The Multi-Level Canon

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

Well, since this was noteworthy, I will un-noteworthily respond

This sounds well and good, and very pious, but it gives me no practical application. Since you have made this claim, please tell me HOW the Holy Spirit does so, so that I can be on the lookout. (remember you cannot use works in your equation) Can you describe it to me without sounding mystical or referencing works?

Sure. It's the same witness of the Spirit when you hear the Word expounded during assembly, or when the Deity of Christ communicates the Truth of the Word to you during your personal studies.

Can you give me an example of one person whom YOU KNOW FOR SURE the Holy Spirit has DIRECTLY authenticated to you as a Christian using some means other than a biblical judgment of their works?

More than one... I can give you phone numers to call too.

Paul Martin, Geoffery Adams, Glendon Thompson, Mike Baryani, Jess Hoy, Murry Robbinson, Charles Sharde, ans some dude I met a medical study.

I would assume that since your post was noteworthy, there may be others here (hi Brandan ) that might like to tackle this as well for my edification?

Maybe, we'll have to ask them.

It seems to me that the Holy Spirit does authenticate commonality between Christians, and He does so by revealing to us how we are to make this assessment in HIS WORD. In it, I am told how to assess a true believer. An obvious example is 1 Cor. 12:3, or Matt. 7:20. This assessment is BY WORKS according to God's Word.

Your understaning of Matthew 7:20 is wrong. I used to make the same misconnection myself.

I've pointed this out in the past but I'll point it out again...

The context of Matthew 7:20 is speaking about false prophets, or those whom "claim" to be called of God to "specifically" teach His word. If they have been called to teach His Word, as in a higher calling of sorts, then they shouldn't be speaking contrary to the Prophets, Jesus or the Apostles. Why would God call someone above all others to specifically teach His Word only to have them get it wrong? Doesn't make sense...

[Mat 7:15] "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits, nor can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Therefore by their fruits you shall know them."


Now, the fruit that Paul spoke of, well... that's different.




[1Co 12:3] "Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says Jesus is a curse, and that no one can say that Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Spirit."

This has to be handled with a bit of wisdom here. Benny Hinn claims Jesus is Lord. So does Joyce Myers, Billy Graham, Creflo Dollar, Mormons, JW's etc...

So exactly how do we handle this verse? Is it a means to test that someone is a true Chrsitian? If, so. Then the above names are all legit.

And if so, then how about this?

[Mat 7:22] "Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works?"


My past couple of posts are off topic. So we need to start a new thread if we want to discuss this.

[samohtwerdna]

Dearest Milt,

As far as I can tell you and I do not disagree on any point concerning salvation. We keep talking past one another because you take me to be defending a works + Faith salvation - and I keep speaking past you because I take you to be claiming/defending a Christianity without works. I honestly believe that you do not believe in such a Christianity and I sincerely hope that your believe that I don not believe in such a salvation.

So what does it boil down to? I'm not sure, but it seems that context and the question of who James was addressing and for what point are the key reasons why we keep spinning round and round.
So...
Context: - James was clearly written to the twelve dispersed tribes. James was most likely written in the first century towards the later half. At this point the Jewish nation was in serious trouble and things did not look like they used to. It is fair to assume in the face of all the Jews where going through and their jealousy over the Gentiles that some would begin walking in a manner not fit for the Gospel, denying what they knew to be true and claiming as an excuse "well I have faith!". Much like some antinomians today. The whole book of James is talking about conduct. Is it not? So why then would the context change in Chapter 2 for a brief time to discuss theology/ soteriology? - Remember that Bob and Brandan have criticized the book for speaking nothing about the way of salvation. They inadvertently push the very context I / we / the greater part of God's people are claiming. Mike stated that the context is clearly JBG because James ask if faith can "save"? even If I granted that James was not speaking hyperbolically and was in fact speaking about faith and election - the answer to his question is No. But even if the answer was yes, it would still not determine that the context for verse 24 is JBG. Keep in mind that the bible uses the Word "save" in several places where eternal salvation is not in view (I know you know this).

As to the other questions, I think they where addressed in my comments on 'context' - but I would like to know if you disagree with Bob and Brandan, and believe that James wrote this epistle to non-professors as an apology for salvation and what it consist of? Also do you think James audience the same as Paul's?

