Early Church Paul vs James

monosharp

Just seen this documentary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbR8Xwb07Cg

So I've been reading into the early church lately and it just seems strange to me that Christianity now follows Paulism and not what was preached by Jesus' family.

James was the head of the Christian movement after Jesus' death and Paul was not even a disciple, never met Jesus and only converted after the crucifixion.

For the first hundred years after Jesus' death James' version of Christianity was the major branch, then it changed to Pauls.

How and why do Christians follow Paulism ?

p.s > Its an interesting documentary and its all available on youtube.

PDN

The attempts to try to set Paul against James can only do so by misinterpreting certain passages of Scripture and totally ignoring others.

Both Acts and Galatians clearly indicate that Paul's Gospel was endorsed by the other apostles, including James.

Paul preached extensively through Asia minor etc within 30 years of Christ's death, and appears to have had major influence over the churches there. So I don't think that it would be correct to present Paul as being part of some minor movement within Christianity for the first 100 years.

James was certainly a key figure in the Jerusalem church, and Paul speaks of him in respectful terms in his epistles. But I don't think it is accurate to describe anyone other than Christ as being 'the head of the Christian movement'. Although certain individuals have tried to claim that title, and have exercised authority over segments of the Church, I see no historical evidence that any one individual has ever held such a position over the entire Church.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

The attempts to try to set Paul against James can only do so by misinterpreting certain passages of Scripture and totally ignoring others.

I'm not going to quote everything I've read because we've had this discussion before.

Could you please expand on this with links ?

Both Acts and Galatians clearly indicate that Paul's Gospel was endorsed by the other apostles, including James.

Can you please point this out to with a link ?

Paul preached extensively through Asia minor etc within 30 years of Christ's death, and appears to have had major influence over the churches there. So I don't think that it would be correct to present Paul as being part of some minor movement within Christianity for the first 100 years.

No but Paulism was in the minority, James' church was in the majority.

James was certainly a key figure in the Jerusalem church, and Paul speaks of him in respectful terms in his epistles. But I don't think it is accurate to describe anyone other than Christ as being 'the head of the Christian movement'.

So why do Christians follow Pauls teachings so much when he wasn't even technically an apostle ?

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

I'm not going to quote everything I've read because we've had this discussion before.

Could you please expand on this with links ?

It would be hard to comment on various misinterpretations without knowing which misinterpretations someone is actually listening to.

However, this guys blog pretty well sums up the views of most conservative biblical scholars on the subject: http://www.bukisa.com/articles/86685_differences-in-teachings-between-paul-and-james-on-faith

Can you please point this out to with a link ?

Acts 15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&version=NIV

Galatians 2:1-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202:1-10&version=NIV

No but Paulism was in the minority, James' church was in the majority.

There was no such thing as 'Paulism', but I'm pretty sure that the churches established by Paul throughout Asia Minor, and the churches planted by others where he had recognised apostolic authority (eg Rome) would have had a combined membership exceeding that in Jerusalem - particularly since Jerusalem itself was destroyed as a city after less than 40 years.

Could you provide some evidence to support your claim?

So why do Christians follow Pauls teachings so much when he wasn't even technically an apostle ?

Christians seek to follow the teachings of Scripture, whether they were written by James, Paul or anyone else.

As for being 'technically' an apostle, that depends on which definition you are choosing to use.

Dictionary.com
1. any of the early followers of Jesus who carried the Christian message into the world.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) any of the original 12 disciples called by Jesus to preach the gospel: Simon Peter, the brothers James and John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot.
3. the first or the best-known Christian missionary in any region or country.
4. Eastern Church. one of the 70 disciples of Jesus.
5. the title of the highest ecclesiastical official in certain Protestant sects.
6. (among the Jews of the Christian epoch) a title borne by persons sent on foreign missions.
7. one of the 12 administrative officials of the Mormon Church.
8. a pioneer of any reform movement.
9. Nautical. a knighthead, esp. one having its top projecting and used as a bitt or bollard.

