James, Jesus' brother
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-05-2015, 03:53 AM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2015 04:34 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(17-05-2015 09:25 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  So, Mark.

Where does this James character appear outside of the holy horseshit?

Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 CE,) the most important early Christian historian of all, wrote that:

“James, whom men of old had surnamed ‘Just’ for his excellence of virtue, is recorded to have been the first elected to the throne of the Oversight of the Church in Jerusalem” (Church History 2.1.2.)

Saint Jerome, a prolific commentator and translator of early Christian material, quoted Hegesippus’ (a first century writer) account of James from the fifth book of his lost “Commentaries:”

“After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord named the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed on behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels’ knees.” (De Viris Illustribi.)

Josephus also described James as a pious Jew who was well respected, and observed all the obligations of Judaism. see http://historical-jesus.info/appc.html

see http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Chilton_James.shtml

When I wrote the book I noted that all the following characters talked about James, unfortunately I didn't keep the links, but if anyone is interested I'm sure they could find them.


Justin Martyr,
Irenaeus,
Hippolytus, (d. 236 CE)
Tertullian,
Origen,
Epiphanius, (c. 310 – 403 CE, bishop of Salamis) and
Jerome
Eusebius ....
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.....xxiv.html

Most of the above are discussed in the following articles...

https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/brothers-jesus

http://www.thenazareneway.com/james_the_..._jesus.htm

On the other hand, you could go the whole way and read the definitive biography...

http://www.amazon.com/James-Brother-Jesu...014025773X
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 04:02 AM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(17-05-2015 05:13 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Sounds like Paul had a secret gay crush on James brother Yeshua, so he created a comic book-esque narrative detailing his mythical awesomeness.

No doubt that buried deep in the Vatican vaults you'd find Paul's extended passages describing Jesus' rippling arms and tight buttox.

Yabut..... Paul never met Jeebus. Guess it still makes sense....Jeebus was his fantasy in more ways than one. Tongue
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 08:18 AM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
Fascinating discussion. It's interesting to speculate about what really happened back then because the history is quite murky. The official story from how I understand it from the RCC is that Peter was the first pope, moved to Rome to reestablish the center of Christenndom there because it was the "center of the universe" back then, and then he and Paul were ultimately martyred there. I believe the first official church leader who would have followed Peter would have been Clement of Rome. If I recall correctly, a number of the earliest popes had fictionalized accounts of their martyrdom, but that's for another thread.

I've seen some apologetics done by fundie sites that had proof that Peter was never in charge in Rome and that he always resided in Jerusalem and ran things there till his death.

I thought Paul being a citizen of Rome would have changed his perception to that of a hellenized jew. I have no clue if Paul read the works of Plato and Aristotle, but the descendents of the disciples were well aware of them and these works had a huge influence on Christianity. Did Paul early on inject Plato into the works? Because I swear that when I reread the gospel of John, it seemed to be dripping with gnosticism.

Apologies if some of this was covered in earlier threads, I'm kinda late to the discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 01:52 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(18-05-2015 03:53 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(17-05-2015 09:25 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  So, Mark.

Where does this James character appear outside of the holy horseshit?

Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 CE,)
Hippolytus, (d. 236 CE)
Epiphanius, (c. 310 – 403 CE, bishop of Salamis) and
When you have provided dates, these seem to be from 200-300 years after the events. Do you think these accounts can be reliable?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 02:14 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
Mark, how do you think this affects the book of James since it is preached that James wrote it?

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 02:59 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 03:01 PM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2015 03:29 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(18-05-2015 02:14 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Mark, how do you think this affects the book of James since it is preached that James wrote it?

I was hoping someone would ask that...

James’ Letter (The Epistle of James)

Many Christians are not aware that Yeshua’s brother may have his very own letter in the Bible. Yet it is there, tucked inconspicuously under the thirteen letters attributed to Paul.

The Catholic encyclopedia claims there is no doubt who the author was:

“Internal evidence (contents of the Epistle, its style, address, date, and place of composition) points unmistakably to James, the Lord’s brother, the Bishop of Jerusalem, as the author; he exactly, and he alone, fulfils the conditions required in the writer of the Epistle.”

