/ Topic > Re: !book of james / Date > 19 Nov 1998 / Newsgroups > alt.christnet.christianlife /
.
> Scott Owens wrote: We are preparing a sermon on the book of james. Which is a letter written
> by Jesus' brother. Please give me your interpretation of this book. I would greatly appreciate it.
> Please respond to me or email me Thanks, Scott@vci.net Scott Owens
.
Dear Scott, will this sermon of yours be written and spoken in any language resembling modern English? I certainly hope so, though it's difficult to tell judging from the enormous lack of quality in your posting here. I hope you will take more care with your James sermon, though again I think it most unlikely. ... In the first place, you should be aware that the James who wrote the "epistle" that's in the NT is most definitely NOT the James who was Jesus' brother in the flesh. I know this because Jm is a second century document, and I urge you not to be misled on this point by the scholars who know this book not at all. Good luck, and may the Spirit guide your preaching through the ears and down into the heart where it must reside for more than an hour or two.
>> Scott Owens wrote: We are preparing a sermon on the book of james. Which is a letter written
>> by Jesus' brother. Please give me your interpretation of this book. I would greatly appreciate it.
>> Please respond to me or email me Thanks, Scott@vci.net Scott Owens
.
> On 19Nov98 textman answered: Dear Scott, will this sermon of yours be written and spoken in any language
> resembling modern English? I certainly hope so, though it's difficult to tell judging from the enormous lack of
> quality in your posting here. I hope you will take more care with your James sermon, though again I think it
> most unlikely. ... In the first place, you should be aware that the James who wrote the "epistle" that's in the
> NT is most definitely NOT the James who was Jesus' brother in the flesh. I know this because Jm is a second
> century document, and I urge you not to be misled on this point by the scholars who know this book not at all.
> <snip> Good luck, and may the Spirit guide your preaching through the ears and down into the heart where it
> must reside for more than an hour or two. - the cyberspace preacher - textman ;>
.
YM1 replies: Dear Scott, don't pay the cyberspace preacher too much attention, he sounds like a snob to me, more worried about how you write than what you write. In spite of the "higher critics, James, the brother of Jesus is the most likely writer of the Book of James. The Book of James was the first in a group of epistles generally called catholic epistles. Catholic in the sense that they are universal and written to the church as a whole.
.
There are 3 James' mentioned as possible writers of James. 1. James the brother of John, and the two brothers were called the "Sons of Thunder." He was killed by Herod when when Simon Peter was put into prison. 2. James the son of Alphaeus, and called "James the Less" because, even though he was listed as an apostle, he didn't do anything noteworthy. For that reason, dismiss him as the author of "The Book of James". 3. James. the Lord's brother is the most likely author of the "Book of James." He became head of the church in Jerusalem and Acts 15 seems to suggest that he presided over the great council in Jerusalem. At least he made the summation and brought the council to to a decision when Paul went to Jerusalem to clear up the issue of Jews v. Gentiles.
.
The general epistle of James was written about A.D.45-50 which was one of the first books of the new testament written. Paul's earliest epistles was written about52-56 so James was not writing to contradict Paul's statement that man is saved, not by works but by faith. I know the "higher Critics" like to dismiss the "Book Of James" because they say it pushes works instead of faith but that's just not true. James says that you show your faith by doing something "works," just like Abraham showed that he believed God (faith) by offering his son as a sacrifice. And Rahab showed her faith by believing that God was going to give the Israeli's the land enough to go against her own
people and hide the spies that were in the land checking it's strength. Her faith made her get involved.
.
The Devil Had A Meeting
The story is told that the Devil had a meeting with his demons to decide how to persuade men that God was nonexistent. Since they themselves believed in His existence, they wondered just how to do it. One demon suggested that they tell people Jesus Christ never existed and that men would not believe such fiction. Another demon suggested that they persuade men that death ends all and there is no need to worry about life after death. Finally, the most intelligent suggested that they tell everyone that there is a God, that there is Jesus Christ, and that believing in Him saves, but all you have to do is profess faith in Christ and then go on living in sin as you used to. They decided to use this tactic, and it is the tactic the Devil uses even today.
