1831Re: Hegesippus's report on James the Just
- Dec 16, 2007--- In email@example.com, Dave Wave
> First, you must have missed the part where the Encyclopediamentioned biblical justification for non-Levite High Priests:
>the collateral branch of Ithamar (see Eleazar)."
> "In the time of ELI, however (I Sam. ii. 23), the office passed to
> fromHigh Priest.<
> So it was not entirely unbiblical for a non-Levite person to become
Either I don't understand your words, or you need to do more
research. Ithamar was a Levite, the youngest son of Aaron, the
brother of Moses. Thus, a descendant of Ithamar was eligible to act
as High Priest with Rabbinic approval. The Jewish Encyclopedia is not
saying a non-Levite became nor that one could become High Priest.
James was not a Levite if, as you say, he was the son of Joseph,
because Joseph was a descendant of Judah. Therefore, James sinned if
he did act as High Priest.
Also, you seem to think that your sources state that the James who
was the High Priest was the same person who was the son of Joseph,
the husband of Mary the mother of Jesus. No such thing can be proved.
Scholars have long stated that there is little or no evidence Jesus
lived. If there was such a chain as you suppose (a historical Joseph
the carpenter who was also the father of the High Priest, both
persons related to Jesus, according to the NT), the assertion that
there is no evidence Jesus lived would have died stillborn.
I therefore doubt you have the same Josephs, Jameses, (and Marys).
All three names were common in those days.
> Second, Epiphanius explicitly declares that James not only was aHigh Priest, but held this office because he was not the son of Mary,
but the son of Joseph (via Joseph's former wife):
> Epiphanius ("clearly manifested") was the name of several earlyChristian scholars and ecclesiastics:<
I looked him up. Saint Epiphanius of Salamis, bishop of Salamis in
Cyprus, author of Panarion, lived ca 31020 403. It seems to me
that was not close enough to the events to have been beyond reproach.
IOW, he was possibly wrong. Perhaps he said what he did because he
believed it, perhaps he did it because he wanted his reader to
believe it. But I don't believe it. At least, not without stronger
> 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 seen such evidence, and I agree with what you seem to be saying,
James was opposed to Paul and the religion he created, Pauline
Christology. Jesus was not a Christian, and so James was not one,
either. Paul, who never met Jesus, but was from Tarsus, the seat of
Mithraism, easily associated Jesus with certain Mithraic teachings to
create Pauline Christology that we today call Christianity.
> Surely there aren't any errors in the bible, are there?<There are more than a hundred errors in the New Testament, if you
know where to look and/or who to ask. There are three or four errors
in Acts chapter seven alone.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>