what was the controversy about between James and Paul?

[dio9]

Paul seems to have created a supernatural person.(Rom.8:3)" Sending his son in the likeness of sinful flesh
and (Rom.8:29) that he" foreknew , predestined and conformed his son Jesus."
According to Paul, Paul's Christ is not human, as he was made not a man but in "the likeness of man."(Phil.2:7)

Paul's Christ is different from the Jesus of Nazareth James and the apostles knew.

James actually sent delegations from Jerusalem to correct Paul's teachings to the churches he founded.

James thought Paul's creation of a supernatural Christ who existed before time predetermined, formed in the likeness of sinful flesh to be made up by Paul, incorrect heresy.

Paul himself confesses no one told him this except Christ (who he never met)

I am thinking this view of Christ is all Paul's creation, and has almost nothing to do with who James knew as his brother.

The only thing we can be sure of between Paul and James is that the both agree Jesus was crucified.

Paul's Christ and James' Jesus are two different people.

For debate:

Did God foreknow Jesus?
Did God predetermine and conform Jesus in the likeness of sinful flesh?
Is Jesus not human but only a likeness of Man?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 1 by dio9]

Wasn't the conflict just about following the laws or not?

Was Jesus' sacrifice sufficient or not?

If not then the laws still matter and Jesus died in vain.

If they are sufficient then the laws don't matter for salvation.

I never heard it was deeper than that.

What do people think: was Jesus death sufficient or not?

I believe that you are correct. The controversy was about the nature of the law, not the nature of Jesus. According to the book of Act, James eventually came around to Paul’s way of thinking.

This is true, but Wootah saying, "I never heard it was deeper than that." is like referring to the Atlantic ocean as "the pond". The list conflates salvation and proper living. Paul tends to focus on salvation, while Jacov focus on proper living. Seeing that Yacov was the leader of the shul of Yeshua in Yerusalem, and Paul was establishing other shuls throughout the Mediterranean, this difference in emphasis is understandable. So let's look at the list.

1. Wasn't the conflict just about following the laws or not?

Not really, the conflict was over conversion to rabbinic Judaism for salvation.

2. Was Jesus' sacrifice sufficient or not?

That depends on what one means by that question. Yeshua's sacrifice was not some singular event, but the entirety of His earthly existence. It is also sufficient for some things and not for others. Just acknowledging Yeshua is not sufficient for salvation, one must have some idea what one is being saved from, and must adopt Yeshua's world view as one's own.

3. If not then the laws still matter and Jesus died in vain.

This is a false dichotomy. HaTorah does still matter and Yeshua's sacrifice was not in vein. In fact, Yeshua's sacrifice shows that HaTorah does matter. Now, various rabbinic interpretations of HaTorah are incorrect, but as interpreted by Yeshua, HaTorah does matter.

4. If they are sufficient then the laws don't matter for salvation.

As I pointed out above, sufficiency is a matter of purpose. It is true that lift is sufficient to get a plane airborne, but it is of limited use on navigation. HaTorah matters in salvation in the same way that gauges matter in flight. Sure one can fly by the VFR(visual), but the FAA recommends IFR(Instrument). So, is HaTorah absolutely necessary, no. Does it matter, yes.

5. What do people think: was Jesus death sufficient or not?

No, Yeshua's life, which included His death, as the embodiment of HaTorah, is sufficient.