Was Jesus a type of messiah (The Messiah) who illuminated the sacred scriptures for the lost sheep of the entire world?

[IndigoChild5559]

There is one and only one Jesus Christ.

The "Jesus Christ" that you have learned about from your bible, is not a historical person. A historical Jesus does exist, but he was different than the Jesus of your gospels.

 

[jimb]

The "Jesus Christ" that you have learned about from your bible, is not a historical person. A historical Jesus does exist, but he was different than the Jesus of your gospels.

Can you be any more vague? BTW, what do you base your (mis)information on?

P.S. I am glad that you use the present tense as in "A historical Jesus does exist".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Can you be any more vague? BTW, what do you base your (mis)information on?

It is what I have learned from the consensus of actual historians, experts in the field (as opposed to preachers in the churches). They will tell you (and I agree with them) that we know almost nothing about the historical Jesus, since he left no writings. They will tell you that the gospels are collections of legends that built up in the decades after Jesus' death, and are not reliable sources for facts. They then look at probabilities. For example, since Jesus was a Jew in early first century Judea/Samaria/Galilee, the odds are sky high that he practiced second Temple Judaism, while (since virgin women in an era before modern medicine didn't conceive) the probability is rock bottom that Jesus was born of a virgin.

P.S. I am glad that you use the present tense as in "A historical Jesus does exist".

Does, as in the concept currently exists. I'm not saying that Jesus is alive, since one of the few things everyone but Muslims agree on is that he was crucified and died.

 

[jimb]

It is what I have learned from the consensus of actual historians, experts in the field (as opposed to preachers in the churches). They will tell you (and I agree with them) that we know almost nothing about the historical Jesus, since he left no writings. They will tell you that the gospels are collections of legends that built up in the decades after Jesus' death, and are not reliable sources for facts. They then look at probabilities. For example, since Jesus was a Jew in early first century Judea/Samaria/Galilee, the odds are sky high that he practiced second Temple Judaism, while (since virgin women in an era before modern medicine didn't conceive) the probability is rock bottom that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Does, as in the concept currently exists. I'm not saying that Jesus is alive, since one of the few things everyone but Muslims agree on is that he was crucified and died.

Well, I also base my knowledge on the consensus of actual historians, experts in the field (as opposed to preachers in the churches). They will tell you (and I agree with them) that we know quite a bit about the historical Jesus, since others (with considerable academic authority) wrote about Him.

Anyone with any knowledge is aware that the gospels are not the equivalent of modern Western journalism. They are meant to convey spiritual truths and have a lot in common with poetry. (BTW, I got a good laugh out of your example of "fact" regarding virgin birth).

And your lack of belief in Jesus' resurrection is very, very sad.

It is also very sad that you clearly lack the ability to understand spiritual truths. If you think that existence is composed of nothing but observable data, you are the sorriest of all people.

P.S. Your quote from Kotzker Rebbe is unprovable!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Well, I also base my knowledge on the consensus of actual historians, experts in the field (as opposed to preachers in the churches). They will tell you (and I agree with them) that we know quite a bit about the historical Jesus, since others (with considerable academic authority) wrote about Him.

You can claim this all you want. It won't make it true.

The modern idea of history has only slowly evolved, bringing in more and more scientific understanding.

Herodotus is called the Father of History because he was the first to approach history in any systematic way, seeking to explore motivations, causes, and consequences.

The idea that oral histories might be unreliable was an idea that was very slow in coming. Even well known early historians such as Josephus or Eusebius were unfortunately prone to simply accepting what others had said, regardless of how reliable those sources were.

Let me give you an analogous instance, just so that you can see I'm applying this across the board and not just "picking on Jesus."

We have no writings by Gautama Buddha, or at least none that have survived. We are dependent on what others wrote ABOUT the Buddha centuries after he died. It is fairly safe to say that the Buddha did exist; we know this simply from the fact that he made such an impact. But it is impossible at this point to know exactly which things that are said about him are actually historical, and which are simply legends that developed about him and his teachings. People who write about the Buddha simply accept all the stories, including those that are, well, highly doubtful. The fact that these scholars include these stories doesn't mean that the stories are actual history.