Thank-you for your thoughts,

Andrew T. Adcock

[GraceAmbassador]

Dearest Milt,

As far as I can tell you and I do not disagree on any point concerning salvation. We keep talking past one another because you take me to be defending a works + Faith salvation - and I keep speaking past you because I take you to be claiming/defending a Christianity without works. I honestly believe that you do not believe in such a Christianity and I sincerely hope that your believe that I don not believe in such a salvation.

So what does it boil down to? I'm not sure, but it seems that context and the question of who James was addressing and for what point are the key reasons why we keep spinning round and round.
So...
Context: - James was clearly written to the twelve dispersed tribes. James was most likely written in the first century towards the later half. At this point the Jewish nation was in serious trouble and things did not look like they used to. It is fair to assume in the face of all the Jews where going through and their jealousy over the Gentiles that some would begin walking in a manner not fit for the Gospel, denying what they knew to be true and claiming as an excuse "well I have faith!". Much like some antinomians today. The whole book of James is talking about conduct. Is it not? So why then would the context change in Chapter 2 for a brief time to discuss theology/ soteriology? - Remember that Bob and Brandan have criticized the book for speaking nothing about the way of salvation. They inadvertently push the very context I / we / the greater part of God's people are claiming. Mike stated that the context is clearly JBG because James ask if faith can "save"? even If I granted that James was not speaking hyperbolically and was in fact speaking about faith and election - the answer to his question is No. But even if the answer was yes, it would still not determine that the context for verse 24 is JBG. Keep in mind that the bible uses the Word "save" in several places where eternal salvation is not in view (I know you know this).

As to the other questions, I think they where addressed in my comments on 'context' - but I would like to know if you disagree with Bob and Brandan, and believe that James wrote this epistle to non-professors as an apology for salvation and what it consist of? Also do you think James audience the same as Paul's?

Thank-you for your thoughts,

Andrew T. Adcock

Dear Andrew:

Some moderators consider you and Melted the most reasonable disagreers in the Forum and we commend your class and sweet spirit. Both of you! Agreement with me specifically is not necessary for one to have a sweet spirit!

I consider James not to have written at least chapter 2. I believe chapter 2 is in contradiction with Paul Also I believe that chapter 5 is problematic. I also consider his use of "I, and Me" a bit off of the way the other apostles addressed to their target audience. James target audience is the Jews of the diaspora (the dispersed ones) as you say. I mentioned many times that during the time James (if he wrote this book) wrote this book the church was under the rule of the Synagogue. Many Jewish things were still in force and one of them or the main one was the concern for the poor. Read all the other Jewish portions of the N.T. and you will find the concern for the poor. Whoever wrote James took this Jewishness to an extreme and placed in his book a requirement to taking care of the poor and inserted a new "demand" of proof of Justification Before GOD, that is the show of "works of charity" (the the entire book speaks of them) and for one to prove that his faith was alive rather than dead. I don't see anywhere in the context this hybrid interpretation that he is speaking of justification before men. Since the only other option is "justification before GOD" I believe it is in contradiction with Paul. I also see nowhere anything related to it or pointing to it.



I guarantee you that this is not the only instance where James goes to far in Judaism whereas Paul maitained a more Grace oriented attitude. Every time I mentioned this here some clown calls me a dispensationalist. But here it goes again: Read the recommendation of James on the Council of Jerusalem as to "meat sacrifice to idols" and read what Paul LATER says about it on Chapter 8 of 1 Corinthians. Also read about the same in Romans 14 and perhaps 15.


However this is not to say that "if" James had written a book, he would have left his Jewishness. It is also as if James would always be wrong and not understanding that Paul's Gospel to the Gentiles was really the FULL GOSPEL whereas his Gospel, James Gospel, was still inundated by Jewish beggarly elements and requirements that had been superseded by Grace.

Some say that James wrote that book but it is not to be in force among the Gentiles. I just simply decided that we should question James authenticity and whether it would be part of the lesser canon or not canonical at all.
I hope you find my answer to your questions in the lines above.

