The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission | Dr. Bruce Chilton
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 06. 2024
- ➡📚Get the book! amzn.to/3RO8iuM
Amazon description:
James the Just was, in the time between Jesus' resurrection and James's death, the most prominent and widely respected leader in Christendom. These essays by eight renowned scholars address such issues as the Jewish context of the early church, the person of James, his literary message and mission, and James in relation to Peter and Paul.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @history-valley
📧Email: jacobberman553@gmail.com
Twitter: @Jacob56723278
┃🔴www.patreon.com/HistoryValley...
✅Discord server / discord
✅PayPal Link www.paypal.com/paypalme/Jacob...
✅Centurions For Paul Facebook Group / 957292477950756
🌐Historical Jesus, higher criticism and Second Temple Judaism / 1038530526485151
➡📚Get his book! amzn.to/3RO8iuM
just is paul, jeez only one bro ; Lazurus, get the facts. definit not in his book.
Jesus power proof ❤ Here yr evidence. Warning it last 7 days an 7 hours.
@@willempasterkamp862 James the brother of Jesus and Paul definitely dud not get along. Paul was Roman apologist. James believed in the Jewish Messiah and kicking out the Roman occupiers.
I side with James NOT Rome.
@@jillengland3277 James is Germanicus ; Drusus, Andreas, Andrew (the elder). James is just a nickname indicating he was a pretender, an overtaker. the adjective Just meaning ; the rightfull appointed Heir ; Qui venit in hominem domini.
@@willempasterkamp862
“Who comes into the lords man.” ??
I believe James the just was the leader of the Christian church and Paul was the pretender and the teachers pet of Vespasian.
Your new intro is great.
This format is perfect. No music, no noise, just intelligent discussion. For those who listen with headphones, this is much more enjoyable.
Thank you for your work.
James is not the blood brother of Jesus , John is , they are sons of another Mary and are sons of Zebedee , read how Jesus picks his Apostles also Peter and Andrew are brothers .
A soundly based telling of the life and times of James. I love the book of James for its practical approach to creating and maintaining a harmonious Christian community. I think he’s a critical element of the Bible and stands the test of time.
Thanks for a great interview James… I mean Jacob 😅.
Brilliant as always and watching your uploads at the same time as James Tabor has seriously spoiled us on CZcams.
Indeed. Jacob sitting behind the console and re-opening the aqueducts via these TIMELY interviews with brilliant bible scholars. Now we deep dive into the initial split. Stay tuned?
Thank you for this interview Jacob. Much appreciated.
Great interview. Thanks!
Thank you Jacob 🤓
Read James the brother of Jesus by Robert Eisenman. (The Dead Sea scrolls uncovered.
It is not boring when you see that James and his executed brother were both at a part of the Essenes revolt messianic apocalypse cults.
Rome took them over, destroyed all resistance, enslave thousands, had James stoned to death after they crucified his brother.
James and Paul definitely did not agree.
On the other hand Rome and Paul, and Josephus did agree.
My wife had a copy of Robert Eisenmans book and I read about half of it. It's not boring but it's not casual reading either. I had notes in it throughout but she [the wife] took it away from me after she saw how much I was enjoying it. I've debated whether to get my own copy from Amazon but I think I've got the gist of it.
I take the opposite position. I think Paul's discovery of Genesis 15:6 makes him to Christianity as Albert Einstein is to Quantum Physics. I mean NOBODY ever saw that one coming and its elegance makes it impossible to disprove (although James attempts to do so in his epistle).
I mean, really. Genesis 15:6 is pure gold. Wouldn't you agree?
@@GizmoFromPizmo
There is an updated edition in two volumes now.
It is pretty good.
