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>

dog-on

Nah...

That's Marcion belittling the church leadership...

Clouseau

I take it that you refer to justification. All you need to realise is that Paul was writing about justification before God, James wrote about justification before men.

CARM is a bit more scholarly than most, but Christian it definitely is not, either in its theology, which in parts is horrifying, or in the standards of its 'moderation', which is likewise. Nobody should take any CARM experience as authentic of anything Christian. It's just another internet attempt at censorship and propaganda.

Toto

Mr. Logic: I don't recall that you have ever been censored on this forum.

You are free to discuss James and Paul here.

However, we discourage extended discussion of other boards, for various reasons. If you and M. Clouseau want to trash CARM, this thread may be moved to ~Elsewhere~ which has been designated as the forum to discuss other boards.

Clouseau

'If you and Clouseau want to discuss CARM', if you don't object.

Julian

People quote scripture here all the time so clearly you are mistaken. It is worth noting that scripture quoted on its own could easily be interpreted as preaching, a practice that is discouraged around here. Anyways...

You are not making a very clear point regarding Gal 2:9 and your objection to the 'pillar' reference in regards to James, Peter, and John. The reference is clearly to those three, to wit:

9 και γνοντες την χαριν την δοθεισαν μοι ιακωβος και κηφας και ιωαννης οι δοκουντες στυλοι ειναι δεξιας εδωκαν εμοι και βαρναβα κοινωνιας ινα ημεις εις τα εθνη αυτοι δε εις την περιτομην

10 μονον των πτωχων ινα μνημονευωμεν ο και εσπουδασα αυτο τουτο ποιησαι

11 οτε δε ηλθεν κηφας εις αντιοχειαν κατα προσωπον αυτω αντεστην οτι κατεγνωσμενος ην

I copied verses 10 and 11 as well since your objection seems to include those. How exactly could οι δοκουντες στυλοι ειναι not refer to ιακωβος και κηφας και ιωαννης (Jacob, Kephas, and Johannes, actually)? Especially in light of δεξιας εδωκαν εμοι which would mean little unless the ones giving were not special, the only evidence of which here would be their attributed status of στυλοι. Please explain, if you can.

Does your objection have to do with οτε δε in 11, especially δε? That follows logically in the flow of the narrative. Before I spend more time on this, it would be great if you could specify exactly what your interpretation is and why.

Thanks,
Julian

P.S. Looking at the Greek carefully, I am wondering a bit why δοκουντες is active. Is this an idiomatic or colloquial expression of some sort? One would think that a passive form would be more appropriate here. It would be possible to read it as if they themselves thought they were pillars, not that other people necessarily thought of them that way. Could a resident Greek expert advise me here?

Mr. Logic

So the group that you belong to is??? Intersting Friend that you would say that they are preaching propaganda when you think like them that James was talking about justification before men! Clue, my Friend: Men can't justify you! I have absoulte proof, and I mean absolute proof that James is simply a Religionist speaking from his own Religious views. His "Devil's have faith, but don't act on it" should have been a clue! Would you like me to give all of the proof. First of all did what did Paul say in Gal.2:9 about James, Peter and John? This would be a good starting point!
Thanks

Mr. Logic

P.S. Looking at the Greek carefully, I am wondering a bit why δοκουντες is active. Is this an idiomatic or colloquial expression of some sort? One would think that a passive form would be more appropriate here. It would be possible to read it as if they themselves thought they were pillars, not that other people necessarily thought of them that way. Could a resident Greek expert advise me here?

Hi Julian Great Questions:
Let's put them in context. I just asked another man who was trying to defend James on CARM, what you just asked me. Show a flow!
I empathically stated that he would not be able to do it, and I just asked him for the 4th time, because he can't, and never will be able to.
Here is the rub. Most miss an important word: SEEMED to be, pillars!
This make sense.
Then they miss the start of v.11 with BUT.

Take out the non direct relative verses, and you have "They SEEMED to be pillars BUT", and then we have Peter's rebuke by Paul.

Now how would someone who insists that Paul is truly praising them show a flow here? It would have to go something like this:
All three of those Guys are absolute Pillars, and that is why I blamed Peter the pillar to his face for being intimidated by the Followers of one of the other Pillars, James"

BTW, since you like to study Greek, and you seem to know it well, you might be interested in knowing that I turned a Greek Scholars around on the tradition that Jesus commanded water baptism. NO way! There are no works for salvation, and Jesus wouldn't cause that kind of confusion and didn't!
Ed Tyler came out swinging, but realized that his arguments were non proofs, based on the simple error that seeing the word "baptism" alone must mean a water baptism! Wrong! The text decides which baptism.
A baptism in the name of Jesus Christ means a baptism INTO that NAME, not in water with names chanted over someone! Maybe we can take that up later!
thanks

Mr. Logic

ME trash CARM? I kind of like it! I have challenged a lot of tradtional views and am still there after over a year! They seem to understand that this is what freedom of speach is all about.

Julian

First of all, δοκουντες does not imply truth or falsehood, it can apply to either so you cannot lean on your usage of 'seem' as heavily as you do. Secondly, if the pillar statement was meant to be understood in a negative light then one would expect something like οτε και in verse 11, otherwise it reads more like 'they were bad but then they were bad some more.' I do find the active verbal form curious but whenever that happens some expert invariably sets me right.

Julian