About this forum:

Please note that this file contains selected comments taken from e-mails sent to Davis D. Danizier. This is intended to be a representative sample of correspondence. Not all e-mails are included; those most likely to be included are those that discuss the issues intellegently, not those who call names or who use excessive profanity. Submissions may be edited for space and relevance and extraneous or personal comments may be omitted, however the actual words selected for inclusion will be used exactly as submitted.
In most cases, Davis D. Danizier will have already exchanged correspondence directly with the writer and even if the writer has received a response from Davis D. Danizier directly via e-mail, it may sometimes take several days before the response is included in this forum.
Most recent additions are shown first.

Comments from correspondents are shown in BLACK.
Replies by Davis D. Danizier are shown in GREEN.

Notes:
1. While comments in agreement and disagreement are shown, this forum is a commentary on the article by Davis D. Danizier. The editors will try to present a balanced dialogue, but do not claim to be impartial and cannot ensure absolute objectivity.
2. Entries are presented in a dialogue format -- i.e., a series of related entries by a single writer are grouped together, along with Davis D. Danizier's replies to specific comments.
3. The entries included in this webpage are those specifically responding to the web page about the contradictions of Paul vs. Jesus (and others, most notably James). Other dialogue pages responding to other religious commentaries by Davis D. Danizier may be found as follows:

Commentary: Paul vs. Jesus - http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html
Forum: Discussion about Paul vs. Jesus (this page)

Commentary: Bloody Human Sacrifice Mythology of Christian Atonement - http://www.wordwiz72.com/atone.html
Forum: Discussion about Christian Atonement Doctrine - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3daforum.html

Commentary: Bible Contradictions, Flaws and Failed Prophecies - http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html
Forum: Discussion about Bible - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3dbforum.html

Forum on General Christianity or Combining various topics:
Forum: Discussion about Bible - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3dxforum.html

Dialogue with Tom
Tom writes on 1-11-03:

A friend of mine told me to read your site as it has brought up some questions in terms of his faith in the Bible. Well I am here to set things straight.

DDD reply: Thank you for sharing your expertise. However, since you did not respond to the key points I wrote about, it makes me wonder if you actually read or understood my commentary. I was very specific, but you did not address the major issues I raised.

T: I srtongly disagree with your arguement. Are we under two covenants at the same time law and grace? NO!! If you understood covenant teaching the way Paul did or Jesus did you couldn't even make this arguement.

DDD reply: I did not address the issue of "two covenants" or a distinction between "law and grace." So why did you argue against something I didn't even talk about? Sounds to me like you have this prepared, canned response waiting in the wings and you are going to use this response no matter what is written in the original material you are responding to. I noted, with extensive documentation and analysis, that Paul established one criteria for "justification" (faith and NOT WORKS) while Jesus specifically enumerated BEHAVIOR (works) that, if done, will earn salvation, and James -- using exactly the same terms, examples and construction as Paul, in direct rebuttal -- says that it is WORKS, and NOT FAITH alone that will earn "justification." Paul and James both agree that both faith and works are important. Paul claims that works are important because they evidence saving faith; James that faith is important because it motivates saving works. The important, relevant and CONTRADICTORY difference is that Paul says it is FAITH and NOT WORKS that causes justification, and James says it is WORKS, and NOT FAITH alone that does the exact same thing. You did not address this rather important point.

T: Isaiah said our rightousness is as filthy rags and the rags he is talking about are menstrual rags. Under levitical law the woman had to burn her bedding and exit the house while on her period because under levitical law blood was unclean.

DDD reply: So what is your point? Again, you are arguing against a point I didn't make. I did not say that Jesus or James contradicted Isaiah, only Paul. I did not say that Jesus or James claims that our works "earn" justification. Only that it is the standard Jesus set for justification. Do you feel that faith "earns" justification? Paul teaches that by this atonement, Jesus garners the right to set the standards for justification, and that it is faith in him. Not that our faith "earns" something we are clearly not capable of earning, but that it is the standard Jesus set. But that is NOT the standard Jesus set. He set a standard of compassionate behavior, and he was repeatedly very clear on this point. So perhaps our best efforts are as "filthy" rags, but if that is all we had and the master who sets the terms of our justification has set that as the standards, well, then, filthy rags it is.

T: Do youy even know what grace IS!?! The law was the school master to teach us we needed a savior.

DDD reply: Well, I don't much care for the strict, rigid, inflexible Law of Moses myself. I wasn't talking about what I like or don't like. I was talking about what JESUS said. And JESUS said that the law would not pass until ALL IS FULFILLED (Matt 5:18). Had "ALL" been fulfilled when Paul wrote to say that the Law was no longer extant through Jesus' sacrifice? Had "ALL" the prophecies been fulfilled? Had "ALL" the end times revelations come to pass? Had "ALL" the good works for justification been made real? Had "heaven and earth" passed away? Paul's undermining of the Law so soon after Jesus' teaching is a blatant contradiction against Jesus. Especially since, as you note, "law" and "grace" are not mutually exclusive, there is no need even for Paul to take such an extreme view.

T: The last thing Jesus said on the cross before his death was PAID IN FULL. Which means the ransom we were bought with a price!

DDD reply: Please cite chapter and verse to support this claim and which version of the Bible you are using. I have reviewed the "last thing Jesus said on the cross" in all four gospels, and in four different versions, and I find no such statement. Allowing for some variation in differing versions, here are what the last recorded words of Jesus on the cross shown in each of the four gospels:
Matthew & Mark: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
Luke: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."
John: "It is finished."

There is nothing even remotely resembling "paid in full." The closest is John's "it is finished" which connotes completion, which "might" apply to completion of a debt, but that specific application has to be derivatively interpreted. It is neither explicit nor implicit, especially since the most logical contextual interpretation (a death scene) is the termination or finishing of his life. When you are not satisfied with the scriptures as you find them, do you feel it is right to just make up better ones?

T: And Paul never contradicts Jesus's teachings, if you new your biblical history you woould see that.

DDD reply: I cited specific examples which you have not addressed. If you had actually read my commentary, you would see that.

T: The seven churches in the book of Revelations, which just in case you didn't know were all established by Paul on his first missionary journey. And which Jesus in his revelation to John in the 2nd and third chapters. Jesus is talking about the blessings ands the faults of these churches. So if you follow your arguement to its conclusion and Paul was a false teacher or a misguided one at the very least why did Jesus recognize these 7 churches?

DDD reply: This was written long after Jesus was DEAD. Chronologically, most scholars place Revelations/Apocalypse as the last (or at least close to it). There is no evidence that Jesus revealed anything to John, who many consider a raving lunatic isolated on his isle of Patmos. Since the Bible is a book riddled with contradictions, failed prophecies and factual errors (as I documented in my separate commentary on the Bible at http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html), it is hardly logical to accept the Bible as proof of the claims of the Bible. The seven churches established by Paul were also done long after Jesus was dead. Jesus never was there to defend himself against Paul's contradictory teachings.

T: Also Peter calls Paul an apostle of Jesus and recognizes his wisdom where he says some of Pauls teachings are hard to understand but some deny them to there own destruction.

DDD reply: Peter was an uneducated fisherman. Of course he was taken in by the smooth-talking, educated, articulate Paul who was not only Jewish but also a Roman citizen. Peter's claim to authority was that Jesus had selected him. Also, he supposedly had great loyalty, well, except for that unfortunate incident when Jesus really needed him and he denied (three times!) that he even knew him.

T: And also John Mark, traveled with Paul on the first missionary journey and he wrote the Gospel of Mark, didn't have a problem with Pauls teachings,and Luke who wrote most of the book of acts acknowledged Paul as an apostle of Jesus.

DDD reply: Even James accepted him, despite occasional differences. I didn't deny that the early church fathers accepted him. I said he undermined and contradicted Jesus. The fact that he got Jesus' core followers to go along doesn't change that at all. I backed what I said with extensive examples and analysis; I stand by what I said, especially since you haven't even addressed the point I made, only to make the irrelevant point that the con artist was very successful in convincing top people.

T: The issue today isn't sin. all have sinned. Under the law you are guilty, and deserve death but, Jesus fulfilled the Law by His life and His death on the Cross.

DDD reply: This is an absurd, ridiculous claim, which echoes the teaching of PAUL. There are so many fundamental flaws and errors in Paul's doctrine of vicarious, substitutional atonement that I have created a separate web page to address it, at: http://www.wordwiz72.com/atone.html. Rather than repeat all my points here, I will direct you to this page, and suggest that if you are going to defend the doctrine of substitutional atonement, that you read and respond to these points. Please also note that, when I fell away from Christian belief, it was questions about the doctrine of atonement (a rather fundamental belief in Christian faith) that first prompted me to raise questions that my trusted church leaders could not give rational answers to.

T: Under the law there cannot be peace with God. Only through faith for as it is written that without faith it is impossible to please God.

DDD reply: You said "under the LAW." Please cite the exact statement in the LAW OF MOSES that makes these claims. Or at least cite where Jesus makes such a claim. This claim comes only from Paul and has no other authoritative basis.

T: We are not saved by good works we are saved unto doing good works, so others may see our light shine out in the darkness of a fallen and blind world. Israel in the wilderness, did not perish because of there sin, but of there unbelief.

DDD reply: You join Paul in contradicting James. James said we are saved by WORKS, and NOT FAITH only. Note that James does NOT dismiss the importance of faith. Faith motivates those works. But James notes that it is by WORKS we are saved, not faith only.

T: If we confess with our mouths and believe in our hearts that Jesus is the Christ we SHALL be saved. And God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish. Pretty much self explanatory! And yes whatever we do to the least we done to him. Well the world murders children wholesale in abortion clinics around the world every day, the murder of the innocents, the world murdered an innocent man, 2000 years ago.

DDD reply: Well, I'm not going to get into the abortion debate with you. It is worth noting, however, that nowhere does the Bible condemn or forbid abortion. If you want to pursue this issue further, there is an excellent site on abortion also hosted on this same site, at: http://www.wordwiz72.com/choice.html, and I refer you to that web page by T.F.Barans, and you can address those issues with her.

T: Paul talks about the manifold mysteries of God hidden in God since before the foundations of the world, you should start there and study, theres no contradiction. Jesus was the foundation that the apostles built the church on.

What Paul is saying is true. And what James is saying is true also. Hmmm sounds like a contradiction doesn't it? The faith James is talking about is just an intellectual faith or head knowledge. Here's an example in James 2:19 2 scripture verses the first it is written you believe in God you do well the, the devils also believe and tremble! The second For Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him as rightousness. Same word is used in both but with totally different meanings. We see in the first the devils believe in God, and they seen Jesus in Heaven before they were cast down, but the didn't and still don't trust in Him, they rebelled and became enemies, and await judgement. In the second we see Abraham believed God(he walked away from his family, friends, home, security, and his inheritance) without ever seeing Him up to this point but he believed/trusted. We see it again when God tested his faith and asked him to offer up Isaac, Abraham believed that even if he sacrificed his son God would ressurect him because God told abraham, that through Isaac would his seed be called.

So what james is talking about is an intellectual faith, a logical assent to certain truths, the faith james is talking about here is a dead or useless faith. Like the parable were the servant went out and buried the masters talent so he wouldn't spend it. Thats what James is talking about you must interpret sripture in the context it is being written in James is stating the case on two different kinds of faiths, one intellectual, such as the pharisees had, and one which is authentic like abrahams.

DDD reply: There you go again, you don't like what is in the scripture so YOU decide to change it. The restrictive definitions and distinctions of faith (intellectual and authentic) are what YOU have stated, not what is actually in the Bible. Those words (or equivalent ideas) do not appear anywhere in the passage. And actually, it does not matter what James meant by the word "faith." He used exactly the same source word that Paul did, in exactly the same sentence construction, and with exactly the same example and scripture reference. It is exactly the same contextual reference as Paul's. So whatever James meant by it, Paul meant the same thing and they are in contradiction.

T: You are a prime example of one who has great intellectual knowledge but is blind.

DDD reply: I invite you to help open my poor, blind eyes. But in order to do that you will have to address the questions and concerns I actually raised. You promised to "set me straight" so I await your response.

Tom continues on 1-15-03:

I was wondering if you would read two papers I found online and give me your views on them since they seem to be opposing your point of view on Paul?

http://www.brfwitness.org/Articles/1991v26n5.htm
http://www.brfwitness.org/Articles/jpdiffer.htm

DDD reply: I have a strict policy of not going on "wild goose chases" being referred to other sites by someone just hoping against hope that I'll dig through all kinds of material and just maybe find something that supports their point.

In your case, in a weak moment, I made a rare exception. I went to the two sites you provided. And now I remember why I don't do this. Neither of these sites addressed the substance of the points I raised about how Paul contradicts both Jesus and James.

The first site merely discusses Paul's authority and credentials. I did not discuss those at all, and in fact acknowledged that he was accepted and respected by the others, who looked up to (and were taken in by) his extensive intelligence and education. This site did not at all discuss the specific points I raised.

The second site at least discusses the question of whether or not Paul and Jesus differ. But it did not address a single one of the points I raised. It merely noted that some people note the difference in teachings between Jesus and Paul (the latter introducing the concepts of blood atonement for the redemption from sin), and very simplistically tried to explain the "perceived differences" by also noting the many common teachings where they both taught the same thing. Well, duh. No one ever questioned that they had a lot of the same teachings. What this article did NOT address, didn't even bring up, was the specific CONTRADICTION (not mere difference, but direct contradiction) that I noted in their teachings on what it takes to be saved. Jesus repeatedly noted that specific compassionate ACTIONS would lead to salvation. Paul said justification is by FAITH AND NOT WORKS, thought works are an important reflection of that salvation. James (brother of Jesus) came along to defend his brother, and directly rebutted Paul. In a direct contradiction, he said justification is by WORKS and NOT FAITH ONLY, using exactly the same parallel sentence construction, exactly the same words in the original texts, exactly the same example and exactly the same scriptural reference to the Old Testament. The contradiction could not be more direct or explicit. You (or your site) did not even mention that at all.

I will not go on any more "wild goose chases." If you have found a site that you think helps you, you are welcome to cite relevant information or material that supports your specific points. I will entertain a dialogue with YOU (or other readers) but I will not carry on a debate with every other website that doesn't even address my points.

If you can address the specific points I have raised, I will be glad to hear from you. (I'm still waiting for your promise to "set me straight.") If not, well, then I understand. I had to confront the same questions back when I was a Christian, and I decided there was only one answer: Paul contradicts Jesus and James; the Bible is not the inerrant/infallible word of an omniscient deity.

Tom continues on 1-19-03:

Thanks for looking at those sites for me. I was interested in your opinion and you gave it to me. I thought that I would address your paper point by point. Here it goes:
Faith/Works
From your webpage: "Paul (originally as Saul of Tarsus) was an admitted persecutor of Christians who might have found a more effective way to undermine the followers of Jesus..."
Twisted. Paul turned his cause completely the opposite. He championed the cause for Jesus, and unceasingly encouraged the followers of Jesus. Teacher and encourager, no longer persecutor....

"Perhaps he infiltrated their ranks ... "
he evangelized openly, risking all sorts of harm to himself...

"and taught a doctrine that opposed Jesus on several fronts, ... "
a bond servant by his own choice, opposing his Master? rubbish ... ignorant....

"replacing Jesus' selfless teaching of universal compassionate action with a selfish teaching ..."
he gave himself entirely for the cause of His Lord. demonstrated his love and passion for other believers, evidenced in all of his letters...

"of desire to gain a "free gift" of salvation ... "
it's offered...he gladly and humbly accepted it. fully realizing it wasn't something he could earn or deserve...

"based only on faith ... "
in and by God's grace through faith...what Jesus did on the cross and His conquering of sin and death...

"and completely devoid of any behavioral requirement or obedience to law, ..."
another ignorant statement, not understanding what he said about the law...

"and distracting us from the selfless teachings of Jesus. ...."
I know no other man who gave more of himself (selfless) than Paul...for His Lord and fellow man.

DDD reply: Any "double agent" will give lip service to the cause he has infiltrated and is pretending to support. They will do so publicly and openly, including some risks. Paul gave his life for his cause: the total undermining of Jesus' message and the total reversal of what it means to be a Christian. He succeeded. Those who today "claim" to be Christians follow PAUL, NOT JESUS.

I cited many, many specific examples of where Paul directly undermines what Jesus taught, and completely contradicts him, as well as his brother James. All you can do is call names like "rubbish" or "ignorant" instead of responding to these direct, specific and explicit cases that PROVE MY POINT. The fact that you repeatedly fail to address the substance of the issue, and just keep parroting statements about what a great guy Paul is, with no support and no response to opposing evidence, shows that even you know I am on solid ground here.

T (citing and responding to website): "Jesus teaches that BEHAVIORAL requirements (works/deeds), rooted in an internal change of spiritual growth within the person (not external or apart from the person, though the gift of teaching and techniques to achieve this personal change are a gift of grace not earned or deserved by us, but requiring ACTIONS [deeds] to implement), are integral to salvation. While perhaps it is not possible for us to "earn" the "free gift" that Jesus DID give -- a teaching of the universal compassionate love by which the evil within us CAN be transformed into a more holy kindness of love -- Jesus clearly includes a behavioral component to his requirements for "salvation." While he does not say that this satisfies any "debt," he still requires it; perhaps he is demanding merely a small partial "payment" as a gesture of "good faith." (In fact, James suggests this by his comments in James 2:26, that we demonstrate our faith -- if it is genuine -- BY our works or deeds.)...."

Herein lies the core disagreement and/or understanding of what Paul is saying or all about.
It is not requiring...rather, producing. We're saved to do/produce good works...not do good works to be saved.

DDD reply: You are correct that herein is the substance of the contradiction between Paul and Jesus/James. Your description is exactly what Paul said. But it is not what Jesus and James said. Paul says we are justified by faith, and that our faith is evidenced through the good works that follow from it -- conceptually, this is very much along the same lines as what you have just said. Which means you join Paul in undermining, opposing and contradicting Jesus and his brother James. Jesus repeatedly and consistently taught that if we do certain things (compassionate behavior toward friends, strangers, the "least of these" and even enemies) we will be saved. There is NOWHERE, not one time, that Jesus is reported to have taught that salvation or justification is by faith. Even the one time he said that those who believe will be saved (John 3:16), he did not say that this belief causes salvation, just that it precedes it, like when James says that faith motivates the saving DEEDS which are the actual cause of justification. Even in the same Biblical paragraph division in which John 3:16 exists, Jesus goes on to say that deeds are also needed for salvation. Jesus never wavers from this point. James more explicitly and directly contradicted Paul, using exactly the same words, in exactly the same parallel grammatical construction, and with the same examples and scriptures cited, saying that we are justified by DEEDS, NOT FAITH ONLY. Many writers talk of the importance of faith (it motivates the saving deeds), but only Paul says that faith saves WITHOUT WORKS. So you should no longer call yourself a follower of Jesus, but rather a follower of Paul, who opposed him.

T: Remember what Jesus said... "Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with your repentance..." not ... bring forth fruit to obtain your repentance. Jesus also gave us the criteria in determining who's of Him or not...
"So then, you will know them by their fruits." That... "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce good fruit." Our salvation comes only from God's grace which will produce good fruit...a natural result and response. It's not the fruit that determines the tree. It's the tree that determines the fruit. The fruit testifies of the tree...it doesn't make the tree. The tree makes the fruit.
In the same manner, it's not our works that causes or activates God's grace, it's God's grace that causes or activates good works out of us. Apart from the tree, apart from Him, the works that man considers as good will fall short of His standard. "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me." stay connected. "I am the Vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing. " etc...etc...

DDD reply: But there are many non-Christians, of other faiths or no faith at all, who do plenty of good works out of sincerely-felt unselfishness and compassion. If only a good tree can bear good fruit, then it is obvious that Christian salvation has no monopoly on claiming to be the "good tree."

T (citing and responding to website): "Some will say that puny mortals can never perform enough good behavior to 'earn' or 'merit' salvation based on the value of their deeds -- that the attempts at human righteousness is as 'filthy rags.'..... "
When we miss the target, no matter how close we think we got...we still miss. Unless ofcourse, we want to set our own standard/target."

