Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 07-02-2013, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Are you saying Eusebius gave a list that did not start with James and Simon, both listed several times in the New Testament and James in Josephus? The Christian writers wrote before any more bishops came.

The list is:

Quote:

The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.

i.e. The list begins with James and Symeon and then continues with 13 more names.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 07-02-2013, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

I suppose aa's #598 is a response to my #591 that refuted his #590. His #590 remains refuted. There are lots of Simons and lots of men named James in the New Testament, even in the Synoptic gospels. aa cannot properly claim that the first two bishops of Jerusalem were unknown to Christian writers. See especially Acts 15:13-21 regarding James.

It is hopelessly illogical to assume there was someone called James the Lord's brother or SIMEON bishop of Jerusalem because lots of people were called James or Simon.

Also Please, take note that the name is SYMEON or SIMEON Not Simon.

Again, there is NO Simeon Son of Clopas, Bishop of Jerusalem, in the Canonised Gospels and the Entire Canon.

If the Gospels and books of the NT Canon were composed after c 62 CE then they could have mentioned SIMEON Son of Clopas if he was Bishop of Jerusalem.

Again, Eusebius claimed that there were TWO Jameses in Church History 2.

Church History 2.1.4

Quote:

……..But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.

The TWO Jameses are also found in Acts--None is the called the brother of the Lord.

Now, read Acts 1

Quote:

Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey .

13 And when they were come in , they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

There was NO Apostle called James the brother of the Lord in Acts and the Gospels on the day the supposed Jesus ascended.

James the Lord's brother is a late fabrication lifted from Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1

It is just total fiction that Simeon was bishop of Jerusalem FOR ABOUT 50 years up to when he was 120 years old and that there were 13 Bishops of Jerusalem in about 25 years from c 110-135 CE.

Adam · 07-02-2013, 12:59 PM

So you are admitting in #602 that your #598 was an attempt at a response to my #591? I think everyone will agree with me that you have again failed to prove that none of the many Simon and James people in the NT are the first two bishops of Jerusalem. Your responses are irrelevant both times. You can't seem to understand that they don't need to fulfill all your particulars to be support for Eusebius.

DCHindley · 07-02-2013, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

John lived in the desert on bugs and honey.

Actually, the "locusts" may well have been locust beans - or, as we call them, carob pods. Perhaps John had a sweet tooth?

Robert Eisler no doubt is looking down from heaven right now smiling away!

DCH

DCHindley · 07-02-2013, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

James the Lord's brother is a late fabrication lifted from Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

Could you elaborate on this? Early Christian writers know very little about the Judean (Jewish) followers of Jesus. They only thought they knew these followed a man named James who seemed to be the head of a "royal family." The leadership clustered around that James and a half dozen key family members keeping the "pure faith" (meaning what gentile Christians thought about Jesus Christ) until around 120 CE when they think they became corrupted into Ebionites.

By then, after a disastrous Jewish rebellion resulting in the destruction of their temple and holy city and a *second* Jewish rebellion in Egypt and Cyrene that resulted in the complete elimination of Jews in Alexandria, Cyprus and Cyrene, I'd say that the early gentile Christians were doing a lot of backpedaling to explain their relationship to Jews.

DCH

Davka · 07-02-2013, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Jesus, if he did exist, ordained TWO JAMESES--James the Son of Zebedee and James the Son of Alphaeus.

This is what happens when you rely on the KJV. "James" is not the name of anyone in the Bible, ever. The Book of James is actually the book of Jacob, and the name translated "James" is translated as Jacob elsewhere in the NT. The translators were sucking up to the king.

aa5874 · 07-02-2013, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

So you are admitting in #602 that your #598 was an attempt at a response to my #591? I think everyone will agree with me that you have again failed to prove that none of the many Simon and James people in the NT are the first two bishops of Jerusalem. Your responses are irrelevant both times. You can't seem to understand that they don't need to fulfill all your particulars to be support for Eusebius.

Again, the name is 'Symeon' or 'Simeon' NOT 'Simon'.

Eusebius' Church History 3.11.1.

Quote:

After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.

2. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph...

There is NO Symeon, Son of Clopas, Bishop of Jerusalem, in Gospels and Entire the Canon.

In Church History 3.32.3 Symeon the supposed bishop died in time of Trajan when Atticus was procurator of Judea c 110 CE.

Simeon in gLuke 2 was NEAR DEATH on the day Jesus was circumcised c 6 CE

It is cannot be expected than a man NEAR Death c 6 CE lived until c 110 CE--ONE HUNDRED years later.

