9 HISTORICAL FACTS ABOUT JESUS’ BROTHER JAMES THAT PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY... (1 Viewer)

[Daisy]

And interesting read...

Do you think that you could convince one of your siblings into believing that you’re the Son of God? Unless they were three years old, it would probably be a tough sell. After all, they’ve seen how you keep your room. So it’s a pretty amazing historical fact that Jesus’ brother James, who probably wore Jesus’ hand-me-downs, later as an adult converted to Christianity. And we know that he was sincere about his belief because he died for it. James’ martyrdom wasn’t just recorded in Christian sources (Hegesippus) but by the 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus.

In his book Antiquities of the Jews 20.200, Josephus wrote:

“But this younger Ananus, who, as we told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent…He assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. When he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them over to be stoned.”
James’ conversion cries out for an explanation. How could someone come to believe so strongly that their big brother was the divine Messiah? Let’s take a look.

HERE ARE 9 REASONS WHY I THINK THE CONVERSION OF JAMES IS ONE OF THE BEST EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY THAT THERE IS:​

1. JOSEPHUS GIVES US A NICE EXTERNAL CONFIRMATION OF WHAT WE READ IN THE GOSPELS, ACTS AND EPISTLES OF PAUL.​

Mark and Matthew both refer to Jesus’ brother James (Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55) Luke and Paul refer to him not just as a brother of Jesus, but also as a leader in the church of Jerusalem (Acts 15:13, Galatians 1:19, Galatians 2:9). The confirmation from Josephus is one reason that even most skeptical scholars believe that Jesus was a historical figure.

2. BOTH MARK AND JOHN TELL US THAT JAMES WASN’T ALWAYS A BELIEVER IN JESUS.​

Mark 3:21 tells us that his siblings thought he was out of his mind. John 7:3-5 tell us that Jesus’ brothers mocked him and didn’t believe in him. While these verses don’t explicitly name James, it’s very possible he was included in these stories. This is quite an embarrassing admission from two gospel writers. The early church wouldn’t want to put one of their chief leaders as a former mocking skeptic if it wasn’t likely true.

3. PAUL GIVES US A BIG CLUE TO WHY JAMES MAY HAVE CHANGED – HE WAS AN EYEWITNESS OF THE RESURRECTED JESUS.​

In defending the resurrection of the dead to the church of Corinth, Paul quotes an early Christian tradition he received from others. The creed mentions resurrection appearances includes James. (1 Corinthians 15:7) Well, that would probably explain a lot about James’ sudden change of tune!

4. JAMES ENDORSED PAUL’S GOSPEL.​

In Galatians 2:9 we read that Paul met with several pillars in the Jerusalem church and they gave his message his stamp of their approval. This included James. This is a big deal because Paul preached that Jesus was not just the Messiah, but also the God of Israel.

In Romans 10:9-13 Paul says: “…if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved…For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Here Paul quotes Joel 2:32 when he says “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Joel was referring to God, and yet Paul, a former Pharisee, applies this passage to Jesus. The deity of Christ was part and parcel of Paul’s gospel, and Jesus’ brother wholeheartedly endorsed it. Amazing.

http://isjesusalive.com/james-the-brother-of-jesus/

 

[Daisy]

5. PAUL’S JAMES-ENDORSED GOSPEL ALSO INCLUDED JESUS’ DAVIDIC ROOTS. (ROMANS 1:3-4)​

Think about it for a second. The Jewish belief was that the Messiah would come from the line of David. (2 Samuel 7:12–16, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5–6) If they weren’t of the Davidic line, James would have easily straightened him out. We know that Jews were fanatical about keeping genealogies. Paul knew he was of the tribe of Benjamin, (Philippians 3:5). For one to serve as a priest or high priest, they had to be of the tribe of Levi. Josephus provides his genealogy and says they are matters of public records. He wrote: “So have I set down the genealogy of our family as I have found it described in the public records, to put an end to any would‐be detractors.” – Autobiography 1.1

6. JAMES AND JESUS’ OTHER BROTHERS TRAVELED ABROAD, PREACHING THE GOSPEL (1 CORINTHIANS 9:5).​

While James was a leader in the Jerusalem church, he and Jesus’ other brothers were busy traveling and preaching to the point where Paul could mention it in passing to the church in Corinth. For those of you who are bad at geography, Corinth is in Greece, 1850+ miles away from Jerusalem.

So what’s the big deal? That Jesus’ living family also converted and were part of spreading the gospel throughout the Roman empire, it would be mighty difficult for Matthew and Luke to come along later and invent a story of the virgin birth and pass it off like it was no big thing. The facts from his own family would’ve already been out there, so their gospels would have been met with resistance, but we know they were not.

7. ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS, JAMES WAS KILLED BY THE JEWISH LEADERSHIP FOR BEING A BREAKER OF THE LAW (OF MOSES).​

Why did the pre-Christian Paul persecute the church? We know the answer to that question, and so it’s not hard to imagine that the new high priest and company were looking to kill off James for the same reason. They saw Christianity as a damnable heresy. The Jewish leaders accused Christians of preaching against the temple, the law, and that a crucified man was raised to be co-equal with God. (Acts 6:13-14) To be hung on a tree was to be cursed by God (Deuteronomy 21:23). They failed to realize it was their curse he bore.

8. JAMES WAS KILLED IN JERUSALEM.​

As we looked at earlier, Luke and Paul said that James was a leader in the Jerusalem church. Josephus tells us he was stoned to death in the city. The reason why this is a big deal is while James’ traveled, his home base was Jerusalem, the very city that Jesus was crucified. If you want to spread a far-out story, you don’t do it in the city of the alleged events where you can easily be contradicted. Also, by preaching in the city that his brother was killed in, he would be inviting the same kind of persecution.

9. THE MARTYRDOM OF JAMES HAPPENED IN 62-69 AD.​

So within a generation of the crucifixion, James was put to death for preaching the gospel. But we can go back even further. Paul wrote Galatians in around 50 AD and had met with him and said he was a leader in the Jerusalem church. So this means the resurrection was preached earlier than that. Most scholars say that the oral tradition of the resurrection appearances that Paul shares with the Corinthians dates back around 1-3 years after the crucifixion, and this oral tradition included James. So the sources are extremely early.

My point is that the news that Jesus was the risen Messiah wasn’t a late invention. James provides some staggering proof that the Gospel as we know it was very early. Later legend isn’t an option here.

http://isjesusalive.com/james-the-brother-of-jesus/

 

[Questerr]

And interesting read...

http://isjesusalive.com/james-the-brother-of-jesus/

Failure at point 1: Josephus only states what Christians believed. He does not in any way confirm those beliefs are true.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Failure at point 1: Josephus only states what Christians believed. He does not in any way confirm those beliefs are true.

Wouldn't it have been his half brother anyway?

 

[Daisy]

Failure at point 1: Josephus only states what Christians believed. He does not in any way confirm those beliefs are true.

And the other 8?

 

[Questerr]

And the other 8?

More than have of them are references from the Bible. The Bible is not in any way "historical facts".

 

[phoenix2020]

Interesting. How do we know it wasn’t James who was the Son of God and Jesus was just the jealous older brother who decided to change the narrative?

 

[Individual]

Evidence of any/all religions is readily available. There is NO evidence proving the beliefs they espouse to be factually true.

 

[Noodlegawd]

And the other 8?

The next 3 are citations to the bible, which makes them worthless to prove that anything in the bible is true.

With that track record, (0/4) I can't be bothered to read the rest. You should start with your best (well, you almost certainly did).

 

[Daisy]

The next 3 are citations to the bible, which makes them worthless to prove that anything in the bible is true.

With that track record, (0/4) I can't be bothered to read the rest. You should start with your best (well, you almost certainly did).

Nah, the best is saved for last...too bad you gave up so early...

 

[Noodlegawd]

Nah, the best is saved for last...too bad you gave up so early...

Ok, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and that one was no better. The fact that someone preached something doesn't mean it happened. If that were the case, we'd all be Muslims.

 

[Questerr]

Nah, the best is saved for last...too bad you gave up so early...

“X died and we ‘know’ from church tradition” is the “best” you have?

Man, that’s ****ing pathetic “historical fact”.

 

[Somerville]

For many years, scholars have questioned one phrase that we may read today in the words of Josephus - ". . . and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James," Why would they question that phrase that I have bolded? Oh maybe because of the following - "Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

 

[Individual]

Proving that beliefs exist in no way proves that God(s) exist, or that any of what can only be believed true is in fact true.
Mixing of fact and fiction does NOT result in everything becoming fact.

 

[Gordy327]

Proving that beliefs exist in no way proves that God(s) exist, or that any of what can only be believed true is in fact true.
Mixing of fact and fiction does NOT result in everything becoming fact.

Some people seem to think belief equals fact, when in reality, it does not.

 

[Individual]

Some people seem to think belief equals fact, when in reality, it does not.

The only FACT is what some people believed to be true, NOT that what they believed was factually true.

 

[Cordelier]

And interesting read...

http://isjesusalive.com/james-the-brother-of-jesus/

So where do you come down on the question of Sola fide?

It seems to me that that's the fundamental difference of opinion between Paul and James.

 

[Daisy]

So where do you come down on the question of Sola fide?

It seems to me that that's the fundamental difference of opinion between Paul and James.

I see no difference...Paul made it clear by his missionaries that works are vital for salvation...Paul exerted himself zealously, traveling thousands of miles on sea and land, establishing many congregations in Europe and Asia Minor...yet he did not take any credit to himself, but gave all honor to Jehovah God as the One responsible for the growth...Paul worked diligently for the good news of the kingdom...

