Christians...why Bother Us?

[centauri]

rayskidude' post='465429' date='Jul 4 2009, 10:43 PM']...God's plan of salvation has always been the same - that's a main point of the Book of Galatians.

 

No, it hasn't always been the same.

 

Then why does Paul go all the way back to the example of Abraham to show that salvation has always been by grace through faith?

Where is Abraham told that his descendents were to have faith in a pagan human sacrifice to bring them salvation?

[Vixentrox]

Iraq not even in the same ball park as Saudi Arrabia or N. Korea. Particularily since it's been occupied by western forces for some years.

 

Wow - I can't believe that you think your posts actually contribute any meaningful thoughts. What makes you so judgmental of others - are you operating on a higher moral plane?

 

Were you living in the Iraqi city that we were in when the car bomb exploded - killing 2 and injuring dozens?

 

Seriously, what makes you think you can justifiably make accusations and condemn others before any interaction with them? Are your powers of intuition and cognizance so great that you can do these things? Please read other posts that have been written to address your rants - you are simply ignorant of where Christian missionaries are ( and have been) and what they're doing. BTW, did you read about the 2 German Christian college girls killed in Yemen recently while doing humanitarian work?

 

Why are you so bitter?

I am asking why YOU are not there and other Christians on this board. YOU are the one supposed to be doing god's work. We already heard the message and found it severly lacking. You chickenshit, go to N. Korea. Sell of all your possesions and preach there if you dare. You just don't trust your god.

[centauri]

There is nothing in Ezek 18 that says people need to have faith in a vicarious human sacrifice in order to be saved.

 

So what - Ezek is not to be taken (nor is any other passage) out of the context of the book - and certainly Ezekiel believed in YHWH - and he called the Jews to believe and obey YHWH. And no Biblical passage is to be lifted out of the context of the whole Bible - is this really that difficult to understand - that the Bible is one unified collections of books - all culminating in the Person and Ministry of Jesus, God's Messiah. Are you saying you cannot understand this simple truth?

Your problem is that you want to lift certain parts of Ezekiel out of the context of the book, and the Bible as a whole. That, my friend, is eisegesis.

What simple truth would that be?

Your propaganda and excuses aren’t going to work as easily here as it does in churches.

I understand clearly that you can’t find salvation via a vicarious human sacrifice in Ezek 18, even though you preach it over and over again as “truth”.

I especially noted your attitude of “so what?” when it comes to parts of the Bible that you can’t stomach.

Ezek 18 outlines the formula for salvation as defined by God, that’s the “so what?”.

It’s not out of context at all, that’s just your excuse for dismissing it as not binding on you, even though it’s supposed to be the word of God to all humanity.

You claimed that God’s plan for salvation never changed, while Ezek 18 indicates otherwise.

[oddbird1963]

rayskidude' post='465429' date='Jul 4 2009, 10:43 PM']...God's plan of salvation has always been the same - that's a main point of the Book of Galatians.

No, it hasn't always been the same.

 

Then why does Paul go all the way back to the example of Abraham to show that salvation has always been by grace through faith?

 

That's an easy one to answer. Paul, like the gospel writers cherry picked old testament passages to fit his new theology. Or, he created new theology by cherry picking old testament passages.

 

Either way, he uses the old testament, an accepted source of religious authority, to provide authority for his teachings.

[oddbird1963]

- is this really that difficult to understand - that the Bible is one unified collections of books - all culminating in the Person and Ministry of Jesus, God's Messiah. Are you saying you cannot understand this simple truth?

Your problem is that you want to lift certain parts of Ezekiel out of the context of the book, and the Bible as a whole. That, my friend, is eisegesis.

 

 

 

Rayskidude,

 

No, it's not hard to understand that fundamentalists assert the unity of the bible. Since I was a teenager, I often heard about the "crimson thread" running throughout scripture. It's not that we don't understand. We understand it too well. It's just that it's not true. The unity of scripture is a christian myth.

 

By understanding the bible in its historical context and not reading in a bunch of christian doctrinal presuppositions into the text, one easily comes to the conclusion that the bible is not a unity - it is a diverse set of writings from the 6th century B.C.E. onward that reflects the theological beliefs of the contemporary community at a given point in time.

 

It is christians wanting to see a unity that engage in eisegesis. (By the way, instead of trying to impress people with an esoteric christian term like 'esegesis' why not just say, "reading into the text whatever you want it to mean?")

[oddbird1963]

Rayskidude's original post:

 

God's plan of salvation has always been the same - that's a main point of the Book of Galatians.

 

Do you actually seriously think that God requires someone to obey all His decrees devoid of or apart from faith in Him - and that is pleasing to God and worthy of salvation? Where is there any Scripture to warrant such?

 

Look at you! Injecting all your christian beliefs back into the old testament! The Chef showed you a passage, in context, that clearly showed a plan of salvation that did not involve trusting in the sacrifice of some incarnated savior. Do right = live; do wrong = die! Salvation by works.

 

 

Rayskidude's original post:

 

Yahweh is not saying you can keep His decrees, or else there's no reason for the dictate. God is commanding people to keep His decrees >> and then when people realize they cannot, they will cry out to God in humble confession & repentance and receive mercy & grace from God. Have you not read the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector? Who went home justified before God? Not the righteous who believe they can and have followed God's decrees.