I believe that Christians are to show forth works but works are not to bring focus upon the person, but Christ; I don't believe works of charity save or justify a man before God neither should be the way we justify our brothers and sisters as brothers and sisters. Spiritual things must be discerned spirutually! I know is sort of corny and tacky, and even mystical, but that is the way the Bible teaches: Spirutual things are discerned spiritually...

Thanks for your kindness, class, and truly having an attitude of brotherly love. If you disagree with me FINE! When you get to heaven you will know all things and THEN OBVIOUSLY WILL AGREE WITH ME, since those who know all things will agree with me.

Blessings!

Milt

[GraceAmbassador]

An addendum to the above:

I have a problem with James 5 because of the way it speaks about "forgiveness of sins" and also the fact that "the fervent prayer of a righteous man is very effective" and the word "effective" is energeo (energy) which means that prayer can somehow change God's Sovereign Plan... It is disputable, to say the least if prayer changes us or changes God... We pray towards God's will and not to exercise energy to change it.
Chapter 5 (not the writer's blame) is a fertile ground for Arminians and "faith healers" and those who believe that prayer changes God or even "order" God around as if God is a messenger boy...

Milt

[samohtwerdna]

Milt,

I appreciate the humor !

I think I understand why you are able to question the book (or Chapter 2) and realize that there are many other things that you have experienced and learned which have brought you to the place where you are now. Until I have had some more experience myself - I doubt I could posses the right formulation of truths to convince you one way or the other in this regard. I was moved by Scott's example. And am thinking the best way to contribute to this thread is to go back to my earlier discussions about the canon as a whole and our approach to it. I pray it will be edifying for all and instructive for myself.

[lionovjudah]

Joe:

Sorry to get out of my normal way to respond, but are you trying to be the court jester here? Or are you not debating in good faith? Or are just not understanding what is going on here?

You defend "works that justify a man and that makes one faith alive" based upon a text of James; then we list from James all the things that he calls works, which, obviously he teaches as "justifying works" in context with "his" book.

Now, we required from you and Harald that the way you defend James shows that you are willing and ABLE to live under the standards of James; now we list all the precepts of James and you "pretend" not to understand why Brandan published there for? You feign not to understand that those are the precepts to make one's faith alive and justifies them before man according to James?

Live it up Joe! Want to defend "justification before men"? Take Brandan's list and if you do not live it up, completely and always, according to the doctrine you defend, we are justified in counting you not "justified before us" and regard you as one whose faith is DEAD!

You don't care? Great! Harald does not care either. So, the hypocrisy or stupidity, whatever is stronger, is blatant: You say that men can justify other men by their works and consider the other person's faith dead. When men do that to you you say, "I don't care". Then why do you believe "men" can justify you is biblical? Are you disobedient to the Bible? Or do you have a few special men that you feel comfortable in being justified before them?

Joe, enough of the childish stuff here. The moderators have spoken about you in our own conferences and we feel that you do not debate in good faith or is plainly immature. I'd say that it is nothing of the sort; it is only that you don't understand things period!

I will stop reading your posts lest I reply the fool according to his own folly!

Milt

Your own "Conferences?" Please Milt give this 40 year old a break. You are thinking way way too highly of yourselves here. Do they resemble to council of Nicea? I am sorry you feel the way you do about me, but the fact remains I am not alone, and I find comfort in that. I have respected you and will continue to do so. And face it, perhaps what would be best is for you Brandan, Bob and Mike get rid of everyone else and just talk to yourselves. This is an online public forum Milt.

In regards to my post to Brandan, I was seriously concerned with what he would find wrong with items on that list and for what reason. I am understanding what is COMPLETELY going on here. You as a moderator are asking ridiculous questions that do not deserve a response. 4.5 people in all of history have publicly slammed the book of james. There is ABSOLUTELY no shred of evidence anyone spoke about this book prior to Luther. You continuously speak of what YOU require. How much do you believe that honestly weighs Milt? Am I to stop work for the day because you, a moderator, requires me to provide an answer to a ridiculous question? Remember this Milton, it is not ONLY me who confesses this, it is millions before me. Tell me please, who can you shake hands with the right hand of fellowship on this idea of james? Here is the paradox, tradition is a 4 letter word here. Historical confessings is a 4 letter word here. But yet you and bob and mike and brandan go to history of the first 3 centuries which supposedly question the book of james. But you know what? Even if this book was found generally accepted by everyone, you and the crew would find another reason. SO please do not play this game about no consensus in the early church as the foundation for this novelty. It would not matter.

