Romans 4

Neo

Member
Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James. See the table on pg. 4 in the link below.


Is that good enough, or do you need more proof you were mistaken?
Wow! Yet another person states, "James writes this book; the very first New Testament book..."


Yeah, I am just randomly checking out videos and every single one that mentions a date for James either says it was either the first or one of the first books written in the NT or states a specific date, which is before the Jerusalem Council.

Sorry bro, but your thinking or information is wrong.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
T

The link is not giving me access to the table on page 4. Can you please try to send it again? Or would you be willing to share the reasoning for a date after the Council? Thanks.
When you use the link, do you see a box that says "Table 1?" In the top left corner of that box, there is a blue link that says Page 4. Click on it, and you'll see the table.
Oh, and we can now have a discussion if there is reasoning mentioned in this why James was written after the Jerusalem Council. I'm curious to see the reasoning.

For, I sent three separate references that all have the same reasoning for the date. Why would I automatically believe one person over three other scholars?
Perhaps you should've looked at the table before prematurely declaring your victory.
 

Neo

Member
When you use the link, do you see a box that says "Table 1?" In the top left corner of that box, there is a blue link that says Page 4. Click on it, and you'll see the table.

Perhaps you should've looked at the table before prematurely declaring your victory.
I am not seeing this. I looked over and over. I just have access to a phone. Does this make a difference?

Could you please just explain his reasoning for placing the letter of James to be written after the Jerusalem Council?

For, I found three Bible Scholars who date before, explaimed the reasoning for the dates, plus three individuals that found the same information from their research of Bible Scholars as well.

Why does everywhere I look up say the same about the date of James and you state otherwise?
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
I am not seeing this. I looked over and over. I just have access to a phone. Does this make a difference?

Could you please just explain his reasoning for placing the letter of James to be written after the Jerusalem Council?

For, I found three Bible Scholars who date before, explaimed the reasoning for the dates, plus three individuals that found the same information from their research of Bible Scholars as well.

Why does everywhere I look up say the same about the date of James and you state otherwise?
1628683347887.png
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I am not seeing this. I looked over and over. I just have access to a phone. Does this make a difference?

Could you please just explain his reasoning for placing the letter of James to be written after the Jerusalem Council?

For, I found three Bible Scholars who date before, explaimed the reasoning for the dates, plus three individuals that found the same information from their research of Bible Scholars as well.

Why does everywhere I look up say the same about the date of James and you state otherwise?
1628683414768.png
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Can you see those? They are the top and bottom half of the same table.

Poor research is the reason you only see the answer you have given.
 

Neo

Member
OK, the pseudonymous authorship is pretty much refuted according to modern Scholars. So, we can throw those out. The other ones are mostly a long time ago. Modern Scholars have seen those to not be accurate.

So, I am still waiting for the reason the letter should be dated after the Jerusalem Council....

An addition, who do think wrote the letter of James?

If you think it is James, the half-brother of Jesus and the leader of the Jerusalem church, then why would one date the letter after the Jerusalem Council?

If you think someone else wrote it, then who and why?
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
OK, the pseudonymous authorship is pretty much refuted according to modern Scholars.
No, it's not. As I said you aren't familiar with "modern Scholars" or what they believe.
So, we can throw those out.
Cherry-picking.
The other ones are mostly a long time ago. Modern Scholars have seen those to not be accurate.
They are a long time ago. Scholars have generally become more skeptical since then, not less.
So, I am still waiting for the reason the letter should be dated after the Jerusalem Council....
An addition, who do think wrote the letter of James?

If you think it is James, the half-brother of Jesus and the leader of the Jerusalem church, then why would one date the letter after the Jerusalem Council?

If you think someone else wrote it, then who and why?
The proposed dates of several scholars are in the table I provided you. You made a claim that you cannot support.

As to the rest of your requests, I didn't interact with you with the purpose of discussing these side matters. From what I have seen from you thus far, I don't think you know enough to have a discussion, and I'm not volunteering for another teaching job.
 

Neo

Member
No, it's not. As I said you aren't familiar with "modern Scholars" or what they believe.

Cherry-picking.

They are a long time ago. Scholars have generally become more skeptical since then, not less.

The proposed dates of several scholars are in the table I provided you. You made a claim that you cannot support.

As to the rest of your requests, I didn't interact with you with the purpose of discussing these side matters. From what I have seen from you thus far, I don't think you know enough to have a discussion, and I'm not volunteering for another teaching job.
I guess you don't know how to have a discussion. I provided the evidence for dating the letter before the Jerusalem Council.

You provided past scholars, not modern scholars, with no evidence.

I did not cherry pick. I told you I randomly looked for videos and everyone said it was written before the Jerusalem Council.

I looked up before in my Study Bibles and saw this as well. Then I randomly looked up online and found the same. I was hoping to find something else, but nothing came up.

I was hoping you had evidence, but I guess you don't.

Why are you running from the debate?

Is it because you actually don't have evidence?
 
Last edited:

John Milton

Well-known member
I guess you don't know how to have a discussion. I provided the evidence for dating the letter before the Jerusalem Council.
You did present the opinions of a few different people. The problem is that you said that these views represented the scholarly consensus about the date of James. There are widely different views about the date James was written, so your statement was inaccurate.
You provided past scholars, not modern scholars, with no evidence.
They were past scholars and their views are indicative of what modern scholar think. Since that time it seems scholars have become less likely to accept an early date, not more.
I did not cherry pick. I told you I randomly looked for videos and everyone said it was written before the Jerusalem Council.
Were any of those sources from non-Christians or liberal scholars? If not, the charge stands.
I looked up before in my Study Bibles and saw this as well. Then I randomly looked up online and found the same. I was hoping to find something else, but nothing came up.
A random google search is not the same as surveying the field.
I was hoping you had evidence, but I guess you don't.
I've already given it to you. The opinions of modern scholars are just as divided.
Why are you running from the debate?
I'm not running from a debate. I've demonstrated the widely differing opinions of numerous scholars. There is no modern consensus about the date of James.

I've already told you. I have no interest in any of your other topics.
Is it because you actually don't have evidence?
Right. The New International Greek Testament Commentary is a trash source compared to your random google searches. :rolleyes:

I'm not the least bit surprised that you don't understand why having a discussion with you is a waste of time.
 

Neo

Member
You did present the opinions of a few different people. The problem is that you said that these views represented the scholarly consensus about the date of James. There are widely different views about the date James was written, so your statement was inaccurate.

They were past scholars and their views are indicative of what modern scholar think. Since that time it seems scholars have become less likely to accept an early date, not more.

Were any of those sources from non-Christians or liberal scholars? If not, the charge stands.

A random google search is not the same as surveying the field.

I've already given it to you. The opinions of modern scholars are just as divided.

I'm not running from a debate. I've demonstrated the widely differing opinions of numerous scholars. There is no modern consensus about the date of James.

I've already told you. I have no interest in any of your other topics.

Right. The New International Greek Testament Commentary is a trash source compared to your random google searches. :rolleyes:

I'm not the least bit surprised that you don't understand why having a discussion with you is a waste of time.
Debates are supposed to be fun and an exchange of ideas. I shared the reasons for why James was written before the Jerusalem Council, starting from Study Bible's. Did you forget this?

Then I did research online, then looked up videos so I would not be biased or cherry picking.

I'm sorry, but the modern concensus does not line up with what you say.

Plus, you still do not explain why the date would be after the Jerusalem Council.

Come on dude. Why do you come on a discussion forum if you don't provide specific evidence?

Yeah, maybe I could learn something, but I guess you are too prideful and better than me to share your thoughts.

Sorry that I am a nobody loser to you. Thanks for not showing God's love.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Debates are supposed to be fun and an exchange of ideas. I shared the reasons for why James was written before the Jerusalem Council, starting from Study Bible's. Did you forget this?
I didn't forget anything. I was very clear about what I took issue with and what I intended to respond to.
Then I did research online, then looked up videos so I would not be biased or cherry picking.
Research involves looking at all the viewpoints. What you did was a random google search, not research.
I'm sorry, but the modern concensus does not line up with what you say.
It does.
Plus, you still do not explain why the date would be after the Jerusalem Council.
I told you I wasn't interested in that.
Come on dude. Why do you come on a discussion forum if you don't provide specific evidence?
I provided evidence that there is no consensus view about the date of James. This is true.
Yeah, maybe I could learn something, but I guess you are too prideful and better than me to share your thoughts.
Or perhaps it's just what I've told you: I'm not interested.
Sorry that I am a nobody loser to you. Thanks for not showing God's love.
You're not going to elicit sympathy from me by false accusations.
 

Neo

Member
I didn't forget anything. I was very clear about what I took issue with and what I intended to respond to.

Research involves looking at all the viewpoints. What you did was a random google search, not research.

It does.

I told you I wasn't interested in that.

I provided evidence that there is no consensus view about the date of James. This is true.

Or perhaps it's just what I've told you: I'm not interested.