 

And it continues! You just said something that Ezekial 18 DOES NOT say and inject New Testament ideas BACK INTO it to prove a point that Ezekiel 18 does not make or even conceive of. THAT, my friend, is "eisegesis".

 

chefranden:

 

Great treatment of Ezekiel 18. It so clearly illustrates how bonkers the idea of the unity of the message of scripture really is.

 

 

The chef's original post:

 

Yes I know, but it is different whatever Galatians says. There's no context between Ezekiel and Paul except in your mind. No one listening to Ezekiel before Paul would know about Paul. Therefore outside of Paul Ezekiel is at the least misleading, if not an outright lie. You just get Paul out of your head for a moment, and pretend you are reading Ezekiel hot off the press.

 

Right you ARE! Put yourself in the place of someone hearing the decrees and prophecies of the old testament at the time they were given. What would they take away from the passage? That is what prevents reading your own ideas into the text. That is what christians are trained not to do, all the while calling what they do "exegesis."

 

Especially problematic is the way the new testament writers pick and choose Messianic prophesies and expect us to believe that jesus somehow fulfilled OT prophesy. All the time I was a christian, I would read the OT prophesies and then try to see how, in their context, they in any way predicted the life and ministry of the jesus in the gospels. It made my head spin. Finally, I admitted, they are not prophesies about jesus. They are self-contained units of literature to be interpreted in their own historical context. Only from that perspective can one truly appreciate the works of the bible.

[chefranden]

rayskidude' date='08 July 2009 - 12:05 PM' timestamp='1247072722' post='466372']

Actually, my wife and I lived as missionaries in Iraq for 6 months; Nov '07 - May '08.

 

Wow! And how did that go for you? Did you get oodles of converts? Were they dying to see the light, or just dying?

 

Actually, we were with a team of 10. My wife is a nurse and provided a variety of medical training, we conducted 2 camps for Kurdish kids, we taught lots of English to college students and faculty >> all of which seemed genuinely appreciated. I am currently overseeing some health research conducted here in the USA for dental students we met there - at their request. We did not give any money away - but only our time and our lives to serve them.

 

Do you have any indications to the contrary?

 

To the contrary of what?

 

So you weren't there to try to convert them to your version of Christianity? That's good. I commend you.

 

At the same time I doubt your god could have overcome their god had you tried. It seems that the gods have divided up the Earth into particular territories. Perhaps that cuts down on heavenly warfare.

[chefranden]

Then why does Paul go all the way back to the example of Abraham to show that salvation has always been by grace through faith?

 

 

Paul goes back to Abraham for the same reason that any Christian uses the Old testament out of context, to try to justify his new thinking.

 

So what - Ezek is not to be taken (nor is any other passage) out of the context of the book - and certainly Ezekiel believed in YHWH - and he called the Jews to believe and obey YHWH. And no Biblical passage is to be lifted out of the context of the whole Bible - is this really that difficult to understand - that the Bible is one unified collections of books - all culminating in the Person and Ministry of Jesus, God's Messiah. Are you saying you cannot understand this simple truth?

 

Your problem is that you want to lift certain parts of Ezekiel out of the context of the book, and the Bible as a whole. That, my friend, is eisegesis.

 

The simple truth is that few if any Bible books are in context with one another.

 

Ezekiel is not in context with Paul, nor is Paul in context with Ezekiel. Had they met for religious discussion they would have been at each others throats. Ezekiel would have held the coats of other Jews while they stoned Paul for heresy. Could be that Paul is right. But if he is then Ezekiel is wrong.

 

You are correct that the bible is a collection of books. You could say that they are united by one binding. But there is no magic in that. I could bind Alice in Wonderland and the Origin of Species in one binding, but that wouldn't mean that you could or should interpret Carrol in terms of Darwin, or visa versa. No matter how you spin it, Paul and Ezekiel disagree.

[rayskidude]

 

Paul goes back to Abraham for the same reason that any Christian uses the Old testament out of context, to try to justify his new thinking.

 

So you're saying that Abraham is not to be seen as an example for all those who would follow God?

[rayskidude]

Especially problematic is the way the new testament writers pick and choose Messianic prophesies and expect us to believe that jesus somehow fulfilled OT prophesy. All the time I was a christian, I would read the OT prophesies and then try to see how, in their context, they in any way predicted the life and ministry of the jesus in the gospels. It made my head spin. Finally, I admitted, they are not prophesies about jesus. They are self-contained units of literature to be interpreted in their own historical context. Only from that perspective can one truly appreciate the works of the bible.

 

Oh, SO since you cannot wrap your mind around these prophecies - well, they can't be true. Your finite understanding is the final arbitor of TRUTH. Nice - when did you obtain tbis high poisition?

 

And what, BTW, makes you think that you have greater understanding of Messianic prophecies than Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, Paul, the writer of Hebrews, etc - all first-century Jews, fully immersed in the OT, Judaism and its traditions, and Messianic expectations driven by the teachings of Scripture?

 

And the other first-century Jewish believers apparently had no problem seeing the fulfillment of all these Messainic prophecies - as they all survived the process of canonization.

 

SO, the question is: what gives you greater insight?

[rayskidude]

Your propaganda and excuses aren’t going to work as easily here as it does in churches.

I understand clearly that you can’t find salvation via a vicarious human sacrifice in Ezek 18, even though you preach it over and over again as “truth”.

I especially noted your attitude of “so what?” when it comes to parts of the Bible that you can’t stomach.

Ezek 18 outlines the formula for salvation as defined by God, that’s the “so what?”.

It’s not out of context at all, that’s just your excuse for dismissing it as not binding on you, even though it’s supposed to be the word of God to all humanity.

You claimed that God’s plan for salvation never changed, while Ezek 18 indicates otherwise.

 

SO, because Ezek 18 doesn't mention the vicarious death of Jesus the Messiah to be the ultimate sacrifice for sin - then ergo, we must ignore all the other Scritpure that speaks of the need of sacrifice - esp the Day of Atonement - and the Passover - and all the detail in the Pentateuch about worship, etc. And also ignore/reject all that's taught of the Person & Work of Jesus Christ?

 

That works-righteousness that you seek after - how's that working for you? Are you confident in your salvation?

Psa 14:1 To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.

Psa 14:2 The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.

Psa 14:3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.

 

Jer 7:22 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.

Jer 7:23 But this command I gave them: 'Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.'

Jer 7:24 But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

Jer 7:25 From the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt to this day, I have persistently sent all my servants the prophets to them, day after day.

Jer 7:26 Yet they did not listen to me or incline their ear, but stiffened their neck. They did worse than their fathers.

 

Jer 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.

Jer 8:9 The wise men shall be put to shame; they shall be dismayed and taken; behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?

Jer 8:10 Therefore I will give their wives to others and their fields to conquerors, because from the least to the greatest everyone is greedy for unjust gain; from prophet to priest, everyone deals falsely.

Jer 8:11 They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, 'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace.

Jer 8:12 Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No, they were not at all ashamed; they did not know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among the fallen; when I punish them, they shall be overthrown, says the LORD.

[oddbird1963]

Especially problematic is the way the new testament writers pick and choose Messianic prophesies and expect us to believe that jesus somehow fulfilled OT prophesy. All the time I was a christian, I would read the OT prophesies and then try to see how, in their context, they in any way predicted the life and ministry of the jesus in the gospels. It made my head spin. Finally, I admitted, they are not prophesies about jesus. They are self-contained units of literature to be interpreted in their own historical context. Only from that perspective can one truly appreciate the works of the bible.

 

Oh, SO since you cannot wrap your mind around these prophecies - well, they can't be true. Your finite understanding is the final arbitor of TRUTH. Nice - when did you obtain tbis high poisition?

 

And what, BTW, makes you think that you have greater understanding of Messianic prophecies than Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, Paul, the writer of Hebrews, etc - all first-century Jews, fully immersed in the OT, Judaism and its traditions, and Messianic expectations driven by the teachings of Scripture?

 

And the other first-century Jewish believers apparently had no problem seeing the fulfillment of all these Messainic prophecies - as they all survived the process of canonization.

 

SO, the question is: what gives you greater insight?

 

Well, Rayskidude, I understand the prophecies themselves in their context. That's the easy part. There are generations of exegetical works on these prophecies to help me along the way when I cannot get my mind around them. It's the way the New Testament uses these prophecies to claim that Jesus is the fulfillment of messianic prophecy that seems bogus. It's not really a matter of understanding. I can get my brain around what is said about the alleged fulfillment of prophesy. It just does not seem like fulfillment in any of the usual denotations and connotations of the word. You almost have to create your own private christian definition for the word "fulfill" in order to sustain the belief that jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophesy. But . . . isn't that known as equivocation?

 

It's not a matter of understanding a prophecy. It is a matter of finally seeing and admitting what was going on. The writers of the gospels, and the generators of the traditions behind these writings, were cherry picking texts from the old testament to make sure they could make it look like Jesus was the fulfillment. If they had to torture the text a bit to accomplish this, then they did. It's really what most people do with passages from the bible. It may not have been a conscious cherry picking , they may have just been seeing things the way they needed to see them in order to sustain the belief that Jesus was the messiah.

 

Your finite understanding is the final arbitor of TRUTH. Nice - when did you obtain tbis high poisition?

 

Rayski! Why are you making this about me? What purpose does your ad hominem jab serve? Does it make the alleged New Testament fulfillment of old testament messianic prophesy any more legitimate? Perhaps you should have utilized the energy you expended in discounting me to demonstrate how New testament accounts of Jesus actually fulfilled old testament prophecies.

 

And what, BTW, makes you think that you have greater understanding of Messianic prophecies than Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, Paul, the writer of Hebrews, etc - all first-century Jews, fully immersed in the OT, Judaism and its traditions, and Messianic expectations driven by the teachings of Scripture?

 

When I hear a credible explanation of how NT claims of fulfillment of OT Prophecies actually constitutes fulfillment, I might just concede that Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, Paul, the writer of Hebrews, etc , etc had it over me. But until then, your statement just amounts to an appeal to authority and nothing else. Pointing out that these folks were first century Jews, fully immersed . . . only serves to explain why they may have seen their explanations of fulfillment as credible - - it may have been in some sense conforming to the form and structure of the contemporary hermeneutic methodology. It might not have been too radical a departure from those approaches acceptable to the culture at the time. Does that mean it was a legitimate approach? Not necessarily.

