Page: 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 18
Bookworm88
Administrator
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 978
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
Nate, maybe you would like to make a recommendation for a book to discuss next. I don't think you've had a turn yet.
|
|
1/8/2012, 9:31 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Bookworm88
Send PM to Bookworm88
|
Fingydingy
Registered user
Registered: 06-2011
Posts: 23
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
quoting
BA
On the contrary. He gives lots of evidence that Paul was refusing to follow James' orders. He even cites Paul's own letters confirming that Paul disregarded James.
quoting
gnastynate
On the contrary, he doesn't... unless he does it in some chapter past where I stopped reading. He goes to great lengths to point out and *possibly* making a very big deal out of differences in teaching STYLES and Paul's seeming lack of reverence for James' authority. Very little actual teachings are compared, that is what spawned my desire to go through James' book and compare it's teachings to Paul's, but after a couple of chapters I'd gotten no response from you that disagreed with anything I'd said so I stopped. If you can find any doctrinal teachings that are conflicting, then I would love to discuss them with you in as much detail as you would like.
If you guys don’t mind I would like to jump in here. I have read James the brother of Jesus cover to cover and I think I have a pretty good grasp of Eisenman's theory.
From what I have read the doctrines of James and Paul are antithetical. They are as divergent as the Taliban are to the 101st airborne. First I will look at the doctrine of James.
Abstain from anything polluted by idols
From fornication
From the meat of strangled animals (that is animals sacrificed to idols) Acts 22:25
From blood
Observe the mosaic law strictly which means you MUST be circumcised and keep the dietary regulations Acts 22:5
He drank no wine or intoxicating liqour
He did not eat meat
He did not smear himself with oil and took no baths (meaning hot Roman style baths)
Justification through good works and righteousness, not faith (James 2:19)
Then “some men” (code for the Jerusalem church) came down from Judea and taught the brothers, ‘unless you have yourselves circumcised in the tradition of Moses you cannot be saved.’ Acts 15:1
I want to point out that either the author (Luke) has fallen asleep or we have 2 traditions stuck together or a recasting of Jamesian theology. In acts 15:19-21 James gives his decision on the oversees or gentile circumcision issue. ‘I rule, then, that instead of making things more difficult for pagans who turn to God, we send them a letter telling them to merely abstain from anything polluted by idols, from fornication, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood…’ And now compare this conciliatory message to the authentic James in acts 22:21-25 ‘… and they have heard that you instruct all Jews living among the pagans to break away from Moses, authorizing them not to circumsise their children or to follow the customary practices….so do as we suggest. We have four men here who are under a vow; take these men along and be purified with them and pay all the expenses connected with the shaving of their heads. This will let everyone know that there is no truth in the reports they have heard about you and that you still regularly observe the law’. Now James is shocked to hear that Paul would teach against circumcision and makes him take a nazirite vow to disprove the rumors! Paul plays both sides. He was not an honest man.
Pharisees Christians also kept the law of Moses and wanted the pagan converts to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. Acts 15:5-6
Now the doctrine of Paul
Paul’s letter to the Romans violates the instructions of James from Acts 22:21-25.
Romans 3:29 ‘The real Jew is the one who is inwardly a Jew, and the real circumcision is in the heart- something not of the letter but of the spirit.’
Actually the REAL circumcision is a physical sign of the permanent covenant between Yahweh and his people.
As far as justification through faith Paul’s position is repeated in all of his letters numerous times. Faith alone saves.
1 Cor 8:1-6 Eat food sacrificed to idols, since there is only one God and idols are false, there is no harm in it. (I paraphrase of course)
Do not hesitate to eat anything that is sold in the butchers’ shops; there is no need to raise questions of conscience. 1 Cor 10:25
‘For me there are no forbidden things” 1 Cor 10:23
The law is a curse, the law does not justify man, only faith Gal 2:10-14
never let anyone else decide for you what you should eat or drink Col 3:16
Christ has overridden the law Col 3:14
|
|
1/8/2012, 2:11 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Fingydingy
Send PM to Fingydingy
Blog
|
gnastynate
Registered user
Registered: 05-2011
Posts: 142
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
quoting
Bookworm88 ...
