The misunderstood Book of James & parsing the covenants/dispensations.

[presidente]

When they dissociate themselves from "the Jews' religion" (Gal 1:13,14). In John's Gospel he calls the feasts of Passover and Tabernacles "the Jews" feasts.

So what?

There are times in John where 'Jews' refer to Judeans, or leaders of the Judeans. Sometimes 'the Jews' refers to the Jews in a town when they were opposing the apostles. But the apostles were also Jews.

 

[Nehemiah6]

But the apostles were also Jews.

But they were distancing themselves from the religion of the Jews. Hence the persecution.

 

[FlyingDove]

Not one word in this post about "the misunderstood book of James"!

As a matter of fact James writes as a Hebrew Christian to other Hebrew Christians. But that does not automatically exclude Gentile Christians. There is nothing to misunderstand in that book. James is all about practical Christianity.

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
(MY NOTE: James is an Israelite, his mission is to Israelite' (Gal 2:9), he's writing to Israelite'.)

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
(MY NOTE: Peter, John & James are sent to the CIRCUMCISION!)

The 12 Tribes:

Gen 32:28 God changed Jacob's name to Israel. The 12 tribes of Israel are Jacob's sons. Each son received a land portion (except Levi they become the priesthood) Joseph receives a double portion of land (Gen 48:2) And divides it between his 2 sons Ephraim & Manasseh.

KJV Dictionary Definition: TRIBE, n. L. tribus.

1. A family, race or series of generations, descending from the same progenitor and kept distinct, as in the case of the twelve tribes of Israel, descended from the twelve sons of Jacob.

Vines Bible Dictionary of New Testament Words: Explanation on the word Tribe:

a) The word "tribe" is never used in the Bible to refer gentiles. As follows: "Tribe" is found 297 times in the Bible, and ""every time"" it refers to the Israelites.

James is a Jewish epistle & your practical Christianity narrative is false! Clearly you misunderstand the epistle of James!

 

[Cameron143]

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
(MY NOTE: James is an Israelite, his mission is to Israelite' (Gal 2:9), he's writing to Israelite'.)

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
(MY NOTE: Peter, John & James are sent to the CIRCUMCISION!)

The 12 Tribes:

Gen 32:28 God changed Jacob's name to Israel. The 12 tribes of Israel are Jacob's sons. Each son received a land portion (except Levi they become the priesthood) Joseph receives a double portion of land (Gen 48:2) And divides it between his 2 sons Ephraim & Manasseh.

KJV Dictionary Definition: TRIBE, n. L. tribus.

1. A family, race or series of generations, descending from the same progenitor and kept distinct, as in the case of the twelve tribes of Israel, descended from the twelve sons of Jacob.

Vines Bible Dictionary of New Testament Words: Explanation on the word Tribe:

a) The word "tribe" is never used in the Bible to refer gentiles. As follows: "Tribe" is found 297 times in the Bible, and ""every time"" it refers to the Israelites.

James is a Jewish epistle & your practical Christianity narrative is false! Clearly you misunderstand the epistle of James!

Most books in the Bible have a clear and intended audience. And understanding the original audience is essential to understanding the book's message. But all scripture is useful for every Christian. And no scripture will conflict with another scripture. The OT informs the NT and the NT explains more fully the OT. While James is a transitory book, there does not exist 2 sets of criteria...1 for Jews and the other for Gentiles. What applies to one, applies to all.

 

[rogerg]

Most books in the Bible have a clear and intended audience. And understanding the original audience is essential to understanding the book's message. But all scripture is useful for every Christian. And no scripture will conflict with another scripture. The OT informs the NT and the NT explains more fully the OT. While James is a transitory book, there does not exist 2 sets of criteria...1 for Jews and the other for Gentiles. What applies to one, applies to all.

Just out of curiosity and respectfully, Cameron143, do you believe that God alone moved the writers of the Bible to write what He wanted written, with each and every word in it being God breathed? If so, do you think it was His intention to include an implied "audience" factor that its reader would have to recognize, take into consideration, and compensate for, to find and understand its doctrine? I have never found any such instruction within the Bible that directs that.

 

[Cameron143]

Just out of curiosity and respectfully, Cameron143, do you believe that God alone moved the writers of the Bible to write what He wanted written, with each and every word in it being God breathed? If so, do you think it was His intention to include an implied "audience" factor that its reader would have to recognize, take into consideration, and compensate for, to find and understand its doctrine? I have never found any such instruction within the Bible that directs that.

