Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 09-10-2011, 02:56 AM

I can't see how he does either. That's the issue.

TedM · 09-10-2011, 07:13 AM

Very interesting observations on the Just references Don.

Somewhat related, check out the wiki comments on the NT and Nazarites:

One might note that in GMark Jesus does not drink wine at all until just before his death when vinegar is offered to him. The early Christian community seems to have had strong ties to Nazirites.

Quote:

The practice of a nazirite vow is part of the ambiguity of the Greek term "Nazarene"[28] that appears in the New Testament; the sacrifice of a lamb and the offering of bread does suggest a relationship with Christian symbolism (then again, these are the two most frequent offerings prescribed in Leviticus, so no definitive conclusions can be drawn). While a saying in (Matthew 11:18-19 and Luke 7:33-35) attributed to Jesus makes it doubtful that he, reported to be "a winebibber", was a nazirite during his ministry, the verse ends with the curious statement, "But wisdom is justified of all her children". The advocation of the ritual consumption of wine as part of the Eucharist, the tevilah in Mark 14:22-25 indicated he kept this aspect of the nazirite vow when Jesus said, "Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God." The ritual with which Jesus commenced his ministry (recorded via Greek as "Baptism") and his vow in Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:15-18 at the end of his ministry, do respectively reflect the final and initial steps (purification by immersion in water and abstaining from wine) inherent in a Nazirite vow. These passages may indicate that Jesus intended to identify himself as a Nazirite ("not drinking the fruit of vine") before his crucifixion.[29]

Luke the Evangelist clearly was aware that wine was forbidden in this practice, for the angel (Luke 1:13-15) that announces the birth of John the Baptist foretells that "he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb", in other words, a nazirite from birth, the implication being that John had taken a lifelong nazirite vow.[30]

Acts of the Apostles is also attributed to Luke (see Luke-Acts) and in Acts 18:18, Paul cut off his hair because of a vow he had taken[31], we learn that the early Jewish Christians occasionally took the temporary Nazarite vow, and it is probable that the vow of St. Paul mentioned in Acts 18:18, was of a similar nature, although the shaving of his head in Cenchræ, outside of Palestine, was not in conformity with the rules laid down in the sixth chapter of Numbers, nor with the interpretation of them by the Rabbinical schools of that period.[32] If we are to believe the legend of Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius,[33] St. James the Less, Bishop of Jerusalem, was a Nazarite, and performed with rigorous exactness all the practices enjoined by that rule of life. and in Acts 21:20-24 Paul was advised to counter the claims made by some Judaizers (that he encouraged a revolt against the Mosaic Law). He showed the "believers there" (believers in Jesus, i.e. the Jewish Christians) in Jerusalem otherwise by purifying himself and accompanying four men to the temple who had taken nazaritic vows[34] (so as to debunk the naysayers[35])

This stratagem only delayed the inevitable mob assault on him. This event brought about the accusation in Acts 24:5-18 that Paul was the "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes", and thus provides further verification that the term Nazarene was a mistranslation of the term Nazirite. In any case, the relationship of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism is still disputed.

What is curious is that Luke does not here mention the apostle James the Just as taking nazirite vows, although later Christian historians (e.g. Epiphanius Panarion 29.4) believed he had, and the vow of a nazirite would explain the asceticism Eusebius of Caesarea ascribed to James[36] (something the Jewish Nazarite Vow was never intended to do), a claim that gave James the title "James the Just

aa5874 · 09-10-2011, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If not, what are the implications with regard to Jesus and James' theology and/or relationship?

According to my own pet theory, James' brand of Christianity were adoptionists, i.e. that Jesus was just a man but through obedience, was adopted as Son of God. This was the same beliefs as Paul and aMark. But this Jesus came out of a community that already had a background of established sayings. So Jesus said them, but the authority came from the community rather than an individual...

