Max Also Refutes James of the Bible?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

Will Max please explain how James is mistaken about doctrine?

"Basically, James didn't understand the concept of "faith alone" - just like many today."

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 29, 2004

Answers

So, Max, James was also in error?

Is that the reason Martin Luthern wanted to censor that book of the Bible?

How do you know that James did not understand the concept?

....................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 29, 2004.


I dunno rod.

Max, is sound anti-everything...I wonder who...Mr/Ms/Mrs Darity is..

Anyway, looks like Max should rescind the statement. It just won't work.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 29, 2004.


Mr. Darity

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

I keep misspelling "Luther"; I don't know why.

Evidently, Max is not going to answer my posts. I don't know why.

That's ok Max. You can ignore me if that makes you feel better.

But, I have been accused of making God a liar numerous times in this forum. I kind of figured that when a person makes the assertions that St. Peter and St. James are in error that kind brings that person to the same boat I've been put in.

It is a peculiar world we live in. Isn't it?

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 30, 2004.


Sorry, I don't have time to check this board as often as you'd like, rod. ;)

>I kind of figured that when a person makes the assertions that St. Peter and St. James are in error that kind brings that person to the same boat I've been put in.<

St. Paul asserted that St. Peter was in error before I ever did. You cannot deny this.

St. Peter was afraid of what friends of St. James would say about eating with non-Jews. You cannot deny this either.

If Peter was afraid of what friends of James would say, then it must be that James also had an imperfect view of the gospel.

Again, if friends of James could cause Peter to act hypocritical, then we cannot but conclude that James had an imperfect view of the gospel.

There's no way you can refute my position with logic - all you can do is hold an opinion that all the Apostles were perfectly one in their beliefs.

The very fact that there was a heated dispute that required a council meeting of Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem proves that there were misunderstandings and imperfect views of the gospel early on.

I'm of the opinion that James wrote his epistle before he came to a clearer understanding of the gospel - before the council and before Peter had his experience with the Gentiles receiving the Spirit by faith alone...

James' epistle should not be thrown out totally, but definitely read with Paul's "clearer" Apostolic letters in mind.

Thankfully, my salvation does not hinge on whether I accept James' epistle or not.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 01, 2004.



Max, I must make one point very clear as I leave this form for a week. I hope that you can ponder on this point for awhile in the hopes that you do not view St. Paul and St. James as a contradiction.

St. Paul presented doctrine that provided justification before God. St. James presented doctrine that provided justification before man. The two doctrines are not contradictory, but are in harmony with each other. Also, St. James presents to the "Catholic" conditions of all churches, while St. Paul addressed specific churches. The argument alluding to contradictions is similar to comparing apples with oranges.

I shall return, hopefully, by next week, Sunday.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 01, 2004.


James says we are not justified by faith alone. He was not merely speaking of how we are seen by other men.

You did not address the fact that James had a change in opinion later.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 01, 2004.


"St. Paul presented doctrine that provided justification before God. St. James presented doctrine that provided justification before man." - rod

Ok, I know I said I wasn't posting but I couldn't help it. rod, you are turning into a protestant ;)

Ask Kevin, and he says James 2:24 was God speaking. So I guess God contradicted himself. But yes you are right, God doesn't need 'works' as proof but man does.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 01, 2004.


David wrote, "God doesn't need 'works' as proof but man does"

God says in Deut 8:2, "And you shall remember that the LORD your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not."

Judg 2:20-22, "20 Then the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel; and He said, "Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and has not heeded My voice, 21 I also will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died, 22 so that through them I may test Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the LORD, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not."

Ex 16:4, "Then the LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you. And the people shall go out and gather a certain quota every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in My law or not."

2 Chron 32:31, "However, regarding the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, whom they sent to him to inquire about the wonder that was done in the land, God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart."

Ps 11:4-5, "4 The LORD is in His holy temple, The LORD's throne is in heaven; His eyes behold, His eyelids test the sons of men. 5 The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates."

There are more...

If God didn't need proof of our faith, He would not test us.

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), August 01, 2004.


>If God didn't need proof of our faith, He would not test us. <

Not one of your verses supports the idea that God is ignorant until He sees proof. Every verse you quoted (except the last one which proves that God tests those who He already knows are righteous) speaks about God testing us. Testing is obviously meant to manifest our heart in time and space. When I pray to God, He knows my prayer before I even ask, according to Jesus, but that doesn't mean He doesn't want me to ask.

