Response to Joseph P. Farrell Genes, Giants, Monsters and Men

I have been reading Genes, Giants, Monsters and Men by Joseph P Farrell. While I am sympathetic to many of his speculations, I was taken aback to read him citing 19th century German Assyriologist Friedrich Delitzsch. He is famous as an early proponent of the idea that the Genesis narrative were borrowed from the ancient Babylonians. This was expounded in his 1902 lecture, “Babel and Bible.”  Here is the page from Farrell’s book with an illustration from Delitzsch asserting the name Yahweh is found in ancient Sumerian tablets long before the time of Moses.

In truth Delitzsch is known today as a rabid antisemite that helped to fuel the rise of the Third Reich.[ii] His attitude toward the Hebrew Bible is laid bare in this quote from a later book:

The so-called “Old Testament” is entirely dispensable for the Christian church, and thereby also for the Christian family. It would be a great deal better for us to immerse ourselves from time to time in the deep thoughts, which our German intellectual heroes have thought concerning God, eternity, and immortality.[ii]

Delitzsch’s vitriol is characteristic of the prevailing antisemtism in Germany during that era. As to his assertion that the name Yahweh is nothing special, it is no longer seriously entertained by scholars.

Delitzsch (1850-1922) was one of the early pioneers of ancient near eastern scholarship. At that time, there was a new field called Assyriology dealing with the newly discovered cuneiform tablets. Of course knowledge has advanced greatly since that time. Today the language of the Assyians and Babylonians is referred to as Akkadian. Delitzsch  was soundly criticized by other German scholars during his day[iv] and as linguistic studies have advanced, scholars dismiss his assertions as extremely doubtful.[v]  Most lexicons assert, “No certain etymology of the divine name can be offered.” [vi]

This information is widely available in any good Hebrew lexicon, which begs the question of why Farrell is promoting  discredited19th century scholarship with absolutely no criticism offered? I asked Semitics scholar Dr. Michael Heiser for his opinion and he wrote, “No one should be taking Farrell seriously on biblical studies. His field is Patristics. He’s perpetuating outdated and refuted scholarship in a different field – Semitics. Yes, you can quote me.”[vii] ANE languages scholar Dr. Michael Brown handled this question at 1:01:39 in his August 24, 2012 radio show here.

I am still reading the book but this uncritical use of long debunked scholarship sends up red flags.




[i] Joseph P. Farrell, Genes, Giants, Monsters, and Men: The Surviving Elites of the Cosmic War and Their Hidden Agenda (Port Townsend, WA: Feral House, 2011), 21.

[ii] see:

[iii] Friedrich Delitzsch, Die Grosse Täuschung (The Great Deception) as quoted in Arnold and Weisberg, “Babel und Bibel und Bias” Bible Review 18:01.

[iv] see:

[v] Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2000), 218.

[vi] Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 522–523.

[vii] Personal email 8/4/2014

About Cris Putnam
Logos Apologia is the ministry of Cris D. Putnam. The mission of Logos Apologia is to show that logic, science, history and faith are complementary, not contradictory and to bring that life-changing truth to everybody who wants to know.


  1. jmvpho says:

    Other than a history lesson, what is any different about his comments on the Old Testament and the teachings of evangelical Christianity today? Didn’t Paul tell us that we can throw it away? We aren’t “under the law”, therefore that must mean only one thing……’s bad…’s a curse…’s a ministry of death……it’s nailed to the cross……it’s done away with.

    YHVH and His Messiah said the exact opposite but we like Paul. We’re going to follow Paul at any cost……even if it’s revealed that we’ve misunderstood his writings.