Nate, maybe you would like to make a recommendation for a book to discuss next. I don't think you've had a turn yet.
I honestly haven't read many such books. I've read one or two of Josh McDowell's books and I like bunches of it, but at the same time, I already think that large sections lack strong meat for conversion of the non-believer. If given free reign on recommendations, I would have to default back to the Bible itself. So much of our quibbling could be avoided if we had a better understanding of it.
|
|
1/8/2012, 9:22 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to gnastynate
Send PM to gnastynate
Blog
|
gnastynate
Registered user
Registered: 05-2011
Posts: 142
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
quoting
Fingydingy ...
quoting
gnastynate
On the contrary, he doesn't... unless he does it in some chapter past where I stopped reading. He goes to great lengths to point out and *possibly* making a very big deal out of differences in teaching STYLES and Paul's seeming lack of reverence for James' authority. Very little actual teachings are compared, that is what spawned my desire to go through James' book and compare it's teachings to Paul's, but after a couple of chapters I'd gotten no response from you that disagreed with anything I'd said so I stopped. If you can find any doctrinal teachings that are conflicting, then I would love to discuss them with you in as much detail as you would like.
If you guys don’t mind I would like to jump in here.
I welcome your input.
quoting
I have read James the brother of Jesus cover to cover and I think I have a pretty good grasp of Eisenman's theory.
No need to sound so smug about it ;-)
quoting
From what I have read the doctrines of James and Paul are antithetical. They are as divergent as the Taliban are to the 101st airborne.
Ahhh, a challenge.
quoting
First I will look at the doctrine of James.
I added some emphasis to ensure that we keep our discussion honest and above the board.
quoting
Abstain from anything polluted by idols
From fornication
From the meat of strangled animals (that is animals sacrificed to idols) Acts 22:25
From blood
Observe the mosaic law strictly which means you MUST be circumcised and keep the dietary regulations Acts 22:5
Ok, let's keep the discussion of James' doctrine separate from our personal comments. Do you believe that physical circumcision was a stipulation of the Mosaic Law, and if so could you provide book/chapter/verse?
quoting
He drank no wine or intoxicating liqour
He did not eat meat
He did not smear himself with oil and took no baths (meaning hot Roman style baths)
Did he teach that such things were required of all persons wanting to become a Christian, or were these simply things he himself might have done? There is a difference.
quoting
Justification through good works and righteousness, not faith (James 2:19)
That isn't 100% accurate either.
17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
James contended that a faith that produced no works was a dead faith, and that only a faith that produces works can save. James was not preaching something different than Paul in this chapter, he was merely making sure that those he was writing to (primarily Jews who already believed and had faith in the One True God and some form of the Messiah) couldn't take the teachings of Paul (who primarily taught gentiles who would have more trouble actually believing in the One True God and the Messiah than they would have in a religion as simplistic as Christianity is) out of context and claim that because they've always had faith then they'd always been saved. Paul did not teach that works were unnecessary, as you will see if you study his writings or read some of my comparisons in the other thread, he only emphasized to the people he preached to (those who didn't already follow the Judeo-Christian God) that faith was paramount for them, because he logically was right. You can't be baptized and go to a church & think it counts for something if you don't actually believe in God. You could do all of the works in the world and it would do you no good if you didn't believe in God and do them for Him, James is just playing the flip side of the card. You could believe in God with all of your heart, but if that belief doesn't produce some works in you then it does nothing.