أخو الرب؟ هل خالق الكون ومافيه له خال أو عم أو أخ؟ نتساءل كمسلمين نرفض ذلك نحن لنا روايه اخري سيدتي هل تعرفي ان هناك طاءفه أمنت بيسوع منذ 2800سنه؟ يسوع وامه مريم والصليب؟ يوجد كنيسه لاتباع المسيح منذ 2800سنه معنا تمثال لابن مريم ممسكا بصليب وعلي رأسه تاج من الزهور وخلف رأسه شمس مضيئه ماذا تسمي ذلك؟ تقولون طائفه الايسينين اللتي ذكراها مخطوطات قمران قبل بولس ب 200سنه و 100سنه كانوا يؤمنون بمعلم الصلاح رجل البر (التقوي والصلاح والبر مفاهيم اسلاميه) هل تعرفي معني كلمه الاسينين؟ هي ترجمه خاطئه ككثير من الترجمات الاوربيه لتاريخنا وتراثنا وديننا فكتبه الانجيل قالوا ان اخو الرب اسمه جيمس وهو اسم ليس عربي فهل كانت مريم تسمي اولادها اسماء اوربيه للمحتلين لارضها؟ نقول اسمه يعقوب اخو الرب اسمه يعقوب فالعاءلات المتدينه تسمي ابناءها علي اسماء من تحترمهم ويعقوب نبي وبار فطبيعي ان تختار مريم اسم يعقوب لابنها قارني بين يعقوب والترجمه جيمس (yaaqob jeims) ؟هل نترجم الاسماء فنغير نطقها ؟ الاسينين تحريف للكلمه العربيه اللتي كان يتكلم بها سكان فلسطين زمن بولس (اليسوعين =الايسنين= اتباع عيسي ) عيسي بالعربيه ترجمها اليونانين ايسو من اللهجه الاراميه ايشو ماذا فهمتي من كتابتي سيدتي؟
@@user-wc7ku7ud3e
Thank you. I have a Quran translation and have read the parts in there of the Roman execution of Jesus. That the Romans executed many during that time is true and I do not believe they let any of the condemned survive the tree.
To understand James as Jesus brother we have two options; 1- Either James was his step brother or adopted brother OR
2- That Jesus was not God until his baptism and that the brother of the human Jesus is not the brother of God.
Jesus’s name was Yeshua
James name was Yaakov, or Jacob
( Greek; Ιακωβοζ )
I enjoy philosophical discussion. Thank you.
I will read your reply a few more times and think about it.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus
Nailed it Jillan. Dr. Robert Eisenman would smoke this dude. He got the diet way wrong. He’s working for the bad guys
NEED TO KNOW: Did James permit and support the yearly Passover until his death"? For if he did, that would show a large break with Paul's belief of the efficacy and suffeciency of his brother's death.
That’s a really great question I don’t know that there are any materials that would show that he did keep the Passover after Jesus’ death. And if he did, we don’t know if it took on a different form. Many Messianic/Christic Jews today still observe it although with a modified Haggadah.
Perhaps. But he's also a Jew living in Judea. Regardless of whether he kept these observances religiously or not, it is the custom of the land itself to do these things and observe these days. It is their engrained culture.
He forced Paul to take a nazirite vow which included an animal sacrifice. So I would say yes
@@a.t.6322 todays "messanic" Jews are Christians. Its an missionary movement to convert Jews and not even 100 years old. They are not the Jewish Christians of back then, otherwise they would keep the law.
Judging from the New Testament, I would say that the death of Jesus on the cross was little more than a blip on James' radar. From all indication, James was in favor of continuing the status quo. Or at least his handlers were.
The Jerusalem church had been overrun with Pharisees and priests and was little more than a sect of Judaism.
I like how Luke identifies the Jews who betrayed Paul as some random Asian Jews but the fact that the Jerusalem church just let it happen speaks rather loudly.
But James was a company man and so I'd say that whatever feasts and traditions observed by the Pharisees, James was all about.
Around 31:00 on the discussion of Jesus' brothers. I'm kinda more convinced by James Tabor's hypothesis that Jesus' brothers are the sons of Joseph's brother Cleophas/Alphaeus since he died childless (Jesus is someone elses son). That's why you have Jesus' brother Simon Bar Cleophas as head of the movement after James.
There is a LOT of historical guesswork involved in James Tabor's "scholarship". He depends a lot on "because I say so". He's just like Bart Ehrman in that regard.
Thank you so much for this interview. I can't wait to read Bruce Chilton's book Bruce and you both were a powerhouse of information.
I have wondered why baptism was so important. Actually what is baptism? The Catholic church baptizers babies by sprinkling a little water The Adventist baptize by submerging adults which makes a lot more sense. When Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist it was also a big deal. I think other ancients also baptized. Eva
Start looking into dipping into water done by the Essenes in the Qumran community. That's where it really gained its traction, from what I've learned.
Great 👍
James the Just is my favorutie apostle. He and Paul also did not agree, this also explains the split of jewish and pauline Christianity
Although James never mentions baptism, it's a pretty safe guess that he does allow it for Gentiles.
Thank you for that interesting interview. Just think about what effect the appearance of the risen Christ would have had on James, his brother. James would have been terribly ignorant about the ministry of Jesus. And a resurrection appearance would have made him extremely curious about his brother's ministry. So James would have a lot of catching up to do. No doubt, then, that James went about asking question of all the apostles about the life of Jesus. No doubt James would have taken notes. And as a Jew doing an investigation, James would have had to seek corroboration from at least two or three other apostles as required in the law. It seems quite possible, then, that all these notes could have been used by the gospel authors as source material for their gospels - the Q source.