Yet it is surprising that the authors acknowledge James was Jesus’ brother here, when that fact is denied elsewhere in the same publication by calling James Jesus’ cousin. The authors call James a bishop, thereby implying James was a Christian, which he most definitely was not. There has never been a Jewish bishop. Christian bishops did not exist anywhere until (at earliest) the 90’s CE, thirty years after James died.

No one can be sure Yeshua’s brother wrote or dictated James’ letter, but even if he did not, the letter is from an early Jewish source, so one possibly close to Yeshua. Many scholars date the letter to about 60 CE, although the Catholic encyclopedia states

“about A.D. 47.”

The letter is addressed to the twelve Jewish tribes of the dispersion, so was to be distributed outside Jerusalem. It has a mildly authoritarian tone, as one would expect from a leader. The author does not mention the word “Church.” The communities he wrote to (outside Jerusalem) worshipped in synagogues, not Churches:

“Now suppose a man comes into your synagogue...” (James 2:2, NJB.)

James says nothing about his (now) famous brother’s exploits. James does not mention Yeshua’s divinity, miracles, sacrificial death or resurrection. If James thought his brother, or his close associate, was a miracle working Son of God, and he knew Yeshua had risen from the dead, there would not be much else worth talking about! All your letters would be laced with excited expletives about supernatural events. James’ letter is not, because James did not believe baloney about Yeshua.

James was a pious Jew. A central theme of his letter is that it is important to obey “the Law.”

“You see, if a man keeps the whole of the Law, except for one small point at which he fails, he is still guilty of breaking it all” (James 2:10 JB.)

“But the man who looks steadily at the perfect law of freedom and makes that his habit - not listening and then forgetting, but actively putting it into practice - will be happy in all that he does” (James 1:25 JB.)

James was referring to the Jewish Law, which the Jerusalem Bible admits in a footnote. This is the opposite of Paul’s proposition that salvation is better secured by releasing oneself from obedience to the Law, an admission also admitted in another footnote in the Jerusalem Bible.

James wrote that faith was pointless without good works:

“Take the case, my brothers, of someone who has never done a single good act but claims that he has faith. Will that faith save him? If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, ‘I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty’, without giving them these bare necessities of life, then what good is that? Faith is like that: if good works do not go with it, it is quite dead” (James 2:14–17, NJB.)

James emphasized the importance of action:

“If there are any wise or learned men among you, let them show it by their good lives, with humility and wisdom in their actions” (James 3:13, NJB.)

It can be argued that James had heard Paul’s opinionated preaching about faith, and rejected it outright as nonsense.

Consider the following:

“Remember this, my dear brothers, be quick to listen but slow to speak and slow to rouse your temper, God’s righteousness is never served by man’s anger.” (James 1:19–20, NJB.)

James was cut from a different cloth to the self righteous, often angry Paul, a man who appears to have rarely listened to others.

James wrote

“Above all, my brothers, do not swear by heaven or by earth, or use any oaths at all. If you mean ‘yes,’ you must say ‘yes;’ if you mean ‘no,’ say ‘no’. Otherwise you make yourselves liable to judgment” (James 5:12, NJB.)

This is refreshingly real, although a Christian might hope to hear something a little more profound from the brother of the Son of God!

James believed in the truth of Jewish Scripture. He did not tolerate hypocrisy. He had some socialist ideals, which one would expect from a pious Essene. Yeshua, being from the same family and the same religion, probably had similar beliefs.

There is nothing in James’ letter to suggest an anti-Roman stance, but the letter may have been edited. It is also possible James knew that if any anti-Roman literature found its way into the government’s hands he would suffer the same fate as John and Yeshua, and never write another letter again.

James’ letter only just made it into the canon. In the fourth century, its status was disputed. Augustine and Jerome accepted it very reluctantly, so probably others could not ignore the connection with Yeshua.

