Faith and Works

Originally posted by no1marauder
There is little question there were theological disputes in the early Christian church between Paul and James:

Modern historians of the early Christian churches tend to place James in the tradition of Jewish Christianity, which was more conservative than the tradition Paul was part of refered to as Pauline Christianity; where Paul fa ...[text shortened]... ed enemy some modern critics think may be Paul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_just

From the same article:

"Some scholars, such as Ben Witherington, believe that the conflict between these two positions has been overemphasized, and that the two actually held quite similar beliefs."

Originally posted by lucifershammer
From the same article:

"Some scholars, such as Ben Witherington, believe that the conflict between these two positions has been overemphasized, and that the two actually held quite similar beliefs."

LH: So I ask again - why didn't the dog bark that night? If Paul's teachings on eschatology (extremely basic Christian stuff, you might say) were in opposition to what Christ himself taught, why wasn't he opposed by the Apostles?


Does the fact that one recent scholar is trying to gloss over a theological dispute that existed almost 2000 years ago make it disappear? In James' case, the "dog did bark" and James was head of the Church in Jerusalem. So at first you insist on evidence in the form of writings from one of the original Apostles and when that is presented you ignore it. Typical of your arguments, LH.

Originally posted by no1marauder
LH: So I ask again - why didn't the dog bark that night? If Paul's teachings on eschatology (extremely basic Christian stuff, you might say) were in opposition to what Christ himself taught, why wasn't he opposed by the Apostles?

...[text shortened]... en that is presented you ignore it. Typical of your arguments, LH.

This the same church that tossed out the gospel of thomas which was written by a christian that at least had seen "Q" if it wasnt "Q"


an interesting site:

http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/

Originally posted by no1marauder
LH: So I ask again - why didn't the dog bark that night? If Paul's teachings on eschatology (extremely basic Christian stuff, you might say) were in opposition to what Christ himself taught, why wasn't he opposed by the Apostles?

...[text shortened]... en that is presented you ignore it. Typical of your arguments, LH.

If you'd read the post I made on the previous page, you'd see that I do not dispute that disagreements arose in the early Church even among the Apostles (plus Paul). So maybe it was Paul vs. James instead of Paul vs. Peter (or maybe it was Paul vs. James and Peter) and maybe it was on the Mosaic Law in general and not just circumcision.

That doesn't change the crux of my argument - it wasn't an eschatological matter, it wasn't a Christological matter, it wasn't even a theological matter. It was a purely disciplinary issue.

The issue of circumcision was, in fact, resolved at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 5) when the Apostles were present.

So, the basic question still remains - if Paul's eschatological views were completely at variance with what Jesus taught, why didn't the "dog bark"?

You need to demonstrate that there was Apostolic opposition to Paul's views on the role of faith in salvation (to return to the topic at hand).

EDIT: I haven't received a response from you yet on 1 Peter.

Originally posted by frogstomp
This the same church that tossed out the gospel of thomas which was written by a christian that at least had seen "Q" if it wasnt "Q"


an interesting site:

http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/

You're kidding me, right?

1. The Gospel of Thomas was never "tossed out" by the Church because it simply was never used by the early Church as Scripture - except for the Gnostics.

2. By the time the issue of which Gospels were and were not inspired came up in the 2d cent., GTh had undergone a significant Gnostic redaction. For a nice comparison of various versions of GTh, check out http://answers.org/Bible/GospelOfThomas.html .

3. GTh is obviously not Q because there are far too many sayings of Jesus not found in GTh (e.g. the Beatitudes).

4. (My personal favourite) "Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."" (GTh 114)

This is simply something totally at variance with what was known about Jesus.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If you'd read the post I made on the previous page, you'd see that I do not dispute that disagreements arose in the early Church even among the Apostles (plus Paul). So maybe it was Paul vs. James instead of Paul vs. Peter (or mayb ...[text shortened]... .

EDIT: I haven't received a response from you yet on 1 Peter.

Try reading James 2. You've also failed to point to ANY writings of the original Apostles that support Paul's views on "faith only" which, are after all, were rejected and have been rejected by the Church forever!

What's there to respond to in regard to 1 Peter? You claim without any evidence at all that most Palestinian Jews spoke Greek. You claim the Septaugant translation was available in Palestine, but give no reason to believe that Peter would have used it. You make the circular argument that 1 Peter supports Pauline doctrine so it MUST be legitimate! Do you believe 2 Peter was written by the Apostle Peter as well? That document has been questioned since the earliest days of the Church, yet it also asserts in its body that it was written by Peter. Given the arguments in the wikipedia article and the great likelihood that Peter didn't write 2 Peter it also seems extremely likely he didn't write 1 Peter either.