.
By their fruits you shall know them. That's also the way you know the servants of Satan. -- YM1
/ Subject > Re: !book of james / Date > 3 Jan 1999 /
/ Newsgroups > soc.religion.christian.bible-study, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> YM1 replied: Dear Scott, don't pay the cyberspace preacher too much attention, he sounds like a snob
> to me, more worried about how you write than what you write.
.
textman answers: Dear YM1, that is incorrect on both counts. If I sound like a snob, you may be sure that it is only my heartfelt conviction sneaking through. In the same way, how we write is just as important and necessary as what we write. Ask any English professor, if you don't believe me. Moreover, this emphasis on presentation is vastly more important within the context of the sermon. Everyone knows that a dull and lifeless reading of any passage falls far short of being convincing, no matter what the content may be.
.
> In spite of the "higher critics", James, the brother of Jesus is the most likely writer of the Book of James.
.
This is indeed the traditional view, but (it should be pointed out) it is NOT one shared by the majority of competent Bible scholars today. Check it out.
.
> The Book of James was the first in a group of epistles generally called catholic epistles. Catholic in the
> sense that they are universal and written to the church as a whole.
.
How one cares to group Jm has little bearing on its particular nature. Moreover, the fact that Jm was not written for any one specific church strongly suggests that it was written in the second century rather than the first, since the bulk of the so-called catholic epistles are the latest additions to the Christian scriptures.
.
> There are 3 James' mentioned as possible writers of James. 1. James the brother of John, and the two brothers
> were called the "Sons of Thunder." He was killed by Herod when when Simon Peter was put into prison.
> 2. James the son of Alphaeus, and called "James the Less" because, even though he was listed as an apostle,
> he didn't do anything noteworthy. For that reason, dismiss him as the author of "The Book of James.
.
Huh? Your logic escapes me ...
.
> 3. James. the Lord's brother is the most likely author of the "Book of James."
.
Please note that the only 'evidence' offered for this unwarranted conclusion is that the other two James' do not qualify. ... Nor is it logical to suppose that only these three could possibly be the author. 'James' was a common name in the ancient world (as today), and only a fool of humongous proportions would suppose that any Christian writer named James *must* be someone who is mentioned in the Bible. ... Do you see how unexamined assumptions distort and confuse rational analysis?
.
> He became head of the church in Jerusalem and Acts15 seems to suggest that he presided over the great
> council in Jerusalem. At least he made the summation and brought the council to to a decision when Paul
> went to Jerusalem to clear up the issue of Jews v. Gentiles.
.
Actually, the evidence for James (the brother of the Lord) in Paul's authentic epistles is far weightier. There we see that the only letter to come from James and the Council was a list of do's and don'ts for Gentiles who wished to join the still Jewish People of God. Yes, Paul was so impressed with the mighty 'pillars' that he at once took his Gospel to Greece (ie. well out of the sphere of influence cast by the Jewish believers in Jerusalem). ... Perhaps you would all do well to consider carefully the implications and significance of Paul's response to James and the other 'authorized' leaders of the Church?
.
> The general epistle of James was written about A.D. 45-50 which was one of the first books
> of the new testament written.
.
Please note that YM1 offers no evidence whatsoever for this absurd assertion. It just hangs there as if it was perfectly obvious, and surely requires no explanation at all!
.
> Paul's earliest epistles was written about 52-56
.
This, too, is incorrect. The four letters that were later edited and collected as 1&2 Thessalonians are the earliest of Paul's authentic writings, and the oldest NT books. They were composed over a two-year period (approximately): 49-50 CE. This date is the result of a great deal of scholarly grunt-work, and is generally acceptable to the majority of Bible scholars (with the exception of those who do not consider 2Thes to be an authentic pauline epistle).
.
> so James was not writing to contradict pauls statement that man is saved, not by works but by faith. I know
> the "higher Critics" like to dismiss the "Book Of James" because they say it pushes works instead of faith but
> that's just not true. James says that you show your faith by doing something "works," just like Abraham
> showed that he believed God (faith) by offering his son as a sacrifice. <snip>
.
