, talked about Gods judgement against the wicked, Paul generally focused on the positive hope that the church had.
Paul was arrested by the authorities all the time.
(If you'd like scriptural backing I'll provide it for you).
My point is among many so called "liberal christians" who like the idea of Jesus as a sort of proto-anti-establishment figure, but then look at Paul as someone who ruined it have that concept based on popular imagination and not actual scripture or history. Paul was NOT a strict legalist, was not a judgmental guy going around trying to be the boss, Jesus wasn't just a lovey dovey ethicist while paul was an authoritarian doom and gloom preacher.
Nor did their theologies really conflict, Jesus was the jewish massiah for the jewish people ... Paul was the apostle to the nations bringing the Christian message to the universal stage. Jesus dealt with a theological framework, Paul dealt with institutional practice.
I don't see where James' epistle embraces justification by works. There's a section in the following article that addresses the issue (Paul vs. James).
Justification by Faith – How believers are declared righteous by God « The Righter Report
I "diss" Paul because like you and I he is only a human being, and completely fallible. Jesus, to any "Christian" is both GOD and the Son of God, therefore infallible. If Jesus states something, it is LITERALLY the "word of GOD." If Paul states something...not so much.
"Paul constantly focused on redistribution of wealth"
Paul started the socialist movement....how messages change.
The only value I ascribe to it is that it reinforces my positions regarding the importance of following the words spoken by Jesus as provided by the four books of the apostles who witnessed them; and the fact that the works of Paul of Tarsus merit no more consideration than the words of any other human being.
A servant of God speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost is speaking the word of God. When they are not and speak opinion, they are fallible. Personally I don't think believers should be criticizing a true servant of God especially when interpreting scriptures without the aid of the spirit.
So what of when Jesus speaks in Acts? Acts no good? Acts no good than Luke no good...
you know, there is a common term used for people who ignore or tear out rather, that in the Bible which they simply find disagreeable -- they're called Lutherans...
Acts? Correct, I do not accept the claim that Jesus spoke to Paul in Acts. People throughout history have claimed this happens to them, even today. Paul and his supporters got to write the book, and this is his effort to claim divine guidance in order to validate his directives to new converts. Paul was not one of the original apostles, and there were conflicts in doctrine between him and those remaining apostles at the time of his "conversion." In order to claim equal (if not greater) authority to the living apostles he has a "vision" of the resurrected Jesus who grants him such authority. Wow, how lucky was that?
Than why do you subscribe to Luke? Acts for all intents is merely just the second book of Luke, it widely believed to be from the same author.
Further, why would Paul the Pharisee of pharisees give up his respected position, his well, give up everything just to join a persecuted (by his own hand mind you) reviled sect of followers of a crucified leader?
Commonly people think of Jesus being the free wheeling hippie figure concerned with being nice and egalitarianism and going against authority and law and the such, being about love and brotherhood and so on whereas Paul was more rigid and concerned with authority and making the "church" and moving away from a more lovey dovey christianity. So people talk about Jesus' christianity vrs Pauline, the former being supposedly more egalitarian and based on ethics the latter being more clerical and based on rules and the hereafter.
Problem is this has nothing to do with history.
Jesus was a Jew who thought that Jews and ONLY Jews were Gods chosen people, his message was only for the Jews, Paul was a universalist, who thought all men were equal before God.
I'm reading the part where he talks about James, and talk about reading in between the lines, or trying to pull out of the text what isn't in the text. James is CLEARLY referensing the need to act and have works, not that grace comes through faith, and it's clearly a referense to Pauls theology. James 2: 14-26 is a clear response to Romans 4:1-5.
Look at it. (NRSV)
Romans 4:1-12
1 What then are we to say was gained by[a] Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. 5 But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.
Then James 2:14-24
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters,[e] if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
If that isn't a direct statement and response I don't know what is.
I'm going to stop you right there, because this is where you are fundamentally wrong. If I was grading your paper, I'd give you a G, because an F does not express just how wrong you are.
John 4 talks about how Jesus spoke to the Samaritans for two days. They were not Jews. In fact, they were enemies of the Jews. But he spoke to them because his message was for all people, not just the Jews. There are more examples of Jesus accepting those that are not accepted (at that time) by the Jews and traditional law. His word and presence changed the world from a chosen people of a select few to a chosen people of anyone that wished to join Him.