Perhaps if you would read my posts closer, you may understand what I am saying. But just in case there is a language barrier I will speak again.

1) James is NOT speaking about the WHOLE of ones life.
2) James is speaking about specific immediate instances
3) James is speaking to his brethren, this means more than fellow jews. The greek is clear on this.
4) James does NOT use SOZO to mean the same as Eternal Life.
5) James does not use justify exactly as Paul does
6) I have printed what justify also means, a vindication of ones life.
7) James is speaking to believers, not pagans.
8) James reinforces what Christ taught about bearing fruit
9) James like our Lord condemns the sin of neglect and oppression and partiality
10) The writ has many examples of spurious faith/ temporary faith. ie the parable of the soils


Plus Bob supposedly attempted to answer my question, but did not make sense.

A) we who defend James are asked to defend a book that has been part of the canon for 1800 years.
B) The same methods we use are the same methods used by you and others here, including myself, to reconcile passages that appear to present difficulties in a calvinistic understanding
C) The word justify can also mean righteouss in the context of people in the writ who have been called this.

Now chew on this please.

11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
11:2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
11:12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
11:14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
11:18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
11:19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
11:20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.
11:21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.
11:22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.
11:23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.
11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
11:25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
11:26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.
11:28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.
11:29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.
11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.
11:31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.
11:32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:
11:33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions.
11:34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
11:36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
11:38 (Of whom the world was not worthy they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
What does this "famous" faith chapter say? Everytime a person is meantioned, it includes what they did to make them recognizable.

Does it say? By faith Noah believed God, and did nothing
Does it say? By faith the walls of jericho crumbled by them men who just stood there?

Every single peroson mentioned in this inspred book has something they did attached to their name as a witness of the power of God given faith.


In closing I will clearly state thus: When James speaks of faith being dead, he is equating that with his use of profitability. You 4 overlook this whole idea of profitability in James. What does it profit? absolutely nothing to see a brother in need and neglect him. It does not profit you, nor the one in need. What does it profit one to show partiality? NOTHING.

I wish you would continue to read my posts milt. I like bouncing them off of you.

Also, in my readings of the past discussions in this forum, There have been many "Epiphanies" by certain members, who then will loudly proclaim how he/she embraces or denounces something. Perhaps, Lord willing, if my heart is changed, I can make the total 5.5 people in the history of the NC to proclaim james as having an inteprolation/uninspired/a mighty epistle of straw. Then I can start a thread about my revelation.

[lionovjudah]

you know, I have just realized I need to bow out of this thread for a while. I am teetering on the edge of speaking mailiciously and do not want that to happen. In the grand scope of things, for me to get worked up over an online forum could possibly be the most stupid thing in the world for me.

[InChristAlways]

Joe quote: 11:38 (Of whom the world was not worthy they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
What does this "famous" faith chapter say? Everytime a person is meantioned, it includes what they did to make them recognizable.

Samo quote: So...
Context: - James was clearly written to the twelve dispersed tribes. James was most likely written in the first century towards the later half. At this point the Jewish nation was in serious trouble and things did not look like they used to. It is fair to assume in the face of all the Jews where going through and their jealousy over the Gentiles that some would begin walking in a manner not fit for the Gospel, denying what they knew to be true and claiming as an excuse "well I have faith!".

Hi samo. May I ask you about when you see James as having been written and what the consesus it of when it could have been written?

I just bring this up because all of the Epistles in the NT are "silent" on the destruction of Jerusalem, which, we must admit, was a catastrophic event for the jewish Nation, and James "possibly" could have been preparing that nation for the destruction, don't really know. Does silence of that event in those epistles mean none of the NT could have been written after it? Hope this isn't off topic Thanks.
Steve

http://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-James.html

Date of Writing: The Book of James is probably the oldest book of the New Testament, written perhaps as early as A.D. 45, before the first council of Jerusalem in A.D. 50. James was martyred in approximately 62 A.D.
ractical Application:

We see in the Book of James a challenge to “walk the walk” and “talk the talk” of a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. While our faith walk, to be certain, requires a growth of knowledge about the word, James exhorts us to not stop there. Many Christians will find this reading challenging as James presents us with 60 obligations in only 108 verses. It is hard-hitting as he asks us in verse 1:23 to look at ourselves in the mirror and then straighten ourselves up. He focuses on the truths of Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount and motivates us to act upon what He taught.