I have no objection to any of this, but I will ask the Reader to ponder the fact that Jm clearly demonstrates a strong awareness of Paul's thinking as expressed in his epistles. This means that the possibility that Jm was written prior to 60CE is about as close to nil as you'd want to get. Moreover, Jm also demonstrates a clear awareness of many other New Testament documents, including the Gospel of John. Consider the implications of that, if you please!
.
> The Devil Had A Meeting <snip story owing to lack of relevance>
.
So let me ask you this: Would you buy a used car from a salesman who doesn't know a Rolls-Royce from a Volkswagen? ... No? Why, then, should you seriously consider the feeble ramblings of someone who obviously
knows nothing about the Book of James? Yes, while YM1 and many others suppose that Jm is a letter, it is quite apparent that this is not the case. No indeed. Rather, the Book of James is actually a collection of prophetic sermons that were delivered to various churches over the years by a passionate Christian prophet whose name just happened to be Jacob. His sermons reflect the problems and concerns of a church that was well established in Greco-Roman society; at a time, that is, after the initial growing pains caused by 'the parting of the ways' between Judaism and Christianity. ... Yes, someday the Bible scholars will open their eyes to the truth about the Book of James, and then they'll be feeling very foolish indeed!
/ Subject > Re: James / 20Oct99 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Forum > ChristWatch - Prophecy: Biblical Prophecy /
.
> Golanv Towodi ~Ugugu Golanv~ wrote: <snipthewholearticle>
.
textman say: What GT did here was simply to offer us chapter one of the book of James in the King James Version, thus prompting the cyber-prophet's disgust and outrage ...
.
Dear Golanv Towodi, What is the purpose of this posting? I only ask because its intended meaning escapes me. Most people quote bible verses to the end of providing some sort of explanation or commentary; which is entirely in line with the purpose of this newsgroup (which is bible study). Since you did not bother to add any comments or opinions, this valid use of the scriptures does not apply here. Another possibility is that some postings do offer extended snippets from the scriptures without commentary, but these translations are either original or hard to come by. Here again, this valid use does not apply; unless you suppose that the cyber-saints are ignorant of the KJV, or do not know how to access it. But since the KJV has been around for several centuries now, I think it safe to say that most of the people on this channel both know of it and know how to access it (eg. there are several websites that make the KJV available to anyone who wants it). So then what is the point of posting this passage, eh?
.
Moreover, the KJV is a faulty translation which is not suitable for serious bible study (particularly where the book of James is concerned). Two important points will demonstrate this:
.
(1) No one talks like this anymore! 4X: "For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed" (Jm 1:6/KJV). When was the last time you heard someone use the word 'wavereth'? The KJV is full of nonsense like this. This translation was timely and accurate in the seventeenth century, but none of us live in the seventeenth century (last time I checked).
.
(2) It is grossly inaccurate! 4X: "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (Jm 1:1/KJV). This is a horribly bad translation because the Greek text does NOT say this! It says: "Jacob, a slave of God ...". Is this change such a big deal? Yes, as a matter of fact, it is! The word 'slave' is there for a reason; and a very darn good reason, in my humble opinion [ie. this honorable title identifies the inspired authors as Christian prophets; as per the long and authoritative biblical tradition (including various OT prophets, and the apostle Paulos of Damascus)]. And those translators who take it upon themselves to tamper with the text in such an unjustified, disrespectful, and swinish manner prove themselves supremely unfit to be translators of the Word of God!
.
Nevertheless, the KJV proved to be such a popular English translation that almost all modern versions of the NT continue to slavishly follow the KJV "improvement" rather than the "offensive" Greek text:
.
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ / KJV James 1:1
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ / RSV
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ / NIV
James, bondman of God and of [the] Lord Jesus Christ / Darby
JAMES, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ / NASB
From James, a slave of God and of Jesus Christ / NET Bible
.
Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ / KJV Jude 1:1
Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ / RSV
Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ / NIV
Jude, bondman of Jesus Christ / Darby
JUDE, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ / NASB
From Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ / NET Bible
.
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ / KJV 2Peter 1:1
Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ / RSV
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ / NIV
Simon Peter, bondman and apostle of Jesus Christ / Darby
SIMON PETER, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ / NASB
From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ / NET Bible
.
