James; The Wisdom from above

reply to post by NOTurTypical


On what do you base his age? What evidence supports that he was a teenager? Furthermore, even if he was that would make him around 80 years old when he allegedly wrote his Gospel. The same problems still present themselves: Old age and the length of time between the events and their being written down. Time distorts memories. So how can you claim that the Gospel according to John is accurate in the least bit?

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


The same methodology you are utilizing to say it isnt... prejudicial arbitrary conjecture. Any other questions?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


No, see, that's where you are wrong. You are making these claims, the onus probandi is on you. If you have no evidence to offer up to support your claim then we can outright reject your claim. My saying something isn't is merely in reference to your claim that it is and offering no evidence to back it.

And we're still back to the fact that even if he was a teenager then, some 60 years had passed from the time of the events and the writing down of them by John. That calls the accuracy into question.

Let's say for argument's sake that all of the events are accurate, how would all of the dialogue and conversations be accurate? How could we know that for sure? He remembered every minute detail 60 years later? If even one thing is wrong the whole of its accuracy, and therefore its "infallibility" comes into question.

I mean, that is the claim, that the Bible is infallible. It can't be infallible if it is found to be fallible, even if in only one area.

Also, how did John get all of this information? Did he literally eyewitness everything? If not then who filled him in on the gaps?

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786


You made the claim that the author of the gospel was not the traditional author. Therefore the burden of proof is upon you to show that John is not the author. Prejudicial arbitrary conjecture wont fly for conclusive proof. You can believe whatever you want to but no offense your opinion is just that, your opinion. John's disciples swing a much bigger bat than you do.

If you dont want to believe then don't believe. Lol. I'm not here to justify your unbelief.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

John's disciples swing a much bigger bat than you do.

What you are putting your faith in is a book by a disciple of Emperor Constantine, making a statement that an early church father said something about hearing the Apostle John speak when he was young.
There is no place in John which says the Gospel was written by John, where somehow it is an article of faith to believe in an Apostolic authorship for the book. It is just a traditional designation given the book to have a name, calling it John.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Irenaeus was a "disciple of emperor Constantine"? That's quite remarkable, when was Constantine born again?

While we're on the subject, does anyone have any thoughts on James ch3 vv13-18, the official topic of this thread?

If you don't like my proposed explanation of the similarity of pattern between this passage and Galatians ch5 vv16-24, does anyone have a better theory?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Irenaeus was a "disciple of emperor Constantine"? That's quite remarkable, when was Constantine born again?

I wasn't talking about Irenaeus.

The earliest testimony to the author was that of Papias, preserved in fragmentary quotes in Eusebius's history of the Church.
Wikipedia

I was talking about Eusebius.

reply to post by DISRAELI

While we're on the subject, does anyone have any thoughts on James ch3 vv13-18, the official topic of this thread?

If you don't like my proposed explanation of the similarity of pattern between this passage and Galatians ch5 vv16-24, does anyone have a better theory?

I would go along with the idea that the writer of James would have been familiar with Galatians, but I don't see James here doing a reiteration of what Paul was saying.
James is saying people who are not blessed with a heavenly wisdom, and just act as a natural man for his own satisfactions, should keep their mouth shut in church and not try to be a teacher.
Paul was talking about living in a lawful way even though not following a written out, itemized law.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I don't think it can be just about teaching or not-teaching.
The scope of the activities coming from the "wisdom from above" (v17) and from its opposite (vv14-16) covers much broader ground than that.
In fact they cover the whole of life, as does Paul's account of the "works of the flesh" and the "fruit of the Spirit".

At the end of my previous James thread, on vv1-12 of the same chapter, I suggested that while those verses were criticising the manner of the teaching of certain teachers, the end of the chapter was returning to a discussion of the content of their teaching.

Thank you for getting back to the topic, incidentally.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

You made the claim that the author of the gospel was not the traditional author. Therefore the burden of proof is upon you to show that John is not the author.

Actually that was after you claimed that John was the author of the Gospel of John. That's the fact that you keep missing. I don't know who the author is nor have I ever claimed to know. In fact that's my point. We don't know who authored it or most of the other 66 Canonical books of the Bible.

The Qur'an on the other hand has only one author.

You can believe whatever you want to but no offense your opinion is just that, your opinion.

As is yours. You claiming the Gospel according to John was written by the Apostle John is nothing but an opinion, especially since you refuse to produce any facts other than hearsay to back up your claim.

John's disciples swing a much bigger bat than you do.

Of course you would say that, because saying such a thing would support your claim. If they said he didn't write it you wouldn't making that claim. Also to say such a thing is an appeal to authority fallacy. It's also a very clear-cut case of confirmation bias.

If you dont want to believe then don't believe. Lol. I'm not here to justify your unbelief.

I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to justify your belief. I'm asking you to back up your claim of John's authorship with evidence other than "Someone who was a disciple of a disciple of John 100 years after the Gospel of John was written allegedly claimed that John wrote the Gospel of John."

So, sorry, but the onus probandi is still on you. It's on you and every other Christian who claims that the Apostle John was the author of the Gospel according to John. Please stop trying to side step the burden.

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786

Sorry, while the rest of you were away, we managed to get this thread back on track as a "James" topic.
There is probably a thread somewhere called "the authorship of John" where that separate topic can be discussed.

reply to post by DISRAELI


You did? Well how come I still see people discussing the authorship of John recently? I guess I can take the hint, though. You don't want an off-topic discussion about such a touchy subject on this thread. Fair enough.

Anyone who wants to continue this conversation, you can U2U me or start a thread regarding the authorship of John.

Peace be upon you.

reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786

My counter-coup was fairly recent- you were just the first person to renew the discussion afterwards.
I hope the hint can be taken on both sides.
I'm not concerned about the "touchy subject" side of things- just the "off-topic". Nothing can be discussed properly if the conversation gets diverted to everything under the sun.

reply to post by DISRAELI

. . . the end of the chapter was returning to a discussion of the content of their teaching.

Huh?
I think the entire chapter is on the same subject where most of it dwells on the negative, the author spends some time at the end to point out what is good and should be brought out to view.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Irenaeus was a "disciple of emperor Constantine"? That's quite remarkable, when was Constantine born again?

I wasn't talking about Irenaeus.

The earliest testimony to the author was that of Papias, preserved in fragmentary quotes in Eusebius's history of the Church.
Wikipedia

I was talking about Eusebius.

edit on 4-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

That's weird. We've been talking about Irenaeus and Polycarp. Follow along please.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
That's weird. We've been talking about Irenaeus and Polycarp. Follow along please.

As I observed to CoolerAbdullah, this is really supposed to be a thread about James, and I was hoping to get it back on track.

reply to post by jmdewey60

The chapter divisions were imposed later, so they can't be relied upon as units.

In my "Use of the tongue" thread, I detected a three-stage process in the middle of James.

1) At the end of ch2, he is famously criticising those who say they have faith and leave it at that.
He points out that they also need to show their faith by their works.
I suggest this debate involves an implied criticism of those whose one-sided teaching encourages that viewpoint.

2) ch3 vv1-12, his remarks on the use of the tongue.
I suggested that James had collected these thoughts together from his generalised teaching, but that in this context they were more pointedly directed at the same "teachers" whose teaching was being criticised at the end of the previous chapter.
In his eyes, these over-enthusiastic faith-merchants were the ones who were over-eager to be teachers, not sufficiently conscious of the fact that they could be misguided, using the tongue bitterly in controversy, perhaps even cursing their opponents.
You only have to think about the history of theological controversy over the next two thousand years to realise just how plausible this picture is.

3) Then vv13-18.
v13 says "By his good life let him show his works".
In other words, James is returning to the previous theme of "showing faith by works".

In short, at the end of ch2 and the end of ch3 James is putting certain people right on the content of their teaching, and he takes time out in the middle to comment on the manner of their teaching.
The advantage of that analysis is that it presents the "use of the tongue" theme as part of a deliberate literary structure, and not just something thrown in at random.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
That's weird. We've been talking about Irenaeus and Polycarp. Follow along please.

As I observed to CoolerAbdullah, this is really supposed to be a thread about James, and I was hoping to get it back on track.

Yes of course, my apology.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Catholics view this as a basis for the refutation of some of Paul's more radical statements regarding salvation, and the later derived Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide. When I view this as a Catholic, it's tough to argue with, because it's pretty darned clear -- if you believe in Christ, but act contrary to his commandments, you're out of luck, all notions of "saved once, saved always" notwithstanding. A Calvinist, by nature, can't help but struggle with that bit.

When I look at it as a non-Reformed Protestant, however, it is easily accepted, as there is plenty in Paul's Epistles that speaks to proper behaviour, and James can be viewed as a restatement of that, written by an Apostle deeply ensconced in the Jewish Law. Your works don't contribute to your salvation, but they validate your sincerity in your belief.

Finally, when I look at it a little more dispassionately, I kind of come down on the Catholic side of things, because in both instances, good works are required. Even if they are mere evidence of sincerity, they are still required, so to say that they play no part in salvation seems a bit illogical.

I suppose that one instance that can be cited would be the "deathbed repentance" -- if one truly repents of their evil ways and accepts Christ, but never has the opportunity to perform any good works, are they still saved? Well, the thief on the cross serves as an example to say "yes", but I'd say that he was the exception that proves the rule, and would be more of an example of God's infinite mercy than of saying your works are irrelevant. People who are sorry at the end are likely more sorry that they are at their end than they are genuinely sorry that they treated others like crud all their lives.