Talk:Epistle of James

Archives
/Archive 1

lead

See WP:LEAD. The lead should summarize the article and be able to stand on its own. The current lead is nothing like a good Wikipedia lead. Could someone please beef it up? Jonathan Tweet 17:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a controversial book and thus this wikipedia article is subject to POV blanking and edit wars. Catholics and Orthodox claim it invalidates the Protestant doctrine of sola fide, Protestants claim it doesn't. Just read the Catholic Encyclopedia: Epistle of St. James: "Luther strongly repudiated the Epistle as "a letter of straw", and "unworthy of the apostolic Spirit", and this solely for dogmatic reasons, and owing to his preconceived notions, for the epistle refutes his heretical doctrine that Faith alone is necessary for salvation. ... For the question of apparent opposition between St. James and St. Paul with regard to "faith and works" see EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS." 75.15.199.148 18:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If the lead is supposed to show the reader why the topic is interesting, a neutral summary of the controversy belongs there. Jonathan Tweet 12:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To me, the problem is just what goes in the lead, because opinions vary over what are the key points to put in the introduction. To the pious Christian with little interest in Biblical disputes, it is an intensely practical book (no cite there, just a personal observation). To many Protestants and Catholics, it is a key book in the faith/works question, and also perhaps in questions on prayer and healing. To the conservative Bible scholar there is the question of which James wrote it, when, and why. To the more critical Bible scholar, there are also questions of pseudonymity. For a simple Bible dictionary type introduction, one might want to mention its audience and its Jewish character. So... writing a concise and NPOV introduction is tricky, and it looks like everyone's dodged doing it so far :) Peter Ballard 12:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter, you seem to have a good handle on what goes in the lead. It should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the topic. Everything you mentioned would fit. The point is to describe everything the book is, not decide which one thing it is. I look at it this way: write it as if the reader is going to read nothing but the lead, and we are going to give them a complete picture of the epistle just with the lead. Jonathan Tweet 13:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The lede is really taking shape. There are a lot of weak leads on WP, and it's nice to see one come into its own. The lede could still use a summary of the epistle's content. Jonathan Tweet 13:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Rem486 / Original Research

User:Rem486 consistently reinstates a paragraph of pure original research. I've left a 3RR warning on his talk page. Grover cleveland (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Checkmate! Thank you Wikipedia for publicly and finally establishing that this is purely and totally and soley rem486's idea. rem486

Correct use of Talk Page / Archive Created

I remind users of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

Since User Rem486 has written a lot of his personal views on this Talk page, I have put them (as well as old discussions) in the Archive page /Archive 1. I was tempted to delete them altogether, but I instead dumped them in the archive.

Please use this Talk page only for discussing the article, not for talking about pet theories*. Depending on how ruthless I feel, I may simply delete opinion pieces in future. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• What about pet theories that cannot be disproven? rem486

James son of Zebedee the author?

The article has whole paragraph, uncited, saying "Authorship has also occasionally been attributed to the apostle James the Great, brother of John the Evangelist and son of Zebedee". Attributed by who? FWIW I have never heard that claim. I propose deleting it unless a decent cite can be found. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he means me Pete. rem486 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.86.240 (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pillars of the Church?

What Paul is saying in Galations 2:6-9 is that he concidered all men equal. But since others concidered James, Peter and John to be pillars, he went along with the opinion. He does not personally or doctrinally ascribe any weight to what they thought, said or taught. Indeed, in Galatians he says they aceeded to all of his dictates. rem486 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.86.240 (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Why the freak does this thing keep saying my comments are unsigned when i sign them? rem486 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.86.240 (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To the person who added the 'Composition' section: Please remember, Jesus practiced Judaism not Christianity! A letter written during his earthly ministry would reflect Jewish concepts not Christian concepts. Here's the happy ending: James reveals no Christian concepts. rem486 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.86.240 (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk about 'Original Research'

Please note this line in the composition section- Not only is the general trend of the argument in 2:14-26 one impossible in Judaism, but the details of its wording show that the argument is directed against a non-Jewish opponent – an opponent who can be identified definitely as Paul…- What? I thought Paul was a Jew?Also a debate about faith and works was impossible in Judaism? Millions of people spread out over thousands of miles and it was impossible that they would debate the efficacy of faith and works? Also in what way does the details of the argument dictate that the alleged opponent is non-Jewish, or that it is directed soley at Paul? I've never posted anything as unsubstantiated as this dribble. Rem486 (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)rem486Rem486 (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rem486 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)