Martin Luther thought the letter had little doctrinal value because it so blatantly contradicted Paul’s teachings. Paul was Luther’s hero. Luther called James’ letter “an Epistle of straw.” Luther clearly had a very limited understanding of the real history. Modern readers have the benefit of another 500 years of scholarship.

References:

Tabor, J. 2006 “The Jesus Dynasty”. Harper Collins. London.
Eisenman, Robert H. “James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls”
http://www.thenazareneway.com/james_the_..._jesus.htm http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/siljampe.htm http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/james.html
http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_ canon.htm 529
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2009/01/15/podcast- 37–jewish-followers-of-jesus-part-1–ebionites/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej_Z3sTZ6PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
18-05-2015, 03:24 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(18-05-2015 01:52 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 03:53 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 CE,)
Hippolytus, (d. 236 CE)
Epiphanius, (c. 310 – 403 CE, bishop of Salamis) and
When you have provided dates, these seem to be from 200-300 years after the events. Do you think these accounts can be reliable?

I think they are reliable because there was no evangelical need to mention James at all. In fact James' and the Nazarene's existence quite undermined the basic tenets of Christianity. Therefore I think it is unlikely that the church fathers invented James and the Nazarene's existence.

Allow me to improve my earlier answer by giving you a couple of earlier references...

In his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, Justin Martyr, living in Rome in the 150's, talked about the Nazarene's (although not James specifically).

He admitted the Nazarenes’ existence, and he acknowledged that they believed that Jesus had merely been a human prophet.

Justin did not condemn the Nazarenes outright. He granted that they were entitled to observe Mosaic Law if they wished, and he even thought the Nazarenes might achieve salvation, although he also admitted that many Christians thought the Nazarenes would be denied a place in heaven. The bigotry against outsiders (such as the Nazarenes) that later became a feature of most churches was already obvious.

Josephus, a secular historian writing in the late first century in Rome wrote about James’ demise:

“The younger Ananus, who had been appointed to the high priesthood, was rash in his temper and unusually daring. He followed the school of the Sadducees, who are indeed more heartless than any of the other Jews, as I have already explained, when they sit in judg- ment. Possessed of such a character, Ananus thought that he had a favorable opportunity because Festus was dead and Albinas was still on the way. And so he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, whose name was James, and certain others, and accusing them of having transgressed the law delivered them up to be stoned. Those of the inhabitants of the city who were considered the most fair-minded and who were strict in observance of the law were offended at this. They therefore secretly sent to King Agrippa urging him, for Ananus had not even been correct in his first step, to order him to desist from any further such actions. Certain of them even went to meet Albinus, who was on his way from Alexandria, and informed him that Ananus had no authority to convene the Sanhedrin without his consent. Convinced by these words, Albinus angrily wrote to Ananus threatening to take vengeance upon him. King Agrippa, because of Ananus’ action, deposed him from the high priesthood which he had held for three months and replaced him with Jesus the son of Damnaeus.” (Antiquities of the Jews, chapter 29.)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 04:54 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(18-05-2015 03:24 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  In his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, Justin Martyr, living in Rome in the 150's, talked about the Nazarene's (although not James specifically).

He admitted the Nazarenes’ existence, and he acknowledged that they believed that Jesus had merely been a human prophet.

Justin did not condemn the Nazarenes outright. He granted that they were entitled to observe Mosaic Law if they wished, and he even thought the Nazarenes might achieve salvation, although he also admitted that many Christians thought the Nazarenes would be denied a place in heaven. The bigotry against outsiders (such as the Nazarenes) that later became a feature of most churches was already obvious.

Can you cite the relevant passage, because I couldn't find it when searching through the Dialogue with Trypho:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicen...Chapter_80
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 02:37 AM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(18-05-2015 04:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 03:24 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  In his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, Justin Martyr, living in Rome in the 150's, talked about the Nazarene's (although not James specifically).

He admitted the Nazarenes’ existence, and he acknowledged that they believed that Jesus had merely been a human prophet.

