So, why is god punishing me?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I see you've substituted the words "circular arguments" for "disingenous" in your posts these days.

For all your screaming about Christian "logic", your own post presents none. Present your case on the differences between Rom 5 and Jas 3 and why you think they are contradictory, then we can examine the evidence.

Also, I see you have chosen to completely ignore the matter of the timing of James.

Of what possible difference does it make anyway when it was written?? I thought the Holy Spirit told them what to say and there can't be contradictions! LOL!

Are you saying the author James wasn't the same person identified as Jesus' brother and the head of the Church of Jerusalem in Acts and Josephus' histories? If he wasn't who the heck was he and why is HIS writing elevated to the Jesus'?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Do I have to pull up the Pauling quotes that RBHILL, Darfius, BF101 and the rest use to prove that faith alone is sufficient for salvation?

You're preaching to the choir (in a manner of speaking) on this matter. Paul himself makes it clear that the "justifying faith" he talks about in Rom 2 is [declarative] faith working through love (1 Co 13:3, Ga 5:6).

Which, of course, is exactly what James is talking about as well.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of what possible difference does it make anyway when it was written?? I thought the Holy Spirit told them what to say and there can't be contradictions! LOL!

Plenty of difference in theological emphasis (though the doctrine itself would be the same). Paul was writing to a skeptical audience that believed that salvation could be "earned" by being good - so he says faith is necessary (and clarifies elsewhere that this faith has to be supported by love/works). The author of James is writing to an audience that has gone to the other extreme based on a fundamentalist interpretation of Romans - so he says works are necessary (though he makes it clear that faith is also needed).

You don't need a "secret decoder ring" to see that they're talking about the same doctrine. Just common sense.

Are you saying the author James wasn't the same person identified as Jesus' brother and the head of the Church of Jerusalem in Acts and Josephus' histories? If he wasn't who the heck was he and why is HIS writing elevated to the Jesus'?

Because (whoever he is), the Church identified his writings as being Inspired. The Church, in turn, was directly vested with teaching authority by Christ through the Apostles.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Oh really? Which "doctrine" is Paul criticising Peter on?

If you read the context of the verse you'll see it's quite clear that it's Peter's hypocrisy (given his stand at the Council of Jerusalem) that Paul is criticising. Do you have any evidence to indicate the contrary?

If not, then quit the sarcasm. You're only making yourself look like a person afraid of substantial discussion.

Oh, yes the "context" of the verse. ALL the Bible must be read in "context" to eliminate any possible differences.

I'd say that Paul criticizing the person who Jesus personally made the head of the Church is setting himself OVER both Peter and Jesus. And that's where your doctrines put him. The Church of Jerusalem, headed by James unlike Paul, one of the Apostles, kept the Jewish holidays and practices. Paul said they were no longer necessary; the "law" was overturned by him hook, line and sinker.

While you're yapping about "substantial discussion" I'd like to see your proof the Paul's revelation and authority were accepted by the actual Apostles. You claimed it, but it's BS. But by all means take a shot.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] Of what possible difference does it make anyway when it was written?? I thought the Holy Spirit told them what to say and there can't be contradictions! LOL!

Plenty of differ ...[text shortened]... tly vested with teaching authority by Christ through the Apostles.[/b]

Romans 3:28 is saying your faith must be supported by works?

We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] Of what possible difference does it make anyway when it was written?? I thought the Holy Spirit told them what to say and there can't be contradictions! LOL!

Plenty of difference in theological emphasis (though the doctrine itself would be the same). Paul was writing to a skeptical audience th ...[text shortened]... The Church, in turn, was directly vested with teaching authority by Christ through the Apostles.[/b]

The Church, in turn, was directly vested with teaching authority by Christ through the Apostles

Except, of course, when Paul disagreed with them.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Oh, yes the "context" of the verse. ALL the Bible must be read in "context" to eliminate any possible differences.

I'd say that Paul criticizing the person who Jesus personally made the head of the Church is settin ...[text shortened]... stles. You claimed it, but it's BS. But by all means take a shot.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Oh, yes the "context" of the verse. ALL the Bible must be read in "context" to eliminate any possible differences.

No - they must be read in context to understand what the author intends to convey. That's just common sense.

I'd say that Paul criticizing the person who Jesus personally made the head of the Church is setting himself OVER both Peter and Jesus.

As I said before, Peter was infallible, not impeccable. Criticising his personal conduct is not the same as questioning his authority. Any more than the NY Times' questioning of Clinton's affairs with White House interns constitutes a questioning of his authority as President.

Please don't make such naive arguments.

And that's where your doctrines put him. The Church of Jerusalem, headed by James unlike Paul, one of the Apostles, kept the Jewish holidays and practices. Paul said they were no longer necessary; the "law" was overturned by him hook, line and sinker.

If you read over the account of the Council of Jerusalem, it was Peter who pointed out that these practices were not an essential aspect of the new faith.

While you're yapping about "substantial discussion" I'd like to see your proof the Paul's revelation and authority were accepted by the actual Apostles. You claimed it, but it's BS. But by all means take a shot.

Sure.

1. (c. 39 AD) Right after Paul's conversion, he joined the Apostles in Jerusalem in preaching the Gospel (Ac 9:26-28). In fact, it is the fact that Jesus had personally revealed Himself to Paul that convinces the Apostles that his conversion was genuine.

2. (c. 49 AD) A few years later, when the question of circumcision for gentile Christians comes up, Paul and Barnabas travel to Jerusalem for the Council there. Not only are they welcomed by the Apostles (Ac 15:4) and Paul's position confirmed (by Peter, no less, in Ac 15:8-12), but the affirmation of Paul is made in the letter the Church at Antioch as well (Ac 15:26).

Note: It is in this intervening period that he writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans and Phillipians.

3. (c. 58 AD) On his third trip back to Jerusalem still a few years later, he is welcomed back by the Apostle James (Ac 21:21) - Peter has, of course, moved on to Rome by this time.

Add to this the references from Romans and Ephesians in 1 Peter (which, unlike 2 Peter, has a very strong case for Petrine authorship) and you get a consistent picture of a man whose authority was well established throughout the Church and amongst the Apostles.

EDIT: For obvious reasons I'm not including any citations from the Pauline epistles themselves.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Romans 3:28 is saying your faith must be supported by works?

We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Once again, read the context.

"So what becomes of our boasts? There is no room for them. On what principle - that only actions count? No; that faith is what counts, since, as we see it , a person is justified by faith and not by doing what the Law tells him to do (LH: This is the verse you quoted).

Are we saying that the Law has been made pointless by faith? Out of the question; we are placing the Law on its true footing" (Rom 3:27-28,31. NJB)

That Paul is talking about a living faith here is clear when one looks at verses like Rom 8:2 and Gal 5:6.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Church, in turn, was directly vested with teaching authority by Christ through the Apostles

Except, of course, when Paul disagreed with them.

Such as?

And don't keep harping on about Paul chiding Peter on his personal conduct. Most people have no problem differentiating between a criticism of the exercise of one's office and one's personal conduct.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Such as?

And don't keep harping on about Paul chiding Peter on his personal conduct. Most people have no problem differentiating between a criticism of the exercise of one's office and one's personal conduct.

Galatians 2: 14:

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL, I said unto Cephas before them all,

Personal conduct my a**.

[i/]Originally posted by lucifershammer[/i]
[b/]Once again, read the context.

"So what becomes of our boasts? There is no room for them. On what principle - that only actions count? No; that faith is what counts, since, as we see it , [i/]a person is justified by fait ...[text shortened]... h here is clear when one looks at verses like Rom 8:2 and Gal 5:6.[/b]

Galatians 2:16:

16 yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

We both know there are plenty more; the doctrine of faith being sufficient for salvation is central to the mainstream Protestant churches. Martin Luther wanted to excise the Book of James for being inconsistent with it.Have a holy war with dj2bexcker about it.

And "faith is what counts" from your cite.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b/] Oh, yes the "context" of the verse. ALL the Bible must be read in "context" to eliminate any possible differences.

No - they must be read in context to understand what th ...[text shortened]... not including any citations from the Pauline epistles themselves.[/b]

Where pray tell in any of that is the idea that Paul's authority was equal or greater than the Apostles?? In Acts 9:26 he is "sent" to preach to the Gentiles. Mind you Acts was apparently written by the same author as Luke, who was a Pauline. Acts 21 has an interesting story was Paul is chastised for his practices in converting the Gentiles and made to do various purification rites. That doesn't sound like he had equal or greater authority, does it?

EDIT: And in Acts 15 who does the speaking that sets the Church's policy? Is it: A) Peter and James; or B) Paul?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Where pray tell in any of that is the idea that Paul's authority was equal or greater than the Apostles?? In Acts 9:26 he is "sent" to preach to the Gentiles. Mind you Acts was apparently written by the same author as Luke, who was a Pauline. Acts 21 has an interesting story was Paul is chastised for his practices in converting the Gentiles an ...[text shortened]... 15 who does the speaking that sets the Church's policy? Is it: A) Peter and James; or B) Paul?

Discussion between Peter, Paul and Mary.
Mary with a puzzled look : What is "kephas?"
Peter, in a apostolic voice : "I am a rock"

Paul :" Yeah and I'm Paul Simon. Oh btw Stephen found out how good I am with rocks , so you best humor me"

By whose authority was "works" changed to "works in the law"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Galatians 2: 14:

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL, I said unto Cephas before them all,

Personal conduct my a**.

Personal conduct my a**.

What do you think "walked not uprightly" ("not acting in line with the truth of the gospel" in the NIV) means? Is he challenging Peter's authority to teach definitively Christian doctrine? Is he challenging Peter's primacy and position of authority as Pope?

Of course not.

As I said before, just because the NY Times criticises Clinton for his personal conduct, it does not mean that they are challenging his authority as President. This is glaringly obvious.