protestants and works

[Playaa]

care to provide some evidence that King James was a homosexual?

oddly enough I've heard from Homosexuals that the only reason the Bible talks badly about homosexuality is because King James ordered his scribes to put it in there because he despised homosexuals...odd now isn't it?

don't believe every urban legend ya read Watch

 

as for the translations...honestly when my friends and myself get into an argument that comes down to the meaning of a word...we go to the Greek and Hebrew versions and figure out the words meaning (based on context and other places the word is used) and go from there...my dream is to not even need a Hebrew or Greek dictionary...I'd love to learn those languages

[Watchtower]

'Queen James'

One area of James VI/I's life that for many years remained clouded in controversy were allegations that James in fact homosexual. While his close relationships with a number of men were noted, earlier historians questioned their sexual nature.

Few modern historians cast any doubt on the King's homosexuality and the fact that his sexuality and choice of male partners both as King of Scotland then later in London as King of England were the subject of gossip from the taverns to the Privy Council. His relationship as a teenager with Esmé Stuart, Seigneur d'Aubigny, Earl of Lennox was criticised by Scottish church leaders, who were part of a conspiracy to keep the young King and the French courtier apart. Lennox, facing threats of death, was forced to leave Scotland. In the 1580s, King James openly kissed Francis Stewart Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. Contemporary sources clearly hinted their relationship as sexual. When James inherited the English throne from Queen Elizabeth I in 1603, it was openly joked of the new English monarch in London that Rex fuit Elizabeth: nunc est regina Jacobus (Elizabeth was King: now James is Queen.)

 

Historians have debated whether James was unwise in his choice of male partners, from page-boy-turned-Gentleman-of-the-Bedchamber Robert Carr (made Earl of Somerset) to royal-cupbearer-turned-Earl-of-Buckingham, George Villiers, whose relationship with the King was discussed at the Privy Council (James called Villiers his 'wife' and he Villiers' 'husband'.) Buckingham in particular came to play a major part in the governance of the English kingdom, though historians differ on whether Buckingham's impact was positive or negative

.

 

So I guess you can't say for sure.. But it looks like there's more to it than urban legend...

[Playaa]

yeah Watch, after I made that post I went and looked...and it's like a million topics we've covered...there is evidence against and evidence for and the only people that really know are dead.

I read a site that said it was slander against King James by his opponents that was started AFTER his death...

I still have trouble with why a man who was a homosexual would have the Bible (which calls homosexuality an abomination) translated into English so the common man could read it...just doesn't fit...which is why I find it hard to believe he was a homosexual (actually he would have had to have been a bi-sexual)

[auggybendoggy]

playaa your not much of a reformed theologeon I guess.

 

My point is that Eph 2 says we are saved by grave through faith APART from works. I don't know how you interpret that but I take it its got nothing to do with our GREAT deeds. I see Paul arguing the same thing in romans 4.

 

If you take JW's for example (of whom my church and calvary chapels claim is a religioun of works) they will tell you deeds are necessary cause faith w/o deeds is dead and if you love God will you want to the commands.

 

This sounds like the same thing you just stated. It's usually the way the church (protestant) renders James. But I'm saying "WHOA" Martin Luther was more intelligent than theo's of today. Martin said GET RID OF THAT BOOK.

 

If I stand here and tell Watchtower that his deeds will justify him through faith would you be comfortable with that of would you deem me a heretic.

 

in another example if I tell watch he cant be justified by his works or deeds but must receive the grace of God through faith would you be ok with that?

 

My point is this:

if James has the NADS to say what he said "we see that we are justified by what we do through faith" then we should take a close look at why he said it.

 

Today we knock JW's and Mormons for WORKS and yet I think we believe the same thing concerening this issue. They respond "hey if you love Jesus obey his commands...if you want to show your love by sitting at home then do it but james tells us mormons about people liek you protestants...faith w/o works is dead and will not save you"

We respond "you are not saved by works but by grace via faith apart from works (eph 2)...therfore mr. mormon you can think your earning your way to heaven but your not."

 

whos' right....actually I think the JW's are more right in the issue than we are. When it comes to obedience to the law that is demanded by scripture we say "you dont have to cause Jesus did it all for you...he is our righteousness...there is nothing I can add or take away....thus my works amount to nothing concerening slavation and so unlike the mormon I can rest in my faith in the work of the cross" But then when we read James we say the manifestation of true faith is "works" but to quent our pride with mormons or Jw's we then quote romans and eph.

Were double talking is what I'm saying...Martin luther was right about the rigid reading of scripture.

 

Aug

[Playaa]

hehe, aug...you're somehow shocked that Christians would use double talk? it's sad that the belief I follow is tainted by so many, but it's also true...that doesn't mean we all need to live that way.

 

I think I might be misunderstanding what you're saying.

to me, it comes down to honor and true belief. If I gave you a job to do and then paid you for the job upfront...would you do the job? I think that's what this whole thing is about but with another level added in. Not only has God given us a job to do and "paid" upfront...it also happens that this "job" has the potential to save the world (please no one take offense at what I'm saying, this is between two Christians) AND the man who gave us the job is devoutly loved by you and me...our love for him can't even be described.

now...with that in mind. Are we gonna do the "job"?

I think that's what James is saying. You also need to know WHO he was writing to. Is it possible the people he was writing to were getting lazy? Is it possible that those people were saying "well I don't need to do this, Christ died for me and I'm saved". I know I've met Christians like that, so maybe James was writing specifically to them trying to wake them up.

What would you do if you met a Christian who totally ignored Christ's word and said, "it's ok cause I'm saved"?