Facts about the book of James

[smaller]

Re: Article found in the Jerusalem Post

The maligned Apostle
By DWIGHT A. PRYOR
09/12/2010 13:14

Follow the link for the whole article if interested.

Interesting article. These are not easy matters. And when we have an Apostle playing both sides of the equations it becomes even more difficult and one is compelled to seek out deeper meanings in these matters, for which many sound forms of reasonings are readily available.

1 Cor. 9:

20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

IF this sole statement alone doesn't bring some confusion, I don't know what would.

Paul did have a very nice narrow street in these matters to find understandings.

Paul taught that in the order of Gods Ways, it is always the natural or flesh order that COMES FIRST. The Law of Israel is depicted in this way as well as being CARNAL ORDINANCES, which if we read and connect 1 Cor. 15 we understand THE ORDER in which THE LAW was delivered first...to fleshly Jews as carnal ordinances.
Hebrews 9:10
Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

The SPIRITUAL matters of that same LAW were NOT revealed until CHRIST. Then came the SPIRITUAL ORDER of these same matters and in the WAY of God, by first the NATURAL and then the SPIRITUAL.

Paul culminates the SPIRITUAL understanding of EVERY COMMAND in his statements in Romans 13:8-10, and THAT is the FULFILLMENT in US of the SPIRITUAL ORDER (if we can 'see it.)

The nonsense between LAW and GRACE is not required. We can MOVE ON past the carnal ordinances and look to the SPIRITUAL ASPECT of every jot and tittle and find great rewards therein, as well as the workings of our mutual adversaries.

s

 

[RichardBurger]

I sure wish you guys would really study something before writing about It.

You said ---- "As a devout Pharisee by his own testimony, Paul/Saul felt zeal for the Torah, and was confident of his righteous standing with respect to it (Philippians 3:5-6). Even after his encounter with the risen Jesus, he continued to identify himself as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6). He went out of his way to celebrate the Feasts (20:16), and insisted the Torah was “spiritual†and the commandments, “holy, just and good,†and that in which he delighted (Romans 7:12, 14, 22).

Well lets see if that is true;

Philippians 3:4-11
4 though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so:
5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee;
6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ.

8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ

9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;

10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death,

11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
NKJV

Seems to me that he considered all his religious teachings and attitudes towards them to be rubbish in verse 8. Or can you explain these scriptures by overlaying some other scriptures over them so that Paul is really saying he loves his religion?

 

[dadof10]

Yes.

You are still posting here, so I guess you refuse to answer only me?

I'm curious. Will the fact that you can't refute my last post (i.e., that Paul did NOT teach refutation of the Law, only it's OBLIGATION as necessary for salvation) change your mind on the OP?

 

[Sparkey]

I sure wish you guys would really study something before writing about It.

You said ---- "As a devout Pharisee by his own testimony, Paul/Saul felt zeal for the Torah, and was confident of his righteous standing with respect to it (Philippians 3:5-6). Even after his encounter with the risen Jesus, he continued to identify himself as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6). He went out of his way to celebrate the Feasts (20:16), and insisted the Torah was “spiritual” and the commandments, “holy, just and good,” and that in which he delighted (Romans 7:12, 14, 22).
...

can you explain these scriptures by overlaying some other scriptures over them so that Paul is really saying he loves his religion?

No, Richard. Again, you have made a substantial error. Look back. I said no such thing. I quoted an article found in this weeks Jerusalem Post. Richard, there is no "you guys" here. I posted the article entitled, "The Maligned Apostle," and took care to give proper credit to the author, Dwight A. Pryor.

===> IF IT IS (as you say) Why, oh why does Paul want to celebrate Shavu`ot (The Day of Pentecost) in Jerusalem (after having met Jesus)? If he indeed advocates that Jews should "put on the foreskin" -- why then does he continue to celebrate the High Holy Days of his religion and service to God?

For Sha'ul had determined to sail past Ephesus, that he might not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hastening, if it were possible for him, to be in Yerushalayim on the day of Shavu`ot. - [Acts 20:16 HNV]

Can we not see that there is indeed ONE church, one Baptism, One faith, One Truth? That's because there is only ONE way, Jesus is the WAY, the LIFE, the Truth and the Door. Jesus is not a bi-fold door, not a "French Door" with multiple hinges - that false doctrine of the concision didn't come until much later and I have no clue why it is needed.

Here's more from the same article quoted earlier:

The maligned Apostle
By DWIGHT A. PRYOR
09/12/2010 13:14
Follow the link to read the whole article.