In the same way, those authors who wrote the gospels were not really interested in figuring out which stories about Jesus were true, and which were dubious. They simply collected and included all they could find.

Anyone with any knowledge is aware that the gospels are not the equivalent of modern Western journalism. They are meant to convey spiritual truths and have a lot in common with poetry.

I certainly agree with you there. And if all Christianity were was a religion devoted to the moral teachings one can get from the gospels, I'd be quite fine with it. The problem arises in that the doctrines of Christianity (such as Jesus being God, or that he died to atone for sins) require that certain things be historical, among them the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection.

And your lack of belief in Jesus' resurrection is very, very sad.

I'm sure you feel that way, and I don't wish to invalidate your feelings.

Honestly, though, I'm doing just fine without believing in Jesus. I first and foremost have God, who is merciful and forgiving. I have a working set of ethics. I have a wonderful faith community. I have all the tools I need to draw ever closer to God and becoming the very best me I can be. I just have no need for anything else.

It is also very sad that you clearly lack the ability to understand spiritual truths.

Whoa there, baby! LOL it seems like here your definition of understanding spiritual truths is agreeing with you. LOL

If you think that existence is composed of nothing but observable data, you are the sorriest of all people.

Are you under the assumption that I'm a materialist? I believe in God. By definition I am not a materialist.

P.S. Your quote from Kotzker Rebbe is unprovable!

So is the existence of God. I don't believe in God because he can be proven (or disproven). I believe in God because, in the absence of conclusive evidence, it only makes sense to go with what I intuit.

 

[jimb]

You can claim this all you want. It won't make it true.

The modern idea of history has only slowly evolved, bringing in more and more scientific understanding.

Herodotus is called the Father of History because he was the first to approach history in any systematic way, seeking to explore motivations, causes, and consequences.

The idea that oral histories might be unreliable was an idea that was very slow in coming. Even well known early historians such as Josephus or Eusebius were unfortunately prone to simply accepting what others had said, regardless of how reliable those sources were.

Let me give you an analogous instance, just so that you can see I'm applying this across the board and not just "picking on Jesus."

We have no writings by Gautama Buddha, or at least none that have survived. We are dependent on what others wrote ABOUT the Buddha centuries after he died. It is fairly safe to say that the Buddha did exist; we know this simply from the fact that he made such an impact. But it is impossible at this point to know exactly which things that are said about him are actually historical, and which are simply legends that developed about him and his teachings. People who write about the Buddha simply accept all the stories, including those that are, well, highly doubtful. The fact that these scholars include these stories doesn't mean that the stories are actual history.

In the same way, those authors who wrote the gospels were not really interested in figuring out which stories about Jesus were true, and which were dubious. They simply collected and included all they could find.

I certainly agree with you there. And if all Christianity were was a religion devoted to the moral teachings one can get from the gospels, I'd be quite fine with it. The problem arises in that the doctrines of Christianity (such as Jesus being God, or that he died to atone for sins) require that certain things be historical, among them the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection.

I'm sure you feel that way, and I don't wish to invalidate your feelings.

Honestly, though, I'm doing just fine without believing in Jesus. I first and foremost have God, who is merciful and forgiving. I have a working set of ethics. I have a wonderful faith community. I have all the tools I need to draw ever closer to God and becoming the very best me I can be. I just have no need for anything else.

Whoa there, baby! LOL it seems like here your definition of understanding spiritual truths is agreeing with you. LOL

Are you under the assumption that I'm a materialist? I believe in God. By definition I am not a materialist.

So is the existence of God. I don't believe in God because he can be proven (or disproven). I believe in God because, in the absence of conclusive evidence, it only makes sense to go with what I intuit.

So your last sentence can apply to you, but not to me or anyone else? An example: "The problem arises in that the doctrines of Christianity (such as Jesus being God, or that he died to atone for sins) require that certain things be historical, among them the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection.", followed by "...in the absence of conclusive evidence, it only makes sense to go with what I intuit".