 

The question is not, "what gives me greater insight?" The question is, "Does what has been presented to me as an explanation of how a narrative in the NT fulfills prophesy in the OT sound coherent? Does it correspond in any way to the idea of "fulfillment" without equivocating or special pleading?

 

So far, the answer is 'No.' I am not yet ready to concede to the new testament writers. The case has not been made. You certainly have yet to make a case for it.

[centauri]

Your propaganda and excuses aren’t going to work as easily here as it does in churches.

I understand clearly that you can’t find salvation via a vicarious human sacrifice in Ezek 18, even though you preach it over and over again as “truth”.

I especially noted your attitude of “so what?” when it comes to parts of the Bible that you can’t stomach.

Ezek 18 outlines the formula for salvation as defined by God, that’s the “so what?”.

It’s not out of context at all, that’s just your excuse for dismissing it as not binding on you, even though it’s supposed to be the word of God to all humanity.

You claimed that God’s plan for salvation never changed, while Ezek 18 indicates otherwise.

 

SO, because Ezek 18 doesn't mention the vicarious death of Jesus the Messiah to be the ultimate sacrifice for sin - then ergo, we must ignore all the other Scritpure that speaks of the need of sacrifice - esp the Day of Atonement - and the Passover - and all the detail in the Pentateuch about worship, etc. And also ignore/reject all that's taught of the Person & Work of Jesus Christ?

The Day of Atonement and Passover don’t conflict with the law or the instructions for salvation as given in Ezekiel 18, which says to keep the law.

Ignoring the scripture is what Christianity does, when it ignores the stipulation for what a valid sin sacrifice is, and when it claims the law has been replaced by a sin sacrifice that isn’t valid under the law.

If Jesus was a Christ, in this case a king messiah, he would have performed the job requirements, but he didn’t.

 

That works-righteousness that you seek after - how's that working for you? Are you confident in your salvation?

The replacement theology version of salvation that you promote, how’s that working for you?

Jesus said that some works were required for salvation.

Are you confident in your salvation?

Psa 119:155

Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes.

 

Psa 14:1 To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.

Psa 14:2 The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.

Psa 14:3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.

If you want this to mean all humanity and not just fools, then you’ve exposed a contradiction between Luke 1:5-6 and Psalms.

 

Jer 7:22 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.

Jer 7:23 But this command I gave them: 'Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.'

Jer 7:24 But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

Jer 7:25 From the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt to this day, I have persistently sent all my servants the prophets to them, day after day.

Jer 7:26 Yet they did not listen to me or incline their ear, but stiffened their neck. They did worse than their fathers.

That’s what the new covenant is supposed to remedy, when God infuses his law(not Jesus) into the hearts of his people.

 

Jer 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.

Jer 8:9 The wise men shall be put to shame; they shall be dismayed and taken; behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?

Are you taking the position that the Bible contains lies and cannot be trusted?

[Guest Davka]

So you're saying that Abraham is not to be seen as an example for all those who would follow God?

 

Yikes! Let's hope not.

 

Here's a wonderful case of a Christian who followed Abraham's example:

Dead Girl's Dad Trusted God to Heal

 

Madeline Neumann died on March 23, 2008, from undiagnosed diabetes on the floor of the family's rural Weston home as people surrounded the 11-year-old girl and prayed. Someone called 911 when she stopped breathing.

 

Neumann said it never crossed his mind that his daughter might have lost consciousness.

 

"She was just sleeping," Neumann said. "I didn't believe at all that the Lord would even allow her to pass."

 

Neumann also told the detective that "sickness is a result of sin" and that his daughter's death had not shaken his faith.

 

 

Oh, yeah! The Faith of Abraham! Lay that child on the altar, Gawd will HEEEEEAL her!

[chefranden]

 

Paul goes back to Abraham for the same reason that any Christian uses the Old testament out of context, to try to justify his new thinking.

 

So you're saying that Abraham is not to be seen as an example for all those who would follow God?

 

Sure, why not. That is not the point though. The point is that Paul uses Abraham to support Paul's ideas without consulting Abraham on the matter. If there were a bit biography of you I could perhaps take an incident of your life and use it to support my point of view, one that you might very well disagree with if I consulted you.

 

You ever read any James Dobson books? That SOB can get a whole book of ultra conservative psychology out of 6 bible verses. Does that mean all that information is really packed in those 6 verses? I don't think so. One reason I went to Bible Collage was to learn how to unpack the bible like that. Thank God for that, because I learned that that stuff just isn't in there.

 

Paul is basically doing the Dobson thing. You don't recognize it, because you think there is some kind of magic connection between Paul and the Old Testament. The only connection is that Paul read it, at least parts of it. I don't regard Paul's musings as anything but musings, like musings you or End or Ezekiel might write.

 

Unless my old mind is totally rotten, I find that Paul doesn't use Ezekiel to support his musings. That is probably because his musings are pretty contrary to Ezekiel, but it could also be that Paul never read Ezekiel.

