About Jesus!

[theVOID]

Maybe to you it wasn't settled, but the accepted view is that James was known as the brother of Jesus. He was mentioned in the writings of Paul and he wrote the epistle credited to him. If you have evidence to disprove this I would like to hear it.

Are you saying there was no one known as "James, the brother of Jesus?"

Did I ever claim that nobody was known as "James, the brother of Jesus"? No.

As for what I remember there were at least 3 other James' that the authorship has been attributed to, such as the Apostle James and James the Great.

Another point, why did James in his epistle never claim himself to be the brother of Jesus? Paul made that assertion in Galatians and not James himself. James referred to himself as (paraphrased) "Servant of the Lord God and Jesus" but never as the brother of Jesus. It appears as though that claim came later on.

Also, if this was James the brother of Jesus who wrote the epistle then how do you explain the absolute lack of knowledge of Jesus' life story? Does James even mention Mary and Joseph?

Also isn't the source document believed to be vernacular Greek and therefore unlikely to have been written by an Aramaic Jew?

I don't know a whole lot about the Epistle of James, so please do correct any mistakes i've made.

Paul was at odds with James. Making a statement that he was the brother of Christ would give James an authority that Paul otherwise would not have liken to James. The only reason he would have mentioned it was because it was widely known. James' epistle is designed to counter the teachings of Paul. It is directed against him. I haven't figured out what Mary and Joseph have to do with anything, as I am talking about James being an historical character only.

Again I ask. Do you consider JAMES, known as the brother of Jesus, to be historical or not?

You are yet to convince me that it was in fact this supposed James the brother of Jesus that wrote the epistles.

Considering Paul was at odds with James over doctrine, would it not stand to reason that he would be less likely to emphasise the connection between James and Jesus rather than supporting it even when the author of the Epistles of James himself did not? In what way could this possibly benefit the adoption of Paul's doctrine?

I think it is more likely that the Epistle of James was a later work borrowing much more heavily from the long copied and edited Gospel accounts of which it shares far more common doctrine than it does with Paul or any other early Christian teachings.

The epistle of James struggled to be accepted by many of the Christian denominations at the time whereas Paul was clearly a more significant influence for the early Churches. So it either seems to me that Paul lead to the Gospels that lead to the Epistle of James or that James and Paul had competing doctrines, Paul's was far more prominent and yet somehow the Gospel accounts bear more resemblance to the least favoured doctrine.

I also noticed that you ignored all of the other points of doubt I raised, if you would like to address them rather than changing the focus i'm betting we could make more progress here.

As for why James not mentioning any of the significant parts of the life of Jesus, including his mother and father, the virgin birth etc is important, Do you not find it weird that a man who is claimed to be his brother forgot to mention any of this? Do you not find it weird that he never once referred to himself as the brother of Jesus?

These are some of the problems I have in considering James the brother of Jesus to be a genuine historical figure.

If you want to refute these points one at a time it will be much easier for me to look deeper into it and draw a conclusion rather than wondering whether you couldn't refute my earlier doubts or whether you couldn't be bothered.

I know i probably have a fair few facts mixed up here, so if you can point out the correct order of events that would be much appreciated.