Your argument has fallen flat on its own face!!!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So your last sentence can apply to you, but not to me or anyone else? An example: "The problem arises in that the doctrines of Christianity (such as Jesus being God, or that he died to atone for sins) require that certain things be historical, among them the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection.", followed by "...in the absence of conclusive evidence, it only makes sense to go with what I intuit".

Your argument has fallen flat on its own face!!!

I'm working very hard to try to make sense of what you are saying.

My last sentence was responded to your remark "P.S. Your quote from Kotzker Rebbe is unprovable!" I replied, "So is the existence of God. I don't believe in God because he can be proven (or disproven). I believe in God because, in the absence of conclusive evidence, it only makes sense to go with what I intuit."

That idea, that "in the absence of conclusive evidence, it makes sense to go with what I intuit" would apply to all, not just to me. And it goes without saying that when I or anyone else base a belief on intuition, that we flag it as dubious, since intuition makes lots of mistakes.

Now, much earlier in my post, and addressing an entirely different issues, You said, "Anyone with any knowledge is aware that the gospels are not the equivalent of modern Western journalism. They are meant to convey spiritual truths and have a lot in common with poetry." I replied, ""The problem arises in that the doctrines of Christianity (such as Jesus being God, or that he died to atone for sins) require that certain things be historical, among them the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection."

The point there has nothing to do with intuitive beliefs. It is about the fact that Christianity is more than just finding spiritual truths in an inspiring text. I can do THAT with the Tao te Ching. The point here is that Christianity includes certain doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and atonement that necessitate at least parts of the gospel to be historical. The gospels were not written to be inspiring pieces of poetry. They were written to teach about the life of Jesus, with the intent of explaining how God became man, and died for everyone's sins. Again, I am not seeing any connection whatsoever with my much later comment on intuition.

 

[jimb]

I'm working very hard to try to make sense of what you are saying.

My last sentence was responded to your remark "P.S. Your quote from Kotzker Rebbe is unprovable!" I replied, "So is the existence of God. I don't believe in God because he can be proven (or disproven). I believe in God because, in the absence of conclusive evidence, it only makes sense to go with what I intuit."

That idea, that "in the absence of conclusive evidence, it makes sense to go with what I intuit" would apply to all, not just to me. And it goes without saying that when I or anyone else base a belief on intuition, that we flag it as dubious, since intuition makes lots of mistakes.

Now, much earlier in my post, and addressing an entirely different issues, You said, "Anyone with any knowledge is aware that the gospels are not the equivalent of modern Western journalism. They are meant to convey spiritual truths and have a lot in common with poetry." I replied, ""The problem arises in that the doctrines of Christianity (such as Jesus being God, or that he died to atone for sins) require that certain things be historical, among them the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection."

The point there has nothing to do with intuitive beliefs. It is about the fact that Christianity is more than just finding spiritual truths in an inspiring text. I can do THAT with the Tao te Ching. The point here is that Christianity includes certain doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and atonement that necessitate at least parts of the gospel to be historical. The gospels were not written to be inspiring pieces of poetry. They were written to teach about the life of Jesus, with the intent of explaining how God became man, and died for everyone's sins. Again, I am not seeing any connection whatsoever with my much later comment on intuition.

Faith is NOT intuition! As Hebrews 11:1 puts it, "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Notice the last phrase: "ASSURANCE of what we do not see." or "Faith shows the reality of what we hope for; it is the evidence of what we do not see." REALITY; EVIDENCE".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Faith is NOT intuition!

Knowledge is based on evidence which proves. Faith is based on evidence which is insufficient for proof, but which intuition tells us is true.

As Hebrews 11:1 puts it, "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Notice the last phrase: "ASSURANCE of what we do not see." or "Faith shows the reality of what we hope for; it is the evidence of what we do not see." REALITY; EVIDENCE".

Paul is entitled to his opinion. However, I consider him to be dead wrong about this. For example, a person can hope their cancer stricken spouse will not die, have faith that they will not die, believe with all their heart that they will not die because God will heal them... and then they die. A person can have absolute faith that a human sacrifice will ensure the rains come, and then the drought continues. A person can have complete faith in their friend, completely trust that their friend has their back, and then find themselves betrayed. Faith is NOT evidence of truth.