Your pet theory is extremely bizarre. Your pet theory is putting forward the most absurd notion that the NT Canon is Heretical.

It is SIMPLY highly illogical that the Church would have Canonised ALL KNOWN HERETICAL writings while Church writers claimed it was Heretical to TEACH that Jesus was a man.

It is just total nonsense that James had a STRONG connection with Jesus.

There is ZERO evidence that it actually was James an apostle who wrote the epistle. The epistle appears to be REALLY ANONYMOUS and was supplied with a BOGUS author by those who seem to be LYING for the glory of God.

If you can't show who wrote the epistle and when it was written then please don't tell US anything about "JAMES".

WE know what the epistle contains in the EXTANT Codices. What you BELIEVE is really irrelevant for it is NOT history or corroborated by credible sources of antiquity..

hjalti · 09-10-2011, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Interestingly, James 5 refers to the death of "the just", as does Acts:

James 5:6 You have condemned, you have murdered the just; he does not resist you.

Hmm...from the context "you" seems to be "the rich" and he is just listing general bad deeds done by "the rich", so I don't really think that interpretation (that "the just" refers specifically to Jesus) is correct.

Toto · 09-10-2011, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I can't see how he does either. That's the issue.

Doherty does not assume that the gospels are accurate. He takes them as they are for constructing certain arguments. I don't know what you think the issue is.

Solo · 09-10-2011, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Lastly, how does mythicism address the apparently strong Jesus-James connection?

Personally, I don't see any implications for mythicism. James could have been part of the same community as aMark, and so the sayings were common to both. From a historicist side, the sayings of the group were attributed to the man Jesus. From the mythicist side, the sayings of the group were attributed to a character called Jesus.

Ted's opinion would be better handled by pointing out to him that almost no-one in the academic community believes there is a strong connection between James (of the epistle) and Jesus. These kinds of confessions come as a rule from preachers in charismatic congregations, not from scholarly analyses.

The writing evidently originates ouside of Palestine (probably toward the end of the 1st century) and asserts unmistakably a point of view that rivaled Paul's, broadly representing the Jewish Christian point of view formed post-70. The writer's of the epistle seems vaguely aware that James was a leader of a messianic community in Jerusalem and reads its own views as his presumed theology. (Note the address of this pseudo-James in 1:1 belies any tradition existing at that point that he was the brother of Jesus). One interesting aspect of this epistle is that it was not very popular in the patristic church and was being accepted into the canon only over strong objections (of Eusebius, i.a.). Luther later called it famously "the epistle of straw" and wanted it thrown out, as it contradicted the "faith alone" theology of Paul.

James seems to be aware of Matthew's gospel. It speaks of the "poor" and as the "heirs of the kingdom" in 2:5 echoing Mt 5:3, and 5:12 essentially restates Mt 5:34-37. Perhaps the strongest anti-Pauline line in James 2:10 parallels Mt 5:19 with added emphasis.

These "sermon" traditions were not recorded by Mark, because part of the sermon itself looks like a critique of Mark and Paulinism and because his community had its own values which differed sharply in key points. (Other than the law saying, see e.g. what Mark did with the maxim of not giving "what is holy to the dogs" (Mt 7:6) in the story of the Syrophoenician woman (Mk 7:25-30)). So I would be very skeptical if the epistle of James originated in a Markan community.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874 · 09-10-2011, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

.... These "sermon" traditions were not recorded by Mark, because part of the sermon itself looks like a critique of Mark and Paulinism and because his community had its own values which differed sharply in key points. (Other than the law saying, see e.g. what Mark did with the maxim of not giving "what is holy to the dogs" (Mt 7:6) in the story of the Syrophoenician woman (Mk 7:25-30)). So I would be very skeptical if the epistle of James originated in a Markan community.

Best,
Jiri

Mark??? Who was Mark?? Please provide the source of antiquity that show that Mark did NOT record the " sermon" because his community had its own values which differed sharply in key points.