"Aside from the fact that this simply contradicts Jesus, the point is not whether or not our puny mortal attempts at righteousness have intrinsic value or not. Just as a child may offer its parents or grandparents an awkwardly-drawn piece of art, which likely holds little real artistic merit (perhaps in terms of art critics it might be as "filthy rags"), still the parents sincerely and genuinely cherish such efforts....."
When whatever offered is done with the right heart...yes. BIG DIFFERENCE. It's the parents choice to offer the inheritance to their child, not the child's demand or choice...not something earned.

DDD reply: You are missing my point. My point is that it is JESUS who set the standard, NOT PAUL, and he said it was works. I cited many examples of where he said that. So in your analogy, who is the "parent" and who is the "child"? I submit that Jesus has a lot higher claim than Paul. Neither one said our deeds or our faith was adequate to "earn" salvation. But they both set those as their respective standards: Jesus set it on deeds, Paul on faith. How can someone choose PAUL's standard over Jesus' and call himself a "Christian" instead of a "Paulian"?

T (citing and responding to website): "It may not 'merit' winning an art contest and may be able to 'earn' very little, but loving parents find it good enough to represent the qualities THEY deem of real and lasting value...."
God found us to be of such worth that He gave us of His one and only begotten.

DDD reply: Right. That "only begotten" taught that salvation is through what we DO, though that is motivated through faith, which is thus secondarily important.

T: He paid a ransom so great...no other will do. Deemed as sufficient, real and lasting value. Not anything that the child can do/earn/pay.

DDD reply: He taught us what we need to DO for salvation. His death on the cross was a tragic murder. If he hadn't died, he could have been there to defend his teachings against the likes of Paul. His death did NOTHING as far as salvation goes. Even based on evangelical Christian teachings, your beloved Paul taught that the "wages of sin is death." The price of sin is eternal separation from God. THAT is the price we pay (according to Paul) if we don't accept, through faith, Jesus as Saviour. So if Jesus pays the price in our stead, he must pay the same price. ETERNAL DEATH. But he did NOT PAY THAT PRICE. He only stayed dead about 36 hours, according to New Testament accounts. He is not dead. He lives! He is not separated from God ... he is at the right hand of God! He did not pay the "ransom."

T (citing and responding to website): "Why would a loving god, as spiritual father on a more perfect scale, for those who believe him to be that, not be able to give even greater acceptance, even of "filthy rags," if sincerely offered as the best effort ... ESPECIALLY if he has said that he would do so?...."
He paid the price for us to be whole...to be holy...through Christ Jesus...so we can be with Him...in holiness. He can't accept or receive anything less...for He is holy. Nothing we can do can make us holy, accept through what Christ has done. Self pride/reliance will not cut it. He's given and demonstrated the ultimate love for us. Why keep questioning His love?

DDD reply: See above (and on my website): HE DIDN'T PAY THE PRICE. If "Jesus lives" then he did not pay the same price of eternal death that you or I would owe, so he didn't pay our debt for us.

T (citing and responding to website): "To argue against that is to join Paul in contradicting the teachings of Jesus. ...."
Utter nonsense. Paul so valued and realized this gift, that he offered everything and all of himself in response. He considered everything he knew as rubbish, dung, worthless, compared to the excellence in knowing God's grace...in Jesus Christ.

"When asked by a lawyer what the most important commandment in the LAW was, Jesus answered (as reported in Matt 22:36-40 and Luke 10:25-37) with references from the Old Testament, that the GREATEST law was to love god (see Deut 6:5) and the second was to love your neighbor as yourself (see Lev 18:19). In the Luke text, the lawyer specifically asks what is necessary for eternal life (verse 25) and after Jesus references the two GREAT commandments, he says "This DO and you will live" (verse 28) -- showing clearly that salvation is related to works/deeds/actions, however important faith might be to motivating such behavior.--...."
This is fine...as it relates to placing/acting/honoring/obeying God's will first...to have the right relationship with Him first, before we can have the right relationship with our neighbors. The order is specific. Be right with God first. How to be right with God? Come out of sin's bondage (the law reflects/shows us our sin...as clarified by Paul) and into God's grace in Jesus Christ (as pleaded by Paul...trusting and relying fully in what His Lord has done for him...not his own knowledge/works). God's grace is His love for us. Once we've accepted, realized, and experienced God's grace, then our works/deeds/actions will be under the influenced of His love...the perfect kind...His standard. Then we can love our neighbors in His love. One can not claim that he/she has received God's love through the grace He's given us and not love Him and others in return. It's like someone who profess and place integrity, honor and honesty of such value and priority, yet continue to lie, cheat and deceive others. James challenged the professed believers that their fruits must testify of the tree...or else they were infact, not of the same tree...lost, rotten, out of the saving grace of God. Paul reminded the believers that their good works were caused/produced by the tree. Apart from the source, their works/actions/deeds would be in vain.

DDD reply: You are teaching what Paul taught, NOT WHAT JESUS TAUGHT. You are distorting the words which the Bible actually attributes to Jesus, and putting words into Jesus' mouth that substantially change the meaning that is in the actual gospels. Jesus said NOTHING at all about "coming out of sin's bondage and into God's grace." You simply made that up and added it; it seems you aren't satisfied with what the Bible tells us Jesus said, and you want to change it to something more like Paul. Here is what the Bible actually reports Jesus said "THIS DO AND YOU WILL LIVE" (Luke 10:28), followed by an example of kind deeds (the Good Samaritan). Jesus did not say "the law reflects/shows us our sin." Again, you just made that up. He said that not one jot or tittle (not one dot or iota) in the law would be changed until ALL THINGS ARE FULFILLED -- till heaven and earth pass away. ALL THINGS. Have all the prophesies been fulfilled? All the end times events? Have "heaven and earth passed away"? Again, Paul contradicts Jesus specifically and explicitly, and you are taking Paul's side ... AGAINST JESUS. You have no right to call yourself a Christian when you directly oppose and undermine the teachings of he whose name you claim to have taken upon yourself.

T: Neither contradicted Jesus, nor each other.

DDD reply: I cited specific, direct and explicit examples of where Paul contradicted Jesus' teachings, and in which James rebuts Paul with the most specific and direct contradiction of all. You have not addressed them. I think I know why.

Dialogue with Stillwaters
Stillwaters writes on 12-6-02:

Jesus said...follow me first.
Paul said ... Jesus is God's grace, and Grace comes first.

DDD reply: While you did not cite specifically which scriptural occurrences you were referring to, I would almost agree that verses could easily be found to support these as statements made by Jesus and Paul respectively. Jesus did say to "follow me" (I was quickly able to find more than 20 specific instances), however none of them included the modifier "first." And while Jesus clearly did ask others to follow him, I do not agree that it was the "first" priority. Clearly an examination of Jesus' teachings in depth shows that the first priority was universal compassion, expressed through deeds (or works). I would agree that, while I don't find a single specific instance of Paul saying that "Grace comes first," the fact that he made it the basis of salvation in his version of theology could be construed to be putting it first.

So you have not quoted Jesus or Paul exactly, however your basic point is one we can mostly agree on. But it seems you are agreeing there is a contradiction between Paul and Jesus. For Jesus to ask others to become his followers, and accept his teachings, which are rooted in a behavioral basis for salvation, is quite inconsistently different from saying that salvation is based on an idea of "grace" rooted in faith apart from the very works that Jesus made central to salvation, as Paul does in Romans 3:28 and other places.

SW: Jesus said...you must be born again.

DDD reply: Again, you don't cite a specific reference, but I am assuming you are referring to John 3:3-7, which is the sole reference I am able to find to this. None of the synoptic gospels make such a reference or such a statement, only John which was written separately. And Jesus clearly defined this as being born "of water and of the spirit" which has universally been interpreted to mean baptism by water with a confirmation of the holy spirit, notwithstanding the many differences among denominations for how this water and spirit is to be applied. Even this is the demand for an action. However, while Jesus clearly states that one must be born again (of water and spirit) he makes this a necessary but not a sufficient requirement for salvation. Please refer again to the many instances I cited, with specific references, to where Jesus does state that the basis of salvation is universal love, expressed in compassionate actions. Clearly this is the basis of salvation and not merely one additional required component.

SW: Paul defined this criteria of being born again as believing, accepting, and receiving God's grace...Jesus Christ.

DDD reply: Please cite the specific reference for this. Where did Paul say such a thing? Clearly he made that the basis of his theology of salvation, but I find nowhere that Paul "defined" being "born again" as believing, accepting, and receiving God's grace." And if I'm missing something and he did offer such a definition, then that would contradict Jesus' definition, which was baptism by water with confirmation of the spirit.

SW: The works that we do, being in Him, under His grace, takes on a completely different meaning. We don't work to obtain God's favor or salvation. We work because of...out of...in response to...God's love and purpose for us. That's what Paul's saying.

DDD reply: That is not what Paul is saying. Paul clearly accepts the importance of good works (as you note subsequently with many references to that point) just as James clearly accepts the importance of faith. I have never claimed that they did not find many points of agreement. Even the most skilled con man is going to have to emphasize areas of agreement in order to sneak in a subtle but critical contradictory difference. The difference is that, after Jesus makes it very clear in his ministry (as I cited in detail) that salvation is based on universal compassion expressed in deeds, Paul comes along and says that salvation is by FAITH and NOT WORKS (or, in some translations, deeds). This contradicts Jesus. James comes along later and says the exact opposite of Paul: that salvation is by WORKS and NOT FAITH ONLY. The contradictory differences is that while both Paul and James accept both faith and works, Paul says that salvation is BY FAITH, NOT WORKS (but works demonstrate faith) while James states that salvation is BY WORKS, NOT FAITH (but faith motivates those saving deeds). This is the key point, which you did not address.

SW: No amount of work out of selfish purpose will make us any less of a sinner.

DDD reply: Neither James nor Jesus were referring to works or deeds out of selfish purpose. They were referring to works and deeds motivated by true and universal compassionate love. And I do believe that if even the most hardened, cruel, hateful person is able to adopt a mien of true and universal compassionate love, and express that through his deeds, he truly will become less of a sinner. It is through this teaching that Jesus showed the way to salvation and of reversing the condition of sinfulness.

SW: His redemptive act on the cross will not and can not be discounted nor substituted by anything we do. "It is FINISHED." He has done it. Not us.

DDD reply: I clearly disagree with this whole premise. I have addressed this substantially and at great length on a separate web page on the subject of the atonement. Since you have not even attempted to address any of my points in this regard, I am assuming you did not see that other web page. It is at:
http://www.wordwiz72.com/atone.html
If you would like to address this issue I suggest you review the points I have already made in this regard.

SW: The Apostle Paul labored as hard as any of the others...if not more...to proclaim the fact that none of us need to feel or wonder whether what we've done is enough or sufficient to earn God's favor. Salvation is only through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul's message is nothing but exclaiming, proclaiming, clarifying, the utmost importance of what the Lord Jesus has done for us. In no way was he contradicting what Jesus Himself demands of us. To be holy...for God is holy. That only by God's grace...in and through Jesus Christ that God would accept us as being holy. We can't be holy on our own...otherwise, Jesus' death on the cross would've been for nothing...worthless. It's up to us individually to accept or reject this LOVE that God has so graciously bestowed on us.

Works is the expression of our love and gratitude for our God. Paul clearly demonstrated this. Once we have truly understand and experience the magnitude of God's love for us in giving the only Begotten for us...we can't help but to respond by giving all we can for Him. Paul dedicated and gave His life for the Lord.

DDD reply: I wouldn't disagree with that. But that is not all it is. If you believe JESUS as the Son of God, and what James wrote, then works as the expression of both our love of god (first commandment) and our neighbors (second commandment, defined very broadly to include the Samaritans, who like their Palestinian descendants today, were the Jews enemies -- the story of the "Good Samaritan" was inserted into Luke's gospel at the point where Jesus said salvation was based on loving god and our neighbors, and the lawyer asked "who is my neighbor" and Jesus told this parable, to define "neighbor" as including "enemy").

SW: James could never accuse Paul from not demonstrating his love and zeal for the Lord by lack of works.

DDD reply: James never made any such accusation. I don't think he had any negative suspicions of Paul's motives or intentions. He was merely correcting a point of error on the part of a trusted and beloved brother in the gospel. But it does show a contradiction, in that a key doctrine was seen as an error. James never suggests any inappropriate intent on Paul's part. In contrast, I do raise that as a possibility, as it is one way of explaining how someone with Paul's level of formal education (rare in those times) and obvious scholarly brilliance as a writer and theologian, could have so obviously contradicted his supposed savior so extensively without realizing what he was doing.

SW: James' message focuses on encouraging us to demonstrate our faith.

DDD reply: That is NOT the main focus of James' message. He does say that, but the main focus is that salvation is by WORKS, but that faith, yes, is important in motivating and inspiring those works.

SW: Anyone can say that they have faith. God can simply say that He loves us...yet He showed us that love without action is meaningless. He acted!! James exhorted us to do the same...show your faith (not just any faith...but faith in what the Lord Jesus Christ has done and promise for us) through your works...just like the Apostle Paul and the rest of the Apostles did.

You stated:

<<< Perhaps he infiltrated their ranks and taught a doctrine that opposed Jesus on several fronts, replacing Jesus' selfless teaching of universal compassionate action with a selfish teaching of desire to gain a "free gift" of salvation based only on faith and completely devoid of any behavioral requirement or obedience to law, and distracting us from the selfless teachings of Jesus. >>>

Salvation is based on grace....received through faith. Not devoid of, nor ignore the law...but that love, God's love, Jesus Christ, fulfills the law. None of us can fulfill and maintain the law.

Devoid of any behavioral requirement? Replacing Jesus' selfless teaching of universal compassionate action? Well...let's see what Paul said...
[citation of lengthy list of scriptures]

Notice any (many) action words in there?

DDD reply: As I noted earlier, I have repeatedly stated that Paul had good things to say about good deeds. No question about it. What he did NOT have to say about it is that it is the basis of salvation, as Jesus clearly said and as James said in specific contradiction to Paul. I have reviewed each of your statements about good deeds. While he lauds their importance, none of these verses states that works or deeds are the basis for salvation, and this is where Paul contradicts Jesus and James.

SW: Now let's see what Paul said regarding the law...
[another lengthy list of scriptures]

DDD reply: Paul never says that "The Law," given by God, was anything less than divine or of the highest importance, as you note in your citations. He merely asserts that Jesus' atonement "fulfills" the Law and that salvation is now by faith and that "The Law" is "buried" with Jesus. In contrast, Jesus never said any such thing. In Matt 5:18 Jesus says: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Do you see what it says? NOT that the Law will pass when he makes his sacrifice, but the Law will remain intact -- not one jot or tittle (one dot or iota) amended -- until ... until ... what? "Till heaven and earth pass." Has this happened yet? Heaven and earth are still very much here, as they will remain until the end of the world. What else? "Till ALL is fulfilled." What does the world "ALL" mean to you? To most people, it is pretty comprehensive. It means everything. Have all the prophesies been fulfilled yet? All the end times stuff? The final judgment? There is a lot that has not been fulfilled yet, and every item not yet fulfilled is exclusive of Jesus' use of the comprehensive term "ALL." This utterly contradicts Paul's statement on the Law.

SW: Does this not contradict the claim that Paul opposed Jesus' teaching?

DDD reply: I absolutely maintain that Paul is utterly opposed to Jesus on the matters of the basis of salvation and on the role of "The Law."

Stillwaters continues on 12-8-02:

If FAITH is the motivating factor of those saving deeds, then by your own admission, FAITH takes precedence before works.

DDD reply: James, perhaps trying to find some common ground with Paul as he refutes (and contradicts) his actual point, agrees that faith is important because it motivates deeds. He does not say that it is the sole motivator of such deeds, and even if he did that wouldn't be logical. Compassion, kindness and cheerfulness can also motivate sincere and honest deeds of love with no faith in Jesus whatsoever. Someone could have loving deeds, rooted in honest and sincere universal compassion, who never even heard of Jesus. But even if faith were the only motivator of compassionate deeds, that still does not resolve the contradiction. Paul says the agent of justification is FAITH, NOT WORKS. James says the agent of justification is WORKS, NOT FAITH ONLY. The point is that while both men agree that both elements of character are important, they disagree on what is the mechanism of justification. That is my point. And please, in using the word "precedence" don't confuse "sequence" with "priority."

SW: Would our works done for our own self-ish reasons and purposes be acceptable unto God? The works that Jesus performed, the words that He spoke, the mission which He carried out...was all done for the glory of God. Jesus did the Father's will...as the Father's will is His will. I and the Father are ONE.

DDD reply: I addressed this before. Perhaps you read my previous response hastily and overlooked it. None of my comments has been about good works done for selfish reasons. Again let me reiterate it is possible for people who are not Christian, who perhaps have never even heard of Jesus and have no faith in him, to feel honest and sincere compassion and kindness towards others and act on those honest and sincere feelings. They are not acting for selfish reasons and purposes. In fact, those who offer kind actions because they think it will save them are the ones who are acting for selfish purposes, because their real objective is their own salvation, not a sincere and genuine concern for the interests of someone else.

SW: Need references? ... I don't think so...as you're very familiar with the Scripture.

DDD reply: No, I did not need references this time, though I don't think the passages you cited support your point in any way for the reasons I have already stated. However, sometimes you have claimed that "Paul said this...." or "James said this...." or "Jesus said this....." and I felt you did not accurately cite a specific passage, so if you claim that someone in the Bible said something it is often helpful just to check the reference and make sure you are citing them accurately, or at least so I can know which reference you meant so I can see if I agree that it means what you think it does.

SW: Outside of God's grace...Jesus Christ, our best efforts/works is likened as filthy rags...compare to the excellence of God.

DDD reply: The only place where the term "filthy rags" is used in the entire Bible is Isaiah 64:6. It is not used in relation to salvation or justification. It is in the context of praise to the God of Israel, and that by comparison to him our righteousness, whether for purposes of earthly interactions or whatever, is as filthy rags. This phrase is never used a single time in the New Testament, not by Paul or James or anyone else. The phrase is never used in a context of the mechanisms for justification. The same reasoning could also be applied to our faith: the faith of we puny, fallible mortals also is as "filthy rags" compared to that of the Almighty. Yet according to Paul, this is acceptable because it is the standard he claims Jesus set as the price for paying back his sacrifice. But this contradicts Jesus (and James) who said that the price he set and said he would accept, however inadequate it might otherwise be, was universal compassionate love expressed in compassionate deeds.

SW: Works alone will not and can not save us. For we are saved by God's grace first...not of works...or Jesus' death on the cross is a joke.

DDD reply: Again, if you are going to talk about Jesus' death on the cross, please address the points that I made in my commentary on the Atonement (http://www.wordwiz72.com/atone.html). This is a key issue for Christians and I have addressed this in great depth. The idea of Jesus' death as an atoning sacrifice, in which he substitutes himself for our sins, is a doctrine taught only by Paul, as it is necessary to justify his absurd teaching that justification is apart from the works that Jesus (and James) said were the mechanism of justification. This doctrine is NEVER taught by Jesus or any of the other Bible writers. Sure, others talk about Jesus' death as a SACRIFICE, but there are many times that one person can sacrifice himself for someone else, without "taking upon them the sins" of that other person. The idea of substitutional sin transference is unique to Paul, and the core of how he excuses his direct contradiction with Jesus. And again, if you wish to keep talking about Jesus' atonement, at least understand why I believe Paul's version of this teaching is so flawed.

SW: Paul clearly demonstrated what God's grace will produce in us...undying devotion and love for Him...willingly, gladly, joyfully, proudly, considered himself as a bond servant of the Almighty. What does a servant do? SERVE. What does serve entails? WORK. Making all possible efforts to please...a natural response after having experienced and received the ultimate LOVE...undeserved, unmerited.

DDD reply: This is still irrelevant. I have said many times that Paul clearly praises the need for work, just as James also praises the need for faith. That is not the point. The point is that Paul says the mechanism of justification is FAITH, NOT WORKS, while James says it is WORKS, NOT FAITH ONLY. This is the contradiction.

