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

1832Re: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Hegesippus's report on James the Just

Expand Messages
  • Muz Joy
    Dec 17, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Mr Tillman... 
      Quote: "Scholars have long stated that there is little or no evidence Jesus
      Could you give us an idea who those scholars are and references to their writings? It would help me a great deal to try and understand just where you are really coming from. Generalizations like that have the effect of diminishing one's argument.
      I also note you are an ordained minister... Just wondering what religion you adhere to... it would also help me to understand better your viewpoint... I look forward to your reply..

      ----- Original Message ----
      From: wglmp <mtillman@...>
      To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 10:02:59 PM
      Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: Hegesippus's report on James the Just

      --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, Dave Wave
      <empiricism101@ ...> wrote:

      > 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 Eleazar)."
      > from
      > http://www.jewishen cyclopedia. com/view. jsp?letter= H&artid=721
      > So it was not entirely unbiblical for a non-Levite person to become
      High Priest.<

      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 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):

      > Epiphanius ("clearly manifested") was the name of several early
      Christian scholars and ecclesiastics: <

      I looked him up. Saint Epiphanius of Salamis, bishop of Salamis in
      Cyprus, author of Panarion, lived ca 310–20 – 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.

      Looking for a X-Mas gift? Everybody needs a Flickr Pro Account!
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic