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 chur