Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassidy
Igzy,
I don't disagree with any of your points concerning the moral , ceremonial laws.
However, I think you giving James a pass to justify your point because it is clear from the biblical record that the Jewish believers were not only keeping the law but were zealous for the law.
Case in point:
Acts 21:20 "....You observe, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews who have believed; and all are zealous for the law. "
James was the leading brother in Jerusalem.
|
No doubt Paul was more clear on some things than James. But it's also possible that James was more clear on some things than Paul.
But the real question is this, are you saying there are some things commanded in the book of James that we specifically can ignore? If so, which are they?
I'm not baiting. I believe there are some things in the NT that we can de-emphasize now, that are less valid now that they were in the first century. For example, prohibiting women from teaching. I don't think that is a commandment regarding nature, but rather circumstance. I've just seen too many examples of anointed females teachers.
The problem I have with Lee's approach to James is although James was clearly a very Jewish Christian, I do not believe the main reason his book is in the NT is to demonstrate someone who was less than clear. If anything the point is to show that God needs different perspectives to state his whole case.