James probably would not have considered himself qualified to write a gospel because he was not an eye witness, but he may have encouraged others to write their gospels. He may have helped them with spelling, or grammar, or helped find various scripture verses to include.
Jame eventually became head of the church at Jerusalem. If anyone had questions about the ministry of Jesus, they would go to James for answers. You don't become the head of the church unless you know how to read and write. And you don't become head of the church unless you are committed to maintaining the stored knowledge of the tradition. But back then there was no stored knowledge of the Church. So James had to go and collect it to begin with.
Eventually, James became known as James the Just. No one gets such a title unless he has demonstrated his abilities to do reliable investigations. No doubt James got this ability by interviewing the apostles and seeking corroboration. I would not be surprised to learn that it was Jesus himself who taught James how to read and write when they both were still kids.
I think James was indeed an apostle during Jesus ministry and that the church tried to change the history. No way he would have been the leader of the apostles for 20 to 30 years when he wouldn't have believed in Jesus or when he wouldn't have followed Jesus during his ministry. And why? Because James split with Paul and Paul's followers and taught a different gospel.
@@germanboy14💯
@@germanboy14
Apostles were meant to go out and preach to the world, not just to those at Jerusalem. Where is it ever said that James the brother of Jesus was one of the 12? If they were, it would have certainly been recorded.
Joseph does NOT disappear around the time that Jesus is 12-years old, as this video says. He's mentioned in the gospels DURING the ministry of Jesus.
John 6:42 - And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
These "scholars" say things like this because they want to throw out all source material with John's name on it. John is a Gnostic's worst nightmare because you CANNOT filter out the divinity of Christ in John's writings and so the only thing they can do is throw out all of it.
These people are NOT honorable.
I think this may be an oversimplified presentation of Eisenman's theory; I think he would say that James and the righteous teacher had much in common, and that the movement of Jesus and the dead sea scrolls community has much in common, if not being the same.
Valiant would likely have a better idea.
For Eisenman, James is the 'Righteous Teacher;' Paul is the "Spouter of Lies" in the DSS and "the Enemy" in the Recognitons; and Caiaphas is the "Wicked Priest" (though his father in law Anas is also a perfect fit for the part). Yet it is what emerges from this that is... truly epoch making.
Paul is a mortal 'enemy' of the 'Early Christians,' the Torah worshiping Jews that count among their members John the Baptist, Jesus, James, Peter, etc. But NOT Paul. Paul insinuates his way in there, but it doesn't last. These are the faces known to us today of a much more secretive Qumran community who prosecute the war with Rome. This event, rather than the Crucifixion (misplaced by the canonicals in 30 or 33 CE) turns out to be the pivotal point in Palestinian history in the mid first century.
So, while the way you stake out the territory largely captures Eisenman's work, what you have yet to reap is the result. Eisenman has inverted the way of understanding the five main antagonists in mid-first century Palestine: Paul and his Hellenized Christianity obtained in a 'vision' of the Risen Christ on his way to 'Damascus' (really, the 'Land of Damascus' or Qumran-the place the Dead Sea Scrolls were written and hidden for 2,000 years); the Herodians, who likely support or tolerate Paul-their cousin; the Roman hegemony that only cares about one thing: sending taxes back to Roma; the high priests who true to their name have ben living 'high on the hog' ever since Herod the Great rebuilt the Temple and created a money machine out of 'blood sacrifices' offered to YWH-but sold to anyone who shows up during one of three obligatory for Jews annual pilgrimage festivals. Finally, and here is where Eisenman shines, we have the 'Early Christians,' he calls them the 'messianic movement,' Torah worshiping Jews who would like to rid themselves of the Herodian client kings, the Roman hegemony, and the Temple high priests. They would also like to see themselves rid of Paul and his gospel... of which we have no extant copy, except for mentions in the Acts and Epistles.
You've captured the theory. But you have yet to reap its rewards. Get a used copy, a 'working' copy, or read it as a searchable PDF. It's touch going at times. But there is really nothing like it out there.
I've read more than one author say that if "James" was the only book we had and people lived by it we'd all be better off.
I don't think it's the rule set we are given - I think it's just human frailty that effs us up in that we fail to live up to even our own simple rules. I try to live by: "don't be a dick", and I fail umpteen times a week... 🙃
@@edelgyn2699 true. I am surrounded by folks who believe every word of the Bible is true but can't even name the four gospels. If was even possible to follow the rules, I don't think we'd need saving. If more folks would just care enough to actually read the Bible instead of just believing in it, I think that alone would be a start.