[chefranden]

SO, because Ezek 18 doesn't mention the vicarious death of Jesus the Messiah to be the ultimate sacrifice for sin - then ergo, we must ignore all the other Scritpure that speaks of the need of sacrifice - esp the Day of Atonement - and the Passover - and all the detail in the Pentateuch about worship, etc. And also ignore/reject all that's taught of the Person & Work of Jesus Christ?

 

I wouldn't say ignore it. Just know that Ezekiel doesn't agree with vicarious death.

 

That works-righteousness that you seek after - how's that working for you? Are you confident in your salvation?

Psa 14:1 To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.

Psa 14:2 The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.

Psa 14:3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.

 

I don't think that any atheist is seeking after works righteousness anymore than vicarious righteousness. The point is and has been both are in scripture and both exclude the other.

 

Interesting that you and Paul disregard points to the contrary:

Psalm18:20 The LORD has dealt with me according to my righteousness;

according to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me.

21 For I have kept the ways of the LORD;

I have not done evil by turning from my God.

22 All his laws are before me;

I have not turned away from his decrees.

23 I have been blameless before him

and have kept myself from sin.

24 The LORD has rewarded me according to my righteousness,

according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.

50 He gives his king great victories;...

he shows unfailing kindness to his anointed,

to David and his descendants forever.

 

Matthew 25: 31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

 

 

And I find this very telling considering that Paul didn't get along with the real disciples. Since God didn't think to preserve much if any real disciple thinking, it could well be that among the things Paul didn't like about those people was that they didn't agree with the faith only thing. It is even more intriguing if the writer of James was indeed James.

 

James 2:14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

[rayskidude]

rayskidude' date='04 August 2009 - 08:04 AM' timestamp='1249391082' post='473075']

So you're saying that Abraham is not to be seen as an example for all those who would follow God?

 

Sure, why not. That is not the point though. The point is that Paul uses Abraham to support Paul's ideas without consulting Abraham on the matter. If there were a bit biography of you I could perhaps take an incident of your life and use it to support my point of view, one that you might very well disagree with if I consulted you.

 

So how has Paul misinterpreted this statement?

Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

 

And what does the following mean? Is there something here that's difficult to understand?

Gen 15:9 He said to him, "Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon."

Gen 15:10 And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half.

Gen 15:11 And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.

Gen 15:12 As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him.

Gen 15:13 Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years.

Gen 15:14 But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions.

Gen 15:15 As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age.

Gen 15:17 When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces.

Gen 15:18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram

 

Paul is basically doing the Dobson thing. You don't recognize it, because you think there is some kind of magic connection between Paul and the Old Testament. The only connection is that Paul read it, at least parts of it. I don't regard Paul's musings as anything but musings

 

Gee, thnx for enlightening me - I feel better already.

 

Unless my old mind is totally rotten, I find that Paul doesn't use Ezekiel to support his musings.

 

So what? Are you saying that Ezekiel doesn't belong in the OT?

 

That is probably because his musings are pretty contrary to Ezekiel, but it could also be that Paul never read Ezekiel.

 

It could be that since he was a Pharisee, that he certainly did read Ezekiel. But could it probably be that you could also be mistaken? Have you actually consulted Paul on this matter?

[rayskidude]

I wouldn't say ignore it. Just know that Ezekiel doesn't agree with vicarious death.

 

Really? Where does Ezekiel state that? And why are Ezek chaps 40-47 devoted to describibg a temple and temple worship with vicarious offerings?

 

I don't think that any atheist is seeking after works righteousness anymore than vicarious righteousness.

 

If you're not seeking after right living - then waht are you seeking after?

 

Interesting that you and Paul disregard points to the contrary:

Psalm18:20 The LORD has dealt with me according to my righteousness;

according to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me.

21 For I have kept the ways of the LORD;

I have not done evil by turning from my God.

22 All his laws are before me;

I have not turned away from his decrees.

23 I have been blameless before him

and have kept myself from sin.

24 The LORD has rewarded me according to my righteousness,

according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.

50 He gives his king great victories;...

he shows unfailing kindness to his anointed,

to David and his descendants forever.

 

Where is eternal salvation in this passage?

 

Matthew 25: 31-46

 

I've already shown you how you have completely ignored the context of the Book of Matthew.

 

And I find this very telling considering that Paul didn't get along with the real disciples. Since God didn't think to preserve much if any real disciple thinking, it could well be that among the things Paul didn't like about those people was that they didn't agree with the faith only thing. It is even more intriguing if the writer of James was indeed James.

 

Where do you get the idea Paul didn't get along with the Apostles? Hav you not read Acts 15? Nor Galatians? Nor the epistles of Peter?

 

Where did you get the idea that Paul's theology regarding good works differs from that of James?

Rom 12:1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.

Rom 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

 

1Co 15:57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1Co 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

 

2Co 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work.

2Co 9:9 As it is written, "He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures forever."

 

Gal 6:9 And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.

Gal 6:10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.

Gal 6:11 See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.

 

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

 

I could go on into Paul's other epistles - but the point is that Paul and James do not disagree - unless you have only a superficial understanding of Scripture.

[rayskidude]

rayskidude' date='04 August 2009 - 08:04 AM' timestamp='1249391082' post='473075']

So you're saying that Abraham is not to be seen as an example for all those who would follow God?