Paul is technically an apostle by definitions 1, 3 & 6.

James is technically an apostle by definitions 1 & possibly 3.

So, technically, Paul was more of an apostle than James. However, I view them both as being apostles.

chozometroid

I think PDN covered everything well, but I can see steam coming from Soul Winner's ears all ready. :pac:

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

There was no such thing as 'Paulism', but I'm pretty sure that the churches established by Paul throughout Asia Minor, and the churches planted by others where he had recognised apostolic authority (eg Rome) would have had a combined membership exceeding that in Jerusalem - particularly since Jerusalem itself was destroyed as a city after less than 40 years.

But wasn't James a Messianic Jew ?

Didn't the church in Jerusalem see Jesus as a great messenger of God but not God himself ? They didn't believe in the resurrection and they believed that Torah law should still be followed.

Could you provide some evidence to support your claim?

Well I linked that documentary and I have read about this before in various texts but I can't remember where.

I understand that you are probably right and I know you know far more then me about this.

p.s > I am actually curious about this and I'm not trying to debate you, I'm asking for information.

Christians seek to follow the teachings of Scripture, whether they were written by James, Paul or anyone else.

But thats my point. What if what James wrote contradicted what Paul wrote. I know we don't have a lot of evidence of this but from what I've read and seen James and Paul disagreed about many things.

As for being 'technically' an apostle, that depends on which definition you are choosing to use.

Paul is technically an apostle by definitions 1, 3 & 6.

James is technically an apostle by definitions 1 & possibly 3.

So, technically, Paul was more of an apostle than James. However, I view them both as being apostles.[/QUOTE]

Come on now PDN. I know you know more then me but I know thats just plain wrong.

James was
1. (early follower)
3. Most definitely the best known in Jerusalem, its ridiculous you said 'maybe'
4. First of the 70 apostles.

wiki wrote:

According to the Church Fathers, he has posthumously been described as the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and is believed to be the author of the Epistle of James in the New Testament, the first of the Seventy Apostles....

And wasn't he one of the original 12 apostles ?

How can you say Paul was an early follower of Jesus (1) ? He didn't convert until after the resurrection and he NEVER met Jesus.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

But wasn't James a Messianic Jew?

Yes, as was Paul. Both were Jews who believed Jesus to be the promised Messiah.

Didn't the church in Jerusalem see Jesus as a great messenger of God but not God himself ? They didn't believe in the resurrection and they believed that Torah law should still be followed.

No. I am unaware of any evidence that they didn't believe Jesus to be God. The book of Acts clearly indicates that the resurrection was key to the foundation of the Jerusalem Church.

Also, according to Acts 15, they did not believe that Gentile converts to Christianity should observe Torah law. They themselves still followed Jewish laws, as indeed did Paul himself.

But thats my point. What if what James wrote contradicted what Paul wrote. I know we don't have a lot of evidence of this but from what I've read and seen James and Paul disagreed about many things.

I don't believe he did contradict Paul. The writings of Paul and James complement each other - which is why most churches today preach from both and base their doctrine and practices on both.

James was
1. (early follower)
3. Most definitely the best known in Jerusalem, its ridiculous you said 'maybe'
4. First of the 70 apostles.

I don't think it's ridiculous at all. An unbiased reading of the book of Acts would suggest that Peter and John were the best known apostles in Jerusalem. James certainly held a leadership role in the Church, however. I actually think I was being generous in allowing that James was maybe the most prominent.

The idea that James was the first of the 70 apostles was advanced by a late 3rd century bishop Dorotheus of Tyre, and is associated with the eastern Orthodox Church. Roman catholic sources see his list as worthless. http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventy_Disciples

I have no wish to intevene in an Orthodox / Catholic squabble, particularly since we would believe all kinds of strange and wonderful things if we accepted every tradition that began in the late third century!