    It’s very interesting to me why we would be so hypocritical in our opinions. We believe we should be moral people but YHVH isn’t the one who gets to decide what is moral and immoral. We believe we should not sin, but sin is not how the bible defines it (transgression of the law) but how we’re comfortable defining it. We want the 10 commandments left in the courthouses but really only 9 are important. And the most obvious revelation about scripture, especially the passages we don’t like……well they’re for the Jews, not us gentiles.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      You are making leaps in logic that make little sense. The OT speaks of a New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 and Jesus inaugurated it as explained in Hebrews. The Hebrew Bible is very valuable as history and for prophecy. The fact that no one is justified by the law does not make it irrelevant. So yes the ceremonial and civil laws of the OT are obsolete but our understanding of sin is defined by Yahweh’s moral law. You sound like a somewhat bitter Hebrew Roots Movement devotee.

      • jmvpho says:

        Actually, what I said makes perfect sense. There is no difference in the guy’s quote from his writings and what the church is teaching today. It’s your comments that don’t make sense. Here’s why.

        How about we just reveal what the new covenant says?

        “I will put my law in their minds
        and write it on their hearts.
        I will be their God,
        and they will be my people.

        What did YHVH just say? WHAT is He putting WHERE? Seems you have a breakdown in exegesis.

        And as for your comment “the hebrew bible is very valuable as prophecy”, well explain this one please.

        See, the Lord is coming with fire,
        and His chariots are like a whirlwind;
        he will bring down his anger with fury,
        and his rebuke with flames of fire.
        16 For with fire and with his sword
        the Lord will execute judgment on all people,
        and many will be those slain by the Lord.
        17 “Those who consecrate and purify themselves
        to go into the gardens, following one who is among
        those who eat the flesh of pigs, rats and
        other unclean things—they will meet their end
        together with the one they follow,”
        declares the Lord.

        This prophecy (that you call VALUABLE) isn’t going to go so well for those who ignore what the new covenant is actually saying, what Y’shua actually taught and what ALL the disciples confirmed. But go ahead and put anybody……and I mean any man you can find, search out, come across or stumble upon, in the place of YHVH and what He teaches and what His Messiah teaches and your eyes will remain blind.

        • jmvpho says:

          And before we get into a never ending argument about Paul, let’s assume for one minute that Paul is actually saying the things I wrote in my first post about THE LAW, Torah, the commandments of YHVH. Let’s assume Paul is speaking out against everything that YHVH wrote with His finger and spoke with His mouth. Let’s assume Paul’s arguments of throwing out the law (not Talmud but TORAH) are actually what he is saying.

          Then tell me what YHVH says about someone who does this? If YHVH is your Heavenly Father, and I assume you’ve given your life to follow Him and His Messiah (not Paul), then what does He, YHVH, say to you, Chris Putnam, about one who would say, speak, teach, etc AGAINST what He’s already said? What are YOU TO DO, think, feel, understand about anyone who tries to change His Word?

          What, in the history lesson of the OT, would happen to such a person?

          Show me that conversation (prophecy) through one of His prophets, that eternal Torah is no longer eternal. Show me where Paul has the right and the power and the instruction to do what you say he has done.

          • hopeful_watcher says:

            You ignore the main difference between the old and new covenants, that is the presence of the Holy Spirit which was poured out on us. The old covenant laws were given to maintain an order and proper relationship with God. However, the judges of the application of those laws were human and thus subject to corruption and abuse. It’s one reason why God didn’t want to give Israel a human king. Laws and nation building in the hands of a few made easy work for Satan.

            Once the Holy spirit came on scene, He became the ultumate arbitrator of what righteous living looked like and as Jesus revealed the ultimate test of that is love.

            So if you are praising God and worshipping God with all your heart and the Sabbath You celebrate is on Tuesday… Does it matter? Paul instructs us not to let people judge us on these matters. However, Paul never says disregard how the Holy Spirit guides us in these matters. It is after all the spirit of truth.

            The spirit of the law was and is that we shall keep the Sabbath to devote some time with the Lord to worship Him. So the Holy Spirit says perform this in love, obedience and humility and you are in right standing with God, regardless of the day its done on. Regardless of the doctrines of men on the proper protocols for how worship shall be done. These are irrelevant and subordinate to doing these activities in love. But the corrupt patriarch who wants to utilize God’s law as a source of control and power will say, yes it does matter. It must be performed on Saturday and it must be held to a very specific set of standards, else we will declare you a heritic for your callous disobedience to God. We will judge you for it.