SW: Jesus said...Seek ye FIRST the Kingdom of God, and ALL these things shall be added unto you. He said this at the end of His sermon on the mount...after giving many instructions (actions and deeds).

DDD reply: Jesus did NOT say that at the END of the Sermon on the Mount. It comes at the end of Matthew chapter six. But turn the page to Matthew SEVEN and the Sermon continues. In fact, some of the most important teachings in the Sermon are there. What Jesus really ends the Sermon with is Matt 7:21-27. In this passage, he closes with a warning that salvation is NOT for those who said "Lord, Lord," but for those who actually DO his will. It is almost as though he is foretelling that Paul and his followers will come along and say that faith is the mechanism of justification, whereas Jesus is once again reiterating, at the close of his first public teaching, that it is actions (rooted in sincere, honest and genuine compassion) that is the mechanism of salvation, as his brother James would also later reiterate. I can understand why your Bible teachers would want to teach you that the Sermon ends with the end of chapter six, since the real end of the Sermon is rather inconvenient for their position, but I implore you to open your Bible and check it for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

SW: Refer to Matt. 5 & 6. FIRST, seek His kingdom...then as promised, "ALL these things" (what Jesus instructed us in His sermon) will be achievable...in and through Him...the GRACE of God. Except a man be born again, he can not enter the kingdom of God. "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father, but through Me." Without Him...the GRACE of God, we can't do nothing. With Him...in Him, we can move mountains.

DDD reply: Please help me with this. Yes, I understand that in Matt. 17:20 Jesus says that if you have barely the faith of a mustard seed (a very tiny seed), you can move a mountain. But can you please cite one single example of where someone has ever done this? Is it true that not one single Christian in 2,000 years had even as much faith as this tiny seed? If Paul says that faith is the mechanism of justification, I'm afraid there are going to be an awful lot of Christians who aren't justified. The good news is that while Jesus associates faith with power (which any modern motivational speaker or psychologist will also agree with), he does NOT take this perfect opportunity to associate it as being the mechanism of salvation. In fact, while Jesus repeatedly praises faith (as does James) and says it is the power to heal and many other aspects of power, I'm not aware of a single place where he (or anyone else except Paul) identifies it as the mechanism of justification. He does, however, repeatedly identify sincere, genuine compassionate actions as the criterion for the final judgment.

SW: I have so much more to share...but it's getting late. God willing...we'll continue this later.

DDD reply: I note that there are many points in my last message, wherein I was responding to your statements, that you did not address. I understand that you were in a hurry due to the late hour. Take your time. You can go back and address the points missing from my previous message as well as this one at a pace that is comfortable to you. I understand that all of us are busy with our lives in the "real world" and that exchange messages via Internet, even on serious topics, is a lower priority than many of the other obligations which may sometimes be less interesting but are still necessary.

I don't mean to be rude or put down your sincerely-held beliefs, but since you have written to me I am trying in response to explain the issues I wrestled with after growing up as a Christian, and which caused me to determine that I could no longer consider myself a part of that fold. While I do not believe in the messianic Jesus taught by Paul, I think you can feel in my comments that I still retain the highest appreciation and admiration for Jesus and his teachings, and I believe that universal compassion, expressed through deeds, is the key to success and happiness in life, whether on this earth or in eternity. That belief, and my actions which follow from it, is honest, sincere and genuine, and I hold it without the messianic faith that Paul claims is the basis for justification.

[Stillwaters wrote several weeks later regarding Bible contradictions, and his correspondence on that subject is in the Bible correspondence forum at: http://www.wordwiz72.com/3dbforum.html. Despite his repeated promises to respond further regarding Paul's contradictions against Jesus and James, there was no further correspondence from him on this subject.]

Dialogue with Nick
Nick writes on 10-5-02:

In your essay Paul vs. Jesus, you mention that homosexuals were condemned by Paul but that Jesus would not have done this.

DDD reply: I noted that Paul condemned homosexuality quite specifically. I did NOT say that "Jesus WOULD not have done this." I said Jesus DID NOT do that. Since Jesus clearly expressed support in words for an unchanged Law of Moses. Yet despite this verbal expression of support, Jesus often seemed to bend the rules when it served the interests of people, as in his statement broadening what is permissible behavior on the Sabbath, when he said that "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." (Mark 2:27.) So even though he gives lip service to the immutability of the Law, the fact that Jesus elsewhere puts people above the law suggests that since he did not specifically condemn homosexuality, he might not have strongly opposed it. In contrast, where Jesus states the immutability of the Law, Paul specifically contradicts this by actually stating that the Law is no longer valid.

N: Furthermore you state that a fundamentalist Christian would uphold the law in this instance while breaking it in others (you cite Leviticus 11 that discusses clean and unclean foods). You say that such an argument puts a person on both sides of the fence: upholding one law while rejecting another. Yet, using the argument that Jesus (supported in Matthew 5:17) did not come to change but to fulfill the law and that He would not change one iota of it, wouldn't the fundamentalist be wrong for eating pork not for condemning homosexuality as a sin?

DDD reply: From reading my commentaries, I'm sure you recognize that I do not accept the authority of the Bible to justify either the prohibition of pork and shrimp nor the prohibition of homosexuality. If any, all or none of these is to be prohibited, theremust be some more reliable moral or scientific basis for it. My point was not whether the fundamentalists were right about homosexuality or pork/shrimp. It was in their inconsistency, which you seem to acknowledge and reaffirm.

N: You clearly have your mind made up on the contradiction of Paul and James in their messages and I admit their different outlooks seem to show glaringly divergent theological doctrines.

DDD reply: It is not only "different outlooks" or a general "divergency of theological doctrines" that I cited. I cited a specific contradiction and supported it based on the words, used, the syntactic and grammatical constructions in which those words were found, and use of the scriptural references and examples to establish that these contradictory expressions arise from consistent contexts. I have not "made up my mind" in the sense of formulating an opinion; I have cited specific facts and evidence that lead to an inescapable conclusion.

N: But don't both Romans and James uphold one of Jesus' main commands: the message of love and a call for all sinners to repent and change? In Romans 7:7-25 and Rom 8:1-17 we see that what Paul is condemning is not the law Jesus upheld (which he calls "God's Law" in vs. 22 of chapt. 7 and "the law of the Spirit of life" in vs. 2 of chapt. 8). You wrote when speaking of the Law of Moses that Jesus did indeed "add to the Law and teach [it] in new and different ways". This rejection of strict construction of the Law of Moses - manifested in the actions of pharisees - is the very thing Paul is rejecting when he calls for the death of the "law of sin". Paul, of all the apostles, would understand these narrow views of the law from experience and perhaps that is why he is so adamant. Paul is not rejecting the original mandates that God passed down through Moses but the corrupted and twisted edicts of man - the very ideas that Jesus also was rejecting (Luke 7:36-50, Luke 6:1-10, John 8:1-11).

James is far less subtle in his recognition of the Law of Moses, but he too is calling for the adherence of Jesus' Law, not the nit-picking Pharisee codes: "In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." (James 2:25-26) Rahab was a prostitute! That violates several Mosaic laws, yet she was righteous in the eyes of God. Clearly a narrow, nit-picking view of her life - using the "law of sin" - must be rejected. Only "God's Law", returned and reinforced on Earth by Jesus Christ could be so generous.

DDD reply: Not a problem. The fact that James and Paul find many areas of agreement -- perhaps they are in agreement on MOST important issues -- does not undo the FACT that on this important point on the nature of salvation, they are in stark and abject contradiction.

Nick continues on 10-6-02:

You have come to the conclusion that James' and Paul's tracts are irreconcilable. I believe that they can be reconciled. However, I also believe we can agree on one key point that in the end leads to our final decisions on the issue:

DDD reply: This is not quite what I said. I said there is a clear and unambiguously direct contradiction in a specific statement of how "justification" works. I did not say the two tracts, taken as a whole, could not be reconciled. On the contrary, I believe that, as to their general concepts, they easily can be resolved: that faith and works are both necessary and that they work together. The former is expressed in the latter, while the latter is motivated by the former. In fact, I think that this is exactly what James is trying to say. But the reconcilability of the general concept does not eradicate the very specific contradiction: Paul claims the mechanism of justification is FAITH and NOT WORKS (but works are important because they express faith), while James claims the mechanism of justification is WORKS and NOT FAITH ONLY (but faith is important because they motivate works). The FACT of this direct Biblical contradiction is absolutely inescapable when considered objectively. I understand, however, why those who claim the Bible to be without any inherent error are unable to confront this objectively.

N: Paul certainly was not the kind of guy who everybody got along with. James and most actual Judeo-Christians (non-Gentiles) had clearly different ways of practicing their faith (Acts 15:1-19, 21-22:29). James seems to have been more conciliatory, Paul far more radical.

DDD reply: Yes, Paul does seem more difficult to get along with. As "Saul," before his "conversion," he was not merely content to hold different beliefs or engage in polite discussion with Christians. He actively persecuted them. The fact that he remained difficult to get along with after his "conversion" calls into question the extent to which Jesus' simple compassion truly changed him.

N: This has no consequence directly concerning the aforesaid scriptures,...

DDD reply: You are correct. This does absolutely nothing to address the direct contradiction regarding justification.

N: ...but it at least shows that two Christians can come from very different backgrounds with different ways of practicing their faith.

DDD reply: Being hard to get along with is not part of "practicing their faith" if one actually understands what it was that Jesus spent so much of this time teaching.

N: Thankfully, Paul is very open that he is fallible and a sinful human.

DDD reply: And this is refreshing from him. But for those who claim that every word canonized in the modern New Testament is the inerrant or infallible Word of God, the fact that error or contradiction crept into his pages undermines such a claim. Of course, Paul is the one who wrote that all scripture is "God-breathed" (2Tim 3:16), while also acknowledging that at least at some times his writing was for himself and NOT SPEAKING FOR "the LORD." (1 Cor 7:12; 2 Cor 11:17). This one I do not see as a contradiction, in its actual context. Paul, a Jew and Roman citizen, was knowledgeable in the scriptures of his day, the "Law" and the "Prophets" (the two major divisions of the Old Testament). As he was writing, he was just writing letters. There is absolutely no indication that he ever intended that someday these letters would be canonized and accepted as equal to his beloved Law and Prophets; indeed, by many Christians the New Testament, of which Paul is credited with more than a third, is perceived as more important and relevant than his beloved Law and Prophets. This would be tantamount to you, as a thoughtful and intelligent Christian, writing these e-mails to defend the modern Bible (including Paul) as inerrant, infallible or "god-breathed" without realizing that what you dismiss as petty e-mail messages might someday be canonized into a future revision of the collected "Word of God."

N: This allows for us to see Paul, James and Peter not as impersonable holy men but real individuals trying to follow Jesus' mandates. They quarrel over them clearly (you mention Galatians 2:11-21) but these people's actions are not the ones I have to depend on in order to be saved. They are humans like you and me, the only difference is that they knew Jesus (I'll allow that you probably dont believe Paul had any contact with Jesus, but Peter and James sure did) and that is why they are important.

DDD reply: No problem with this. But, again, it has absolutely no relation to the point of contradictions between James and Paul, which absolutely remain unchallenged in any substantive way.

N: Perhaps we are at an impass, maybe this idea to you is very far-fetched, and I certainly will take no offense if you make such a conclusion. We can both agree on one point, however: that there are far too many "ignorant and unstable" Christians who just think that because they are "Christians" they can do whatever they want to.

DDD reply: You are correct. This is a point of agreement. Jesus taught many wonderful and spiritual truths. He would be shocked and disappointed if he could see all that is taught and practiced in his name. He would also be very pleased with some of the wonderful, kind, benevolent Christians who spread compassionate joy.

Dialogue with Connie
Connie writes on 8-8-02:

I recently joined an evangelical church, and have been puzzled by the claim of some people that a person who is "saved" does not really need to do anything else - although he is encouraged to do so out of gratitude. Yet, James seemed rather clearly to be advocating "works" - and Jesus seemed to be saying similar things in his instructions to "Go ye" and teach/minister to others. I was thinking that I had missed something - and am relieved to see that others seem to find the same construction of the Bible which I am finding. So, thanks for the article!

DDD reply: There is not one time in Jesus' ministry when he says that salvation is by faith or grace without some behavioral component. Even the famous John 3:16, "whosoever believeth in him [the only begotten son] should not perish," which is widely interpreted to mean salvation by faith, has in the same passage (at verses John 3:20-21) a statement that this is manifest by DEEDS which are necessary to come to the light. As I noted in my commentary, Jesus repeatedly emphasizes that salvation is by DEEDS. The only place where Jesus actually describes the final judgment, in his last (chronological) public teaching, he says those who feed the hungry/thirsty, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked and minister to those sick or in prisoner, i.e., the "least of these" will be saved and those who don't will not. It mentions nothing about faith or belief. (Matt 25:31-46). Paul is the one who clearly said that salvation is by faith WITHOUT WORKS, and James, the brother of Jesus, is clearly writing to try to set him straight and defend his late brother's teachings.

Connie continues later on 8-8-02:

Plainly, I am quite interested in obtaining the correct interpretations (as it would seem to be a matter of life/death, right?).

DDD reply: That assumes that salvation is predicated on a faith or belief in correct interpretations. If one takes Jesus at his word as reported in Matt 25:31-46, someone who cared for the "least of these" (fed the hungry/thirsty, welcomed the stranger, clothed the naked and ministered to those sick or in prison), but knew nothing of correct interpretations, would still receive eternal reward.

C: However, in the final analysis, I think that I must come down on the side of faith+works...

DDD reply: Certainly this is where James comes down in his effort to reconcile Jesus and Paul, though he clearly opposes and contradicts Paul's statement that justification is by faith and not works. Jesus does speak favorably about faith in several passages, but never as a condition of salvation or justification. Still, the two concepts can easily be reconciled using James' formula that it is your deeds that save you, but you need the faith to motivate those deeds, i.e., faith + works.

C: ...(as I think that works alone cannot purchase a place, and faith alone is unlikely to do so in the vast majority of cases where the person had the ability to do good things and neglected/refused to do them).

DDD reply: Evangelicals always worry about whether deeds/works are sufficient to "purchase" a place. If one believes that Jesus died on the cross to pay for sin and thus gains the right to judge the rest of us (obviously if you check my "atonement" web page I clearly have a problem with this concept introduced by Paul), then it is Jesus who sets whatever "price" he wants. Evangelicals follow Paul and say that this price is "faith" or "belief." But Jesus said the price is kindly works of love.

C: By the same token, although earnest striving is essential, I have to think that perfection is not required. Otherwise, Peter would not have passed muster as an apostle - let alone someone upon whom the responsibility for the original church would rest. In the final analysis, we probably have to do our best and place our faith in a merciful God to love us in spite of our faults.

DDD reply: While Jesus did encourage us to strive toward perfection (Matt 5:48), none of the passages where he set the "price" of salvation as loving deeds includes the requirement of perfection. Your assessment of Peter is certainly on target -- perhaps if Peter had been a stronger leader, he wouldn't have let Paul essentially re-direct the early church away from what Jesus taught and toward an opposite doctrine taught by Paul.

Dialogue with Gerry
Gerry writes on 7-4-02

I do not know your full purpose for putting this website online, neither do I claim to have all the answers to the questions you pose. But I do know there is One who does have the answers...that is Jesus Himself.

DDD reply: When I began to stumble on the flaws and errors in the Bible I was a devout Christian and at first believed I was merely confused and that there were simple answers. I sought those answers in prayer and by going to church leaders I respected. I found their answers to be simplistic and superficial and when I tried to dig deeper and seek other authorities (believing that a simple resolution existed if I but found it) they became increasingly hostile and defensive. Eventually I was led to conclude that, despite the rich resources of wisdom in the Bible, it is the best efforts of primitive men, not the divine and revealed inerrant/infallible word of god.

G: The Bible makes it clear that if we humble ourselves and approach Him as a child, not knowing anything, He will make us wise.

DDD reply: I presume that you have read and reviewed at least one or more of my web pages. If so, you have seen that when I make a claim of what the Bible says that I always back it up with chapter and verse. If you are going to claim a Biblical source, I would appreciate that you do the same. In this case I know where the source is (Matthew 7:7-12), but my point is that I have learned not to just take anyone's word for what they say is in the Bible.

G: He will inform us, in His good time, of everything we need to know, if it's really something we need to know. ("Ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.") He will give fish instead of snakes...He will give bread instead of stones...to those who approach Him as His children, but not to those who approach Him or His Word in the spirit of a hostile attack. Because, if you will remember, that is exactly what the scribes and Pharisees did...they constantly brought questions to Him, but their questions were in the nature of "attacks" instead of humble requests for guidance. Their goal was to discredit Him and disprove Him, not to receive enlightenment. And that is why He never revealed His truths to them.

DDD reply: I find this comment inappropriate for two reasons:
1. When I initially sought answers I was neither hostile nor in an attack mode, but I believed the answers were there and it was my intent to find them. (By the way, I still do not consider myself hostile to Christianity or in an attack mode ... I believe I am strengthening the truth of what has been handed down to us by putting it in its proper light as the best efforts of ancient, primitive wise men.)
2. You need to go back and re-read the gospels. Certainly the scribes and Pharisees sought to attack and discredit Jesus with their questions, but I don't agree that "he never revealed his truths to them." On the contrary, he repeatedly responded to their requests and revealed truths to them. In many cases, some of his replies to scribes and Pharisees are among some of the most memorable and insightful teachings recorded in the gospels.

G: My understanding of the "conflict" between Paul and James on the subject of faith/works is basically this: it appears that God is showing us how all-inclusive His salvation plan is. Suppose you wanted to buy something, and you knew the price of it was around $50, but you weren't sure if it was a little more, or a little less. If you only brought along one fifty dollar bill, you would be fine as long as the item happened to be under $50. But what if it were over $50? Then you would be stuck...you wouldn't have enough money. However, wisdom tell you to bring along TWO fifty dollars bills -- that way, you're sure to have enough whether the price is slightly above OR below $50. In the same way, it appears possible to me that the reason God included both Paul's and James' viewpoints on the issue of faith/works is so that whichever viewpoint we identify ourselves with, we can still have salvation. Whether we think we're doing well at keeping the law, or whether we think we're miserably bad at it, we still can trust in the same Jesus for salvation.

Paul makes it very clear that he is not condoning the idea that we can just ignore the law and continue to walk willfully in sin. I think God just wants us to realize that we are not hopeless, even when we pitifully fail to keep the law, and long as our heart's intention in Christ is correct. Because there are some of us who are so bound by sinful habits, we may begin to doubt we could ever possibly have salvation. In Jesus Christ, we can. James' discourse seems to be an encouragement to the strong, that they should continue to do well; Paul's discourse seems to be an encouragement to the weak, that the should not give up hope. And both serve to edify to body of believers.

DDD reply: No, this is not the issue. The concept of faith and works can easily be reconciled. In fact, both Paul and James do it from their differing and CONTRADICTORY perspectives. Paul essentially says that justification is by FAITH, NOT WORKS (Romans 3:28), however in other places he extols the virtues of good works which derive from that faith. James states that justification is by WORKS and NOT FAITH ONLY (James 2:24), however faith is important because it motivates those works. The first contradictory difference is that one says justification is by FAITH AND NOT WORKS and the other says it is by WORKS AND NOT FAITH. In the analysis I provided, using the original vocabulary in the original languages, I demonstrated that contextually they used the exact same words, in the exact same sequence and syntactical construction. And they are using the same context: they both cite the same scripture (James in 2:23, just one verse before the big contradiction and Paul in Romans 4:3 just six verses after the big contradiction) -- while neither cites modern chapter and verse, scholars universally agree they are both referring to Genesis 15:6, which you can look up and see is the verse that states what both of their statements refer to. And further to the same context, they both refer to the same example of Abraham obeying God and offering the sacrifice of his son, Isaac (James in 2:21-23; Paul in Romans 4:1-4). The second big contradiction is that they take this scriptural reference and example and from the same scripture, same example and entirely the SAME CONTEXT, they come to opposite conclusions: Paul that this shows Abraham's justification by FAITH (Romans 4:2-5) and James that it shows Abraham's justification by WORKS (James 2:22-23).

