Justification…Is it works or faith alone?

[JM2C]

James died in 62 AD. This is the latest possible date for his letter. Any suggested date before this is speculative, as most scholars admit. We are left to reason and logic when it comes to throwing out possible dates.

It says he died in 62 AD and not write. We can’t deduct anything from that statement as far as the date of James’ epistle was written, but we can from verse like James 2:2 “your synagogue” points to the early period when Christianity was largely confined to Jewish circles and this could be before Paul’s evangelism to the Gentiles.

Paul’s letter to the Romans was sent directly to Rome from Cenchrea in Corinth by Phoebe –Rom 16:1. Paul wrote Romans in Corinth around 57 A.D.

 

[Simplelogic]

It says he died in 62 AD and not write. We can’t deduct anything from that statement as far as the date of James’ epistle was written, but we can from verse like James 2:2 “your synagogue” points to the early period when Christianity was largely confined to Jewish circles and this could be before Paul’s evangelism to the Gentiles.

This is the problem with your logic.

You are making assumptions about the first century believers and their involvement in "synagogues" as pointing to an early period of Christianity. You do this by defining "Christianity" by Paul's letters which obviously promote this view. Paul's movement distanced itself from synagogues, the Torah and anything else Jewish. This does not mean that the twelve disciples had this view at all. In fact, it can be proven that James (Yeshua's brother) was still operating under the animal sacrificial system over 15 years after Yeshua's death/resurrection! You are also dismissing Paul's many negative statements against Peter, James and John. Paul rails against the "circumcision party" in Galatians. Yet Paul admits that this same "circumcision party" were actually "men from James"!! Paul gets so angry at James' men that he says this:

I wish that those who are upsetting you would castrate themselves! Gal 5: 12

There is no evidence that ANY of the twelve apostles EVER separated from Jewish law and Torah observance…NONE! Yet we do have many verses of their continued Torah observance well after Yeshua's ascension.

So you are dating James based off of Paul's false allusion of what early Christianity really was. Instead of basing early Christianity off of Yeshua and his twelve chosen apostles.

 

[JM2C]

This is the problem with your logic.
You are making assumptions about the first century believers and their involvement in "synagogues" as pointing to an early period of Christianity.

Christian Jews is what I meant.

If you read it carefully this is what I said: by “James 2:2 “your synagogue” points to the early period when Christianity was largely confined to Jewish circles.” If you read Acts, Gentiles did not appear in the picture till Acts 10 but before this the 12 and others were evangelizing the Jews only and some Gentiles proselytes to Judaism.

 

[JM2C]

There is no evidence that ANY of the twelve apostles EVER separated from Jewish law and Torah observance…NONE! Yet we do have many verses of their continued Torah observance well after Yeshua's ascension.

I understand that they were still following the Law of Moses, but you have to understand that we are talking about the Jews and the Gentiles. Gentiles do not have to follow the Law of Moses as per their agreement in Acts 15.

Gal 2:7 On the contrary, they saw that I/Paul had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.

How many gospels do we see here? 1 Gospel, and that is, the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul and Peter were preaching the same Gospel to the Gentiles and to the Jews ITO. Now, what is the difference between the Jews and the Gentiles as far as the Gospel is concern? None! The same Gospel.

Gal 2:8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.

The same or only 1 gospel came from God. The gospel of the Lord Jesus was preached to the Gentiles by Paul and this same Gospel by Peter to the Jews.

The only difference between the Jews and the Gentiles is the one they agreed upon in Acts 15, and that is, NO Law of Moses for the Gentiles to follow, but for the Jews they could still continue the Law of Moses.

IOW, a Jew cannot stop being a Jew or stop the Law of Moses as per their tradition. The only thing that Paul wants to get across to the Jews was that no one can be justified by the Law of Moses, but as far as the tradition according to the Law of Moses, like circumcision, a Jew cannot stop being a Jew. Therefore, a Jew cannot force the Gentiles to follow the Law of Moses like what the “false brother –Gal 2:4” did in Acts 15:1-2.

Ac 13:39 Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

This is what Paul meant by justification by faith and not by the Law of Moses.

There is nothing wrong with the Law of Moses if you are a Jew as far as tradition is concern of course, but as far as being justified by it, no one can be justified, only by faith.

 

[Simplelogic]

I understand that they were still following the Law of Moses, but you have to understand that we are talking about the Jews and the Gentiles. Gentiles do not have to follow the Law of Moses as per their agreement in Acts 15.

Gal 2:7 On the contrary, they saw that I/Paul had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.

How many gospels do we see here? 1 Gospel, and that is, the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul and Peter were preaching the same Gospel to the Gentiles and to the Jews ITO. Now, what is the difference between the Jews and the Gentiles as far as the Gospel is concern? None! The same Gospel.

Gal 2:8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.

The same or only 1 gospel came from God. The gospel of the Lord Jesus was preached to the Gentiles by Paul and this same Gospel by Peter to the Jews.

The only difference between the Jews and the Gentiles is the one they agreed upon in Acts 15, and that is, NO Law of Moses for the Gentiles to follow, but for the Jews they could still continue the Law of Moses.

IOW, a Jew cannot stop being a Jew or stop the Law of Moses as per their tradition. The only thing that Paul wants to get across to the Jews was that no one can be justified by the Law of Moses, but as far as the tradition according to the Law of Moses, like circumcision, a Jew cannot stop being a Jew. Therefore, a Jew cannot force the Gentiles to follow the Law of Moses like what the “false brother –Gal 2:4” did in Acts 15:1-2.

Ac 13:39 Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

This is what Paul meant by justification by faith and not by the Law of Moses.

There is nothing wrong with the Law of Moses if you are a Jew as far as tradition is concern of course, but as far as being justified by it, no one can be justified, only by faith.

Your view of Acts 15 is extremely flawed. So is your view of righteousness and the law of Moses. God tells us Himself that when men obey His commands that they are righteous!

 

[Muffled]

What do you mean. Why would you assume YHVH does not approve of fallacio?

A prisoner once asked me that while I was doing Bible Study at the prison as a prison minister. I asked Jesus and He said it was a sin.

 

[Muffled]

This is a sad belief. The majority of the world still has no clue who Yeshua is.

I believe this is a sad world.

 

[Muffled]

In both Genesis and Romans there is no doubt that the subject was Abraham. Moses and Paul could not be talking about another person here other than Abraham. There are only 3 characters here and one of them was narrating, and that is, Moses. By eliminating Moses we have God and Abraham. Now, if we say that the pronoun “HE” in Genesis 15:6 was Abraham then that verse will come out like this:

Ge 15:6 And he/Abraham believed in Jehovah; and He/Abraham reckoned it to him for righteousness.

Instead of:

Ge 15:6 And he/Abraham believed in Jehovah; and He/God reckoned it to him for righteousness.

I believe this does not make sense. Are you saying that Abraham was declaring himself righteous? It is much more likely IMO that it is God who would declare Abraham righteous.

 

[JM2C]

I believe this does not make sense. Are you saying that Abraham was declaring himself righteous? It is much more likely IMO that it is God who would declare Abraham righteous.

Please read post#7 and #129

 

[Simplelogic]

A prisoner once asked me that while I was doing Bible Study at the prison as a prison minister. I asked Jesus and He said it was a sin.

No need to do this. God says " do not add", " nor take away" from His commandments. I don't believe Jesus spoke this to you.

 

[Muffled]

Please read post#7 and #129

I can see what you are saying which I believe would mean that Abraham acoounted God as being righteous which doesn't make much sense, since Abraham was not in a position to judge God.

Also: 7 ¶ And he said unto him, I am Jehovah
incorporates the same he that you would interpet as Abraham but the speaker identifies Himself as Jehovah.

