Earning favor

A Christian can earn favor with God by doing good works.


  • Total voters
    40

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟22,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
Non Sequitur use of “irrelevant”.

Your argument was James hadn’t read Matthew 23.

I pointed out that James heard it it from his Brother. (God incarnate)
Let me make it big for you because you failed to read it:

James was not present to hear the sermon Christ preached in Matthew 23!!!!! He didn't read it and there is no reason to simply ASSUME he actually heard the sermon.

Now. were you able to read that this time? You obviously didn't read my post past the first line.
 
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,425
1,720
North America
✟83,484.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Let me make it big for you because you failed to read it:

James was not present to hear the sermon Christ preached in Matthew 23!!!!! He didn't read it and there is no reason to simply ASSUME he actually heard the sermon.

Now. were you able to read that this time? You obviously didn't read my post past the first line.

James was present with the PREACHER of Matthew 23 far longer than those who heard the sermon. I’m certain he understood his Brother’s use of condemnation verbiage as his Brother is the focal point of his beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,425
1,720
North America
✟83,484.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It doesn't say Judaizer anywhere in that passage. And while Paul and James certainly are in agreement, you are in agreement with NEITHER. Paul said we are judged according to our ACTIONS in Romans 2. That is not talking about pre-Christ. That is saying ALL men, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek, for there is no partiality with God. As I have said before, you're making up a contradiction where the contradiction is your own as a result of your overly complicated rationalizing. The contradiction is purely with your interpretation. You show me one place where Paul addresses something that isn't also taught by Gnostics in the first century. Something that is specifically taught by Judaizers and not Gnostics. I'll be waiting. I'll die of old age before you succeed.

Paul mentions Judaizers. Gnostics are not mentioned in any passage of scripture.

I don’t desire you to die, and I do not intend to sway your understanding. It is God, Alone, Who can change a heart.

Your heart is between you and God, not me and you... as is my heart between me and God, Alone.
 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟22,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
James was present with the PREACHER of Matthew 23 far longer than those who heard the sermon. I’m certain he understood his Brother’s use of condemnation verbiage as his Brother is the focal point of his beliefs.
Statement without evidence presented. Show where in the passage of Matthew 23 James is said to have been there. Go ahead. Look.

Paul mentions Judaizers. Gnostics are not mentioned in any passage of scripture.

I don’t desire you to die, and I do not intend to sway your understanding. It is God, Alone, Who can change a heart.

Your heart is between you and God, not me and you... as is my heart between me and God, Alone.

The beliefs of Gnostics are. And Paul does not name the Judaizers. You will not find the word "Judaizer" in Scripture. We know he was talking about Judaizers purely because his teachings were targeted at their beliefs. The words of James are a full scale assault on Gnosticism. They don't even BEGIN to address ANYTHING unique to Judaizers. And to make matters worse, Judaizers never had a problem caring for the orphans and widows because the Mosaic Law to which they held themselves REQUIRED that they care for the orphans and widows. It's in the freaking LAW. They follow the LAW.

Your teaching is illogical. Why in the world would James be talking about Judaizers, who were uber-legalistic followers of the Mosaic Law, failing to follow a command which is found everywhere in the Mosaic Law? That makes no sense whatsoever. It does, however, make sense if Judaizers are NOT who he is talking about.

We know Paul was talking about Judaizers because he addressed things that Judaizers actually did. We know James is talking about Gnostics because Gnostics believed that it was unnecessary to care for the physical needs of others, even the orphan and widow.

Judaizers don't have a single thing to worry about with regards to James. But there was a reason that the Gnostic Canon of Scripture excludes the book of James. Gnostics believed the book of James was a false gospel. Judaizers didn't. Judaizers were already caring for the orphan and the widow because the law of the Kinsman Redeemer required that.
 
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,425
1,720
North America
✟83,484.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Statement without evidence presented. Show where in the passage of Matthew 23 James is said to have been there. Go ahead. Look.



The beliefs of Gnostics are. And Paul does not name the Judaizers. You will not find the word "Judaizer" in Scripture. We know he was talking about Judaizers purely because his teachings were targeted at their beliefs. The words of James are a full scale assault on Gnosticism. They don't even BEGIN to address ANYTHING unique to Judaizers. And to make matters worse, Judaizers never had a problem caring for the orphans and widows because the Mosaic Law to which they held themselves REQUIRED that they care for the orphans and widows. It's in the freaking LAW. They follow the LAW.

Your teaching is illogical. Why in the world would James be talking about Judaizers, who were uber-legalistic followers of the Mosaic Law, failing to follow a command which is found everywhere in the Mosaic Law? That makes no sense whatsoever. It does, however, make sense if Judaizers are NOT who he is talking about.

We know Paul was talking about Judaizers because he addressed things that Judaizers actually did. We know James is talking about Gnostics because Gnostics believed that it was unnecessary to care for the physical needs of others, even the orphan and widow.

Judaizers don't have a single thing to worry about with regards to James. But there was a reason that the Gnostic Canon of Scripture excludes the book

of James. Gnostics believed the book of James was a false gospel. Judaizers didn't. Judaizers were already caring for the orphan and the widow because the law of the Kinsman Redeemer required that.

Galatians 1:19

James is the Lord's brother. The Judaizers did not care for widows and orphans, but devoured their houses.

No point in scripture mentions Gnostics. That is a speculation and nothing more. I have provided biblical evidence.
 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟22,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
Galatians 1:19

James is the Lord's brother. The Judaizers did not care for widows and orphans, but devoured their houses.

No point in scripture mentions Gnostics. That is a speculation and nothing more. I have provided biblical evidence.

No point in Scripture mentions Judaizers. It is speculation and nothing more because it's never used the name.
 
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,425
1,720
North America
✟83,484.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No point in Scripture mentions Judaizers. It is speculation and nothing more because it's never used the name.

Earlier you stated Paul addresses them in Galatians.

Have you changed your mind?

Ioudaizó: to Judaize
Original Word: Ἰουδαΐζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: Ioudaizó
Phonetic Spelling: (ee-oo-dah-id'-zo)

2450. Ioudaizó

Definition: to Judaize
Usage: I live as a Jew (in religion, ceremonially).
 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟22,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
Also, since when was Galatians found in Matthew 23. Just because James is the Lord's brother does not mean he was present for the sermon in Matthew 23. So I repeat, making it bigger and I will keep repeating until you answer the question:

Where in Matthew 23, and not in Galatians, James, John, Luke, Or any book in the Bible except for the passage which begins at Matthew 23:1 and ends at Matthew 23:39, is James said to have been present?

 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟22,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
Earlier you stated Paul addresses them in Galatians.

Have you changed your mind?
No. I said he addressed them by their belief, not by their name. James addressed the Gnostics by their belief, and not by their name. It is YOU who says James addressed the Judaizers, and YOU have given no proof save you own opinion. We know the beliefs of the Judaizers. We know they religiously kept the Law and the Law required them to care for orphans and widows. Deductive logic here:

Judaizers believed you were damned if you failed to follow the Mosaic Law
Mosaic Law required you to care for orphans and widows (Exodus 22:22-23, Deuteronomy 24:19-21, etc.)
Conclusion: Judaizers believed you were damned if you failed to care for the orphans and widows.

It's simple logic. I don't see how you can fail to grasp these things. You're so desperate to show your point that you are grasping at straws.

Show me where the Bible says the word Judaizer.
 
Upvote 0

Grip Docility

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2017
4,425
1,720
North America
✟83,484.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No. I said he addressed them by their belief, not by their name. James addressed the Gnostics by their belief, and not by their name. It is YOU who says James addressed the Judaizers, and YOU have given no proof save you own opinion. We know the beliefs of the Judaizers. We know they religiously kept the Law and the Law required them to care for orphans and widows. Deductive logic here:

Judaizers believed you were damned if you failed to follow the Mosaic Law
Mosaic Law required you to care for orphans and widows (Exodus 22:22-23, Deuteronomy 24:19-21, etc.)
Conclusion: Judaizers believed you were damned if you failed to care for the orphans and widows.

It's simple logic. I don't see how you can fail to grasp these things. You're so desperate to show your point that you are grasping at straws.

Show me where the Bible says the word Judaizer.

I thought you just stated Judaizers were not in scripture?

No point in Scripture mentions Judaizers. It is speculation and nothing more because it's never used the name.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟22,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
I thought you just stated Judaizers were not in scripture?
jmjk ghbiogbhjbnvfn gkjhnofigh

I am officially done with you. You're fishing to make up contradictions where there are none. I would learn more about God by bashing my head into a brick wall than by going in the circles you are running around in. When you're actually ready to discuss in a rational manner, you will not find me. I'm officially blocking you because there is no way I believe either myself or any person looking on could benefit from reading your responses to me and I am done with you making nonsensical responses.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,180
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,892.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Also, since when was Galatians found in Matthew 23. Just because James is the Lord's brother does not mean he was present for the sermon in Matthew 23. So I repeat, making it bigger and I will keep repeating until you answer the question:

Where in Matthew 23, and not in Galatians, James, John, Luke, Or any book in the Bible except for the passage which begins at Matthew 23:1 and ends at Matthew 23:39, is James said to have been present?
I’m not picking a side, here, but it’s possible that the stories were circulated orally prior to be written down. And James would have most likely been one to hear it sooner rather than later.
 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟22,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
How do you know?
As I have said multiple times before, James is not mentioned in any of the passages surrounding the one in question. Additionally, from what we know in the surrounding context, James was not quick to accept his brother as Lord. The only James who we know was among the disciples was the son of Zebedee. There is no mention of the James who wrote the epistle as the brother of Christ in the passage. Given that most evidence points towards him not being a follower of Christ until after the Resurrection, the idea that he would be present for the sermon in question requires actual evidence, and not just passing similarities. But passing similarities is all that is being offered. That is not anywhere near concrete evidence.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟22,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
I’m not picking a side, here, but it’s possible that the stories were circulated orally prior to be written down. And James would have most likely been one to hear it sooner rather than later.
However, it is a passing similarity and not a statement based on concrete evidence. So passing it off as proof is like saying that I am as evil as Hitler because I happen to be male. There isn't anything concrete and there isn't any way in this universe in which James's epistle is relevant to the debate with Judaizers.
 
Upvote 0

W2L

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2016
20,081
10,988
USA
✟213,573.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
As I have said multiple times before, James is not mentioned in any of the passages surrounding the one in question. Additionally, from what we know in the surrounding context, James was not quick to accept his brother as Lord. The only James who we know was among the disciples was the son of Zebedee. There is no mention of the James who wrote the epistle as the brother of Christ in the passage. Given that most evidence points towards him not being a follower of Christ until after the Resurrection, the idea that he would be present for the sermon in question requires actual evidence, and not just passing similarities. But passing similarities is all that is being offered. That is not anywhere near concrete evidence.
And you have no evidence.
 
Upvote 0