Your example would work if both Paul and James had both said that justification is by a combination of faith with works. That is not what they said. Paul said justification is by FAITH, NOT WORKS while James says it is by WORKS AND NOT FAITH. Or, like unto your example: Paul says the price is LESS, NOT MORE THAN $50 and James says it is MORE, NOT LESS, THAN $50. The simple fact is that this is a clear and obvious contradiction on a rather substantial and important point of doctrine.

G: One other thing: I doubt that Jesus has any contradiction with the teachings of Paul;

DDD reply: I'm not sure how carefully you read my commentary. I cited extensive examples of where Jesus teaches that salvation is by WORKS (certainly there are many examples of where he teaches that faith is important, as his brother James also does, but salvation is by WORKS rooted in compassionate love for neighbors, enemies and "the least of these." Please review my commentary and if you want me to repeat these examples again I'll do it. In fact, Jesus seems to be warning us against those like Paul who will say we just have to call on his name for salvation in Matt 7:21-27 when he closes the Sermon on the Mount with a reminder that salvation requires DOING what is taught, not a mere profession of acceptance.

G: on the contrary, we read in Revelation that He has great commendation for the church at Ephesus, which Paul founded. In fact, His only complaint about them was that they had left their "first love"....which in all likelyhood was the values instilled in them by Paul at the start. I can't imagine why He would be telling them to return to their original doctrine if that doctrine was wrong.

DDD reply: Revelation was written by John the Revelator, NOT JESUS. It was written long after Jesus was dead; chronologically one of the latest of the writings included in the Bible, if not the very last. The fact that it joins Paul in contradicting Jesus does not enhance its credibility.

G: We may not understand all things in this lifetime...therefore, I am learning more and more to trust God and lean not unto my own understanding.

DDD reply: Would you accept this line of logic from a Moslem when you point out flaws and contradictions in the Koran? Moslems say we may not have the explanations in this lifetime, but we just have to have faith. Why should I accept this from you and not them? Why should I accept as divinely inerrant/infallible scripture that which is filled with clear examples of contradictions, flaws and failed prophecies?

G: Even if I never understand it, I know God does, and that is sufficient.

DDD reply: Same thing my Moslem friend tells me.

G: I also try to be very careful about what I teach others, knowing that those who misinform "will receive the greater condemnation".

DDD reply: I am assuming that you NEVER teach others that Islam is a false religion for fear of the condemnation they warn upon anyone who would say such a thing. Or have you even read the Koran? I have, just as I have read the Bible. So I feel I can rationally take a stand to expose the errors (as well as the merits) of both books since I have given them a fair trial -- in the case of the Bible more than a fair trial since I at one time accepted it as you do, whereas I have never accepted the Koran in that way.

Dialogue with Paul
Paul writes on 4-29-02:

I don't agree with all of what you say, however, a good deal of it does make sense.

DDD reply: No one ever agrees 100% with what anyone else says, but it is helpful for discussion is you identify more specifically what points you had trouble with.

P: My first objection, if you can call it that, is in the contradictions, the last one, whether scripture is inspired or uninspired, I really don't understand your point in the last two references: 1 Cor 7:6,12; and 2 Cor 11:17. If you can please explain how these two apply.

DDD reply: In 2 Tim 3:16 Paul says that all scripture is "god-breathed" and in I Cor 7:12 he says that some of what he writes is inspired and, as to the rest, he is speaking for himself and NOT THE LORD. This is a contradiction. I Cor 7:6 is that he writes with permission, not commandment, and II Cor 11:17 again says he is writing and speaking of himself NOT after the lord, and even characterizes it as "foolish." So either all scripture is NOT "god breathed" or the entire collection of Paul's writings is not to be accepted as scripture.

P: Also, what religious denomination do you belong to, if any?

DDD reply: I grew up as a conservative Christian but I am no longer affiliated with any denomination. Also, I do not label myself a "Christian" because, despite my great affection towards and respect for the teachings attributed to Jesus, I do not believe in the inerrancy/infallibility of the Bible as a whole, and especially reject the teachings of Paul, including his doctrines of salvation through grace and through the bloody human sacrifice of nailing Jesus to a cross.

Paul continues on 4-30-02:

Thank you so much for your reply. I really do appreciate your courtesy and insight. As time goes on, I may have more questions. Meatime, good luck and may the grace and peace of our Lord be with you always!

DDD reply: Sure, feel free to write any time. Can't guarantee I'll always have all the answers, but will try to engage i a thoughtful exploration of the questions.

Dialogue with Claire
Claire writes on 2-2-02:

I read your article, "Paul vs. Jesus" with much interest. Having been raised Catholic, I am familiar with the controversy over Salvation by Faith vs. Works but never knew how it started. I was quite amazed to find that it was Paul who started this huge rift in Christian doctrine. Are you a minister?

DDD reply: No. I am a former Christian who stumbled across these problematic issues in the course of my own personal Bible study, augmented by subsequent research.

C: What do we do with Romans? Do we not accept it? I've never read the Bible in my life but for a passage here or there, but I'm trying to understand better. Many years ago I had a friend who attended Philadelphia Divinity School and is now an Episcopalian priest. He was always sending me his sermons with many references to Paul. At the time, I had no idea what he was talking about. However, he told me once about an Episcopalian priest who'd had an affair with a married woman in the congregation and he said that they merely transferred him to another Church. I told him I thought that was terrible. He seemed to think it was fair. I'm beginning to see the light.

DDD reply: I don't believe the Bible, with its many contradictions, flaws and failed prophecies, can be accepted as the literal inerrant/infallible word of god. In that respect, we cannot "accept" any of it. However, the fact still remains that we hold this volume of ancient writings and ancient wisdom from people who were doing their best to explain a universe they didn't understand. As with the works of any other writer, we should review and examine their works and accept the portions where they make good points that can be supported with facts and reason, and reject those portions that fail to meet these standards. Certainly there is much wisdom in the writings of Paul. I wouldn't suggest throwing out the baby with the bathwater. But he also does have a lot of dirty, soapy bathwater that we need to be careful of.

Dialogue with Bill
Bill writes on 1-25-02:

As an attempt to help you refine your arguments for folks with a bit more sophisticated understanding of the context of your Paul vs James section, I would have you note that the identical referral you site to Abraham by the two authors, is clearly not identical.

DDD reply: My emphasis on the use of the "same word" was in reference to the identical selection of words and sequence for faith, works and justification. I further note, in reference to the context for faith, works and justification, that Paul and James cite the exact same example, that of Abraham, to prove their opposing points. The fact that James (who writes later) uses not only the same words, sequence, syntax, etc., but also the SAME EXAMPLE, shows he is clearly writing in rebuttal to Paul. The similarities are far to extensive to be mere coincidence. The fact that they cite different aspects of Abraham is to be expected, since they are claiming opposite conclusions: Paul that Abraham was justified by faith, and James that he was justified by his actions. My point was not that their comments on Abraham were the same, but that James is essentially challenging Paul's use of Abraham as an example of justification by faith and using a different example from the same model to propose an opposing (and contradictory) conclusion.

B: Paul is refering to Abraham where he was in Genesis 15:6, and James is refering to Abraham where he was in Genesis chapter 22.

DDD reply: This distinction between the scriptural references of Paul and James is WRONG. They are BOTH referring to exactly the same verse, Genesis 15:6. While neither cites chapter and verse based on modern notation, all scholars agree they both describe the verse that can not be anything but Genesis 15:6. Note a comparison of the actual relevant verses (King James is quoted here, but is similarly consistent in all other translations):
Paul (in Romans 4:3): "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." And from this Abraham concludes that Abraham is justified by his FAITH.
James (in James 2:23): "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God." And from the exact same scripture, James comes to the opposite and contradictory conclusion, that Abraham was justified by his WORKS or actions.
Genesis 15:6: "And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." One might argue that Paul's conclusion follows more logically from the text while James' is more consistent with Jesus' teachings, but the fact remains that they make opposite and contradictory conclusions from the SAME scriptural reference. There is no similar verse in Genesis 22, although Genesis 22 does discuss Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac, which James also discusses. They use the SAME words in the SAME syntactical construction with the SAME example (Abraham) referenced with the SAME scriptural citation. It is the SAME CONTEXT. James is clearly taking Paul's context and responding to it, expressing his contradictory disagreement.

B: The "same" word is only the same word when the context provides for its same use, and because of the clearly different context applications, "justification" cannot be said to be equivalent in Romans and in James. It would be quite illustrative to see you develop the distinction between justification and sanctification that Paul does in a variety of new testament letters.

DDD reply: The only "difference" is which example from the life of Abraham was cited. That they were both referring to justification in the CONTEXT of "salvation" is indisputable. The second half of James chapter one (note 1:12 et seq) speaks extensively about enduring to the end and achieving salvation; chapter two, in which the verses in question arise, continues this and challenges the Paulian conclusion that salvation is by faith. Note 2:14 where James says, "Can his faith SAVE him?" His tone is almost mocking of Paul's earlier claim. If you look at the CONTEXT, this conclusion is inescapable.

B: Paul is very clear in all his letters that "works" are critically important since "God is not mocked", yet he is also clear that the righteousness God requires will not be found in those "works". In Paul, piety is required but for reasons other than "justification".

DDD reply: And James is very clear that faith is critically important. Paul says that justification is by FAITH and NOT WORKS (but elsewhere repeatedly emphasizes that works do have value as indicators of that faith, as you so correctly note); James says that justification is by WORKS, and NOT FAITH alone (but does emphasize that faith is important because it motivates works). The contradictory difference is that they both cite the opposing element as the mechanism of justification (in a context referring to salvation).

B: Whether James and Paul "contradict" each other cannot be determined because we have no other treatments of the ideas by James. Likewise, it cannot be confidently said that they "agree".

DDD reply: The contradiction is starkly clear and overt. No objective person can fail to see it. And the more one analyzes the totality of the context, the more clear this contradiction becomes.

B: Peter of course acknowledges Paul - and Paul's theology is well represented in the new testament ( but not on your pages). James has always been something of a stepchild - not even included on some of the early lists, but even in James, "mercy triumphs over judgement". I hope this can be a point of contemplation for you, since in your attempts to debunk religious mythology, it would be a shame if you ultimately found out you were merely building straw men. By the way, your inference that Paul was some sort of double agent was a real "hoot".

DDD reply: That is my point. The smooth-talking Paul clearly fooled the devoted but slow-witted Peter. There is no question that Paul's voice is the one that has triumphed. That James "has always been something of a stepchild" points to the extent that even the early Christian fathers recognized he was out of step with Paul. But they are both in the Bible, and this results in a contradiction in the Bible (one of many, but one of the most clear and substantial). Furthermore, James (brother of Jesus) is actually sticking up for Jesus' view. As I cited extensively on my site, Jesus consistently cited a mechanism for salvation rooted in WORKS, and while he also emphasized the critical importance of faith, he NEVER indicated a Paulian concept of faith APART FROM WORKS.

Bill continues on 1-25-02:

Sorry if my style of presentation offends your sense of objectivity.

DDD reply: I took no offense of any kind. Despite our differing views, I found your comments to be thoughtful and did not feel that you were rude or hostile in any way. I recognize a pronounced difference between a vigorous debate or discussion and rude or hostile personal attacks. I felt you engaged in the former and hope I have done the same.

B: Without question, my original posting was motivated by a similar sense of "offense" in response to your positions in the paper and on your site. That alone should suggest there's a good "argument" to be had in there somewhere. I would not claim objectivity, but I can at least try to be more precise in respect to the concepts that I question and the facts that I use and the arguments that I am building.
Unfortunately, perhaps because of my lack of clarity, your response seemed to speak past but not to the questions I attempted to raise.

DDD reply: I'm sorry if you felt any sense of "offense." Please note that I do not go out preaching or proselytizing my views. I do not go door to door, nor do I hand out tracts or send junk mail (or spam e-mail). I do, however, make available the information I have compiled to those who are interested. I make it available on the Internet, and in the paper it is confined to a very narrowly-focused column reserved specifically for those who wish to engage in discussions of religious and theological views.

B: If you don't mind, I'll back up a bit and reformat the discussion. The evidence you seem to be using (for this section) are the books of Romans and James.

DDD reply: The specific context of the contradiction between Paul's Roman's 3:28 and James 2:26 are the books of Romans and James. But for the broader issue of how Paul contradicts Jesus and how James defends his brother's viewpoint I drew extensively on the words attributed to Jesus, with extensive citations (far more than could be provided in the very limited space permitted in the letters section).

B: However, and I sense more importantly, you have at least a couple of presuppositions in play when you read the texts.

DDD reply: My original "presuppositions" in reading the texts were that they are in perfect agreement and that they are part of the inerrant/infallible word of god. That is why I first read them -- because I was a fervent, devout, fully-believing Christian. I was not objective. I believed the Bible to be the perfect word of god and that James, Paul and Jesus were all different voices presenting differing perspectives of the same message. However, in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, originating out of what is explicit in the texts and especially in the totality of their contexts, I was open minded enough to change my views.

B: One is that James is in fact a direct rebuttal of Paul...

DDD reply: I believe this is an inescapable derived from the evidence, not a presupposition going into it. James is writing after Paul. He builds on the same theme. He uses the same examples. He uses exactly the same words, in exactly the same order and syntax. There are several reports of rifts between James and Paul (as well as between James and the other apostles who seemed to be taken in by Paul, including Peter, the top guy, at least nominally). To fail to see a direct rebuttal is to believe in an incredible sequence of coincidences that denies a more plausible and obvious explanation.

B: ... another is that Paul was some kind of lone ranger itinerant theologian and probably covertly trying to destroy Christianity by a disinformation campaign which in fact "duped" at least Peter.

DDD reply: I present this as one POSSIBLE conclusion, but again, it would be a conclusion after the evidence, not a presupposition to it. I do not at all believe or claim or state that this is, in fact, what happened. Unlike the conclusion of James' rebutting Paul, it is not absolutely conclusive nor the sole explanation of the evidence. It is altogether possible that Paul did become a sincere convert and believer in Christianity and simply stumbled into views that contradicted those of Jesus, who he never actually heard preach in person. But since Paul began as an anti-Christian and because he was clearly educated and intelligent, it also seems very plausible (perhaps the best explanation) that he infiltrated the early Christian movement and undermined it from within. And since it is Paul's voice, not that of Jesus/James, which has predominated, I have to conclude that (if this is what happened) then he succeeded in his little ploy.

B: Is this a reasonable restatement of your views about the objectives of James and Paul?
Would you assert that those views can be definitively supported by examination of the texts (Romans & James) alone? If not, what evidence do you build those presuppositions on?

DDD reply: The most concise and accurate synopsis of my views about Paul and James would be that they held contradictory views of the means of salvation and that James' view supported that of Jesus while Paul's contradicted Jesus. I have offered extensive support, with references that are contextually appropriate, to support this view.

Bill continues on 2-3-02:

I would like to digress somewhat to pursue the issue of objectivity and presuppositions, because I still sense that within those issues lie the primary obstacles in communicating about (let alone resolving) the difficulties I have with your positions. You described yourself as at one time being a "fervent, devout, fully believing Christian." That included certain cherished beliefs about "the Bible", which would infer that certainly all the different books within it could be "harmonized" in regards to meaning and message. You were exposed to evidence that convinced you that such was not the case.

DDD reply: Yes, that was my belief and my perspective. I held onto it until factual evidence proved it to be not valid for the reasons I have shared on my websites and in our correspondence.

B: The conclusion I believe you formed was that you had not been "objective " because of your beliefs and perhaps a corollary that the conclusions you now hold are "objective" because of explicit analysis and totality of context. I hope that is not an unfair recapping - if so I apologize for misrepresenting what you were trying to convey, and will watch for a future correction.

DDD reply: I would not claim that it is necessary to leave ones native faith to prove one's objectivity, otherwise those who happened to be born into the correct faith would feel the need to leave it to prove their objectivity and in so doing would leave the truth. Having encountered objective evidence that led me to conclude that my native faith was not correct, objectivity required that I not close my eyes or otherwise blind myself to it.

B: Now if I may, let me write a somewhat revisionist history that an outside observer might consider just as plausible - and I'd like your comments. It isn't difficult to show that folks who would characterize themselves as "fully believing Christians" today hold a variety of utterly incompatible, contradictory beliefs about every aspect of theological thought, and those beliefs are rarely "harmonized" by the individuals against any defensible historical or textual evidence - or even internally consistent within the boundaries of sound logic.

DDD reply: And where they hold utterly incompatible, contradictory beliefs it is obvious that one or the other (or both) of them is wrong. However, "fully believing Christians" may disagree on some details and interpretations, but they agree on certain fundamental common beliefs that make them Christians. And moreover it could also be argued that belief that a particular scriptural compendium (such as the Bible) is "inerrant" and "infallible" when it is actually demonstrably errant and fallible and filled with many contradictions would lead those who base their belief on one portion to have different beliefs than those who claim allegiance to the same compendium but who base their belief on a different (and contradictory) portion.

B: Oddly enough, none of that says anything about what the philosophical and historical "truth" about Jesus Christ is, or what implications that has in regards to non-believers or fully (confused) believers in regards to him. However, rather than wondering about a person's capacity for "objectivity", could it be more insightful to recognize the naive foundation on which the initial beliefs were forged, and also to recognize how subversive certain types of naivete can be in shaping how new unexpected information will be incorporated ? Every (naive) belief system answers certain questions for the believer, but also tends to skew the relationship to outside or opposing information.

DDD reply: I assume this means you're not going to address the very specific and context-based points about contradiction that I addressed in the previous message.

B: What then are the attributes of the "method" of the pursuit of truth, that can assure someone - and those that they develop discourse with, that they are not simply in a process of analysis that cannot deliver "the good". In regards to your positions, I already suggested that contructing the particular dilemma you've chosen between James and Paul (and between Paul and Jesus for that matter), on the surface appears to be an intractable contradiction, but that is based upon a number of unsubstantiated speculations,...

DDD reply: It IS an intractable contradiction, based on the substance and content of what is there, in the totality of its context. The "unsubstantiated speculations" only help explain what caused the two writers to present such a fundamental contradiction on a major point of Christian theology.

B: ...and particularly built upon a selective admission of the evidence (like ignoring distinctions that Paul made - unique to his writings,...

DDD reply: You repeatedly claim that Paul makes some kind of "distinction," but you still have not provided evidence for the inclusion of any distinction made by Paul relevant to this contradiction which derives directly from the texts and is not based on the invention of some later source trying to reconcile the contradictions.

B: ...ignoring questions about authorship and dates (James could have been written as early as 45 A.D., Romans would then have been later)

DDD reply: Please provide any credible reference that believes that James was writing earlier than Paul. Those that suggest earlier dates for James are also those that suggest the earliest dates for Paul. I have never seen a credible claim that James was writing earlier; actually, I have never seen this claim made by anyone, credible or otherwise. Are you claiming that? In any case, it would not matter. In such a case, if Paul was writing later, then the use of the same words, in the same order, in the same context, and with the same examples and scriptural citations -- but with opposing and contradictory conclusions -- would just mean that Paul is rebutting James instead of the other way around. No matter who wrote first, or who is rebutting whom, there is still a fundamental contradiction and the semantic, contentual and contextual similarities render inescapable the conclusion that someone is contradicting someone.

B: Paul definitely continued to write after the "James" you propose as an author was martyred

DDD reply: Scholarly texts I have reviewed are unanimous in their agreement that Romans is among Paul's earliest works, if not THE earliest, which is why it is included first (though such placement is not necessarily an indication of chronology in most cases). However this point about salvation by faith APART FROM WORKS is reiterated in several of Paul's other letters (see: Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; II Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5), though the syntax, structure and wording in Romans show the striking parallels to James' rebuttal.

