James was still mixing Jewish custom with the gospel , a teaching Paul frowned at. He taught that the gentile Christians have to be circumcised after the law to be saved among other things he taught based on his level of understanding. Paul even had to call some of James brethren false ,because they were trying to pollute the Gentiles with the law. James taught that the gentiles must be circumcised according to the law of moses to be
saved. James was the pastor of the church in Jerusalem, he took over leadership from Peter. Probably because he was a blood brother to Jesus christ. So people feared him even Peter feared him. Look at the authority with which he spoke at the conference in Jerusalem after the uproar. Paul that was more anointed would not even talk to his elders like that. Acts 15:13-22. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Quote Then he went bla bla bla like altheia the time waster. And ended up in the law of Moses as usual. Quote Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. The bible records that those who troubled paul's ministry in galati a were from James. He was their pastor, the scripture above is enough evidence of his doctrine. Who will dare challenge James the mighty, THE LOOOORDS BROTHER? Even "Pope" Peter feared James. We can forget paul's account how Peter came to visit Paul and ate with the gentiles which was against James teachings, but some of James disciples came , Peter ran!

The above are a few of Joagbaje's words which i find nauseating. I've extracted them from the other thread so as to focus on it, instead of having it as a subset of the other thread. Please Joagbaje, what did apostle James buy from you?

[size=14pt]

James was the pastor of the church in Jerusalem, he took over leadership from Peter. Probably because he was a blood brother to Jesus christ

 

Paul that was more anointed would not even talk to his elders like that.

The bible records that those who troubled paul's ministry in galati a were from James. He was their pastor, the scripture above is enough evidence of his doctrine. Who will dare challenge James the mighty, THE LOOOORDS BROTHER?

Even "Pope" Peter feared James.

We can forget paul's account how Peter came to visit Paul and ate with the gentiles which was against James teachings, but some of James disciples came , Peter ran!

[/size]
just wow. If I ever saw a trainwreck of a post that was simultaneously tragic and hilarious, this is one. Oya Joagbaje come and answer oh!

^^^He he he, copy without right. I will sue for royalties. . . . Attention mods!

James was an anointed man of God and he taught great principles. But he did not have depth of knowledge of truth as paul, so they had some diffences. Paul and john were the apostles that really had so much depth of truth .I thought I explained in the post some of the issue paul had with James.

James taught on separation
James taught circumcision in the flesh
James taught salvation by work

Joagbaje:

James was an anointed man of God and he taught great principles. But he did not have depth of knowledge of truth as paul, so they had some diffences. Paul and john were the apostles that really had so much depth of truth .I thought I explained in the post some of the issue paul had with James.

James taught on separation
James taught circumcision in the flesh
James taught salvation by work

Sorry, but I'd like citations for the highlighted. The way I recall it, James was a member of the church governing council at Jerusalem. That council rejected such things as circumcision as part of compulsory Christian practices when they were asked to arbitrate on the matter (Acts 15). Perhaps I am getting things mixed up.

^ in addition to MyJoe's request, can you also supply evidence for this:

James was the pastor of the church in Jerusalem, he took over leadership from Peter. Probably because he was a blood brother to Jesus christ

Who knew the church was a family business back then too.

Joagbaje:

James was an anointed man of God and he taught great principles. But he did not have depth of knowledge of truth as paul , so they had some diffences. Paul and john were the apostles that really had so much depth of truth .I thought I explained in the post some of the issue paul had with James.

James taught on separation
James taught circumcision in the flesh
James taught salvation by work

 

Sorry if i'm overlooking reasons you may have posted before, that's why this thread was created, for you to present those reasons. Please produce your strong reasons/proofs for each of the bolded above. Thank you.

James biggest offence is that he did not preach or emphasize the false tithe doctrine neither can his writings be twisted to suit prosperity merchants.

This is going to prove interesting.

@Image 123: please kindly post a link to this thread on the other thread, as quite a lot of people are probably interested in learning more about the issues Joagbaje raised.

KunleOshob:

James biggest offence is that he did not preach or emphasize the false tithe doctrine neither can his writings be twisted to suit prosperity merchants.

