JUSTIFICATION: Catholic Vs. Protestant Part #2

[Robert Pate]

Right, these men sent from James were not the same men who came from the Pharisees. The Jewish Christians practiced some of the external adornments of the Law, and some of them may still have thought they had to observe things like Sabbath and circumcision. But James did not ultimately advocate for these things because he recognized, along with Paul, that they were no longer under the Law.

Being Jews, however, they were accustomed to practicing traditions which, if they wanted to maintain civility among the Jews, felt it wise to maintain some Jewish traditions. That is clearly how Paul himself described it. And he and James were in perfect agreement about that.

The men who came from the Pharisees, again, were *not* the same men who came from James. The men who came from the Pharisees were *not* genuine Christians, and were committed to practicing the Law in full. You are conflating the two groups.

Here is the 1st group, which was *not* affiliated with, nor associated with, the group who mentioned in Gal 2.12 who came from James:

Gal 2.4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

This is the 2nd group, which *was* affiliated with James:

Gal 2. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.
11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

Of course, they were the same Judaizers. James was the head of the church in Jerusalem. The church was full of Judaizers. Listen to what he said, "Wherefore my sentence is that we trouble them not, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God" Here comes some more law. "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time has in every city them that preach him. being read in the synagogues every sabbath day" Acts 15:19-21. James was not about to let those Gentiles go without lay some more law on them. They must obey Moses.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Of course, they were the same Judaizers. James was the head of the church in Jerusalem. The church was full of Judaizers. Listen to what he said, "Wherefore my sentence is that we trouble them not, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God" Here comes some more law. "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time has in every city them that preach him. being read in the synagogues every sabbath day" Acts 15:19-21. James was not about to let those Gentiles go without lay some more law on them. They must obey Moses.

You are definitely among liberals, who reject Scripture as authoritative. By stating that James was out of league with Paul, and perhaps even "ungodly," you do a disservice both to Scripture and to conservative Christianity. Conservative Christians do not pick and choose which Scriptures they find authoritative, and certainly do not malign James, even if the process of canonization was a debate in the past.

I just posted to you that there was total agreement between Paul and James, and yet you claim James held to Judaism instead of to legitimate Christianity. Shame on you!

Furthermore, you are wrong in stating that the tendency of all Jewish Christians to retain some of the legal elements of Judaism rendered them "followers of James" is false. As I told you, one group of Judaizers were defined, biblically, as "false Christians," who spied on Paul.

The other group had Judaistic tendencies which were ameliorated by James, and by input from Paul. Paul and James ultimately agreed on this. And the reduction of requirements to maintain peace and a good witness between Christian Jews and non-Christian Jews indicates this.

 

[Robert Pate]

You are definitely among liberals, who reject Scripture as authoritative. By stating that James was out of league with Paul, and perhaps even "ungodly," you do a disservice both to Scripture and to conservative Christianity. Conservative Christians do not pick and choose which Scriptures they find authoritative, and certainly do not malign James, even if the process of canonization was a debate in the past.

I just posted to you that there was total agreement between Paul and James, and yet you claim James held to Judaism instead of to legitimate Christianity. Shame on you!

Furthermore, you are wrong in stating that the tendency of all Jewish Christians to retain some of the legal elements of Judaism rendered them "followers of James" is false. As I told you, one group of Judaizers were defined, biblically, as "false Christians," who spied on Paul.

The other group had Judaistic tendencies which were ameliorated by James, and by input from Paul. Paul and James ultimately agreed on this. And the reduction of requirements to maintain peace and a good witness between Christian Jews and non-Christian Jews indicates this.

I am not a liberal. I have the freedom to question anything in the Bible that is contrary to the Gospel. The book of James is more Jewish than it is Christian. Many Christian scholars believe that it should not have been included in the canons. Martin Luther was one of them. Paul was not in agreement with James, this is why Paul and Barnabas contended with him, Acts 15:2-12. James finally relented when heard about the miracles that Paul and Barnabas had with the Gentiles, Acts 15:12. If it had not been for Paul and Barnabus James would have butchered those Gentiles. And you probably would have been there cheering him on.

Question. Why is James sending men to spy on Peter to see if he is eating with Gentiles? Galatians 2:12. The answer is that James was a Judaizer, and he thought that if he caught Peter eating with Gentiles, he could judge him. This is what religious people like to do. Paul was very upset with what was happening and gave them all a good tongue lashing, Galatians 2:14-21. Maybe you don't know what the Gospel calls into question.