B: The "custom" of belief of the church was actually established before either began writing, and was founded and centered on affirming an historical incident. It is those sorts of "loose ends" that call your conclusions into question - as is were, whether or not they call you to question them. Just how sure are you of what the issues were that the author of James was confronting - and was all that "Christianity" represented to its adherents simply a "normative ethic", and was Paul so hardened against Christ that he would spend most of his remaining life in prison - organizing charity, encouraging faith and faithfulness (calling people to be "slaves" for the cause), trying to care for and persuade the Jews in spite of their persecution of him, all the while claiming that his ministry was directly instituted by Jesus, resulting in a body of work which has obviously been "inspiring" and of the highest moral caliber.
Does it intrigue you that your solution to what is only a possible dilemma, actually creates a set of problems that are far deeper and would be refuted by far clearer historical witness?

DDD reply: I do not agree that it is only a "possible" dilemma. The contradiction is stark and obvious. And I do not see any "set of problems" created by the simple exposition of this fact, nor do I see at all any refutation by other clearer, objective historical witnesses. If you feel such evidence exists for the claims you have made, please provide it.

Bill continues on 2-13-02:

I want to expand briefly on the dependence of this particular "contradiction" that you defend, upon the substance and content of what is there, and the totality of its context, as you put it. My initial e-mail intimated that I thought that Paul (multiple letters) and James (single letter) used the term "justification" in distinctly different, objectively identifiable ways. That assertion was never defended - simply because of being "sidetracked" by pursuit of some clarity on your explanatory presuppositions. If my content assertion can be defended (more to come) then the contradiction is moot.

DDD reply: It is correct that your assertion of some difference was never defended. As to any comments on content "(more to come)" we'll wait and see if/when more actually comes :-)

B: The contradiction is also built around the explanatory presuppositions - they supply a context where the content you've proposed could "fit" seamlessly. However, quite a variety of seams are possible if the order of writing was reversed, or if there is significant historical witness against the conflict between who you propose would be two key leaders holding each other in contempt.

DDD reply: Again, I do not agree. The contradiction is deeply rooted in the sameness of vocabulary, syntax, example and context as I have clearly established and as you (admittedly) have not defended. My position is that the order of writing is not really that important. No matter who wrote first and who is rebutting, one is still contradicting the other.

B: As far as the order of writing, that has always been a relatively secondary issue, since the main arguments against the message of the new testament have been that they were very "late" in composition, and suffered from historical error and mythological revisionism.

DDD reply: It is not an issue at all. Most scholars (in which category I definitely do NOT include myself) conclude that Paul wrote long before James. Thus, based on the choice of the same words, the same syntax, the same context and even exactly the same examples, I conclude that James was making a rebuttal against Paul. But if it could be shown that James wrote first, it would be concluded that Paul was writing in rebuttal to James. It is hard to imagine that exactly the same structure, syntax, word choice and examples could be a coincidence, but even if it were (and no rebuttal at all) then it is still a tremendous and exact contradiction.

B: In the process of finding hard evidence to overcome those bald assertions (just meaning that they came about not because of evidence, but because of a presuppositional bias), scholars found ample evidence for the historicity of the new testament, and found fragments of the new testament (Mark, Acts, Romans, 1Timothy, 2Peter, & James) - each book represented by a half dozen verses or less, but dated early in the first century. While that "handles" the mythology and history questions, there is no way to further refine the order of writing except by induction from other references and internal evidences. Who was James? The brother of John, or the brother of Jesus, or one of the many others? You can give the nod to received tradition (but you shouldn't do so inconsistently) or you could just look at the possibilities. If it was the brother of John, then the book was written before his death (recorded in Acts and in early histories) in A.D. 44.
Was it the brother of Jesus? Some of the phrases in James seem similar (to scholars) to what James said in Acts 15.
Many suggest that the letter was written very near that period - roughly A.D. 49. Of course that James had met Paul and had participated in a dispute about what God was doing in regards to "saving" Gentiles and what sort of obligations entailed , and had approved of and supported Paul's ministry - sending him along with a letter of recommendation (calling him a dear friend). That would be the same James that Paul referenced as a witness of the resurrected Christ in 1 Corinthians 15. Now both Luke and Paul never hesitated to "name names" of folks they had conflicts with, and Acts winds up in the early 60's - roughly when James was killed. Slim pickings for a fundamental conflict in any case, and a toss up in terms of who wrote what first - considering that based on the history of his travels, much of Paul's letters came clearly after that letter of recommendation (Galatians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, and probably Romans being completed before James was dead). Actually, I could not find a recent review of the available evidence that would place James later than Romans - period. A nice review of the issues can be found in Norman Geisler's "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics" under "New Testament, Dating of". I also looked at the introductions in a variety of translations.

DDD reply: I tend to subscribe to the view of most qualified theologians who generally seem to agree that he is Jesus' brother, though there are also some minority dissenting opinions. Especially since it is James who defends Jesus' teachings on salvation by works against Paul's contrary teaching, this is a comfortable view for me. However it is not relevant to the specific point. No matter whose brother he was (or an only child), the contradiction is there.
References: I rely heavily on "James, the Brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman, a widely-acclaimed examination by an eminent Bible scholar who had access to the Dead Sea Scrolls in addition to extensive additional source materials, and "Who Wrote the New Testament" by Burton L. Mack, who is also an acclaimed professor of theology.

B: I'd like your feedback on these historical "context" issues, and then next e-mail, I promise to actually address the exegesis of Paul vs James on justification. Honest. Just a "too long and too late" situation at the moment.

DDD reply: I am not qualified to assess these historical perspectives. I rely on other legitimate experts for that. My perspective is based on what is actually in the works themselves: the direct and stark contradiction -- and you seem to want to discuss everything but.

Bill continues on 2-18-02:

I want to review slightly here, because I'm not sure I made myself clear in the last e-mail. Scholars have no magical powers and an awareness of the material they have to work with can clarify how and why certain "facts" are known. My view of why New Testament dating evidence is important is that it can overcome unfounded assertions about the late appearance of important writing. Archaeological findings consistently validate the contextual facts that appear in New Testament, so Scholars are left with inference from the texts themselves, correlated with scant outside historical documentation, when attempting to enrich the context of understanding of that period, and particularly of early "Christian" teaching and life. What does that have to do with Paul vs James? The book of Acts and the writing of Paul provide direct evidence that James the brother of Jesus, and the apostle Paul were on the same team and of like minds doctrinally.

DDD reply: Acts (with authorship generally attributed to Luke) certainly suggests that, whatever specific disagreements and contradictions they may have had, Paul and James also found some common ground. But the fact of their common ground does not make the differences go away. Clearly the writings of Paul that I have cited provide DIRECT evidence of the contradictions I have cited; your outside historical material is not DIRECT evidence -- it is indirect, based on interpretation and more than a little conjecture. I am basing my claims about the Bible's contradictions on what is actually in the Bible.

B: While I am not saying that particular James wrote the book in question, if one was "comfortable" that Jesus' brother wrote the book of James, the only supportable presuppositional position that could fit the historical record would be that the doctrinal positions of that James could be reconciled with the doctrinal positions of Paul. If the book of James did "contradict" Paul, it would be safe to assert, based on the direct testimony about Jesus' brother, that some other James was in fact the author.

DDD reply: For the reasons stated above, that some differences are not inconsistent with some common ground, I don't agree with your conclusion. But again, it would not matter. Whichever "James" wrote the book of "James" it still contradicts and rebuts Paul in exactly the manner I have described, which you have not addressed in the same direct and forthright manner that I have presented it. I have explained, citing scholarly sources, why I believe that James the brother of Jesus wrote the book of James and why I believe it was later in time than Paul's writing of Romans. But that is not important. Whoever wrote James, it contradicts Paul; whoever wrote first, one is contradicting the other. These tangents are not really useful to the point at hand, which seem determined to avoid.

B: Obviously, careful examination of the texts themselves would be the determining factors in relation to whether the book of James indeed contradicts Pauline soteriology, but points to consider are that there is direct testimony both to the relationship of Jesus' brother to Paul, and of the authenticity of Paul's purpose and intent.

DDD reply: Exactly. And that is exactly what I have provided: extensive support based specifically on what is actually in the texts themselves, using a broad appeal to the overall context, the parallel of literary and linguistic constructions, and even the identical selection of examples.

B: Based on the clear historical testimony - even if James the book contradicts Paul - the "meaning" of that simply cannot be that Jesus' brother was rebutting a duplicitous false apostle. It might be - as Luther said - that James was a "straw epistle", or possibly like the Muratorian fragment - that it wasn't included in collections of apostolic writing by the early church (certainly other options are available). Discussing this historical testimony cannot identify or resolve any "contradiction" that honestly appear in the texts, but it can comment on presuppositions that are brought to the text.

DDD reply: I agree that the duplicity or intentional falsity of Paul is a speculative, derived conclusion. It is one of several possible explanations for why Paul contradicts Jesus and James. But what is NOT speculative or derivative is the FACT that Paul contradicts the book of James (whoever wrote it and in whatever order). I only offer this to suggest a possible motive for Paul. He is clearly one of the most (if not THE most) intelligent and articulate writers in the Bible, with an extraordinary level of formal education that the fishermen and shepherders lacked. That he could so completely contradict and undermine Jesus, and promulgate doctrines so intellectually absurd, clearly seems to me beyond the capability of simple error on his part. However, if I am wrong and he simply did err, then the contradictions and flaws are still there and the Bible (and the ensuing Christian theology) is errant and fallible.

B: My purpose in this, prior to addressing the issues raised by the texts is to point out (again - independent of the issue of any contradiction) that your presuppositions about the authors purposes (both Paul and James), argue from silence against relevant historical testimony that has all the marks of reliability.

DDD reply: Again, my presuppositions about the author's purposes at my first exposure to these writings was that they were in full agreement and that they both represented the infallible, inerrant word of God. It was the content of the books themselves that caused me to acknowledge the error of those presuppositions. Even now, I do not speculate as to the authors' purposes, though I do offer speculative and possible explanations. It does not matter how malicious or innocent the authors' motives or purposes may be; they are in abject and contradictory disagreement on a key point of Christian theology.

B: Hopefully, that clarifies what has been at issue to date.

DDD reply: There is and has been only one relevant issue so far: the stark and compelling DIRECT contradictions between the writings attributed to Paul and the writings attributed to someone named James, when the overall context, the parallel structures of literary and structural constructions and their specific examples are considered as a whole from what is actually written.

B: I would appreciate any further comments on this part of my argument, before I attempt to show the distinct differences between Paul and James in regards to context, structure, syntax, word choice, and choice of examples. A contradiction would exist if the positions espoused by each author could not possibly both be true ( because of their relationship to each other). Obviously, if the authors are addressing distinctly different issues, through different types of arguments, with demonstrably different examples, a contradiction simply doesn't exist, and that is what I observe, and I believe that providing the proof of that is far more straight-forward than dealing with presuppositional plausibilities.

DDD reply: The central point I have made is about the contradiction. It is not based on any "presuppositional plausibilities" but rather on the what is actually there in the book. Your preoccupation with "presuppositional plausibilities" outside the scope of that central issue seem to be an attempt either to distract the focus of the dialogue away from that central issue, or to try to convince yourself that the issue is more complicated than it really is.

Bill continues on 2-19-02:

I would suggest a brief re-read of the end of my last e-mail if you have it. I've looked at it, and I think it is clear enough that I think I "have the goods" when it comes to context, structure, syntax, word choice, and specific examples of the texts - and expressed every intent of providing that in an upcoming letter.

DDD reply: Yes, I am well aware that you have promised something in the future. However, my dialogues are filled with people who promised to explain these things and never did. I'm sure when they promised them that they fully intended to be able to find answers. But the fact remains that, as of now -- and until you actually come up with something, all I have is your well-intentioned promises and absolutely nothing of substance in this regard. I cannot respond to vapors. Whatever you may intend, or whatever "goods" you think you have, until I see them there is nothing.

B: From your responses I have not really sensed an acknowledgement of the issues that I have provided evidence for - I will "settle" for the moment with the strained admission that your representation of Paul is speculative and derived.

DDD reply: You have not responded at all to the substance of the contradiction I have cited. You keep referring to outside and irrelevant perspectives but you have not addressed the solid core of the contradictions.

B: I cannot comprehend- considering the subject matter at hand- that "your" James and Paul could have such common ground - as recorded in Acts 15 - while on the path toward martyrdom for fundamentally contradictory beliefs.

DDD reply: 1. Acts was recorded later, by a third party trying to reconcile their contradiction (or perhaps not fully grasping the fact that there was a contradiction). As legends are wont to do, the positives are embellished and the disagreements smoothed over. I much prefer the hard truth of reality preserved in the hands of these men themselves, in their letters that lived after them, for what they believed and where they differed or agreed.

2. James and Paul were "on the same side" even though they couldn't agree 100% on exactly what that meant in terms of core beliefs. Ideologies were different in those days -- men might clash over ideas or concepts, which were topics of discussion only for an elite few, but the real key to cohesion and "belief" was that of loyalty. Though they disagreed, they shared loyalty to the same band.

3. I doubt that either James or Paul actually chose to become a martyr, but accepted that fate honorably in standing to defend their loyalties to their little band and to the nature of their beliefs as each man understood it.

B: Belief was not so casual then, so I will maintain that the implications of the Biblical record of their relationship is not easily dismissed conjecture.

DDD reply: You keep talking about "conjecture." With the exception of some speculation about Paul's motives for why he contradicted both Jesus and James, I rely solely on the Biblical record AND NOT CONJECTURE. (I did cite other sources regarding tangential issues you raised about chrolonology and authorship.) I present my case from the scriptural record very extensively. I emphasized this in my last message but you keep coming back to it. Just stick to the scriptural record that I cite. This is what the whole point is based on.

B: I had hoped to be understood when I wrote "discussing this historical testimony cannot identify or resolve any "contradiction" that honestly appear in the texts, but it can comment on presuppositions that are brought to the text." The conversation I hoped I was having involved presenting information that was actually neutral in regards to the "contradiction" issue - to get a sense of how "reasonable" you are in communicating about subjects a bit outside of your primary arguments- and for better or for worse, I now have that sense. I have also never intended to "hint" that any outside source is the key to reconciling the two authors. I believe that the authors mean exactly what they say - I am simply asserting that you have been a little bit generous in saying that your position actually has "extensive support based specifically on what is actually in the texts themselves, using a broad appeal to the overall context, the parallel of literary and linguistic constructions, and even the identical selection of examples." If you have access to them, Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, and Kaiser, Davids, Bruce,and Brauch's "Hard Sayings of the Bible" will be primary resources in my long promised response.

DDD reply: I'll look forward to hearing from you if and when you are ready to discuss the substantive points I have raised regarding the contradictions between what Paul writes and the teachings of Jesus and the writings of James that I have discussed at great length.

Bill continues on 2-22-02:

I'm currently travelling back east, so I will be piecing together the response that you are confident I won't make, while I'm on the run. I have been "dragging my feet" in relationship to that response, primarily because of the perception that we haven't really been communicating very well. I would suspect, and as you have verified, you have "been there, done that" with these discussions with plenty of disappointing or dead end results. I will keep my word in regards to response promises I make, and you don't even have to invest a moment of trust in my character for that to happen.

DDD reply: No problem. Take your time, enjoy your trip, and put together the points you really want to make. My point was that you referred several times to your future arguments and I can hardly respond to promises of what you WILL do in the future. When and if you get around to it, I'll still be here and ready to consider your points.

B: After my initial e-mail, each of my responses has had an element of subject matter review - as you may remember - like the impact of presuppositional issues. My intent has been to find some reasonably well defined context for discussion, but that has not occurred. Instead, I am continually intrigued by what you pick out of my correspondences to respond to and how often new presuppositions come into play. Obviously with your last response I was intrigued by how you chose only to address the mention of James in Acts (not Paul's reference to him), and were further ready to provide motives and excuses for why Luke's assessment didn't fit your "legend" - for example, Acts was later (no evidence), or Luke was trying to reconcile the "contradiction" - or Luke was not aware of the contradiction. To your credit you didn't even mention that the author of Acts appeared to be completely hoodwinked by Paul's act.

DDD reply: You still haven't addressed the core of the actual contradiction I have cited, in its sameness as to vocabulary, syntax, example and scriptural reference.

B: You continue to claim that you present your case from scripture very extensively, yet I have seen each of your arguments, and they are built from very selective, not extensive, citations - and at each turn, you attempt to shore them up with conjecture about things you have no direct knowledge of, and not even a hint of indirect historical evidence to make an inference from.

DDD reply: This is not a fair assessment of my position. My argument is based on the fact that, using exactly the same words, in exactly the same syntactical structure, and in similar contexts regarding salvation, and even citing the same example (justification of Abraham), Paul says that justification is by FAITH AND NOT WORKS, and James says that justification is by WORKS, and NOT FAITH ONLY; Paul says that Abraham was justified by his belief; James says that Abraham was justified by his actions. Sorry, but this looks like a pretty direct contradiction to me. I have cited scattered verses in lieu of copying and pasting the entire books of Romans and James, showing their contextual references to salvation and to the same meanings of the same words and sequence they apply. I have showed how they are talking about the same thing, and for you to say I haven't when you have not even shown any alternative explanation for why all these similarities can add up to an OPPOSITE and contradictory conclusion, is really unfair.

B: What actually appears as the sole basis for your arguments is a committment that a contradiction is there, and is the only possible explanation for the language that appears, without regard or reference to the fact that the book James wasn't even cannonized until centuries of discussion about its relationship to "Paul's gospel" and the acknowledgement that it contained no conflict with the received apostolic teaching except for those who would divide it to their destruction.

DDD reply: The fact that a book written by one of the original apostles, the brother of the "Christ," would have its canonization delayed for centuries while the problematic and thorny issues of its relationship to Paul were discussed shows that the text themselves do give rise to problematic issues that needed to be discussed. Ultimately they could not simply disregard a writing by the brother of the "Savior" and an original apostle so they included it, with the proviso that the seeming contradiction was not really a substantive contradiction. But just saying it doesn't make it so. The words of the original texts, in context, are what counts and the contradiction is clear and stark. And you still haven't addressed it.

B: I was a bit confused by your statement that appeared to say that Paul and James simply didn't agree 100% on what was meant by certain core beliefs.

DDD reply: I'll try to simplify:
Paul says salvation is by FAITH and NOT WORKS (but elsewhere repeatedly says that works are important because they demonstrate that saving faith).
James says salvation is by WORKS, and NOT FAITH ONLY (the that faith is important because it motivates those saving works).
The original texts use exactly the same words for "faith," "works," and "salvation." They use these same words in the same syntactical construction, supported by the same example (Abraham) and the same scriptural reference (Genesis 15:6). This is a direct contradiction. The issue of salvation or justification is a core belief of Christian theology, ergo, Paul and James do not agree on a core issue of Christian theology or belief.

B: There is a big difference between contention for clarification purposes and opposition in response to declared heresy (contradiction). It is readily admitted by scholars that James was quite possibly written either against a particular jewish orthodoxy of the time (which absolved itself of duty to act), or possibly against groups that misapplied Pauline teaching (like the ones Paul condemned in Romans 3:8), but that is not against Paul. I will assume you haven't really given up your position that James is directed against and is intractably contradictory to Paul, although I could hope. :)

DDD reply: Paul and James have many (perhaps most) points in agreement. On this key point, there is a direct and glaring CONTRADICTION on a key point. James and Paul contradict each other; the Bible is errant and fallible and its teachings on how one is to be saved are in conflict.

B: On to James, Paul, and of all people, Jesus (but of course not everything right now). Actually, James and Paul agreed 100% on something - they were bond slaves of the Lord Jesus Christ. (James 1:1, Romans 1:1).

DDD reply: James and Paul agreed 100% on many issues of Christian doctrine and their loyalty to the same cause. They both agree that faith is important (but disagree as to its role in salvation: Paul says it is the mechanism of salvation, James says it motivates action, and that action/works is the actual mechanism of salvation). They both agree that compassionate works are a good thing. They both agree on the lordship or Christship of Jesus. I could find many, many examples of 100% agreement on many core issues. I wasn't writing about their agreements. I was pointing out where they disagree, and where that disagreement introduces key contradictions into the Bible regarding a key issue of Christian theology -- which you still have not addressed.

