My Thoughts on the Book of James

[Sola1517]

James makes it clear that the book is written to the twelve tribes in dispersion after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Therefore, does it make sense that possibly parts of the letter are written to the church and parts (a majority) is written to unregenerated Jews?

 

[faroukfarouk]

It's all written for our learning!

 

[Sola1517]

It's all written for our learning!

And what do you learn from it?

 

[faroukfarouk]

And what do you learn from it?

Faith without evidence isn't true faith in any case.

 

[Sola1517]

Faith without evidence isn't true faith in any case.

So we are justified by both faith and works?

 

[faroukfarouk]

So we are justified by both faith and works?

Keeping within the terms of what James says, it's quite compatible with Ephesians 2.8-9.

 

[Sola1517]

Keeping within the terms of what James says, it's quite compatible with Ephesians 2.8-9.

Being created for good works which precede from faith is not the same as being justified by good works.

 

[wheatpenny]

What James meant, if I understand it correctly, is that faith that is not accompanied by works is not true saving faith.

Ifd a person's faith is limited to acknowledging or intellectually assenting to the facts (for example, he believes God exists, or acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God) but that's all the further it goes, then you have to question whether he is actually saved or not.

Paul taught salvation by faith alone, and James clarified it by explaining what constitutes saving faith.

 

[Sola1517]

What James meant, if I understand it correctly, is that faith that is not accompanied by works is not true saving faith.

James 2:24 That's not what James says there.

 

[wheatpenny]

James 2:24 That's not what James says there.

It says "justified", not "saved". The NIV says "considered righteous". Works do not save you, Paul is quite clear on that. Unless you believe that James contradicts Paul on this issue...

 

[Sola1517]

It says "justified", not "saved".

It's the same thing.

Unless you believe that James contradicts Paul on this issue...

Galatians 3:24-26 You tell me.

 

[Halbhh]

James makes it clear that the book is written to the twelve tribes in dispersion after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Therefore, does it make sense that possibly parts of the letter are written to the church and parts (a majority) is written to unregenerated Jews?

Even if that is the case, still it's clear once you read fully through epistles, that James and other epistles are much more alike than we often think at first.

Even something like Galatians!

In Galatians we have a wonderful emphasis on our freedom in Christ.

But....if a person continues reading in Galatians, if they don't stop half way...

Then they encounter the section beginning in chapter 5, verse 13, and continuing into the next chapter.

Then it becomes clear that James and Paul agree perfectly.

James is wonderfully more blunt and direct, which can be really helpful for us, like when we have heard someone quoting Ephesians 2:8-9 about how we aren't saved by works, and leave out, omit, verse 10.... As if Ephesians 2:10 did not exist.

Paul usually takes longer than in Ephesians 2 to let the other shoe drop. But Paul over and over sounds much like James, if a person merely continues to read all the way through an epistle.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Some think they are justified, but their not saved. Some think they are saved, but they are not justified. Some think they are saved and justified, but Jesus tells them otherwise in Revelation.
What a mess !

 

[W2L]

I like James. I particularly like the scripture in my sig. It guides me daily.

 

[SPF]

James makes it clear that the book is written to the twelve tribes in dispersion after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

What's your evidence for this? I tend to think that the entire NT Canon was actually penned prior to the destruction of the temple.

 

[Halbhh]

What's your evidence for this? I tend to think that the entire NT Canon was actually penned prior to the destruction of the temple.

Well, it's widely thought the gospel of Mark was written down before 70AD -- also this tells us that when Mark was written down that some living eye witnesses were still alive! (not a guess, but statistically a near certainty by math alone).
But, it's thought the other gospels were written down later than Mark. That isn't especially important except just to know so that later when you find out more, you can't be lead to wonder if they then could have errors (as some try to assert against evidence); oral traditions given my multiple witnesses over time and learned well by listeners are typically passed down in oral cultures with high accuracy when they are considered key to learn in the culture. So even before we consider aid from above, even just as oral history, we can already know that those 3 gospels written later than Mark can be expected to be highly accurate as learned oral traditions from witnesses over years (decades) of time and then accurately remembered by following generations (but....there is more -- notice we don't know when the apostle John died, and whether he may have lived well into old age, as the end of that gospel suggests could have been chosen for him to do; thus a key eye witness could have been alive even near to 100AD(!), an intriguing possibility just in itself.)

 

[SPF]

Well, it's widely thought the gospel of Mark was written down before 70AD -- also this tells us that when Mark was written down that some living eye witnesses were still alive! (not a guess, but statistically a near certainty by math alone).
But, it's thought the other gospels were written down later than Mark. That isn't especially important except just to know so that later when you find out more, you can't be lead to wonder if they then could have errors (as some try to assert against evidence); oral traditions given my multiple witnesses over time and learned well by listeners are typically passed down in oral cultures with high accuracy when they are considered key to learn in the culture. So even before we consider aid from above, even just as oral history, we can already know that those 3 gospels written later than Mark can be expected to be highly accurate as learned oral traditions from witnesses over years (decades) of time and then accurately remembered by following generations (but....there is more -- notice we don't know when the apostle John died, and whether he may have lived well into old age, as the end of that gospel suggests could have been chosen for him to do; thus a key eye witness could have been alive even near to 100AD(!), an intriguing possibility just in itself.)

I'm failing to see how anything in this post addresses the question of mine that you quoted.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm failing to see how anything in this post addresses the question of mine that you quoted.

hah, sorry, you asked a question!? Well, I usually point to the wiki on dating Mark, trying to avoid using a site that would only give one view or just one school of thought.
Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia

While we can get some individual(s) to point to either an earlier or a later time, I want to know instead, since this dating based on various indications, what a consensus view is. Sort of like if I wanted to learn about some early period in American history, I'd want not just one viewpoint, but several to put together.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="Halbhh, post: 71861420, member: 375234"]hah, sorry, you asked a question!? Well, I usually point to the wiki on dating Mark, trying to avoid using a site that would only give one view or just one school of thought.
Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia

While we can get some individual(s) to point to either an earlier or a later time, I want to know instead, since this dating based on various indications, what a consensus view is. Sort of like if I wanted to learn about some early period in American history, I'd want not just one viewpoint, but several to put together.[/QUOTE
============================
For most things (if not everything) on earth,
society "consensus" view is not just distorted, but opposed to the truth, according to all Scripture and observing most all history to see.

 

[SPF]

hah, sorry, you asked a question!? Well, I usually point to the wiki on dating Mark, trying to avoid using a site that would only give one view or just one school of thought.
Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia

While we can get some individual(s) to point to either an earlier or a later time, I want to know instead, since this dating based on various indications, what a consensus view is. Sort of like if I wanted to learn about some early period in American history, I'd want not just one viewpoint, but several to put together.

My response was to the person who said they believed James was penned AFTER 70AD. I don't know why you're talking to me about the Gospel of Mark. As I said, I tend to hold to the entire NT Canon being completed prior to 70 AD.