James; The Wisdom from above

reply to post by DISRAELI


Nice post!

Thematically, there is a split between the Epistles of Paul and everyone else because they had largely different audiences. After the council in Jerusalem, Paul focuses almost entirely on the Greek Gentiles, while the remainder of the Apostles, including James, continued their mission to the Jewish community. The texts made their way around to both Jewish and Gentile churches eventually, but, as they are addressed fairly specifically, they should be viewed in the context of whom they were directed to.

As a result, both are required to frame the same message in the context of the existing beliefs of the culture they are preaching to -- one would scarcely call Paul a neo-Platonist, but Greek Dualism definitely plays a part in what he has to say, just as Judaic Law factors into Hebrews or James in a manner that Paul stays away from.

Ultimately, the same message remains behind it all (for example, one can find support for Protestant "Sola fide" in James, and support for Catholic "By faith, but not faith alone" in Paul's letters,) and the differences are less a matter of discord than they are of presentation and context.

reply to post by adjensen

Thank you.
Yes, I think they have essentially the same message.
Part of the problem for modern people in appreciating James is that nearly all theological discussion for the last two thousand years has been conducted using the vocabulary that Paul developed. So the fact that James does not use (pointedly avoids?) this vocabulary is what makes him an object of suspicion to such as Luther. "There's something odd about James- he's not using the right words".

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Who wrote the Gospel according to John?

Are you being serious?

reply to post by adjensen


Where have you been brother??

reply to post by NOTurTypical


:-)

I moved, that was part of it, but to be honest, I was getting a bit depressed with having the same arguments over and over, often over points of rudimentary facts that were intentionally ignored because they didn't jibe with what people wanted to believe. I was also struggling with what I saw as positive indications of Calvin's Doctrine of Double Predestination in some of my interactions with other posters, and that was kind of depressing as well.

So I figured that a break was in order, which turned into about a year, but I've had some prodding from above to come back to try and quash a little ignorance, so we'll see how that goes. ATS seems a little quieter (MadnessInMySoul, theDjin and awake_and_aware apparently got the ban hammer somewhere along the way) but I see some of the same old arguments are ongoing.

Hope that you're well :-)

reply to post by adjensen


remember me?

Nice to have you back... i was also wondering what happened to you actually...

You always seemed to be one of the more rational people around the religious forums...

I look forward to chatting in the future



BTW NuT... i might know why he questioned the author of John... there are some verses that do not indicate john was the writer... but that isn't the point of this thread

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

remember me?

Nice to have you back... i was also wondering what happened to you actually...

You always seemed to be one of the more rational people around the religious forums...

Of course I remember you, and I'm every bit as rational as I was a year ago

BTW NuT... i might know why he questioned the author of John... there are some verses that do not indicate john was the writer... but that isn't the point of this thread

We get the authors of the Gospels from tradition, not from claim of authorship, so while the Church Fathers held that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote them, the texts themselves make no such claim. However, one would tend to believe that Irenaeus (for example) would have a pretty good idea of who wrote it, so if he says "John", I'm not going to argue with him just to be contrary.

This is also the case with James -- the author of the text claims to be James, but not any James in particular. Tradition holds that it is James, brother of Jesus, which is somewhat supported by the fact that, by not stating which James he is, it implies a James of note, such as the brother of Christ. But if he's not, it doesn't really change anything, as he's not misrepresenting anything.

reply to post by adjensen

Also this James speaks with a certain degree of authority, an assumption that people will take note of what he says.
That too suggests a "notable" James, while still leaving the exact identity open.

reply to post by adjensen


How could you forget this grin eh...

It seems that in the record of John... he speaks about John not in the first person but in the third person perspective...

IF someone writes about himself he would generally use " I " to discribe his actions or what he saw... This is not the case in the gospel of John...

For example...



John 1:32
And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

John 3:24
For John was not yet cast into prison.

John 3:26
And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

This does not sound like the Author of this text was John... but someone recording the events of John

Sorry for the off topicness...

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

:-)

I moved, that was part of it, but to be honest, I was getting a bit depressed with having the same arguments over and over, often over points of rudimentary facts that were intentionally ignored because they didn't jibe with what people wanted to believe. I was also struggling with what I saw as positive indications of Calvin's Doctrine of Double Predestination in some of my interactions with other posters, and that was kind of depressing as well.

So I figured that a break was in order, which turned into about a year, but I've had some prodding from above to come back to try and quash a little ignorance, so we'll see how that goes. ATS seems a little quieter (MadnessInMySoul, theDjin and awake_and_aware apparently got the ban hammer somewhere along the way) but I see some of the same old arguments are ongoing.

Hope that you're well :-)

Lol, as a former Calvinist church attendee I'm probably the only one that gets that joke. Lol. And I know exactly what you mean. Im used to the same arguments time after time. And yes, they got themselves banned but the enemy reloads them just as soon as others bow out. It's almost like a coordinated attack. :-|

reply to post by Akragon


No idea.. no idea. I have no reason to believe John wasn't the author.

reply to post by Akragon

Very briefly, because I don't want to stray off-topic either;
At least two Johns in that gospel, viz John the Baptist and John the son of Zebedee.
Your quotes are all about the first one.
The traditional authorship of the gospel is the second one.

reply to post by Akragon


Dude, in those verses John the apostle (author) is talking about John the Baptist.

Hahaha...

Sorry guys... i guess i blanked on that one...

Pardon the brainfart

reply to post by Akragon


Lol, no biggie.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


Are you being serious?

Yes, I'm being serious. Please answer the question. Who wrote the Gospel according to John?

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


Are you being serious?

Yes, I'm being serious. Please answer the question. Who wrote the Gospel according to John?

As I noted earlier, tradition holds that it was written by John, son of Zebedee, but there is nothing definitive in the text that claims this, so you are welcome to believe it was written by whomever you like. Well, someone who lived prior to 100AD, that is -- no sneaking Emperor Constantine in there, please

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


Are you being serious?

Yes, I'm being serious. Please answer the question. Who wrote the Gospel according to John?

The apostle John, brother of James.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

:-)

I moved, that was part of it, but to be honest, I was getting a bit depressed with having the same arguments over and over, often over points of rudimentary facts that were intentionally ignored because they didn't jibe with what people wanted to believe. I was also struggling with what I saw as positive indications of Calvin's Doctrine of Double Predestination in some of my interactions with other posters, and that was kind of depressing as well.

So I figured that a break was in order, which turned into about a year, but I've had some prodding from above to come back to try and quash a little ignorance, so we'll see how that goes. ATS seems a little quieter (MadnessInMySoul, theDjin and awake_and_aware apparently got the ban hammer somewhere along the way) but I see some of the same old arguments are ongoing.

Hope that you're well :-)

Got your work cut out for you, there's been a few more additions to the ignorant crowd since you've been gone, take a stroll through the forum and see what i'm talking about. Shouldn't be too hard to pick them out, they make trolling obvious. Obvious troll is painfully obvious.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The apostle John, brother of James.

And what do you base this on? What evidence do you have to support this claim? If the Apostle John wrote this narrative why does he speak of himself in the third person?