Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1830Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Hegesippus's report on James the Just

Expand Messages
  • Dave Wave
    Dec 16, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- wglmp <mtillman@...> wrote:

      > --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Dave
      > Wave
      > <empiricism101@...> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > --- Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > > He couldnt be a High Priest. Only a direct
      > > > descendant of Aaron could be and James was not
      > such
      > > > a descendant.He was of the tribe of Judah, not
      > > > Levi.
      > >
      > > Fifth, the Jewish Encyclopedia disagrees with you.
      > It
      > > is NOT TRUE that the high-priest must have
      > > demonstrable lineage from Levi/Aaron. Moses
      > appears
      > > to have required this, but this requirement had
      > been
      > > ignored before the time of Jesus:
      > Since the requirement that the High Priest be a
      > Levite, then if James
      > really had served as High Priest, he was sinning by
      > doing so. Even if
      > the prohibition was being ignored by the time James
      > "served," he was
      > guilty and worthy of the death penalty.

      First, you must have missed the part where the
      Encyclopedia mentioned biblical justification for
      non-Levite High Priests:

      "In the time of ELI, however (I Sam. ii. 23), the
      office passed to the collateral branch of Ithamar (see

      So it was not entirely unbiblical for a non-Levite
      person to become High Priest.

      Second, Epiphanius explicitly declares that James not
      only was a High Priest, but held this office because
      he was not the son of Mary, but the son of Joseph (via
      Joseph's former wife):

      begin quote --
      "This same Alexander, one of the eannointed rulers,
      also placed the diadem on himself. For joining
      together the two tribes, both royal and priestly, in
      other words Judah and Aaron and the whole tribe of
      Levi, , he became king and priest. For not one of the
      figurative sayings of holy scripture has gone astray.
      Moreever, the foreign king Herod than assumed the
      diadem, and there were no longer any descendent of

      And after the royal seat was changed, the royal honor
      was tranferred in Christ from its fleshly dwelling in
      Judah and Israel to the Church, and the throne has
      been established forever in the holy church of God.
      It holds this honor from two aspects, both royal and
      high-priestly - that is, it holds the royal honor
      from our Lord Jesus Christ according to two ways: both
      because he is from the seed of King David according to
      the flesh and because he is the very one who is the
      greater eternal king by virtue of his divine nature.

      The priestly honor it holds, because he who is high
      priest and chief of high priests afterward was
      installed as the first bishop: James, called apostle
      and brother of the Lord. He was the physical son of
      Josephy by lineage and called 'the brother of the
      Lord' because he lived closely together with him.

      This James was the son of Joseph from his first wife,
      not from Mary, just as this has also been told to us
      in many places and very clearly worked out for us. We
      find, on the one hand, that he also was from David
      because he was the son of Josephy, and he became a
      Nazirite because he was the firstborn of Joseph and
      consecrated as such to God. Wherefore he was also
      allowed once a year to enter into the holy of holies,
      just as the Law commanded the high priests according
      ot the scriptures. So relate many who came before us
      concerning him, Eusebius and Clement and others. On
      the other hand, he was even allowed to wear the high
      priest's mitre on his head, just as the aforementioned
      trustworthy men bear witness in their writings."
      end quote -- (Epiphanius, Pararion, 29, 3:4 - 4:4)

      This quote passes the historical criteria of
      embarrassment, since Epiphanius was orthodox (a
      Paulist Bishop fighting "heretics"), and therefore
      would never admit to James being a High Priest and a
      Christian at the same time (which makes James more
      assuredly legalists and thus against Paul) unless he
      had good reason to trust his sources. The same can be
      said for Eusebius and Jerome, who believed in Paul's
      gospel, but also admit James was a High Priest.

      Your inability to figure out how James could be a high
      priest, might be due to your presupposition that Paul
      and James would never disagree on doctrine
      (inerrancy), while it's obvious Paul would disagree
      with any High Priest who was also a Christian. I
      would argue that there is BIBLICAL evidence that James
      did not approve of Paul's gospel, and thus Acts 15 is
      Luke whitewashing the conflict between the two to make
      their differences appear to be less serious than they
      actually were.

      I've already had enough inerrantists tell me they
      don't care about patristics; they find James and Paul
      in agreement in Acts 15, and they cheerfully reject
      any and all patristic evidence that suggests James was
      more of a legalist than the New Testament lets on.

      Surely there aren't any errors in the bible, are there?

      Be a better friend, newshound, and
      know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic