James

Kummel presents the reasons that most scholars suspect James to be a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 412-3):

1. The cultured language of James is not that of a simple Palestinian. Sevenster's evidence that the Greek language was much used in Palestine at that time and could be learned does not prove that a Jew whose mother tongue was Aramaic could normally write in literary Greek. Most of those who defend the thesis that James was written by the Lord's brother must assume that it achieved its linguistic form through the help of a Hellenistic Jew, but there is no evidence in the text that the assistance of a secretary gave shape to the present linguistic state of the document, and even if this were the case the question would still remain completely unanswered which part of the whole comes from the real author and which part from the "secretary."

2. It is scarcely conceivable that the Lord's brother, who remained faithful to the Law, could have spoken of "the perfect law of freedom" (1:25) or that he could have given concrete expression to the Law in ethical commands (2:11 f) without mentioning even implicitly any cultic-ritual requirements.

3. Would the brother of the Lord really omit any reference to Jesus and his relationship to him, even though the author of JAmes emphatically presents himself in an authoritative role?

4. The debate in 2:14 ff with a misunderstood secondary stage of Pauline theology not only presupposes a considerable chronological distance from Paul - whereas James died in the year 62 - but also betrays complete ignorance of the polemical intent of Pauline theology, which lapse can scarcely be attributed to James, who as late as 55/56 met with Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18 ff).

5. As the history of the canon shows (see 27.2), it was only very slowly and against opposition that James became recognized as the owrk of the Lord's brother, therefore as apostolic and canonical. Thus there does not seem to have been any old tradition that it originated with the brother of the Lord.

...

...

Udo Schnelle also argues against the authenticity of James (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, pp. 385-386):

Nonetheless, there are weighty arguments against James the Lord's brother as author of the Letter of James. Central themes of strict Jewish Christian theology such as circumcision, Sabbath, Israel, purity laws and temply play no role in this letter. James is numbered among the few New Testament writings in which neither Israel nor the Jews are mentioned by name. The reception of Old Testament figures (cf. James 2.21-25; 5.10-11, 17-18) and also the references to the Law in an exclusively ethical context were general practices possible anywhere within early Christianity. In contrast to the Antioch incident, the problem of Gentile Christians/Jewish Christians does not appear at all in the Letter of James. The far-reaching differences in soterioogy (see below 7.1.9) indicate that the author of the Letter of James cannot be identical with James the Lord's brother, who according to Gal. 2.9 gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and explicitly acknowledged his proclamation of the gospel among the Gentiles. In 1.1 the author designates himself δουλος θεου και κυριου Ιησου Ξριστου (servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ), and in 3.1 indicates that he is an early Christian teacher. To be sure, a special position and dignity is associated with the term δουλος (servant) in James 1.1., but it remains worthy of note that the author neither introduces himself as the Lord's brother nor claims the title στυλος (cf. Gal. 2.9). By including himself in the large group of early Christian teachers (cf. Acts 13.1; 1 Cor. 12.28-29), he disclaims the special authority of the Lord's brother or the three 'pillars' of the Jerusalem mother church, which were used in the Antioch conflict. In addition, James 3.1ff. presupposes an attack on the teaching office and a critical situation associated with it, which again does not correspond to the exclusive position of James the Lord's brother in the history of early Christianity.

If James the Lord's brother were the author of the Letter, then it is amazing that in James 5.10-11 it is Job and not Jesus who serves as an example of willingness to suffer. Also, the presupposed church situation and the polemic in James 2.14-26 point to a later time. The social conflicts within the community that become visible are paralleled especially in the writings of Luke, the Pastorals, and in Revelation. They are evidence of a fundamental social change that happened within the Christian community at the end of the first century. More and more wealthy people entered the church, the gulf between rich and poor church members became greater, and the debate between them grew sharper. In any case, the conflict concerning the unity of faith and works points to the post-Pauline period, as in the churches previously belonging to the Pauline mission field the unity of new being and new actions that Paul had considered self-evident came apart. The polemic of James does not fit Paul himself (see below 7.1.9), so that one must assume either that James the Lord's brother was completely ignorant of Pauline theology or that we are dealing with a debate in post-Pauline times. The deuteropaulines and 2 Peter 3.15-16 docuemnt the fact that these debates in fact took place on very different levels and with distinct emphases. If the Letter of James were to have been writen by James the Lord's brother, then it is remarkable that there is no reflection of the sharp criticism of Paul by James in the deuteropauline writings. Finally, the history of the canon speaks against James the Lord's brother as author of the Letter of James. Prior to 200 CE there is no solid evidence of the literary use of James. In the Muratorian Canon (ca. 200) James is missing, just as in Tertullian, and Eusebius (HE 2.23, 24b, 25) reports of James: 'This is the story of James. He is supposed to be the author of the first of the so-called "Catholic Letters," but let it be noted that its authenticity is doubted, since not many of the Elders have referred either to it or the so-called "Letter of Jude," which likewise has been counted among the 'Catholic Letters.' Still, we are aware that these two letters, like the others, have been read aloud in most of the churches.' The Letter of James began to be generally accepted only after 200 CE, cited for the first time as Scripture in Origen (Select Ps 30.6 [PG 12.1300]). The canonical status of James continued to be disputed, however, and did not attain general acceptance as a canonical document until very late. This would be an extraordinary development if James had really been written by James the brother of the Lord and this had been known in early Christianity.


