tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4394441917794084747..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Absurdity Of Setting James' Gospel Against Paul'sRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11334382771573532552013-08-05T17:53:16.211-04:002013-08-05T17:53:16.211-04:00Steve,
I think the Protestant and Catholic positi...Steve,<br /><br />I think the Protestant and Catholic positions are both reconcilable to either view of James 2:24. Other verses in James 2 refer to being justified by works without referring to seeing. Though the issue you're bringing up has some significance, it doesn't do much to settle the larger dispute over the passage as a whole.<br /><br />I'm not aware of any way to demonstrate that the seeing in verse 24 is a reference to physical sight. The seeing in verse 22 doesn't refer to physical sight, and it's the use of the term that's closest to verse 24. I doubt that verse 24 has physical sight in mind. But both verses (22 and 24) refer to mental perception by people other than the one justified, regardless of whether physical sight is involved. A Protestant interpretation doesn't depend on the involvement of physical sight. There's too much evidence against a Catholic interpretation (inside and outside of James) for a Catholic view of the seeing in James 2:24 to carry much weight. Even if you grant their interpretation of the phrase in question, the overall balance of the evidence is against their view of justification, by a wide margin.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76551633383103085802013-08-05T00:28:45.432-04:002013-08-05T00:28:45.432-04:00Jason, I wonder if you could help settle this rela...Jason, I wonder if you could help settle this related issue. James 2:24 is used so often by RC apologists, and it seems to me that the controversy hinges on the word "see." We often say "See what I mean?" in conversation, and we are really saying "Do you understand what I mean?" If the Greek word translated as "see" in this verse could also be translated as "understand" or "recognize", then the RC argument is strengthened. But if the proper translation and understanding is "see visually with my eyes", then that would completely dismantle the RC argument. James would simply be writing about the visible observable behavior of a professing Christian. Thank you in advance for addressing this point. Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02071506251018430169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56864527066567536462013-08-04T18:03:30.632-04:002013-08-04T18:03:30.632-04:00In case anybody thinks James 1:1 may have some oth...In case anybody thinks James 1:1 may have some other James in view, I'll address that issue briefly. I'm not going to get into a lengthy discussion of the authorship of the letter. You can find a discussion of the subject in some depth in a lot of commentaries and New Testament introductions, for example.<br /><br />The James of James 1:1 seems to have been prominent enough to be recognized without further elaboration about his identity. Jesus' brother is the best candidate. Other Christians named James either weren't prominent enough to be mentioned in the New Testament or were mentioned there, but not as prominently as Jesus' brother.<br /><br />Some of the language of the document, like the "greetings" of 1:1 (see Acts 15:23), are reminiscent of what's attributed to Jesus' brother elsewhere. You can find discussion of other examples in commentaries on James and other sources that address the letter's authorship.<br /><br />The mainstream view in ancient Christianity was that the James referred to in 1:1 is Jesus' brother.<br /><br />For reasons like these, the brother of Jesus is, by far, the best candidate for the James who's in view in James 1:1.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.com