I realize you believe that these verses in the Bible prove your point, because you have faith that the Bible is the word of God. You may even have some evidence of that. But your evidence is insufficient. You in fact believe the Bible to be the word of God because that is what you intuit to be the truth. And intuition makes mistakes. For this reason, the Bible (or any religious text) can never be accepted as evidence in any objective discussion.

 

[jimb]

Knowledge is based on evidence which proves. Faith is based on evidence which is insufficient for proof, but which intuition tells us is true.

Paul is entitled to his opinion. However, I consider him to be dead wrong about this. For example, a person can hope their cancer stricken spouse will not die, have faith that they will not die, believe with all their heart that they will not die because God will heal them... and then they die. A person can have absolute faith that a human sacrifice will ensure the rains come, and then the drought continues. A person can have complete faith in their friend, completely trust that their friend has their back, and then find themselves betrayed. Faith is NOT evidence of truth.

I realize you believe that these verses in the Bible prove your point, because you have faith that the Bible is the word of God. You may even have some evidence of that. But your evidence is insufficient. You in fact believe the Bible to be the word of God because that is what you intuit to be the truth. And intuition makes mistakes. For this reason, the Bible (or any religious text) can never be accepted as evidence in any objective discussion.

Clearly you do not understand faith. It is not "intuition", it is KNOWLEDGE. Biblical faith is NOT hope, it is CERTAINTY. I don't "intuit" my faith any more than I intuit love and happiness. All three are real and valid, but unprovable.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Clearly you do not understand faith. It is not "intuition", it is KNOWLEDGE. Biblical faith is NOT hope, it is CERTAINTY. I don't "intuit" my faith any more than I intuit love and happiness. All three are real and valid, but unprovable.

I actually DO understand what you are saying. I simply DISAGREE with you. Faith is not knowledge, and Biblical faith is not certainty. You absolutely do use your intuition to arrive at your beliefs. I'm actually not opposed to that. I'm only reminding you that intuition makes mistakes.

I doesn't bother me that you disagree with me. My only hope in this matter is that you can follow the reasoning for why I am saying the things I say. If you can understand my logic, and still disagree, that's fine. On the other hand, if you are not willing to even listen, to try and understand me, well... SMH

 

[Betho_br]

The Epistle of James is widely regarded as one of the oldest books in the New Testament. Many scholars date it to around 45 AD, which would place it before the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, held in 50 AD. This makes it one of the earliest, if not the very first, Christian writings produced after the death of Jesus.

I believe it's an excellent book for understanding the historical Jesus.

JAMES New American Standard Bible 1995

1) "ch. 1:1".) Lordship of Jesus.

2) "ch. 1:1".) twelve tribes who are [b]dispersed abroad. > twelve tribes who are [b]dispersed abroad

3) "ch. 1:4".) [e]endurance have its perfect > Are these Jewish concepts?
Or steadfastness

4) "ch. 1:17".) Father of lights > Is it a Jewish concept?

5) "ch. 1:18".) In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word (logos) of truth, so that we would be [s]a kind of first fruits [t]among His creatures. > This apparently explains John 1:1-3 and has nothing to do with the creation of the earth and the heavens, but with the metaphysical kingdom of Jesus! he said, My kingdom is not of this world. John 18:36.

6) "ch. 1:27".) Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained [ac]by the world. > Are these Jewish concepts?

7) "ch. 2:10" For whoever keeps the whole Law, yet stumbles in one point, has become guilty of all. > The church complied with the law.

8) "ch. 2:12-13" So speak, and so act, as those who are to be judged by the law of freedom. For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy [i]triumphs over judgment. > "the law of freedom" Is it a Jewish concept? Did this concept support the Jerusalem council regarding the Gentiles?