Mr Chilton , what happened to Acts 15 ??? You failed to mention the rest of it like so many Christians seem to do :
Acts 15:20-21 KJV
20)"But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21)For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day"
So as one can see , James laid out four basic requirements to start with , then when they attend Shabbat each week they'll learn the rest of the Torah(Law of Moses) . There are two times that a gentile is required to be circumcised , if they want to eat Passover at ones home or if they wish to go beyond the wall of separation in The Temple , something that Paul said had been removed !!! The Clementine Homilies says that , according to Peter , that meat sacrificed to idols have demons attached to them , as you read 1 Corinthians 8 & 10 you see Paul saying that it's okay to eat meat sacrificed to idols just as long as nobody else sees you doing it , so my best guess is that Peter sat with Paul's converts thinking that Paul had taught them correctly and when the "people from James" showed up they informed Peter what had been going on there and that's why Peter got up and removed himself
Paul wanted to be a Jew to the jews and a gentile to the gentiles. Chilton makes a good presentation of the impracticality of this scheme.
I think the best view of the Epistle of James is that it was dictated by James but written by a scribe. This is how a lot of material got written down in ancient times. Most people didn't know how to work a typewriter in the first century and before and so they had professional stenographers do it for them.
This is why Paul's epistles sound different, one from another. In several epistles, he actually names the writer. If you read Romans, many times you see the expression, "What shall we say then..." We don't find that expression used in any other epistle. Heck, we don't find it anywhere else in the whole bible. That was the writing style of that particular scribe.
So for these jokers to say, "1 Timothy doesn't sound like an epistle of Paul", is ludicrous. First of all, he's using locker room talk to his fellow evangelist and secondly, this might literally be a letter written in Paul's own hand.
Not everybody had a word processor back in the first century A.D. so they might come off sounding different. James' epistle is no exception.
كيف نتأكد ان جيمس هو من كتب؟ كيف نتأكد ان بولس هو صاحب الرساءل؟ كيف نتحقق من ذلك؟هل اخضعنا الرساءل لفحص الكربون؟
@@user-wc7ku7ud3e - I've never carbon tested any of the manuscripts but I wouldn't be surprised if someone has. But that's only going to tell you how old the COPY of the letter is. Nobody has the originals (that we know of).
How can we say for certain that anything we didn't personally witness was written by the one who we think wrote it?
@@GizmoFromPizmo نعم سيدي قصدت ذلك كيف نقبل تعليم لم نتحقق من كتبه؟من قاله؟هل هو حقا لمن نسبوه اليه؟ هل نبني يقيننا علي وهم؟ استاذي الجميل هل تعلم ان كل الكتاب المقدس القديم والجديد لانعرف من كتبه بالحقيقه؟ لسنا متأكدين من كتب اسفار التكوين ومابعدها لسنا متأكدين هل كتب متي فعلا انجيله؟هل كتب فعلا مرقس ولوقا وبولس ويوحنا كتبهم؟ لانعرف لسنا واثقين انهم هم من كتبوا فكيف نصدق ماكتبوه ؟ هل يجتمع اليقين مع الثقه؟ الشك مع الايمان؟ نفس المشكله نواجهها كمسلمين مع مانسبه المسلمين الأواءل للنبي محمد نسبوا اليه اقوال وافعال بعد موته ب 300سنه السنه=الاحاديث والسيره وعندما نرفضها يتهمنا معظم المؤسسات اننا منحرفون في منطقتنا العربيه باحثين عرب رفضوا كل الروايه الاوربيه والاستشراق وقاموا هم ببحوثهم فكانت نتاءج بحثهم التوراه ليست في فلسطين واثبتوا انها كانت في اليمن فكل قصص التوراه اثبتوا انها في اليمن ابراهيم وموسي ويعقوب وسليمان وداوود برهنوا بأدله كثيره علي ذلك انا مسلم وملأني الشك كثيرا حول الطلب ان اصدق التوراه والانجيل فانا ارفض تعاليم الانجيل والكتاب المقدس اراها تعاليم دمويه وتدعو للقتل والحرق و الجهل فكيف يطلب مني الله ان اصدق هذه التعاليم ؟ الابحاث الجديده للباحثين العرب ساعدتني علي معرفه الاجابات علي شكوكي سعدت برسالتك لي سيدي
@@GizmoFromPizmo حبيبي أسف جدا ان اسألك حضرتك مؤمن ام ملحد؟
@@user-wc7ku7ud3e - Definitely a believer!