            Don’t miss this point. This is the same logic and approach they used as justification to crucify Christ. You can’t have it both ways, so answer this. Were the phariseas justified in crucifing Christ? They had full authority to judge whether Christ was keeping the Sabbath or not! Did Jesus break the law?

          • jmvpho says:

            Y’shua never broke one single commandment of YHVH. However, He broke the commandments of men all the time. That is the big tension of the gospels. The climate was “follow man and his commandments” (talmud) as if that is equal to following YHVH. Of course they hated Him. He was a threat to their dynasty and they killed Him for it. Men have as much vitriol today about following other men….even paul.

            But our Father demands our allegiance to Him, alone. Otherwise, if we follow man (like Paul) we are idolatrous, exactly as Israel was time and time again. Why are so many people willing to toss the words of YHVH and Y’shua but hang on for dear life to Paul’s words? Paul’s words were not even considered scripture. Paul’s words never held the weight, nor will they ever, of Torah.

            And NO, Paul was not speaking about any day we want as a Sabbath. That is nonsense to someone who knows YHVH. That is why the Jews will not accept a lawless Messiah……because of the doctrine of Christianity. They know better. They know that YHVH said that would never happen. Israel suffered all the time, especially specific instances, for changing the commandments of YHVH. So where do you get the notion that YHVH now, no longer cares if we change His commands?

            Y’shua said not one single commandment would pass away and anyone teaching this doctrine or following this doctrine will be “least”. I guess we could argue with what “least” means but I also know that a true child of the King desires to transform their lives to please their Father.

            Interesting that you bring up “judging”. Why is it that every time these kind of things are discussed, one side always brings up the accusation of “judging”? You realize, of course, that we ARE to judge the Body, I hope. If you don’t realize that, you may want to look into it further.

            The great commission is to GO, make disciples, and “teach them to obey everything I (Y’shua) have commanded”. Not 90%……not separate the Torah into categories so we can exclude “ceremonial” and “civil” commandments……not redefine the new covenant to mean something it does not…….not forget that the one and only definition of “sin” is transgression of the law…….

            To correctly LOVE, as we all know, is the foundation of Torah and the manifestation of Torah, then we follow the commandments. We don’t throw them out or even a few we don’t like. We follow Messiah who followed the commandments.

            To put to rest whether I believe the words of Paul….yes, I do. I do not believe he is preaching a new gospel. I do not believe he is talking about Torah “nailed to the cross” but Talmud. I do not believe Paul is changing, nullifying or degrading any words of the prophets that tell us Torah is eternal, perfect, life itself, truth, profitable for reproof, rebuke, training in righteousness, etc. I believe Paul is explaining that no one has ever or will ever be saved by simply following a set of rules. But once you are born again, YHVH’s instructions become as necessary as our next breath….actually more so…..because Torah will be our truth beyond this life. It will be written on our hearts. Can’t get away from it. No one who is born again will throw out the Torah in favor of sin…..”God forbid”, as Paul says.

            But you can’t have it both ways. Either Torah is eternal and still the way to sanctification as Y’shua said……or we’ll all continue to misinterpret Paul and pick and choose some of his words in favor of yanking them out of context and therefore changing his meaning so we can scream and holler that anyone following Torah is legalistic and a Pharisee. We should really go a little deeper and with proper hermeneutics, see what scripture itself says are the sins of the Pharisees.

    • hopeful_watcher says:

      Is OT laws made obsolete or are they made complete through Christ?

      They asked Jesus what the most important commandants are and he said love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as you would like to be treated. You see when you follow the first (love the Lord your God) you automatically follow the first five Moses tablet commandants and when you follow the second (love your neighbor) you follow the remaining of the ten commandants.