He wants me to pray so that He can KNOW me in an experiential way. He wants me to pass tests so He can watch me succeed and experience good works - the fruits of a righteous heart. It's not that He doesn't know the state of our hearts, it's that He wants to experience our hearts' fruits... to know by experience whether we trust in Him or not. He wants to be able to say to His angels, "I told you He has a righteous heart - look at his works."

If you still insist that God does not know exactly what's in our hearts, you simply need to be informed that God already knows now what you're going to pray for tomorrow. God even knows exactly how you'll react to something he throws your way. He's not as ignorant as you suppose.

And you can misinterpret all day long, but the Lord knows the state of our hearts even before we say a word.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 02, 2004.



But, the topic is about James being mistaken about the full truth of the gospel at one point in his ministry, not about whether God is ignorant or not.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 02, 2004.

Max, I believe you answered Rod clearly on certain topics about James.

I know that's your opinion, Max, on James, that it was written before AD 49 (before the Council). I'm of the opinion that James wrote his epistle before he came to a clearer understanding of the gospel - before the council and before Peter had his experience with the Gentiles receiving the Spirit by faith alone...

My opinion is that James came after Paul's letter to the Romans, written by AD 57.Only Paul emphasized faith alone. This was James' response. Part of his letter is a rebuttal of faith only. Jam 2:14 What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Jam 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Jam 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Jam 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Jam 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Faith is Paul's premise in Romans.

Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Rom 3:27 Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

So James must date from at least AD 58 when Paul visited Jerusalem for the last time or later before AD 62, when James was stoned and clubbed to death.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), August 02, 2004.


I wrote, "If God didn't need proof of our faith, He would not test us."

To which Max replied, "Not one of your verses supports the idea that God is ignorant until He sees proof."

I never said that God was "ignorant until He sees proof". These are your words Max, not mine.

Max wrote, "Every verse you quoted (except the last one which proves that God tests those who He already knows are righteous) speaks about God testing us. Testing is obviously meant to manifest our heart in time and space."

Testing means that God wants to know if those who are being tested will obey His commandments for this is exactly what these verses state.

Max wrote, "When I pray to God, He knows my prayer before I even ask, according to Jesus, but that doesn't mean He doesn't want me to ask."

Saying a prayer has nothing to do with the fact that God tests us.

Max wrote, "He wants me to pray so that He can KNOW me in an experiential way."

Again, saying a prayer has nothing to do with being tested.

Max wrote, "He wants me to pass tests so He can watch me succeed and experience good works - the fruits of a righteous heart. It's not that He doesn't know the state of our hearts, it's that He wants to experience our hearts' fruits... to know by experience whether we trust in Him or not."

God tests us to see if we will actually do what He commands. Please tell everyone here Max why God has to "experience our hearts' fruits"??? Why does God need to "know by experience whether we trust in Him or not"???

Max wrote, "He wants to be able to say to His angels, "I told you He has a righteous heart - look at his works."

God does not need to say anything to His angels, this is merely your opinion.

Max wrote, "If you still insist that God does not know exactly what's in our hearts, you simply need to be informed that God already knows now what you're going to pray for tomorrow. God even knows exactly how you'll react to something he throws your way. He's not as ignorant as you suppose."

Again, I never said that God was "ignorant", these are your words Max not mine. God wants to see evidence of our faith towards Him, otherwise there would be no testing here on this earth.

Max wrote, "And you can misinterpret all day long, but the Lord knows the state of our hearts even before we say a word."

You have yet to prove that I have done any "misinterpreting".

Yes, the Lord knows our hearts, but He demands proof of our love for Him while we are here on this earth.

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), August 02, 2004.


>My opinion is that James came after Paul's letter to the Romans, written by AD 57.Only Paul emphasized faith alone. This was James' response. Part of his letter is a rebuttal of faith only. Jam 2:14 What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

So James must date from at least AD 58 when Paul visited Jerusalem for the last time or later before AD 62, when James was stoned and clubbed to death.<

Your opinion has no logic behind it. Your opinion is based solely on the idea that it is a rebuttal to Paul - but there's no ground to your claim whatsoever. Did you consider that Galatians is a rebuttal to James and the circumcision group based in Jerusalem?

James changed his opinion. Paul never changed his opinion. This is the main fact you have to deal with. If Paul never changed his opinion, but James did, then whose epistles are you going to trust more?

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 02, 2004.


>I never said that God was "ignorant until He sees proof". These are your words Max, not mine.<

You don't have to say something in order to infer it. You claim that God "needs" proof in order to know. "Not knowing" is ignorance. You said it... unless you meant something else by "God needs proof."

>Testing means that God wants to know if those who are being tested will obey His commandments for this is exactly what these verses state.<

Not necessarily.

