Who Was James the Brother of Jesus?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- After Jesus’ crucifixion, his movement in Jerusalem was led for many decades by his brother James the Just. His historicity is confirmed by the Jewish Roman historian Josephus who records a version of James’ execution at the hands of local Jewish authorities. The Apostle Paul met James (and came into conflict with him) as the two presented different visions for the emerging Christian church. Although historians largely agree that the Epistle of James was not written by the historical James, it shares the perspective of James’ community.
John Hamer of Toronto Centre Place will look at what we can know about the historical brother of Jesus and the communities that looked to him for leadership. Join the livestream to participate in the discussion and to ask questions to our lecturer during the Q&A.
Other topics covered in this lecture include:
Early Christianity
First Century Christianity
Jewish Christianity
Faith vs Works
Should Christians observe the Torah
Browse our catalogue of free lectures at www.centreplac...
Your generous support allows us to offer these lectures at no cost. Please consider a making donation (tax deductible in the US and Canada) at www.centreplac... ️
Another fantastic Hamercopia of Knowledge this evening.
Hamercopia!! 🙉 Love it!
Fire chat today!! 🔥 Thanks from Canada 🇨🇦 for these free lectures, which could easily cost a university degree fee!
Hello there from Canada,I'm from Kenya.Would you help me with your email so that I can consult you on something please?
Will no one stay up with me to listen to Centre Place? Peter, John, James?
😂
I missed it. I was at work. Trimming wicks.
"But Lord..I put on centre place TOO go to sleep...."
Jesus.,...."yeah..me too."
@@elanone1 gn
@@elanone1sleeping through a Centre Place lecture? Trying to gain ancient wisdom by osmosis, I see.
Paul referred to justification in relation to works of the law in particular, while James referred to justification in relation to good works in general.
Which means it probably wasn’t the real James.
Mr. Hamer you are soooo amazing. Best part of youtube. Thank you for the knowledge and entertainment. 😊
Thank you!
@@centre-placeYou really do give university level lectures, thank you sir! Knowledge is one of the greatest gifts and you are generous enough with yours and your time, honestly can't thank you enough.
Thank John Hamer I have Learned so much from your lectures
And they are also entertaining.
Between you and Bart Ehrman my understanding has been exponentially expanded regarding this field of study which is so important for understanding western culture
This man spittin !
WORD.
Thank you for another great lecture. ❤
You are so welcome!!
@@centre-place ❤️
Gospel of the Hebrews mentions James in one of the church father quotations. "And when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went to James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he should see him risen from among them that sleep. And shortly thereafter the Lord said: Bring a table and bread! And immediately it added: he took the bread, blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from among them that sleep."
Thank you for all that you do sir
Very welcome!!
Vos vidéos sont très instructifs. Merci ❤
I'm curious about why The Gospel of Thomas says to turn to James The Just.. hope that's covered. If not still excited to watch :)
It's covered, but not in context. It's actually an idea within Pharisaic and Rabbinic Judaism that Torah is a guideline not just for an ideal life under God but also for the creation of a perfect world. If everyone practiced Torah perfectly the world would be perfect, and anyone who practices Torah perfectly would perfectly fit the world. Therefore, if someone practiced Torah obeisance to a perfection, it's as if the heaven and earth were made to house that person.
Thank you
You're welcome!
LOVE your videos. But I'm confused @centre-place.
Why do you say that Paul states that Jesus "FIRST" appeared to Cephas. The text just says he appeared....
And nowhere does it seem to imply that the women were appeared to anywhere (the women at the tomb).
The word “first” isn’t there but it’s a chronological sequence starting with Cephas. Cephas, then the twelve, after that the 500, then James and the other apostles, last of all to me. Seems like a pretty clear implication Cephas is first. Is the idea that maybe there’s an even earlier appearance Paul isn’t aware of or doesn’t bother to mention?
Thank you for these
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us and our world ✝️ 🙏 🌎 🙏☦
timeline charts are awesome #MapMakers! #ChartNerds XD
This is really great stuff. A very objective historical account giving what is the most reasonable interpretation of the events, as best we can determine base of the limited evidence that we have. It reminds me a lot of James Tabor, although I don't think Tabor is what you can call a Christian, whereas the fellow is a minister of Community of Christ. They used to be called RLDS, which I have always been familiar with having lived my whole life in the Kansas City area. I never knew what their beliefs were, I assumed they were something like Mormons, but they wanted to stay put where they were rather than keep looking for the promised land. However I looked into it and they are a very liberal minded sect from what I read, which to me is a big plus.