quoting
Then “some men” (code for the Jerusalem church) came down from Judea and taught the brothers, ‘unless you have yourselves circumcised in the tradition of Moses you cannot be saved.’ Acts 15:1
I want to point out that either the author (Luke) has fallen asleep or we have 2 traditions stuck together or a recasting of Jamesian theology. In acts 15:19-21 James gives his decision on the oversees or gentile circumcision issue. ‘I rule, then, that instead of making things more difficult for pagans who turn to God, we send them a letter telling them to merely abstain from anything polluted by idols, from fornication, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood…’ And now compare this conciliatory message to the authentic James in acts 22:21-25 ‘… and they have heard that you instruct all Jews living among the pagans to break away from Moses, authorizing them not to circumsise their children or to follow the customary practices….so do as we suggest. We have four men here who are under a vow; take these men along and be purified with them and pay all the expenses connected with the shaving of their heads. This will let everyone know that there is no truth in the reports they have heard about you and that you still regularly observe the law’. Now James is shocked to hear that Paul would teach against circumcision and makes him take a nazirite vow to disprove the rumors! Paul plays both sides. He was not an honest man.
As I see this, you're again confusing what the apostles did themselves with what they taught people was necessary in order to become a Christian. It's starting to get late, and I can't think of the exact verses to point you to, but I believe this is addressed by Paul in some of his writings. As I'm thinking, he addresses that some men can in good conscience do things which others cannot and that's ok. The apostles were born and raised as Jews, to them, following the old law's restrictions/rituals was how they felt comfortable worshiping God. They did not, however, teach that only through becoming a Jew could one become a Christian, and that is key.
quoting
Pharisees Christians also kept the law of Moses and wanted the pagan converts to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. Acts 15:5-6
Now the doctrine of Paul
Paul’s letter to the Romans violates the instructions of James from Acts 22:21-25.
Are the only places you're referring to the one's you mention below? If not, the I would like to know specifically to what you are referring.
quoting
Romans 3:29 ‘The real Jew is the one who is inwardly a Jew, and the real circumcision is in the heart- something not of the letter but of the spirit.’
Actually the REAL circumcision is a physical sign of the permanent covenant between Yahweh and his people.
Here is where you will lose hard core Christians because your understanding is so very basic. Circumcision was a token of the original covenant (which incidentally was broken time and again by man), and Jews were to follow this practice as long as their generations continued (which would happen until the end of the age). What you find in the NT is their generations coming to an end, therefore it makes absolute sense from that perspective. The token of a no longer "active" covenant (Hebrews 8, whose message can be found also in the OT so it's not just a fabrication of Paul) is not required of those wishing to partake in a different, but related covenant.
quoting
As far as justification through faith Paul’s position is repeated in all of his letters numerous times. Faith alone saves.
That is simply not at all true. Faith is emphasized, however it is never stated to be all that is required in the way you are choosing to state it. Please look up a few instances and quote them.
quoting
1 Cor 8:1-6 Eat food sacrificed to idols, since there is only one God and idols are false, there is no harm in it. (I paraphrase of course)
Did you actually read 1 Cor 8? Paul states that eating things sacrificed to idols cannot hurt one in the first part of the chapter and then turns right around and warns about casting stumblingblocks so you end up with... paraphrased... We all know there are no other gods besides THE GOD, therefore meat sacrificed to idols is not corrupted and cannot actually hurt someone, however don't let this liberty of it not actually being able to hurt you cause you to be so complacent that you cause your bretheren to stumble.
quoting
Do not hesitate to eat anything that is sold in the butchers’ shops; there is no need to raise questions of conscience. 1 Cor 10:25
‘For me there are no forbidden things” 1 Cor 10:23
Yeah, and??? Does the new covenant say otherwise?
quoting
The law is a curse, the law does not justify man, only faith Gal 2:10-14
But that was true even in the OT. No man was ever justified by the Law, that was not the Law's purpose... ever.
quoting
never let anyone else decide for you what you should eat or drink Col 3:16
Christ has overridden the law Col 3:14
Are you sure those quotes are accurate? Colossians right?
|
|
1/8/2012, 10:54 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to gnastynate
Send PM to gnastynate
Blog
|
Bookworm88
Administrator
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 978
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
(edit - I made my comments below before I noticed that Nate had already posted a response. Now I have to go back and see what he wrote.)
quoting
Fingydingy ...