Notice that the much-touted so-called 'standard of excellence' (ie. the NASB) "improves" on the KJV error by rendering the Greek 'doulos' (ie. 'slave') by the ludicrous term 'bond-servant'! So much for the great 'literal' translation! The astute Reader will also notice that the NET Bible translation finally breaks the chains of a stupid and
thoughtless tradition, and *correctly* translates this all important word that opens the three letters of the second century Egyptian-Christian prophets (ie. so as to *deliberately* link all three of them together).
.
Why then do the translators of the most popular versions take it upon themselves to deliberately corrupt the sacred text so as to keep true believers ignorant of the prophetic truth, you ask? . . . Well, I see only four possibilities:
.
(1) The Word of God (ie. the original Greek text) is a stench unto their politically correct nostrils.
(2) They seek to "improve" and/or "correct" the "faulty" Greek text so as to make it more acceptable to modern Readers by not needlessly offending them with the truth of things.
(3) They are utterly ignorant of the true meaning of the phrase 'slave of Jesus Christ'.
(4) All of the above!
.
Personally, I tend to favor the fourth option.
.
- one who wishes that all believers could read the Greek text, being also the almost bilingual one - textman ;>
.
P.S. "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways" (Jm.1:8/KJV).
/ Topic > Re: More Killing The Prophets / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 20Oct99 / Forum > ChristWatch - Prophecy: Biblical Prophecy /
.
> On 20Oct99 Marc wrote: Textman, what was that rant for?
> Could you please explain what you are trying to prove or say?
.
textman say: Dear Marc, okay.
.
> for example: "KJV error by rendering the Greek 'doulos' (ie. 'slave') by the ludicrous term 'bond-servant'!"
> bond-servent or bond-slave is a perfectly acceptable translation of the Greek doulos.
.
The Greek word 'doulos' means 'slave', NOT 'bond-servant' or 'bond-slave'; check any Greek-English lexicon, if you don't believe me. Therefore neither of those terms that you propose can rightly be considered "a perfectly acceptable translation".
.
> Unless you want to conduct every discussion you have in biblical Greek and Hebrew (which also
> assumes that you are a native speaker of both, which you are not, the last native speaker died
> several centuries ago, modern Greek and Hebrew are close but not same), you have to accept
> that translations are imperfect.
.
I *do* accept that translations are imperfect. In fact, the point of my "rant" is precisely this very fact. Translations are indeed necessary, but none are equal to the original Greek as far as authority and inspiration go. Moreover, my article demonstrates that even the best translations are not only imperfect, but (at times) grossly inadequate; and therefore cannot be uncritically trusted at all times.
.
> Any translation from one language to another will require choices to be made by the translators.
> Some words or phrases do not have direct correlation in another language, thus a choice must
> be made in defining a word.
.
This observation does NOT apply to the texts in question. There is no *valid* reason why the KJV, NIV, NASB, etc etc, should not use the English word 'slave' to translate the Greek word 'doulos'. Please observe that the NET Bible apparently has no trouble giving the right translation.
.
> If you had another point, I'm sorry, I didn't get it.
.
The other point is that modern translators are either deliberately biased against the prophets, or are utterly ignorant of the fact that James, Jude, and 2Peter were written by Christian prophets, and so must be classified as prophetic literature.
ON SLAVES & PROPHETS
/ Topic > Re: More Killing The Prophets / Forum > ChristWatch - Biblical Prophecy / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 23 Oct 1999 /
.
> On 21Oct99 Marc wrote: Textman: But your rant is exactly what it was.
> Doulos means bond-servent. Check your Strongs.
.
textman say: Dear Marc, I don't know about Strongs, but my Liddel and Scott says: "a slave, bondman, properly a born slave, opp. to andrapodon (a slave taken in war)". To further confuse the issue, my Random House Dictionary defines 'bondman' simply as 'a male slave', and makes no further distinctions; except to point out that a 'bondwoman' would be a female slave. None of which is very enlightening, I'm afraid. The point, in any case, is that while most post-modern Readers know what a slave is, relatively few will know what a 'bondman' is. *Therefore* 'slave' must necessarily be the better translation of 'doulos'!
