Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clouseau · 06-12-2007, 04:26 AM

[QUOTE=Blackwater;4529212]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

For what it is worth, it is noteworthy in the justification debate that both Paul and James quote the same Old Testament passage to defend their position - and, in fact, any 'contradiction' that arises seems more between Moses and Moses (or whoever) than between James and Paul.

Quote:

I think that fact is noteworthy toward the conclusion that James was attacking Paul's position. Paul used Abraham as an example

Actually, Paul got it wrong. He wrote,

'What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."' Rom 4:3 NIV

But the Scripture doesn't actually say that. It says this:

'Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.' Gen 15:6. NIV

See the difference? It was after Abram was considered righteous that he was called 'Abraham', signifying the divine promise made to him.

Quote:

so James says "oh yeah pal, well I can use Abraham too."

James wrote:

'Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?' James 2:21 NIV

Now this offering took place in Gen. chapter 22, not in chapter 15, after Abram's name was so significantly changed. Notice, too, that he did not say 'considered righteous by God'. It was when he found his arm raised, knife in hand, that Abraham realised that he was Abraham, not Abram. And it is only when a person finds him/herself in a position that could only have been reached by obedience to Christ that he/she knows that faith is real.

Gundulf · 06-12-2007, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Logic

No they certainly do not quote the same passage. Someone else pointed out that them quoting different passages is the proof that they were talking about two diff. justifications, which isn't right either. Paul is quoting from Gen.15:6, while James was quoting from the passages that speak of Abe offering up his son.
FACT, and this is something that I later found, Luther pointed out:
ABE HAD NO SON AT THE TIME OF HIS JUSTIFICATION!

I use to wonder, how in the heck James could miss such an obvious error and then I realized that he mentioned the "Fulfilled" as if Gen.15:6 were a prophesy! It isn't, but he was determined to preach outward works, which can be faked!

No, they 'certainly do quote the same passage' - they both quote Genesis 15:6. Paul is quoting it in reference to the exact context of genesis 15, and James quotes it in reference to it being 'fulfilled' in Genesis 22, but both quote it. I fail to see why you would try to claim that they don't quote the same passage.

Regardless, this is exegetically justified by Genesis.

Because Abraham believed the Lord, without works, what was the resultant promise in Genesis 15? "Look up at the heavens and count the stars, if you are able to number them. So shall your offspring be."

And because of what Abraham DID, by offering his son, what was the resultant promise in Genesis 22? "Because you have done this and have not withheld your son....I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven..."

So, did God promise to multiply Abraham's offspring because of his faith, or because of what he did? Yes.

Paul picks up on one true aspect of this fact (it was because of his faith), and James another (it was because of a REAL faith that was shown real by its works - i.e., fulfilled, made complete - the word "fulfill" does not require a prophetic interpretation); but any "conflict" is rooted in Genesis itself, after all, where both Paul and James base their arguments.

Knupfer · 06-12-2007, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Logic

There is a lot of censorship on these forums. Sorry but there are way to many "Atheist Amen Pews" on these Forums, despite the fact that Liberals are suppose to be big defenders of the freedom of Speech! Seems like everywhere I post some scripture verses, even to prove many Christians wrong, such as "Let there be no divisions among you" I get reprimanded. So of the topic were about Scripture, but I wasn't allowed to post there unless I was an Atheist! Wow!
Anyway, I would like to post evidence showing that the book of James is not compatible with Paul's Writings, as Luther knew, and no I am not getting my data from Luther, who I honestly knew little about when I found out that he also rejected James. I discovered his rejection, 2 years after my own rejection for basically the same reasons. BTW, the only reason that a Radio Preacher mentioned Luther's rejection of James was to declare how wrong he was.
Question: If he was so wrong, how come they censor that truth about Luther from the main stream Believer? The answer is simple, the proof shows that they will loose a debate on it. I am winning a debate right now on CARM, one of the more Scholarly Christian Forums. The man put his foot in it, when he tried to claim that Paul said that James, Peter, and John were pillars. That is the standard Fundamental claim, and it isn't true. They take it out of context. A Truth that anyone can see if they slow down and take it in context. What is ignored is that Paul said that they SEEMED to be pillars, Gal.2 there is only one verse btw that and "BUT", which shows Paul reprimanding Peter for giving into those who "Came from James" (Their Leader)!
Here's hoping that I don't get the boot for talking about scripture on a forum that is suppose to be talking about scripture! <s>

Your post just shows that you don't understand the bible. If you read it you will see that people are only righteous by Christ's blood, not their own perfection. So absolutely, they will make mistakes as Paul tells us in Romans chatper 7 and in 1 Corinthians. So next time you claim that the bible contradicts itself, I suggest you try to understand it first.