You're not going to elicit sympathy from me by false accusations.
Exactly! You don't have sympathy, nor empathy, nor love within you.

If you can't recognize your attitude, I hope someone can help you in the future. You are another reason why I am so glad to be separated from the Church of Christ and now a follower of Jesus the Christ.

Your attitude is a mirror image of those I met in the church if Christ. You have an ego/pride that you can't recognize or admit to having due to legalism being so rooted and normalized in your heart and mind.

Your self-righteousness oozes off the pages in every word you say, just like most others on the Church of Christ. You state I am not worth your time, etc.

You can't see how great your sin is because if you did, you would have to humble yourself. This is not a common trait for those in the Church of Christ.

Thank you for your time, even though I am not worth your time.

Good luck with your life in such a church. Remember: "By their fruit you will recognize them..."
 

John Milton

Well-known member
If you can't recognize your attitude, I hope someone can help you in the future.
What attitude? That I don't apologize for being correct or like interacting with people who are uninformed?
You are another reason why I am so glad to be separated from the Church of Christ and now a follower of Jesus the Christ.
I never claimed to be a member of the Church of Christ.
Your attitude is a mirror image of those I met in the church if Christ. You have an ego/pride that you can't recognize or admit to having due to legalism being so rooted and normalized in your heart and mind.
Where is your evidence for these outrageous claims?
Your self-righteousness oozes off the pages in every word you say, just like most others on the Church of Christ.
Really?
You state I am not worth your time, etc.
I never said that. I said having a discussion with you is a waste of time. You are proving my point with all the things you've made up here.
You can't see how great your sin is because if you did, you would have to humble yourself. This is not a common trait for those in the Church of Christ.
Really?
Thank you for your time, even though I am not worth your time.
I never said that.
Good luck with your life in such a church. Remember: "By their fruit you will recognize them..."
From what I have seen having taken a moment to glance through this forum, the posters here have been generally respectful except for you. Maybe you are the problem.
 

Neo

Member
What attitude? That I don't apologize for being correct or like interacting with people who are uninformed?

I never claimed to be a member of the Church of Christ.

Where is your evidence for these outrageous claims?

Really?

I never said that. I said having a discussion with you is a waste of time. You are proving my point with all the things you've made up here.

Really?

I never said that.

From what I have seen having taken a moment to glance through this forum, the posters here have been generally respectful except for you. Maybe you are the problem.
Indeed
 

Rook

New Member
It sure sounds like you are. Was Abraham justified by his works (offering his son as a sacrifice)?
He was justified by a working faith in God and notice in Genesis God didn’t credit him until the moment he obeyed the command to offer Isaac. Abraham was directly told by God what to do. There’s no boasting in obeying a direct commandment that didn’t come from himself. In some ways getting a direct commandment makes obedience easier. Although offering your only son is not an easy thing to do either way, but Abraham trusted God. Our admiration still goes to God for choosing such a wonderful servant to work with who did not doubt him, and proved to be right in doing so.
 

Hark

Well-known member
' servceYou are discussing James again. You do know that most Scholars date the writing of James before the Jerusalem Council, right?

The Jerusalem council is where the doctrine of Salvation was finally decided upon. James is one of them that most likely debated against Paul about what was necessary for salvation. For, James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem and he obviously taught justification by works, which Paul clearly rebukes in most of his letters.

For Paul writes,

"For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law." (Romans 3:28)

This is in clear contradiction to the passage mentioned in James. This is why you have to know the history of the development of the Church and doctrine of salvation mentioned in Acts.

This is why Paul continues to state that Abraham was justified when he believed in God's promise and was justified before he could act upon his faith so that his justification would be by grace and not something else.

I'm glad I read through this Romans study. It gives a perfect reason for the misunderstanding the Church of Christ has about the doctrine of salvation.
@Kade Rystalmane @John Milton @Rook

When believers read James 2nd chapter in context, James was correcting a church for mistreating the poor from the very beginning of that chapter. The very first example was having then sit on the ground while the rich people get the best seats.

Then James went into how the church was trying to get out of helping the poor after church service by voicing their faith in God's providence to the poor without leading by example to the poor by meeting their immediate needs from the bounty collected at church service. It was in the eyes of the poor that the church's faith in His Providence that was dead for why the church's faith in His Providence to the poor would not profit the poor let alone save the poor.

That is what James was referencing Abraham & Isaac for as the name of that place tells it all "Jehovah-jireh" ~ the Lord will provide. That is the only faith that James was talking about that requires works or an example by those who profess it to others, especially a church to the poor.
 
Top