I also need a little help on the hebrew over here if anyone can volunteer: Thanks.

http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=2251

[Mickey]

4.5 people in all of history have publicly slammed the book of james.

There are not many who share our views. Brandon and I are in agreement and Milt and Bob both have their own views. So that probably makes Brandon and I the only two in the world to have our view. Perhaps there are more that simply don't share their opinion because of the fanatics who make it a primary issue, but who knows. One thing is for sure, I do not fear any man nor an appeal to numbers to sway me from my convictions.

Remember this Milton, it is not ONLY me who confesses this, it is millions before me.

Actually is more like Billions, maybe trillions!

Tell me please, who can you shake hands with the right hand of fellowship on this idea of james?

The Book of James is not grounds for fellowship because it's a secondary issue. This is why we can have different views within the moderator team on this issue and still consider each other brothers and sister in Christ.

Even if this book was found generally accepted by everyone, you and the crew would find another reason. SO please do not play this game about no consensus in the early church as the foundation for this novelty. It would not matter.

Actually Joe this is clever of you to take evidence presented to you and relativize it by such a foolish accusation. It is clear that any evidence presented to you, you will simply throw to the side. So what’s the point of even trying to have an intelligible discussion with you?

Perhaps, Lord willing, if my heart is changed, I can make the total 5.5 people in the history of the NC to proclaim james as having an inteprolation/uninspired/a mighty epistle of straw. Then I can start a thread about my revelation.

Don’t kid yourself Joe, you know that you will only do as the other sheep do.

On another note:

As Milt mentioned we mod's talk behind the scenes and I for one have been impressed with Andrew's attitude and the way he has conducted himself. And as I've mentioned to him before in private I consider him to be a dear brother in Christ. I know he gives all glory to God for saving him as he has made it clear in his posts.

I know I still have so much that I would like to say in response to some of the great questions and stupid questions asked. Unfortunately I do not have the time nor the motivation to do so for I am a slow typist. Maybe I will find the motivation later to take on that task but for now I am wearied by the foolishness I have had to read and respond to.

[GraceAmbassador]

you know, I have just realized I need to bow out of this thread for a while. I am teetering on the edge of speaking mailiciously and do not want that to happen. In the grand scope of things, for me to get worked up over an online forum could possibly be the most stupid thing in the world for me.

Joe:

If this is so unimportant to you why don't we give you one month vacation?

Well, consider it done!

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

Brethren, I certainly appreciate all of your input and support, whether total or partial!

Having read all of what has been posted here, I'm more convinced than ever that the real issue is a person's underlying hermeneutic of discerning and interpreting the scriptures. It is true that Harald has been the most consistent opponent because his dispensational hermeneutic harmonizes perfectly with his interpretation of the issue. Those who support a hermeneutic of self-authentication are less consistent; due to the paradoxical issues caused by this interpretation when real history and actual exegesis of specific verses come into play. But I have generally seen contributors here show loyalty to whatever hermeneutic they are espoused to. My studies will be of little benefit to those who hold to a Westminster version of the self-authenticating canon, though I myself doggedly hold to self-authentication when it comes to the true and geuine canon based on a Christocentric hermeneutic. The bottom line is: for those of us who are uncomfortable with the traditional Protestant hermeneutic; we are only beginning our journey on this issue. We will never be accepted by either historic churchmen or liberal skeptics, since the fundamentalism of both is completely contrary to our thinking and theological method.

I am ready to move on and focus on some other issues, though I will continue posts here on Luke vs. Matt. However, the same difference in hermeneutics that led to the controversy here will be the exact same basis of our differences on all of the other issues of the gospel.

Brother Bob

[Brandan Kraft]

Closing thread - moderators may continue to comment.

[GraceAmbassador]

Closing thread - moderators may continue to comment.