Hen, Kunleeeeeeeeeee!!! somehow somehow sha you manage to take tithe matter jam am put inside. Go on soldier. Fight them every where you see them.

JeSoul:
Who knew the church was a family business back then too.

Joagbaje:

James was an anointed man of God and he taught great principles. But he did not have depth of knowledge of truth as paul, so they had some diffences. Paul and john were the apostles that really had so much depth of truth .I thought I explained in the post some of the issue paul had with James.

James taught on separation
James taught circumcision in the flesh
James taught salvation by work

Pastor Agbaje's claims are not altogether invalid. It is obvious that there were divisions in the early church and that these divisions were between indigenous Jews and hellenized Jews. It got to the point that the homegrown jews did not even want to share their food with the hellenized Jews, so taaaay they had to appoint Stephen to make sure that they were all sharing the wackis equally.

1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”

I will not go into whether James's or Paul's doctrine was superior but what is obvious is that there was a difference of doctrine. And one of the main points of difference was the matter of circumcision. Krayola sent me some lectures in which this was discussed. To fully understand the import of telling someone that they don't have to circumcise to become a jew to Judaism, it would require a christian imagining that someone says that you don't have to be baptized to be a christian. (christians were jews at this early stage, and converts were converted to judaism not any new religion).

Imagine someone saying that baptism is just an empty ritual and does not signify anything. That is what telling early christians that they didn't have to be circumcised would have been like. It was a very very very big move.


more later . . .

James was an anointed man of God and he taught great principles. But he did not have depth of knowledge of truth as paul , so they had some diffences. Paul and john were the apostles that really had so much depth of truth .I thought I explained in the post some of the issues with James

SALVATION BY WORKS

PAUL SAYS

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves:[ it is] the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

JAMES
James 2:14
14 What[ doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

JUSTIFICATION BY WORK

PAUL
Romans 3:28
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

JAMES
James 2:24
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

James taught on separation

PAUL

Galatians 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.


Galatians 2:12
12 For before that[b] certain came from James[/b], he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.


But paul's teaching was clear, of the union of the Jews and gentile.

   James taught circumcision in the flesh
The book of Galatians was to debunk such teachings of mixing Judaism with the gospel especially circumcision in the flesh.it should be noted that Chapter 2 of galatians was preached on peter by Paul .

PETER FEARED JAMES.

Galatians 2:11-12
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, [b]fearing [/b]them which were of the circumcision.

This is just to mention some  of the issues. James had good practical doctrines, but sometimes his good principles lacked the proper spiritual vocabulary . The point is . It was Paul that Jesus really gave deep insight into revelation of the church .   John was another person that caught the doctrines of Jesus among the apostles of the lamb.

MyJoe:

Sorry, but I'd like citations for the highlighted. The way I recall it, James was a member of the church governing council at Jerusalem. That council rejected such things as circumcision as part of compulsory Christian practices when they were asked to arbitrate on the matter (Acts 15). Perhaps I am getting things mixed up.

They rejected some of the burden they laid on people after Paul had proven himself in their presence and try couldn't deny the fact of his calling. The early church was not perfect in every way . It was a growing church.

Pastor AIO:

. . .To fully understand the import of telling someone that they don't have to circumcise to become a jew to Judaism, it would require a christian imagining that someone says that you don't have to be baptized to be a christian.  (christians were jews at this early stage, and converts were converted to judaism not any new religion).

^Circumcision on converting to Judaism was absolutely required but it was never a requirement for becoming a Christian; bearing in mind that circumcision was the physical sign of God's covenant with the physical descendants of Abraham. The controversy arose because some Jews were insisting that it be made a requirement just as in Judaism;  this was unanimously rejected in Acts 15 because Christ has torn down the partition wall between Jew and Gentile.

KJV: Galatians 2:3-4. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage

Actually, James 2:14 complements Ephesians 2:8 & 9 as expressed above by Joagbaje. Where Paul says salvation is based on faith AS a gift of God, James brings us down to earth. Effectively, James is saying "hey, stop saying all you need to do is believe then do anything you feel like. You need to work out your salvation by changing your lives rather than just saying you believe and expecting that solves all".