Excellent as always.👍
This is really great information. I enjoyed the video. I like that doors are not closed to different possibilities and the acknowledgement that we don't know and identifying things as speculation rather than absolute truth. Along those lines though I do want to mention that I don't agree with the common thinking that Jesus the Just was killed by Ananus. I think the phrase "who was Christ" was added later by Christians as an interpolation. The evidence for this is that it would make more sense for Josephus to be talking about the James the brother of Jesus of Damneus which is mentioned very soon afterward. This is important in terms of when and how James the Just did die and whether we actually know that he was martyred.
Great lecture.
Love these series immensely but I need to be the guy who points out an error in the slides though! The slide at 50:53 states Paul was killed at 60 but the previous slide says he was killed circa 64…I think the circa 64 is more accurate because I thought he died after James under Nero ???
Was waiting for this 👀
Whoever he was, he wrote a brilliant book. It has great nuts and bolts teaching as to what we need to do to live out our faith.
Galatians is written after the "Council of Jerusalem" at which, supposedly, James the Brother of the Lord had ruled that Gentiles need not be circumcised (in fact they had just a few Mosaic rules to follow). Yet Galatians seems to show a continuing "circumcision faction", how can this be? A simple explanation is that the Council of Jerusalem was James agreeing that the Gentile need not follow Mosaic law to be accept Jesus' salvific message while Galatians recounts the problem of Jews within the Christian community continuing to observe Mosaic law. As Peter's behavior showed, this wasn't working. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts does not record that James held that Jews were no longer to follow Mosaic Law and Galatians sheds light on why ultimately this did happen. If Jesus is Lord of Jew and Gentile and if the eucharist is to be shared by both, how can they be following different rules of practice?
This analysis sadly totally leaves out the big question “how did Paul gain so much power knowledge and influence on Christianity if he only later reached a shaky agreement with the Jerusalem curch ?” Also, how are we gonna fly over the problem of the godhood of Jesus which is absent among the ebionites but present in the Jerusalem community ? And not only this, but this theory kinda suggests that the apostles never even left Israel
This is just wonderful
Thanks!
Thank you for your support!
It seems that many of the Christian scriptures involve arguments between one believer and another leading to confusion and division between each one. So people pore through scripture looking for the real truth.
'unacceptable' texts were destroyed or not copied...
How can we know if 'The Poor of Jerusalem' are any different to 'the poor of Antioch' or 'the poor of Alexandria' ? Or, indeed, 'the poor of Bradford (Yorkshire)' ?
It's because their opponents used the same name to label them but don't seem to understand why. Ebionite is derived from evyon, the Hebrew word for poor. This means the sect itself must have called itself that.
How come Matthew doesn't have his gospel on his journey to Ethiopia to spread the gospel and Mark the Evanglist in Egypt like Paul did?
Because the Gospel of Matthew is from an unknown author and so is Mark. They wrote their Gospels anonymously and never intended for their message to spread. Paul on the other hand had an actual mission to go out and convince people he was right. We have no evidence that the author of Matthew went to ethiopia. We have no evidence Mark went to Egypt.
Jesus, therefore, seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing by, said to his mother: iWoman, behold thy son.; Then, he said to the disciple iBehold thy mother.; And from that hour the disciple took her to his own (home). This very well-known text is one of the most important Marian passages in Scripture.
John 21:25 says:
"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be ..."
Hence you see that is why the library exists at the Vatican. You want lore information, visit the library.
@@KaijuOfTheOpera There is evidence Matthew preached in Ethiopia for about 30years and Mark the Evanglist is responsible for the Coptic Christian church in Ethiopia only that their was is not considered part of the bible but Paul accounts for 3/4 of the new testament writings.
@@Animalsandwildlife.7527 We have literally 0 evidence for that.
9:23 I have heard that the reason we use “James” simply because King James was footing the bill for the massive effort to produce the masterpiece English translation. Smells kinda fishy to me.
And yet we call that period of history here in the UK the "Jacobean period"...
Sond is way too low on youtube
Apparently he was the Greek sponsor of the publication of the Sayings Gospel, whose influence was squeezed out by Paul.
Odd that you should say that, given 'Mark' used almost nothing but Paul's letters for things to have his Jesus say: he just re-worded Paul's opinions. There's nothing like having your Jesus dictate to cut down on quarreling.
@@sciptick Uhm, I think you may have the cart before the horse. The church fathers emended the canon for consistency.
@@markwrede8878 If it has been "squeezed out", is there really any actual evidence for a "sayings gospel", or is that just another phantom invented by biblical scholars, like Q?