Yes. I meant to include this point as well. Good catch. My point on a particular audience is that God writes from many points of view and this is instructional and gives a broader perspective, while still having a single cohesive message.

 

[maxwel]

Just out of curiosity and respectfully, Cameron143, do you believe that God alone moved the writers of the Bible to write what He wanted written, with each and every word in it being God breathed? If so, do you think it was His intention to include an implied "audience" factor that its reader would have to recognize, take into consideration, and compensate for, to find and understand its doctrine? I have never found any such instruction within the Bible that directs that.

Are you suggesting scripture comes with no historical context, and no historical audience?

I think if we follow this logic through, we end up with a complete inability to do hermeneutics.
And this is essentially where cults come from... they interpret verses without proper study of the context.

rogerg,
This is not a gauntlet being thrown down for debate...
this is an invitation for Christians brothers to consider that perhaps this topic should be probed for a bit more nuance.


God Bless, and I hope you have a great week.




.

 

[Sipsey]

Indeed, we are told to “Study” the Scriptures, not simply read them.

 

[rogerg]

Are you suggesting scripture comes with no historical context, and no historical audience?

I think if we follow this logic through, we end up with a complete inability to do hermeneutics.
And this is essentially where cults come from... they interpret verses without proper study of the context.

rogerg,
This is not a gauntlet being thrown down for debate...
this is an invitation for Christians brothers to consider that perhaps this topic should be probed for a bit more nuance.


God Bless, and I hope you have a great week.




.

No gauntlet, maxwel, just a civil discussion of the best way to achieve correct biblical understanding. In my opinion, to achieve that, we must follow the rules and instructions that God has set forth in the Bible for its interpretation. Man by nature, and often even without realizing it, has a tendency to drift off into, and to trust in, their own reasoning as the best way to approach the Bible. With biblical interpretation, however, no variance from what has been explicitly written should be considered acceptable. Nothing beyond that, to include any historical context not explicitly established/stated by the Bible, should be considered, well, biblical; that is, that biblical hermeneutics, I believe, should be limited to, and focused upon, only that which is already in the Bible as being the correct context. We can fully trust the Bible (to include trusting in its instructions), to lead to correct conclusions because its author was God. Were it instead written by men, I would agree with your assessment. I believe that we are both implicitly and explicitly informed of this requirement by the Bible in the verses below, and by other like verses. Please note that these verses limit and restrict the "man of God" to "scripture" alone, with nothing outside of scripture being mentioned.

[2Ti 3:16-17 KJV]
16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

But they were distancing themselves from the religion of the Jews.

Or: they were practicing Judaism, obeying all of Christ's Commands, Especially
Matthew 23:1-3, Under the law, as late as Acts 21:20, eh?:

"And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him,​

Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which​

believe; and they are all zealous of the law"​

​

Putting to rest, for me anyway, the idea that 'christianity' started
at Pentecost, and, that the 11 were 'foolish/ignorant selecting
Matthias ( instead of waiting for "Paul to get saved" ) as #12!"

Amazing how God Approved "their foolish ignorance" When:

"...they were ALL filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to​

speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.​

And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out ​

of every nation under heaven." (Acts 2:4-5)​

Now what? 'charismatics/pentecostals' are the only ones practicing Truth,
and ALL the rest of us 'foolish/ignorant' folk had "better get on board"
with their mantra: "BACK to Pentecost" {christianity?}???

Please gimme a break

Amen!

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

Indeed, we are told to “Study” the Scriptures, not simply read them.

Man by nature, and often even without realizing it, has a tendency to drift off into, and to trust in, their own reasoning as the best way to approach the Bible. With biblical interpretation, however, no variance from what has been explicitly written should be considered acceptable. Nothing beyond that, to include any historical context not explicitly established/stated by the Bible, should be considered, well, biblical; that is, that biblical hermeneutics, I believe, should be limited to, and focused upon, only that which is already in the Bible as being the correct context. We can fully trust the Bible (to include trusting in its instructions), to lead to correct conclusions because its author was God.

Could also be helpful, for civil discussion, eh?: Bible study Rules

Amen.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

[2Ti 3:16-17 KJV]
16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

AMEN! And we can even apply what Christ, The Saviour, Said to the Jews, eh?:

Joh_5:39 "Search The Scriptures; for In Them ye think ye​

have Eternal Life: and they are They Which Testify Of Me."​

​

Amen.

 

[rogerg]

Could also be helpful, for civil discussion, eh?: Bible study Rules

Amen.