And wasn't he one of the original 12 apostles ?

No. Two of the twelve disciples were called James - James the son of Zebedee and James the son of Alphaeus. But neither of these are the same as James the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus.

We know this (besides them having different fathers) from Mark 3:20-21 and John 7:5 where it says Jesus' brothers did not believe Him at that point, even though He had already called His twelve disciples before then.

How can you say Paul was an early follower of Jesus (1) ? He didn't convert until after the resurrection and he NEVER met Jesus.

Most early followers of Christ were added to the Church after the resurrection. I don't think any reasonable person would construe 'early follower of Christ' to be limited to the three years prior to the Resurrection.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote:

Both Acts and Galatians clearly indicate that Paul's Gospel was endorsed by the other apostles, including James.

Galatians indicates just the opposite. When Paul and Peter were in Antioch James sent some of his men to the city, it is clear that these followers of James held very different views to Paul. James and his followers insisted on circumcising converts, a teaching that Paul opposed vehemently. James expected Gentiles to follow Jewish Law, this is in no way fits with Paul's Gospel. It is also clear from Galatians which of Paul and James was regarded as most authoritative. As soon as the followers of James arrived in the city Peter, Barnabas and the Jewish Christians in the city rejected Paul's teachings and acted in accordance with those of James.

This is an interesting event also as it seems to oppose your belittling attitude to the role of James in the early church. Here we see the mighty Peter changing his ways so as to appease James at the risk of raising the ire of Paul. This suggests that James held a more authoritative position to both Paul and Peter in the early Christian church.

I don't believe he did contradict Paul. The writings of Paul and James complement each other - which is why most churches today preach from both and base their doctrine and practices on both.

Firstly you are assuming that we have writings from James the brother of Jesus, there is no reason to assume the book of James present in the New Testament was written by this person. Indeed the book does claim to be written by James, but James was an extremely common name in Jewish antiquity. There are several seperate James found in the Gospels, as you pointed out yourself two of the twelve disciples were called James and neither of these were James the brother of Jesus.

The book of James is a homonymous writing, the author has the same name as a prominent member of the Christian community, and although he never makes any claim to be this person his writing is later attributed to this James by those who agree with the teachings found in it in order to give the writing more authority.

Secondly you claim that the writings of Paul and this letter by someone called James compliment each other, well many would disagree. Martin Luther made the unequivocal claim that in fact it contradicted the teachings of Paul and so only achieved a secondary status in his Scripture.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

No. I am unaware of any evidence that they didn't believe Jesus to be God. The book of Acts clearly indicates that the resurrection was key to the foundation of the Jerusalem Church.

I am sure I heard it in the afore-linked documentary and I'm equally sure I read it somewhere before but I can't find a link.

Also, according to Acts 15, they did not believe that Gentile converts to Christianity should observe Torah law. They themselves still followed Jewish laws, as indeed did Paul himself.

But didn't Peter & James refuse to eat with gentiles ?

I don't think it's ridiculous at all. An unbiased reading of the book of Acts would suggest that Peter and John were the best known apostles in Jerusalem. James certainly held a leadership role in the Church, however. I actually think I was being generous in allowing that James was maybe the most prominent.

I've read that Jesus handed the reigns over to James, can't remember the gospel. Perhaps it was one of the agnostic ones ? I'll go look.

The idea that James was the first of the 70 apostles was advanced by a late 3rd century bishop Dorotheus of Tyre, and is associated with the eastern Orthodox Church. Roman catholic sources see his list as worthless. http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventy_Disciples

I have no wish to intevene in an Orthodox / Catholic squabble, particularly since we would believe all kinds of strange and wonderful things if we accepted every tradition that began in the late third century!

So there must be evidence for it.

No. Two of the twelve disciples were called James - James the son of Zebedee and James the son of Alphaeus. But neither of these are the same as James the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus.

