Ephesians 3. Paul vs The Other Apostles & Prophets

[BloodBought 1953]

Paul mentions three times "my gospel". He could have said our gospel or the gospel. Makes one think Paul's gospel was different. I think it was at first. I think the Holy Spirit dragged the 12 into accepting the mystery revealed to them via Cornelius and with the discussion with Paul.

I have been talking about Paul’s “ My Gospel” fir many many months......Paul referred to the Gospel that Jesus gave to him as “ his Gospel” to differentiate it from the other versions of “ good news” that was out there......

The Apostle’s “ Good News” about getting the “Sin Issue” resolved stressed Repentance and Baptism......Paul’s Good News was all about one’s Faith in the Resurrection.... “ His” Gospel became “ The” Gospel—- the one he proclaimed “ we will be judged by”.....

In the end, it makes no difference if there were 50 “ gospels”....... were they originated by God ? Did they center on Jesus Christ? THAT is what is important.......This side of the Cross, the Gospel Found In 1Cor15:1-4 is the one that will get you Saved......one must Believe it to the point of Resting in it ( not trying to ADD to it with your works) for it to be effective give....Not Resting in Paul’s Gospel is tantamount to “ Disobedience and Unbelief” ( Hebrews 3 and 4) .....wanna get Saved and Stay Saved? Put your Trust in “ Paul’s Gospel” , Given to Him personally by Jesus Christ ......once again, don't try to Add to it —- REST in it. God Bless....

 

[TEXBOW]

I have been talking about Paul’s “ My Gospel” fir many many months......Paul referred to the Gospel that Jesus gave to him as “ his Gospel” to differentiate it from the other versions of “ good news” that was out there......

The Apostle’s “ Good News” about getting the “Sin Issue” resolved stressed Repentance and Baptism......Paul’s Good News was all about one’s Faith in the Resurrection.... “ His” Gospel became “ The” Gospel—- the one he proclaimed “ we will be judged by”.....

In the end, it makes no difference if there were 50 “ gospels”....... were they originated by God ? Did they center on Jesus Christ? THAT is what is important.......This side of the Cross, the Gospel Found In 1Cor15:1-4 is the one that will get you Saved......one must Believe it to the point of Resting in it ( not trying to ADD to it with your works) for it to be effective give....Not Resting in Paul’s Gospel is tantamount to “ Disobedience and Unbelief” ( Hebrews 3 and 4) .....wanna get Saved and Stay Saved? Put your Trust in “ Paul’s Gospel” , Given to Him personally by Jesus Christ ......once again, don't try to Add to it —- REST in it. God Bless....

I think we are on the same page. I do have much disagreement with those who think that Pauls's epistles are the only source of our doctrine post the cross. I believe what Paul tells us. The Apostles receive the mystery via the Holy Spirit. I think this is why that several of the 12 took the commission outside of Isreal (counter to what Jesus taught before the cross). I think it would be a mistake to think the 12 or at least some of the 12 didn't lead Gentiles to salvation by faith alone. Some no doubt had a difficult time doing so. I would think James would have had the most difficult time with the mystery. We see a relationship between Peter and Christians at the Church of Cornith. We see converts of Pauls's teachings, some that he baptized having close relationships with John. I do not think the divide between Paul and the 12 was as much as some would think.

 

[Hidden In Him]

James speaks of religion there as
refers to the outward consequences of what one believes, rather than to what he believes, or the fact that he believes deeply. The Jews, were James' original readers, who typically regarded alms-giving, prayer, fasting, regular attendance at worship services, and the observance of holy days and feasts as signs of true spirituality. He seems to tell them that such is not what pure and undefiled religion is.

Greetings, Tong, and blessings in Christ.

While it is true that the Jews were his readers and some of the things you mentioned were thus part of the conversation, his reference was not in comparison to alms-giving, prayer, fasting, regular attendance at worship services, and the observance of holy days and feasts, but rather to getting into doctrinal fights with one's brethren. This is what he juxtaposes it to in the immediate context:

19 So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; 20 for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God... 26 If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is in vain. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. (James 1:19, 26-27)

 

[Hidden In Him]

Yeah, let's not overcomplicate this. My point is, Christianity is nothing like anything else.

OK . . . True religion is to visit the fatherless and the widow. So do that, and you're good, right? But that's not what you are saying either

Since this thread is still active and I have a little time at present, let me explain what I meant by the analogy.