If you guys don’t mind I would like to jump in here. I have read James the brother of Jesus cover to cover and I think I have a pretty good grasp of Eisenman's theory.
Feel free to jump on any time. We'd love to have your input.
quoting
From what I have read the doctrines of James and Paul are antithetical. They are as divergent as the Taliban are to the 101st airborne.
That's rather extreme hyperbole. There may be areas in which their individual focus provides some balance to each other, but they are not antithetical. Have you looked at Nate's thread in which he compares passages from James and from Paul to show that they had much the same message?
quoting
I want to point out that either the author (Luke) has fallen asleep or we have 2 traditions stuck together or a recasting of Jamesian theology. In acts 15:19-21 James gives his decision on the oversees or gentile circumcision issue. ‘I rule, then, that instead of making things more difficult for pagans who turn to God, we send them a letter telling them to merely abstain from anything polluted by idols, from fornication, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood…’ And now compare this conciliatory message to the authentic James in acts 22:21-25 ‘… and they have heard that you instruct all Jews living among the pagans to break away from Moses, authorizing them not to circumsise their children or to follow the customary practices….so do as we suggest. We have four men here who are under a vow; take these men along and be purified with them and pay all the expenses connected with the shaving of their heads. This will let everyone know that there is no truth in the reports they have heard about you and that you still regularly observe the law’. Now James is shocked to hear that Paul would teach against circumcision and makes him take a nazirite vow to disprove the rumors! Paul plays both sides. He was not an honest man.
Okay, let's look at Acts 15 and Acts 21 ( the chapter you actually meant instead of 22).
You quoted verse 19 which tells of the letter that was to be written. Verse 24- 25 then tells us how that letter starts,
"Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,"
Notice the parts that I underlined. The church in Jerusalem was disavowing any men who went out from them claiming that people had to be circumcised and keep the law, and they referred to Paul as beloved. The message they sent matches up quite well with Acts 21:25, which I see you failed to copy and paste in your statement above. It says,
"But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”
That sound like pretty much the same message as Acts 15, doesn't it? I'm not sure why you would say that James 22 is authentic, and Acts 15 is not, if both are saying the same thing.
Now James did make a request to beloved Paul in Acts 22. James had people in his church who agreed with those unauthorized messengers spoken of in Acts 15. He had to deal with their mistaken assumptions on a regular basis. Those people were assuming that Paul did not want to have anything to do with the Law, and that wasn't Paul's message. So James asked Paul to make a token gesture of taking a vow at the temple, and Paul was willing to do so. In I Corinthians 9:19-20 Paul says, "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;
This was not being dishonest or playing "both sides." Paul had nothing against observances of the Law. He just knew that those observances were not required for one's salvation, as we can see from James' statements in BOTH Acts 15 and Acts 21. James and Paul were working together in both those passages. They were not disagreeing.
Last edited by Bookworm88, 1/9/2012, 12:13 am
|
|
1/9/2012, 12:09 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Bookworm88
Send PM to Bookworm88
|
Fingydingy
Registered user
Registered: 06-2011
Posts: 23
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
I have not looked at Nate’s thread but I will check it out. Eisenman believes that James and Paul were likely in a state of spiritual warfare from the 30’s to the 60’s ad. Paul representing a pro-Roman, Hellenized Judaism that was (and remains) highly attractive to those living in the Roman empire outside of Judea. James and his Jerusalem church are the true successors to Jesus. They adhered to the strict following of the law. They segregated themselves from those that were impure and practiced highly ritualized Jewish observances. I want to stress these are not my own original ideas but Eisenman’s and I am trying my best to convey Eisenman’s theories, not my own necessarily.