In Acts 21:20, James reported to Paul that in Jerusalem many “thousands of Jews” had come to faith in Jesus, and all continued to be “zealous for the Torah” (suggesting that Torah observance was normative for Jewish believers). They had heard (falsely) that Paul taught Jews to “forsake Moses and the customs” of Judaism, including circumcision (21:21).

James suggested a course of action to prove that this was a spurious charge, that Paul did in fact “live in observance of the Torah” (21:24). Paul complied, not out of compromise or duplicity, but because it was true; as a believer in Yeshua he continued in his calling as a Jew to keep the Law and the customs of his people. On three other occasions (Acts 24:14; 25:8; 28:17) he testifies to this significant but oft-neglected truth about himself.

Paul’s actions were consistent with his own “rule in all the churches” (1 Corinthians 7:17-20): namely, that Jewish believers should not “put on the foreskin” (i.e. disguise their circumcision), nor must Gentile believers become circumcised. More than a physical act is implied here.

“Circumcision” in the Second Temple period was a shorthand way of referring to the whole package of Jewish identity and obligations.

A couple more scriptures to support and prove what Dwight A. Pryor states so effectively: Paul spoke harshly of evil workers and declared, "For we are the circumcision..." He later declared himself "A Pharisee".

Letter to the Philippians:
Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Book of Acts:
But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men [and] brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

Richard? Let me check, perhaps I am utterly confused and don't understand what you've been saying. It sounds like you've tried to say that there are 2 Gospels. Again, I know of only one gospel - the Good News that Jesus has become our Kinsman Redeemer and reconciled Man to God. To say that all "Jewish" things are no longer required, or to allege that Paul said that the Redemption (Kinsman Redeemer is decidedly Jewish) isn't valid requires more than your word. It's almost like you want to be grafted into the Promise delivered to the Jews without any Jewish flavor in the sap of that tree. We are NOT justified by works [Edit by Sparrow] that is, we are not justified by OUR works, none are. Jesus never sinned and it is ONLY by Faith in Him, in His Name that ANY are saved [end Edit] --- but that does not negate the very real truth that HE taught, "by their fruit shall ye know them". Fruit is what is produced. The "works" and the "fruit" are, in this case, synonyms. In the end, every man shall be held accountable for every word, every thought and every act. Period. If your words, thoughts and acts demonstrate to God, who knows all things and searches hearts, that you believe in Jesus? That you have called on His name and are saved? Good this. It is enough. It is proven by the very real change that will come - can a source of pure water contain even a little poison and be called pure? We know better. It is critical that we follow after the Spirit of God and deny the flesh.

To continue along the same lines, Goyim (Gentiles) are now (since the first Pentecost following the Death of Jesus) allowed into the Covenant Agreement that was given to the Children of Israel and was fulfilled by Jesus. They (the Jews) must have faith and trust and that only by Grace --as much so as any non-Jew. There is now no longer any difference between Jew and Gentile. That is why there is unity in the whole bible, why we can put away our scissors and accept Every Word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God, our Father --who is also the Father of the Children of Israel. The Israelite who accepts Christ is saved, those of the nations who accept Christ is saved. There is no need for Gentile to become Jew nor any need for Jew to become Gentile. Why? It is because God can not lie. He made it so that both Jew and Gentile can be saved by faith through grace. Our Father, God is truly no respecter of persons, never has been and never will be. It is according to His plan that this is so.

That does not mean that Paul told Peter, or James or any other to "put the foreskin" back on. Stop and think, please. There is no sin in not eating bacon. I don't eat bacon. I'm not Jewish, but that does NOT mean that I must now fulfill the entire law [I'm on low fat diet and all] - Jesus is a spotless sacrifice and for Paul or me to suggest that our "works" need to be added is an insult. There is no conflict between what the Holy Spirit said through one apostle and another. Why is it you demand there must be?

I'm not aware of the "preterist" view and don't know if you are this or not - but ask because I'm curious to hear why you think the error you so desperately hang on to and cling to beyond reason is so paramount.

 

[RichardBurger]

So if I don't respond you win. Okay, you win

 

[dadof10]

So if I don't respond you win. Okay, you win

:biglol All I asked is would an irrefutable argument change your mind. It's my post, but not MY argument, so how could I win? I'm just assuming that if you had a counter argument you would post it, and if you don't maybe your mind had been changed.

So, does the irrefutable argument in my last post change your mind?

 

[RichardBurger]

:biglol All I asked is would an irrefutable argument change your mind. It's my post, but not MY argument, so how could I win? I'm just assuming that if you had a counter argument you would post it, and if you don't maybe your mind had been changed.

So, does the irrefutable argument in my last post change your mind?