Bill continues on 2-24-02:

Just briefly I wanted to point out a consideration that I have alluded to before - which is just the precision of the language used. In your response (whether accidentally or not), in one paragraph you implied that the contradiction was between Paul ( justification by faith alone) versus James (justification by works of faith), and in another paragraph you said the contra- diction involved Paul on salvation (by faith alone), and James (salvation by works of faith). For both writers, that equivocation (justification = salvation) is a fatally flawed representation of their positions.

DDD reply: If you feel I erred in equating justification and salvation, then it is my error (although I don't believe it to be an error, since the totality of context of the surrounding text does show that they are both referring to "justification" in a context of talking about "salvation."). But not matter, it does not change the fundamental contradiction. WHATEVER James and Paul meant by the words "faith" and "works" and "justification," they both used exactly these same three words, in exactly the same syntactical structure, in a similar context even unto using the same example (of Abraham, with opposite conclusions on how he was "justified" -- whatever they meant by that).

B: A contradiction will be shown when they define faith, works, and justification in an identifiably equivalent way, and then place those definitions into incompatible and exclusive truth claims. I will show that their definitions of faith ( as supported by the context of their writings, and recognized within the normal range of useage of the terms) are not equivalent, their use of justification is not the same (by the same process), and further that there are very distinct and repeated distinctions in Paul in regards to justification, sanctification, and salvation that James does not elaborate on ( for whatever reason, but a conservative speculation would simply be that he was not attempting to write a systematic theology (while Paul was). Of course, all that will be on the way to showing that whatever issues remain - the writers - regardless of their motives- did not produce contradictory positions.

DDD reply: You keep promising what you "will" show, while spending inordinate keyboard time on every manner of tangential sidetrack while avoiding the actual contradiction. So far all I have is a promise. As to the substance of the contradiction I have ... VAPOR.

B: I would also note that for Paul at least, loyalty to any cause without the foundation of truth was the epitome of foolishness. Motive was an ultimatum, not an afterthought. If Paul and James did not share the ultimate core value, in Paul's view they shared nothing. That is an additional reason why their claim to be bond slaves of the Lord Jesus Christ is a clear and stark affirmation of the shared objective and motivation for their lives.

DDD reply: That is purely an opinion and derived conclusion on your part. For my part I reject such "all or nothing" extremist thinking. In every organization or movement there is much disagreement on particulars among the adherents. We know that Paul had differences with both James and Peter, but even I would not question his loyalty. Your claim of "all or nothing" does not ring true, but even if it did, it does not explain away this very fundamental CONTRADICTION on a key point of Christian theology.

B: As I always do, checking new presuppositions - your elaboration on the cannonization of the book of James is objectively revisionist (they did not include any proviso regarding its inclusion - it was vigorously debated and added - it would be easier to make the case that it was added because it was more in line with the teaching of Rome - not that they down played its relationship to Paul), and the added intrigue simply begs the real questions remaining about the author, the purpose, and the meaning.

DDD reply: All this may explain WHY they held opposing and contradictory views, but you still have not explained how the clearly contradictory words, syntax, example and scriptural reference are not the direct contradiction that any objective observer can so plainly see.

B: In regards to the author, perhaps consideration should be given to the confession of the demon approached by the sons of Sceva in Acts "I know Jesus and I know Paul, but who are you?" I'll get to the purpose and meaning issues after a few more ski runs.

DDD reply: I fail to see the relevance of this. The spirit in Acts 19:13-20 is addressing unnamed exorcists, not James. If you have some relevance, then at such time as you provided it then I can respond to it. You have a tendency to come up with irrelevant tangents that use up the time you could be working on addressing the key points you promise you "will" provide, and throw out "teasers" as a substitute for something of substance. My suggestion would be to wait until after that ski run and, when you have the time to make a point completely, do so; before that maybe make a note of half-baked ideas and come back to them when you are ready to develop them more completely instead of sending out something that is so premature that it cannot be responded to.

Bill continues on 2-26-02:

Your last response raised some serious methodologic questions. You inferred that your equivocation of two very distinct words with very distinct conceptual boundaries didn't matter, and "whatever" James and Paul meant - they used the same words, etc.

DDD reply: There was no "inference" or "equivocation." The statement I made was clear, direct and unequivocal. Absent a specific indicator to the contrary, the fact that two closely-associated allies use exactly the same words, in the same syntactical structure, in exactly the same context (including same examples) does indicate the same meaning. If you can show the indicator that shows a differing meaning, please feel free to share it.

B: You are arguing in a very naive circle. You must assume that James and Paul share the same meaning of the words involved to begin with, when that is what must be shown from the context to "prove" a contradiction.

DDD reply: Uhm, yes, words are commodities of meaning and are used by people because they understand what words mean in relevant contexts. If two people use the same words in the same context with the same examples and come to opposite conclusions, then that is a contradiction.

B: As I stated before - you have a primary belief that a contradiction exists, rather than an argument from evidence that James and Paul are at odds.

DDD reply: No, it is not a "primary belief" -- it is a fact based on evidence. My "primary belief" was that the Bible is the word of god and that all the apostles and disciples were in agreement. I only changed based on the evidence. The EVIDENCE is the actual conflicting words, which I have cited along with the relevant contextual and syntax indicators.

B: Your position would be akin to saying that John and Plato were both Christians because they used the term "logos" in the description of the ultimate. It just doesn't fly.

DDD reply: Paul and Plato had different (CONFLICTING/CONTRADICTORY) views of "the ultimate." They both understood what the word and concept meant, and they could use that term to refer to the concept, which they both understood. But their beliefs on the subject were not in agreement, thus their differing and contradictory views. Similarly, Paul and James can use the same words, with the same meaning, and the fact that they make opposing and contradictory statements shows that, on this particular point (a central point of Christian theology), they were not in agreement, just as Paul and Plato would be in disagreement about "the ultimate." This is exactly the point I am making -- thanks for this excellent example. One further difference would be that Paul and James, in the same inner circle of early Christian leadership, were far more closely affiliated than Paul and Plato, so their meanings and usage would be much closer.

B: Do you consider the systematic denial of obvious distinctions a sound argument? I am not at all suggesting that at first reading in English no possible contradiction appears - that has always been obvious. However, to deny any relevance that the historical questions that remain regarding authorship, or to deny the historical evidence about the relationship between Paul and James , and now to deny that their stated purpose in use of specific terms doesn't matter to your contradiction - simply "proves" that your contradiction doesn't matter to any reasonable person - and leaves the question for the consideration of more prudent minds.

DDD reply: Once again you misrepresent my position. I have not denied any relevant historical questions regarding context or authorship. On the contrary, I have noted the similarity of usage and contexts (with examples) and that fact that they were closely affiliated and, from a historical perspective, generally of one mind and spirit.

B: No matter how much "force" you try to exert against the testimony of history, culture, and language - those are still the repositories of meaning.

DDD reply: Excuse me, but despite your promises of future intent, you still have not demonstrated ANY "testimony of history, culture, and language" showing why this apparent contradiction is anything other than an actual and substantive contradiction. So until you do so you have no business saying that I am disregarding or trying to "exert force" against something that still simply does not exist.

B: I'll try to refrain from use of any entertaining references from now on. As far as substance is concerned, I will stick to my statement from the last e-mail that "A contradiction will be shown when they define faith, works, and justification in an identifiably equivalent way, and then place those definitions into incompatible and exclusive truth claims." I can show that they don't do that - while you merely deny the relevance of the claim.

DDD reply: Absent a substantive reason to support that the same words in the same contexts had different meanings, there is no reason to believe they mean something difference. You keep saying you "can show" some reason that their writings don't mean what they say in simple language, but until you can deliver on your vague future promise to provide this, I have to assume that you are just one more person who promises to show this but can't deliver the goods.

B: Also, perhaps you are not aware, but reporting an uncompromising position held by someone does not make the reporter "extremist".

DDD reply: The fact that James and Paul disagreed on some points (albeit rather important ones) does not render void all their points of agreement and common loyalties. In ever church, religion, political group or social movement, there are primary goals and values that bring people together but in EVERY such group there are also differing views among both leaders and members. The New Testament has several reports of Paul's differences with both Peter and James. I don't find that to be problematic for Christians, but it does kind of undercut your rather silly claim that there could be absolutely no points of disagreement.

B: And your categorical denial of "all or nothing" thinking is quite irrelevant in regards to whether any particular biblical (or other) writer used it. Notice how Paul confronted Peter and made Peter acquiesce to the truth - Paul simply did not compromise on principle- for anyone. Here is a little scenario that I thought up - it isn't "true", but it does fit all available historical, cultural, and linguistic considerations. I'd like to know hypothetically if it would have an impact on interpreting perceived conflicts between writers.

DDD reply: Your idea of Paul's "all or nothing" mentality did not come from the Bible. It was your own invention (or borrowed from some other source). The contradiction I cited is directly from the Bible itself, sola scriptura.

B: Suppose James was Jewish (albeit Messianic),...

DDD reply: I thought you didn't want to engage in suppostions :-)

B: ...and he wasn't particularly progressive in relationship to gentiles, although he was aware that Paul and others were developing a "ministry" to those peoples. James was a "leader" in Messianic circles and as such would hear reports (mostly oral), about what was happening in surrounding areas.The "church" at that time was growing too quickly for its leadership infrastructure, and quite a number of odd ideas were finding shelter within the church. James became aware of a particular mix of errors that of course was claimed by its adherents to be of genuine apostolic origin, but that James felt compelled to respond to because the mix was obviously in error.

DDD reply: Well, in your defense, what you call a "supportion" actually IS in the Bible, which does report this very conflict. It is just one example of conflicts recorded in the early church. It certainly explains, with all this conflict, how contradictions could arise in the works of human mortals.

B: He wrote the book of James to other Messianic Jews living outside his home area to address the errors - he could not ascibe blame for the errors to anyone (regardless of any suspicions he had he was prudent enough to recognize hearsay), so he didn't. Because of continued growth and persistence of doctrinal aberrations, a council was called. At that council, James met with all of the folks who were out spreading the "good news", and at that council, he found that all of the missionary apostles were trying to spread the same "truth", and far from creating the aberrations, they were fighting against the same errors (in the gentile regions) that James had written against to the extended Jewish community.
James was pleased to have the first hand confirmation and clarification, and demonstrated a renewed understanding and support of the efforts of the missionaries. Do you have any defensible evidence that would refute such an historical context?

DDD reply: That James is Jewish and had a conflict with others about who could become Christians is in the Bible. His motives for writing the Book of James are NOT "historical context" but your own speculation (or that of your sources). After all your tirades about speculation, why do you speculate about matters that are answered in the Bible and then base your "historical" conclusion on these silly speculations -- especially since your speculative conclusion can be shown to be WRONG from the text of the Bible itself: James 1:1 -- the introduction of his letter -- says that he is writing NOT to the Jews (only one of the twelve tribes; the lineage of Judah) -- but to ALL "the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (which, as I'm sure you know, is a cultural contextual reference to all the non-Jews). So however James originally felt about expanding the early church to include non-Jews, it does not cause him to address his writing to them. Similarly, Paul in Romans, opens his comments by stating that he is writing to the Christians at Rome -- obviously the converted "barbarians" at the center of the polytheistic Roman Empire, not Jews from Palestine. In fact, this further demonstrates the homogeneity of their contextual perspectives.

B: Your "contradiction" is unassailable. Perhaps we could move on to whether there is a contradiction between Paul and James?

DDD reply: Uhm, this is the contradiction I've been repeatedly talking about. Does this mean your long-promised response is actually going to be delivered?????

Bill continues later on 2-26-02:

You equivocated (made equal) salvation and justification. They are not the same words in english or greek. They do not appear in the narrow context where your "contradiction" appears. You have shown no reason to neglect every theologian in history who can demonstrate the differences between the two terms.

DDD reply: The definition of "equivocate" is NOT to "make equal." My Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition has several definitions for equivocal/equivocate:
equivocal:
1a - subject to two or more interpretations, usually used to mslead or confuse
1b - unertain as an indication or sign
2a - of uncertain nature or classification
2b - of uncertain disposition ... undecided
equivocate:
1 - to use equivocal language, usually with intent to deceive
2 - to avoid commiting oneself in what one says

You can see why I objected to your describing my very UNequivocal statements as "equivocations." Whether you agree or disagree, I was not "undecided." You, however, lose any credibility in defining Greek language when you can't even define English words correctly.

B: Ignoring the question and simply beating on your "exact words and syntax" drum is a tried but not true tactic.

DDD reply: In my website and previous e-mails I established the similarity of context and syntax. I have already done this. Until you show the error in what I have offered and provide a more credible alternative, you are just wasting both our time.

B: Your position requires Paul and James to hold demonstrably contradictory views at the very core of "faith".

DDD reply: There is no evidence at all in the text that they are defining the words differently. Their contradictory views about faith are that Paul claims it is the mechanism for "justification" and James claims it is important because it motivates works, but that it is works which is the mechanism of justification. So yes, they hold opposing and contradictory views about faith, but not inconsistent definitions. You seem to want to resolve the obvious contradiction in their words, structure, example and scriptural context by saying they defined the words differently. If you want to make that claim, please show a scriptural basis for it.

B: Lots of historical scholarship to recognize that the apparent difference between Paul and James is not a contradiction. No history to suggest they considered each other heretics (or anything less than slaves of the same master).

DDD reply: I don't agree. Where is your evidence? Put up or shut up. There is lots of history of people, like you, with a vested interest in a specific conclusion, SAYING there is not contradiction (and thus they didn't consider each other heretics), but there is no historical or modern reconciliation of this contradiction. And it is unlikely that they did consider each other to be heretics. As we have both noted, they do have many areas of common belief and loyalty. Even today, those of the same faith may correct each other or express differences without accusing each other of heresy or disloyalty. I'm sure even in your own church one member corrects another when an error is perceived. James was correcting Paul's error, not calling him a heretic. There is no evidence that either of these men, who were just writing letters, ever imagined that these letters would someday be considered scripture. And there is no reason today to consider these simple letters written by fallible (and contradictory) mortals to be the inerrant and infallible "Word of God" in which no contradictions could exist.

B: The proposed type of contradiction could leave them with no other options. Lots of variety to use for confirmation of meaning in Paul. More questions in regards to James.
On culture: Paul was decidedly "apostle to the gentiles" and wrote a consistent body of work that could "connect" with their cultural landmarks on being, purpose, and justice. James was not a gentile evangelist, and used over 50 imperative statements based in Rabbinic tradition.

DDD reply: Already covered this. You are right on this general perspective, however both were writing to a non-Jewish audience. Whatever other views we agree James had, that was not his context here. His context dovetails nicely with Paul for once. I, for one, don't see it as a coincidence that despite their overall differing viewpoint vis a vis Jews and non-Jews, that here James chooses the same context as Paul. This departure from his usual custom clearly suggests that the sameness of context is intentional, owing to the fact that he is rebutting Paul, and that all the other similarities are as similar as they seem.

B: They define faith differently...

DDD reply: Please cite the chapter and verse where Paul defines faith. Please cite the chapter and verse where James defines faith. Or are you just making this up?

B: they define justification differently...

DDD reply: Please cite the chapter and verse where Paul defines justification. Please cite the chapter and verse where James defines justification. Or are you just making this up yourself?

B: they "use" Abraham differently.

DDD reply: Please describe what you mean, and use CONTEXT from these passages. Are they talking about a different person? How exactly do they "use" Abraham differently. They are both talking about the SAME THING: the JUSTIFICATION of Abraham. Paul says it was because of his belief; James says it was because of his works. If you want to say there is something different, then support your assertion.

Suggestion: perhaps you should take the time to enjoy your vacation, and when you are ready (if ever) take the time to put together an appropriate response, instead of continuing to send e-mails that rely on your (purported) future response which, as of this time, does not actually exist and does not prove anything.

Bill continues on 2-27-02:

Notice how Merriam- Webster uses a circular definition for equivocation (to use equivocal language). In a philosophical argument, when a substitution is made for a key term that is in the argument, and done without support, that is equivocation. If you looked in an unabridged dictionary (one that doesn't settle for circular definitions), you would find that my use of the term equivocate as regards your substituting justification and salvation as if they were interchangeable (equal) is well within accepted norms of use. I am glad you had the opportunity again to vent on an extraneous issue and to add another personal assault - keep the dream for self esteem alive.

DDD reply: I see. Now you think that Merriam-Webster is somehow in some kind of "conspiracy" to make you look goofy? Sorry, but they have not taken a position on Paul vs. Jesus/James. And their definition is NOT "circular." Please note, at I showed, that the definition of "equivocal" immediately followed the definition of the root word, "equivocate" which was fully defined with no circularity. Having defined the root word, applying a definition to a derivative word showing that it is derived from the root is not circular. I used a standard reference to define my term; you didn't -- all you did was whine about how your mastery of English vocabulary is so superior to Merriam-Webster's. Once again you are not only wrong, but you are spinning your wheels on irrelevant tangents as a way to avoid addressing the substance of the contradictions that you can't reconcile.

B: Now you can go look up non sequitor, since that is what your hasty generalization about my capacity to use English, and your spurious extrapolation from that to Greek - as if it is my credibility in either that matters.

DDD reply: My point was about your sloppy use of language. Your response, however well-intentioned, bears that out.

B: I have read your web sites - you start your examination in regards to syntax and context of Paul vs James at Romans 3:28 which begins with the word "therefore." Granted my lifelong struggle with the english language, "therefore" still seems to me to indicate a conclusion which would follow a series of premises or something of that nature. No such content appears in that section, "therefore", the context of his conclusion is absent. Noting multiple examples of such a conclusion still begs the question about the context of the statements.

DDD reply: Again, you are sloppy. *I* do not begin *my* examination with the word "therefore." The word "therefore" does not appear in my own word choices anywhere in the commentary on Paul vs. James (and Jesus). However the word "therefore" is cited several times ... as part of the verses quoted from Paul.

However, if you want that kind of deductive sequence of premises and conclusion (statement, statement, statement: "therefore": conclusion), let me review the key points from my webpage and previous correspondence (not all of which appears on my web page which is addressed to a more general audience):
Premises 1. Paul (Romans 3:6; 3:19-31) and James (1:12; 2:5; 2:13-14) are both talking about justification in terms of judgment and salvation.
Premises 2. They both use exactly the same words, in exactly the same syntactical construction (Romans 3:28; James 2:24; detailed exegesis in website).
Premises 3. They both appeal to non-Jewish audiences (Romans 1:7; James 1:1), notwithstanding that James primarily was concerned with preaching to the Jews; the fact that he here addresses a non-Jewish Diaspora audience, contrary to his usual practice, suggests he is intentionally adopting a context similar to Paul's in his rebuttal/response to Paul.
Premises 4. They both use the same example of Abraham, from which they derive exactly opposite conclusions (Romans 4:1-5; James 2:21-23).
THEREFORE (conclusion): they operate within the same context and meaning and their opposing conclusions are directly contradictory and seemingly intentionally so.

B: That is the point here - Paul reasons through to his conclusion, but you strip it out of its context and then go fishing for superficial syntax similarities.

DDD reply: You keep saying this, but you still have not shown how Paul and James are contextually different, while I have shown quite clearly they are the same. And I did not "go fishing for superficial syntax similarities." The similarities are simply there in the text. Look at them for yourself. There is nothing "superficial" about it. They are the same. If you think there is something different, then tell me what it is. You still haven't done it. I don't think you ever will. I don't think you can.

B: When you say you don't agree that there is lots of scholarship that denies any contradiction between Paul and James - are you saying that all scholarship affirms that the books are contradictory, or are you just saying you are disagreeable?

DDD reply: Lots of people, like you, give lip service to the claim that there is no contradiction, but also like you, none of them addresses the points of substantive contradiction that I (and others) have pointed out. None of your sources address these points. They just say it isn't so and avoid any points of substance. If you disagree, then (again) put up or shut up: tell me exactly which point of substance I have missed. Again, I don't think you can.