>Saying a prayer has nothing to do with the fact that God tests us.<

You didn't get the point. If God can know what is in our hearts, He can know whether we have enough faith etc. God is omniscient.

>Again, saying a prayer has nothing to do with being tested.<

You missed the obvious point. God knows our hearts.

>Please tell everyone here Max why God has to "experience our hearts' fruits"??? Why does God need to "know by experience whether we trust in Him or not"???<

God does not NEED. God desires to know or experience. God is pleased when we do good. God is pleased when we obey Him - because it manifests His Nature within us.

Summing it up: God desires it. God does not NEED it.

>God does not need to say anything to His angels, this is merely your opinion<

Why is everything with God based on NEEDS to you? God obviously doesn't NEED to do anything. He does, however, have DESIRES and one desire is to glorify Himself through Christ and His saints.

Sum up: God doesn't need to glorify Himself. He just likes it.

> God wants to see evidence of our faith towards Him, otherwise there would be no testing here on this earth.<

I agree. God WANTS to see evidence of our faith. God does not NEED to see evidence of our faith. There's a big difference.

>Yes, the Lord knows our hearts, but He demands proof of our love for Him while we are here on this earth. <

God wants a love that is free and spontaneous... because it's in our new nature to manifest the fruits of the Spirit, not because we're under His thumb - sitting on the edge between heaven and hell.

God calls us to live up to who we are.

The term "demands" sounds coercive, as if God has to force us to give what we may not otherwise give.

Sum up: God WANTS to see us manifest fruit because it brings Him glory in the created world. He does not NEED it in order to know whether or not we have a righteous heart.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 03, 2004.



Max, James made some allowances on food and circumcision for gentiles only. I Corinthians came after the Council of 49 AD. Paul still speaks of divisions within the Corinthian Church. Apollos and Cephas (Peter) belong to the judaizing party. Notice that Paul has to defend his apostleship. 1Cr 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1Cr 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

1Cr 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

1Cr 9:2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

1Cr 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. The same thing Paul does in 2 Corinthians. Probably written by 55-56 AD . This time Paul complains that his people at Corinth are becoming more jewish in their beliefs. He accuses James foloweres, but not by name, of teaching a false Gospel, and James , Peter, and John of being false apostles, it seems. What gets him infuraiated is that people were claiming Paul did not have revelations from Christ. So the Corinthians demand proof. 2Cr 11:22 Are they Hebrews? so [am] I. Are they Israelites? so [am] I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so [am] I.

2Cr 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].

2Cr 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

2Cr 13:3 Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you.

2Cr 11:13 For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

2Cr 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

2Cr 11:15 Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

2Cr 11:23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I [am] more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.

Again in Timothy which I date around 55 -58 AD but most date in the 60s and 70s, again Paul has to deal with thse who teach the Law and its works.

1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

Even Acts, written during Paul's imprisonment AD 58-60 in Caesarea shows that when Paul arrived to see James in Jerusalem, James not only told him that he heard Paul was telling the Jews to abandon their religion but many more stuff. He forced Paul to purify himself following a Jewish ritual. Not even at Rome he ever got anything from James.

This shows that the confrontation between these two men wasn't over. Once Paul was arrested, James never came to defend him. Even some of Paul's fellow workers and friends abandoned him.

2Ti 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.

2Ti 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.

2Ti 4:12 And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus. words.

2Ti 4:16 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all [men] forsook me: [I pray God] that it may not be laid to their charge.

So Max, Paul and James had a feud that never ended until both of them died. The feud on faith and works.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@ahoo.com), August 03, 2004.


Max,

The fact remains that God requires evidence of our faith and those who do not obey, God will punish.

The argument that God does not "need" proof is irrelevant as He does require proof of one's faith.

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), August 03, 2004.


>James made some allowances on food and circumcision for gentiles only.<

Not for Gentiles only. It was for all the churches. There was no such thing as Jew churches and Gentile churches.

>I Corinthians came after the Council of 49 AD. Paul still speaks of divisions within the Corinthian Church. Apollos and Cephas (Peter) belong to the judaizing party. Notice that Paul has to defend his apostleship.<

I must me dense. I don't see the point. Unless you mean he's defending his apostleship because he had to prove he was just as good as James and Peter.

>He accuses James foloweres, but not by name, of teaching a false Gospel, and James , Peter, and John of being false apostles, it seems.<

It seems? Hmmm... there are other possibilities. There were those who rejected the council's conclusions and these were the ones whom Paul was talking about. What about the 500 that saw Jesus after He rose from the dead? There could have been some bad eggs in that lot who thought they had superior authority to Paul's simply because they saw the risen Christ.