I know your not Roman Catholic but;

wiki wrote:

James, son of Alphaeus: Generally identified with "James the Less", and also identified by Roman Catholics with "James the Just".

Most early followers of Christ were added to the Church after the resurrection. I don't think any reasonable person would construe 'early follower of Christ' to be limited to the three years prior to the Resurrection.

No but using the wording "early" and "follower", I take that to mean that that person literally 'followed' Jesus around in the 'early' days.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

I am sure I heard it in the afore-linked documentary and I'm equally sure I read it somewhere before but I can't find a link.

Hmm, TV documentaries on religious subjects tend not to be a reliable source of information in my experience.

But didn't Peter & James refuse to eat with gentiles ?

We have no record of James refusing to eat with Gentiles.

We know that Peter did used to eat with Gentiles, but on one occasion refused to do so - earning him a well-deserved rebuke from Paul for his hypocrisy. This was because of the presence of 'certain men who came from James'. Presumably James had sent some guys on a mission to Antioch and they were not used to intermingling with Gentiles.

I've read that Jesus handed the reigns over to James, can't remember the gospel. Perhaps it was one of the agnostic ones ? I'll go look.

You probably mean 'gnostic' - although in this case 'agnostic' could be a Freudian slip.

So there must be evidence for it.

You think there must be evidence for every notion that anyone dreamed up 250 years after the event?

I know your not Roman Catholic but;

No, I'm not, and you're not going to do your cause any good by quoting Roman Catholic sources since Roman Catholics don't believe that Jesus had any brothers or sisters at all (perpetual virginity of Mary and all that). Therefore, if you choose to opt for Roman Catholic beliefs about James, your OP will be rendered null and void since that would mean that James wasn't the brother of Jesus.

You see, the only way RC's can identify James the Less with James the Just is by denying that James the Just was the brother of Jesus. This is because they have different parents and so it is manifestly impossible for James (one of the 12 apostles) to be the son of Mary and Joseph, and therefore the brother of Jesus. To quote RC sources to prove that Jesus' brother was one of the 12 would be to try to have your cake and to eat it.

No but using the wording "early" and "follower", I take that to mean that that person literally 'followed' Jesus around in the 'early' days.

As opposed to those who literally followed Him around in the late days? So, in your interesting reinterpretation of language, when were the early days and when were the late days in which people literally followed Jesus around?

Perhaps, rather than argue semantics, you might want to google "Paul early follower" to see how most reasonable people interpret the phrase.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Hmm, TV documentaries on religious subjects tend not to be a reliable source of information in my experience.

I know, give me some credit. But I'm also sure I've read it before at least twice.

We have no record of James refusing to eat with Gentiles.

I am absolutely positive I read this, that James had an argument over this with Paul and Peter (and Barnabes) sided with James.

I hope you don't think I am just making this up because I really do remember it but I really cannot find the link again.

You probably mean 'gnostic' - although in this case 'agnostic' could be a Freudian slip.

Of course. :pac:

You think there must be evidence for every notion that anyone dreamed up 250 years after the event?

No but everything you believe, you believe because of some evidence. I assume it is the same for the Catholics.

Although I am most certainly not a theologian.

No, I'm not, and you're not going to do your cause any good by quoting Roman Catholic sources since Roman Catholics don't believe that Jesus had any brothers or sisters at all (perpetual virginity of Mary and all that). Therefore, if you choose to opt for Roman Catholic beliefs about James, your OP will be rendered null and void since that would mean that James wasn't the brother of Jesus.

I don't see why I'm doing my cause harm ? My argument does not rest of James relationship to Jesus, rather his place in Christianity vs Paul.

The most commonly held belief by Eastern Orthodox and Catholics alike is that James was the stepbrother of Jesus.

As opposed to those who literally followed Him around in the late days? So, in your interesting reinterpretation of language, when were the early days and when were the late days in which people literally followed Jesus around?

