A Study on the Book of James

[OzSpen]

Oh, Oz!
I did a whole "wall'o'text" to explain what it took you a couple of lines!

Perhaps I ought to go back to bed...

The Barrd,

Thank you for your compliment. May the Lord help us to know his Word and to express it as clearly as possible.

However, perhaps it has as much to do with the fact that I was hurrying to finish what I wrote as my wife was calling for breakfast. One of our sons and his family are with us for a couple of days. The household is rather busy - both boys (14 & 16) and Dad don't go anywhere without their laptops. All of them love the Lord. The 16 year old, Joseph, and I had some in-depth discussions yesterday on theological and apologetic topics. He's a fan of C S Lewis and we bought him 3 Lewis' books for his birthday this month.

In interpreting the Book of James (which is included in the topic of this thread), we need to understand that Scripture interprets Scripture and Col 3:11 (ESV) gives us the biblical perspective on Jews vs Gentiles, etc: 'Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave,free; but Christ is all, and in all'. So the Book of James while addressed to Christian Jews who were scattered is meant for all since 'there is not Greek and Jew', etc in God's kingdom.

Blessings from Down Under,
Oz

 

[H. Richard]

Richard,

I have never tried to shut you up. I have tried to present a view that has challenged your perspective.

Mentioning the RCC is a poisoning the well logical fallacy tactic. We cannot have a logical discussion when you engage in that kind of illogical reasoning.

Oz

Isn't it a fact that the RCC burned Tilton at the stake for publishing his Bible? Isn't it a fact that they also burned others for trying to get the scriptures to people or is that just what the protestants thought up?.

 

[H. Richard]

Richard,

Your view seems myopic. Jesus did minister to Gentiles. See, 'Did Jesus come only for the Jews and not the Gentiles?' (GotQuestions?) His death was for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2 ESV) - and that includes all Gentiles.

Oz

Okay, so you don't believe Jesus said those words. I do. Jesus said that He only came to the "lost sheep of ISRAEL. I will believe Jesus period.

Got Questions site: "Jesus is the Messiah that the Jews had been anticipating for centuries (see Luke 2:25; 3:15). As such, He was born into a Jewish family and was reared according to Jewish law in a Jewish town (see Luke 2:27; Galatians 4:4). Jesus selected Jewish disciples, spoke in Jewish synagogues and the Jewish temple, and traveled mostly in Jewish areas. His mission, in fulfillment of the Jewish prophets, was to the Jewish people. However, none of this means that Jesus’ ministry was limited exclusively to the Jews."

The answer above contradiction the scriptures and therefore is a man's fabrication.

 

[OzSpen]

Isn't it a fact that the RCC burned Tilton at the stake for publishing his Bible? Isn't it a fact that they also burned others for trying to get the scriptures to people or is that just what the protestants thought up?.

Richard,

Please understand the nature of a red herring logical fallacy. That's exactly what you have done in your response to me. We cannot have a logical conversation when you engage in using the illogic of a logical fallacy. Your reasoning is fallacious in your response to me.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Okay, so you don't believe Jesus said those words. I do. Jesus said that He only came to the "lost sheep of ISRAEL. I will believe Jesus period.

Got Questions site: "Jesus is the Messiah that the Jews had been anticipating for centuries (see Luke 2:25; 3:15). As such, He was born into a Jewish family and was reared according to Jewish law in a Jewish town (see Luke 2:27; Galatians 4:4). Jesus selected Jewish disciples, spoke in Jewish synagogues and the Jewish temple, and traveled mostly in Jewish areas. His mission, in fulfillment of the Jewish prophets, was to the Jewish people. However, none of this means that Jesus’ ministry was limited exclusively to the Jews."

The answer above contradiction the scriptures and therefore is a man's fabrication.

Richard,

Now read the rest of the GotQuestions? article that states:

The fact that Jesus helped the Canaanite woman, even though His mission was to the Jews, is a significant detail in the Gospel narrative. Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus gave other indications that His power and compassion reached to all people. He healed a Roman centurion’s servant (Luke 7:1–10). He traveled through the Gentile region of the Gerasenes (Mark 5:1). He ministered in a Samaritan city (John 4).

Jesus came to save everybody (1 John 2:2). Jesus Christ is God Himself (John 1:1). Jesus died on the cross as the payment for all our sins, and He rose from death in resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). Jesus said He was the Good Shepherd, and He predicted that His flock would be greatly expanded: “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd” (John 10:16).

It took a while for the early church to recognize that salvation was available to the Gentiles. The Jewish Christians who fled the persecution in Jerusalem went into the Gentile regions of Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, but they were “spreading the word only among Jews” (Acts 11:19). Peter was hesitant to bring the gospel to a Gentile household, but God made it plain that Cornelius was also one of the elect (Acts 10).

“Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too” (Romans 3:29). Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, but He had come to offer salvation to everybody. The Messiah was to be a “light for the Gentiles” (Isaiah 42:6). So call on Jesus, because “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21).

This refutes the position you are trying to maintain. Here we have Jesus, the Messiah, sent to the Jews who ministered to Gentiles and died for the whole world of Jews and Gentiles.

Please! Please! read and imbibe all of the article for which I provide a link. You have confirmed what I stated about your myopic tendency. You have censored part of the Got Questions? article.

Do you have any idea on who might be the one who has invented a man's fabrication? Could it be you and your tendency to only read half of the GotQuestions? article?

Oz

 

[mjrhealth]

Ozpen they are right, Jesus only presched to teh Jews, it was not til later when Peter had teh vision with the sheets that teh discoiples where sent to teh gentiles. Just like this bit.

Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
Mat 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

 

[H. Richard]

Richard,

Now read the rest of the GotQuestions? article that states:

This refutes the position you are trying to maintain. Here we have Jesus, the Messiah, sent to the Jews who ministered to Gentiles and died for the whole world of Jews and Gentiles.

Do you have any idea on who might be the one who has invented a man's fabrication? Could it be you and your tendency to only read half of the GotQuestions? article?

Oz

Or could it be you that is listening to other men to do your Bible studying for you? Accusations are not beneficial? Is this how you debate by trying to set your theology better than others?:

To rationalize and make assumptions concerning the scriptures is not studying them as what they say but what man wants them to say. Paul wrote the book of Galatians trying to keep the Gentile converts to NOT GO BACK UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES. Those Jews who were scattered were telling the Gentile converts that they had to be circumcised
and follow the Law of Moses. These Jews were Judaizers and it looks to me that they won out because today most of the churches are teaching the works of the law as necessary for salvation.

Gal 3:2-3
2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?
NKJV

Gal 3:7-11
7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.
8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."
9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
The Law Brings a Curse 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."
11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith."
NKJV ---foreseeing, would, beforehand are words that indicate a future event

James wrote that Abraham was righteous in God's eyes only after Abraham offered up his (Abraham's) son as a sacrifice. But according to the scriptures Abraham was accounted as righteous before God BEFORE ISSAC was born. ____ Both can't be right.

 

[H. Richard]

Richard,

I have never tried to shut you up. I have tried to present a view that has challenged your perspective.

Mentioning the RCC is a poisoning the well logical fallacy tactic. We cannot have a logical discussion when you engage in that kind of illogical reasoning.

Oz

I made no accusations. If you will reread my reply you will see the ? marks. I was asking a question, not making an accusation.

 

[OzSpen]

Or could it be you that is listening to other men to do your Bible studying for you? Accusations are not beneficial? Is this how you debate by trying to set your theology better than others?:

To rationalize and make assumptions concerning the scriptures is not studying them as what they say but what man wants them to say. Paul wrote the book of Galatians trying to keep the Gentile converts to NOT GO BACK UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES. Those Jews who were scattered were telling the Gentile converts that they had to be circumcised
and follow the Law of Moses. These Jews were Judaizers and it looks to me that they won out because today most of the churches are teaching the works of the law as necessary for salvation.

Gal 3:2-3
2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?
NKJV

Gal 3:7-11
7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.
8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."
9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
The Law Brings a Curse 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."
11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith."
NKJV ---foreseeing, would, beforehand are words that indicate a future event

James wrote that Abraham was righteous in God's eyes only after Abraham offered up his (Abraham's) son as a sacrifice. But according to the scriptures Abraham was accounted as righteous before God BEFORE ISSAC was born. ____ Both can't be right.

Richard,

You are using another red herring fallacy. We cannot have a logical conversation when you use this kind of fallacious reasoning. If you continue to use logical fallacies, I will not reply to you as reasonable discussion is impossible when you do this.

Oz

 

[H. Richard]

Richard,

You are using another red herring fallacy. We cannot have a logical conversation when you use this kind of fallacious reasoning. If you continue to use logical fallacies, I will not reply to you as reasonable discussion is impossible when you do this.

Oz

Then don't reply. What you are saying is that if I don't reply with what you believe I shouldn't reply. Again, please do not reply. I believe it will be imposable for us to enter into a meaningful discussion since all you wish to do is criticize how I write rather than discuss ideas that I write. All you seem to do is talk about me and I am not interested in doing that.

This was said by you on my study of Acts 21:20-21 thread: Quote " "Richard,

Why don't you summarise your issue into 3 quick points - be brief - and pose the issues you want to raise. What you have written here is too complex and detailed for me.
If you want to engage me, I ask you to be brief in proposing a couple of points of content you want to pursue.
Oz"

And so far this is all you wish to do.


I believe you are of the RCC doctrine and have never been able to discuss anything with a person in that church because they will not recognize the scriptures in the Bible as being the final words from God. They believe in what men have added over the years.

 

[H. Richard]

In my post #90 I left out a word " i "

I believe you are of the RCC doctrine and "" I ""have never been able to discuss anything with a person in that church because they will not recognize the scriptures in the Bible as being the final words from God. They believe in what men have added over the years.

Sorry about that.

 

[OzSpen]

Then don't reply. What you are saying is that if I don't reply with what you believe I shouldn't reply. Again, please do not reply. I believe it will be imposable for us to enter into a meaningful discussion since all you wish to do is criticize how I write rather than discuss ideas that I write. All you seem to do is talk about me and I am not interested in doing that.

This was said by you on my study of Acts 21:20-21 thread: Quote " "Richard,

Why don't you summarise your issue into 3 quick points - be brief - and pose the issues you want to raise. What you have written here is too complex and detailed for me.
If you want to engage me, I ask you to be brief in proposing a couple of points of content you want to pursue.
Oz"

And so far this is all you wish to do.


I believe you are of the RCC doctrine and have never been able to discuss anything with a person in that church because they will not recognize the scriptures in the Bible as being the final words from God. They believe in what men have added over the years.

Richard,

Please learn how you abort logical discussion by your use of a red herring logical fallacy. If you read that link, it will assist you to know what you do to engage in fallacious reasoning that avoids the topic I raised.

Oz

 

[H. Richard]

Richard,

Please learn how you abort logical discussion by your use of a red herring logical fallacy. If you read that link, it will assist you to know what you do to engage in fallacious reasoning that avoids the topic I raised.

Oz

Why are you still replying to me when you said you wouldn't unless I correct my writing to conform to your ideas?

 

[OzSpen]

Why are you still replying to me when you said you wouldn't unless I correct my writing to conform to your ideas?

Richard,

This is another example of your not understanding the tactic you use with logical fallacies. It has nothing, zero to do with correcting your writing to conform to my ideas. Zilch!

It has to do with your reasoning when you write - a tactic you have used with me.

What is a logical fallacy? 20WL Online Writing Lab (Purdue University) provides this definition:

Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others (‘Logical Fallacies‘).

This Purdue University link gives examples of these logical fallacies, naming of them and how they are used.

I hope you take the time to read the content of that link so that you understand what tactics you use to avoid dealing with the content of what I write.

It has nothing to do with my wanting to correct your writing to conform to what I want. Why are you twisting what I write?

Oz

 

[H. Richard]

Richard,

This is another example of your not understanding the tactic you use with logical fallacies. It has nothing, zero to do with correcting your writing to conform to my ideas. Zilch!

It has to do with your reasoning when you write - a tactic you have used with me.

What is a logical fallacy? 20WL Online Writing Lab (Purdue University) provides this definition:

This Purdue University link gives examples of these logical fallacies, naming of them and how they are used.

I hope you take the time to read the content of that link so that you understand what tactics you use to avoid dealing with the content of what I write.

It has nothing to do with my wanting to correct your writing to conform to what I want. Why are you twisting what I write?

Oz

You flatter yourself. The only thing you have written to me are to criticize how I write, You have said absolutely nothing about the subjects in my writing. If you can't contribute to the thread then get off of it.

 

[OzSpen]

You flatter yourself. The only thing you have written to me are to criticize how I write, You have said absolutely nothing about the subjects in my writing. If you can't contribute to the thread then get off of it.

Richard,

So, you are not prepared to listen to how your tactics on this forum get in the way of reasonable conversation?

 

[Barrd]

You flatter yourself. The only thing you have written to me are to criticize how I write, You have said absolutely nothing about the subjects in my writing. If you can't contribute to the thread then get off of it.

Christians should not be rude.

 

[FHII]

Christians should not be rude.

Does that include "so called Christians"?

Am I a so called Christian, Barrd?

 

[Barrd]

Does that include "so called Christians"?

Am I a so called Christian, Barrd?

I wouldn't know, Richard.

But I know Who does...

 

[FHII]

I wouldn't know, Richard.

But I know Who does...

You made an oopsy!