He is NOT saying salvation is by works but "proved" by works i.e. your life after the claim of faith.

And it is exactly the same with James 2:24 and Romans 3:28. Truly faith WITHOUT the deeds of the law saves but James clarifies that by telling us you cannot continue in sin and say "FAITH" has saved you. Its like saying "I am saved" then joining the occult - would you be saved?

Till today, we still find ourselves seperating from others of different background. Whist the Apostles found it easy to emphatise with all, coming in contact with "traditional" Jews made them retreat, not knowing how the traditionalists would take to their "mixing". This just shows cautiousness, not fear.

Basically then, all that is stated above just shows James wanting people to realise salvation was a serious issue and NOT based on boasting without any backing in reality. He in effect, puts reality behind the "talk". It will be very painful for anyone who prefers not to change his life but say he's saved.

aletheia:

^Circumcision on converting to Judaism was absolutely required but it was never a requirement for becoming a Christian; bearing in mind that circumcision was the physical sign of God's covenant with the physical descendants of Abraham. The controversy arose because some Jews were insisting that it be made a requirement just as in Judaism;  this was unanimously rejected in Acts 15 because Christ has torn down the partition wall between Jew and Gentile.

KJV: Galatians 2:3-4. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage

Yes, but the fact is that Christianity was not a new religion. Christian missionaries were converting people to Judaism. Christianity remained a part of judaism until around the last decade of the first century 90ad-ish, when christians started getting kicked out of the synagogues. Till then christians attended synagogue as all jews were expected to do.

Judaism also reached out to gentiles. The pharisees reached out to gentile. Where the difference between them and Paul was is that they expected the gentiles to then become fully jewish rather than bend judaism to accomodate the gentiles. There were many gentiles attracted to judaism that didn't join because they didn't want to make the full commitment. They formed an outer layer of the synagogues and were called the 'God-fearers'. An example of such would be Cornelius in the book of acts.

Godfearers (from Greek θεοφοβείς, or φοβουμενοι τον θεον and Neo-Persian: Tarsàkàn) are non-Jews (gentiles) who attached themselves in varying degrees to Judaism without becoming total converts, and are referred to in the biblical Book of Acts.[1]

Godfearers (or 'Fearers of God') are considered to be of significant importance to the popularity of the early Christian movement. They represented a group of gentiles who shared religious ideas with Jews, to one degree or another. However, they were not converts, but a separate gentile community, engaged in Judaic religious ideas and practices, (see Noahidism for the modern parallel). Actual conversion would require adherence to the Law of Moses, which includes various prohibitions (kashrut, circumcision, Sabbath observance etc.) which were generally unattractive to would-be gentile converts.
The message of St. Paul, (see Paul of Tarsus and Judaism), stressed that faith in Jesus constituted a new covenant with God, a covenant which essentially provides a 'free gift' of salvation from the harsh edicts of the Mosaic law. The Law of Moses was considered therefore to have little relevance to the Pauline Christian community, (see Pauline passages supporting antinomianism), as the sacrifice of the Christ was seen as a liberation from the demand that a person follow the Law without deviation.
This message was taken up by the Godfearers, who already represented a sizable group of people. In Paul's message of salvation through faith as opposed to works, the Godfearers found an essentially Jewish group to which they could belong without the necessity of their accepting Jewish Law. Aside from earning Paul's group a wide following, this view was generalized in the eventual conclusion that converts to Christianity need not first accept all Jewish Law, (see Apostolic Decree), a fact which was indispensable to the popularity of the early Christian movement and which would eventually lead to the distinction between Judaism and Christianity as two separate religions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfearers

Paul's genius might have been in finding a way to make Judaism more accessible to the God-fearers. Though the down side of that was that the Pharisaic jews could only accept it so far before the kicked Christians out of the synagogues en masse. Although Many christians still attended synagogue as late as 400AD.

nuclearboy:

Actually, James 2:14 complements Ephesians 2:8 & 9 as expressed above by Joagbaje. Where Paul says salvation is based on faith AS a gift of God, James brings us down to earth. Effectively, James is saying "hey, stop saying all you need to do is believe then do anything you feel like. You need to work out your salvation by changing your lives rather than just saying you believe and expecting that solves all".