      Not obsolete, but made complete. This is ironic since the phariseas were trying to crucify Jesus based on a perverse application of the law. Jesus was undermining their corruptive abuse of the law, by elevating the stakes of what the law is really for… Love.

  2. Chuckles says:

    WHOA!. Wait just a doggone minute here!

    Although, in a previous post I made in another thread about similar issues, which I ended by stating I would avoid wasting more time with any further posting about jmvpho’s legalistic nonsense, I couldn’t resist the leading to comment here. But there was a problem. As I thought about responses to jmvpho’s statements, it became evident that I would just be repeating what I’d already said in that earlier post. And of course, I knew jmvpho would disregard it just as thoroughly–again. Such is the circular and repetitive nature of his arguments, and the depth of his conviction.

    Then I came across the part where jmvpho said:

    To put to rest whether I believe the words of Paul….yes, I do.

    But that came after the same jmvpho said:

    Paul’s words were not even considered scripture. Paul’s words never held the weight, nor will they ever, of Torah.

    And all of that came after his leading with this:

    It’s very interesting to me why we would be so hypocritical in our opinions.

    Um, what’s he mean we?

    Contradictory as those statements are, it seems jmvpho has finally revealed his fundamental problem: he doesn’t believe all of Scripture is Scripture.

    Either Paul’s writings in the NT are inspired by the Holy Spirit or they are not. Paul’s NT writings are Scripture, or they are not. There are no “degrees of inspiration” in the Bible.

    jmvpho has stated clearly that he does not accept Paul’s NT writings as Scripture: the inspired Word of God. That’s his basic problem. People, you’re being lectured about “Torah” by an unbeliever.

    • jmvpho says:

      Why are my comments circular, but your’s are not? All I am trying to do is show everyone what the Holy Spirit has shown to me and many others. We are being restored to Torah….all part of prophecy coming true. Your conclusions are ridiculous. And since you are very familiar with my arguments, you know that I believe Paul……but I DO NOT believe the “paul” you are preaching or evangelical christianity is preaching. Nor do I believe the “jesus” most people are preaching.

      What I believe is what the bible says…….cover to cover…….but we are forever going to disagree with what it says if you and others like you will not deal with the contradictions and evidence and conflicting passages to your doctrine. The evidence is that Paul was a Torah observant follower of Y’shua, the Messiah. He did NOT preach against the Torah. The ONLY way Y’shua is the Messiah is that He was also Torah observant and He DID NOT preach against the Torah. The Torah tells us not to believe the words of anyone saying anything against what YHVH has said.

      There you have it, you’ve got me. I’m guilty. I don’t believe you. I don’t believe Chris. I don’t believe the “paul” you preach. I don’t believe anyone who says anything different than what YHVH and His Messiah say. But the real Paul and the real Y’shua and the real John and the real apostles all said the same thing as their Heavenly Father. You have misunderstood and refuse to look into it any further.

      Just answer this. What “scriptures” were examined as the plumb line for Paul’s teaching? What “scriptures” were taught to the disciples by Y’shua on the road to Emmaus? What “scriptures” was the real Paul referencing when he called them “God breathed”, “profitable for reproof, rebuke, training in righteousness”? If you will stop your defense of the most contradictory doctrine of the last 1500 years and answer those questions, maybe you will begin to search what the bible (cover to cover) is really revealing to all of us. Then you can be part of the prophetic restoration as told to us by our Father in His Words, Deut 30.

  3. Chuckles says:

    Y’see folks? I told you what would happen.

    But, for the sake of jmvpho, I’ll give it one… more… shot…

    jmvpho said:

    All I am trying to do is show everyone what the Holy Spirit has shown to me and many others.

    I have no doubt that “many others” believe as you do. “Many others” believe all kinds of false doctrine. Numbers don’t guarantee Scriptural orthodoxy, and given the rank apostasy taking place in the visible church these days, many are falling away to legalism; that “way which seems right to a man” (Pro. 14:12). Wide is the road that leads to destruction. Many are they who follow it.