K.

Originally posted by Kapyong
James

Kummel presents the reasons that most scholars suspect James to be a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 412-3):

1. The cultured language of James is not that of a simple Palestinian. Sevenster's evidence that the Greek language was much used in Palestine at that time and could be learned does not prove that a Jew whose mother tongue was Aramaic could normally write in literary Greek. Most of those who defend the thesis that James was written by the Lord's brother must assume that it achieved its linguistic form through the help of a Hellenistic Jew, but there is no evidence in the text that the assistance of a secretary gave shape to the present linguistic state of the document, and even if this were the case the question would still remain completely unanswered which part of the whole comes from the real author and which part from the "secretary."

2. It is scarcely conceivable that the Lord's brother, who remained faithful to the Law, could have spoken of "the perfect law of freedom" (1:25) or that he could have given concrete expression to the Law in ethical commands (2:11 f) without mentioning even implicitly any cultic-ritual requirements.

3. Would the brother of the Lord really omit any reference to Jesus and his relationship to him, even though the author of JAmes emphatically presents himself in an authoritative role?

4. The debate in 2:14 ff with a misunderstood secondary stage of Pauline theology not only presupposes a considerable chronological distance from Paul - whereas James died in the year 62 - but also betrays complete ignorance of the polemical intent of Pauline theology, which lapse can scarcely be attributed to James, who as late as 55/56 met with Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18 ff).

5. As the history of the canon shows (see 27.2), it was only very slowly and against opposition that James became recognized as the owrk of the Lord's brother, therefore as apostolic and canonical. Thus there does not seem to have been any old tradition that it originated with the brother of the Lord.

...

The fact that simple men wrote the bible, fishermen etc, again with a mathmatical forumula throughout is proof positive that men, simple men wrote the bible aided by a divine inteligence, however as you say, it is unlcelar with the deciple James or the borther of Jesus aslo James wrote the book of James, however it's a mute point, as all 26 or so authours of the 66 books have the same formula, and each would have to have written their books last if they where to follow this pattern exactly, which of course is a human impossibility. And if a human being was to write one book of the bible unaided by God, with the evident forumula, if they pullled it off in 1000 years it would be no mean feet. Again a human impossibility. The fact is that at least 11 possbily more books are anonymously written.




[edit on 30-6-2009 by Imago Dei]

See Gary Habermas's website.
www.garyhabermas.com
He's the worlds leading authority on proof of the historical Jesus

Thanks,
TT

Gday,

Originally posted by Imago Dei
The fact that simple men wrote the bible, fishermen etc, again with a mathmatical forumula throughout is proof positive that men,

What formula?
Not the Bible Code nonsense?
Comprehensively proven false.

Originally posted by Imago Dei
it is unlcelar with the deciple James or the borther of Jesus aslo James wrote the book of James,

It is unclear who wrote ALL the NT epistles (not counting Paul.)
Scholars agree - James, John, Jude, Peter - all forged by others.

Originally posted by Imago Dei
however it's a mute point, as all 26 or so authours of the 66 books have the same formula,

What 26 authors?
The NT has less than a dozen authors, mostly unknown.

66 books? That's the OT, not the NT.
Have you ever read a bible?

Originally posted by Imago Dei
and each would have to have written their books last if they where to follow this pattern exactly, which of course is a human impossibility.

Rubbish.
There is NO special pattern.
Which is why you didn't cite one.

Originally posted by Imago Dei
The fact is that at least 11 possbily more books are anonymously written.

Like I said - apart from Paul, all the letters are forged.


K.

Greetings,

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
personal testimony of people who claim they were eye-witnesses that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

What 'personal testimony', Myrtales ?

Will you be answering that?
Or posting in my thread about
'Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus?'