There was no way Christianity could be adopted by Judaism. It was an indispensable part of the Jewish faith that they had to keep the Law of Moses regarding the sacrifices, feast days, Sabbaths, unclean foods, circumcision, etc. However, could Judaism be "poured into" Christianity, as it were? It was, if you stop and think about it. The Christians attested that they were now observing the true Passover, because they knew who the True Lamb of God was (1 Corinthians 5:6-8). They were observing the true Pentecost, in receiving the actual outpouring that the Jewish festival only pointed to prophetically (Acts 20:16; Acts 2:1-4). They were observing the true circumcision, for their hearts were being circumcised and the flesh was truly being "cut away" to now walk only in the Spirit (Romans 2:28-29). And they were observing the true eating of only "clean foods," by not allowing in unclean spirits. This is in direct contrast to the Pharisees, whom Jesus said were "full of dead men's bones," i.e. spiritual uncleanness. As He told them regarding their true spiritual condition:

25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also. 27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. (Matthew 23:25-27)

But in essence, the faith of Judaism was poured into Christianity, minus the dregs if you will. Only the solid parts of the wine didn't make it in, and by that I mean their strict adherence to the Jewish rituals and customs in the flesh. Indeed, the early Christians still kept many of the festivals, but after a spiritual manner, not after the strictness of the Jews. This is nothing to say of the reinterpretation of numerous passages and texts in light of the fact that Jesus was the True Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world.

 

[marks]

However, could Judaism be "poured into" Christianity,

Poured into? I don't really get what you mean by that.

There were foreshadows of Christ, and He fulfilled these. That has to do with the Old Covenant foreshadowing and foretelling a New Covenant.

And right up to this part, that sound's like what you are describing.

But in essence, the faith of Judaism was poured into Christianity, minus the dregs if you will. Only the solid parts of the wine didn't make it in, and by that I mean their strict adherence to the Jewish rituals and customs in the flesh. Indeed, the early Christians still kept many of the festivals, but after a spiritual manner, not after the strictness of the Jews. This is nothing to say of the reinterpretation of numerous passages and texts in light of the fact that Jesus was the True Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world.

The faith of Judaism? What is that? What does that mean? We trust in the same God they trusted in, right? But we don't express our faith in the same way they expressed theirs, in the difference between Old and New?

The Sabbath is a shadow of rest cast by Jesus. Jesus in daylight shows rest from our works. But we don't keep a literal Sabbath day or else.

Jesus, the passover Lamb, fulfilled their covenant, but what are you saying? We can keep that feast if we like, and we can embue it with all manner of meaning. We can look to the Hebrew Roots people, and invite them to our church to guide us through a Sedar, at least, the modern representation of it, and have a wonderful time.

What does that mean, the faith of Judaism poured into Christianity?

Much love!

 

[Hidden In Him]

There were foreshadows of Christ, and He fulfilled these.

We fulfill them as well.

What does that mean, the faith of Judaism poured into Christianity?

Chalk it up as a failure to communicate.

 

[marks]

Chalk it up as a failure to communicate.

"I am waiting at the water’s edge
Holding steadfast to Your promises
Even though I’m not there yet I trust in You,
I trust in You!

You can part the violent sea
You can reach the depths of me . . ."

I think of that night, the arid mountains hemming them in, the wee hours of the morning, the Angel of the Lord stands tall over the people in a pillar of fire, standing between them and the Egyptians. The only place to go, the sea! Midian on the other side, but how??

Strike the sea, Moses! Tear it! Pass through the sea, My people!

So he stands at the water's edge, and raises his staff . . .

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
James speaks of religion there as
refers to the outward consequences of what one believes, rather than to what he believes, or the fact that he believes deeply. The Jews, were James' original readers, who typically regarded alms-giving, prayer, fasting, regular attendance at worship services, and the observance of holy days and feasts as signs of true spirituality. He seems to tell them that such is not what pure and undefiled religion is.

Greetings, Tong, and blessings in Christ.

While it is true that the Jews were his readers and some of the things you mentioned were thus part of the conversation, his reference was not in comparison to alms-giving, prayer, fasting, regular attendance at worship services, and the observance of holy days and feasts, but rather to getting into doctrinal fights with one's brethren. This is what he juxtaposes it to in the immediate context:

19 So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; 20 for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God... 26 If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is in vain. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. (James 1:19, 26-27)

<<<….his reference was not in comparison to alms-giving, prayer, fasting, regular attendance at worship services, and the observance of holy days and feasts, but rather to getting into doctrinal fights with one's brethren. >>>

Yes. I mentioned those things only to respond to what you say is “religion”. For I was addressing that part of your post to which I responded to and I quoted.

As I pointed out, “James speaks of religion there as refers to the outward consequences of what one believes, rather than to what he believes, or the fact that he believes deeply.”