9) "ch. 2:19" You believe that [n]God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder > The doctrine of Unity.
James 2:19 One early ms there is one God

10) "ch. 3:1" Do not become teachers in large numbers, my brothers, since you know that we who are teachers will incur a [a]stricter judgment. > Look: Matthew 23:10: And do not be called [a]leaders; for only One is your Leader, that is, Christ. [a] Or teachers. > This is, in principle, the second heresy of the letter, the first is the so-called "law of freedom". Jesus taught: Matthew 5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

11) "ch. 3:15-17" This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, [l]natural, demonic. For where jealousy and [m]selfish ambition exist, [n]there is disorder and every evil thing. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peace-loving, gentle, [o]reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, [p]impartial, free of hypocrisy. > Is it a Jewish concept?

12) "ch. 4:12" There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you, [j]judging your neighbor? > A reference to Moses? > “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set” John 5:45, Acts 7:27,35. Did they usurp Moses' functions?


13) Read the text here, with your eyes:

"ch. 5:1-6" Come now, you rich people, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver have corroded, and their corrosion will [a]serve as a testimony against you and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure!4 Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and which has been withheld by you, cries out against you; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord [b]of armies. You have [c]lived for pleasure on the earth and lived luxuriously; you have [d]fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and [e]put to death the righteous person; he offers you no resistance.

13a) In 'James", it is the "rich" and not the religious leaders (Acts 13:27) who killed Jesus!
13b) Jesus has the title of "the righteous person"
13c) Pay attention to this title: Lord [b]of armies > All escharology in this chapter is referring to the local judgment to be executed by YHVH. However, if you always read the Christian Bible ("New Testament"), which did not exist at the time of James' letter, you think that the prayer "the Lord" in the text refers to "the coming of Jesus": James 5:7; 9-10 "Therefore be patient, brothers and sisters, until the coming of the Lord"

14) "ch. 5:14" Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, [m]anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; > The leaders of the church were the Jewish elders.

15) "ch. 5:19-20" My brothers and sisters, if anyone among you strays from the truth and someone turns him back, let him know that the one who has turned a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover a multitude of sins. > If you "deviate from the truth" you subsequently turn away from Jesus.

I had never stopped to study James' letter. It is clear that the entire theology of the Jewish elders was "remodeled" by Paul.

But... leave your opinion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Epistle of James is widely regarded as one of the oldest books in the New Testament. Many scholars date it to around 45 AD, which would place it before the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, held in 50 AD. This makes it one of the earliest, if not the very first, Christian writings produced after the death of Jesus.

You did a good job here. Even though some scholars date it as late as 60 CE, it would still be one of the very earliest texts, either before Paul's epistles or concurrent with them.

I believe it's an excellent book for understanding the historical Jesus.

That would depend to a large extent whether it was actually written by James the brother of Jesus or someone else. Scholars are divided on this. For the sake of having a coherant post, let's proceed on the assumption that it actually was written by James.

JAMES New American Standard Bible 1995

1) "ch. 1:1".) Lordship of Jesus.

Well, James believed his brother was the messiah. It doesn't mean it was true. It simply means that's his belief.

2) "ch. 1:1".) twelve tribes who are [b]dispersed abroad. > twelve tribes who are [b]dispersed abroad

Sure, he wrote to Jewish believers in Jesus who were in the diaspora. I'm not sure why you think this is a significant point.

3) "ch. 1:4".) [e]endurance have its perfect > Are these Jewish concepts?
Or steadfastness

James 1:4 (NIV) states: "Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything."

This just sounds like good advice that most people would give.

4) "ch. 1:17".) Father of lights > Is it a Jewish concept?

The phrase "Father of lights" is not found in any other known text written by a Jew. It might be pieced together by James drawing from the Jewish understanding of God as father, and the fact that Genesis speaks of God creating the great lights: sun, moon, and stars. Clearly, however, the turn of phrase is James' own invention.

5) "ch. 1:18".) In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word (logos) of truth, so that we would be [s]a kind of first fruits [t]among His creatures. > This apparently explains John 1:1-3 and has nothing to do with the creation of the earth and the heavens, but with the metaphysical kingdom of Jesus! he said, My kingdom is not of this world. John 18:36.