Absolutely NOT! I don't see that you have presented any irrefutable arguments.

You said, "Can we not see that there is indeed ONE church, one Baptism, One faith, One Truth? That's because there is only ONE way, Jesus is the WAY, the LIFE, the Truth and the Door. Jesus is not a bi-fold door, not a "French Door" with multiple hinges - that false doctrine of the concision didn't come until much later and I have no clue why it is needed.

There are more than one church in the scriptures. None of them were/are in existance at the same time. One of them is the church in the wilderness.Acts 7:38
38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
KJV

As Paul said, under grace there is one church, the church of His body. There is only one baptism and it is accomplished, not by the will of man, but by the Holy Spirit. There is only one faith and that faith is in the work of Jesus on the cross. There is only one way and that is through faith in the cross of Jesus where He paid for our sins.

 

[RichardBurger]

Article about two Gospels moved to new thread

 

[dadof10]

Absolutely NOT! I don't see that you have presented any irrefutable arguments.

You said, "Can we not see that there is indeed ONE church, one Baptism, One faith, One Truth?

No I didn't that was someone else. Maybe you shouldn't start threads if you can't keep up with the posters. What I said IS irrefutable and posted again below.

That's because there is only ONE way, Jesus is the WAY, the LIFE, the Truth and the Door. Jesus is not a bi-fold door, not a "French Door" with multiple hinges - that false doctrine of the concision didn't come until much later and I have no clue why it is needed.

There are more than one church in the scriptures. None of them were/are in existance at the same time. One of them is the church in the wilderness.Acts 7:38
38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
KJV

As Paul said, under grace there is one church, the church of His body. There is only one baptism and it is accomplished, not by the will of man, but by the Holy Spirit. There is only one faith and that faith is in the work of Jesus on the cross. There is only one way and that is through faith in the cross of Jesus where He paid for our sins.

Here is what you must accept or directly contradict Scripture.

Reading your own theology into the text and only reading HALF of Acts 21:17-26, (which is the recounting of Paul's visit to James in Jerusalem), you came to this conclusion.

***Did Paul really teach that the Jews should forsake the Law of Moses? YES HE DID!!!

Scripture says the opposite.

When we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James; and all the elders were present. 19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed; they are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs.

This is what you used to make your point, ignoring the rest of the story.

Still speaking to Paul and Luke, James and the Elders continued:


22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law.

You must accept that Paul lived "in observance of the law" and by extension taught others to do the same. Where he disagreed with the "Judaizers" is that he taught keeping the Law has no salvific value and making it OBLIGATORY on non-Jewish converts was contrary to the Gospel of Grace. That doesn't mean he thought the Jewish converts should "forsake" it.

So, tell me Richard. Did Paul teach that the "Jews should forsake the Law of Moses"? Did he tell the Jews that THEY should forsake the Law, when HE HIMSELF didn't?

Please accept this Biblical teaching.

 

[RichardBurger]

No I didn't that was someone else. Maybe you shouldn't start threads if you can't keep up with the posters. What I said IS irrefutable and posted again below.

Here is what you must accept or directly contradict Scripture.

Reading your own theology into the text and only reading HALF of Acts 21:17-26, (which is the recounting of Paul's visit to James in Jerusalem), you came to this conclusion.

***Did Paul really teach that the Jews should forsake the Law of Moses? YES HE DID!!!

Scripture says the opposite.

When we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James; and all the elders were present. 19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed; they are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs.

This is what you used to make your point, ignoring the rest of the story.

Still speaking to Paul and Luke, James and the Elders continued:


22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law.

You must accept that Paul lived "in observance of the law" and by extension taught others to do the same. Where he disagreed with the "Judaizers" is that he taught keeping the Law has no salvific value and making it OBLIGATORY on non-Jewish converts was contrary to the Gospel of Grace. That doesn't mean he thought the Jewish converts should "forsake" it.

So, tell me Richard. Did Paul teach that the "Jews should forsake the Law of Moses"? Did he tell the Jews that THEY should forsake the Law, when HE HIMSELF didn't?

Please accept this Biblical teaching.

Oh for goodness sake. I gave you the scripture on what Paul said about the law. Philippians 3:4-11 is one of them. I can add Romans 3:19-20 and the following;

Galatians 5:5-6
5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.
NKJV

If you won't accept the above scripture as meaning what it says then you have to say Paul was teaching one gospel of Law to the Jews and another one to the Gentiles. That would mean two gospels wouldn't?

