I am no longer willing to tolerate intellectual dishonesty on this forum. This comment is an intentional lie. One more like it and you can find someone else to lie too.themuzicman said:
In other words, you don't know why.
The fact of the matter is that it makes no sense. Since when did God need a well educated person to get His work done? Do have anything at all that is Biblical that might begin to explain why Saul would have been evangelized directly by the risen and glorified Christ while the whole rest of the world had to settle for the sinful and imperfect, although Spirit filled, twelve apostles?
And I notice that you ignore the points about how Paul spent considerable time distancing himself from the twelve and their ministry and had to go to the twelve to explain to them what his gospel was. Very telling.
You could have saved yourself the time and simply said, "Well "my gospel" does really mean what it sounds like it means." That is what you've said here in a nutshell. Notice how I pretty much never have to do that.
Further, calling something "my anything" is done to distinguish it from something else that isn't yours. Paul's calling the gospel "his gospel" doesn't, by itself, prove that the gospel he preached was different than that of the twelve but that along with the fact that he claims to have been given his gospel by direct revelation rather than having received it from any man or having been taught it. And the fact that his conversion was well out of the ordinary to say the least. And the fact that the twelve didn't know or understand what Paul was preaching until he went to Jerusalem to explain it to them. And the fact that Peter and those from James were still clearly "zealous for the law" to the point that Paul called Peter a hypocrite right to his face. And the fact that Paul comes right out and says that there were two gospels, one given to Peter and the other to him. And the fact that there is no need for Paul's ministry in the first place if his gospel was the same as that of the twelve, taken together makes it painfully obvious why Paul repeatedly called the gospel of grace "my gospel".
Denial without refutation is meaningless.
I quoted them both in context and you know it! It simply cannot be rationally denied that at the VERY LEAST the whole second chapter of the book of James is talking about the fact that one is justified by works. That's what James is talking about and to deny it is simply to lie. Any further response than that to such a denial is unnecessary.
NO IT IS NOT!!! I understand that this is what you've been taught since you were probably in grade school, I know I was but very simply isn't what James says. It is what Paul says but James says explicitly that one is justified by works. It just can't get any clearer than that.
This is not where Paul agrees with James but where Paul explicitly states what you are convinced that James says but I don't care how you want to twist either of their writings, Paul would never have said "You are justified by works and not by faith only." Paul would have rotted in Hell first.
The theme of the book is: "Faith without works is dead." Again, to deny this is simply a lie. It's too obvious to even debate. There is no fancy exegesis necessary. Just read the book. It's meaning is clear and easy enough for my six year old daughter to understand.
James 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
It is the larger context that forces one to be an Acts 9 dispy, as you so glibly call us, as I have repeatedly shown.
I have not made my arguments based on proof texts. If anything the passages I've quoted support the larger argument I've made concerning Paul's role in preaching the Gospel of Grace which had been hidden in God since ages past and had been revealed to and through him. Further, they are hardly proof texts. As I said, the passages encapsulate their respective ministries. In other words, the passages I quoted define their own context.
Should I take this phrase to mean that honesty is not your normal mode? That is the implication, whether you intended it or not.
The only unsubstantiated points are obvious ones that need no substantiation. I can't be responsible for someone having not read or understood whole books of the Bible.
No way Jose! There is no way you are going to lure me into a debate over the plain and simple obvious truth of what James comes right out and explicitly states. There is no explanation necessary. All one has to do is read the book of James. JUST READ IT! I'm perfectly comfortable with the plain and simple surface meaning of the text. Paul teaches that we are saved "unto good works"; James teaches that we are "justified BY works". They are not the same thing and there nothing you can do or say to change that almost childishly simple fact.
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. Your post got me a little angry Michael and if you continue with the condescending attitude I will end this conversation. It's just not worth the stress. This website is fun for me when people are respectful and kind and while I expect for atheists and homos to be jerks to both Christians and themselves, I do not expect that sort of treatment from Christians. I've tried my best to be as respectful and honest as I know how to be up until this post where I basically let you have a taste of your own medicine. I trust you don't like it any more than I do and this had better be the end of it or, as I said, I will simply find someone else to discuss this stuff with.
and money. It just isn't there, but then I probably wouldn’t have time to read it now if I had a copy.