James instructions for pagan converts are indeed the same in Acts 15:28-29 and Acts 21:25 (thanks for the correction, my eye must have been drifting). I will repeat my point. In acts 15:28-29 James is willing to let the Pagans forgo circumcision and says so in his letter (Acts 15:23-29). However in Acts 21:21 James finds out that Paul has been instructing oversees Christians that they need not circumcise their children and follow the customary practices. James does not believe this to be true and to mollify the mob he has Paul take a nazirite oath in the temple. I personally believe that this interaction between Paul and James is a fabrication. As in reality these men would have come to blows if they were in the same room together. This is my belief. I accept that Paul did visit Jerusalem and was mobbed by Jews that had heard of his violation of the laws of Moses and that he was rescued by Roman guards, seeing as he was Roman citizen and likely a member of the Herodian family. It is more likely that James led this mob. But back to my point. Why does James act as if he never authorized Paul to preach against circumcision in Acts21:21? James just told Paul that the Pagans did not need to circumcise in acts 15:20! And now James feels the need to convince everyone that there “is no truth in the reports (about Paul telling the “Jews among the pagans to break away from Moses”) that they have heard about you and that you still regularly observe the law”. I cant make it clearer. There is a major discrepancy here. You must see this.
I want to make more responses’ but I am getting a wee bit tired to give you decent answers. Hopefully I will write more tomorrow.
|
|
1/9/2012, 9:15 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Fingydingy
Send PM to Fingydingy
Blog
|
gnastynate
Registered user
Registered: 05-2011
Posts: 142
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
quoting
Fingydingy ...
I have not looked at Nate’s thread but I will check it out. Eisenman believes that James and Paul were likely in a state of spiritual warfare from the 30’s to the 60’s ad. Paul representing a pro-Roman, Hellenized Judaism that was (and remains) highly attractive to those living in the Roman empire outside of Judea.
Yet he presents little in the way of evidence or biblical insight to back it up. That is why I was asking if anyone new of any authors who agreed with Eisenman but had more in the way of reasons that one would believe this theory. I will admit the possibility of the theory, but it's not the only theory out there even if one wants to discount the Christian beliefs, and if one is to choose to believe in something then one needs compelling evidence beyond the mere possibility.
quoting
James and his Jerusalem church are the true successors to Jesus. They adhered to the strict following of the law.
If that is proven to be true then you would prove that James and the church at Jerusalem were the first perversions to Jesus' gospel.
quoting
They segregated themselves from those that were impure and practiced highly ritualized Jewish observances. I want to stress these are not my own original ideas but Eisenman’s and I am trying my best to convey Eisenman’s theories, not my own necessarily.
Noted, and we are listing out the reasons that he seems to be wrong or at least be presenting his views in a very poor manner if he's addressing scholarly types.
quoting
James instructions for pagan converts are indeed the same in Acts 15:28-29 and Acts 21:25 (thanks for the correction, my eye must have been drifting). I will repeat my point. In acts 15:28-29 James is willing to let the Pagans forgo circumcision and says so in his letter (Acts 15:23-29). However in Acts 21:21 James finds out that Paul has been instructing oversees Christians that they need not circumcise their children and follow the customary practices.
What is actually stated in 21:21 is that they heard Paul was teaching the Jews among the gentiles to not circumcise their children and follow the traditional Jewish customs. That was the part that really torqued the traditionalist's jibs. What you see here is an early PR problem in the Church. The Church in Jerusalem coexisted along side of and primarily taught to the non-converted Jews, so I'm sure you could see how Paul's teachings, while in the right, were giving ammo to their enemies. The vow was intended to show that Paul was every bit of the Jew that anyone else was, rather than the miscreant sort that Eisenman tries to paint him as. This is not dishonest, as he was every bit of a faithful Jew, but at that time a faithful Jew was to become a Christian & there was no reason to teach the traditions of their fathers as the doctrine of God any longer, because it wasn't. This too goes back to a difference between what the apostles did, and what the apostles taught as necessary, and this was a line that was often blurred in the early Church.
quoting
I cant make it clearer. There is a major discrepancy here. You must see this.