Justin did not condemn the Nazarenes outright. He granted that they were entitled to observe Mosaic Law if they wished, and he even thought the Nazarenes might achieve salvation, although he also admitted that many Christians thought the Nazarenes would be denied a place in heaven. The bigotry against outsiders (such as the Nazarenes) that later became a feature of most churches was already obvious.

Can you cite the relevant passage, because I couldn't find it when searching through the Dialogue with Trypho:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicen...Chapter_80

Here is the passage. I admit that I was mistaken... Justin doesn't use the word "Nazarene," but he's quite obviously referring to Jewish supporters of Jesus.

CHAPTER XLVI -- TRYPHO ASKS WHETHER A MAN WHO KEEPS THE LAW EVEN NOW WILL BE SAVED. JUSTIN PROVES THAT IT CONTRIBUTES NOTHING TO RIGHTEOUSNESS.

"But if some, even now, wish to live in the observance of the institutions given by Moses, and yet believe in this Jesus who was crucified, recognising Him to be the Christ of God, and that it is given to Him to be absolute Judge of all, and that His is the everlasting kingdom, can they also be saved?" he inquired of me.

And I replied, "Let us consider that also together, whether one may now observe all the Mosaic institutions."

And he answered, "No. For we know that, as you said, it is not possible either anywhere to sacrifice the lamb of the passover, or to offer the goats ordered for the fast; or, in short, [to present] all the other offerings."

And I said, "Tell then yourself, I pray, some things which can be observed; for you will be persuaded that, though a man does not keep or has not performed the eternal decrees, he may assuredly be saved."

Then he replied, "To keep the Sabbath, to be circumcised, to observe months, and to be washed if you touch anything prohibited by Moses, or after sexual intercourse."

And I said, "Do you think that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, and Job, and all the rest before or after them equally righteous, also Sarah the wife of Abraham, Rebekah the wife of Isaac, Rachel the wife of Jacob, and Leah, and all the rest of them, until the mother of Moses the faithful servant, who observed none of these [statutes], will be saved?"

And Trypho answered, "Were not Abraham and his descendants circumcised?"

And I said, "I know that Abraham and his descendants were circumcised. The reason why circumcision was given to them I stated at length in what has gone before; and if what has been said does not convince you, let us again search into the matter. But you are aware that, up to Moses, no one in fact who was righteous observed any of these rites at all of which we are talking, or received one commandment to observe, except that of circumcision, which began from Abraham."

And he replied, "We know it, and admit that they are saved."

Then I returned answer, "You perceive that God by Moses laid all such ordinances upon you on account of the hardness of your people's hearts, in order that, by the large number of them, you might keep God continually, and in every action, before your eyes, and never begin to act unjustly or impiously. For He enjoined you to place around you [a fringe] of purple dye, in order that you might not forget God; and He commanded you to wear a phylactery, certain characters, which indeed we consider holy, being engraved on very thin parchment; and by these means stirring you up to retain a constant remembrance of God: at the same time, however, convincing you, that in your hearts you have not even a faint remembrance of God's worship. Yet not even so were you dissuaded from idolatry: for in the times of Elijah, when [God] recounted the number of those who had not bowed the knee to Baal, He said the number was seven thousand; and in Isaiah He rebukes you for having sacrificed your children to idols. But we, because we refuse to sacrifice to those to whom we were of old accustomed to sacrifice, undergo extreme penalties, and rejoice in death,--believing that God will raise us up by His Christ, and will make us incorruptible, and undisturbed, and immortal; and we know that the ordinances imposed by reason of the hardness of your people's hearts, contribute nothing to the performance of righteousness and of piety."


Blah blah blah... Here we have a proponent of early Christianity heaping shit on the poor old Jews because they were competitors.


I found an excellent brief article on Justin's polemical badmouthing of the Jews. Here it is...


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...10501.html

I also skimmed through Justin Martyr's fictional conversation with Trypho the Jew, and it reminded me very much of the pro Gentile anti Jewish propaganda in the book of Acts.

Why did the early Christians need to heap shit on Judaism? Because Jesus was a Jew and so was his family, and so were his mates! In fact the whole Christian circus was originally created to piss Jews off!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: