Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Everlasting priesthood

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by oceancoast View Post

    I cited historical evidence.. you simply dismissed it in favor of your false beliefs..
    You cited historical evidence but you didn't demonstrate that it had anything to with the true Jesus of the Scriptures. Also, you provided no historical evidence for your other assertion regarding a purported fourth century doctrine and later Evangelical reformation of it.
    Test all things and praise God from whom all blessings flow!

    Peace,
    BJ -Bear
    VDMA (1 Peter 1:25)
    WELS

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Bonnie View Post
      There is no gospel in James, but Luther included it in the translation of the Bible.
      That's very kind of Luther, seeing the book of James is canonized Biblical scripture.

      I suppose the Lutherans wish the book of James was as kind to Luther:

      James 2:24 ---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
      24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

      So--since when is the Biblical NT book of James not gospel? Canonized scripture not gospel?

      And from the time of the early church, James was one of the "antilegomena" books of the NT--ones spoken against.
      That does not make a lot of sense, IMO---Luther did believe the Bible is inerrant?

      So--why would the inerrant word of God be spoken against?

      Bonnie--the canon of the 27 Biblical books was established long before Luther.

      Do the Lutherans still hold the book of James in the "antilegomena" view?




      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by dberrie2000 View Post

        That's very kind of Luther, seeing the book of James is canonized Biblical scripture.

        I suppose the Lutherans wish the book of James was as kind to Luther:

        James 2:24 ---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
        24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

        So--since when is the Biblical NT book of James not gospel? Canonized scripture not gospel?



        That does not make a lot of sense, IMO---Luther did believe the Bible is inerrant?

        So--why would the inerrant word of God be spoken against?

        Bonnie--the canon of the 27 Biblical books was established long before Luther.

        Do the Lutherans still hold the book of James in the "antilegomena" view?



        Sigh. Look up Bible history. The historical early church had books they accepted right from the beginning--all four gospels Acts, and Paul's epistles. Some of the other books took longer to be accepted - and were much discussed and prayed over--the "antilegomena" ones like James, Revelation, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, Hebrews--but by AD 400 or so, we have all the NT books accepted that we find in our Bible today. That is it in a nutshell. And Lutherans accept James as part of the canon.
        "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
        "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
        "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
        "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous
        "If Jesus isn't THE WAY, then there is nothing else."--Bob

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Bonnie View Post
          Sigh. Look up Bible history. The historical early church had books they accepted right from the beginning--all four gospels Acts, and Paul's epistles. Some of the other books took longer to be accepted - and were much discussed and prayed over--the "antilegomena" ones like James, Revelation, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, Hebrews--but by AD 400 or so, we have all the NT books accepted that we find in our Bible today. That is it in a nutshell. And Lutherans accept James as part of the canon.
          Bonnie--as you stated---the 27 Books of the Biblical NT were accepted as canonized scripture long before Luther. So--why should any book of the CANONIZED 27 books be in the category of "antilegomena" if the Bible is viewed as infallible?

          Again--do the Lutherans still categorize the Book of James as "antilegomena"?

          Comment


          • #65
            [QUOTE=dberrie2000;n5713909

            Again--do the Lutherans still categorize the Book of James as "antilegomena"?[/QUOTE]

            Anti legomena is a historical judgement. A person's opinion doesn't change history.
            Test all things and praise God from whom all blessings flow!

            Peace,
            BJ -Bear
            VDMA (1 Peter 1:25)
            WELS

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by BJ BEAR View Post
              Anti legomena is a historical judgement. A person's opinion doesn't change history.
              That's fine--but my question is--do the Lutherans still consider the Book of James to be ""antilegomena"?



              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by dberrie2000 View Post

                That's very kind of Luther, seeing the book of James is canonized Biblical scripture.

                I suppose the Lutherans wish the book of James was as kind to Luther:
                Hi DB,

                You really ought to try reading the book of James. If you do then you will realize the context and how thoroughly you have been misusing and abusing it when you take it out of context to try and make it mean what it isn't saying.

                For example, if you read James from the beginning you would find that the opening statement after the salutation is, count it all joy when you fall into trials, knowing that the trying or proving of your *faith* works patience, see James 1:2.

                So his intended recipients of the letter are the saved, those who are created in Christ Jesus to do good works and this is what he actually wrote in 1:18. Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth to be kind of first fruit, see the translation of your choice.

                Paul and James were in agreement.
                Test all things and praise God from whom all blessings flow!

                Peace,
                BJ -Bear
                VDMA (1 Peter 1:25)
                WELS

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by dberrie2000 View Post

                  That's fine--but my question is--do the Lutherans still consider the Book of James to be ""antilegomena"?
                  Antilegomena is antilegomena.
                  Test all things and praise God from whom all blessings flow!