In regards to the division between Paul and James… Perhaps there was reasons beyond ‘keeping the authority’ of the Torah as to why James requested certain things of the gentiles. James is quite esoteric and I don’t see him explaining esoteric concepts for those who don’t have ears to hear. It’s the same with Jesus’s parables. There’s a surface meaning that can be extracted, but also a much deeper (and different) metaphysical one. I don’t think James is trying to keep with the Torah and Judaism for tradition but because there’s a very important metaphysical reasoning behind why he does not want the gentiles to defile their bodies and why he is requesting them to be in their purest form. I don’t think James trusts that Paul fully understands Jesus’s teachings. Now Paul, I would be curious about his early life and childhood seeing that he had a personality of extremes. Because of this, it would almost bet he had some sort of messiah complex seeking a status of importance and notoriety. When preaching to the Jews failed, he moved to an easier influenced target who would listen to him, the gentiles. From there he rode upon Jesus’s popularity, spreading his version of Christ’s movement and his Ah Ha idea of the ‘Good news.’ Jesus said watch out for false prophets performing great signs and wonders to deceive. Then he warns against the Pharisees and their teachings. I would say, Jesus warned us Paul would come.
Compile His Words in Red, it's eye, spirit & mind/soul opening. It works, has flow & direction and speaks the words of Yeshua only. I did this in 2007 and heard of a book that did as well. Do yourself for chronological reasons and for working w/ The Holy Spirit, Shakina Mother- Bosom of Gahst loves you.🤱👸👨👩👦
I don't understand the crux Dr. Chilton's logic. James 1 makes it clear that the writer is addressing non-Judean Israelites (the twelve tribes scattered among the nations) and the rest of the text assumes a knowledge of Hebrew scriptures by his audience (as do Paul's letters), but Dr. Chilton keeps interpreting the term "Gentile" as referring to Greeks or Romans. Common sense would suggest that Paul and James were arguing about the status of non-Judean Israelites scattered around the Mediterranean in the 30's and 40's CE who were non-observant (i.e. did not follow dietary laws, circumcision, etc.) and whether or not they must become fully observant of Torah laws before they could be baptized into the Jesus movement. James said yes, Paul said no.
There's no hard and fast interpretation of the term 'Gentile' in early NT writings so I am dismayed by this ideological leap to the assumption they are talking about Greeks. Why would Greeks, who had their own well-established panoply of the gods be responsive to Pauls' message about the God of Israel sacrificing his own son to atone for their sins? Only Israelites would have the context for this message at this time.
By 'Greeks' we really should understand the Decapolis, and the Hellenized Roman world. If it helps, consider Peter was active in Roma at the time Nero accused the Christians for setting the fire that would clear land for him to build a new palace (54 CE). The Jews themselves were being Hellenized almost one by one. The cultural movement was probably much stronger than the Orthodox Torah traditions that also had a stronghold in Alexandria, Egypt.
However, I am not adhering to Chilton's logic. He would seem to put the writings of the church fathers, over Josephus, for example. So, commentary from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries is being valued over the witness of a turn-coat Jew who saw it all with his own eyes. Who was there at the siege of Jerusalem, imploring the Jews standing guard behind the walls to give themselves up.
Everyone through out the Roman Empire, not just Greeks, would have a friendly disposition to hear about the Jewish 'Son of God' and the holy goings on at the Temple in Jerusalem. The more the Christ could be made to resemble a Roman or Greek sky god, the better. Hence, the mission of Paul was to Hellenize the Jewish Messiah. It turned out to be a make-over that his Judean band, including James, just could not accept. Jesus was all about freeing Judea, becoming their new king, establishing a new dynasty, and returning the rule of YWH, this time with the rest of the world living under a modified Torah. In Paul's version, the message is completely inverted. His gospel re-writes the New Covenant to favor co-existence with Roman occupation, Herodian Rule, but not Torah orthodoxy. It is no coincidence that the Christian Bible is divided into New & Old sections today. Paul meant to supersede the Jewish scripture with his own hip rhetoric, bowing to Caesar, and his own Herodian clan, while abolishing the Temple clan under whom he had served.
The fact that Christianity partakes in the Eucharist is a prime example that the Gospels were written by Greeks with no fundamental understanding of Judaism as partaking of blood is a NO NO as Dr. Chilton pointed out. Add in eating a body is cannibalism and a no no as well.