.
> There are two types of slaves, especially in a Jewish context. The first is a slave captured in warfare or purchased.
.
This type of slave is properly referred to by the term 'andrapodon'.
.
> If that slave was a Hebrew, you were to release him after he served six years (i.e. the seventh year of service).
> If you gave that slave a wife, he was not to take her with him, nor were you to give him anything but his
> freedom. If that slave wanted to stay as a permenant part of the household, you would take him to your
> doorpost and using an awl, pierce his ear and give him an earring showing his status as a bond-servent,
> bond-slave, either term applies. The point is that doulos is this relationship, not the slavery associated with
> bondage or debt, but the bond-slave relationship of a person who freely gives himself to the house forever
> to be a servent of the house.
.
If I'm reading you correctly, you are making a distinction between two types of slave on the basis that one is a slave against ones will, while the other willfully enters into that state or condition. The Greek appears to make a similar distinction; but there is no confusion in the Greek about this, as the distinction is made apparent via the use of two distinct terms.
.
> When Paul says he is a doulos of Christ, he does not imply that Christ captured him in warfare and he is a
> slave against his will, but he freely gave his life in service to Christ forever.
.
How do you know what Paul implies when he uses 'doulos' to refer to himself? All I know is what he explicitly says in his authentic letters. Therefore, show us a verse from Paul that demonstrates that Christ did NOT capture him ... The three Lukan accounts of the Damascus Road incident surely suggest that Saul was captured by the Lord; but since there is nothing in Paul's writings to support this fabulous story, it cannot be taken as evidence of Paul's use of 'doulos'. But even if the story is not literally or historically accurate, it is nevertheless quite suggestive ...
.
> In translations you have to take the word and the meaning or CONTEXT of the word when choosing the
> words you will use.
.
This is exactly what I do in all my translations, Marc. That is also precisely why I translate 'doulos' as slave, and not as bond-servant!
.
> By Context, doulos is best described in English as bond-servant. This was a phrase that both the KJV translators
> and modern readers would understand in better context than slave because the context is to imply a willing
> giving of oneself to Christ not an unwilling imposition of will upon us!
.
So then what you are proposing is that the term 'doulos' offers us two possibilities. It can be translated as 'slave', meaning a condition imposed. Or it can be translated as 'bond-servant', meaning a freely accepted condition. You are claiming that 'bond-servant' is the better rendition because the slavery of the prophet is more like unto a freely accepted condition than a state imposed upon them . . .
.
Let us now see if there is any merit to this claim of yours:
.
Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." Then I said, "Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, I do not know how to speak, for I am only a youth." But the LORD said to me, "Do not say, 'I am only a youth'; for to all to whom I send you you shall go, and whatever I command you you shall speak. Be not afraid of them, for I am with you to deliver you, says the LORD." Then the LORD put forth his hand and touched my mouth; and the LORD said to me, "Behold, I have put my words in your mouth. - Jerm 1:4-9
.
In the same way, the prophet Jonah was likewise imposed upon by the Lord to go to Nineveh, but not wishing to do so, instead took a ship heading west. In response the Lord sent a great storm against the boat, such that the sailors threw Jonah overboard; whereupon a great fish swallowed him whole and took him to the shore of Nineveh. Thus seeing the futility of resisting the Lord, Jonah did as the Lord bid him do. And when the sinful citizens repented of their evil ways, the Lord left off destroying that great city. But Jonah was none too happy about it:
.
But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was angry. And he prayed to the LORD and said, "I pray thee, LORD, is not this what I said when I was yet in my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that thou art a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and repentest of evil. Therefore now, O LORD, take my life from me, I beseech thee, for it is better for me to die than to live." - Jonah 4:1-3
.
But all this does not mean that the prophet does not also freely accept his condition; for clearly both imposition and acceptance are involved in the making of the prophet. This is made clear in the writings of the prophet Isaiah:
.
And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven." And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here am I! Send me." - Isaiah 6:5-8
.