@@sciptick One sayings gospel was available to the council at Nicea.
is Paul still free.? .he should be in Rikers correction centre..amen
I wonder how you got to "the poor" (possibly capitalized) being a religious community/movement in and around Jerusalem. It's always been an attractive idea to me, i.e. that this is what the Ebionim/Ebionites were, which would explain why they didn't believe in Yeshua's divinity, as well as why they were broadly anti-Paul (they were traditional Jews with the twist the Baptist and other Essenes created called God's Way designed to make the Jews more observant) and Paul was anti-them (he, essentially, made up his own narrative). And the Nazarenes were a subset of the Ebionim. It all sounds elegant but I cant get there textually, e.g. in the Greek original of 2 Galatians Paul uses the regular Greek word for 'poor' in "just remember the poor,' not the Hebrew/Aramaic 'ebionim.' With him being bilingual he might be translating 'ebionim' to 'πτωχῶν,' in his head, though.
John himself seems to have derived this conclusion from a literal understanding of the line in the Lord's Prayer, "give us today our daily bread", being a request for bread in the style of a mendicant. The Poor would then make sense as the name of a sect going around literally begging for bread daily. The problem is that the original Greek doesn't use the word "daily" at all. It's instead using a completely unique word that only appears in the Prayer, which is "epiousion", and no one has any idea what this means. The best people can gather is that it might combine the meaning of "tomorrow" with the Platonic concept of substance (ousia), so bread that contains the substance of tomorrow?
Anyway, the scholarly consensus is that if the Poor was the name of the sect, it's for exactly the reason you described.
@@andrewsuryali8540 This is kind of interesting. I have never thought of many aspects of what you are talking about, such as the possible mendicant origin of the Lord's Prayer.
@@andrewsuryali8540 I looked it up. You are absolutely correct. The word also appears in the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1224, though, as an expense item tantamount to the per diem. Sounds hilarious that they prayed for per diem but, on a serious note, it is makes the 'daily bread' translation fair.
It is "strange" how Paul's defeats and retreats turned into massive Christian victories.
35:33 A section of the video is missing :(
Is it possible that the New Testament writer Jude was really named Judah?
Yes, that would have been his real name.
James was Jacob. It’s the same name, since James used to be the “English version” of Jacob since they both would mean “usurper” in their root etymology.
@9:00
There are three Simons who are one: Simon the Zealot, Simon Bar Giora, and Simon Magus. Peter and Archangel Gabriel are in the ancient Earth Diver myth which also links him with Satan. Jesus also called Peter Satan. Peter rejected Jesus 3 times, and Jesus rejected Satan 3 times. I believe that Jesus is the Amen and Peter is PTAH the Great Architect of the Universe, who is also Petahil, and the Manechaen Prince of Darkness. All research suggests Peter is Satan.
That one section regarding Ananus son of Ananus, is enough to imply that there was not ONE High Priest, but several at any time, at least, because otherwise the list of people mentioned as High Priests is contradictory.
Yes. See, in 2nd temple Judaism, priest was kohayn, high priest was kohayn gadol, and big boss high priest was kohayn gadol gadol. Josephus probably thought "high high priest" sounded silly so he didn't differentiate between the kohayn gadol and kohayn gadol gadol and just called both positions high priest. There were multiple kohayn gadols at any one time, but usually only one kohayn gadol gadol. That said, if you go back to the part where Josephus talks about the last of Herod's part-Hasmonean heirs, there's a suggestion there that he may have held the kohayn gadol gadol position jointly with a more senior priest.
You seems to be describing almost precisely the beginnings of Islam.
Islam has a very strong anti-Pauline slant.
Wonderful erudition, thankyou !
Yahuah father bless you in YAHUSHA's NAME so be it!
Regardless. The beginning "J" letter in and perone male name distorts their real names and makes its sound different not even close, in the middle east we call it something like " the English tough letter" 😊
10:41 Sadly I hesitate to label myself ¨Christian¨ howbeit I am a servant of the living God and do testify the Gospels of Jesus Christ. Why? b/c so many false and even worse lukewarm Christians soiled the very Name. Mtt 24:5 , Rev 3:16 , Mtt 7:23
Jesus came down from heaven for this very reason. I agree that many people have watered down the faith passed down by the disciples but if there is something a Christian should not do is to abandon the name of being Christian because of fake "christians". That is what they want. Wolf is sheep's clothing. Do not give in.
Jesus Christ said very clearly "No one goes to the Father, except through Me"
Stay put if you are a genuine Christian. Let God be God. He is capable of handling the situation, all on His own hence does not need our help. Follow the Faith of Jesus Christ not mere mortals.
Yeshua (Jesus) never had a brother by the name"James" the name James in the Bible is an old translational error from the Latin Vulgate.Yeshuas' brother name was Ya'aqob (Jacob) NOT JAMES!!
That's the same, did you even watch?
I was reading the bible, particularly the book of Genesis. It was talkin about how Abraham left with hi cousin Lot to a new land. Later in the passages Lot is referred as his Brother. I believe it was the culture and customs of that time to refer your cousin as Brother. So Jesus brothers could be his cousins trough joseph or Mary.
1:45:00 they may also have expected an imminent second coming, which further reduces the importance of producing literary works.
Have so many questions - why? do they have circles behind their heads - Why? do they have the same hand signs like freemasons in the picture of the video with the two fingers like in most catholic images
lastly what is on the logo on his left shoulder in the video when scrolling to 14.09 seconds.
do you know who wrote the KJV - many will be shocked
Without Judas, there would be no crucifixion.
Funny you should say that... 1 Clement, writing in the 60s, had never heard of Judas. They scoured the old testament, instead, for examples of betrayal and its consequences. There they were, churching for three decades, regular visits from apostles, and no one ever brought him up. "By the way, there was this Judas guy, betrayed our lord'n'savior." "Not interested." 'Clement', like Paul, never heard of anything any Jesus said (pre-resurrection) that was worth repeating, arguing about, or even puzzling over. Try to imagine Jewish cultists not quarreling over what something means for four generations. (After, true, they made up for lost time.)
So, better to say, without a Jesus there was no crucifixion. Though Paul said one had been crucified by sky-demons in The Firmament, which he considered a real place somewhere above the clouds but not as high as the moon. We know today there isn't one, so not that crucifixion, either.
@@sciptick There were three versions of Mark known to Clement, Original Mark, Secret Mark, and Carpocratian Mark. And Mark knows all about Judas. Paul also knows about the betrayal ( 1 Corinthians 11:23). But yes the Betrayal is very unique and hard to make sense of, it perhaps fits the "criterion of embarrassment", in some ways. I think it was one of many things that early Christians struggled to understand... and still do. Just saying "oh he was a bad guy" doesn't really plum it the depth of the meaning.
@@Rannsack 1 Clement was _necessarily_ written in the 60s: they say rites are still being conducted at the Temple, and Peter and Paul are freshly dead. Mark was not written until after the Temple was obliterated, so there would be no way to know a Mark. They knew authentic Paul, whose personal opinions are where Mark got all his Jesus sayings from, which could make an illusion of knowing Mark. But Judas had not been made up yet.
1 Corinthians 11:23 is Paul citing a vision ("paralambanō apo ho kyrios"). There is nothing there about a betrayal; he was simply "handed over" ("paradidōmi") to the "archons of our eon", i.e. sky-demons in the Firmament. We know archons are not just metaphorical Romans because Paul says, in so many words, that if the archons knew Jews foresaw the death as redeeming mankind, they would have halted it. Paul knew cultic doctrine would never stop Romans from killing anybody; thus, the archons were not Romans.
"Criterion of embarrassment" is meaningless, because his execution was the whole reason they made him up in the first place. He was to be the blood-sacrifice that made the Temple rites superfluous, canceling the sin of Adam for all time, not just for a year.
Whats important of James, one of the 3 consituting the inner circle of Jesus Christ::
In the very beginning many believed in the Erranous Faith Only, philosophy incidentally, the source of the prophesied Apostasy theologically in the leavens of the Faith
Amounting to mis interpreting Paul contrary to the revelation of " Render unto God what is to God " FAITH, without which it is not possible to please God but surely not a Leavened /Corrupted Faith as in Protestantism's Faith Only,
The same grevious Error popped up through the Protestant reformation with Martin Luther rejecting James, cause it was a hinderance to his erranous view of redemption, The Trojan horse of the prophesied Apostasy
Jesus made & used a whip to overturn the TABLES, the tables of the leavens of the Pharisees (Jews) & Herod (Gentiles) The leavens of LAW/FAITH resp,
He definitely wasn’t a Caucasian man.
Now i know yall are not saying this possible Edomite is Jesus brother after Russia has revealed some of the oldest images of the gospel characters are black including Jesus.
Dismissing the attribution of the book of james To the apostle is utterly absurd. It's timing it's language it's genre it's claims are par non! ....very disappointing!