تقديم الاله ابنه كقربان هو طقس وثني بامتياز لم تعرف منطقتنا تقديم القرابين البشريه للاله هذا كذب من كتب الاناجيل لايعرف تاريخ وعادات منطقتنا فالاشورين والبابلين والكنعانين والسورين والمصرين واليمنين وهم كلهم شعوب عريقه وكتبت تاريخها علي الحجاره والمعدن والورق والجلود لايوجد ابدا اي تقديم ذباءح بشريه الي الاله الا يسوع المسيحيه ديانه وثنيه كامله
Or could be jews who just love the greeks, i mean under british colonial rule in India u had some who wanted to be like the british they went university to study etc
@@youtubeaccount3230 ربما 💐🌷🍁🌺🍀🥀☘🌹🌿 تحياتي سيدي شكرا لكتابتك لي ولاهتمامك
@@youtubeaccount3230 في فلسطين تحت الاحتلال الروماني كان السكان الأصلين يهود واديان اخري معظم السكان المحلين كانوا يكرهون الرومان معادين للرومان ومن قبل الرومان اليونان عدد صغير من السكان المحلين كان يتعامل مع السلطه المحتله ليحقق مكاسب ووضع اجتماعي واقتصادي مميز لكنهم قليلين كان ذلك في فلسطين (الاسماء للدول تغيرت ممكن نقول بدقه السورين فالمسيح كان شاب سورب حسب روايات الانجيل لكن حقيقه المسيح كان من اليمن وتم نقل قصته الي فلسطين بعد قرون من موت المسيح) ففي بلدي مصر كان المحتل اليوناني ومن بعده الروماني يعامل المصرين كدرجه ثانيه درجه أقل فطبيعي ان ينظر المصرين الي الاحتلال بشك وكراهيه وكان وضع اليهود في مصر وقت الرومان والبيزنتين سيء جدا فكانوا ممنوعين من دخول الاسكندريه عاده شعوب المنطقه لا تتسامح مع المحتلين ن
@@youtubeaccount3230 as far as I am aware, and someone can feel free to please correct me, pre Christian Jews existed in the Greek world and were Hellenized, yet I’ve never seen a study or article where Jews partook in such things.
Even those Jews who were Greek influenced still stuck to a monotheistic view as well.
There is a 3 year old video by MythVision called, "Jesus Was Ceasar | Did Romans invent Jesus Christ with James S. Valliant", how does this information affect or change answers given in this Q and A video?
تحياتي
Is baptism even mentioned in acts 15? Or 'salvation' for that matter?
At 4:45 he says Jesus birth was known to be irregular. I dont think that's the case. Maybe nowadays its known to be irregular. What we have is a peganizing of "The Way" for if Jesus was to have been born of a virgin he wouldnt have a paternal link to King David which is a requirement of the gentleman YHWH is refering to sitting in the eternal throne of King David in 2 Samuel 7 12-14. We know from Number 1:2,18 and Ezra 2:59 the lineage must pass through the Fathers side. Which of course is why Joseph lineages are listed in Matthew and Luke. Not Mary's Dad Joseph it doesnt say that in Luke. Wouldnt matter anyway because the woman cannot pass on the line. The earliest manuscripts say Joseph begot Jesus. Which makes much more sense. Jesus says hes indwelled by the Father in John 14:10 and I have no reason not to believe him. This deception in present in Islam as well.
Based on what are we sure James the Lord's brother, and James the Just, are the same James?
See my comments above re: Robert Eisenman. What Eisenman does is plough through several sources, for over 1,000 pages, to answer what you pose as a straightforward question.
The epistles of Paul provide the quickest answers, where James is just identified as 'the brother of the Lord'. However, you are tugging at the end of a ball of twine that will unravel, providing many more 'proofs,' while in the meantime throwing a light of discovery over the entire literature of the period of first century Palestine. Most prominently three or four Dead Sea Scrolls where, in Eisenman's view, we have James=the righteous teacher; Paul=the spouter of lies ('the enemy ' in the Clementine Recognitions, which Eisenman shows eerily parallel the Acts), and Caiaphas or his father in law Anas as the "Wicket Priest."
We just did NOT have that kind of material to work with before the 1980s.
“Jesus brith was known to be irregular. Therefore, he did not have the same right of entering into a congregation of Israelites, for example e a synagogue, that James himself did.” (4:38-59)
Here is what I do not appreciate about faith-based exegesis: something is always left hidden. The explanation given does not explain the hidden content.
Thus...
1. What does BRUCE CHILTON mean by an 'irregular birth'?
2. What does he mean that 'it was known'?
3. What are the rules, and the rights, for belonging to a synagogue, or a congregation of Israelites?
Those claims slip like thieves in the night without explanation. And we really should not allow that to happen. Because once 'the lying' starts and 'the enemy' is welcomed as the Father of Christianity, what kind of an edifice is created for the faith based communities?