It really isn't at all, I think that if you were more familiar with both the teachings of the OT and the teachings of the NT then you would not have nearly as much trouble with this. Please note that I'm not asking you to "believe", perish the thought ;-) , but to honestly state that you don't believe what the Bible teaches, you have to know what the Bible teaches.
quoting
I want to make more responses’ but I am getting a wee bit tired to give you decent answers. Hopefully I will write more tomorrow.
Thank you for this engaging conversation, I had almost forgotten how fun these things can be.
|
|
1/9/2012, 10:42 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to gnastynate
Send PM to gnastynate
Blog
|
Fingydingy
Registered user
Registered: 06-2011
Posts: 23
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
quoting
That is why I was asking if anyone new of any authors who agreed with Eisenman but had more in the way of reasons that one would believe this theory.
Eisenman, to use a biblical allusion is "a lone voice in the wilderness". I don't know of any other authors that agree with him. He is quite controversial. That being said, just because one holds a minority position does not make them wrong.
quoting
If that is proven to be true then you would prove that James and the church at Jerusalem were the first perversions to Jesus' gospel.
James' church predates Paul's conversion. James succeeded his brother Jesus as the leader of "the way". He knew Jesus personally and was his disciple. The Pauline gospels have extirpated James from apostolic history. Unfortunately our knowledge of James is fragmented, limited and sometimes corrupted, so it can be difficult to derive certainties about his life. At least our knowledge of Paul is quite good.
quoting
What is actually stated in 21:21 is that they heard Paul was teaching the Jews among the gentiles to not circumcise their children and follow the traditional Jewish customs. That was the part that really torqued the traditionalist's jibs. What you see here is an early PR problem in the Church. The Church in Jerusalem coexisted along side of and primarily taught to the non-converted Jews, so I'm sure you could see how Paul's teachings, while in the right, were giving ammo to their enemies. The vow was intended to show that Paul was every bit of the Jew that anyone else was, rather than the miscreant sort that Eisenman tries to paint him as. This is not dishonest, as he was every bit of a faithful Jew, but at that time a faithful Jew was to become a Christian & there was no reason to teach the traditions of their fathers as the doctrine of God any longer, because it wasn't. This too goes back to a difference between what the apostles did, and what the apostles taught as necessary, and this was a line that was often blurred in the early Church.
We have the same data but have come to very different conclusions. This debate is becoming circular but I will take another stab at my point. In acts 15 James authorizes pagan converts not to be circumcised but they can still enter the church. If James really did say this than why is he against the pauline teaching that Jews should not circumcise their children it in acts 22? Logically both incidents cannot be true. James cant believe that Paul would preach this anti-mosaic law practice and yet it was James that supposedly authorized the teaching in the first place a few chapters earlier! Their is a problem here. I am not ignorant of Jewish and early Christian theology. Seeing as James was Jewish his speech in acts 15 has been manufactured by the early pauline church. If you preach against the mosaic law in the first century or tell others that they do not need to be circumcised, you are not Jewish.
|
|
1/10/2012, 10:46 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Fingydingy
Send PM to Fingydingy
Blog
|
Bookworm88
Administrator
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 978
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
quoting
Fingydingy ...
We have the same data but have come to very different conclusions. This debate is becoming circular but I will take another stab at my point. In acts 15 James authorizes pagan converts not to be circumcised but they can still enter the church. If James really did say this than why is he against the pauline teaching that Jews should not circumcise their children it in acts 22? Logically both incidents cannot be true. James cant believe that Paul would preach this anti-mosaic law practice and yet it was James that supposedly authorized the teaching in the first place a few chapters earlier! Their is a problem here.
Okay, let's nitpick the actual message from Acts 15 by looking at the part that agrees with Acts 21. In both passages, Acts 15:28-29 and Acts 21:25, there is the statement that the Gentile converts do not have to follow the Mosaic Law, but only have to abide by 4 restrictions. So at least as far as the Gentile converts are concerned, we have consistency between the two passages. Would you agree with that statement?