Please consider this article regarding what language was predominant in 1st century Palestine:

Having said that, there is overwhelming evidence, both historical and linguistic that shows that the texts were originally written in Hebrew, and also that Hebrew was not a "dead language" (as was thought of for quite some time). A good source of information on the latter is "Biblical Archaeology Review" (BAR) magazine. BAR has had articles in the past few years on digs that have unearthed documents from around the first century written in Hebrew, including legal documents and one woman's personal diary.

Other sources testifying to Hebrew being the language of 1st century Jews and a Hebrew origin of the "New Testament" documents include:

1. Recent Qumran findings (Dead Sea Scrolls) shows secular documents written at that time concerning "current events" (i.e., not just copies of old religious texts.) indicating Hebrew was a "living" language. There are several books on the Dead Sea Scrolls available. Contact YashaNet for recommendations if interested.

2. Jewish coins found from that era are minted with Hebrew text on them.

3. A study of the writings of the Christian "Church Fathers" shows that much of the "New Testament" was written in Hebrew. This includes direct statements made by; Papias, Ireneus, Origin, Eusubius, Epiphaneus, Jerome and Clement of Alexandria.

4. The prominent first century historian Josephus wrote in both his books, Antiquities and Wars, that Hebrew was the language of first century Jews and that they did not know Greek. (In fact there is a Jewish tradition saying it is better to eat swine than learn Greek.)

5. Modern linguistics (thanks to the input of cognisant Messianic Jewish and gentile scholars) shows that the text themselves don't lend to an "original Greek" translation. A very good book you want to get with dozens of examples is, The Semitic Origin of the New Testament, by James Trimm. This can be ordered via www.nazarene.net. Also recommended is the Hebrew/Aramaic New Testament Research Institute at www.nazarene.net/hantri/

6. Other books, such as The Jewish New Testament, by David Stern are also helpful in showing the Hebrew thought that gets lost in the Greek/English. (The latter can be ordered through Amazon.com.)

http://www.yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat3b.htm

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You're kidding me, right?

1. The Gospel of Thomas was never "tossed out" by the Church because it simply was never used by the early Church as Scripture - except for the Gnostics.

2. By the time the issue of which Gospels were and were not inspired came up in the 2d cent., GTh had undergone a significant Gnostic redaction. For a nice comparis ...[text shortened]... ."" (GTh 114)

This is simply something totally at variance with what was known about Jesus.

1) it was and you can't be suggesting it didn't predate tha canonization of the others.
2) according to the people that were the tossers.
3) there are many such sayings left out a mark too and some of them are included in Thomas. and at least one the Paul uses that's in Thomas and not the others. BTW where did they dig up John from?
4) just because Irenaeus didn't understand the metaphor wasn't reason enough to toss out a Gospel. Although it did seem useful in the coming inquisition of the Gnostics. Leopard can't ever change spots can they.
Bottom line .......
.......................... you've bought a crock.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please consider this article regarding what language was predominant in 1st century Palestine:

Having said that, there is overwhelming evidence, both historical and linguistic that shows that the texts were originally written in Hebrew, and also that Hebrew was not a "dead language" (as was thought of for quite some time). A good sourc ...[text shortened]... er can be ordered through Amazon.com.)

http://www.yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat3b.htm

The first Christian writings would be in the language of the first christians.
Jeez.... who wouldda thunk?

Originally posted by frogstomp
1) it was and you can't be suggesting it didn't predate tha canonization of the others.
2) according to the people that were the tossers.
3) there are many such sayings left out a mark too and some of them are included in Thomas. and at least one the Paul uses that's in Thomas and not the others. BTW where did they dig ...[text shortened]... e spots can they.
Bottom line .......
.......................... you've bought a crock.

1. I didn't say it does not predate the canonical Gospels, I'm saying it was never used as one (except by the Gnostics).
2. That isn't even an argument! Did you actually read the article?
3. What's your point? You claimed GTh might be Q - I demonstrated that wasn't the case.
4. What's your point?

Bottom line - you chuck out random statements, half-baked arguments and then come up with more random statements and half-baked arguments (not to mention the usual dose of Church-bashing and name-calling) as counter-rebuttal.

Speaking of half-baked arguments, do you still assert that the predominant language used by 1st Century Palestinian Jews was Greek?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. I didn't say it does not predate the canonical Gospels, I'm saying it was never used as one (except by the Gnostics).
2. That isn't even an argument! Did you actually read the article?
3. What's your point? You claimed GTh might be Q - I demonstrated that wasn't the case.
4. What's your point?

Bottom line - you chuck out random statemen ...[text shortened]... rguments (not to mention the usual dose of Church-bashing and name-calling) as counter-rebuttal.