Here are some 'irregularities' about the life of Jesus in the canonicals:
4. Virgin birth
5. Miracle worker
6. Roman/Herodian sympathizer (Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, etc.)
7. Resurrection
8. The Christ
Here are the real facts about as best we an determine about the historicity of Jesus:
9. Son of Judas the Galilean, in line for the throne of Israel, rebel, aspiring king;
10. Gifted teacher of the Law, orthodox Torah worshipper,;
11. Violently opposed to the Roman hegemony, their Herodian client kings, and the Temple band;
7. Staged resurrection in order to win support for an uprising on Passover 36 CE, a Jubilee year;
8. Messiah; leader of a movement that included the leadership of: Judas the Galilean (father); John the Baptist (cousin); Peter (son, and fellow Apostle of the Baptist); James (brother, by the same father-Zebedee, "thunder," Jesus the Galilean); John (Barnabas? Son by Mary Magdalen, youth in Secret Mark, the disciple Jesus loved-as a son).
11. Likely Jesus did not survive the ordeal as planned; he suffered from mental illness as a result of head trauma received at the hands of the Roman centurions; may have died before Pentecost 36 CE.
I do not expect faith-based guests to accept any of this. But I do expect them to be held to the same standard as anyone else, by being asked to support the claims they make factually:
- Jesus's irregular birth: What do you mean by that? And who knew about it exactly?
- What are the rules for belonging to a Jewish synagogue, or congregation?
These are not 'show stopping questions,' but we have to know what guests are basing their positions on. We are no longer accepting what is said 'on the basis of faith.'
Are there any sources, other than Acts, which document James issuing these food prohibitions? I am not challenging the injunctions as the same prohibition occurs in Quran 5:3. I am questioning the truthfulness of the author of Acts, attributed to Luke, as this individual had twisted the truth on other occasions. Acts has distorted the facts in passages regarding circumcision and this may not be a truthful account of James' words.
The prohibition in Acts is a bit different than the one in Quran 5:3, for example there is no prohibition on pork. In fact, though overwhelmingly matching there are also differences between Jewish food laws and Muslim ones. (Camel and rabbit is non-Kosher for Jews. Sometimes, in some Islamic practice, the laws on seafood differ from the Torah. Alcohol is also permissable in Judaism)
I hope you or others give the New Testament and it's authors a fair chance and pray about it. I know its different than the Quran but what if it is more right than the Quran.
One day us Christians and Muslims will have to sit down and talk because our books are different. Both our books teach God is only one, not Jesus. But our book says he died, every author says he died and was resurrected or at least don't disagree with that statement. None of our books disagree about it.
This is a huge difference than the Quran. It needs prayer to God to know which is true.
May God give both of us truth, and if we already have truth may God keep us in the truth.
But as for me, from my prayers for truth, I was lead directly to Jesus, the New Testament, and their proclamation that God had told them to teach that messiah had died and had been risen back to life more strong and more better than ever to live as a human King immortal who can share immortality with others.
In his letter or the letter attributed to him, he says to follow the law. He calls it perfect just like in the Psalms. And Peter says the same in Galatians 2, in accordance with James messengers and even Barnabas and the "other Jews". According to some church authorities, he also taught to keep the law and was even the founder of Jewish Christianity.
@@germanboy14 That is conclusive enough for my inquiry.
@@youngknowledgeseekerThe shared belief in One does not mean The One. Nor does your, or anyone's, testimony make anything "true".
NT is the most corrupted collection of all religious text. No disrespect; simply truth.
@@thomasrhodes5013 You should be aware, concerning Germanboy14's post,
1) It is not entirely clear if James is referring to the law of Moses in his letter when using the phrase the law of liberty. Though it's not out of the question. He, similarly to the later prophets, says that this law is fulfilled by charity and keeping yourself undefiled by the world. If the letters context is any clue ask examples he gives is of moral commands, loving people, controlling your speech, treating people fairly. No admonitions of specifically Mosaic prescriptions.
2) Paul says Peter believed that he didn't have to follow the law including Barnabas. But *after* men from James came *then* they changed their minds. It is unclear if James personally sent these men to do this or if they were acting a bit independently. Paul doesn't say anything bad about James or oppose or condemn his authority.
Edit: My points definitely still stand. And for reference Paul says this to Peter in Galatians 2:14 “If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” Paul let's us know Peter stopped living like a Jew and even lived like Gentiles, that is, in regard to the practice of Mosaic dietary, astronomic, and circumcision observance which is the points of contention in Galatians (not things like love your neighbor or don't murder). Paul also says Barnabus was also similarly living this way, both under the impression that this was indeed permissable as a Christians....until men from James came...(however notice, Paul gives no indication he condemns James, this may mean James did not send these men to force Gentiles to keep the law)
In my current estimation, from what we can gather from Luke-Acts, perhaps from James, and perhaps from Patristic sources is that the authority figures in the church eventually settled on that Gentile converts were not obligated to the law, either before conversion or after. Unless we think Paul is a liar or incredibly misinformed, he says that as a Christian Peter did not find it necessary to keep the law of Mosaic works for at least a time (the mindset Peter would have had for this finds some attestation in the story of Peter's vision in Acts). James may have continued to keep Torah and even teach it to those in Judea, creating a strong base of Torah-observant Christians, but as mentioned before, stated his belief to Gentiles as it being not necessary. Paul also is careful to never say the Apostles are not apostles or false apostles, but he doesn't presume lesser subordinate authority than them so is careful with how he speaks about them lest his readers believe he is less than. This is a far cry from dismissing them or denying their authoratative and foundational status.