I'm not even going to bother to read or respond to the rest because you based your thesis on a premise that is fundamentally wrong.
The point of the article, which went into elaborate detail, is that in James, salvation is not earned by works. Works are the evidence of one's saving faith, not the cause of it.
Whatever the point of that article was, my point still stands. James and Paul we're clearly in conflict over it.
I just demonstrated in the article that wasn't true. They were looking at justification at two different points in time: Paul at the inception of one's faith (corresponding to Genesis 15:6), where a person is saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (God), and not by works; and James at a later point in time in a person's faith (corresponding to Abraham's works in Genesis 22, 7 chapters after Abraham was justified righteous by faith) where saving faith produces works.
And if you think Abraham was justified righteous by his works in Genesis 22, then why does it say previously in Genesis 15:6 that Abraham was already justified by faith?
You have to put it on a chronological timeline and then it becomes more clear.
And if you think one can be saved by works, please document how many works, and what types, are required?
Paul said Abraham was saved by faith and that works were not important by quoting Genesis 15...
James rebutted by saying that works WERE important by quoting Genesis 22 .... What you're saying might make sense if it was 2 letters by the same person, but Paul wrote one and then James responded.
In the article Ephesians 2:10 is quoted in relation to Paul: "For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." So Paul does place an emphasis on good works.
See above. Both place an emphasis on works.
I'm sure if you called a dozen Christian pastors at random they would all most likely tell you the same thing I am. You can also Google "James salvation by works?" and find a number of articles taking the same position I am taking.
The writings of the three apostles, Mathew, Mark, and Luke, take precedence. They witnessed in fact. if you search the catholic apocrypha there is also a Gospel attributed to Mary Magdalene that was rejected by the Church primarily because it was written by a woman and they did not accept her witness as fact.
The Book of John is actually an anonymous compilation of stories beginning with John the Baptist and his encounter with Jesus.
Paul is simply a man who helped build the church.
Emperor Worship
Imperial cult (ancient Rome) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Go down to Saviours and monotheists)
There we go, Jews were always given an exception to the Imperial cult. (had they not been they would have most likely been destroyed as a people once they were incorporated into the Roman Empire).
No I wasn't around but historians can reconstruct history based on sources.
The early Church WERE proto-communists, I said that, and I've argued for it at length before, re-read what I said, Jesus didn't practice primitive communism since he wasn't part of an institution, Jesus wasn't a christian, the early Church was ... Pat attention.
What the popes made of christianity had nothing really to do with Paul, rather it had to to with christianity becoming an imperial religion and thus turning into psudo-christianity, the same with American Mammom (prosperity gospel) types, it's psudo-christianity, nothing to do with Paul, Paul wrote just as many warnings against riches and wealth and showed as much concern for the poor as Jesus did (frome what we have written).
Please pay attention to what I'm saying, and don't put words in my mouth.
Did I put words into your mouth? I don't see Wikipedia as scripture, and I don't look to it for truth. For the rest of your posting I don't see much to disagree with, though we might differ about emphasis perhaps.
Of coarse, but scripture doesn't talk about the nature of emperor worship or the imperial cult .... The Jews were excluded from the demand to worship the emperor, they were allowd to not partake of the imperial cult due to monotheism ... that is a HISTORICAL FACT. So sorry ... you're wrong about Paul having to accept that a man can be God because of the Imperial cult, him being a Roman citizen didn't require him to be part of the imperial cult because he was a Jew ... a PHARASEE ... to even suggest that a pharaset might take part in the imperial cult is laughable, given the legal exception from emperor worship given to the Jews and the abhorance of Idols.
I ascribe to the three books of the apostles who clearly coincide and reinforce each other in their descriptions of witnessing Jesus Christ. Luke, in "acts," is describing what Saul of Tarsus (subsequently called Paul of Tarsus) CLAIMED happened that led to his conversion. Even in Act's the descriptions Paul gives vary. Luke (or whoever wrote Acts) was not present with Saul, he just recorded what Saul said later when describing what happened at various times.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?