About Jesus!

[theVOID]

Let me put this another way...Did James, known as the brother of Jesus, exist? He wrote an epistle and was written about by Paul, i.e. someone wrote about the brother of Jesus during his lifetime.

James was verified as being alive when this epistle was written? And if that is the case, is there any conformation that he actually wrote the epistle?

*edit* nevermind, memory coming back, James was martyred 7 years after the first writings of paul, correct?

*edit 2* This epsitle never mentioned any of the life of Jesus did it? I find that strange considering James brother of Jesus would have spent the majority of Jesus' life in his company.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

Was it ever really settled which james it was?

[LEDO]

Let me put this another way...Did James, known as the brother of Jesus, exist? He wrote an epistle and was written about by Paul, i.e. someone wrote about the brother of Jesus during his lifetime.

James was verified as being alive when this epistle was written? And if that is the case, is there any conformation that he actually wrote the epistle?

*edit* nevermind, memory coming back, James was martyred 7 years after the first writings of paul, correct?

*edit 2* This epsitle never mentioned any of the life of Jesus did it? I find that strange considering James brother of Jesus would have spent the majority of Jesus' life in his company.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

Was it ever really settled which james it was?

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?"

[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.

[LEDO]

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?

[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.

[Minimalist]

There are a hell of a lot of holes in the "Paul" story, too.

Lmao, like the Roman army escorting him to court?

Yeah but I was thinking more of Corinth.

The average xtian will claim that Paul was in Corinth in the 50's and it was a going city with a vibrant jewish community and a shitload of xtians who were causing trouble.

But.

The Roman general Lucius Mummius leveled Corinth in 146 BC after suppressing a revolt. The city remained abandoned for 100 years. In 44 BC, Julius Caesar re-established Corinth (as well as Carthage) as colonies.

However, Greece was a central battlefield for the civil wars between Antony/Octavian and Caesar's assassins and then between Antony and Octavian. Thus, things would not have settled down until peace was established in 27 BC. That does not leave a lot of time for Corinth to grow into a major city before "Paul" allegedly got there. More to the point, in 67 AD Nero decided to dig a canal through the isthmus and was sent 6,000 Jewish p-o-ws by Vespasian who had just re-captured Galilee. But of even more significance is that when Vespasian became emperor he found it necessary to establish a second colony at Corinth http://corinth.sas.upenn.edu/vesp.html which certainly suggests that the original Roman colony was far from a going concern.

A third bit of evidence concerns the Greek geographer Pausanias, who lived at the time of Hadrian and who traveled extensively across Greece. In his entry on Corinth he carefully notes every half-assed shrine and temple in the town in the mid 2d century AD but has nothing to say about any Jews or xtians living there at the time. Hadrian's armies were crushing the remnants of Judaea at this time yet Pausanias has nothing to say about them? How likely is that....unless even as late as 135 AD they were not present in Corinth? Of course, where does that leave fucking "Paul?"

---

Let me put this another way...Did James, known as the brother of Jesus, exist? He wrote an epistle and was written about by Paul, i.e. someone wrote about the brother of Jesus during his lifetime.

And, more to the point, is this not yet another example of xtian wishful thinking. I'm not a Greek language scholar but all this shit is written in Greek and the word associated with James is Adelphotheos. Adelphos means "brother" but "Theos" has many meanings and one of the most common is "god."

http://www.biblepages.web.surftown.se/eo15c.htm

In old Greek, the word theos had many meanings. It referred to the numerous Greek gods and deities and to "heavenly powers" and "divinity" and "deity" in general (that is, in reference to the ancient Greek idols and their powers). It was also used of worldly rulers such as the Roman emperors (caesars), and of judges and other "authorities".

One does wonder how long a Jew would have lasted in Jerusalem if he walked around calling himself the actual "brother" of "god?"

Then of course, there is the whole idea of symbolism. These people never assume titles, do they? Herr Von Popenfuhrer never calls himself "the Holy Father" does he? There is a whole panoply of titles for religious shits based on Father...mother...sister and brother. Who is to say that what xtians deeply desire to see (an actual blood relative of their godboy) is nothing more than some pompous ass putting on airs?

[LEDO]

James did not write about his family because there would be no point to it as the community knew who they were. The epistle of James was clearly written during the time of Paul as it was written against Paul and may be one of the few genuine epistles in the Bible.

From Bible Bloopers:

The Epistle of James was written to contradict Paul, especially Galatians.
 Paul uses Abraham to justify his idea that faith alone is needed for salvation (Gal. 3:6-9, 3:14-18 and in Romans 4:1-5). Paul claims Abraham was chosen (or justified) not by works (verse 4:2) but by his “faith is counted for righteousness.” James has a cow over this claim by Paul. James contends that one must obey Hebrew Laws and do works. In James 2:20 he calls Paul “O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” In verse 2:21 he then refutes Paul by claiming “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” James then claims only with works can faith be made perfect.
 In Gal. 2:15-16 Paul claims all one needs is faith in Jesus and “by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” James counters in 2:14-18 claiming one needs works in addition to faith: “Even in faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”
 James claims that Jewish Law must be kept (1:22-27, 2:9-11). Paul does not (Romans 1:25-29). Because of this, Paul is called “the Liar.” Paul admits he is this liar in Romans 3:7, “For if the truth of God has more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet I also judged as a sinner?” This is a complex statement we need to break down. Paul believed that all men are sinners (Rom. 3:9), that all men are liars (Rom. 3:4), and that no one is righteous (Rom. 3:10). Since Gentiles will not accept Jesus Christ if they must accept Jewish Law, what harm is there if they ignore the Law since we are all sinners anyway? God will forgive the Gentiles for ignoring the Law and judge them by their deeds (Rom. 2:6, 2:14) and faith in Jesus. Deeds and works are different concepts. Deeds are good deeds from the heart. Works are re¬quired deeds from the laws of God.
 Paul is proclaiming Jesus as a universal savior god common to all faiths. In Romans 1:17 God is revealed “from faith to faith,” i.e., all faiths have knowledge of the true God because the Gentiles obey the laws of God (Rom. 1:14). God is God to the Gentiles also (Rom. 3:29). Paul envisioned Jesus as a uni¬versal savior god in his letter to Titus when he described them as having “a common faith” (1:4). This idea of Paul’s universal faith saved Christianity from extinction by allowing it to be separated from Judaism. Paul sells out Jesus with his praise of the Roman tax system in chapter 13 of Romans, the reason why the Jews and followers of Christ rebelled.
 James 3:10 curses any man who does not obey the Law. Like¬wise does the Dead Sea Scrolls. Paul plays on this in Gal. 3:13 by cursing the law: “the lord has redeemed from the curse of the law.” James slams Paul for this: “Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.”
 Paul attempts to convince his audience he is not the liar he is accused of being very frequently. He uses the word “truth” 50 times in the 11 epistles assigned to his authorship. He frequently has to proclaim he is not a liar (Rom. 9:1, 2 Cor. 11:31, Gal. 1:20, 1 Tim. 2:7) when he is not saying he is the speaker of truth.

[Minimalist]

In 2 Corinthians 11, one of the epistles that is universally agreed to be "authentic", old "Paul" speaks of escaping from Damascus which was under the rule of Aretas.

Except...Aretas III (of Nabataea) ruled Damascus between 84 and 64 BC while Aretas IV, who died in 40 AD never ruled there after Pompey and his legions took Damascus from his grandfather.

So, if "Paul" is authentic to the first century BC where does that leave fucking jesus?