    Here is an example–somewhat distilled–of your argumentative circularity:

    You: “the Bible says this.”

    Me: “How do you know the Bible says ‘this’?”

    You: “Because this is true.”

    Me: “But I’m reading the Bible, and it doesn’t say ‘this'”

    You: “Yes it does.”

    Me: “Um, no, it just doesn’t read that way.”

    You: “Yes it does, you’re reading it wrong.”

    Me: “How do I know your reading isn’t wrong?”

    You: “Because God told me I’m right.”

    That’s the basic pattern of what you have been posting here (and in other threads) so far, all 360 degrees of it.

    I DO NOT believe the “paul” you are preaching

    I appreciate your candor, but I don’t “preach Paul”. I believe the gospel that Paul preached, of which you have no comprehension, judging from your claims.

    To avoid getting bogged down I’ll leave aside the issue of what Paul was saying. Let’s consider a more immediate issue: the veracity of Paul’s inspiration and your attack on it. You said:

    What I believe is what the bible says…….cover to cover

    You’ve already contradicted that statement by some of your previous remarks. For example, you said:

    “Paul’s words never held the weight, nor will they ever, of Torah.”

    That notion is completely false, demonstrating an acute ignorance of Scripture and annulling your professions of belief in God’s Word.

    Among other things, Paul said this:

    “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal 1:11,12. Bold mine, italics in NASB.)

    Do you understand that? Paul claims that “his” gospel is straight from Jesus, the same Jesus Who is the very Word (Logos) of God. Yet you say Paul’s words–which were inspired by the Holy Spirit–have “never held the weight, nor will they ever, of Torah”!

    And still, you claim to “believe what the Bible says…….cover to cover”?

    What “scriptures” were examined as the plumb line for Paul’s teaching?

    Paul did quote the O.T. Scriptures a great deal in his writings, certainly. But to draw from that that Paul thought his own writings were not inspired directly by the same God is a glaring non-sequitur. You are assuming what you are trying to prove. Paul quoted the O.T. to demonstrate that his teaching is from the same God. He was all too aware of the source of his message (see Gal. 1:11, 12 AGAIN), and his writings are every bit as God-breathed as the rest of the Bible, including the writings of the other apostles.

    jmvpho, until you acknowledge the complete authority of the whole Bible–which currently you do not, despite your claims–you will never understand Paul or the O.T.

    • jmvpho says:

      how about simply answering the questions at the end of my last post……..

      • jmvpho says:

        And in case you need clarity, there was no new testament around for hundreds of years. No one was “adding to” the Tanak at the time their words were spoken. No one was consulting a letter of Paul to see if someone was a false prophet. No printing presses were churning our King James New Testaments. No Gideon’s leaving copies around. You have to stop preaching the lie for a moment and think. Get off your soapbox of evangelical christianity. If Paul was examined by “scripture” to be teaching a true message…..and the “scripture” is Torah/prophets/writings, then how could your doctrine be true? Don’t you see the contradiction? Can’t you admit it and scratch your head, wondering what is really going on?

        As well, you seem to believe that Y’shua delivered a new gospel to Paul in Arabia. Really? Y’shua, the living Torah, changed the Torah and gave paul the orders to deliver the change along with it’s deletions but we have no such conversation and we were warned about anyone doing this…… Are you kidding me?

        I’ll give you one example of these contradictions that are very well placed and well hidden from the masses. But in surrendering and searching, they are found.

        The Jerusalem council meets to discuss whether circumcision (according to Talmud custom) is necessary for new converts. The answer is “NO, not according to Talmud custom because that is a yoke even our father’s couldn’t bear” (paraphrased) You’ll notice, if you bother to search deeper than the surface, that the yoke of Talmud is always discussed throughout the NT. This was the sin of the Pharisees as exposed by Y’shua.
        But back to Acts 15…. they have 4 “laws” that ARE necessary for new converts first and foremost and then the rest will come as “Moses is read in the synagogues”. This is your clue that you refuse to consider.