Joe has asked me to reinstate him. I asked him to write a not to all and gave him some points that I would like to see covered in the note before I would reinstate him. I would like to point out that Joe, in his email to me, demonstrated to be very frustrated with his banning and that it is not very easy for him (to say the least) to live without the Forum. I promised that if he would cover the points I requested I would, then, reinstate him. I am reinstating him on my own and sole volition. This does not prevent other moderators to take whatever actions they deem necessary against or pro Joe now or in the future. I don't think a "probationary" period is necessary. Joe makes up as he goes along, so we will treat this matter as it progresses as well.

So, I am now reinstating Joe. Below is his email and you can judge for yourselves if Joe is repentant or if he sincerely acknowledge his mistakes.
One note, however: One of the Joe's past mistakes, which he demands not be brought up again, "as Christ" is the fact that I mentioned to him that his credibility here has been shot since his first post in this Forum which was a copy and paste of someone else's material without proper credit and only after he was caught he apologized for it. (I wonder what would have happened if he never had been caught). They will not be remembered any more by me, but other moderators can take and make decisions for themselves. This does not imply that we will not be watching future actions on the part of Joe. Friendship is good; familiarity is NOT! So Joe must know that this is a serious venue, the moderators are mature serious people, and we decide how seriously we will take this forum and that we do have our own conferences about the issue that involve this forum and do not apologize for the things we deal with in these conferences and how we deal with them. This is a public forum but it does have rules and it does have a board of directors herein called moderators.

Ultimately, posting here is not a RIGHT, but a PRIVILEGE granted by the directors of this forum, A.K.A., the moderators.

Milton et all moderators.

This note has been requested by Milt who benced me for one month from the forum. I am asking to be reinstated, not because I deserve it, but only for the Glory of God. I have no ill feelings towrds Milt, nor any other mods here. In the future i will improve on my comments and attempt to be more focused without digressing threads so much. If you read the thread, you will see where the heat began to increase towards the end. And as history constantly repeats intself in my life, after I boil for some time, I will explode. For the record, if I was banned for what I said there, I would have been tracked down and hunted if the Joe Kinney of a few years ago responded. Milt has emailed me and pointed out errors on my behavior. I will agree with some, but not all. I honestly feel my contribution to this forum is appreciated by some, but more importantly I must say I have gleaned and have learned some truth and fine tuned areas where I was cloudy in the past. It is never my intention to publicaly humiliate, nor slander anyone maliciously, well most of the time. I admit I have done this purposefully in the past and repent of it. My biggest offense is my sarcasm and joking spirit. At times I do get carried away and do not realize how it will be read by those who cannot see my expression and non verbal motions when writing it. TO this I will also do my best to refrain from an over use of this trait I have.

In closing, I again, for the sake of Christ, ask to be reinstated. pursuent to the following.

1) Reinstated without some probationary period as if I am on the verge of being banned again
2) my past offenses are not to be brought up again, just as Christ does
3) If Milt or anyone has a problem with my posts, I should be contacted by PM immediately.

On my Part
1) Stay focused
2) Lower my level of sarcasm
3) PM any moderator or Brandan with concerns and not blast anyone publicly
4) Most importantly thank you for the reinstatement, and give all the Glory to God.


Milt, for the record, what set me off were specifically comments you made in a thread i was heavily contributing to.

to paraphrase you:

1) Andrew, yours is the only post that deserves a response from me
2) Others here bring up irrelevant things only to confuse matters
3) implications of inabilities and lack of knowledge.

In Christ

Joe


-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Almeida
Sent: Dec 8, 2005 7:04 AM
To: 'Joe P Kinney II'
Subject: Second Reply


Joe:

You can send the note I requested in the first reply to me. I realize that the thread is closed and you are banned. You send the note to me and I will republish for you. Only then I will reinstate you.

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

An interesting article about the Judaizers hatred of Paul and veneration of James; I believe that the lost "Ascents of James" probably contain some of the passages that made it ultimately into the epistle called James. In all the controversy and condemnation of the Ebionites, there was never a mention of James writing any epistle--though the persons and ministries of James and Jude are discussed extensively in the early "fathers".

btw: Forget about the references in the Dead Sea Scrolls mentioned in this article--the author has got the timing of it all entirely wrong--the scrolls are NEVER talking about Paul vs. James!

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/james.htm