Who was James the brother of Jesus?

[chatpilot]

There has been an outstanding debate regarding the person of James from the New Testament. The two main questions that are asked are:
1. was he the author of the epistle of James or was it written by someone else?
2. Was he really the brother of Jesus?

Here is a link that has a good amount of information on the matter. Read it and tell me what you think?

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/James/Background/WhoIs.htm

[chatpilot]

I don't doubt that James was an actual person but I refuse to accept that he was the "brother of Jesus" since by doing so I would admit the existence of Christ in history. As you all know that will never happen. But hypothetically accepting that he was the brother of Christ in the physical sense actually creates several problems for Christianity and some of the Catholic churches core beliefs. It would imply that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of the messiah. Some have said that he was only a half brother to Christ maybe being the son of Joseph from a previous relationship, but this is not implied anywhere in the scriptures. Aplogists like to say that he was a brother in the spiritual sense.

My personal opinion is that James was not the brother of Jesus since that would be impossible considering that in my view Jesus was not an historical figure. Not to mention when it says James is the brother of Jesus there is still the matter of sorting out which James they are referring to in the text. Since as is pointed out in the article I have posted there were several people called James during that time period.

[Eilonnwy]

James could just be the nonexistent brother of the nonexistent Jesus. Is there any corroborating historical evidence that James existed?

[chatpilot]

I couldn't agree with you more E. Then again if he did exist it does not exclude the possibility of him continuing to perpetuate the myth of the fictional Jesus.

[LEDO]

I don't doubt that James was an actual person but I refuse to accept that he was the "brother of Jesus" since by doing so I would admit the existence of Christ in history. As you all know that will never happen. But hypothetically accepting that he was the brother of Christ in the physical sense actually creates several problems for Christianity and some of the Catholic churches core beliefs. It would imply that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of the messiah. Some have said that he was only a half brother to Christ maybe being the son of Joseph from a previous relationship, but this is not implied anywhere in the scriptures. Aplogists like to say that he was a brother in the spiritual sense.

My personal opinion is that James was not the brother of Jesus since that would be impossible considering that in my view Jesus was not an historical figure. Not to mention when it says James is the brother of Jesus there is still the matter of sorting out which James they are referring to in the text. Since as is pointed out in the article I have posted there were several people called James during that time period.

Chat, you sound like an atheist apologist with this one.

[theVOID]

I don't doubt that James was an actual person but I refuse to accept that he was the "brother of Jesus" since by doing so I would admit the existence of Christ in history. As you all know that will never happen. But hypothetically accepting that he was the brother of Christ in the physical sense actually creates several problems for Christianity and some of the Catholic churches core beliefs. It would imply that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of the messiah. Some have said that he was only a half brother to Christ maybe being the son of Joseph from a previous relationship, but this is not implied anywhere in the scriptures. Aplogists like to say that he was a brother in the spiritual sense.

My personal opinion is that James was not the brother of Jesus since that would be impossible considering that in my view Jesus was not an historical figure. Not to mention when it says James is the brother of Jesus there is still the matter of sorting out which James they are referring to in the text. Since as is pointed out in the article I have posted there were several people called James during that time period.

Chat, you sound like an atheist apologist with this one.

When you reply with no refutation of any of his claims you give the impression you can't refute them.

[chatpilot]

Too funny Ledo, an atheist apologist? lol I love it!

[Eilonnwy]

I couldn't agree with you more E. Then again if he did exist it does not exclude the possibility of him continuing to perpetuate the myth of the fictional Jesus.

Well the way I see it, all the Gospels are written by unknown people whose names where attributed by the church. As far as I'm concerned, James is another name. Unless there's proof of his existence, it worries me not.

[chatpilot]

Amen to that E I don't see how some people find such an easy concept so hard to grasp.

[Minimalist]

In Acts 15, James is clearly a leader and decision maker in the church of Jerusalem. First, Peter speaks in favor of sharing of the Gospel to uncircumcised Gentiles. Then Paul and Barnabas recount the signs and wonders of conversions among the Gentiles. But finally, it is James who makes the pronouncement of inclusion without circumcision.

Surely everyone realizes that this sort of thing is common in ancient historical writing?

When Livy recounts the reasons for the Second Punic War he has characters give "speeches" outlining the issues involved. But when he writes that "Fabius Maximus mounted the rostrum and addressed the Senate as follows...." we can be certain that Fabius said no such thing. Livy, writing two centuries later did not have access to a verbatim account of any discussion in the senate. No such records were kept. Even worse, he will have a member of the Carthaginian war party addressing Carthage's senate on the reasons for starting the war! Certainly there were no Roman spies sitting there taking notes of what was said.

We have no original documents written by any of these "people" including James and Paul. They are characters to be manipulated by later power brokers.