Tong
R4834

 

[BloodBought 1953]

<<<….his reference was not in comparison to alms-giving, prayer, fasting, regular attendance at worship services, and the observance of holy days and feasts, but rather to getting into doctrinal fights with one's brethren. >>>

Yes. I mentioned those things only to respond to what you say is “religion”. For I was addressing that part of your post to which I responded to and I quoted.

As I pointed out, “James speaks of religion there as refers to the outward consequences of what one believes, rather than to what he believes, or the fact that he believes deeply.”

Tong
R4834

James never claimed the good “ religious” acts he espoused were going to get Anybody Justified on Judgement Day ......

I am sure he would agree with the Truth Of The following observation——-“ Religion says ‘ Do’..... Christianity says, ‘ DONE’.........

 

[Tong2020]

James never claimed the good “ religious” acts he espoused were going to get Anybody Justified on Judgement Day ......

I am sure he would agree with the Truth Of The following observation——-“ Religion says ‘ Do’..... Christianity says, ‘ DONE’.........

<<<James never claimed the good “ religious” acts he espoused were going to get Anybody Justified on Judgement Day ......>>>

Yes. Never said James claimed any of that. He was simply telling them what true and undefiled religion is. I think it was to put contrast to what they (the Jews) think religion is.

Tong
R4835

 

[BloodBought 1953]

I think it was to put contrast to what they (the Jews) think religion is.



A very wise observation there.....not your first.....it’s a “ keeper”....... thanks...

 

[michaelvpardo]

The term "sinners of the gentiles " didn't refer to some subset of the gentiles, but all of them. The 1st century Jews looked at all the gentiles, those outside the covenant of law, as sinners by nature (and they weren't wrong in that either.)
However, they saw themselves as the inheritors of the promises to Abraham, God's chosen people. The cross was inconceivable to the Jews, even when Jesus started telling His disciples what must happen.
The 1st century Jews were descendants of those returned from the Babylonian captivity and survivors of "the judgment" of Jerusalem prophesied by the prophet Jeremiah. They had the book of lamentations which describes the terrible judgments against Jerusalem, and they had no idea that the messenger of the covenant had come to them prophesying the end of the nation at the hands of the Roman empire. They were expecting the great king to restore the glory of Israel, as though all the curses of the law had been fulfilled against the nation already.
Jesus taught God's judgment through the law of Moses, but He also introduced God's grace through faith in His person, to Jews that understood righteousness as defined by keeping the law. He taught the same gospel as Paul in a preview of sorts, preaching the arrival of the kingdom of God, but before the cross and His resurrection, before the giving of the Holy Spirit to indwell believers. However, it wasn't possible to teach the full gospel before the resurrection, as the resurrection is the "good part" of the good news, the defeat of death and the promise of everlasting life.

 

[Hidden In Him]

"I am waiting at the water’s edge
Holding steadfast to Your promises
Even though I’m not there yet I trust in You,
I trust in You!

You can part the violent sea
You can reach the depths of me . . ."

I think of that night, the arid mountains hemming them in, the wee hours of the morning, the Angel of the Lord stands tall over the people in a pillar of fire, standing between them and the Egyptians. The only place to go, the sea! Midian on the other side, but how??

Strike the sea, Moses! Tear it! Pass through the sea, My people!

So he stands at the water's edge, and raises his staff . . .

Nice song. Good lyrics.

As I pointed out, “James speaks of religion there as refers to the outward consequences of what one believes, rather than to what he believes, or the fact that he believes deeply.”

I can't say as I agree, though. A man's outward actions will be the product of what he truly believes. As scripture says, "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he," and James said elsewhere, "Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works." In other words, the actions of a man are displaying what he truly believes, not just what he says he does.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
As I pointed out, “James speaks of religion there as refers to the outward consequences of what one believes, rather than to what he believes, or the fact that he believes deeply.”

I can't say as I agree, though. A man's outward actions will be the product of what he truly believes. As scripture says, "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he," and James said elsewhere, "Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works." In other words, the actions of a man are displaying what he truly believes, not just what he says he does.

<<<In other words, the actions of a man are displaying what he truly believes, not just what he says he does.>>>

James was talking about religion in James 1. I think, his point was to put contrast to what they (the Jews) think religion is.

Tong
R4841

 

[Hidden In Him]

James was talking about religion in James 1. I think, his point was to put contrast to what they (the Jews) think religion is.

But "to keep oneself unspotted from the world," i.e. and not let unclean spirits corrupt oneself, was one of his driving points throughout the letter, and the entire letter was directed to believers, not non-believers. I don't think there's much of an argument for relegating the verse to simply shaming the Jews for not keeping the religion they were professing to keep. The letter was addressed to "his brethren," i.e. the church:

2 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials... 9 Let the lowly brother glory in his exaltation, 10 but the rich in his humiliation, because as a flower of the field he will pass away... 16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren... 19 So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.. 22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves... 26 If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

Then in Chapters 3 and 4, he uses similar language:

1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment... 13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. 15 This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic... 1 Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members?.. 11 Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law.

I understand how you are reading it, but seeing as how he addresses the brethren with the same concerns throughout the letter, it makes it hard to prove he is not talking to the church (his brethren) in James 1:26 as well.

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

Paul had recently been stoned for preaching against the law of Moses (circumcision) for salvation. Now in Acts 15:1-2 he is facing the same people at the church in Antioch. These people had ties with the church at Jerusalem and Paul wanted to settle it by going to James, the head pastor of the church at Jerusalem, and Peter.

You're still making things up. First of all, Acts doesn't specify why Paul was stoned in Derbe. All it mentions is that Jewish opponents of Paul in Antioch and Iconium gathered in Derbe and collectively turned the audience against whatever Paul happened to be preaching about at the time. All we know for absolute certainty is that Paul's Jewish opponents hated whatever he was preaching about to the point of convincing the crowd to help stone him. Secondly, Peter was the lead apostle, not James.

This is what led to the Council of Jerusalem, what do we do with the Jews being saved? Paul was preaching the New Covenant, grace by faith for salvation but was running into the Law at every turn.

At this point Paul had received the revelation from Christ but the rest of the apostles were still in the dark only seeing the gentiles saved but did not know what Paul already knew.

Wrong again. The narrative in Acts 14:21-28 basically shows a) Paul and Barnabas arriving in Antioch, b) Paul and Barnabas informing the Christians in Antioch of their missionary progress up to that point, and c) encouraging the Christians there to continue in the faith. It is a while after that in Acts 15:1-2 where some individuals from Judea arrived and tried to get the Christians in Antioch to believe they had to be physically circumcised to be eligible of salvation, which consequently started an argument that needed to be brought to Peter, James, and John's attention so they could settle the matter.

That's what makes your claim a total lie. Any logical person can see that if Paul already possessed the revelation and the pillar apostles(Peter, James, and John) were in the dark as you claim they were, there would've been absolutely no reason for Paul and Barnabas to go all the way to Jerusalem to hear God's verdict. They could've authoritatively settled the matter right there in Antioch, and the council in Acts 15 would've been completely unnecessary. But they didn't and couldn't. Why? Because they didn't have the revelation.

Acts 15:7 literally shows what i've said all along: the revelation came to Peter first, who then distributed that knowledge to the other apostles:

"“Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe."

Your entire premise falls like a house of cards because a) Paul wasn't converted until Acts 9, b) Peter can be seen preaching to Gentiles in Acts10, and c) Paul clearly stated in Gal. 1 that Christ instructed him in Arabia for 3 1/2 years before he started preaching to anybody. Orthodox Christianity lead people to believe Paul immediately started preaching to Gentiles after his conversion and that he had received superior revelation, but it's extremely far from being true.

There is also no indication whatsoever in those passages that Paul had issue with the Law being kept. Acts shows he underwent the purification ceremony in Acts 21 to show all of his critics and doubters that he was pro-Law. More evidence that you are lying is that in Acts 24 , Paul clearly stated to Governor Felix that he still lived by the Law. In Acts 23, he even tells the Orthodox Jewish leaders that he still considered himself to be a Pharisee. Any claim that Paul was anti-Law makes absolutely no sense in light of the amount of biblical evidence that shows the exact opposite was true.

 

[Charlie24]

You're still making things up. First of all, Acts doesn't specify why Paul was stoned in Derbe. All it mentions is that Jewish opponents of Paul in Antioch and Iconium gathered in Derbe and collectively turned the audience against whatever Paul happened to be preaching about at the time. All we know for absolute certainty is that Paul's Jewish opponents hated whatever he was preaching about to the point of convincing the crowd to help stone him. Secondly, Peter was the lead apostle, not James.

Wrong again. The narrative in Acts 14:21-28 basically shows a) Paul and Barnabas arriving in Antioch, b) Paul and Barnabas informing the Christians in Antioch of their missionary progress up to that point, and c) encouraging the Christians there to continue in the faith. It is a while after that in Acts 15:1-2 where some individuals from Judea arrived and tried to get the Christians in Antioch to believe they had to be physically circumcised to be eligible of salvation, which consequently started an argument that needed to be brought to Peter, James, and John's attention so they could settle the matter.

That's what makes your claim a total lie. Any logical person can see that if Paul already possessed the revelation and the pillar apostles(Peter, James, and John) were in the dark as you claim they were, there would've been absolutely no reason for Paul and Barnabas to go all the way to Jerusalem to hear God's verdict. They could've authoritatively settled the matter right there in Antioch, and the council in Acts 15 would've been completely unnecessary. But they didn't and couldn't. Why? Because they didn't have the revelation.

Acts 15:7 literally shows what i've said all along: the revelation came to Peter first, who then distributed that knowledge to the other apostles:

"“Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe."

Your entire premise falls like a house of cards because a) Paul wasn't converted until Acts 9, b) Peter can be seen preaching to Gentiles in Acts10, and c) Paul clearly stated in Gal. 1 that Christ instructed him in Arabia for 3 1/2 years before he started preaching to anybody. Orthodox Christianity lead people to believe Paul immediately started preaching to Gentiles after his conversion and that he had received superior revelation, but it's extremely far from being true.

There is also no indication whatsoever in those passages that Paul had issue with the Law being kept. Acts shows he underwent the purification ceremony in Acts 21 to show all of his critics and doubters that he was pro-Law. More evidence that you are lying is that in Acts 24 , Paul clearly stated to Governor Felix that he still lived by the Law. In Acts 23, he even tells the Orthodox Jewish leaders that he still considered himself to be a Pharisee. Any claim that Paul was anti-Law makes absolutely no sense in light of the amount of biblical evidence that shows the exact opposite was true.

I've learned a few things on these forums through the years and one of them is not to waste time arguing with a commandment keeper! They hated Paul for preaching the Gospel of Grace then and they hate us now who preach the same!

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
James was talking about religion in James 1. I think, his point was to put contrast to what they (the Jews) think religion is.

But "to keep oneself unspotted from the world," i.e. and not let unclean spirits corrupt oneself, was one of his driving points throughout the letter, and the entire letter was directed to believers, not non-believers. I don't think there's much of an argument for relegating the verse to simply shaming the Jews for not keeping the religion they were professing to keep. The letter was addressed to "his brethren," i.e. the church:

2 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials... 9 Let the lowly brother glory in his exaltation, 10 but the rich in his humiliation, because as a flower of the field he will pass away... 16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren... 19 So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.. 22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves... 26 If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

Then in Chapters 3 and 4, he uses similar language:

1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment... 13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. 15 This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic... 1 Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members?.. 11 Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law.

I understand how you are reading it, but seeing as how he addresses the brethren with the same concerns throughout the letter, it makes it hard to prove he is not talking to the church (his brethren) in James 1:26 as well.

James 1:James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,

To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad:

Greetings.

He was writing to his brethren, the Jews, who were numbered to belong in the church.

James was talking about religion in James 1. I think, his point was to put contrast to what they think religion is, in as much as these Jew brethren in the church seems to still show signs of immaturity, if at all they understand the gospel, and seems to still not have done away with the Jewish mindset of what being religious is. And that is only among the others that James addressed in his letter.

Tong
R4846

 

[Hidden In Him]

James was talking about religion in James 1. I think, his point was to put contrast to what they think religion is, in as much as these Jew brethren in the church seems to still show signs of immaturity, if at all they understand the gospel, and seems to still not have done away with the Jewish mindset of what being religious is. And that is only among the others that James addressed in his letter.

I still contend that he's referring to Jewish believers in 2:19, but I will acknowledge one thing in your favor:

In the opening to the Chapter he is addressing the issue of "a man" entering the congregation with rich attire. This is likely not to a brother but a unbelieving Jew who is curious.

1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. 2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; 3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: 4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
James was talking about religion in James 1. I think, his point was to put contrast to what they think religion is, in as much as these Jew brethren in the church seems to still show signs of immaturity, if at all they understand the gospel, and seems to still not have done away with the Jewish mindset of what being religious is. And that is only among the others that James addressed in his letter.

I still contend that he's referring to Jewish believers in 2:19, but I will acknowledge one thing in your favor:

In the opening to the Chapter he is addressing the issue of "a man" entering the congregation with rich attire. This is likely not to a brother but a unbelieving Jew who is curious.

1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. 2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; 3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: 4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

<<<I still contend that he's referring to Jewish believers in 2:19, ….>>>

First, that would be James 1:19, I guess.

And yes, for I never said otherwise anywhere in my post.

Tong
R4848