I don't think you that you can conclude this refers to John 1:1-3 simply because it uses the word logos. The author of John treated logos as a person. That's not what James is doing here. I also don't see any connection between this verse and your other conclusions.

6) "ch. 1:27".) Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained [ac]by the world. > Are these Jewish concepts?

Yes, this is absolutely a Jewish concept. Judaism, while it does have certain beliefs, the beliefs are not core. The core of Judaism is right behavior. The concept of tzedakah is a big huge major part of Judaism. It refers to our responsibility to care for the poor and vulnerable.

The word tzedakah is often translated as charity, but its root word actually means justice, so perhaps a better translation might be social justice. Unlike charity which is voluntary, tzedakah is mandatory. There are quite a few laws in the Torah that give instructions on how to care for the poor.

Today, religious Jews set aside 10% of our income for charities. This money is not what goes to support our synagogues. It is specifically meant for the poor, the sick, the old, the oppressed, and things which make a better world for all.

The idea behind tzedakah is this: Everything belongs to God, who entrusts it to us. Part of what he entrusts us is on behalf of the poor, and it is our job to make sure it gets to them.

7) "ch. 2:10" For whoever keeps the whole Law, yet stumbles in one point, has become guilty of all. > The church complied with the law.

This is one verse in James that absolutely goes against Jewish teaching. The standard for being righteous is not perfection, nor does slipping up make one wicked. The standard of righteousness is repenting when we fail.
Proverbs 24:16 For a righteous man may fall seven times And rise again

:

8) "ch. 2:12-13" So speak, and so act, as those who are to be judged by the law of freedom. For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy [i]triumphs over judgment. > "the law of freedom" Is it a Jewish concept? Did this concept support the Jerusalem council regarding the Gentiles?

There is no other Jewish text that uses this phrase; it is another "James-ism." However the idea it portrays, that obedience to the law is liberating, is certainly a Jewish one. Psalm 119:
7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

9) "ch. 2:19" You believe that [n]God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder > The doctrine of Unity.
James 2:19 One early ms there is one God

I don't think the idea that Jews were monotheists came as a great shock to anyone.

To be continued in my next post.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

10) "ch. 3:1" Do not become teachers in large numbers, my brothers, since you know that we who are teachers will incur a [a]stricter judgment. > Look: Matthew 23:10: And do not be called [a]leaders; for only One is your Leader, that is, Christ. [a] Or teachers. > This is, in principle, the second heresy of the letter, the first is the so-called "law of freedom". Jesus taught: Matthew 5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

I don't see the connection here. While I agree that Jesus is not the one and only teacher, I don't see any relationship at all to the fact that Jesus taught obedience to the Law.

11) "ch. 3:15-17" This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, [l]natural, demonic. For where jealousy and [m]selfish ambition exist, [n]there is disorder and every evil thing. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peace-loving, gentle, [o]reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, [p]impartial, free of hypocrisy. > Is it a Jewish concept?

Your quote lacks context because you did not include verse 14: "But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth." All James is really saying here is that envy and selfish ambition are evil things.

Is this a Jewish idea? Thou shalt not envy is one of the 10 commandments. While certain kinds of ambition are to be commended, James specifically mentions SELFISH ambition, meaning getting ahead at the expense of others. That would violate the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself.

12) "ch. 4:12" There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you, [j]judging your neighbor? > A reference to Moses? >

No, it's a reference to God.

“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set” John 5:45, Acts 7:27,35. Did they usurp Moses' functions?

Who is "they" that you are asking if they are usurping Moses' function? I can't really answer until I know who you mean and what it is specifically that they are doing.

It really isn't consistent with Jewish thought to see Moses as an accuser. God gave the law through Moses, making Moses the messenger of that which brings us closer to God and helps us become better individuals.

13) Read the text here, with your eyes:

"ch. 5:1-6" Come now, you rich people, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver have corroded, and their corrosion will [a]serve as a testimony against you and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure!4 Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and which has been withheld by you, cries out against you; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord [b]of armies. You have [c]lived for pleasure on the earth and lived luxuriously; you have [d]fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and [e]put to death the righteous person; he offers you no resistance.