                  Peace,
                  BJ -Bear
                  VDMA (1 Peter 1:25)
                  WELS

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by BJ BEAR View Post
                    Hi DB,

                    You really ought to try reading the book of James. If you do then you will realize the context and how thoroughly you have been misusing and abusing it when you take it out of context to try and make it mean what it isn't saying.
                    Hi BJ--

                    It seems the Lutherans feel some abuse, and "out of context" claims-- whenever the Book of James is quoted:

                    James 2:24 ---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
                    24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

                    I suppose it's not difficult to imagine why.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by dberrie2000 View Post That's fine--but my question is--do the Lutherans still consider the Book of James to be ""antilegomena"?
                      Originally posted by BJ BEAR View Post
                      Antilegomena is antilegomena.
                      Thank you for that BJ--but that does not answer my question, IMO.

                      The question for Lutherans---is the Book of James still considered as "antilegomena" in the Lutheran church?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by dberrie2000 View Post



                        Thank you for that BJ--but that does not answer my question, IMO.

                        The question for Lutherans---is the Book of James still considered as "antilegomena" in the Lutheran church?
                        Your question makes no sense. A person's opinion doesn't change the evidence. Or are you again tacitly arguing that 2-1=2,3,4 or 157?
                        Test all things and praise God from whom all blessings flow!

                        Peace,
                        BJ -Bear
                        VDMA (1 Peter 1:25)
                        WELS

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by dberrie2000 View Post Thank you for that BJ--but that does not answer my question, IMO.

                          The question for Lutherans---is the Book of James still considered as "antilegomena" in the Lutheran church?
                          Originally posted by BJ BEAR View Post
                          Your question makes no sense
                          Are you claiming Bonnie made no sense here?

                          Originally posted by Bonnie View Post

                          Sigh. Look up Bible history. The historical early church had books they accepted right from the beginning--all four gospels Acts, and Paul's epistles. Some of the other books took longer to be accepted - and were much discussed and prayed over--the "antilegomena" ones like James, Revelation, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, Hebrews--but by AD 400 or so, we have all the NT books accepted that we find in our Bible today. That is it in a nutshell. And Lutherans accept James as part of the canon.
                          The question to Bonnie was--does the Lutheran church still consider the Book of James to be in the ""antilegomena" category?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by dberrie2000 View Post



                            Are you claiming Bonnie made no sense here?



                            The question to Bonnie was--does the Lutheran church still consider the Book of James to be in the ""antilegomena" category?
                            The posters claim makes sense because it presents antilegomena as antilegomena, it accurately reflects the evidence.

                            Antilegomena is antilegomena.
                            Test all things and praise God from whom all blessings flow!

                            Peace,
                            BJ -Bear
                            VDMA (1 Peter 1:25)
                            WELS

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by dberrie2000 View Post

                              Hi BJ--

                              It seems the Lutherans feel some abuse, and "out of context" claims-- whenever the Book of James is quoted:
                              That is demonstrably false as I have spent this morning again quoting James to demonstrate the context according to James. If someone wants to claim that the entire book of James is mistranslated or that James wrote in a context less manner then that is on him.
                              Test all things and praise God from whom all blessings flow!

                              Peace,
                              BJ -Bear
                              VDMA (1 Peter 1:25)
                              WELS

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by BJ BEAR View Post
                                Your question makes no sense. A person's opinion doesn't change the evidence. Or are you again tacitly arguing that 2-1=2,3,4 or 157?
                                Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522)---http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html


                                Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.

                                In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation 2 devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works of Moses' statement in Genesis 15. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham's faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.

                                1. Luther's statement that the epistle was "rejected by the ancients" is only partly true. Its canonical status was doubted by some. Eusebius (died 339) in his Ecclesiastical History (II, xxiii, 25) writes "Such is the story of James, whose is said to be the first of the Epistles called Catholic. It is to be observed that its authenticity is denied, since few of the ancients quote it, as is also the case with the Epistle called Jude's." Eusebius also includes both epistles in his list of 'Disputed Books' (History, III, xxiv, 3). See also the statement by Jerome (d. 420) in his Liber de Viris Illustribus (II) concerning the pseudonymity ascribed to the epistle of James and its rather gradual attainment of authoritative status.

                                2. By Glose (literally "gloss") Luther means an interpretation which explains away the apparent meaning.

                                IOW--those who believe or claim the Bible is the inerrant word of God--which states the books of the Bible are in contradiction to one another?

                                BJ--this also shows the definition the Lutherans pose to explain James--was not necessarily shared by Luther.
                                Last edited by dberrie2000; 12-06-18, 12:13 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X