None of that is correct. There’s a lengthy discussion in Ehrman’s “Forgery and Counterforgery”; suspicions that James is inauthentic go back to the earliest years of the church, in no small part because the language is so clearly inappropriate to the claimed author & his context. The view that the letter is pseudonymous is not “absurd”; it is the overwhelming consensus view of scholars and historians.
is this channel run by atheists who look at it from a historical perspective rather than a theological one? Hope so, cos sounds like it, brilliant and best way cos then it's not polluted by anyone's religiously motivated bias.
This channel belongs to Community of Christ, formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. While originally a Mormon church, the church now follows a more orthodox Christian theology and has a social policy of inclusiveness. Of their Mormon past, they still retain the Book of Mormon and the Doctrines and Covenants as scripture (although their version is different from that used by the LDS and remains "open" to modification). The church also follows a more secular historically-based understanding of Christianity, not to mention a scientifically-based understanding of the world (so no Noah's flood and the like). Before you ask, yes, that includes a full understanding of how the BoM came to be in real history and who Joseph Smith Jr. really was. Centre Place is basically their community outreach program where they welcome everyone including, yes, atheists.
John Hamer (the presenter) is a pastor of the CoC based in Toronto, Canada. He is a secular historian specializing in Christian history (that is, how the Christian movement emerged and evolved IRL) with a side focus on Mormon history. He was born and raised as a member of the LDS church (the "Utah Mormons") but deconverted and joined the CoC to help them out in their ongoing process of reform.
To assume there _was_ a James brother of Jesus, rather than critically examining how well the evidence supports any such thing, is a bad start. We have only an absolutely ambiguous mention in Paul, equally compatible with mentioning just a random Fra James who was not an apostle, and a deeply suspicious line in Josephus that makes no sense, in context, unless that James is the brother of Jesus ben Ananus made high priest in the next paragraph. That is very, very thin. (Acts is widely recognized as wholly fictional.)
@@sciptick Jesus son of Damneus, or maybe his successor Gamala? Ananus' son is named Ananus. According to the passage, the succession went Joseph - Ananus son of Ananus - Jesus son of Damneus - Jesus son of Gamala. In other words, there were already two Jesuses there. That's why the majority scholarly consensus by actual critical scholars is that Josephus needed a way to describe the first of three Jesuses he's introducing to the passage, thus Jesus called Christ.
Jesus son of Ananus is introduced in a completely different book. He's a sort of crazy frothing-in-the-mouth prophet who died comically when a ballista rock smashed in his head mentioned in the Jewish War, not Antiquitues. Also, he ended up being called this because the English translator wanted to harmonize JW with Ant. The way Josephus actually wrote his name is Jesus son of Ananias. Ananus and Ananias may or may not be the same name, as Ananus is most likely just Hanan while Ananias might have been Hananiah.
Praise the Lord!
The reason why the Hebrew variants who sought to continue to hold on to the Jewish ceremonial laws often contradicted the gospel claim of Christ's divinity. The division is not over semantics, but doctrine. Gnostics were not Christians. A Christian is one who follows Christ's teachings. Gnostics weren't Jewish, weren't Christians, but they tended to prey on the upper class of society portraying as though they had hidden, deeper teachings. They were essentially the scientology of their day. Pay for the levels and advance in holiness... Lol
While I am a Protestant Christian, I concidered Christianity the continuation of the same faith practiced by Adam, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob,, Moses, Joshua, David, Daniel, Nehemiah etc on down to Christ. The division comes from the differing schools of thought. Messianics, Rabbinical, Saduseces and Helenics. The Saduseces went extinct after the temple, the Helenics and a portion of the Rabbinicals became followers of Christ, and a portion of the Messianics became followers of the Rabbinicals when Christ did not become a military leader. There was certainly a lot of differing opinions but among the apostles there was generally overwhelming agreement. Idk what you're going on about. Paul submitted to Jerusalem, ie James, criticized Peter when he got too self-righteous over Jewish law and was never condemned for the chastisement. Seems pretty straight forward to me especially when Jerusalem said that gentiles were not to convert to Judaism (circumcision). It seems like you are just trying to say that Christianity isn't Jewish enough for your liking... I could be wrong but even if you were successful in attacking Paul to the point of discrediting his testimony it isn't going to be enough to get you over the vision of Peter, the Council of the Apostles.
He isn't attacking Paul. CoC recognizes itself as a descendant of the Pauline branch. This entire lecture is driving home the point that Christians SHOULD NOT follow James because they inherited Paul's teachings. It's just being honest that there was a division in the early church but that ultimately authority in Christianity derived from Paul, not James, despite James being the actual brother of Jesus. This lecture is trying to affirm the core tenets of Christianity. It's basically responding to modern judaizing movements that champion James for his direct connection to Jesus.