13a) In 'James", it is the "rich" and not the religious leaders (Acts 13:27) who killed Jesus!

No. I'm clueless why you would even imagine so. The passage says absolutely nothing about Jesus' death.

13b) Jesus has the title of "the righteous person"

Some translations render it "innocent" rather than righteous. But either way, we get the general gist. But the fact that Jesus is called "the righteous one" doesn't automatically mean that James is referring to Jesus, since there are many people who are innocent/righteous.

While Judaism does not consider wealth a bad thing, it comes with certain responsibilities, especially towards the poor. But it is pretty obvious to everyone in this world that a great many rich people are corrupt. They do all the things in James litany, including paying off judges to railroad innocent/righteous people, or send their goons to "take care of them."

13c) Pay attention to this title: Lord [b]of armies > All escharology in this chapter is referring to the local judgment to be executed by YHVH. However, if you always read the Christian Bible ("New Testament"), which did not exist at the time of James' letter, you think that the prayer "the Lord" in the text refers to "the coming of Jesus": James 5:7; 9-10 "Therefore be patient, brothers and sisters, until the coming of the Lord"

The commander of God's armies refers to the angel Joshua saw in Joshua 5:13-15.

14) "ch. 5:14" Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, [m]anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; > The leaders of the church were the Jewish elders.

the Jewish believers in Jesus who lived out in the diaspora were part of Gentile churches. The greek word that you are translating as elder is presbyteroi, which gets anglicized as presbyter. It is also the word that was eventually contracted into priest. It refers to those who by the laying on of hands are given the authority to teach the church. Since these churches were largely Gentile, I would assume that most of the presbyters were Gentiles.

15) "ch. 5:19-20" My brothers and sisters, if anyone among you strays from the truth and someone turns him back, let him know that the one who has turned a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover a multitude of sins. > If you "deviate from the truth" you subsequently turn away from Jesus.

But what is the "truth" that James is referring to here?

I had never stopped to study James' letter. It is clear that the entire theology of the Jewish elders was "remodeled" by Paul.

I don't think either Paul or James invented the concept of presbyters. The idea of laying on hands to give authority to religious leaders is almost certainly based on the Jewish concept of leaning of hands to ordain Rabbis.

As to the struggle between James and Paul, it is very apparent from their absolutely contradictory statements, James saying "So you see that we are justified by work, and not by faith alone" and Paul saying "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith...not by works, so that no one can boast." Most scholars present the Nazarenes in Jerusalem and the Christians in the churches that Paul set up as almost two completely different communities with no small animosity between them.

 

[jimb]

I actually DO understand what you are saying. I simply DISAGREE with you. Faith is not knowledge, and Biblical faith is not certainty. You absolutely do use your intuition to arrive at your beliefs. I'm actually not opposed to that. I'm only reminding you that intuition makes mistakes.

I doesn't bother me that you disagree with me. My only hope in this matter is that you can follow the reasoning for why I am saying the things I say. If you can understand my logic, and still disagree, that's fine. On the other hand, if you are not willing to even listen, to try and understand me, well... SMH

I believe God's word, i.e., the Bible. Period.

Why do you disagree with Hebrews 11:1?

 

[Betho_br]

You did a good job here. Even though some scholars date it as late as 60 CE, it would still be one of the very earliest texts, either before Paul's epistles or concurrent with them.

Thanks for the responses.

1) Although James or whoever wrote the letter believes that Jesus is Lord, I do not see this as a statement regarding the Messiah. There are many Lords (adone H0113 Strong dic.). The letter does not mention the Messiah, at least I didn't find it.

I forgot the main subject of James' letter.

15) "ch. 5:19-20" If, however, you are fulfilling the [i]royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.

1. James 2:8Or law of our King

1) > Did this concept of "royal law" belong to the Jews? Specifically the use of terms.

2) > These variants are interesting! Observe the Novum Testamentum Graece NA28. Wasn't this verse the origin of the theology of Jesus' "royalty"?