James was in the right place at the right time. He rode the coattails of his high profile Brother to the very top of the heap in Jerusalem. James himself was no great theologian or philosopher. All his teaching comes right out of the Law of Moses (as did most of Jesus' teaching). James wanted to perpetuate the Old Covenant, which Jesus said, would just burst those old wine skins. (Luke 5:37-38)
The Epistle of James doesn't mention any of these:
o The crucifixion
o The resurrection
o The indwelling of the Holy Spirit
o Grace (charis)
The Epistle of James never once calls Jesus, "the Son of God", and in defining "pure religion", he doesn't mention Jesus at all in that definition.
Was James even Christian? 😄
السؤال يكون هل كان يسوع مسيحيا؟
@@user-wc7ku7ud3e - No. Christianity did not exist until after Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus was a rabbi from the school of John the Baptist. They both preached the same message: "Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand."
Jesus, during His ministry, was a teacher of the Law and only gave peeks into what was coming. He predicted His death and resurrection and, the gospels tell us that His disciples didn't know what He meant by those predictions.
But Jesus could not have been a "Christian" in the New Testament sense of the word. He was the Messiah but the kingdom of God didn't start until after His death, burial and resurrection. Therefore, Jesus could not have been a Christian during His ministry.
Your question is a good one because most people who call themselves Christians don't understand what I just told you. The cross was a thick black line between what was and what is. It changed the world forever.
James the brother of Jesus the Christ the Son of the living God is the head Bishop over the bishops of the Ecclesia. The head Ecclesia was on Mount Zion the Father's and the Son's holy mountain before 70AD, and now is in heaven with the Father and the Son. The true gospel gospel of and by Jesus the Christ is on the foundation of Genesis 26:5. God / YAHovah, Jesus the Christ, James the brother of Jesus, twelve apostles, and the 70 elders. Saul / Paul of Tarsus gospel is a false lawless gospel of Illegalism. First Corinthians the 8th chapter proves that Saul / Paul of Tarsus is a false apostle. It can be seen the cunning serpent tongue in the epistle to the Romans that Saul of Tarsus is using. There are only twelve apostles and no more. Saul / Paul of Tarsus is no apostle.
"They developed these materials" makes it sound like they made them up. We know this isn't true because Luke tells us that his material comes from eyewitnesses to the events. The modern "scholarship" is the one making things up because their source material definitely does NOT support their suppositions.
This is why I say, "That's not scholarship; that's bullship."
LOL Amen to that!!!
@@kenfaulds8818 - I listen to one of these jokers from some gay church or whatever talk about the Q Source that he swears by. Now, nobody has ever seen this Q Source but he uses it in order to call into question the very gospels that we all can see. That's not a level of faith that I can muster. To tell my lying eyes to shut their mouths because I believe in something that no one has ever seen over and above what everybody can see.
These people aren't stupid or crazy, they're simply evil incarnate. It's that lizard in the Garden all over again. These are the reptiles that the elites of the world hold in high regard. All bible translation committees are loaded with such pukes.
Contemporary writers have had to fight to gain access to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Then we have the Nag Hammedi library, and the Oxyrhynchus discovery in mid and early twentieth century, respectively.
The three sources, plus countless others, have given scholarship new material to examine that strips the 'canonicals' from their claim as 'canon' (church law). From this fluidity we expect to shape new understanding. That's no bull.
Difficult to follow & a lot of rhetoric…boring!
I listen to Jacob’s channel at 1.5x speed. I find his topics interesting, but he and his guests tend to talk too slowly for me. 1.5x definitely helps to keep me engaged.
@@melbied6215 Thanks for the suggestion....some of these guests aren't always of interest to me subject wise...
Almost Justin time, eh?
Jacob Brown, come on down, you won a golden Jacob ticket to your Blue/Red/White/Black heaven. If you haven't already, prepare to meet your maker 😉
I am sorry this is a totally a nonsense we know Acts of Apostol's is a totally Fiction
as the rest of the NT 😁
Jimmy Christ