He is NOT saying salvation is by works but "proved" by works i.e. your life after the claim of faith.

And it is exactly the same with James 2:24 and Romans 3:28. Truly faith WITHOUT the deeds of the law saves but James clarifies that by telling us you cannot continue in sin and say "FAITH" has saved you. Its like saying "I am saved" then joining the occult - would you be saved?

agreed. Anyone can say they have faith, but every tree that grows has it's fruits. Including faith (which is not a tree but that is just the analogy that Jesus used). And you can know it by it's fruit.
Every faith is backed by works. If you do not show love, compassion, inner joy then there is no faith in you, that faith, if it exists, is dead.

You do not do works in order to be saved, but the works is a natural consequence and a sign that you have been saved.

Interesting thread.

Judaism also reached out to gentiles.  The pharisees reached out to gentile.  Where the difference between them and Paul was is that they expected the gentiles to then become fully jewish rather than bend judaism to accomodate the gentiles.  There were many gentiles attracted to judaism that didn't join because they didn't want to make the full commitment.  They formed an outer layer of the synagogues and were called the 'God-fearers'.  An example of such would be Cornelius in the book of acts.

The conversion of gentiles into judaism has been from Old testament times, they also form the outer layer of the temple.and were called proselytes.

Pastor AIO:

Hen, Kunleeeeeeeeeee!!! somehow somehow sha you manage to take tithe matter jam am put inside. Go on soldier. Fight them every where you see them.

@joagbaje

Brilliant submissions. It is ridiculous, of course, for anyone to deny there were differences. But I am not persuaded by your argument against James. I don’t share your views on his judeocentricity. In my opinion, you have not shown that James taught separation. There are other possible explanations as to Peter behaving in a certain way when men from James came. Other possible explanations.

And I am lost as to how you came to the conclusion that it was Paul’s submission that swayed the decision of the elders and apostles in the Jerusalem council. I think you are ascribing too much to Paul and reading more into that passage that it says. Peter made his position on the matter clear after Paul and Barnabas presented the dispute – “is circumcision compulsory or not?” James later eloquently cleared up the matter after Paul reported the great work God was doing among the Gentiles. It was the council’s view that the Gentiles should not be burdened with circumcision and stuff. That council had an oversight function over the Christians and Paul apparently submitted himself to it on this occasion, even though he later went on without making much references to them.

What I really have problems with, though, is your criteria for deciding that Paul knew better than James. Nobody can question Paul’s aggressiveness and intellectualism, but that he was more spiritual than James. . .?

^^^
I don't know about Paul, but I know that pastor chris and pastor agbaje are certainly more spiritual than baby teeth James.

incomplete post edited

@Joagbaje
Good to see your reasons. Nuclearboy has answered them but I'll just add these.

SALVATION BY WORKS

I'll say what James wrote and what Paul wrote are both the Word of God, and that they COMPLEMENT/perfect one another not CONTRADICT one another. It's good that we have a clear and basic understanding of what works are. Works aren't the basis for our salvation, that's why all works BEFORE salvation are next to insignificant and cannot save us. But AFTER salvation, our works do carry some 'market' value. That's basic and that's what The whole Bible teaches. That's what James and Paul taught. Actually that's what Paul was saying in Ephesians 2v8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
And Paul taught works.
Acts26v19Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: 20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

JUSTIFICATION BY WORK

There is no difference in what James and Paul have said. All that's needed is to know the basics. It is GRACE through faith that brings forgiveness of sins/salvation. Motive is important here, our works cannot 'bribe' God, but we don't sit down lazily and do nothing for God isn't unrighteous to forget our labour/work. And this is what James says in 2v24. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith ONLY
Look closely at Paul again Romans 2v13 . , The doers of the law shall be justified. So Paul wasn't saying anything different from what James was basically saying, which is similar to what Jesus himself said in Luke 13v23,24. Faith without Work is dead, or better still "this is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent". They're integrated not independent.

