GakuseiDon

The issue is that those arguments are against people who think the Gospels accurately reflect what Jesus did or said.

Solo

Simple answers:

1. I don't know (but from the way you formulate the 'simple' question I gather you think it is significant and argues for the writer getting these sayings first hand from Jesus).

2. I don't know (but I suspect that the issue was more Paul's theology than Paul)

3. I don't know (but I think the writer would have been bright enough to realize James died before the fall of Jerusalem. ).

4. Two answers to a convoluted question: one, I don't have the foggiest who the impostor was and two, he does not identify himself as 'Jesus' brother' but as a 'servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ'.


Best,
Jiri

TedM

Not necessarily. While I see it as an argument against composition after these sayings were being attributed to Jesus, it is also an argument against Jesus actually having originated the ideas. One solution is that it was written early on and Jesus wasn't the originator of the sayings.


It is debatable whether it is alluding to Paul's justification through faith alone or not. What good is 'faith' at all to the early Jewish Christians? Surely the issue of how 'works' fit in with 'faith' would have been an early issue that preceded Paul's issue with Gentiles. If I'm not mistaken the epistle doesn't even reference Gentiles anywhere so this again is an argument for an early date-pre-Paul.


That didn't stop the gospel writers from putting predictions in the mouth of Jesus. Any James the Just-wannabe could certainly have said something about the 'coming' siege--or have quoted Jesus on it if the gospel tradition was strong enough at the time of writing. Given his references to persecution of believers and to the coming of the Lord, he had a great opportunity to do so. But, he didn't. This argues for a pre-72AD date.


Seems a pretty boring book to choose to be an impostor of. If he had written at a later date and wanted to pretend to be James the bishop or James the brother of Jesus, it would have been a lot more effective to have said so, since people throughout history have questioned just which James this was supposed to be. Just don't see the motivation for being an impostor.

Ted

aa5874

After having read the supposed epistle of James, I can now say the epistle has virtually NOTHING at all about the life of the so-called Jesus Christ.

The author of the epistle mentioned NOTHING about the FUNDAMENTALS of the Jesus story.

1. There is NOTHING about the birth of Jesus.

2. There is NOTHING about the baptism of Jesus.

3. There is NOTHING about the Temptation of Jesus.

4. There is NOTHING about the miracles of Jesus in Galilee.

5. There is NOTHING about the Transfiguration.

6. There is NOTHING about the ARREST and TRIAL of Jesus.

7. There is NOTHING about the Crucifixion of Jesus.

8. There is NOTHING about the Post-resurrection appearances.

9. There is NOTHING about the supposed apostles of Jesus.

10. There is NOTHING about the ascension of Jesus.

11. There are NO DIRECT words of the so-called Jesus.

12. There are DIRECT words from Hebrew Scripture.

The epistle of James has NOTHING to show that the author was a brother and an apostle of Jesus or a brother of Jude.

Incredibly, the author wrote virtually NOTHING about the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus the very FUNDAMENTALS of the Jesus story.

Solo

Sorry, Ted, this is again one of your arguments that I take simply as selff-validating declarations as there seems to be no organized, disciplined, coherent thought process behind them. Why do you think the epistle is "early" ? Do you actually believe that it was written (or dictated) by James ? How would you respond to the challenge recorded by L.E. Elliott-Binns (in Peake's Commentary) of those who see 'nothing' in James 'connecting it to an ecclesiatical environment such as Jerusalem' ? Why would (if you want to take the experts ford for it) the James' source seem to be the LXX rather than the Hebrew bible ?


And your proof for this assertion is what, exactly ?

One cannot reasonably infer that the writing comes form James from the letter lacking errors which would instantly identified it as fraud. Get real !


So, let me see what we have here: I caught you claiming something that was blatantly untrue, i.e. that James identified himself as the brother of Jesus in the epistle. But in your response, you are not fessing up to a slip or that you were making things up. You try to weasel your way out of the embarrassing gaffe by offering another handy gob of pious sleaze in claiming you see no motivation (in the writer of James) to be an impostor.

Maybe, Ted, just maybe, his motivation was simply that he wanted to be something bigger and better than he really was and thought he figured out a method to appear that way. Ever met anyone like that in your life ? :constern01:

Best,
Jiri

TedM

Solo, you are exhibiting an inability to understand a simple argument. What solution do you propose for referencing a bunch of Jesus' sayings without attributing them to Jesus? Oh, I remember now--you said 'I don't know'. Well, I don't know either, so what I have done is provide a reasonable argument. Instead of addressing that argument you are bringing up arguments of a different kind. Can you not stick to the issue?


I may or may not respond to these other issues later.

Common sense. IF you can't see it I can't help you. They valued both faith and works. To not imagine that there were questions about how the two were interrelated is a failure I can't address.

I don't have to get any more real than the gospels to have made my point. Did early Christians label the gospels as frauds? It didn't seem to stop them. What's different here?


You are the one who should be embarrassed. I didn't claim that James identified himself as the brother of Jesus in the epistle. I knew that he didn't. You misunderstood me. What I wrote was this:



nice. The condescending man has struck again...I wonder if he'll take his ball and go home now like he did with archibald and I the last time?

Solo

I say you claimed it. You have denied you claimed it. You have obigingly provided the evidence.

Let the smart heads around here decide whether, when you say about the writer: 'why in world [sic] whould he need to identify himself as Jesus' brother', you imply specifically that he did identify himself as such.

Wonder all you want; by my estimate you are not much good at anything else anyhow. :huh:

Jiri

GakuseiDon

I agree with TedM; he didn't claim that. The context is on the last page:

Solo: Note the address of this pseudo-James in 1:1 belies any tradition existing at that point that he was the brother of Jesus.

(I.e. No claim in James that he was the brother of Jesus)

TedM: 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?

(I.e. Why would the author need to identify James as Jesus' brother? IOW, he didn't need to (since they were already familiar with him), so he didn't identify James as Jesus' brother)

aa5874

Let us NOT get distracted.

The epistle of "James" show no direct QUOTATION of Jesus and has ZERO about the supposed life of Jesus on earth.

In the Gospels, Jesus TAUGHT his disciples that he would be killed and resurrect on the THIRD day and spoke in parables to the Jews so that they would remain in sin.

The author of the James' epistle DID not ever claim he saw Jesus, talked to Jesus or personally interacted with Jesus.

In effect, the epistle by "James" only MATHCES Hebrew Scripture not the Gospels since there is NOTHING about the life, words and deeds of Myth Jesus.

TedM

Against my better judgment, why do you think the writer of James didn't attribute the similar teachings to the gospel Jesus?