 

[Individual]

I've yet to see anything presented in this thread that proves the basis of Christianity aside from what its promoters have been able to convince followers to be true, or at least might want/hope to be true.

 

[Cordelier]

I see no difference...Paul made it clear by his missionaries that works are vital for salvation...Paul exerted himself zealously, traveling thousands of miles on sea and land, establishing many congregations in Europe and Asia Minor...yet he did not take any credit to himself, but gave all honor to Jehovah God as the One responsible for the growth...Paul worked diligently for the good news of the kingdom...

So how do you explain the apparent contradiction between Ephesians 2:8-9

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast."

and James 2:24?

"You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."

 

[Daisy]

not by works, so that no one can boast."

Considering the context of Paul’s words, we find that one statement complements the other. The apostle Paul is referring to the efforts of the Jews to keep the Mosaic Law. They believed that if they kept the Law in all its details, they would be righteous. Paul pointed out that this was impossible. We can never become righteous—and thus deserve salvation—by our own works, for we are inherently sinful. We can only be saved by faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.—Romans 5:18.

James, however, adds the vital point that faith in itself is valueless if not supported by actions. A person who claims to have faith in Jesus should prove it by what he does. An inactive faith is a dead faith and will not lead to salvation.

The apostle Paul was in full agreement with this, and he often mentions the kinds of works that Christians should engage in to demonstrate their faith. For example, to the Romans he wrote: “With the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.” Making a “public declaration”—sharing our faith with others—is vital for salvation. (Romans 10:10; see also 1 Corinthians 15:58; Ephesians 5:15, 21-33; 6:15; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 10:23-25.) No work, however, that a Christian can do, and certainly no effort to fulfill the Law of Moses, will earn him the right to everlasting life. This is “the gift God gives” to those who exercise faith.—Romans 6:23; John 3:16.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989037

 

[Cordelier]

Considering the context of Paul’s words, we find that one statement complements the other. The apostle Paul is referring to the efforts of the Jews to keep the Mosaic Law. They believed that if they kept the Law in all its details, they would be righteous. Paul pointed out that this was impossible. We can never become righteous—and thus deserve salvation—by our own works, for we are inherently sinful. We can only be saved by faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.—Romans 5:18.

James, however, adds the vital point that faith in itself is valueless if not supported by actions. A person who claims to have faith in Jesus should prove it by what he does. An inactive faith is a dead faith and will not lead to salvation.

The apostle Paul was in full agreement with this, and he often mentions the kinds of works that Christians should engage in to demonstrate their faith. For example, to the Romans he wrote: “With the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.” Making a “public declaration”—sharing our faith with others—is vital for salvation. (Romans 10:10; see also 1 Corinthians 15:58; Ephesians 5:15, 21-33; 6:15; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 10:23-25.) No work, however, that a Christian can do, and certainly no effort to fulfill the Law of Moses, will earn him the right to everlasting life. This is “the gift God gives” to those who exercise faith.—Romans 6:23; John 3:16.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989037

Who is Paul to say these things, though?

Don't the Gospels themselves - through the teachings of Jesus - tell us the works that are necessary for salvation? And who is better-placed to emphasize these obvious facts than His own brother James?

So we have the teachings of Jesus. We have the postscript of James. What need is there - especially after Antioch and the Council of Jerusalem - for Paul? Isn't he essentially obsolete after that point? I see the breaking point for Paul when Barnabas parted company with him... after that, he seems to go off the rails... he starts performing his own "miracles" and starts to move further and further away from the core faith represented by James.

 

[RAMOSS]

For many years, scholars have questioned one phrase that we may read today in the words of Josephus - ". . . and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James," Why would they question that phrase that I have bolded? Oh maybe because of the following - "Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

The term translated as 'Christ' is 'annointed one'. In the Jewish society, there were two anointed ones. The King, and the High priest. So, Jesus of Damneus was called Christ, because he was the high priest.

 

[Somerville]

The term translated as 'Christ' is 'annointed one'. In the Jewish society, there were two anointed ones. The King, and the High priest. So, Jesus of Damneus was called Christ, because he was the high priest.

Technically, Jesus bar-Damneus wasn't the anointed one until he had been named to the position - I think.

 

[RAMOSS]

Technically, Jesus bar-Damneus wasn't the anointed one until he had been named to the position - I think.

True, but when you are taking a look back, that would be the case. That could very well be referring to his becoming the high priest.

Or, it could be as copiers gloss. THere is a good reason for Jospehus NOT to use the term 'christ' in his writings. That being, the way that he avoided being executed by Vespasian is the claim Jospehus made to him when he got captured that Vesptian was the promised Messiah of the Jews. Using that term would be a good motivation for Vespasian to figure that Josephus was lying, and execute him. You don't use a term that can endanger your life if you had escaped death by using bs to live.