Ben C Smith

Yes. In the active voice δοκουντες can be intransitively rendered as seeming. This is similar to the fairly common impersonal use of this verb, which would be it is seeming (often rendered as it seems good or it seems right).

Ben.

Mr. Logic

Oh now Julian, where did I say that "seems to be pillars is a neg. statement?
Your missing the point and why? Most Scholars that I have read try to put a dogmatic spin on this claiming that Paul said these Men were pillars! Paul only said that when he first met them they SEEMED to be that way.
Nothing neg. about that YET, and no dogma about Paul claiming "Who those Guys were absolute pillars" either! I put the challenge out there for anyone to take these verses together and show how the FLOW shows, "They are pillars and that is why they need rebuke"! Why didn't you do that?
Simple, you can't! No one ever has and no one ever will!
My money says that you won't even try. How could you? You can spin it any other way! Why take it out of context?
Bottom line: v.9-11 is a flow, and the evidence shows: I thought them to be pillars and we decided who would preach to each group, etc. BUT (he goes on to show how he rebuked Paul)! Do you think that you could do a better job translating than the orig. Translators, because they put SEEMED TO BE. It wasn't my idea! Show me the flow that proves me wrong on this! I can wait. Been doing it for years now!
Thanks for the reply showing that you can't show the flow any other way!
In fact you even mentioned a flow, oddly enough! Thanks again

Mr. Logic

Yep, and it's kind of like someone saying "The Corner Restaurant seemed to have great food, and so I told my wife who agreed to meet me after her beauty salon appointment, but when we ate there, it was like eating sand and I told the Cook to his face about it"


Now, is there anything neg. about "seemed to have great food"?
Taken out of context, one might think that I am recommending this diner to eat at, BUT <s> read on!

Thanks for the reply!

Clouseau

Scholarly? Why not?

False teachers don't get everything wrong, do they.

James' letter is all about being justified by men. One does not need to be a scholar to see that. Sometimes I think one has to be a scholar to not see it!

'Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.' Matt 5:15-16 NIV

Yes, without asking daft questions.

Mr. Logic

Get a clue, clouseau, Man can't justify you. The Pope is justified in the eyes of the Catholics, and Billy Graham is justifed in the eyes of the Baptists, so how is that Godly justification? There is a diff. btw let your light shine and being justified? How is being of a denomination/division being scriptural (read 1 Cor. 1:10)? Many have no problem with divisions, because everyone does them.
The Irony: Even if James was talking about justificaiton in the eyes of men he is wrapped up in getting Man's approval. Didn't Paul say "Should we please Man or God"?
Just a few problems with James:
His men helped promote segration and put pressure on Peter to do that same Gal.2
2. Unlike Paul his letter wasn't written to any church, but to the 12 Tribes (JEWS) of Israel.
3. He was not only one of the first 12 to see Jesus, after resurrection but didn't see Jesus in a resurrected body until after the 500 witnesses! Not exactly top on the list.
4. Claims that the Devils problem isn't that they don't have faith/believe, but that they don't do the works of God. Clue: "Without faith it is impossible to please God"! Hello James, wake up and spell the shew bread! <s>
5. claims that Abraham was justified when he offered his son. Clue: He had no son at the time of his justification! Gen. 15:6
The work addicted James thought that this was a Prophesy, that would be fulfilled (the word he used) later when Abe did some works to prove himself.
Again, prove himself to whom? God already knew he had faith.
Thanks

Clouseau

Of course man can justify, and must justify, unless one lives on a desert island. That is how people become Christians, because they see the behaviour of those who are already Christians. One does not really know one is a Christian unless one gets both recognition of good deeds from the noble, and persecution from the ignoble, as Jesus promised.

It definitely isn't. One needs to locate the right part of the Bible.

'Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.' 2 Peter 2:2 NIV

The infamous evils of the RCC are regularly used by atheists and others to dismiss Christianity, not to say, "Look, there's a light on a stand, see how good that is". The sober fact is that Ratzinger, Graham and indeed Bush condone murder by validating the RCC as a church. That is Satan's justification, not God's.

That could hardly be further from the truth.

'My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?' James 2:1-4 NIV

'Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.' James 1:27 NIV

'Submit yourselves, then, to God.' James 4:7 NIV

So are we to reject Peter's letters, too?

Jews who had become Christians, obviously.

Seeing that he was probably not even a disciple at the time, it's quite an honor! Jesus' appearance was very likely to be the cause of James' conversion.

'Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.' 1 Cor 15:7-8 NIV

Bang goes your hypothesis, anyway.

James is not writing to people who don't claim to have faith. He's writing to those who claim to have faith but possibly don't have it, because they have little to show for it, i.e. works- the fruits of the Spirit.

'The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.' Gal 5:6 NIV

You can't get a playing card between Paul and James.

Justified in his own eyes, and in the eyes of men.

At the time of his justification before God, yes.

Chili

WOW, in my argument the Church was doing the heretics a favor and their actions were justified by God. At least they were given a chance to repent while God would have just hung a millstone around their neck. Note that the "they" here are those who call themselves Christians and still go to church.

Mr. Logic

James is not writing to people who don't claim to have faith. He's writing to those who claim to have faith but possibly don't have it, because they have little to show for it, i.e. works- the fruits of the Spirit.

I can tell you what your problem is Friend. You can't admit that you might be wrong. You are trying to play Defense Attorney for your beliefs. I don't have any beliefs on it other than the evidence.
Your statement above shows how hard you are trying to make James legit, since there is no common sense to your defense!
Why would James tell someone who doesn't have faith to act like they do, and he will believe (justify) them?

So Bush, and the RCC aren't justified by you? So! Maybe you aren't justified by them! <s>
Again, Friend, justification can only come from God! Everyone is righteous in thier own eyes, and that is why Men can't justify other men.
Why would a Spirtual person care if a Leader of Legalist Judaizers thought them to not be justified?
Wild guess here, but I am sure that I am not justifed by you, because I don't believe in "James", and that's fine. I might worry about you justifying me, if I thought that you could give me eternal life, but you can't, just like I can't give you it!

As far as your asking about why I don't reject Peter's writings since he gave into fear of those who came from James: Peter feared them. It wasn't his idea to seperate Believers. I had no idea at first that James was the head of Judaizers, or even what Judaizers were. I simply saw what many see, that James seems to contradict Paul on grace by faith.
That many are usually talked out of their doubts about James, because they are told "It's in the Bible" and the "Bible is God's Word"! So they use circle reasoning to promote James. James being in scripture proves nothing!
Your opinion like mine means nothing, but the kind of evidence that I have given you proves mush to say the least.
BTW, Acts 15 talks about the earlier time in Antioch and it shows how much Peter has changed and taken rebuke from paul. IOW, Peter repented of listening to those from James who put fear in him. His statement about us ALL being justified by faith proves that, but James otoh sends a letter to Gentiles letting them know that THEY didn't need all the Jewish Laws, like Converted Jews did. this is segragation, period!

Huon

I can tell you what your problem is Friend. Your bold blue color writing is unlegible !

Mr. Logic, you can tell us that James and Paul were conflicting at some time. Everybody can read that in Acts, for instance. It could be interesting from an historical point of view. But here, it is not interesting from a religious point of view. Not at all.

Clouseau

[QUOTE=Mr. Logic;4525920]Why would I worry?

So a weak-willed coward's writings are ok? Oh, dear.

So are you one yourself, now?

Then why do you suppose that the whole of Protestantism includes James in its canon? Can it be that you are wiser than thousands of scholars of the 500 years since the dawn of education and printing?

And James didn't? Why so choosy?

That is garbage par excellence! Just where do you get your ideas?