1) no you're saying the power mad wing of christians succeeded in supressing it.
2) actually there are far more informative sites that that some actually have the full texts with cross references. If Thomas aint reliable then Matthew Mark Luke and Corinthians ait reliable either. When I want to read an opinion , I will give it.
3)Try reading my post.
4) Once again you opt for the asinine non-gnosis reading of that line , just like the first father inquisitor Ireneaus did.

and you can stuff that last crock you're selling right up your bottom line .... I've actually read Ireneaus writings

Originally posted by no1marauder
Try reading James 2. You've also failed to point to ANY writings of the original Apostles that support Paul's views on "faith only" which, are after all, were rejected and have been rejected by the Church forever!

I was wondering when you would come around to this. 🙂 Pauline Soteriology 101:

1. Paul never says "faith only".

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/justification/justify_7.htm

2. Paul never implied "faith only".

C.f: Rm 2:6-8, 6:23.

Corollaries of 1 and 2:

C1. The Apostles never supported Paul's views on "faith only" because he never said or implied "faith only".

C2. The Church never rejected Paul's views on "faith only" because he never said or implied "faith only".

3. James does not "bark" at Paul.

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/james2.htm

What's there to respond to in regard to 1 Peter? You claim without any evidence at all that most Palestinian Jews spoke Greek.

I'll withdraw that statement. It was based on my memory of some of the language controversy around the Passion movie, but either my memory or the authors who made the comment could be wrong.

But it still does not alter the crux of my argument.

You claim the Septaugant translation was available in Palestine, but give no reason to believe that Peter would have used it.

Whether Peter used the Septuagint translation or not, Silvanus/Mark certainly used and knew it.

You make the circular argument that 1 Peter supports Pauline doctrine so it MUST be legitimate!

I never argued that. I've argued that:

(a) 1P is authentic.
(b) 1P supports Paul's teachings.

=> Hence the Apostles did not oppose Paul's teachings.
=> Hence Paul's teachings did not contradict what the Apostles had been taught by Christ himself.

No circular argument whatsoever.

Do you believe 2 Peter was written by the Apostle Peter as well? That document has been questioned since the earliest days of the Church, yet it also asserts in its body that it was written by Peter. Given the arguments in the wikipedia article and the great likelihood that Peter didn't write 2 Peter it also seems extremely likely he didn't write 1 Peter either.

This argument is not only bogus - it's also desparate. Whether 2 Peter was written by the Apostle Peter or not has no bearing on whether 1 Peter was written by the Apostle Peter unless you can first demonstrate that they both had the same author (and hence, if one is fake, both are fake). The logic you're using in the statement above boils down to "If it is know that 50% of $10 bills are counterfeit, it is extremely likely they all are".

Originally posted by frogstomp
1) no you're saying the power mad wing of christians succeeded in supressing it.
2) actually there are far more informative sites that that some actually have the full texts with cross references. If Thomas aint reliable then Matthew Mark Luke and Corinthians ait reliable either. When I want to read an opinion ...[text shortened]... k you're selling right up your bottom line .... I've actually read Ireneaus writings

Who cares if you're Iranaeus' writings or not? I don't need your CV - I'm not doing a job interview here.

Unless you plan to actually make an argument where Iranaeus' writings come into play, this is just a red herring.

1. No, I'm saying it was never widely used outside the Gnostic community.
2. Did you actually understand my argument? The versions of GTh available when the canonicity of Gospels was thrown into question were all hopelessly Gnostic.
3. Still doesn't make sense. Maybe it works better if you wrote it in Hebrew.
4. Alright - what is the non-asinine gnostic way of reading this, your Knowfulness?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] Try reading James 2. You've also failed to point to ANY writings of the original Apostles that support Paul's views on "faith only" which, are after all, were rejected and have been rejected by the Church forever!

I was wondering when you would come around to this. 🙂 Pauline Soteriology ...[text shortened]... to "If it is know that 50% of $10 bills are counterfeit, it is extremely likely they all are".[/b]

Let me ask you something in all seriousness: RBHILL, BF101 and other fundies have been quoting Paul for many months in support of THEIR (not my) claim that faith is all that is required for salvation. How come you never quoted this site to refute their views?

Now please read the title of this thread. Please consider that I have been giving Scriptural passages to refute THEIR view of Pauline dogma. If Paul does not state "faith alone" then, of course, there is no conflict. For some reason, our fundies have not barged into this thread with their usual Pauline passages which they claim support for "Faith only" and I am not prepared to go through the threads and find them. RB where are ya when we need ya?

2 Peter is relevant to 1 Peter because in both there is a claim of authorship by the Apostle Peter. If 2 Peter is bogus, then that increases the likelihood that 1 Peter is bogus as well; if 2 Peter is authored by Peter than that increases the likelihood that 1 Peter was as well. Your analogy is pretty stupid; there are only two Peter documents and unlike your $10 bills where we know 50% are authentic, we don't know if ANY of these are authentic i.e. written by Peter. It basically comes down to the weight of evidence and while reasonable minds may disagree, I still think that the weight of evidence cited by wikipedia makes Peter's authorship of 1 Peter unlikely.