Trevor Compact

The Great Reformer - Luther, said the general epistle of James is a "book made of straw...not one word of gospel in it."

It was written after the First Church council in Acts 15, in response to Paul, as was Galatians, written after the same event, in response to the Judahizers sent by James to infiltrate the church at Galatia.

Two times James mentions the Savior.

"charisma"/grace and "euangelion"/gospel do not appear in the letter.

Supernaturalists have correctly argued that the inclusion of James into the Holy Canon, by God, was to serve as an example of gospel/way of faith voiding heresy.

More succinctly, the epistle and its canonicity, is intended to contrast the crooked message of age-old works with lip service to Christ, versus the straight message of Paul and his unfolding of the gospel from the O.T.

And Luke brilliantly points out, in Acts, that Paul was converted on a street named "Straight".

Californian

I'll take James over Paul any day. The crazy Christian Right is the end result of Pauline philosopy. Ignore what Jesus said and did as an impossible standard, and concentrate on death, resurrection and being pre-saved no matter what your behavior.

I'm not impressed with Paul or today's Pauline Christians.

Trevor Compact

Sorry, but the "crazy Christian right" fully supports James and when cornered assert contrary to what anyone can read for themself: that James and Paul are NOT compatible.

You have set-up a straw man, probably to serve an ulterior bias.

Bottom line is that God chose Paul (Acts 9) and he wrote 2/3 of the N.T.

James got one epistle to showcase what heresy looks like dressed in pseudo-righteous robes that "have Moses in the heart and Jesus on the lips".

Chris Weimer

Rick, sorry about the accusation. I don't mean to be so rude. In fact, I don't actually believe myself that James was a Jewish wisdom book appropriated by Christians, but, as I still play devil's advocate, I'll return after more carefully analysing what *you* said. I'm not avoiding, just formulating.

Californian

Good. Without James they would be even more ethically challenged than they already are.
No strawman, some of my own relatives. And yes, I am biased aganst those who do in their neighbor, while in their own pridefulness, claim Christ is their savior.
:rolling: Paul chose Paul. The New Testament wasn't finalized until the 4th century. Popes and Bishops love Paul because he endorses conformity and obedience to a heirarchy.
Why not? It would be a better world.

Rick Sumner

Accepted and reciprocated. I think we all get a little worked up sometimes.

Nor, as you may have gathered, do I

Are any other posters aware of anyone other than Doherty advocating such a position?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Would you consider these to be advocating the same position?

General Board of Global Ministries:

"James opens like a letter, but much of the text reads more like Old Testament wisdom literature."

Atlantic Baptist University:

"There is no overall structure apparent in the letter; rather James makes a series of individual points that are juxtaposed with one another. In this regard it is typical of Jewish wisdom literature (see Wisdom of Ben Sirach). The letter has little distinctly Christian teaching in it (see 5:7)"

New American Bible:

"From the viewpoint of its literary form, James is a letter only in the most conventional sense; it has none of the characteristic features of a real letter except the address. It belongs rather to the genre of parenesis or exhortation and is concerned almost exclusively with ethical conduct. It therefore falls within the tradition of Jewish wisdom literature, such as can be found in the Old Testament (Proverbs, Sirach) and in the extracanonical Jewish literature (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Books of Enoch, the Manual of Discipline found at Qumran)."

Rick Sumner

Not quite. I'm not denying that it's a "Wisdom text," so to speak. I think it's intentionally one, and intentionally modelled after Jewish Wisdom literature. I contest whether or not there was an already existent Wisdom text later redacted and appropriated by Christians.

But, as noted previously, James also lacks many features (it's entirely dependent on scripture, for example). Further, he demonstrates knowledge of Paul's justification by faith. We can take this even more solidly than I'd previously stated, because no one, other than James and Paul, discuss justification by faith--even more specifically, faith vs. works. The more standard question was grace or works, and grace generally won out. But grace isn't of the individual, it's of God--God makes man righteous since man will never live up to God's standards, not because man has faith, or good works, or anything else of the sort--rather because God is merciful and loving.

For lack of a more apt description, I think James is a Christian who sought to add Christian Wisdom to earlier Jewish Wisdom, and opposed Paul's stance on the admission of Gentiles.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Trevor Compact

Acts 9 says Jesus/God chose Paul.

If you or anyone feels an attachment to the general epistle of James to the detriment of Paul, then you are showing yourself against the person Christ chose to speak for Him, which is a paradigm of the entire world: James accepted by the masses based on 1 epistle, yet Paul writes 2/3 of the N.T. and he is rejected. This is tantamount to rejecting God which is what the world has done contrary to the evidence.

James was included into the canon by the Holy Spirit to showcase the heresy of works parading under the false guise of faith.

James was a Judahizer who grafted Jesus onto Moses law - heresy.

Chris Weimer

Trevor - Christian arguements are no good here. We don't accept your a priori reasoning that Christ chose Paul because Paul didn't see the real Jesus who may or may not have lived, but saw an hallucination and became delusional over it.

Oh, and God doesn't exist.