Anyone else fascinated by this guy? Jesus's biological brother who became the head of the Jerusalem church, and despite Paul revering him highly, the New Testament barely talks about him. Hell, even Josephus likes him so much he gives him a shout out and frames his death as an injustice that caused the high priest to lose his job.Do you buy the theory that he was written out of it to diminish his role in the early church?
There’s literally a book of the NT written by him
>>18763469it's Peter that gets all the iconic moments though, Paul dominates the NT, James gets one book that protestants dont like that much and that's it
>>18763468The interesting thing to me is John gets one mention by Paul but at some point clearly became a more prominent figure than James is.
>>18763511James also presides over the Council of Jerusalem>protestants dont like that muchA literal delusional tradcath meme
>>18763468>Anyone else fascinated by this guy?Muslims, if you don't James over Paul, you're not a real Christian.
>>18763563yet not once the author of Acts state that James was Jesus's brother. I wonder why?
>>18763570Because act was written to defame Christ apostles and justify why a random pharisee was trying to take over
>>18763570Because Luke assumed you would be familiar with the gospels
>>18763593Luke does not mention that James was Jesus's brother either. If you just read Luke-Acts, you would think James was just some random dude when he shows up.
>>18763573>>18763593>Luke never explicitly uses the phrase "brother of Jesus" to identify James in either the Gospel of Luke or the Acts of the Apostles.>Luke omits the passage found in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 that explicitly names Jesus's brothers (James, Joses, Judas, and Simon) during the Nazareth rejection scene.Uh oh
>>18763607Luke writes another book explaining why the Disciples were actually dumb and wrong.
>>18763606>>18763607Well Luke doesn’t expect you to be familiar with his gospel alone. Literally the very first thing he says is a direct reference to other gospels and verbal eyewitness testimony.
>>18763612It's a pretty important thing to leave out dude
>>18763612>Well Luke doesn’t expect you to be familiar with his gospel alone.Luke wrote a book to introduce people to Christianity, I'm pretty sure he does expect readers to not know much about what happened.
>>18763606>If you just read Luke-Acts, you would think James was just some random dude when he shows up.Or you would think he was the second disciple named James, the one who didn't get martyred (there were two of them).
>>18763615?It’s not “left out”. It’s like saying that if there was a sermon that didn’t explain who Paul was it’s “left out”. You don’t need to explain who Paul was to a church.>>18763616>Luke wrote a book to introduce people to ChristianityWhere are you getting that from? He gives the opposite impression, that he was writing for those who were already instructed in the faith.Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, handed them down to us, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in orderly sequence, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty about the things you have been taught.
>>18763564Well that sucks for me
>>18763616Luke 1 and 2 were added to the gospel later
>>18763657Probably, schoolarship on Luke cries "mess"
>>18763657Cope>>18763659>muh basedlarshipNot even worth using as toilet paper. Sorry!
>>18763468>Do you buy the theory that he was written out of it to diminish his role in the early church?Yes, the only book he has in the NT is directly refuting the book of Romans btw. You should watch some of the stuff of Robert Eisenman.
>>18763469The book that directly calls Paul out made Luther seethe.
>>18763974Paul: If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.James: You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without works is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
>>18763974>>18763978
>>18763879Do you have any recommendations of where to start?
>>18763985The one who speaks against the law must be the one in error. Even Jesus said the law will last until heaven and earth pass away.
>>18763997Watch James D Tabor on youtube that's a very good start
>>18764009James 1:25But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.James 2:11-13For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
>>18763664This poster has NO ARGUMENT we won scholarship bros
>>18763620>having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in orderly sequence>write out>everything
He could also be Jesus' biological half-brother or cousin.
>>18763468I genuinely didnt know Jesus had any siblings
>>18764216
>>18764216Sisters and brothers even lol
Was he even a Christian as such, if he was so friendly with the Jerusalem Jew priests?
>>18763974Yes, he kept trying to remove it from the bible his entire life.
>>18764033>Watch James D TaborThis one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_k03G4OAnc
>>18763974There is no reference to Paul in James.>>18764452He actually continued to quote from it as scripture.
>>18764191He was a close relative, nonetheless.
>>18764462And here comes the apologist.
>>18763607>Mark>no Joseph >still lists Jesus's brothersWhat did he mean by that?
>>18764459Yeah that guy he has great videos
>>18763974>>18763978What about the fact James says no to eating food scarficed for an Idol but Paul says that is okay in 1 Corinthians 8 - 10
>>18763978And where exactly is the contradiction? James does not write that works save, neither does Paul write that works are meaningless in the life a believer.
>>18764609Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians 8 (and Romans 14) isn't incompatible with him assenting to a provisional rule against eating meat offered to idols. He says, "Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong to make someone stumble by what you eat; it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother or sister stumble." and "Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling, I will never again eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall."
>>18764525mary been around the block
>>18764661>Everything is indeed clean,But that's not true.
>>18764592Thanks for telling me about him.
>>18764828No prob
If you believe even one NT book is real, then you must believe in conventional Christianity. You can't pick and choose. There is no Scripture without the Church.
>>18764869>Church
>>18764869>Reeeeeeeee, if you believe in Christ as in Mark, and on James, then you MUST believe in Paul.I'd go with Thomas before I go with Paul.
>>18763879Paul in Romans 2: (picrel)Both Pro-Paul and Anti-Paul Christians: "That's just a blank page. I don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing there."
>>18765037*should've said both Anti-Paul/Pro-James and Pro-Paul/Anti-James Christians.
>>18765037And the word "deeds" there is literally "works." It's the same word.
>>18765037>>18765075>>18763985
>>18763978Works is a necessary condition for faith, which is a sufficient condition for salvation.
>>18765284James says that faith without works is dead, i.e. it isn't faith in the sense relevant to salvation. Paul likewise defines faith as something that involves works. "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith *working* through love." I believe the confusion comes about because of what's explained in picrel from D.B. Hart's new testament translation, that Paul sometimes uses "works" as a shorthand for "works of the law," commandments and rituals revealed to the Jewish people specifically, such as circumcision, dietary restrictions, holy days, etc., which, if they were necessary for salvation, would mean all non-Jews would be doomed. But that's obviously unfair, so it can't be that God's criteria for salvation is fundamentally concerned with those things. In their place, Paul puts what he calls faith as the the more essential thing God is concerned with, something that everyone has had access to even without knowledge of a divine revelation peculiar to one group of people. "Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not God of the gentiles also?"
>>18765316forgot picrel
People are talking about the whole Faith vs Works thing but that's not what's interesting to me about James. It seems to me at least that James represents a documented, extinct form of Christianity. We know from the Bible that Jewish Christians existed that they kept the Torah and continued doing sacrifices while simultaneously believing in the resurrection of Jesus. Ultimately, this is what James and the Jerusalem church was. But it seems to me that they must have interpreted Jesus's death and resurrection radically different than the majority of Christians today if they held the beliefs that sacrifices to the temple and the Torah must be upheld even though Jesus was raised from the dead. And considering that James was Jesus's literal brother, the situation becomes much more fascinating. Protestants are desperate to get back to the "original" form of Christianity the apostles followed, but nobody really seems to want to grapple with the elephant in the room that it's likely that this Jewish Christianity was the original thing, and once more gentiles outnumbered the Jews, once the split between Jews and Christians became more clear, this version of Christianity became extinct.