PDN, what I mean is that if someone 'follows' me around then they physically follow me on my travels. If I'm dead, thats rather difficult isn't it ?

And also I would consider 'early days' to be before my death. It might have been the early days of Christianity when Paul started preaching, but it was 'after' Jesus.

Perhaps, rather than argue semantics, you might want to google "Paul early follower" to see how most reasonable people interpret the phrase.

And thats the problem.

Most of your beliefs and evidence are interpreted differently depending on the church.

I don't think this is an important point to argue and I want to get back to my main question/point. Which is, Paulism has affected Christianity more then most of the other important people when what he was preaching may not have been the true message of Christ at all.

I know you may not regard this as substantial, but the fact he never even met Jesus is a huge point to me.

Pompey Magnus

monosharp wrote: »

I know, give me some credit. But I'm also sure I've read it before at least twice.

I wouldn't be too sure about this claim, it is exceptionally hard to know very much at all about Christianity in the first Century as the records from this period are very, very poor. I reckon PDN is correct though, the Gentile Christian community was almost certainly larger than the Jewish Christian community after the first 100 years. Christianity just never took off among the Jews and so was presumably only at the fringes of the developing Christian religion by this time.

Judging by the letter of 1 Clement by 95-100 AD the Roman church considered itself authoritative enough to interfere in the running of the Corinthian church, the Jerusalem church is nowhere to be seen and presumably after Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple the Jewish form of Christianity was in disarray.

I am absolutely positive I read this, that James had an argument over this with Paul and Peter (and Barnabes) sided with James.

Not exactly, Peter and Paul had an argument over this as Peter changed his behaviour to appease the followers of James. Paul doesn't mention who won this argument but it wasn't between James and Paul, it was Peter and Paul, Peter presumably arguing in favour of the teachings of James.

PDN, what I mean is that if someone 'follows' me around then they physically follow me on my travels. If I'm dead, thats rather difficult isn't it ?

And also I would consider 'early days' to be before my death. It might have been the early days of Christianity when Paul started preaching, but it was 'after' Jesus.

James was not an early follower of Jesus by this definition. James only converted after the death of Jesus following an appearance, just like Paul did.

wolfsbane

monosharp said:

I am absolutely positive I read this, that James had an argument over this with Paul and Peter (and Barnabes) sided with James.

I think you may be remembering the Antioch incident, but getting the details distorted:
Galatians 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
17 “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”

It is also helpful to see James' part in refuting Judaistic notions at the Council of Jerusalem:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2015&version=NKJV

Judaizers remained a powerful enemy of the early church - an enemy within. They took the truth and twisted it, producing at least foolish and harmful superstitions/traditions, but also the fatal error - that as well as faith in Christ, one has to be circumcised and observe the law of Moses if one is to be saved.

Soul Winner

chozometroid wrote: »

I think PDN covered everything well, but I can see steam coming from Soul Winner's ears all ready.

Not at all. I only start steaming when folk start beating everyone over the head with quotes from James saying that we are saved by works and not faith. That is too cart before the horse for me so I feel I must interject and bring in some balance and usually end up saying something derogatory about James en route. But thankfully that is not the case in this thread which I wish would continue where it left off

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

However, this guys blog pretty well sums up the views of most conservative biblical scholars on the subject: http://www.bukisa.com/articles/86685_differences-in-teachings-between-paul-and-james-on-faith

This guy seems to be missing something in James. He states:

"James, on the other hand, addresses individuals who either already have Paul’s teachings or by other means understand the concept of faith and salvation through Christ, and therefore looks more toward Christian behavior. Also, contrary to the audience of Paul’s writings, James’ readers appear to be already saved."

How can James' audience appear to be already saved? James specifically addresses his Epistle to the twelve tribes which are scattered.

"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings." James 1:1

For one, if they are scattered then how can they appear to James as being already saved? And how can people actually be already saved? The writer to the Hebrews states:

"But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." Hebrews 3:6

Which means that it is possible to lose hold of this confident state before the end, and seeing that James' audience would have been still alive when he was writing, how could they be viewed as being already saved? The problem I think this guy has is that he is one of those Christians who believes in the once saved always saved doctrine which we know for sure is contrary to what Paul taught in all his epistles. Paul is constantly urging believers to bear each other’s burdens, and to hold fast to the faith and to fear lest we neglect so great a salvation and so on. If Paul believed in the once saved always saved doctrine then why did he feel the need to continually exhort his audience to be on their guard akin to soldiers holding down their positions in times of war?

My point is that I think this guy is wrong in trying to reconcile what is being taught in Paul’s many epistles to what is being taught in James’ single epistle. When you understand what faith actually is, and what works actually are, then it is impossible that you can be saved by both of them at the same time. Faith connects us to God, and as we remain connected by daily acts of faith, God keeps His spirit flowing in us and we inexorably produce good works by virtue of the fact that we are connected by faith and that His nature is expressing Itself through us.

When we stop doing this faith action and try to do the good works without God’s spirit working in us, then the works which we are trying to produced by sheer will (which Paul calls will worship – Colossians 2:23) are dead works. James says that faith without works is dead but I say that works without faith is dead. Only when we stay connected by faith in God’s promises are we in a saved state, as soon as we lose this grip of faith it doesn’t matter how great our works are, they do not impress God one bit, only faith pleases Him and as long as it is maintained, then the good works will inevitably follow due to the implanted power of His spirit. The message of the Church should always be to just keep trusting in the LORD, read His Word and cling in faith onto the promises therein, nothing else is needed

PDN

Soul Winner wrote: »

This guy seems to be missing something in James. He states:

"James, on the other hand, addresses individuals who either already have Paul’s teachings or by other means understand the concept of faith and salvation through Christ, and therefore looks more toward Christian behavior. Also, contrary to the audience of Paul’s writings, James’ readers appear to be already saved."

How can James' audience appear to be already saved? James specifically addresses his Epistle to the twelve tribes which are scattered.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. "The twelve tribes which are scattered" simply refers to the Jews of the diaspora (outside Palestine). So, James is written to Jewish believers who live in nations other than Palestine.

James 2:1 specifically states that the recipients of the letter are brothers who are "believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ". Also James 5:7 tells them to be patient as they wait for the Second Coming. I think it's pretty obvious they were Christians - nothing to do with OSAS.

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. "The twelve tribes which are scattered" simply refers to the Jews of the diaspora (outside Palestine). So, James is written to Jewish believers who live in nations other than Palestine.

James 2:1 specifically states that the recipients of the letter are brothers who are "believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ". Also James 5:7 tells them to be patient as they wait for the Second Coming. I think it's pretty obvious they were Christians - nothing to do with OSAS.

I didn't say that they weren't Christians, did I? The twelve tribes where the tribes of the twelve sons of Israel and they were not all Jews. The 'Jews' came from Judah, who was one of the twelve sons of Jacob. James is writing to the 'twelve' tribes scattered amongst the nations, that is pretty clear from verse 1. But my point was that this guy suggested that the reason James uses different language to that of Paul when addressing his audience with regards to faith and works was because James' audience appeared to be already saved, in stark contrast to Paul's audience who clearly weren't saved for some reason. My question is simply this, how could James know who was and who was not saved considering that he was addressing such a vast multitude of people like the twelve tribes? Basically this guy is wrong. James wasn't using different language at all, he was using the same language that he always used and that was that salvation is obtained by works and not by faith. That was his message and the fact that his epistle was canonized is the reason why there is so much confusion in the church world today about the means of salvation. There is a difference of opinion in the church in relation to how salvation is obtained. If Paul is right then it is by faith alone but if James is right then we need to add works which will nullify the faith. They both can't be right, one of them is wrong and my money is on James (being wrong that is).