^^^ Now that and the previous are to be applauded. Good going there.

I think the problem Jo has is that CE prefers the words without the essence because of the "crowd" mentality so they refuse to convict people. Convicting people will drive them away and that is not in the "vision". Denying James and "bringing him low" is a means of self-justifying.

Shallow doctrine which Image has cancelled with these last 2 posts

James taught on
separation

The scriptures you quoted doesn't say the above, except that you assume it. Are you really saying that James taught Peter to withdraw and seperate himself?

James taught circumcision in the flesh

Notice the scriptures below and carefully note the bolded.
Acts 15v13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto ME: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore MY sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The APOSTLES and ELDERS and BRETHREN send greetingunto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: 24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised,and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: 25 It seemed GOOD unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our BELOVED Barnabas and PAUL, 26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 28 For it seemed GOOD to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication:from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

@Image123,

You dey try sometimes  

Image123:

@Joagbaje
Good to see your reasons. Nuclearboy has answered them but I'll just add these.I'll say what James wrote and what Paul wrote are both the Word of God, and that they COMPLEMENT/perfect one another not CONTRADICT one another. It's good that we have a clear and basic understanding of what works are. Works aren't the basis for our salvation, that's why all works BEFORE salvation are next to insignificant and cannot save us. But AFTER salvation, our works do carry some 'market' value. That's basic and that's what The whole Bible teaches. That's what James and Paul taught. Actually that's what Paul was saying in Ephesians 2v8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
And Paul taught works.
Acts26v19Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: 20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

My guy you can interpret the bible better than Jo jare I think you deserve to be on the pulpit while Jo is demoted to a ‘member of the congregation’ status

Let me add my well done for Image123 - esp as we be just dey pull am on another thread.

[b]it should be noted that Chapter 2 of galatians was preached on peter by Paul. PETER FEARED JAMES.[b]

Galatians 2 was preached on Peter by Paul? What does that mean?
What's in that scripture is that CERTAIN CAME FROM JAMES, not Peter feared James. That certain came from James just simply imply that they were from Jerusalem, Jews, sent by James/the Jerusalem church. And it says 'fearing them which were of the circumcision', not Peter feared James. It's being explained earlier, i'll just add that 'of the circumcision' there means Jews, not promoters of circumcision. For Paul himself was of the circumcision(Philippians 3v3-5).

It was Paul that Jesus really gave deep insight into revelation of the church. John was another person that caught the doctrines of Jesus among the apostles of the lamb.

The Bible doesn't teach that Paul/John understood God than the other apostles. Actually, Paul thought himself the least. Maybe you're judging by the number of books written but that's not a measure of the understanding that the apostles had. God used His men as He pleased.

Zikkyy:

My guy you can interpret the bible better than Jo jare  I think you deserve to be on the pulpit while Jo is demoted to a ‘member of the congregation’ status 

Isn't that often a problem and the reason we argue so much around here - "interpreting"? Sometimes I think we just cite texts and let people read, rather than providing leading interpretations that often amount to what we want the verse to say. This is a general observation, and not a direct comment on Image's posts above.

I firmly agree with nuclearboy, though, on the issue of seeing the essence rather than the words of what is said. But only an individual's sense of rightness and depth of spirit can truly bring about that. Justification by faith alone, for example, hardly makes any sense.

@Joagbaje

James did not say works alone=salvation,what he said is faith+works =salvation.

You will decieve yourselve if you think you are a christian but fail to show it by your works of charity.On the lastr day many praye warriors whil end up in hell because they failed to add work to their faith .The gospel tells us in matt 7:21-23.

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.


Mat 7:22 "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'


Mat 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who

These people had faith and performed miracles but failed to make heaven .

On the last day Jesus will judge by both faith and works and not faith alone. In matt 25:31-46

Final Judgment
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, [6] you did it to me.’[/i]

41 “T[b]hen he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”[/b][i]

Pastopr joe will you also villify Jesus by judging by works in the passage above