        Why those 4? Why four laws when you say no laws? What is significant about those four? What do they all have in common?

        Your doctrine would say neither circumcision nor any other works of the law are necessary or profitable because it would be legalism and never mind about the synagogues, that’s Saturday worship and we don’t do that.

        Hmmm. Sounds to me that Paul/James/Jerusalem council and you are on opposite ends of the doctrine debate. He is upholding the law and you are throwing it out. He teaches one thing in the bible, you say he teaches another.

        Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (the REAL PAUL said this)

        James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
        22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
        24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (the REAL JAMES said this)

        so…either they are heretics or you are misunderstanding….. because you refuse to use these type of passages in your doctrinal interpretation. No, we are not saved by our works but instead, our works prove our salvation. The law is still valid. It is still established as eternal. It is still the way to be sanctified……even the 4th commandment…..even the clean/unclean instructions.

        • jmvpho says:

          and btw, just as Paul did not receive this truth through the words of man, neither will you receive what I’m saying on this post. That is why it is hidden. For it is our Father’s delight and pleasure to be the ONE who imparts wisdom and knowledge. He, alone, is your teacher.

      • Chuckles says:

        jmvpho said:

        how about simply answering the questions at the end of my last post

        I did that. You seem to have missed it.

        And in case you need clarity, there was no new testament around for hundreds of years.

        Just what do you suppose Paul did with those letters he dictated? Locked them up for “hundreds of years”?

        Those were letters–messages to be sent, to be read, to be copied, the copies to be sent to all the churches. A complete compilation of the NT–with false documents and forgeries filtered out–may not have been available until a couple centuries after John’s death, but to suppose that the NT documents went nowhere or were not considered authoritative until the NT Canon was assembled is blatantly ridiculous. Only the most severe legalistic blindness could cause anyone to believe such absurdity.

        As well, you seem to believe that Y’shua delivered a new gospel to Paul in Arabia.

        I believe no such thing. What Jesus delivered to Paul is a more complete, detailed, comprehensive understanding of the same gospel of grace preached by the other apostles and in the O.T. Paul’s point was, he didn’t get it from man, but from God directly. It’s a matter of authority, not of a “different gospel”.

        Btw, Peter endorsed Paul:

        “…and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2nd Pet. 3:15,16. Italics in NASB, bold, mine.)

        The Jerusalem council meets to discuss whether circumcision (according to Talmud custom) is necessary for new converts [snip for brevity]… the yoke of Talmud is always discussed throughout the NT.

        Circumcision was first mandated for God’s earthly people with Abraham, and was a Levitical requirement (Lev. 12:3) mandated for the earthly nation of Israel. The judaizers of Paul’s day were using circumcision Levitically to mark those whom they would bring under the Law of Moses. They were teaching that Christian believers had to practice the Law of Moses to become and to remain Christians. Paul made that clear when he wrote to the Galatians, “I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.” (Gal. 5:3, bold mine.) The issue was the Law of Moses, not the Talmud. To maintain that Paul, James, and the council were only referring to the Talmud, or that the judaizers were pushing the Talmud only, is sheer eisegesis on your part. You are reading into the passage what you already think it says.

        they have 4 “laws” that ARE necessary for new converts first and foremost and then the rest will come as “Moses is read in the synagogues”.

        More eisegesis. The council was not laying down “laws” necessary for salvation anymore than Paul was when he admonished the churches on Christian living in his letters. Those “essentials” (Acts 15:28) related to practical living, not to receiving or “maintaining” salvation.

        Your doctrine would say neither circumcision nor any other works of the law are necessary or profitable

        You have little insight on “my” doctrine. Just so we don’t waste each-other’s time, let’s keep focused on Paul’s doctrine as presented in Scripture. Paul consistently teaches that the Law is not a means of sanctification any more than it is a means of justification. I have already quoted Paul about that in previous threads wherein I mentioned the purpose of the Law (a tutor to lead us to Christ), the lawful use of the Law (to expose sin, to condemn), and the fact that the believing Christian is not under the Law’s jurisdiction (having died with Christ, and so to the Law, see Rom. 7:1-7).