Luke 2

Quote:

25 And, behold , there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. 26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.

2. Simeon in gLuke 3 was the son of Juda--Not the son of Clopas.

Simeon in gLuke 3 was about 30 generations EARLIER than the supposed birth of Jesus or over 400 years before c 6 CE.

Luke 3:30 KJV

Quote:

Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim..

3. Simeon in Acts was associated the church in ANTIOCH--NOT Jerusalem.

Acts 13:1 KJV

Quote:

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

There is NO Symeon, son of Clopas, bishop of Jerusalem, in the Entire Canon.

Again, I have shown that there were TWO Jameses listed as Apostles in gMark and Acts of the Apostles.

Now, examine gMatthew--There is NO James the Lord's brother as an apostle.

There are TWO Jameses listed as Apostles in gMatthew.

Matthew 10

Quote:

2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

The Bishops of Jerusalem were fabricated using fictitious characters unknown in the Canon.

Not one Bishop of Jerusalem of the Jesus cult has been corroborated by any non-apologetic writers and even in apologetic sources before Eusebius.

aa5874 · 07-02-2013, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Jesus, if he did exist, ordained TWO JAMESES--James the Son of Zebedee and James the Son of Alphaeus.

This is what happens when you rely on the KJV. "James" is not the name of anyone in the Bible, ever. The Book of James is actually the book of Jacob, and the name translated "James" is translated as Jacob elsewhere in the NT. The translators were sucking up to the king.

There are 36 versions of gMatthew 10.2 which use the name JAMES.

Look at the NASB.

Matthew 10. NASB

Quote:

2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and [a]James the son of Zebedee, and [b]John his brother; 3 Philip and [c]Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; [d]James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the [e]Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him.

There are 26 versions of gMark 3.17 which use the name JAMES.

Mark 3:17 NAS New American Standard

Quote:

...and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James(to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, "Sons of Thunder ")..

In fact, it would appear that the NASB and the KJV use the names James and Jacob in identical passages.

James is found 38 times in the NASB and KJV.

Jacob is found 25 times in the NASB and KJV.

Davka · 07-02-2013, 04:54 PM

yes, the English-language translations all continued the error.

J-D · 07-02-2013, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Go back and reread what I have already written. Maybe with a couple more attempts you'll be able to wrap your head around it.

I have read what you have already written on the subject of the evolution of Taoism and Judaism. The negative part of it is clear; the affirmative part vacuous. How did Taoism evolve? 'In response to changing times', you quote Wikipedia as saying, which tells me nothing. There's no indication of how this evolution in response to changing times is documented.

Again, you quote from Wikipedia on the subject of where the roots of Judaism lie, but there's no documentation of how it grew from those roots.

You continue to commit the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. You made the positive statement that all religious begin with an individual preaching a distinct message. I have offered several counter examples...even asked you to name the individual founders of these religions. You have not done that. You are assuming the veracity of your argument based on my lack of desire to engage a question beyond the nature of a bb discussion. You can research those questions yourself and you can demonstrate my error and thus reaffirm your proposition by naming the individual preachers responsible for founding the religions I have mentioned.

You err fundamentally about what I said. At no stage did I make the positive assertion you wrongly attribute to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Let me show you the inanity of your line of argument with an analogy. Evolutionary biologists claim that the human species evolved from a common ancestor with pan troglodyte several million years ago. They do not know thd exact path of this divergence or howmit occurred, but that does not give us reason to claim, then, that the first human was Adam and he did not evolve from ape ancestors but was made from clay by a God known as Yahweh. See? Does that help you some?

Evolutionary biologists have studied and reported in detail many examples of how evolution proceeds, stage by stage; also, they investigate and analyse in detail the stages through which evolution could proceed, in specific, generalised, and hypothetical cases. They don't simply assert 'species evolve from earlier species' and leave it at that. That seems to me to be the proper analogy for your strategy of saying '[some] religions evolve from earlier ideas' and leaving it at that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-02-2013, 12:59 PM	#603
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	So you are admitting in #602 that your #598 was an attempt at a response to my #591? I think everyone will agree with me that you have again failed to prove that none of the many Simon and James people in the NT are the first two bishops of Jerusalem. Your responses are irrelevant both times. You can't seem to understand that they don't need to fulfill all your particulars to be support for Eusebius.

07-02-2013, 04:54 PM	#609
Davka Contributor Join Date: May 2010 Location: Babble Belt Posts: 20,748	yes, the English-language translations all continued the error.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.