>What gets him infuraiated is that people were claiming Paul did not have revelations from Christ. So the Corinthians demand proof. <

Which is sort of understandable, except for the manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit that proved his Apostleship when he first introduced them to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

>Even Acts, written during Paul's imprisonment AD 58-60 in Caesarea shows that when Paul arrived to see James in Jerusalem, James not only told him that he heard Paul was telling the Jews to abandon their religion but many more stuff.<

Are you serious?

>He forced Paul to purify himself following a Jewish ritual.<

He was a Jew. It was no problem... that's his culture and heritage. A gentile ought not be forced to live as a Jew, though.

>So Max, Paul and James had a feud that never ended until both of them died. The feud on faith and works.<

I believe it was difficult for Jews and Gentiles to relate then... after centuries of hatred and division between the two. There was obviously some misunderstandings, but I believe Paul to be the most trustworthy Apostle to base your doctrine upon.

Whenever you read James, you have to realize that his apostleship was unto the Jews. He and Peter clearly had an experience (a revelation Paul had before them) that made them realize that Gentiles were to be accepted too if they had faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 04, 2004.


>those who do not obey, God will punish<

You'd better pull out your trusty unwritten "trying clause" here... cause if you think obedience has to do with what you do with your physical body... I'm sorry to inform you that you fall squarely into the "disobedient" category - no offense. It's true and you know it.

God will punish those who do not have a right attitude toward Him. Period. The punishment will be according to the measure of sins.

God will welcome those who have a right attitude toward Him. Period. The reward will be according to the measure of good deeds.

>The argument that God does not "need" proof is irrelevant as He does require proof of one's faith. <

God does not require proof in the sense that you think. God wants His children to manifest the Light He has placed within them. God's true children WILL manifest the Light by their deeds - in order to glorify their Father - not in order to avoid hell. Avoiding hell is not even on the mind of a true child of God... just glorifying God is.

God's children need no threat of hellfire. They would love God even if there was no heaven or hell.

Think about that....

Do you do good deeds simply to avoid hell or gain heaven? If so, your motivation is selfish and not out of love for God, but is ultimately out of love for your own self.

Or do you do good deeds because you love God and you'd do them even if heaven and hell did not exist?

Let's take the spiritual challenge even further...

Would you do good deeds with a heart of love for God even if it meant you were going to end up in hell?

If you do good deeds simply to avoid hell, you barely (if even) know what it is to obey God from a heart of love and a heart of trust. You do not do good simply because it's good and right and it's within your nature to align yourself with those things - because you love those things. You simply do good things because you imagine it will benefit yourself in the end. If...

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 04, 2004.


Max wrote, "You'd better pull out your trusty unwritten "trying clause" here... cause if you think obedience has to do with what you do with your physical body... I'm sorry to inform you that you fall squarely into the "disobedient" category - no offense. It's true and you know it."

Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere Max. :-)

Max wrote, "God will punish those who do not have a right attitude toward Him. Period. The punishment will be according to the measure of sins."

We will be judged by our works by what is written. (Revelation 20:12)

Max wrote, "God will welcome those who have a right attitude toward Him. Period. The reward will be according to the measure of good deeds."

God will reward those who do what He says. (John 14:21).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), August 06, 2004.


St. Paul was dealing with believers of the "law" who believed the "law" was the fundamentals of Salvation. St. Paul and St. James had the same basic doctrine. St. James was dealing with believers of "faith alone" doctrine as the fundamental of Salvation. Both Paul and James agreed with faith and works as one doctrine for Salvation. God requires both, but it is up to man to determine how to follow His doctrine, I suppose. Non-Catholics will place "works" on a different plane with varying pertinance/importance, but ultimately "works" are inevitable.

....................... .....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 06, 2004.


I think that is a good explanation Rod. I find it hard to separate "faith" and "works" for someone who loves Christ. It always seemed to be an artificial distinction to me.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 06, 2004.

I've had to battle with that distinction, until it finally hit me like a truck. I'm sure Jim and many Catholics have made the same assertions. I've even heard some non-Catholics make the same sound. The problem I see is that some Protestants don't make such claims, yet they live by the same doctrine to some degree. Maybe, they should just change the word "works" to something less Catholic in tone. :)

..........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 06, 2004.


Rod

That really sounds reasonable.

I had been attributing the argument as the remains of one that may have been going on between Paul and James (with Peter as intermediary.)

I think the idea that they actually agreed about faith and works but were writing to different groups holding differing views makes more sense.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), August 07, 2004.


I can't see God allowing for two conflicting doctrines existing in the Holy Scriptures, so there must have been extenuating circumstances to prove that one doctrine is true and that both men are still true to that doctrine. St. Paul and St. James are that proof.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 07, 2004.


I don't believe there are two conflicting doctrines and it wouldn't be "extenuating" to prove that there is only one doctrine. What I write now should apply to the Peter thread as well to show that Peter, James, and Paul were not preaching disparate doctrines.

They taught the same Gospel

NIV Gal 2:6

As for those who seemed to be important--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance-- those men added nothing to my message.

notice in KJV Gal 2:6

But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me

Both "to my message" and "to me" is unnecessary, the original text does not have an object for the verb "add". However, we understand it to mean Paul's message or gospel because Paul talks about it in Gal 2:2 KJV:

And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

This is borne out by verse 7:

But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter

James and Peter added nothing to Paul's gospel because they were preaching the same. How can there be two different truths? There can only be one. The next verse, v8 bears this out:

(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

Who is this "he"? Was God confused? No! There was only one gospel - the gospel of truth!

. .. ...

Now, the matter of the Peter and Gal 2:11-14

We know from Gal 2:4 that there were interlopers, spies and false disciples:

And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage

..verse 12:

For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

It's certain Peter the people from verse ,4 "spies and interlopers", because he would not have feared those who were being taught and held to the same gospel as Paul's! Furthermore, fear of harm, hurt, death in itself is an instinct and a human frailty. As leader of the Apostles, Peter surely needed that rebuke. However, he didn't say anything, teach anything, preach anything against the Gentile- Christians. He reacted out of fear, not of them, but of people who would harm him.

Paul's rebuke in verse 14 doesn't carry any weight of sin on it. However, we're forced to live with yet another KJV translation error:

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Both the NASB and NIV does not say why, but how as does the Vulgate, DR, NAB-catholic, etc. The trouble is using a text that has such a translation error. Or maybe the word "why" was used differently in the 17th century? I think not, but let's give it a shove for ole Pete's sake.

The difference this makes to our understanding is tremendous. On the one hand, "why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews" says that Peter did force Gentiles to live as Jews. On the other hand, "how can you compel Gentiles to live as Jews" becomes metaphorical, "to live as Jews" meaning to live as "the chosen people" while compel does not have to mean "force" but rather "urge". This understanding bears itself out in the same verse because Paul refers to "walking upright in the truth of the Gospel" - to be Christian, the chosen people.

If Paul had really wanted to say Peter was sinning, he would not have followed with verse 15:

We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles

Notice that Jews are sinners as are Christian Jews. It should be implicitly understood to say, "we who are sinners of the Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles." The explicit comparison is not between sinless and sinful - against the backdrop of Peter's actions - but between Gentiles and Jews.

We have seen in verse 12 that Peter did eat with the Gentiles. So, the KJV translation becomes better justified in this understanding - "why do you urge them to (behave like Jews) not fraternize". Therefore, the only conclusion is that Peter behaved inconsistently and not sinfully.

Hopefully, this addresses the heterodoxical view that the Apostles were heterodox and their God-given Gospels was also heterdox!

. .. ...

On another note, KJV Rom 9:13

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Where does the bold text come from? It's in the NASB also but it's not in the Septuagint or the Vulgate. Could it be from a Hebrew manuscript...explanations for doctrinal purposes should be done with footnotes not by adding to the Word of God.

God Bless!



-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 07, 2004.


"why do you urge them to (behave like Jews) not fraternize"

or to make an already long explanation longer...Peter(a Jew), ate with Gentiles(in the manner of Gentiles). If Peter ate with the Gentiles, why is he acting so that "they/them/Barnabas et al" would not eat with Gentiles. That's all Paul is saying.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 07, 2004.


A correction:

Both "to my message" and "to me" is unnecessary, the original text does not have an object for the verb "add

indirect object - dative case. The object of the verb add is "nothing".

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 08, 2004.


Makes a lot of sense, Vincent.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 08, 2004.


Wow Vincent. What an indepth study! What you said makes sense to me too.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 08, 2004.

Andy, since when do you have a new email?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2004.

Yea, I got rid of the Earthlink email recently. I have new personal email with my new ISP, but I use the yahoo email when I post.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 08, 2004.

Are you the one in the Air Force? That had to pay that fee for the internet thing?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2004.

That's me :)

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 08, 2004.

Oh ok, I got your email.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 08, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