Facts about the book of James

[Reverend Rick]

Whom are we to suppose actually wrote these books of James?

While we are at it, why should we believe Saul? He was a Roman who says he had divine revelation from dead Jesus. He was never a disciple. He took up his pen 70 years after Jesus death.

I guess we should just take his word on this.

 

[Strength & Honor]

Yeah, he's the guy to whom Jesus said, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church."

To say that Jesus built the church on any person but Himself is misguided. Christ is the leader of the church, its foundation (Ephesians 2:20, 1 Corinthians 3:11).

Besides, there is still some considerable debate surrounding what Jesus actually meant by this statement; primarily the difference between the Greek words petros and petra, and what that difference might imply.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

While we are at it, why should we believe Saul? He was a Roman who says he had divine revelation from dead Jesus. He was never a disciple. He took up his pen 70 years after Jesus death.

I guess we should just take his word on this.

Jesus died about 33 CE.

Paul was writing his epistles from 55 to 65. And that's a conservative guess. It could have been from 50-65.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

To say that Jesus built the church on any person but Himself is misguided. Christ is the leader of the church, its foundation (Ephesians 2:20, 1 Corinthians 3:11).

Besides, there is still some considerable debate surrounding what Jesus actually meant by this statement; primarily the difference between the Greek words petros and petra, and what that difference might imply.

Yes, toss out the words of Christ.

And it's best not to use Greek when you don't understand it.:slap:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

As it is only supposition that editing went on, who knows when or by whom?
But all Emperors expect compliance. The Christian Church was undoubtedly heavily influenced by their wishes. The power to persecute lay with the Emperors not the Bishops.

You realize that the "Emperors" did not have any such influence over the church until about 300 years after the time period that we're talking about...

 

[Reverend Rick]

Jesus died about 33 CE.

Paul was writing his epistles from 55 to 65. And that's a conservative guess. It could have been from 50-65.

I stand corrected. How about it Angelous, why should we believe that Paul had a conversation with dead Jesus? Did Paul ever even meet Jesus in real life?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There was no Christian Church during Jesus life time.
What came after, is entirely down to the apostles and the churches they founded.

It could be said that the arguments raging then , continue today. Jesus left many conundrums, especially concerning the exact relationship between himself an God and the Holy Spirit, and what salvation entails.

There never has been a single identifiable Church.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well of course not. Martin Luther had no respect for the Jewish roots of Christianity, let alone Jews.

Ignoring that he used an OT scripture (Hab 2:4) to lead a revolution in Christian thought and practice.

 

[dogsgod]

While we are at it, why should we believe Saul? He was a Roman who says he had divine revelation from dead Jesus. He was never a disciple. He took up his pen 70 years after Jesus death.

I guess we should just take his word on this.

If there was a Jesus of Nazareth, Paul is not aware of him. In fact, Nazareth is unheard of prior to it's first mention in the gospels. It's quite a fanciful story written after Paul's death. The notion that the Jesus Christ that Paul writes of died in or about 33CE is based on the gospel fictions, not on anything that Paul wrote.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You realize that the "Emperors" did not have any such influence over the church until about 300 years after the time period that we're talking about...

True... Constantine was the first, and then only because he claimed Christianity helped him win a battle. How ever it was a critical period when much of the various churches dogma was crystalised... It is certain he had a considerable input in determining the result and the character of the Church in Rome. From that moment official Church building took off in Rome.

However by then Churches had been established all over the known world, Certainly for at least 200 years, including the Celtic (Coptic) church in the British Isles.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I stand corrected. How about it Angelous, why should we believe that Paul had a conversation with dead Jesus? Did Paul ever even meet Jesus in real life?

Rick -

When we get to these things, we are dealing with traditional material.

The book of Acts tells us the details of Paul's conversion, and the book of Acts is "the book of the Acts of Paul." It's the second volume of the Gospel according to Luke. I personally think that Luke and Paul met, because the book of Acts so closely matches the Pauline literature. And Paul had extensive contact with Peter, James, John, and other early leaders - according to Acts.

But no one claims that Paul met Jesus, but he claimed to have a miraculous conversion experience where he meets the Resurrected Jesus.

An interesting thing to me is that Paul wrote his letters at the time that the earliest portions of the Gospels were being circulated and used in worship... and the Gospels were written and edited to their present form after Paul's death.

The Gospels are an affirmation of Paul's ministries and writings, affirming his core teaching: that the message of Jesus is for both the Jew and the Gentile. The rest is just details.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

*kicks can*

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Rick -

The Gospels are an affirmation of Paul's ministries and writings, affirming his core teaching: that the message of Jesus is for both the Jew and the Gentile. The rest is just details.

Was this in any doubt ?

James restricted his personal time to the Jews whilst Paul spent most of his with Gentiles. They met with the others and agreed this distribution of effort. However as Paul had a travelling ministry (and very organised) he spent far more time writing to keep in touch with his churches, than any one else.

It is a pity we do not have more of the other Apostles words. They might throw less of a one sided view of early ministry.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Was this in any doubt ?

It's easily forgotten.

I'm sure you hear this quite often: that Jesus gave a message that was good, and Paul messed everything up. But Paul wrote before the Gospels - they had his writings at hand when they were writing their stories about Jesus.

 

[Strength & Honor]

Yes, toss out the words of Christ.

The words of the inspired apostles help us see the greater context of Jesus' message.
Why would Jesus build His church on someone other than Himself? The very idea is a little backwards…

And it's best not to use Greek when you don't understand it.

I mention two Greek words, and all of a sudden I'm trying to use Greek? Petros and petra come straight out of Vine’s Expositroy Dictionary of New and Old Testament Words. I don’t claim to be an expert by any means, but it only takes the ability to read a few articles to get a sense of what the debate is about.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

The words of the inspired apostles help us see the greater context of Jesus' message.
Why would Jesus build His church on someone other than Himself? The very idea is a little backwards…

This is also the position of the Orthodox churches. The 'rock' in the passage is Peter's confession of faith, not his person.

 

[Smoke]

Because they saw that he was like Peter, they accepted him.

Sure, but what does that have to do with Peter getting into line with James as soon as somebody showed up who might report back to James?

 

[Smoke]

Yes, toss out the words of Christ.

Is it your position that all the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels are authentic?

And it's best not to use Greek when you don't understand it.:slap:

If his understanding of the issue here is faulty, wouldn't it make more sense to correct it than to slap him for daring to mention it?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It's easily forgotten.

I'm sure you hear this quite often: that Jesus gave a message that was good, and Paul messed everything up. But Paul wrote before the Gospels - they had his writings at hand when they were writing their stories about Jesus.

I am sure that they still used the normal oral tradition as well as some of Paul's words to compile the Gospels. I suspect there were also other fragmentary writings still passing round at that time as well.

When you compile from notes you do not alway keep or look after them as well as the finished product.

Paul's epistles often seem to be rather "edited" to suite the recipents tastes and expectations, so they would be hard to bring them together in a consistent way as source material.

It would be hard to explain the differences in some of Paul's attitudes on women and sin, compared to the recorded teachings and stories about Jesus, If they were from exclusive and Identical sources.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Is it your position that all the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels are authentic?

Oh, no.

I was assuming that he did.

If his understanding of the issue here is faulty, wouldn't it make more sense to correct it than to slap him for daring to mention it?

It depends. It takes compassion to correct, and if someone is demonstrating an unwillingness for correction, giving a little slap is more fun. And sometimes I'm fresh out of compassion.