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-12-2007, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

Paul picks up on one true aspect of this fact (it was because of his faith), and James another (it was because of a REAL faith that was shown real by its works - i.e., fulfilled, made complete - the word "fulfill" does not require a prophetic interpretation); but any "conflict" is rooted in Genesis itself, after all, where both Paul and James base their arguments.

I never saw that before. Makes sense though... But I still see James as necessarily countering what he saw as error in Paul's position. We have extra biblical support for this difference of opinion in the form of different traditions and the groups of believers that grew up around them. There was a definite group that was fond of James and rejected Paul over these very issues. They were called the Ebionites.

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-12-2007, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knupfer

Your post just shows that you don't understand the bible. If you read it you will see that people are only righteous by Christ's blood, not their own perfection. So absolutely, they will make mistakes as Paul tells us in Romans chatper 7 and in 1 Corinthians. So next time you claim that the bible contradicts itself, I suggest you try to understand it first.

I think you are the one who needs to read your bible without the a-priori assumption that the bible does not contradict. And you also need to read some of the extra biblical sources and learn a little bit about church history. There is ample evidence within the bible that there was tension (to put it mildly) between Paul and the Jerusalem Church headed up by James and that the book of acts was written in part to smooth over these conflicts within the early church.

Clouseau · 06-12-2007, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knupfer

Your post just shows that you don't understand the bible. If you read it you will see that people are only righteous by Christ's blood, not their own perfection. So absolutely, they will make mistakes as Paul tells us in Romans chatper 7 and in 1 Corinthians. So next time you claim that the bible contradicts itself, I suggest you try to understand it first.

I think you are the one who needs to read your bible without the a-priori assumption that the bible does not contradict. And you also need to read some of the extra biblical sources and learn a little bit about church history. There is ample evidence within the bible that there was tension (to put it mildly) between Paul and the Jerusalem Church headed up by James and that the book of acts was written in part to smooth over these conflicts within the early church.

Garbage.

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-12-2007, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater

I think you are the one who needs to read your bible without the a-priori assumption that the bible does not contradict. And you also need to read some of the extra biblical sources and learn a little bit about church history. There is ample evidence within the bible that there was tension (to put it mildly) between Paul and the Jerusalem Church headed up by James and that the book of acts was written in part to smooth over these conflicts within the early church.

Garbage.

How so?

Clouseau · 06-12-2007, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Garbage.

How so?

Because I damn well said so. That's good enough for you, isn't it?

Jedi Mind Trick · 06-12-2007, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater

How so?

Because I damn well said so. That's good enough for you, isn't it?

Oh I see... You have no real reason to say that what I have posted is wrong despite the fact that I invite you to dispel my ignorance with something substantive.

Knupfer · 06-12-2007, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwater

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knupfer

Your post just shows that you don't understand the bible. If you read it you will see that people are only righteous by Christ's blood, not their own perfection. So absolutely, they will make mistakes as Paul tells us in Romans chatper 7 and in 1 Corinthians. So next time you claim that the bible contradicts itself, I suggest you try to understand it first.

I think you are the one who needs to read your bible without the a-priori assumption that the bible does not contradict. And you also need to read some of the extra biblical sources and learn a little bit about church history. There is ample evidence within the bible that there was tension (to put it mildly) between Paul and the Jerusalem Church headed up by James and that the book of acts was written in part to smooth over these conflicts within the early church.

Paul explains why there is division among believers in 1 Corinthians 1:10-16 and 2 Corinthians 11:4-15. Then after you read that and know who the Holy Spirit is, then you'll be in a better position to decide if the bible contradicts itself.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.