Yup and it would have been helpful for me to have included the Bereans too - thanks for the reminder. I find it very interesting that even though Paul was with them explaining the word to them, and yet, they went to scripture daily to validate whether that which he taught them "was so". And Paul considered it noble of them for doing so.

 

[rogerg]

Could also be helpful, for civil discussion, eh?: Bible study Rules

Amen.

By the way the Bible study Rules is an excellent post - thank you.

 

[maxwel]

No gauntlet, maxwel, just a civil discussion of the best way to achieve correct biblical understanding. In my opinion, to achieve that, we must follow the rules and instructions that God has set forth in the Bible for its interpretation. Man by nature, and often even without realizing it, has a tendency to drift off into, and to trust in, their own reasoning as the best way to approach the Bible. With biblical interpretation, however, no variance from what has been explicitly written should be considered acceptable. Nothing beyond that, to include any historical context not explicitly established/stated by the Bible, should be considered, well, biblical; that is, that biblical hermeneutics, I believe, should be limited to, and focused upon, only that which is already in the Bible as being the correct context. We can fully trust the Bible (to include trusting in its instructions), to lead to correct conclusions because its author was God. Were it instead written by men, I would agree with your assessment. I believe that we are both implicitly and explicitly informed of this requirement by the Bible in the verses below, and by other like verses. Please note that these verses limit and restrict the "man of God" to "scripture" alone, with nothing outside of scripture being mentioned.

[2Ti 3:16-17 KJV]
16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

rogerg,
You started your discussion of interpretation, presuppositionally, with a very high view of scripture.
I'm in complete agreement with that.

However, even if we start with the presupposition of a high view of scripture, that does not necessitate that all of our conclusions are automatically correct. It is within the realm of possibility to have the right foundational principles, and the right intentions, and still build a case that picks up a few errors.

I'll write more when I have more time.
But I'll leave you with one simple concept to mull over:
There are many principles of interpretation which are IMPLIED within scripture, and LOGICALLY NECESSARY within scripture... but which are NOT EXPLICITLY STATED.
This is because there are a GREAT MANY PRESUPPOSITIONS built into scripture (logic, epistemology, linguistic philosophy etc. etc. etc..)



Have a great day, and I'll write a bit more on this when I have some time.
By the way, I'm not here to debate the book of James... I'm only discussing some general principles of interpretation.

.

 

[rogerg]

rogerg,
You started your discussion of interpretation, presuppositionally, with a very high view of scripture.
I'm in complete agreement with that.

However, even if we start with the presupposition of a high view of scripture, that does not necessitate that all of our conclusions are automatically correct. It is within the realm of possibility to have the right foundational principles, and the right intentions, and still build a case that picks up a few errors.

I'll write more when I have more time.
But I'll leave you with one simple concept to mull over:
There are many principles of interpretation which are IMPLIED within scripture, and LOGICALLY NECESSARY within scripture... but which are NOT EXPLICITLY STATED.
This is because there are a GREAT MANY PRESUPPOSITIONS built into scripture (logic, epistemology, linguistic philosophy etc. etc. etc..)



Have a great day, and I'll write a bit more on this when I have some time.
By the way, I'm not here to debate the book of James... I'm only discussing some general principles of interpretation.

.

Okay, thanks, so post more when you can, maxwel. I will say now, however, that to answer your concern about being incorrect, one of the biblical rules (which I didn't state but GRACE ambassador did in the Biblical study Rules), is that to validate our conclusions, we are to compare prophecy with prophecy (scripture with scripture), amongst many other biblical rules (rules taken from the Bible). in fact, that is an absolute requirement. Should we do so and if our conclusion still stands the scrutiny of the entire Bible, we can then feel sure that we've come to correct understanding. The alternative to that would be to trust in things external to the Bible - things of our conjecture and of our judgement not God's in order to gain an understanding of the Bible. This seems to me an approach fraught with danger and of having the potential for far greater error than of trusting the Bible alone.
I'm interested to hear more about how the implied and logically necessary techniques that utilize things external to the Bible can correctly explain things of the Bible.
And you have a great day too.

