1830Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Hegesippus's report on James the Just
- Dec 16, 2007--- wglmp <mtillman@...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, DaveFirst, you must have missed the part where the
> <empiricism101@...> wrote:
> > --- Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:
> > > He couldnt be a High Priest. Only a direct
> > > descendant of Aaron could be and James was not
> > > a descendant.He was of the tribe of Judah, not
> > > Levi.
> > Fifth, the Jewish Encyclopedia disagrees with you.
> > is NOT TRUE that the high-priest must have
> > demonstrable lineage from Levi/Aaron. Moses
> > to have required this, but this requirement had
> > 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.
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
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
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>