Accepting and defending only the 66 book Anti-Christ Pharisee Approved Luther Subset rather than the entire Bible that includes the entire Old Testament is nothing less than asserting that the Holy Spirit is imperfect because the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Holy Word from including error for over fifteen hundred years.
"And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."
Matthew 12:32
Anyone who falls for and repeats the lie (in any of the many forms it takes) that the anti-Christ Pharisees and/or Martin Luther are perfect but the flawed, imperfect, Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Holy Word from the inclusion of error is proving they're under the strong delusion that will lead them to their own destruction.
Their being under a strong delusion in no way mitigates their blaspheming of the Holy Spirit.
Even though James is considered the earliest book written in the contemporary N.T., it was one of last accepted as canonical, and was taken in and out a number of times over the centuries. Some eastern countries have never accepted James (traditional Indian Christian communities, for example). In fact, James in many ways proves itself non-canonical, but only one example is necessary to draw doubt from any open mind. The following is from my book, MetaChristianity VI - Unlocking James Bible Mysteries:
quote==>
Ja.2.21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
James made this claim to justify his works-righteousness gospel:
Ja.2.22-24 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
But Abraham was credited as righteous (Ge.15.6, Ga.3.6) ten years before the incident with Isaac in Ge.22. There is nothing about Abraham being considered righteous because of the incident with Isaac. This incident with Isaac was about Abraham’s obedience to God’s specific instructions and subsequent earthly blessings bestowed on him, not his righteousness. “Now I know that you fear God...I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore.” Abraham’s righteousness was “fulfilled” when “he believed God” in Ge.15. Between these two events God instructed Abraham to institute circumcision as part of His covenant with Abraham (Ge.17). Why would James not site this as the “fulfillment” of Abraham’s righteousness? Was it not enough works? Paul explains:
Ro.4.9-11a Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.
Paul confirms that Abraham was credited with “righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” Here’s the timeline:
1) faith/righteousness = Ge.15
2) circumcision = Ge.17
3) Isaac incident = Ge.22
But, presuming James is correct, how does James know that the Isaac incident was enough? And how are we to know when we have done enough works so that our own righteousness is “complete” as James attributed to Abraham? Must we offer up our sons as well? What if we don’t hear God say “stop!”? And just what are we to make of the statement of Ge.15.6 “Abraham believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness”? If Abraham, without sufficient works, was not “completely” credited as justified for the ensuing ten years, what did Moses think he was doing declaring that God credited Abraham as righteous just for believing?
Ja.2.24 You see that a person is [being] justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
James here illustrates that not only does he not understand justification, but he is not even consistent in what he espouses. In verse twenty one he claimed that Abraham “was considered righteous for what he did”. He also claims in verse twenty two that “his faith was made complete by what he did.” So Abraham had accomplished righteousness according to James. But then James in an about face claims that justification is an ongoing process - “a person is [being] justified by what he does”. (Even though the “being” is excluded from most translations it is correct based on the Greek grammar.) James now claims that justification is an open-ended proposition. In other words, James insists that justification is a continually on-going process - a complete contrast with what he claimed about Abraham.
The answer to James’ original question is NO, Abraham was NOT considered righteous “for what he did.” Paul confirms this in Romans:
Ro.4.1-5 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works [or as James put it, “what he did”], he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.
If Paul had agreed with James he would have confirmed what James said. But he did not - he contradicted James in stark black and white. Paul and Moses agree, and James is the odd man out. James tried to pull a fast one, and even if this were the only evidence against the canonicity of James, it would be enough by itself.
<==/quote
As a side note, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism does not explain this blatant contradiction between James, and Mose and Paul.
This is just one of many evidences that I explore in my book that leads the conclusion that the epistle of James is not inspired of God and not canonical.
Don’t you think that the Council of Carthage in AD 397 deserves at least a mention?
bkmk
After reading the orignal link 2x’s I suspect the author is either trying to garner published success thru publication & move on up in his hierarchy.
It also sounds like a watered down thesis question or him trolling for answers & in-put to a possible thesis questions.
I’m not too happy about the source.
kinda’ stinky to me
I have read some of Enoch and Thomas and in my unqualified opinion I agree with the author.