 

Here's a wonderful case of a Christian who followed Abraham's example:

Dead Girl's Dad Trusted God to Heal

 

Madeline Neumann died on March 23, 2008, from undiagnosed diabetes on the floor of the family's rural Weston home as people surrounded the 11-year-old girl and prayed. Someone called 911 when she stopped breathing.

 

Neumann said it never crossed his mind that his daughter might have lost consciousness.

 

"She was just sleeping," Neumann said. "I didn't believe at all that the Lord would even allow her to pass."

 

Neumann also told the detective that "sickness is a result of sin" and that his daughter's death had not shaken his faith.

 

 

Gee - and you're the one always complaining about straw men - this is the ultimate straw man argument.

[chefranden]

I wouldn't say ignore it. Just know that Ezekiel doesn't agree with vicarious death.

 

1.Really? 2.Where does Ezekiel state that? 3.And why are Ezek chaps 40-47 devoted to describibg a temple and temple worship with vicarious offerings?

 

Yes really. 2. Can't you read? Or do you want Ezekiel to say, "Paul is Wrong!"? All you have to do is read 18 and compare it to Paul's faith only, even though I already did it for you.

 

3. I just read through that again and see nowhere where someone can die for someone else's sin. A burnt offering etc. comes from what the offerer owns. It comes from the stock that he has labored and sweated over to raise. The offerer has sacrificed something of the best of himself, not something that belongs to another. It is not a man dying for the sins of another or even the animal. It was the sacrifice of the animal belonging to the man getting is sins forgiven, that is the man sacrificing, not God, not the animal. Part of keeping the law was following the proper forms of ritual. The doing of sacrifice is the doing of righteous for Ezekiel. Ezekiel reiterates in 33

 

12 "Therefore, son of man, say to your countrymen, 'The righteousness of the righteous man will not save him when he disobeys*, and the wickedness of the wicked man will not cause him to fall when he turns from it. The righteous man, if he sins, will not be allowed to live because of his former righteousness.' 13 If I tell the righteous man that he will surely live, but then he trusts in his righteousness and does evil, none of the righteous things he has done will be remembered; he will die for the evil he has done. 14 And if I say to the wicked man, 'You will surely die,' but he then turns away from his sin and does what is just and right- 15 if he gives back what he took in pledge for a loan, returns what he has stolen, follows the decrees that give life, and does no evil, he will surely live; he will not die. 16 None of the sins he has committed will be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he will surely live.

 

*Paul has obviously taken this idea and changed it so Jesus fits. He has to because he is promoting this new religion. It is no different than the Mormons making Paul's writing fit their religion.

 

 

 

 

I don't think that any atheist is seeking after works righteousness anymore than vicarious righteousness.

 

If you're not seeking after right living - then waht are you seeking after?

 

Babies to eat, what did you think?

 

But seriously, try to get over the idea that an atheist is seeking eternal life. I try to live righteously in relationship to my family, friends, and neighbors. I have no reason to try to live righteously in relationship to a non-existent entity. I try to take seriously the fact you believe there is a god. You might try to be polite and try to take seriously the idea that I don't, rather than thinking I'm trying to live in rebellion to a real god.

 

There is no god to rebel against.

 

Interesting that you and Paul disregard points to the contrary:

Psalm18:20 The LORD has dealt with me according to my righteousness;

according to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me.

21 For I have kept the ways of the LORD;

I have not done evil by turning from my God.

22 All his laws are before me;

I have not turned away from his decrees.

23 I have been blameless before him

and have kept myself from sin.

24 The LORD has rewarded me according to my righteousness,

according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.

50 He gives his king great victories;...

he shows unfailing kindness to his anointed,

to David and his descendants forever.

 

Where is eternal salvation in this passage?

 

The LORD has

rewarded

me according to my righteousness. But you are right, because you would have to read heaven back into the reward, like Paul would do and did do with Abraham. The Jews did not believe in eternal life until during or after the captivity. And many of them didn't believe in it after the captivity. You might want to remember that Ezekiel is telling the captives how to restore their religion when they get back. Ezekiel's idea of eternal life probably came from the Chaldeans.

[chefranden]

1. Where do you get the idea Paul didn't get along with the Apostles? Hav you not read Acts 15? Nor Galatians? Nor the epistles of Peter?

 

Where did you get the idea that Paul's theology regarding good works differs from that of James?

Rom 12:1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.

Rom 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

 

1Co 15:57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1Co 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

 

2Co 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work.

2Co 9:9 As it is written, "He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures forever."

 

Gal 6:9 And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.

Gal 6:10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.

Gal 6:11 See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.

 

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

Eph 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

 

I could go on into Paul's other epistles - but the point is that Paul and James do not disagree - unless you have only a superficial understanding of Scripture.

 

True you could go on and on and on, and you usually do. Listing verses side by side that have a few same words doesn't make them mean the same thing.

 

1. Of course I've read Acts 15. So what? It is not history written by Paul. It was written well after Paul's version.

 

Read Paul's version

 

Paul makes it clear that he had little contact with the real disciples, and that he disputed with Peter. According to Paul Peter was wrong and a hypocrite, an odd thing to accuse a real disciple of. Paul says,"They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." What other choice did the apostles have? They had no ability to restrict Paul, and they thereby protect the Jewish Christians from Paul's heresy. Later they did try to set the churches straight as the Judaizers.