So when the prophet calls himself 'a slave of the Lord' he is not meaning to deny his acceptance of his condition, but he is meaning to emphasize the primary reality of the Lord's call and commission (which precedes and supersedes the prophet's acceptance of the Lord's will). Thus 'bond-servant' is an invalid translation of 'doulos' because it does not adequately express this important element in the character and making of the prophet. Thus Paul, Jacob, Judas, and Peter2 all rightly and correctly refer to themselves as 'a slave of Jesus Christ'. By contrast, 'a bond-servant of Jesus Christ' is both anemic and incorrect. So while it is perfectly proper for the ordinary believer to refer to him/herself as a bond-servant, the prophet is not like the ordinary believer. He is set apart for a special ministry of the Word, and this distinction is best expressed by the word 'slave' ...
.
> On 3Nov99 Vic the Administrator wrote: Let's see. I'm looking at my Vines and it says: Slave - SOMA -
> A body, is translated "slaves" in REV 18:13. Bondservant - OSTEON - Probably from a word signifying
> strength, or firmness. "We are members of His body." Bond - DESMOS - It stands for the actual bonds
> which bind a prisoner. Servant - DOULOS - An adjective signifying "In Bondage".
.
textman say: Dear Vic, your Vines appears to be considerably confused in its definitions. The Greek word for 'servant' is 'diakonos', not 'doulos'. In the same way, 'osteon' means 'bone', not 'bondservant'; and 'soma' meaning 'body' can hardly be rightly translated as 'slave' (Rev.18:13 notwithstanding). Accordingly, I am not much inclined to attribute much authority to your Vines. ... Perhaps you should consider recycling it?
.
> So what I see here is that we as servants of Jesus are bonded to the body of Christ as and actual
> prisoner is bonded that we are a slave to Christ in that we move and have are freedom in Him as lord
> as we move with our bonds in connection with Him. When we try to move against the Bonds then we
> are in contrast to His Will and our freedom is lost. Our true freedom only comes from the synchronized
> wills of ours and His. Seems pretty clear to me.
.
Just so. But we do not need Vines to tell us these things. Any adequate translation of the NT will inform us of all
these spiritual realities.
.
> I just don't see where Textman is going or trying to say. I think the King James Version's use
> of "servant" still holds true to the "bondage" to Jesus being expressed.
.
No. You are missing the point, Vic. The second-century Egyptian prophets (following Paul and the biblical tradition)
deliberately called themselves 'slaves of JC', not servants or bondsmen. The word 'doulos' was thus used as a title for their function among the People of God. Its meaning was that it is a synonym for 'prophet'. Just as 'messiah' means 'anointed one', so 'doulos' means 'prophet'. This is the *Christian* meaning of the word 'slave', and it ought to be apparent that this meaning is utterly lost when translators (knowing not the minds of the Christian prophets) brazenly substitute some other term for 'slave' so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of modern readers. In other words, the KJV (and its myriad offspring) is *wrong* to imagine that 'servant' is an adequate or appropriate rendition of the meaning of the sacred text!
.
> I would also like to know where textman gets his info on James.
.
For the most part, my views on James, Jude, and 2Peter come directly from the texts, and from my reflections on those texts; although I have also (sometimes) gained a little help and insight from the efforts of previous NT scribes
and scholars.
.
> I looked up both "Jacob" and "James" in my Greek Bible and although the names are similar
> they are 2 different names in the Greek.
.
My Greek NT says: IAKOBOS - which name can be rendered as 'Jacob' or 'James'. But perhaps I am wrong about this. Please tell us, Vic, what are the "2 different names in the Greek"?
.
> Well, That's OK Textman. We still love you, even though you are wrong on this point with James. -- Vic
.
I would be more inclined to agree with you that I am wrong "on this point with James" if you could please kindly show us all exactly where and how I erred. It is my understanding that 'James' is simply the Latinized (English) form of 'Jacob'. Where then am I mistaken?
.
> Jesus is still God and always will be. Only though His blood can you have hope of Salvation.
.
What does his blood have to do with it? It is his person that makes Jesus who he is; and it is our faith in that
*person* that is the foundation of our hope.
textman