Catholicism vs Relativism 💫
Good thing for Paul.
Calling James, "The brother of Jesus" makes a leap from "James, the brother of the Lord." Why didn't Paul call him, "James, the brother of Lord Jesus" or "the brother of Christ"? I think the gospels intentionally conflated those who were called "lord" into a Jesus figure, when Paul was always talking about a spiritual Christ.
Context. This mention is made in Galatians. There are 8 uses of the word lord in the epistle. Seven of these clearly refer to Jesus, although some wish Galatians 4:1 doesn't because it makes Paul theologically questionable. The eighth is Galatians 1:19:
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
You have to remember that when Paul was writing Galatians he was writing GALATIANS. He wasn't thinking about other letters where he might have used lord differently. Within the closed context of the epistle to the Galatians, brother of the lord is clearly brother of Jesus.
The epistle which allows the conflation you describe is 1 Corinthians, but in this epistle Paul specifically avoids saying anything about James' relationship with "the lord" because he's fighting with him here,
@@andrewsuryali8540interesting. Does that hold true in the original Greek? I think sometimes people forget these are translations. It's why context is so important and to know the history of the time period. I am honestly asking if you know weather or not what you said holds true in the original Greek, because I don't know
Maybe "brother of the lord" was a Greek saying for some kind of title or kind of person like how we say " he's a paragon of excellence" perhaps brother of the lord was an obscure form of it that Paul used to address Yeshuwa. ( I know this is retarded just curious to see what people say lol )
@@johnschartiger8424I asked a green speaker once. He said the Greek word for brother is used the same way in English, it can mean a brother by blood or a brother in arms/brother of the faith kind of way; so yes you’d need the context to know how it’s being used.
@@johnschartiger8424 In the original Greek, the grammatical construction Paul used was extremely awkward, something he wouldn't use without it meaning something. Unambiguously, he was saying this James was _neither_ of the Apostles James. Did he mean _just_ non-apostle Fra James, or non-apostle Jesus's-actual-brother? There is no way to tell: could be either. Paul made a big deal about how being baptized made you just as real a brother as if you were born that way. He clearly didn't imagine anybody would care, or be in doubt. It must be said, there were a _lot_ of Jameses. (Also a lot of Jesuses, though we oddly don't hear about those.) Paul spells out "brother of the Lord" in exactly one other place: in that place he is also distinguishing brother apostles from ordinary brothers.
Why would James require gentiles to convert? Jews didn’t require this. Gentiles could worship god and the ceremonial law did not apply to them. They were expected to keep the noahide laws. The difference between ebionites and protoorthodox Christians went much deeper and there is no evidence by Paul that James or any of the other “pillars” of the Church were exposing ebionite doctrine. James and Peter were not opposed to gentiles joining the church and were not advocating a Hebrew only church.
Who was Putin, the brother of Trump?
Jesus Christ and his Desciples nothing to do with Gentile[Pagan] Christianity founded by Paul and early Church fathers.
Not a brother but an uncle, the brother of Joses (John) the baptizer. Nowhere it states brother of Jesus but brother of a Lord (prince, princeps, pretending heir rightious, rightfull to the throne) .
I'm starting to think Paul may actually be some kind of megalomaniac. He essentially usurped the church from those that knew Jesus personally to fashion it in his own image and values.
I didn't really know too much about Paul before today but this lecture and several others I've listened to about Paul have really got my anti-christ senses tingling
Funny there are no J’s in Hebrew 😂😂😂
Yes james is not Hebrew. Jesus brother's name was yakov
James is the youngest son of St. Joseph (from his late wife), and he was the one who babysit the young Jesus and wrote the biographical.
Before Paul I don't think there was any such thing as Christianity. In Acts 11 after Paul was preaching and teaching his own gospel and ideas for a while in Antioch, the disciples there were were first called Christians / Chréstians. Before that I think they were called Nazoreans (the Watchers, Guardians or Keepers) by outsiders, after Jesus himself: ישו הנוצרי (Yeshu Ha-Notzri). Basically after Paul things were not the same.
Well, that's not accurate, but it's very consistent with this church channel, so why not
@@RomanPaganChurch The only record we have of that time concerning the rise of Christianity are Paul's letters and the historic fictions called the gospels and Acts, and extracanonical writings. The non-Christian documentation is less than useless because what the secular historians wrote about Jesus and Christians were all forged or they got their info from Christians, i. e., hearsay evidence.
