The Narrow & Wide Gates, means heaven and hell?

[JerryL]

So you're arguing that the Bible can't be used as a source for better understanding Jesus Christ and salvation? I would agree that we need to interpret scripture in light of its historical background. You're saying that we have to take into account things that happen AFTER it was written.

Dangerous ground. It seems that your theory has a lot in common with Catholicism. The Pope can create new theology that overrides the Bible. I simply reject that perspective.

All I'm saying is, that this was written before James had a change of heart on the works gospel. He changed his mind later at the Jerusalem council. Catholicism is a works gospel.

 

[Allan]

All I'm saying is, that this was written before James had a change of heart on the works gospel. He changed his mind later at the Jerusalem council. Catholicism is a works gospel.

James did not preach a works based gospel. I would honestly suggest that you study it in greater detail. That isn't remotely what James is speaking of.

What you have in your view is a book in scripture that deny all that scripture speaks to and about. You have a lie in the midst of scripture, mans and not Gods word.
James is speaking not of a works based salvation but a salvation that brings forth works!

 

[Benjamin]

James is speaking not of a works based salvation but a salvation that brings forth works!

Agreed!

And I don't think I'm buying this:

He wrote to the Jewish converts, before realizing the law was nailed to the Cross.

 

[JerryL]

James did not preach a works based gospel. I would honestly suggest that you study it in greater detail. That isn't remotely what James is speaking of.

What you have in your view is a book in scripture that deny all that scripture speaks to and about. You have a lie in the midst of scripture, mans and not Gods word.
James is speaking not of a works based salvation but a salvation that brings forth works!

Yes, before the council he believed in Christianity mixed with the law of Moses, a works gospel. He wanted the Jewish Christians and gentiles (after Paul convinced him that God was saving gentiles) to have to keep the law. He wrote this book before Paul changed his mind(of even allowing gentiles in) at the council. He hadn't even thought of gentiles being brought in at the time of his writing. Remember, at the council he, after Paul had convinced him that God was allowing gentiles to be saved, was saying that they had to obey the law of Israel. His book is even more proof of this in his opening lines "to the 12 tribes scattered abroad." His book was written at least 5 years before the council. We know at the council he wanted gentiles to keep Moses just as the Jews. Even the Jewish christians kept up the Law of Moses years after Calvary.

PS. James didn't even want Jewish Christians and gentiles to mix company before the council. Paul tells about this in Galatians.

Gal 2:12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.
Gal 2:13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

But, I digress, just so as to get back on topic.

 

[sag38]

Jerry, where in the world did you get this "theory" from? You are certainly in the minority when it comes to this unique and I would say false interpretation.

 

[JerryL]

Jerry, where in the world did you get this "theory" from? You are certainly in the minority when it comes to this unique and I would say false interpretation.

What theory? The book was in the first line wrtten to the "12 tribes scattered abroad" and was the first NT book written. Probably around 45-47, the council was around 50. Before the council, James wouldn't even think of allowing gentiles into the movement. Study Acts and Galatians(which Paul talks about the council in) and the Jerusalem council and you will see. James wanted the gentiles, if they were going to allow them in, to obey Moses just as the Jewish christians, until Paul changed his mind at the council.

 

[Goldie]

Hi Beteul,

It's best if you acquire a King James 1611 version Bible. All other Bible versions either omit scripture or downplay the deity of Jesus, including the NKJV.

The KJV is the only Bible that is based on the original Greek textus receptus.

Many hold the view that those who have a NIV Bible hold to a post-tribulation rapture - which is unscriptural. It's best to learn sound doctrine from a sound Bible. After all, it's through sound doctrine that we abide in Christ.

Here is a table comparing Bible versions:

http://www.avpublications.com/3_catalogue/nabv/nabv_html_tract.htm

Purchasing a Strong's Concordance to interpret individual words in the NT also helps
tremendously to garner the true meaning and what was originally meant/intended.

 

[sag38]

Jerry, it may have been written before the council. But you are seriously mistaken to say that he is preaching and teaching a works based salvation. The Bible would never contradict itself. You are making the same error that Luther and others have made in evaluating this book. It's very simple. True faith will result in true works. Works don't generate faith. Rather faith generates works.

 

[Amy.G]

Hi Beteul,

It's best if you acquire a King James 1611 version Bible. All other Bible versions either omit scripture or downplay the deity of Jesus, including the NKJV.

The KJV is the only Bible that is based on the original Greek textus receptus.

Many hold the view that those who have a NIV Bible hold to a post-tribulation rapture - which is unscriptural. It's best to learn sound doctrine from a sound Bible. After all, it's through sound doctrine that we abide in Christ.

Here is a table comparing Bible versions:

http://www.avpublications.com/3_catalogue/nabv/nabv_html_tract.htm

Purchasing a Strong's Concordance to interpret individual words in the NT also helps
tremendously to garner the true meaning and what was originally meant/intended.

I can't let this go by.

Ex. 6:3 (KJV) - Jehovah
NKJV- The Lord

Using Strong's, which you have recommened, the word "Jehovah" is also translated "The Lord". Strong's 3068

2 Cor. 5:18
Your chart says that "Jesus" was omitted.

Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation,

Even though your chart didn't name the NKJV, you did. Therefore, I am pointing out that the NKJV does say "Jesus" Christ.


Acts 8:18
Holy Ghost (KJV)
Holy Spirit (NKJV)

Jhn 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. (KJV)

Please explain why Holy "Spirit" is wrong.


I could go on with the entire list, but will stop here to keep from taking up so much space, but suffice it to say, you are way off. The NKJV is as much God's word as the KJV.

I am not going to defend or condemn any other versions. Others may wish to do so. I am defending the NKJV, because I use it primarily and believe in my heart that God led me to it and He has blessed it.

Please stop slandering God's word.

 

[JustChristian]

Hi Beteul,

It's best if you acquire a King James 1611 version Bible. All other Bible versions either omit scripture or downplay the deity of Jesus, including the NKJV.

The KJV is the only Bible that is based on the original Greek textus receptus.

Many hold the view that those who have a NIV Bible hold to a post-tribulation rapture - which is unscriptural. It's best to learn sound doctrine from a sound Bible. After all, it's through sound doctrine that we abide in Christ.

Here is a table comparing Bible versions:

http://www.avpublications.com/3_catalogue/nabv/nabv_html_tract.htm

Purchasing a Strong's Concordance to interpret individual words in the NT also helps
tremendously to garner the true meaning and what was originally meant/intended.

Are you referring to the original 1611 King James Authorized version? You know that that version of the bible included the Apocrypha, right?


I. Esdras

II. Esdras

Tobit

Judith

The rest of Esther

The Wisdom of Solomon

Ecclesiasticus

Baruch, with the Epistle of Jeremiah

The Song of the Three Holy Children

The History of Susanna

Bel and the Dragon

The Prayer of Manasses

I. Maccabees

II. Maccabees

Do you accept these books as part of the holy scripture? If you do, then the Authorized KJV is the Bible for you.

 

[sag38]

How did this turn into another KJV verses other vesions debate? Can we not let that dead horse stay unbeaten for at least one thread?

 

[JustChristian]

How did this turn into another KJV verses other vesions debate? Can we not let that dead horse stay unbeaten for at least one thread?

That happened because people don't want to consider a very plausible interpretation of the Bible which makes them feel uncomfortable.