 

[Muffled]

No need to do this. God says " do not add", " nor take away" from His commandments. I don't believe Jesus spoke this to you.

I believe God told them not to add or take away but He did not say that He wouldn't do it.

I believe your belief has no solid basis and mine does.

 

[Simplelogic]

I believe God told them not to add or take away but He did not say that He wouldn't do it.

I believe your belief has no solid basis and mine does.

ok

 

[JM2C]

I can see what you are saying which I believe would mean that Abraham acoounted God as being righteous which doesn't make much sense, since Abraham was not in a position to judge God.

Also: 7 ¶ And he said unto him, I am Jehovah
incorporates the same he that you would interpet as Abraham but the speaker identifies Himself as Jehovah.

Paul's quote rearranged the phrase and left out the pronoun "he". You may be thinking, "What's the difference? Aren't they still saying the same thing?" Answer; not at all! The question at hand is, to whom is this pronoun "he" referring? "

Please answer

 

[Simplelogic]

Please answer

answer what?

 

[wizanda]

For once Paul does have a valid point in some aspects of this, as faith is required to even comprehend the kingdom of heaven...
Though the problem with Paul's ideology is he makes a covenant with death to achieve it, plus with Simon peter they called that the gospel.
Yeshua was teaching about a living gospel, and clearly said you're condemned by your works; going into details of things that offend.

For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

 

[CG Didymus]

...IOW, a Jew cannot stop being a Jew or stop the Law of Moses as per their tradition. The only thing that Paul wants to get across to the Jews was that no one can be justified by the Law of Moses, but as far as the tradition according to the Law of Moses, like circumcision, a Jew cannot stop being a Jew. Therefore, a Jew cannot force the Gentiles to follow the Law of Moses like what the “false brother –Gal 2:4” did in Acts 15:1-2.

Ac 13:39 Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

This is what Paul meant by justification by faith and not by the Law of Moses.

There is nothing wrong with the Law of Moses if you are a Jew as far as tradition is concern of course, but as far as being justified by it, no one can be justified, only by faith.

The reality is that Christians don't follow the Law. They don't study it. They don't care about it. Yet, Paul and all Christian leaders try to get Christians to follow rules of behavior. To do what? Isn't it to prove that they really do believe? So we're back at the start again. True faith has the good works to go along with it. And that kind of faith justifies. The problem is: God gave the Jews those laws, and in some places, says they are to do them forever. So Paul does have to manipulate verses to make the Law unnecessary for Christian salvation and for Christians to live by.

 

[Muffled]

For once Paul does have a valid point in some aspects of this, as faith is required to even comprehend the kingdom of heaven...
Though the problem with Paul's ideology is he makes a covenant with death to achieve it, plus with Simon peter they called that the gospel.
Yeshua was teaching about a living gospel, and clearly said you're condemned by your works; going into details of things that offend.

Mat 12:34 Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

I beleive a person has a change of heart (repentance) by faith not by doing works.

An evil man may do a good work but his heart is still wicked and in the long run more evil will emerge than good.

 

[Muffled]

The reality is that Christians don't follow the Law. They don't study it. They don't care about it. Yet, Paul and all Christian leaders try to get Christians to follow rules of behavior. To do what? Isn't it to prove that they really do believe? So we're back at the start again. True faith has the good works to go along with it. And that kind of faith justifies. The problem is: God gave the Jews those laws, and in some places, says they are to do them forever. So Paul does have to manipulate verses to make the Law unnecessary for Christian salvation and for Christians to live by.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe this is true. It is just that the law is not our God, Jesus is our Lord so what He says goes whether the law appears to be contrary or not.

A brother does not need to judge a brother but sometimes people forget who they are and need to be reminded.

This appears to be contradictory.

 

[Muffled]

Please answer

I beleive the answer is simple the Holy Spirit leads Paul into the same conclusion I made that it is God who justifies and Abraham can't justify himself.