@@user-uo7fw5bo1o so you're making the argument that the gospels in the book of Acts is fiction? If so, conversation over. Literally no legitimate theologian argues that, not even Bart Ehrman.
@@RomanPaganChurch Which shows the chokehold Christianity has on scholarship. Anything that's not the Christian story or a non-miraculous version thereof is dismissed as crankery. It looks to me that pretty soon the non-miraculous version will be dismissed as crankery too and even scholars like Bart Ehrman including Ehrman himself will be called a crank because of the marriage between the Republican Party and White conservative Evangelical Christianity. All we'll be left with are the Evangelical apologists whose goal is to bamboozle people enough to recruit them to and keep them in the "faith".
@@RomanPaganChurch And my postulate on the beginning of Christianity? I got it from Paul's letters and Acts.
catholic doctrine is Jesus had no bro's or sisters..his mom only had one kid.
James was the older step brother of Jesus . Mary never had other children . If she did they would have been charged to take care of her and not John .
son of Mary and Clopas
Who was James' mother? Mary was a virgin.
Hire an editor. These should be one third as long and have as much info
Adjust your video playback speed or volunteer to edit it for them. As a gesture of your appreciations
Do yourself a great favor - read "Jesus Words Only".
As written by 4 different authors that do not agree on what happened regarding Jesus ?
@@Barry-LeePace A book written by a Lawyer that proves Paul lied and should not be "Scripture" if we believe God. One Author - Douglas DelTondo
"Jesus' Words Only"
@@barnsweb52 I was reffering to the synoptic gospels.
@@Barry-LeePace If God is true, only the account of Matthew is worth study.
@@barnsweb52 Interesting take and I would tend to differ as in I think Mark would be the one that I would chose. Still what does that imply about the other books?
I tend to enjoy Center Place - but he really should qualify his words more, as a number of things he says as fact are now proven to not be so at all.
Any Orthodox in the chat?
Jesus didn't appear to the women first. They only saw the empty tomb, or possibly an "angel."
Wrong. It’s all nonsense but just to remind you the Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene. She thought he was the gardener. Jesus told her not to touch him because he had not yet ascended to his father.
Mary Magdalene was supposed to have seen him in the garden but first mistook him for the gardener
Hello friends I have videos for you on Bible Prophecy and the End Times. Please consider going to Papa Joe Fortner or Shockwaves of the End Times or The Watchmen Series with Papa Joe. Thank you and God bless you 🙏
💘
That's not James....that's Keanu reeves
so sick of these biblical clarifications. what is the truth? and why have people suffered for millennia under this bullshit?
If James was a brother of Jesus - and Jesus was the Son of God - would James also be a Son of God?
It seems that Paul actually says so in Rom 8:29. Paul predicts that, at the imminent end-time, Paul's cult members will be adopted by God.
Consequently, God's firstborn Jesus will be surrounded by many (adopted) brothers. They are, “the brothers of the Lord”.
Well, no. I mean, Heracles was Zeus' son but his literal twin Iphicles wasn't.
We're all children of God
Nice line for the faithful - who may be surprised to learn that they will be brothers of Jesus. Not Jesus of Nazareth, because he had not as yet been invented...@@HamerToronto
If James, the brother of Jesus, only became a believer after the crucifixion . . . we have to ask why was that? Didn't his mommy tell him about the Immaculate Conception, the angel visits, the Wise Men and their magnificent gifts, the warning about Herod's Massacre of the Innocents, the recognition of the seer and prophet in Jerusalem, not to mention the many miracles?????? Could it be that all of that bullshit hadn't even been invented yet?
This is because there was no James, the biological brother of Jesus! The only evidence ever cited is Paul & Josephus. There is no other clear reference in the NT to a James the biological brother of Jesus who led the sect! Paul was not talking about a biological relationship when he says he met James, the brother of the Lord. He is using that phrase as fictive kinship ie all baptized Christians were brothers of the Lord. Josephus's mention is a christian interpolation, it originally read James the brother of Ben Damneus. Read it for yourself the the passage is not about Christians.
Excellent,,someone using their brains to think instead of just learning others...
The answer is that there was no individual named James who was the biological brother of the Lord. There were a few James's floating around the new testament, none of whom are described as a member & leader of the sect. Mark invents a character named James who is described as a biological brother of Jesus but he think Jesus is insane & then is never heard of again. The thrust of the story comes from Paul in Galatians 1:19, where he describes meeting a man named James, the brother of the Lord. Later Christians noticed this & tried to retrofit a James, biological brother of Jesus into the New Testament by claiming this or that James was he. The problem is that the only kind of brother Paul ever talks about in his 7 authentic epistles are are fictive brothers ( and sisters). That is to say all baptized christians were known as brothers of the Lord. If Paul meant a biological brother in Galatians he would have been well aware of the confusion he was creating by not specifying what type of brother he meant. That he didn't clearly shows that he had no notion of there being any biological brothers of the Lord called James or any other name. It's just wishful thinking, endlessly repeated by Christians.