 

[maxwel]

Okay, thanks, so post more when you can, maxwel. I will say now, however, that to answer your concern about being incorrect, one of the biblical rules (which I didn't state but GRACE ambassador did in the Biblical study Rules), is that to validate our conclusions, we are to compare prophecy with prophecy (scripture with scripture), amongst many other biblical rules (rules taken from the Bible). in fact, that is an absolute requirement. Should we do so and if our conclusion still stands the scrutiny of the entire Bible, we can then feel sure that we've come to correct understanding. The alternative to that would be to trust in things external to the Bible - things of our conjecture and of our judgement not God's in order to gain an understanding of the Bible. This seems to me an approach fraught with danger and of having the potential for far greater error than of trusting the Bible alone.
I'm interested to hear more about how the implied and logically necessary techniques that utilize things external to the Bible can correctly explain things of the Bible.
And you have a great day too.

Rogerg:
"I'm interested to hear more about how the implied and logically necessary techniques that utilize things external to the Bible can correctly explain things of the Bible."

Well this got confusing fast... let me try to clear some things up.
: )



LOGIC IN SCRIPTURE:


1. I am not talking about "utilizing things external to the Bible"

2. I am talking about utilizing things, like fundamental principles of logic, which are NOT external to the Bible, but INTRINSIC TO the Bible.

3. The fundamental principles of logic aren't a man made artifice; they aren't some weird external contraption we place down onto language after language is created.

4. The fundamental principles of logic PRECEDE the creation of language: language is actually BUILT UPON the basic principles of logic, and language cannot exist without logic.

5. Logic precedes language; logic is what language is built upon.... language cannot exist without it.

6. IF Language is built upon logic, and cannot exist without logic, so that logic actually PRECEDES LANGUAGE... THEN logic both PRECEDES LANGUAGE and must NECESSARILY BE USED IN THE CREATION OF ALL LANGUAGE.

7. If God created language and everything else, and language is built upon logic... then... God must have created logic.

8. If we do some examination of what fundamental logical actually is, we quickly realize it is built into all of creation: so logic is either something God created, or more likely, it's actually part of God's nature.

9. Let's stretch this out:
Fundamental logic, which comes from the mind of God, gives us the building blocks of language... and thus... it also gives us the linguistic building blocks for scripture. The language part of scripture is built upon principles of logic... and logic, as a building block of all creation, seems to necessarily come from God.


Conclusion:
1. The scripture cannot exist without logic, because all language is built upon logic.
2. You cannot even read without using logic - logic was used to write scripture, and it must also be used to read scripture.
3. If God has built logic into language, and into scripture, and into reading... then we best be using these principles of logic when reading and interpreting scripture.
4. We naturally use many principles of logic, without realizing it, when we read. We use it, to a fair degree, just naturally. So if we're already using logic to interpret this scripture which God built upon logic... then maybe we can sort through difficult passages even BETTER if we make some proactive study of logic, and employ this logic more carefully.
5. Whether anyone likes it or not, you cannot read, or write, without using fundamental principles of logic.
Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE to do ANY interpretation of scripture without logic.


Hopefully that's enough rambling for today.
God Bless.

.

 

[Sipsey]

Rogerg:
"I'm interested to hear more about how the implied and logically necessary techniques that utilize things external to the Bible can correctly explain things of the Bible."

Well this got confusing fast... let me try to clear some things up.
: )



LOGIC IN SCRIPTURE:


1. I am not talking about "utilizing things external to the Bible"

2. I am talking about utilizing things, like fundamental principles of logic, which are NOT external to the Bible, but INTRINSIC TO the Bible.

3. The fundamental principles of logic aren't a man made artifice; they aren't some weird external contraption we place down onto language after language is created.

4. The fundamental principles of logic PRECEDE the creation of language: language is actually BUILT UPON the basic principles of logic, and language cannot exist without logic.

5. Logic precedes language; logic is what language is built upon.... language cannot exist without it.

6. IF Language is built upon logic, and cannot exist without logic, so that logic actually PRECEDES LANGUAGE... THEN logic both PRECEDES LANGUAGE and must NECESSARILY BE USED IN THE CREATION OF ALL LANGUAGE.

7. If God created language and everything else, and language is built upon logic... then... God must have created logic.

8. If we do some examination of what fundamental logical actually is, we quickly realize it is built into all of creation: so logic is either something God created, or more likely, it's actually part of God's nature.

9. Let's stretch this out:
Fundamental logic, which comes from the mind of God, gives us the building blocks of language... and thus... it also gives us the linguistic building blocks for scripture. The language part of scripture is built upon principles of logic... and logic, as a building block of all creation, seems to necessarily come from God.