Galatians 4:21-30
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,
24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar —
25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children —
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband."
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."
NKJV

Romans 2:23-29
23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?
24 For "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," as it is written.
25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?
27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh;
29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.
NKJV ---- We keep the requirements of the Law of Moses becasue we have been placed "in Christ."

The above scriptures tell us that we are not under the law of Moses and that is what Paul was teaching.

Your verse 22 in your reply is what James came up with in order to ""appease"" the Jews. James wanted Paul to do something under the law to show those believing Jews he was not preaching that the Jews should forsake the Law of Moses. He requested it to stop the problem.

However, the time ran out before it was completed because God did not want Paul to go back under the Law of Moses.

But you still haven't seen the truth. That truth is that """"if""""" James and the Elders were teaching the same gospel that Paul was teaching there would not have been a problem in the first place. It ius obvious to me that James and the elders were still teaching the Law of Moses. Are you under the Law of Moses?

 

[dadof10]

Oh for goodness sake. I gave you the scripture on what Paul said about the law. Philippians 3:4-11 is one of them. I can add Romans 3:19-20 and the following;

Galatians 5:5-6
5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

Where does this verse say Jews should forsake the law?

Again, the Law CAN'T save, yet Jewish converts CAN "live in observance of the Law" LIKE PAUL DID.

If you won't accept the above scripture as meaning what it says then you have to say Paul was teaching one gospel of Law to the Jews and another one to the Gentiles. That would mean two gospels wouldn't?

No it wouldn't. It would mean that living in observance of the Law was allowed, just not REQUIRED for salvation. Is it that hard to see the difference? If Jews felt comfortable observing the Law (since Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism) then they were free to do so. They were not, however, free to COMPEL Gentiles into observance with the threat of damnation, which is what some of them were trying to do. Salvation is by "faith working through love", not observance of the Law.

Galatians 4:21-30
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,
24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar —
25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children —
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband."
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."
NKJV

Romans 2:23-29
23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?
24 For "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," as it is written.
25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?
27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh;
29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.
NKJV ----

Where do any of these verses say Jews should forsake the Law? in fact, where did Paul or anyone else say to stop observing the Law? All Scripture says is that IT CAN'T SAVE.

The above scriptures tell us that we are not under the law of Moses and that is what Paul was teaching.

Correct. We are not "under the Law", we are not OBLIGATED like before Jesus came, but JEWISH CHRISTIANS could still observe if they chose.

Your verse 22 in your reply is what James came up with in order to ""appease"" the Jews.

MY verse 22? That's an odd way of putting it. Appease the Jews? You must be kidding. Paul did what James asked. Was Paul appeasing too? Somehow Paul doesn't seem like an appeaser, neither does James. Do you see anything in their writings that even HINT of appeasement in doctrinal matters?

James wanted Paul to do something under the law to show those believing Jews he was not preaching that the Jews should forsake the Law of Moses. He requested it to stop the problem.

And Paul did it. So you DO agree with me. All you had to do was say so.

If Paul was teaching ANYONE to forsake the Law, why would he observe it? Quite an example our Apostle just set.

However, the time ran out before it was completed because God did not want Paul to go back under the Law of Moses.

So completing the vow would have put Paul under the Law? Where does the OT teach this novelty?

But you still haven't seen the truth. That truth is that """"if""""" James and the Elders were teaching the same gospel that Paul was teaching there would not have been a problem in the first place.

Are you reading the same verses I am? The problem is not with James teaching, it's a MISUNDERSTANDING by Jewish converts over PAUL's TEACHING. The converts MISUNDERSTOOD Paul's view on observance of the Law by Jewish converts. They "heard" Paul was teaching forsaking of the Law (to use your word) which WASN'T TRUE.

It ius obvious to me that James and the elders were still teaching the Law of Moses. Are you under the Law of Moses?

No and neither were the Gentile converts or the JEWISH CONVERTS. After Pentecost NO ONE IS UNDER THE LAW. There is a difference between being "under" the Law and being free to observe if you want to. You can't seem to grasp this obvious difference.

 

[smaller]

Hey dadof10, I'm only a dadof7, but have found a great deal of similarities in our understandings fwiw. I'm sure we could find something to disagree about, but you do have yer head screwed on straight in many catagories.

Maybe it comes with having a larger number of children.

enjoy!

s

 

[dadof10]

Hey dadof10, I'm only a dadof7, but have found a great deal of similarities in our understandings fwiw. I'm sure we could find something to disagree about, but you do have yer head screwed on straight in many catagories.

Maybe it comes with having a larger number of children.

enjoy!

s

Thanks for the compliment, Smaller. Some here would say my head was screwed up rather than on. It's nice to hear some positive comments.

God bless, Mark