@@ghostriders_1 LOL I think perhaps it is you who is nuts. It was the normal thing in those days for families to have multiple children. Very much more likely that Jesus had siblings, than not.
@@slik00silk84 in the story he did!
I didn’t know James was a Hebrew name. Neither are Luke or Peter.
Call them by there real names..
josephus got that beak
Yeahhh... I wish people would stop using that racist imagery. See, we don't actually have any physical portraits of Josephus. That statue was a random statue that someone in the past decided looked "Jewish" BECAUSE of the beak and somehow got used as Josephus' portrait in multiple generations of publications.
St. James was a cousin of Jesus. Just like some cultures use brother or sister instead cousin.
Why then would Jesus entrust His Mother to St John at the food of the cross. Obviously, St. Joseph had already died by then hence he did not want to leave his mother alone.
Jesus, therefore, seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing by, said to his mother: iWoman, behold thy son.; Then, he said to the disciple iBehold thy mother.; And from that hour the disciple took her to his own (home). This very well-known text is one of the most important Marian passages in Scripture.
This is very clear..Mary remained a virgin just as she conceivedof the HolySpirit (do you want to limit God?) .
Can/will the question of Jesus' siblings ever be answered?
*****
And then there's that 'twin brother' thing!!!
So many issues, all unaddressed!!!
Does Trump's bible speak to any of these?
How can a fictional caricature have a brother ?
Just because the four gospels depict a fictitious character doesn’t in any way mean that there wasn’t a real man, who the myths developed from. I don’t believe in Christianity. But I still have to have enough intellectual integrity to recognise that there’s still enough evidence to say that there was a man who had a rabbinic following around Galilee, who was crucified for claiming to be a Jewish messiah and that James was his brother.
I mean, just listen to what the historical evidence says. And just because these are real people from history, doesn’t mean that we have to agree with their religious beliefs.
"Jesus"...
Never had a brother named "James"...
But Yeshua had a brother named Jacob...
Well, if you wanna go that way it should be Yeshua had a brother called Ya'akov.😅
You must be pulling my leg.
The second son they named Jacob (Hebrew: יעקב, Ya'aqob or Ya'aqov, meaning "heel-catcher", "supplanter", "leg-puller",
@@hygujiuy I have nothing backing this up but I like to think Jacob was the first son.
Also we don't know that Jacob's the second born. They could have had a bazillion siblings.
@@andrewsuryali8540
That's even More accurate...
So, Yes...
Let's go with that!
James was Chad Daybell, who was also Methuselah among others
I think, In the light of what you’ve just said, which I find most illuminating, I thought you’d like this. Thip.
From Rupert Parmizan Eggbuzzard to
Penelope Fortescue-Nippletweek, a quiddle of boo:
Rejuvenated knee scratchings and slapdoodle pipple candy. That’s what the lackspittle nockkle brand sings before breakfast. And now, ha ha! And now, let us intone with sonorous acquiescence: may friendly milk countermand your trousers. 🥛👖
As always my first question to you is, where is the squirrel? Because I can see a fluffy tail hanging from your pocket and your jacket is very mobile and wrigglly this morning.
🐿🧥
And so to sum up, three quiddles: who are we? And Where would you like to keep them? Because Your sclerotic coalescence is an ungulate and taciturn snot bubble, a coagulation of reprobate knee scratchings and a flatulent periconbobulation of ultracrepidarian pimple squeezings.
Famous last words: “Hay everyone, watch this!”
James was not Jesus brother, he had a different mom and father
The brother of Jesus?
Jesus has brethren. His mother gave birth to him and remained a virgin for the duration of her life on earth.
The were no proto orthodox christians. Just Christians... and heretics, later protestants.
James the son of Alpheus is Jesus' cousin. Jesus had no siblings from Mary. cousin and brother can be same word.
This is not scriptural
Stop calling a story historical, please.
There are fewer corroborating firsthand accounts of Julius Caesar’s entire Gallic conquest than there are for these ‘stories’.
Most stories and legends stem from something historical
Another fictional character
James the Userper
James son of Mary and Clopas
Load of BOLLOCKS..
Read a book about ACTUAL FACTS