Conclusion:
1. The scripture cannot exist without logic, because all language is built upon logic.
2. You cannot even read without using logic - logic was used to write scripture, and it must also be used to read scripture.
3. If God has built logic into language, and into scripture, and into reading... then we best be using these principles of logic when reading and interpreting scripture.
4. We naturally use many principles of logic, without realizing it, when we read. We use it, to a fair degree, just naturally. So if we're already using logic to interpret this scripture which God built upon logic... then maybe we can sort through difficult passages even BETTER if we make some proactive study of logic, and employ this logic more carefully.
5. Whether anyone likes it or not, you cannot read, or write, without using fundamental principles of logic.
Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE to do ANY interpretation of scripture without logic.


Hopefully that's enough rambling for today.
God Bless.

.

That’s some logical rambling.

 

[rogerg]

Rogerg:
"I'm interested to hear more about how the implied and logically necessary techniques that utilize things external to the Bible can correctly explain things of the Bible."

Well this got confusing fast... let me try to clear some things up.
: )



LOGIC IN SCRIPTURE:


1. I am not talking about "utilizing things external to the Bible"

2. I am talking about utilizing things, like fundamental principles of logic, which are NOT external to the Bible, but INTRINSIC TO the Bible.

3. The fundamental principles of logic aren't a man made artifice; they aren't some weird external contraption we place down onto language after language is created.

4. The fundamental principles of logic PRECEDE the creation of language: language is actually BUILT UPON the basic principles of logic, and language cannot exist without logic.

5. Logic precedes language; logic is what language is built upon.... language cannot exist without it.

6. IF Language is built upon logic, and cannot exist without logic, so that logic actually PRECEDES LANGUAGE... THEN logic both PRECEDES LANGUAGE and must NECESSARILY BE USED IN THE CREATION OF ALL LANGUAGE.

7. If God created language and everything else, and language is built upon logic... then... God must have created logic.

8. If we do some examination of what fundamental logical actually is, we quickly realize it is built into all of creation: so logic is either something God created, or more likely, it's actually part of God's nature.

9. Let's stretch this out:
Fundamental logic, which comes from the mind of God, gives us the building blocks of language... and thus... it also gives us the linguistic building blocks for scripture. The language part of scripture is built upon principles of logic... and logic, as a building block of all creation, seems to necessarily come from God.


Conclusion:
1. The scripture cannot exist without logic, because all language is built upon logic.
2. You cannot even read without using logic - logic was used to write scripture, and it must also be used to read scripture.
3. If God has built logic into language, and into scripture, and into reading... then we best be using these principles of logic when reading and interpreting scripture.
4. We naturally use many principles of logic, without realizing it, when we read. We use it, to a fair degree, just naturally. So if we're already using logic to interpret this scripture which God built upon logic... then maybe we can sort through difficult passages even BETTER if we make some proactive study of logic, and employ this logic more carefully.
5. Whether anyone likes it or not, you cannot read, or write, without using fundamental principles of logic.
Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE to do ANY interpretation of scripture without logic.


Hopefully that's enough rambling for today.
God Bless.

.

Thanks for the reply and I do realize what you're saying, but I think that it is of man's wisdom, not God's.
Besides, Christ's gospel isn't that complex nor complicated to understand so that someone must search high and low to find it - there isn't really that much to it in terms of understanding it - it is extremely evident, simple and straightforward - although not everyone has eyes to perceive it. It was built upon one thing and only one thing: that God the Father sent Christ to be the Saviour in which He was completely successful. Everything else in the Bible was built upon, about, and from, that.

[2Co 11:3 KJV] 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

 

[maxwel]

Thanks for the reply and I do realize what you're saying, but I think that it is of man's wisdom, not God's.
Besides, Christ's gospel isn't that complex nor complicated to understand so that someone must search high and low to find it - there isn't really that much to it in terms of understanding it - it is extremely evident, simple and straightforward - although not everyone has eyes to perceive it. It was built upon one thing and only one thing: that God the Father sent Christ to be the Saviour in which He was completely successful. Everything else in the Bible was built upon, about, and from, that.

[2Co 11:3 KJV] 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Not only is logic necessary to create language...

But every principle of interpretation you DO believe in...
requires you to use principles of logic.



Random Thoughts...
- You cannot read without using principles of logic.
- You cannot write without using principles of logic.
- You cannot speak without using principles of logic.
- You cannot interpret scripture without using principles of logic.
- You cannot compare verses without using principles of logic.
- You cannot teach without using principles of logic.
- You cannot even argue with me, that logic isn't important, without using principles of logic to do it.
: )


Take care.

.