In my understanding, the early church was made up mostly of Jews.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe God's word, i.e., the Bible. Period.

That's fine. I have absolutely no problem with you having your sacred text, just as i don't mind the LDS having the book or Mormon, or the Muslims having the Quran, or the Hindus having the Vedas. I personally treasure the Torah as the basis for my ethics and understanding God.

Why do you disagree with Hebrews 11:1?

Didn't I just give you a list of instances where people had great faith, and it didn't pan out? Not that Hebrews has any authority for me, but even if it did, when a sacred text contradicts obvious reality, I go with the obvious reality. For example, the Torah mentions rabbits chewing their cud. Reality is different from that. You'll never, ever see me saying that rabbits chew their cud, even though it's in the Torah.

Here are the examples that refute Hebrews 11:1 that I gave you in post 29:

"Paul is entitled to his opinion. However, I consider him to be dead wrong about this. For example, a person can hope their cancer stricken spouse will not die, have faith that they will not die, believe with all their heart that they will not die because God will heal them... and then they die. A person can have absolute faith that a human sacrifice will ensure the rains come, and then the drought continues. A person can have complete faith in their friend, completely trust that their friend has their back, and then find themselves betrayed. Faith is NOT evidence of truth."

Faith is absolutely NO ASSURANCE of anything that is hoped for.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thanks for the responses.

1) Although James or whoever wrote the letter believes that Jesus is Lord, I do not see this as a statement regarding the Messiah. There are many Lords (adone H0113 Strong dic.). The letter does not mention the Messiah, at least I didn't find it.

Although yes, lord can refer to all different kinds of people, I think pretty much everyone agrees that James meant Jesus being the Messiah. The reason for this is that the core of James' teaching was that his brother was the messiah. So who else would James be calling lord?

I forgot the main subject of James' letter.

I'm not sure James can be reduced to one main subject. He had quite a few important themes. Of all those themes, I would say the top two would be his comments on faith and works, and his connection of wisdom to righteous living. Let me know if you want me to into more detail on this.

15) "ch. 5:19-20" If, however, you are fulfilling the [i]royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.

1. James 2:8Or law of our King

1) > Did this concept of "royal law" belong to the Jews? Specifically the use of terms.

2) > These variants are interesting! Observe the Novum Testamentum Graece NA28. Wasn't this verse the origin of the theology of Jesus' "royalty"?

Jews have been calling God "King" for thousands of years. Since the law came from God, it simply follows that one might call it the "law of our King" or "royal law." However, I can't find any other jewish texts that use that exact expression. It appears to be another James-ism.

The reason that Christians refer to Jesus as King comes from two different places, one predating their religion, and one considerably later.

1. The reason Jesus is called the King of the Jews is because he claimed to be the messiah, and that is exactly what the messiah is: an earthly King who will rule Israel during that idyllic time of peace we call the messianic era.
2. By the second century, Greek converts had brought into the church the idea that Jesus was simply one particular mode of God. In the fourth century, the church smoothed out the rough edges and developed Trinitarianism. Now, if Jesus is God, it follows that he would share God's titles, such as King.

In my understanding, the early church was made up mostly of Jews.

Depends on how early you are referring to. The term "the early church" generally refers to the period of Christianity's development from the time of Jesus' death, around AD 30-33, to the 4th century when the Nicene Creed was written and the New Testament canon established.. However, I've known Protestants who use "the early church" to refer to that time when the Apostles were still alive, aka the time period during which the books of the New Testament were written, which would be roughly until the end of the first century.

The very first believers in Jesus were the Nazarenes, those Jews who saw Jesus as the Messiah but continued to fully practice Judaism, including temple sacrifices. Almost all of them were in Jerusalem, and James the brother of Jesus was in charge.

When I looked into this, most scholars think that Peter visited Cornelius (assuming the event actually happened) sometime seven to ten years after Jesus' death. So Gentiles among believers happened almost from the start. By the time of Paul's epistles, he was writing to churches that were almost entirely Gentile with a few token Jews. Only the church in Jerusalem was really a church full of Jews.