So the remaining difficulty is what to teach the Jewish converts. Acts 15 doesn't deal one way or another with the Jewish converts, since it dealt with the Gentile converts. I am inclined to assume that since circumcision was not required for Gentile salvation that it would not be required for Jewish salvation either, but the passage in Act 15 was not written to the Jewish converts, so I cannot make a positive statement about that issue from that passage. I'm sure there were people in James' church who did believe it was required for Jewish salvation. Not only that, but they believed it was required for Gentile salvation as well, since those people would be the unauthorized messengers spoken of in Acts 15:24 who were troubling the Gentiles with demands that they be circumcised.
So James was dealing with people in his church who very much believed that the Law should be a part of a Jewish believer's life, and some of them believed it was required. Since we don't know that much about James, we can't say for sure whether he was teaching that himself or whether he was just being extremely accomodating to those in his church who held that position.
So let's look at Paul's blatant hostilty to lawkeeping. Wait, he didn't have blatant hostility. As I showed you from I Corinthians 9:19-20, Paul would live like a Jew when he was among Jews. A person who commanded against lawkeeping would not do that. Paul was accomodating to those who were still living in Jewish traditions. Paul had a Gentile convert named Timothy circumcised in order to not offend the Jews among whom Timothy would be ministering. A person who commanded against circumcision would not have done that. There is a difference between teaching that lawkeeping was not required and blatantly commanding against it. Anyone who claimed that Paul was commanding against the law was giving a false report. Yep, some people from James' church were spreading that false report. So James asked Paul to participate in a temple ritual to show that Paul was not actively commanding against the temple rituals. Paul agreed to do so.
Maybe we are just going in circles, but I still can't see as much disagreement between James and Paul as you seem to.
Last edited by Bookworm88, 1/10/2012, 7:56 pm
|
|
1/10/2012, 7:53 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Bookworm88
Send PM to Bookworm88
|
Fingydingy
Registered user
Registered: 06-2011
Posts: 23
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Book Discussion: James the Brother of Jesus
quoting
Okay, let's nitpick the actual message from Acts 15 by looking at the part that agrees with Acts 21. In both passages, Acts 15:28-29 and Acts 21:25, there is the statement that the Gentile converts do not have to follow the Mosaic Law, but only have to abide by 4 restrictions. So at least as far as the Gentile converts are concerned, we have consistency between the two passages. Would you agree with that statement?
Yes I agree with you here.
quoting
Acts 15 doesn't deal one way or another with the Jewish converts, since it dealt with the Gentile converts.
Agreed.
quoting
I am inclined to assume that since circumcision was not required for Gentile salvation that it would not be required for Jewish salvation either
Hmmm. I think this would be true of Paul's position, but likely not the Jerusalem church position. Since we do not posses any early Jerusalem church (unless that is what the Dead Sea Scrolls are) literature this is difficult to know for certain. Having the Gospel of the Hebrews would be really really helpful but it has been lost. 
quoting
I'm sure there were people in James' church who did believe it was required for Jewish salvation. Not only that, but they believed it was required for Gentile salvation as well, since those people would be the unauthorized messengers spoken of in Acts 15:24 who were troubling the Gentiles with demands that they be circumcised.
That makes sense to me. Jewish opinion and theology is just as divided and complex back then as it is now. Remember if you have 3 Jews in a room they will give you 4 opinions!
quoting
Since we don't know that much about James, we can't say for sure whether he was teaching that himself or whether he was just being extremely accomodating to those in his church who held that position.
Agreed more or less. We really have to dig through a number of texts to begin to piece James together. The one thing we can say with certainty is that James was a very orthodox Jew or Jewish/Christian depending on ones perspective.
quoting
So let's look at Paul's blatant hostilty to lawkeeping. Wait, he didn't have blatant hostility.
I am going to reread all of Paul's letters as well as acts. I believe you may be incorrect here. (Be warned Bookworm this will take me a while since I always sit down with a pen and paper and make copious notes.)
|
|
1/10/2012, 8:30 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Fingydingy
Send PM to Fingydingy
Blog
|
Add a reply
Page: 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 18
You are not logged in ( login)
|