        Regarding the Law as a means to sanctification: Paul pointed out the problem with that by recounting his own struggle to keep the Law as a Christian (Rom. 7:7-24). Spoiler alert: it didn’t work.

        Now you, jmvpho, are teaching the very method of “sanctification” that Paul says is doomed to failure: law-keeping.

        You are using the Law UN-LAWFULLY.

        Your use of Rom. 3:31 is a textbook example of taking a verse out of context to make it appear to say the opposite of what it actually says. Paul is refuting the notion that salvation by grace through faith is contrary to the Law. By the statement “we establish the Law”, Paul isn’t saying we are “saved by the Law after all”, he is saying that the Law is finally established–its requirement met–when we abandon our “law keeping” and believe on the sacrifice of Christ. The surrounding context of the verse makes that abundantly clear.

        With James 2:14 I see you’ve adopted the same questionable view that many evangelicals have. That surprises me, given your contempt for “the evangelical view”. It is supremely necessary to examine the context of the passage. There are two different approaches taken to reconcile the supposed contradiction between James and Paul:

        1.) James is talking to the quality of saving faith–that it results in works. He is not saying that works themselves save.

        Ok, but, there is a more cogent, consistent explanation:

        2.) The passage is not soteriological, but practical. It has nothing to do with salvation from the penalty of sin, but with the practical effects of a person’s professed faith. Faith which moves one to–for example– help a brother is “of use” practically. Faith that does not is “useless” in a practical sense (though that says nothing of its salvific value). And of course, it is assumed that such “works” are done according to the Spirit of love, not inspired by any supposed legalistic obligation.

        Of the two, I think the second view is much more cogent, certainly more in keeping with the context of the passage in James, which emphasizes practical results.

        The law is still valid.

        Nowhere have I stated that the law is no longer valid. It’s a matter of the Law’s purpose. That’s what you can’t seem to get straight. I’ll say it again; your insistence on the necessity of keeping the Law is UN-lawful; it is against the very Law you profess to keep.

        Consider this: What does the Law demand of someone who breaks the Law? More law-keeping? A promise to “never do it again”? Penance? Somebody else keeping the Law?

        NO! The law demands death! The death of the Law-breaker. That and only that will finally satisfy the Law regarding the sinner.

        A life must be laid down. There must be blood shed!

        But, there is a loophole: A substitute may die in the place of the law breaker. Problem is, the substitute must be sinless. No one but Jesus could satisfy that requirement, and so He died in our place! That is how Jesus “fulfilled the Law”; by paying the penalty due us! We are “delivered from the Law”! Now, having delivered us from the Law’s penalty through His death, does Jesus put us back under the Law for “Christian living”? For sanctification? How absurd! I again refer you to Gal. 3, and the rest of Paul’s letters.

        just as Paul did not receive this truth through the words of man, neither will you receive what I’m saying on this post.

        0.o? That statement makes absolutely no sense at all.

        Well, I’ve done it again; let myself get drawn into a (probably) futile exchange.

        Good night, all.

        • jmvpho says:

          Ok, maybe MY words about keeping the law as necessary for one who has received the gift of salvation are not valid. So let’s take your advice and stick to scripture.

          Matt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
          (even though we through out the law and disregarded your commands that set us apart from all nations on the earth and taught things that Paul supposedly said but even he explained that he didn’t and Peter even clarified to this generation that Paul’s words are twisted, although we like ignoring anybody that reveals these contradictions)

          23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, YE THAT WORK LAWLESSNESS.

          Now you can keep going with the false doctrine that is prevalent in evangelical christianity or you can push pause and take another look at scripture. There is enough evidence on this thread and the other two threads about Rob Skiba to fill a bucket of contradictions, so I won’t bother going over it all again.

          As I said and my Father said, you will receive nothing from me. But if you will surrender your mind to be transformed, your Father will be your teacher.