What community, when was Mark in that community, what was the actual values of the community ?

People's imagination seem to running wild here.

Solo · 09-10-2011, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What community, when was Mark in that community, what was the actual values of the community ?

People's imagination seem to running wild here.

Obviously,.....but the issue here is why do you stress over it without taking a break ? :huh:

Jiri

aa5874 · 09-10-2011, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What community, when was Mark in that community, what was the actual values of the community ?

People's imagination seem to running wild here.

Obviously,.....but the issue here is why do you stress over it without taking a break ? :huh:

Jiri

Well, why do you keep on making unsubstantiated claims on BCH?

It cannot continue day after day where people here are continuously making blunder after blunder as if they have NOT learned anything after being on BCH for years.

It is NOT known who actually wrote the epistle of James, when it was written, the circumstances under which it was written nor in which community it was written.

Based on TedM, there is very little about Jesus in the epistle.

TedM's own words has DESTROYED his own claim that there is a strong James-Jesus connection.

TedM cannot establish when the epistle of James was written so his PRESUMPTION is NOT even logical. It is also possible that the author of the epistle COPIED his information about Jesus from the same fables found in gMatthew of the NT.

TedM · 09-10-2011, 11:21 AM

solo, thanks for your thoughts. Good to have the scholarly view, although I think it may be very wrong and can share more on that later.

Simple questions:
1. Why would this Christian epistle that alludes to more of Jesus' sayings than any other epistle not say that they were from Jesus originally if it was written after the Jesus' sayings were known?
2. Why didn't the epistle even allude to conflict with Paul if was written after such conflict?
3. Why didn't this epistles to Jewish Christians mention the destruction of Jerusalem if it was written afterwards?
4. Who is this James that it is written by and why in world would he need to identify himself as Jesus' brother if he was their leader whom they already were familiar with?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Lastly, how does mythicism address the apparently strong Jesus-James connection?

Personally, I don't see any implications for mythicism. James could have been part of the same community as aMark, and so the sayings were common to both. From a historicist side, the sayings of the group were attributed to the man Jesus. From the mythicist side, the sayings of the group were attributed to a character called Jesus.

Ted's opinion would be better handled by pointing out to him that almost no-one in the academic community believes there is a strong connection between James (of the epistle) and Jesus. These kinds of confessions come as a rule from preachers in charismatic congregations, not from scholarly analyses.

The writing evidently originates ouside of Palestine (probably toward the end of the 1st century) and asserts unmistakably a point of view that rivaled Paul's, broadly representing the Jewish Christian point of view formed post-70. The writer's of the epistle seems vaguely aware that James was a leader of a messianic community in Jerusalem and reads its own views as his presumed theology. (Note the address of this pseudo-James in 1:1 belies any tradition existing at that point that he was the brother of Jesus). One interesting aspect of this epistle is that it was not very popular in the patristic church and was being accepted into the canon only over strong objections (of Eusebius, i.a.). Luther later called it famously "the epistle of straw" and wanted it thrown out, as it contradicted the "faith alone" theology of Paul.

James seems to be aware of Matthew's gospel. It speaks of the "poor" and as the "heirs of the kingdom" in 2:5 echoing Mt 5:3, and 5:12 essentially restates Mt 5:34-37. Perhaps the strongest anti-Pauline line in James 2:10 parallels Mt 5:19 with added emphasis.

These "sermon" traditions were not recorded by Mark, because part of the sermon itself looks like a critique of Mark and Paulinism and because his community had its own values which differed sharply in key points. (Other than the law saying, see e.g. what Mark did with the maxim of not giving "what is holy to the dogs" (Mt 7:6) in the story of the Syrophoenician woman (Mk 7:25-30)). So I would be very skeptical if the epistle of James originated in a Markan community.

Best,
Jiri

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

09-10-2011, 02:56 AM	#11
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	I can't see how he does either. That's the issue.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.