B: I previously mentioned Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, and Kaiser, Davids, Bruce,and Brauch's "Hard Sayings of the Bible." You may have missed that since I can never predict what syntax you will be distracted by in ignoring the context of my e-mails. Perhaps you would note that Kittel's is based on exhaustive primary research, with references to all cultural and time period uses of all words listed. Each author of "Hard Sayings" is demonstrably credible in their areas of expertise, with credits well beyond their personal web pages or unsolicited editorials, and are legitimately fluent in the languages, history, and cultural implications of the difficulties they address. Referenced within those works would be an astonishing amount of scholarship that your superficial context depleted analysis could "rush in" against.

DDD reply: Then why is it so difficult for you to go to one of these sources and pull out a simple explanation. Perhaps they ramble on and around the point with their own "made up" conclusions that, like yours, DO NOT COME FROM THE SCRIPTURES, and so you can't use them. I don't know. I'm sure if that had made a good point you would have cited it. If you can't find one in all your sources, I'm not going to go off on any wild goose chase since I don't believe you've got the goods.

B: When you say that I have a vested interest in a specific conclusion - what sort of interest are you referring to, and where do you derive your powers of divining human motives...

DDD reply: I do not know your motives in misrepresenting and misunderstanding and in trying to rationalize away this very obvious contradiction. The possibility that one simply has too much invested emotionally in Christianity to honestly face up to the obvious contradiction is one very credible explanation. If you have other reasons for failing to face up to this contradiction then I am willing to consider what they might be.

B: ...like those fanciful ones you ascribe to a James you can't positively identify, or a Paul you feel compelled to villify?

DDD reply: Please cite where I "ascribed" any motives to James. I have not. As for Paul, I have suggested a "possible" scenario to explain his abject contradictions of Jesus and James (you haven't even begun to consider the extensive documentation of Paul's contradictions against the nominal founder of his faith), but I also made it clear that this was but one conjectural possibility. While I have a hard time imagining that one as well educated as Paul could actually have been unaware of how extensively he contradicted his "master" I suppose that is at least possible.

B: Now on to faith, justification, and Abraham. I found it illustrative that for each word you parroted " please cite chapter and verse" which is pretty much what I would expect from someone who has shown an obcession with sentence structure while oblivious to context - regardless of the nature of the communication.

DDD reply: I understand your discomfort with the fact that I expect you to prove your point about what is in the text with evidence from those texts, as I have done. What you call "an obsession with sentence structure" I call being faithful to what is actually there. Your statement about being "oblivious to context" is unfair and inaccurate. I have discussed context extensively and repeatedly, with specific references and examples. Obviously you are going to ignore this again. I'm not surprised. Maybe if you tell yourself this enough times you'll finally allow yourself to actually believe it. It just means that my points stand unchallenged. I'll accept that as a less-than-gracious admission that you can't deal with the issue of context. I am the one, not you, who has steadfastly adhered to the full context of vocabulary, syntax, surrounding totality of passages, examples and scripture of the actual Bible texts, which you now have the nerve to call an "obsession" with the text. Yes, that is what this is all about: what the Bible says, not what others say about it. You have abjectly avoided the actual source, running off on tangents, promises of future explanations, and a reliance on the authority of outside texts without even citing their substance. Of course this makes you uncomfortable. You have not made a single point on the actual topic of this discussion: the stark and clear contradiction between Paul and James on a key point of Christian theology.

B: I'll start with an excerpt on faith from "Hard Sayings" since I wouldn't want you to reject this out of hand because of my lack of credibility. "The first term James and Paul have in common is "faith." In James 2:19, the author gives a clear definition of what he means by "faith alone": "Do you believe that God is one?" This is not only the basic creed of Judaism (Deut 6:4) but also a belief about God that Jews believed Abraham discovered. It is orthodoxy, but in James it is an orthodoxy totally separated from obedience ("You have faith: I have deeds," Jas 2:18), an orthodoxy demons have as well. Elsewhere James gives a different definition of faith. The faith of James 1:6 and 2:1 is that of personal committment, which includes trust and obedience; in contrast, the faith that James sees his opponents claiming in James 2:14-26 is orthodoxy without action.

DDD reply: Once again you divorce yourself from CONTEXT and thus misrepresent James. James did NOT divorce faith from deeds. He made it clear that faith motivates deeds and manifests itself through deeds. They are not separated, but it is not faith that is the agent or mechanism of salvation, which is where he CONTRADICTS Paul who says it is. You utterly fail on your claim that Paul and James defined faith differently. James 2:19 is NOT a "definition" of faith, but a question of what one has faith or belief in.

B: Paul also has a definition of faith, which he gives in Romans 10: 9-10. Faith means a commitment to a living Lord Jesus, and a confession that "Jesus is Lord". That faith results in a life of love, where love is not an emotion or feeling, but loving action, that is, deeds or works. In Galatians 5:6, Paul goes on to state that in Christ the issue is "faith working through love." This faith-love pairing is not accidental, for it occurs repeatedly in Paul. If the love is lacking, then such a person is no heir of God's kingdom.

DDD reply: This is not at all what Romans 10:9-10 says. I have reviewed several versions. ALL of them talk of faith as making a confession with the "mouth" or "lips" (depending on version). Again, he does not "define" faith, but shows the manner in which it is implemented. And, most embarrassingly to those Christians who should really be calling themselves "Paulians," his definition of lip service comes painfully close to what Jesus referred to as part of the Sermon on the Mount in Matt 7:21-23. It is even more embarrassingly similar to what Jesus predicts in Matt 15:8: "This people draweth nigh unto me with their MOUTH, and honoureth me with [their] LIPS; but their heart is far from me." and Mark 7:6: "This people honoureth me with [their] LIPS, but their heart is far from me." Geez, if I believed Jesus was a prophet I would really say he predicted accurately on this one!

B: Since James (Jas 2:14-26) and Paul are using different definitions of faith...

DDD reply: You have not shown this at all. But even if you did, all you would shows is that they contradict on the meaning of faith instead of on the agent or mechanism of salvation. You failed to show a definition of faith from James. You failed to show a definition of faith from Paul. You completely misrepresented the scriptures, failing to find what you wanted to be there (does making up your own scriptures count as some kind of "blasphemy"?). All you showed was Paul making the very statement that Jesus predicted would come from his enemies. You fail on faith. Strike one!

B: ...it is not surprising that they use the example of Abraham differently. The two men come at the Abraham narrative from different directions."

DDD reply: We agree that they come at Abraham differently. However, they are talking about the same faith and the same justification and the same context. The fact that they use the same example (Abraham) is itself part of establishing the sameness of context. They even support it with the same scriptural references of Genesis 15:6. The DIFFERENCE is only that Paul says Abraham is justified by his faith or belief, and James says it is his actions. CONTRADICTION. You fail on Abraham. Strike two!

B: More in our next episode

DDD reply: When or if.

You said you were going to talk about "faith" and "justification" and "Abraham." At least you discussed "faith" and "Abraham," however feeble and pathetic and intellectually dishonest your efforts might have been. You promised to cover "justification" too and, whattayaknow, it wasn't there. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Strike three. You are out!

B: You would do well not to expect some singular future "appropriate response" from me.

DDD reply: This is not a surprise. After all your promises, you're not going to come through. Just like everyone else. However well-intentioned you might have been, I expected this.

B: When the accounts on context and syntax are truly balanced, a simple summary can finish up the topic. Currently "ENRON" style accounting is being used on context, and it is hard to predict how long the investigation will take.

DDD reply: Thank you for this admission, and the recognition that I have used the most direct interpretation of what is actually in the text. You have relied on convoluted semantic gymnastics and bizarre extrapolations of meaning to try and make the text say something that it doesn't say ... and even misrepresented scriptures or made up your own interpretations when the actual context of the text was found to be inconvenient for your conclusions. I was a Christian, but was open minded enough (and had enough moral courage) to go where the actual words of the text led me. You are the one who is using Enronesque convolutions and complications and distortions to force a reconciliation of what is very simply a direct and obvious CONTRADICTION.

Bill continues on 3-6-02:

Nor does the concept that in a formal argument, an author preceeds the application the terms he selects with the development of their meaning from his perspective as related to the argument at hand. That is what I mean by context, and none of your work shows any recognition of it.

DDD reply: You are the one who has drawn definitions from outside sources to selectively pre-define the application of terms externally. I have cited the context of the actual passages include vocabulary, syntax, totality of the passages, examples and scriptural support. I think you are not in a position to critique my use of context until you can address it to the extent that I have.

B: For example - You: 1. Paul (Romans 3:6; 3:19-31) and James (1:12; 2:5; 2:13-14) are both talking about justification in terms of judgment and salvation. Considering that an adequate analysis of the material would be like saying- "The Bible talks about stuff like God."

DDD reply: Well, uh, saying that part of the context of the Bible is that it "talks about stuff like God" would be an accurate description of its context, though it might not always be complete. However, going way beyond such generalities, since Paul and James BOTH specifically talked about judgment and salvation in the verses I cited, it is clearly a more specific contextual reference.

B: Once you acknowledge that you don't present the context on your site (and need to pull in some excerpts from more detailed correspondence), you should at least try to be less presumptive about how well received your sophistic presentation will be. Just looking at your list, once again you ignore prior context issues by choosing a statement of conclusion (Rom 3:6).

DDD reply: I don't at all acknowledge a lack of context on my site. On the contrary, I establish a very meticulous examination of context. Just because you say it isn't there won't make it go away. Everyone can read my site and see it for themselves.

B: Then you mysteriously omit an entire section where Paul argues that "by the deeds of the law" (a particular use of the term for work) no flesh will be justified (found guiltless there).

DDD reply: Well, I didn't go into it here because this is really more central to Paul's contradiction against Jesus than his contradiction against James, and I was focusing here more on the specific contradiction between Paul and James. Paul's contextual reference to the LAW is that those who have accepted Jesus are no longer "under the law." In contradictory contrast, when Jesus spoke of the LAW, as a Jewish rabbi he always upheld the Law of Moses. In his first public teaching, the Sermon on the Mount, he made it very clear in Matt. 5:18-19: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." ("jot or tittle" in modern translations is "not one iota nor one dot".) Have heaven and earth passed away? Have ALL the prophecies, including those of the last days, been fulfilled? While Jesus ADDS TO the Law of Moses, he never detracts from it or undermines it. Once again Paul very specifically contradicts and undermines Jesus. Paul uses this as the logical basis for diminishing the importance of works, citing their connection to the law. But the context is still judgment and salvation, as I pointed out. James, in the same context, responds to what Paul says, but does not limit the importance of works to the restrictive conditions of the law.

B: Then you just take for granted the twelve verses where Paul defines how the wordforms for justice and righteousness are related through the work of Christ, within the umbrella truth that "Salvation is of the Lord."

DDD reply: Please cite specifically which twelve verses you are referring to. I do NOT see where Paul uses these psychobabble terms the way you have. I will certainly agree that both James and Paul agree that "salvation is of the Lord." As I noted, that is part of their shared context of salvation. Glad you finally acknowledge that. Their contradictory difference is in the mechanism of that salvation in the Lord -- Paul says it is faith without works; James says it is works and not faith only. You didn't address that. Again.

B: As far as James is concerned - your support selections might as well be random. However, as previously shown, both Paul and James claimed to be bond slaves of the same Lord.

DDD reply: Again we agree this is part of their shared context. I thought you were taking the position that they are coming from a different contextual reference? But now you keep coming up with additional examples to support my point of their shared context, not that I'm not appreciative for this acknowledgment.

B: So you have bond slaves that were originally taken captive by their master - that is an important acknowledgement by James (by grace are you saved) since it is "Pauline" and since from that position, you cannot arrive at a "works salvation" doctrine. That obviously is only a small sample of relevant context material - moving on to your single sentence wonder (Rom 3:28, James 2:24) - you have to ignore context to miss that Paul is speaking of "works of the law" as an ineffectual means to obligating God to declare you righteous , while James merely states "justified by works" where his context is works out of the "Law of Liberty" which is not the law Paul was speaking of (James referred to that law as the "Royal Law"). So explain to me again how "Salvation is of the Lord" is contradictory to Faith works through love?

DDD reply: That is not the contradiction I cited. The contradiction I cited is that Paul says justification is by FAITH and NOT works. James says it is BY WORKS, and not faith only. Paul says it is NOT WORKS, James says it is WORKS (which may be motivated by faith, but it is still WORKS). No matter how you waffle and weasel and evade and avoid, THIS is the contradiction you have not addressed. No matter how many other points they agree on (and of course there are many), THIS is their big contradiction where they disagree, and you skipped right over it -- again.

B: You mentioned how Jesus would frown on such a description (honor with lips - but heart is far from me). Yet Romans 10:10 says that from the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. The heart was the acknowledged center of emotion and will - so any "heart felt belief" in that day was a belief that would be lived out in a way consistent with that belief.

DDD reply: As I pointed out, JESUS repeatedly (and explicitly, nothing ambiguous) states that salvation comes from ACTIONS. He rejects the "lip service" of the lips and mouth. But, as you point out, here Paul directly contradicts Jesus. Instead of linking the heart to what one does, as Jesus says, he links it to the exact same "confessions of the MOUTH" that Jesus explicitly rejected. That last part, about how "heart felt belief" would be lived out in a way consistent with that belief is what YOU added. Paul said no such thing. Clearly YOU are inventing an imaginary link from Paul to what James said about faith manifest in actions. But that was James and Jesus (and now you). It wasn't Paul.

B: Now while you are correct about James, do you fail to noice that in James 2, James is correcting folks who he says has "faith alone", and that faith alone is an orthodoxy totally separated from obedience - and that is exactly what the context of "Hard Sayings" is pointing out?

DDD reply: Not only did I NOT "fail" to notice this, it is one of my main points, something that YOU, incredibly, seem to have failed to notice. Of course "Now while you are correct about James, do you fail to notice that in James 2, James is correcting folks who he says has "faith alone" -- folks like Paul. This is exactly what Paul has said. Justification is by faith without works, i.e., faith alone. Glad you finally agree that James is correcting Paul (and "folks" like him). Of course, "correcting" him implies a contradictory conclusion. My point exactly.

And by the way, previously you promised to show the similar contextual references between James and Paul regarding faith, justification and Abraham. While you addressed "faith" and "Abraham" (though you actually showed how they are contradictory in conclusion, not similar in context), you have yet again failed to deliver on your promise of their "same definitions" of "justification." I can't begin to describe how disappointed and heartbroken -- nearly distraught -- I was.

B: Any scholar would point out that James and Paul use terms in different ways - for their purposes - in varying contexts. James 2 is a different context than James 1. "Duhhhh" would be the most obvious comment I could make about your complete misreading of what was sent, but you so consistently respond in such an "odd" way that I wonder if you have a learning disability of some type. If so, perhaps a change in pacing or format could be helpful. If you know of anything that could help, I would be pleased to hear about it.

DDD reply: If there are so many scholars who can so easily demonstrate that James and Paul use terms in different ways, it should not be difficult for you to present a single explanation from one of them. However, please note that just because religionists with a vested interest claim that Paul and James define terms differently is not enough. They will have to show some substantive basis from the scripture itself to support it. It seems that even with the help of all your scholars you are unable to accomplish this.

B: Glad you are pitching a perfect game - you must feel good about yourself. I am of course nearly distraught because of my feeble, pathetic, goofy, intellectually dishonest, convoluted efforts so far. How do I muster the strength to go on?

DDD: Maybe you need a vacation. Have you considered a ski trip?

Bill continues on 3-7-02:

I'm gaining confidence that with enough exchanges you'll assert enough "shared context" points to establish a studied perspective on the issue being discussed, albeit unintentionally.

DDD reply: I have discussed at length and in great specificity the context of the texts which form the contradiction. You have not. If there is a lack of "shared context" it is because you have not addressed the content of the passages in question, but instead keep going off on unrelated tangents.

B: To briefly review - in many conversations, especially when hashing out controversy, it is always appropriate to correctly state the the opposing position, building a case by contrasting the broader concepts that need clarity, with the attributes that are most clearly at odds. I will grant that some broad concept (justification / salvation) is being referred to by James and by Paul. The "territory" where a contradiction would exist here is in how "faith" and "works" relate to that broad concept. As stated previously; "A contradiction will be shown when they define faith, works, and justification in an identifiably equivalent way, and then place those definitions into incompatible and exclusive truth claims.

DDD reply: You have essentially said this before AND you claimed that Paul and James defined faith differently. I asked you to show me where in Romans and where in James any definition is provided by Paul and James respectively, and that they are different. Now instead of showing me this distinction (made by Paul and James instead of yourself) you are just repeating yourself. If you can't find any such definition showing a difference, then just say so and stop pretending you can.

B: In a prior exchange, you took exception to the observation in "Hard Sayings" that James showed the following distinction:"The faith of James 1:6 and 2:1 is that of personal committment, which includes trust and obedience; in contrast, the faith that James sees his opponents claiming in James 2:14-26 is orthodoxy without action."

DDD reply: James 1:6 and 2:1 do not say what you claim. They do not provide any definition of the term "faith" whatsoever, in the way you say. You (and your source) are simply misstating scripture. Anyone can just go and look it up for themselves. There is no reference to "personal committment" or "trust" or "obedience" or any other such psychobabble (they were writing long before the advent of self-help group and personal improvement programs and just didn't talk that way). They make reference to faith, but do not define it; obviously James was confident that the word would be understood and had a common usage that was not ambiguous, whereas your ability to weasel out of these OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION depends on finding some kind of ambiguity not perceived by James. Nor does the passage of James 2:14-26 define faith as "orthodoxy without action." Again, he talks about faith as the subject of his discourse, but doesn't actually define it. Sure, there is reference to action, but it is not in any way a defining element of faith, rather a separate element without which ... FAITH IS DEAD.

B: Here the broad concept (faith) is being contrasted by the attributes trust and obedience. James contrasts faith alone (intellectual belief) with trust and obedience in regards to the value of the resultant faith to people in need, and indeed to the rhetorical question of the salvation of a person with mere intellectual assent. Do you believe that James makes that distinction?

DDD reply: Whatever else he might have said or otherwise written on the subject, nothing in the writing that has been preserved and attributed to JAMES makes this distinction. You (or your sources) are creating this out of thin air. It is not in the book of James.

B: Do you infer from the rhetorical question that James is making a "salvation formula" (like works plus faith equals salvation?) Do you believe that Paul teaches that mere intellectual assent equals salvation?

DDD reply: Again, I am not sophisticated enough to "infer" anything. I am referring to what these guys actually wrote. Paul says justification is by FAITH and NOT WORKS. James says justification is by WORKS and NOT FAITH only. And again, I understand that you need to "infer" and "invent" but the simple fact is that these writers seem to have understood the terms being used and, in the absence of varying definitions, that they meant the same things.

B: I am going to pass for now on looking at words unique to Paul but used extensively in his discussions of the attributes of the broad concepts at hand - but will return to them in time.

DDD reply: Right. Maybe someday. If and when.

B: Plenty of fodder for discussion to come after these clarifications. For example - your misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the assertion "Salvation is of the Lord" and its implications.

DDD reply: While I don't doubt that conceptually this statement "Salvation is of the Lord" is consistent with both Paul and James (though their path to it is contradictorily different), you seem to be referring to a specific verse and I'm not sure which one. So that I can examine it in context, perhaps you would be kind enough to cite the specific references in both Romans and James to this statement.

B: Then maybe even a discussion on your Christology - oh boy!

DDD reply: Ultimately this is the foundational issue of Christianity. I'm not sure discussing it is incompatible with the discussion of how Paul contradicts both James and, more importantly, Jesus (whose name so-called Christians claim to take upon themselves). And actually, if you note the title of my commentary on Paul, the reference to how he contradicts James is a minor part of it; the real key is his extensive contradictions against JESUS, who I feel James was defending.

Bill continues on 3-8-02:

The reason I repeated (for the third time) a basic criteria for a contradiction, was because if you are claiming a contradiction exists, it would be good for you to be able to recognize what a "formal" contradiction is, and even go so far as to diagram (as in Venn) the contradiction, and directly reference each distinction on the diagram. (Now that would be a website!! Concise and conclusive).