 

The writer of Acts well after the fact tries to reconcile Peter to Paul, rather than Paul to Peter as it should have been.

 

And what is James writing against if not faith only?

 

Edit: By the way the modern force behind the renewal of faith only, Luther, called James a book of straw and wanted it removed from the canon.

[chefranden]

So how has Paul misinterpreted this statement?

Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

 

Well lets see: God credited as righteousness that Abram believed that he would have a real heir for his stuff. I don't see anywhere in there wherein Abram believes in Jesus and therefore is righteous unto salvation. Abram did get a reward, but not heaven. Abram got the land. Paul writes as if Abraham is going to get heaven because of his belief and therefore the reader will get the same. Or Paul means that as Abraham got the land for believing you will get heaven for believing. Maybe so maybe not. Land and Heaven are not the same. Metaphors only go so far. I wouldn't stake my life on one.

 

 

And what does the following mean? Is there something here that's difficult to understand?

Gen 15:9 He said to him, "Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon."

Gen 15:10 And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half.

Gen 15:11 And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.

Gen 15:12 As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him.

Gen 15:13 Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years.

Gen 15:14 But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions.

Gen 15:15 As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age.

Gen 15:17 When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces.

Gen 15:18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram

 

The first thing it means to me is that it was the passage was written well after Abraham died (if Abraham was real). If, as is not likely, the passage was written by Moses then the prophecy of the captivity is not prophecy, because Moses is writing after the fact. I could write a prophecy of George Washington predicting the outcome of this year's Superbowl and get the prophecy perfectly right.

 

Any way according to my understand of the redactors of this passage, the meaning is to provide legitimacy for the redactors' contemporary government and priests. The redactors knew nothing of Paul, or of Paul's Jesus.

 

 

 

 

 

Paul is basically doing the Dobson thing. You don't recognize it, because you think there is some kind of magic connection between Paul and the Old Testament. The only connection is that Paul read it, at least parts of it. I don't regard Paul's musings as anything but musings

 

Gee, thnx for enlightening me - I feel better already.

 

You are welcome. I'm glad to help. However, I think you are lying about your enlightenment, considering what you have written below.

 

Unless my old mind is totally rotten, I find that Paul doesn't use Ezekiel to support his musings.

 

So what? Are you saying that Ezekiel doesn't belong in the OT?

 

I don't really give a shit where Ezekiel is. What I meant was, I find that Paul doesn't use Ezekiel to support his musings. That seems pretty straight forward to me. I'm not trying to write a shadow of the future, or some such nonsense. And I'm not sure how that equates to desiring a different place for Ezekiel. This question does show me evidence that you are reacting instead of thinking.

 

That is probably because his musings are pretty contrary to Ezekiel, but it could also be that Paul never read Ezekiel.

 

It could be that since he was a Pharisee, that he certainly did read Ezekiel. But could it probably be that you could also be mistaken? Have you actually consulted Paul on this matter?

 

Well I'd like to consult Paul, but I understand the Romans killed him. I only have you to consult.

[rayskidude]

'rayskidude' date='04 August 2009 - 09:04 AM' timestamp='1249391082' post='473075']

So you're saying that Abraham is not to be seen as an example for all those who would follow God?

 

That certainly would improve Christianity. Between fucking his maid and taking a knife to his kid, I'm not too keen on reverence of him.

Phanta

 

Re: (1) believers have always recognized Abraham's fathering Ismael thru Hagar as sin - and a huge mistake - even though it was an accepted practice in ANE cultures, which were patri-lineal. But again, God uses fallen & seriously flawed folk to accomplish His purposes.

 

(2) Abraham was tested by God, and proved His faith & love for God (in fact, evidenced great faith).

Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son,

Heb 11:18 of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named."

Heb 11:19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.

[rayskidude]

Or do you want Ezekiel to say, "Paul is Wrong!"? All you have to do is read 18 and compare it to Paul's faith only, even though I already did it for you.

 

When you read Ezek chaps 17 & 19 - the issue there is that the rebellious Israelites are being punished for their continual idolatry & other sins. SO God is bringing in Babylon to conquer and lead them to exile, and many Jews are running to Egypt for refuge. Yet, God has said "surrender to Babylon and live" but the leaders and people chose mainly to fight or take refuge in Egypt. SO how does Ezek refer to eternal life? What's your hermeneutic here?

 

You have to catch Ezek 18 in its historical setting - Ezekiel is in exile, and is referring to how the people should respond to God's chastisement; which was foretold by Jeremiah just before God's judgement fell on Judah.

 

2Ch 36:11 Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem.

2Ch 36:12 He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD his God. He did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet, who spoke from the mouth of the LORD.

2Ch 36:13 He also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God. He stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the LORD, the God of Israel.

2Ch 36:14 All the officers of the priests and the people likewise were exceedingly unfaithful, following all the abominations of the nations. And they polluted the house of the LORD that he had made holy in Jerusalem.

2Ch 36:15 The LORD, the God of their fathers, sent persistently to them by his messengers, because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place.

2Ch 36:16 But they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words and scoffing at his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD rose against his people, until there was no remedy.

2Ch 36:17 Therefore he brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans, who killed their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary and had no compassion on young man or virgin, old man or aged. He gave them all into his hand.

2Ch 36:18 And all the vessels of the house of God, great and small, and the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king and of his princes, all these he brought to Babylon.

2Ch 36:19 And they burned the house of God and broke down the wall of Jerusalem and burned all its palaces with fire and destroyed all its precious vessels.

 

And note what God had said to Judah thru Jeremiah

 

Jer 21:8 "And to this people you shall say: 'Thus says the LORD: Behold, I set before you the way of life and the way of death.

Jer 21:9 He who stays in this city shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence, but he who goes out and surrenders to the Chaldeans who are besieging you shall live and shall have his life as a prize of war.

Jer 21:10 For I have set my face against this city for harm and not for good, declares the LORD: it shall be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire.'

 

God had commanded the people to live humbly under Babylonian rule for 70 years, which captivity Ezekiel and Daniel are both in.

 

Jer 25:11 This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

Jer 29:7 But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.

Jer 29:10 "For thus says the LORD: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place.

Jer 29:11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.

Jer 29:12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you.

Jer 29:13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.

Jer 29:14 I will be found by you, declares the LORD, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the LORD, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.

 

You continue to want to divorce Ezek 18 from its immediate context, the historical setting, previous prophecies, and the NT - your hermeneutic is just completely invalid.

 

But seriously, try to get over the idea that an atheist is seeking eternal life. I try to live righteously in relationship to my family, friends, and neighbors. I have no reason to try to live righteously in relationship to a non-existent entity. I try to take seriously the fact you believe there is a god. You might try to be polite and try to take seriously the idea that I don't, rather than thinking I'm trying to live in rebellion to a real god. There is no god to rebel against.

 

Please forgive my offense - I was trying to understand what you're thinking.. It seems you are pursuing righteous living. But it appears as though you are doing so in response to the teaching of Ezekiel & David, who were prophets of YHWH - but you don't believe YHWH even exists. SO I'm just trying to understand what appears to me to be something of a major disconnect. How have I misunderstood you?

 

The Jews did not believe in eternal life until during or after the captivity. And many of them didn't believe in it after the captivity. You might want to remember that Ezekiel is telling the captives how to restore their religion when they get back. Ezekiel's idea of eternal life probably came from the Chaldeans.

 

Here I would disagree. Job was a contemporary of Abraham, and look what he said about eternal life.

Job 19:25 For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth.

Job 19:26 And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God,

Job 19:27 whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me! (At the glorious nature of this thought!) Parenthetical comment added by yours truly.

 

And David's words concerning Jesus Christ primarily, but secondarily all who belong to God.

Psa 16:9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices; my flesh also dwells secure.

Psa 16:10 For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption.

Psa 16:11 You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

 

And finally note what the NT says of Abraham and Moses.

Heb 11:9 By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise.

Heb 11:10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.

Heb 11:15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return.

Heb 11:16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

Heb 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter,

Heb 11:25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin.

Heb 11:26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.

Heb 11:39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised,

Heb 11:40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

Heb 12:18 For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest

Heb 12:19 and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them.

Heb 12:20 For they could not endure the order that was given, "If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned."

Heb 12:21 Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, "I tremble with fear."

Heb 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering,

Heb 12:23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,

Heb 12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

[rayskidude]

Paul makes it clear that he had little contact with the real disciples, and that he disputed with Peter. According to Paul, Peter was wrong and a hypocrite, an odd thing to accuse a real disciple of. Paul says,"They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." What other choice did the apostles have? They had no ability to restrict Paul, and they thereby protect the Jewish Christians from Paul's heresy. Later they did try to set the churches straight as the Judaizers.

 

Paul got along well with other apostles - read from Galatians >> And the fact that there was accountablility should be commended.

 

Gal 1:18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

Galatians 2

1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem... I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain... On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles,[c] just as Peter had been to the Jews.[d] 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter[e] and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

 

And then in Acts 15 - we see both Peter and James speaking in support of a salvation by grace through faith, but instructing the Gentiles away from things which would offend Jewish believers.

 

Act 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Act 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,

Act 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.

Act 15:10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

Act 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

Act 15:13 After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brothers, listen to me.

Act 15:14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name.

Act 15:15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,

Act 15:16 "'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it,

Act 15:17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things

Act 15:18 known from of old.'

Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

Act 15:20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.

Act 15:21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."

Act 15:22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers,

Act 15:23 with the following letter: "The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings.

Act 15:24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,

Act 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:

Act 15:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

 

And what is James writing against if not faith only?

 

James is condeming a faith in Gid that various people claimed would save them - yet note James' response to a purely intellectual faith;

 

Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!

Jas 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?

Jas 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;

Jas 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God.

 

Edit: By the way the modern force behind the renewal of faith only, Luther, called James a book of straw and wanted it removed from the canon.

 

I beleive that Francis Pieper, respected Lutheran theologoian, maintains that Luther's thots on James were taken grossly out of context. But I will look this up and respond later.