DDD reply: I know you think the lexicographers of the world are in a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" against Christians because the common, everyday meanings of words don't support your bizarre semantic gymnastics ("depends on what is the meaning of 'is' is"), but here is how my Merriam Webster's Tenth Collegiate, which deals in the ordinary, everyday common understandings of words' meanings, defines contradiction: "logical incongruity; a situation in which inherent factors, actions or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another."
Paul and James each reference exactly the same elements: faith, works and justification, in exactly the same terms and exactly the same context (despite your unsupported protests to the contrary). When the dust settles, the bottom line is: Paul says justification is by FAITH WITHOUT WORKS; James says justification is by WORKS, and NOT FAITH ONLY. These positions are logically incongruous and inherently inconsistent. There is a contradiction, no matter what the definition of "is" is. (And get that intern out from under your desk, Mr. President!) "I did not have scriptural relations with that text!"

B: My previous error was to think that you actually had a reasonable acquaintence with the philosophical, historic, cultural, and linguistic issues that provide the foundation for examining these type of texts, but as you demonstrated with the James 2:23/Gen 15:6 dipsy- doodle, you aren't even familiar with the text.

DDD reply: You are correct that at one point I missed that particular common scriptural reference to the example, which actually strengths the confirmation of further contextual consistency. Actually, I am practically a Bible illiterate. But if a simpleton such as myself can demonstrate conclusively the many contradictions and errors in the Bible, such that even masters of theological genius can only protest without actually submitting a substantive response, well then, gee, whiz, there must be something to it.

B: I repeated the reference to the faith distinctions in James...

DDD reply: You did no such thing. You cited verses that talk about faith, and claimed they "define" faith differently, when in fact anyone can look them up for themselves and see that they offer no "definition" whatsoever. You even went so far as to "cite" the "definitions" of faith, using words and terms that were entirely of your own invention, and which do not appear anywhere in (or around) the verses cited. I would say you are committing scriptural perjury, or in theological circles do they call it "blasphemy" when someone makes up their own verses and replaces the actual text of scripture with their own creative offerings?

B: ...to give you another opportunity to pick up on another question I have asked repeatedly; " Aren't verifiable fundamental distinctions exactly what solidify or extinguish superficial or perceived differences in reasoned arguments?"

DDD reply: But you have not yet cited one single "verifiable fundamental distinction" in the meanings or contexts of the contradicting passages. You repeatedly claim to have done so, but I am still waiting for a valid distinction between the "definitions" by Paul and James respectively of faith, works and/or justification. You have not provided this for a single one of these terms. Nor have you provided any single "verifiable fundamental distinction" in the contextual settings for these passages; on the contrary, you keep providing additional evidence that their contextual references are exactly the same.

B: Your denial that James is making distinctions about faith would deny that his "rebuttal" concerns faith.Your hypocrisy is immediately apparent in your comment about Abraham making his "faith extant", where you "define" (correctly) what James sees as important in "justified by works" - yet James never says anything about "making his faith extant." Yet you rant about weasles and psychobabblers that correctly point out that James knows the difference between holding the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ - versus holding the faith of demons - while you whine that the authors just "talk" about words - they don't define them.

DDD reply: My "denial" about James' distinctions is based solely in the fact that you have never cited a single verse that actual defines faith differently from Paul's usage. None of the verses in James (or Romans, for that matter) even attempts to offer something remotely resembling a "definition." You have simply fabricated this.

B: There is a fine reference called 'Dictionary of Paul and his Letters', a reference you have never used, and could not appreciate, but one nevertheless which details how Paul uses "faith"- as well as every other word he uses. Your hypocrisy has as its foundation that you acknowledge that you are not a scholar, yet you recognize no lexical "authority" or references.

DDD reply: You are correct that I have never used this. While a well-prepared and objective "dictionary" of terms might prove very helpful to sincere students of the Bible, citing someone else's definitions of how Paul uses terms is very different than providing an example of how PAUL defines terms in a manner distinct from James. You have repeatedly said that Paul and James define faith differently. Yet you have never been able to cite their respective differing "definitions" so now you are going to change your approach and use someone else's definitions. I hope you can understand why I'm not overwhelmed.

B: Your arguments are always from ignorance - a scholar points out a well referenced distinction - and you respond "does not."

DDD reply: I don't believe any scholar has cited a well-referenced distinction. You certainly haven't cited one. You keep claiming to, but you have not demonstrated a contextually-valid basis originating from the source texts for why Paul and James can use exactly the same words, in exactly the same semantic construction, with exactly the same example (right down to citing the identical scriptural verse) and support your claim that this identical word usage intends the words to mean something different. While outside sources may help understand the source texts, ultimately the distinction you claim is made by Paul and James has to come from Paul and James.

B: Without question you are protecting a primary belief in a contradiction, and building whatever momentary barriers you need to shield your myth from possible harm.

DDD reply: I seem to recall you got bent out of shape when I imputed a possible motive for why you doggedly hold to defending the non-contradictory value of an obvious contradiction, and now you are going to psychoanalyze me, a person you have never even met in person. Notwithstanding, our dialogue has provided you with evidence to the contrary of your claim: in fact, as a former Christian, my "primary belief" was that there was no contradiction but, unlike you, I was able to change that view when confronted with hard evidence to the contrary. You seem to be a little defensive about the protection of primary assumptions. Which one of us is defending the initial assumptions we held on our first encounters with this passage?

B: By the way, a contradiction between Paul and James (or Paul and Jesus) wouldn't bother me personally at all, but a loss of the law of non contradiction and the primacy of the principles of logic in human reasoning would bother me. Since your insipid pedantry violates those principles, I press on.

DDD reply: Obviously. The ultimate cop-out. I have many favorite authors that contradict each other, but since I do not impute to any of them divine authorship, or that they are "god breathed," it doesn't bother me, either. This telling revelation suggests two things: that you do not believe both Paul and Jesus/James to be "god breathed" (or otherwise "inerrant/infallible") or that you don't believe god to be omnipotent. At least here we find some common ground :-)

B: So - let's see, any lexicon can show you that you are wrong in your assertions that there are distinctions within the book of James regarding faith, and distinctions between Paul and James (and of course within Paul) - Your stubborn obscurantism notwithstanding. I haven't written any lexicons - so their psychobabble is their own - blame it on a universal conspiracy against you as the source of all meaning.

DDD reply: Then it should be easy for you to cite one single lexicon that actually draws from the texts being referenced. The fact that you can't suggests that it isn't as easy as you think it is. As for "me" being the source of all meaning, I have claimed no such thing. I have offered nothing from myself. I have only pointed to the texts themselves as my sole source for what they say.

B: Paul uses Abraham to show that grace (Salvation is of the Lord) creates faith. James uses Abraham to exemplify how faith should be extant.

DDD reply: Again, while I do not doubt that "Salvation is of the Lord" is consistent with both Paul's and James' contradicting views on how salvation occurs, I would like to see the specific verse you are referring to from each of them, so that I may examine its context. Or are you making up scripture again? And you further misstate James. While it is correct that James is showing how faith should be extant (in deeds), James further goes on to explicitly state that it is WORKS or DEEDS which is the agent of justification, using the example of Abraham in the verse immediately precedent to that declaration and with no statement of differentiation.

B: Both authors condemn lackadaisical belief.

DDD reply: However many areas they may agree on do not diminish the fact of their contradictory disagreement, and is a worthless red herring. And again, you make a statement of what the authors claim without citing the chapter and verse where they say it so one cannot check it out. I was unable to find the term "lackadaisical" in a Bible search on the King James Version so, if you are not again inventing scripture, you are at least paraphrasing quite liberally.

B: All you don't know now is the difference between justification and salvation (or how you will escape in neglecting the salvation of the Lord), but that certainly shouldn't bother you.

DDD reply: So then remove the word "salvation" from this discussion. Paul and James both use the term justification, in exactly the same construction and exactly the same contextual reference. Whatever they mean by that, there is no basis (such as a specific definition by the authors or contextual variation) for concluding that they have differing meanings for it. And of this thing "justification" (whatever it is) they make contradictory statements.

At this point we are going around in circles. Notwithstanding my (seriously) appreciation for your (mostly) thoughtful dialogue, unless you can come up with a substantive basis showing that Paul and James intended some different meaning to the words or contexts they used (which means that any outside "authority" has to link it to the source texts -- and what is actually in them, not what someone has creatively invented for them), or some other basis for resolving this obvious contradiction, or move on to some other issue, then you are wasting my time. I'm not going to keep pointing out over and over that your claim of Paul's and James' "definitions" do not exist in the text, or the fact that they are using exactly the same construction with exactly the same examples. I'm glad you are happy in your faith. I hope you can at least understand why some of us are not able to accept the infallibility or inerrancy of these old writings.

Bill continues later on 3-8-02:

You are correct that your belief is the biggest impairment to any "good faith" discourse in this area. You define your mind as open to what is already in it, in the odd arrangement in which it appears. You could even look at your "lexicon" (Merriam Webster) and see that lots of words have varied meaning depending on context, but your hypocrisy wouldn't let you explore that. Which edition of Merriam Webster did James use anyway?

DDD reply: Exactly the same one that Paul did. Please note, I did not use Merriam Webster to define the terms that James used, but rather the terms that you and I used as modern speakers of English, showing the common usage of words such as "contradiction" and "equivocation." Perhaps if James and Paul had actually offered the definitions you claim they did (which claim you cannot back up) the issue would be put to rest. The fact that they did not shows that they had an expectation that readers would have a common understanding of what they meant, which undermines your bizarre theory that they used the same words in the same syntactical construction amplified by exactly the same example (right down to quoting the identical verse) but meant something different.

B: I really liked how you accused me of blasphemy for quoting known scholars on pertinent word applications

DDD reply: Again you misrepresent. I did not accuse you of blasphemy for quoting known scholars. (Keep in mind that I don't even believe in the existence of a sin such as "blasphemy"). I said that in some theological circles a person who invents scripture and subordinates the original text with their own creative inventions, as you did when you fabricated definitions of terms using your own made-up equivalents and attributing them to James, might be called blasphemous. Second, you did not actually quote scholars in the references I made to the wild goose chase. You suggested I read their works, but you did not cite the relevant point. If you had cited an actual point I could have addressed it. The fact that you didn't, and just sent me off on a fishing expedition, suggests to me that even you could not find an actual point to support your bizarre and convoluted attempt to make either James or Paul say the opposite of what they actually said in an attempt to make this glaring contradiction go away.

B: because of your circular reasoning that you haven't read them, you won't consider pertinent information outside of your "box", and therefore the references do not exist.

DDD reply: I did not say the references do not exist. I said you couldn't find anything in them to support your bizarre point, so if you couldn't find something there, why should I get suckered into that kind of fishing expedition? The point of scholarship is to do the research to provide the background data to illuminate and clarify facts. You, however, and those like you who need to defend a flawed but beloved pre-conception that does not withstand honest scrutiny, use pseudo-scholarship to obfuscate and stir up ever muddier waters, so that those who believe might not understand a single thing you've said, but they are comforted because someone smart said it really is not a contradiction. Sorry, bug guy. The "emperor" has no clothes and you are standing their naked. All your huffing and puffing and trying to explain why the text doesn't really mean what it clearly says goes nowhere. Pardon me for not believing in scriptures that are not given for illumination and understanding, but are muddied in a maze of pseudo-intellectual semantic gymnastics.

B: You have learned well to tell the big lie and tell it often - and you have told it enough so at least you appear to believe it.

DDD reply: All I have done is cite the actual words, syntax, examples and scriptures used by Paul and James, which any reader can check for themselves, and point out the direct contradiction. I have merely cited scripture, using the exact words (no paraphrasing) with chapter/verse references, so you are essentially saying that the Bible is a "Big Lie."

B: It still remains that your fantasy of duplicity on the part of Paul and conflict between Paul/James/Jesus, will remain just fantasy - until your social functional capacity diminishes to the point where your fantasies are frank delusions.

DDD reply: Please avoid personal attacks and address the points I have cited from your scriptures ... if you can. Well actually, if you could do so, you would have done so before now, which means...

B: It also remains that Kittel's will be the premier primary language resource for the languages involved - not Merriam Webster.

DDD reply: Merriam Webster is one of many excellent resources for defining words in modern English which we use today, which is how I used it. Your "Kittel's" may or may not be a good reference regarding the language of James and Paul. That is not the point. You (or he) claimed that Paul defined faith and James defined faith and that they did so differently. But you have not found a single instance in the preserved writings of either Paul or James to show where they did so. You have misrepresented the scriptures we have and invented a few of your own.

B: It also remains that imputation is categorically different than extant demonstration ( and I'll bet you are so dense that you don't even know how that fits in). It also remains that a contradiction is governed by rules of logic and the law of non contradiction. It also remains that James distinguished between the Royal Law and the Law of Liberty.

DDD reply: Again you cite the "Royal Law" and the "Law of Liberty" with no citation of chapter and verse where James referred to it. Let me help you: James 2:8-12. Here the "Royal Law" and the "Law of Liberty" James is referring to is identified from the contents cited from it as the Law of Moses. CONTEXT: James is agreeing with JESUS who always maintained the absolute sanctity of the Law of Moses. James is defending Jesus in James' rebuttal against Paul, whose context of the treatise in Romans 2 (out of which the contradiction arises) in which Paul claims that Jesus' crucifixion has fulfilled the Law and rendered it moot thereafter. You are digging your hole ever deeper. This merely amplifies the context of the contradiction between James and Paul.

B: It also remains that Salvation is of the Lord, and it would be a contradiction for Salvation to be of anyone else. You are free to use ideas and words for your own purposes. That appears to be your reward.

DDD reply: It also remains that like the definitions in James and Paul, that you are not going to tell me which verse you were referring to in Paul and James respectively. Another broken promise; another inventive creation of (what some would call) blasphemous scriptural substitution. I'm sorry to hear that you think so little of the Bible you have that you feel the need to invent your own verses to replace the ones that are actually there.

Bill continues on 3-9-02:

Your capacity for self-delusion is well matched by your zeal for it. While your mantra of "exact syntax and context and example" is nowhere supported in the original language,

DDD reply: Paul and James did not discuss or define vocabulary or syntax. I merely pointed out that, like so many other areas of their CONTEXT, that their vocabulary, syntax, examples and scriptures were the SAME. The only thing different was their contradictory conclusions.

B: and our exchanges has show that you truly are next to illiterate on context,

DDD reply: Excuse me, I have consistently cited context based on what is in the Bible. You have tried to call on outside sources, and everything BUT the actual texts, to try and make the texts say something different than what is said.

B: it remains that every distinction of context mentioned (like logizesthai on the Pauline side and the "works" distinctions in James,

DDD reply: The terms in the original text used by Paul and James, as I examined in word-by-word detail on my website using the original Greek and several modern translations, is IDENTICAL as to vocabulary selection, syntax and the examples and scriptures cited. Paul's terms in other verses are not the point here, and you still have not shown where James makes any distinction in the meaning of "works" from what Paul said. You keep saying he meant something different, but have not supported it from the text.

B: as well as the soteriologic "umbrella" in each work (Salvation is of the Lord)

DDD reply: Still haven't cited which verse you mean. I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't just another one of your made-up scriptures.

B: Your anecdotes about how you have faced "great trauma and turmoil" in revising prior beliefs that were naive to begin with just suggests that you've never been "grounded" in critical thinking, and your work to date still shows that. The texts really don't care about your personal courage, and no one who is not a biblical illiterate thinks you are being courageous.

DDD reply: I have not claimed my anecdotes as the basis for my position. I have cited only the actual scriptures. The point about my personal history was in response to your off-the-subject discussion of personal bias, to show that my conclusions are actually contrary to the bias or "presuppositions" I started with.

Your entire communications are fabricated on falsehood. In the beginning I thought you were a sincere defender, but I am beginning to doubt that. You repeatedly misstated what is in both James and Paul and when caught in it quickly retreated. You have also misstated my positions as you evasively maneuver from having to face them. You claim you have cited "references" but you have not. You have tossed out names of works and their authors. That is not a "reference." You obviously have no knowledge of what proper documentation entails (or you do, but your goal is not to illuminate but to obfuscate; can't dazzle 'em with brilliance so try to baffle 'em with b***sh**). A reference is the citation of a source for a datum noted or a point made. It accompanies a representation of the point. A "reference" is not merely the stating that somewhere a certain author has answered you point so go and read all his works.

The simple fact remains: you cannot address what is in the text so you have to invent things and then claim they are associated with that text. The issue in this matter is what James and Paul said when using exactly the same words in demonstrably an identical context. Nothing else, no matter how desperate you are to try to complicate things so you can put together your rather silly defense of the indefensible.

If at some point in the future you can actually make a point (whether original or from another source; doesn't matter as long as you actually make or cite the point) then feel free to write. This time around you have not actually made a substantive point, so there isn't actually anything for me to respond to. So until you can, I will no longer continue to respond to messages that do not address the issue, though I do understand that some people cannot face reality so have to hide behind these convoluted structures of their own invention. And I think that, actually, there is a substantial part of you that actually knows I'm right and THAT is what has transformed you from the happy skier into ... well ... something else.

Prior dialogues:
To keep this web page to a manageable size, previous dialogues have been moved to a separate prior file which can be found at: [links to older dialogues will be added later]

We welcome feedback! Send e-mail feedback to: feedback.
Please note, be sure to include the word "FEEDBACK" somewhere in the title of your message to avoid having your e-mail deleted unread with all the other junk e-mail that is mass deleted. Please note, all e-mails or comments submitted become the property of Davis D. Danizier and Word Wizards and may be included in this forum.

This forum consists of selected e-mails representing views that both agree and disagree with the comments on this webpage, along with responses from the author when appropriate. Comments used will be quoted exactly (copied and pasted from e-mails) but personal or extraneous comments may be omitted in the interest of space and relevance.

To participate, send your e-mail comments to Danizier@aol.com (including the word "FEEDBACK" somewhere in the title) and then watch this space to see your comments as part of a current, topical discussion. Please include all comments within the text area of the e-mail. DO NOT SEND E-MAIL ATTACHMENTS. All messages that contain attached files will be deleted -- the e-mail text will not even be opened, much less the attached file -- it will be dragged straight into the "Delete" icon.

Please note that this file contains selected comments taken from e-mails sent to Davis D. Danizier. This is intended to be a representative sample of correspondence. Not all e-mails are included; those most likely to be included are those that discuss the issues intellegently, not those who call names or who use excessive profanity. Submissions may be edited for space and relevance and extraneous or personal comments may be omitted, however the actual words selected for inclusion will be used exactly as submitted (copied and pasted from e-mail messages).
In most cases, Davis D. Danizier will have already exchanged correspondence directly with the writer and even if the writer has received a response from Davis D. Danizier directly via e-mail, it may take several days before the response gets added to this forum.

Please note, only issues-related comments will be included. Irrelevant comments or personal insults will not be selected. If multiple participants make a similar point, only those that make the point most efficiently will be selected, and all e-mails or comments submitted become the property of Davis D. Danizier and Word Wizards and may be included in the forum at the sole discretion of Davis D. Danizier and Word Wizards.

The entries included in this webpage are those specifically responding to the web page about the contradictions of Paul vs. Jesus (and others, most notably James). Other dialogue pages responding to other religious commentaries by Davis D. Danizier may be found as follows:

Commentary: Paul vs. Jesus - http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html
Forum: Discussion about Paul vs. Jesus (this page)

Commentary: Bloody Human Sacrifice Mythology of Christian Atonement - http://www.wordwiz72.com/atone.html
Forum: Discussion about Christian Atonement Doctrine - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3daforum.html

Commentary: Bible Contradictions, Flaws and Failed Prophecies - http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html
Forum: Discussion about Bible - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3dbforum.html

Forum on General Christianity or Combining various topics:
Forum: Discussion about Bible - http://www.wordwiz72.com/3dxforum.html

Return to main article (Paul vs. Jesus) by Davis D. Danizier

Return to Word Wizards free downloads for other articles that may be downloaded FREE!