K.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by Imago Dei
The fact that simple men wrote the bible, fishermen etc, again with a mathmatical forumula throughout is proof positive that men,

What formula?
Not the Bible Code nonsense?
Comprehensively proven false.

Originally posted by Imago Dei
it is unlcelar with the deciple James or the borther of Jesus aslo James wrote the book of James,

It is unclear who wrote ALL the NT epistles (not counting Paul.)
Scholars agree - James, John, Jude, Peter - all forged by others.

Originally posted by Imago Dei
however it's a mute point, as all 26 or so authours of the 66 books have the same formula,

What 26 authors?
The NT has less than a dozen authors, mostly unknown.

66 books? That's the OT, not the NT.
Have you ever read a bible?

Originally posted by Imago Dei
and each would have to have written their books last if they where to follow this pattern exactly, which of course is a human impossibility.

Rubbish.
There is NO special pattern.
Which is why you didn't cite one.

Originally posted by Imago Dei
The fact is that at least 11 possbily more books are anonymously written.

Like I said - apart from Paul, all the letters are forged.


K.

Gday, I will provide examples shortly. I find what you say about Paul interesting, there is at least one guy here who likes to quote srcipture in these threads who claims Paul to be a false profit. Your saying that Paul is the only genuine book in the bible. Is that correct?

No not bible code nonsense, bible numerics. I will explain fully later.

Ahem...I think you need to wipe the dust off your bible and look at the number of books in it again, You will find, including the old and the new are a total of 66 books. And when I say 26 authors I'm referring to the old and the new. I see when your not cutting and pasting copius documents from wherever, you dont make a lot of sense.








[edit on 30-6-2009 by Imago Dei]

Gday,

Originally posted by Imago Dei
Gday, I will provide examples shortly. I find what you say about Paul interesting, there is at least one guy here who likes to quote srcipture in these threads who claims Paul to be a false profit. Your saying that Paul is the only genuine book in the bible. Is that correct?

He's the only one who wrote the letters named for him.

Originally posted by Imago Dei
Ahem...I think you need to wipe the dust off your bible and look at the number of books in it again, You will find, including the old and the new are a total of 66 books. And when I say 26 authors I'm referring to the old and the new. I see when your not cutting and pasting copius documents from wherever, you dont make a lot of sense.

Whoops yes, 66 is the total bible book count.
So what exactly is your point?

None of the writers ever met any historical Jesus.
The OT books have no relevance to a historical Jesus.

K.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by Imago Dei
Gday, I will provide examples shortly. I find what you say about Paul interesting, there is at least one guy here who likes to quote srcipture in these threads who claims Paul to be a false profit. Your saying that Paul is the only genuine book in the bible. Is that correct?

He's the only one who wrote the letters named for him.

Originally posted by Imago Dei
Ahem...I think you need to wipe the dust off your bible and look at the number of books in it again, You will find, including the old and the new are a total of 66 books. And when I say 26 authors I'm referring to the old and the new. I see when your not cutting and pasting copius documents from wherever, you dont make a lot of sense.

Whoops yes, 66 is the total bible book count.
So what exactly is your point?

None of the writers ever met any historical Jesus.
The OT books have no relevance to a historical Jesus.

K.

I have posted regarding the pattern in the bible on the thread....

The Inspiration of Scripture Scientifically Demonstrated.

I made my point in the first post on this thread. The writers of the four Gospels, all met Him touched him walked with Him, witnessed the miracles, witnessed His crucifixtion, resurection ascention etc, they where His deciples. Only at that time he wasnt "historical" he was present (and they shall call his name Emmanual, meaning God with us) Thats how we know about Him, and that He existed. Further more, if you think stating that He isn't mentioned in any other publication outside the bible (even though He is) is evidence to refute His existence, I would like to know why you think you can claim that? Because you would first have to prove that the bible is not an accurate Historical record of His life, which you have yet failed to do.

My point is that the answer to the original post. Is YES! And my other point is you cant count and you dont even have the decency to appologise for mocking me, when you where competely and utterly wrong.

Now what exactly is your point and when are you going to provide some proof other than cutting and pasting other peoples opions?



[edit on 1-7-2009 by Imago Dei]

Gday,

Originally posted by Imago Dei
The writers of the four Gospels, all met Him touched him walked with Him, witnessed the miracles, witnessed His crucifixtion, resurection ascention etc, they where His deciples.

Wrong.

According to CHRISTIAN dogma -

G.Mark was written by Peter's secretary in Rome - someone who NEVER met Jesus.

G.Luke was written by Paul's travelling companion - someone who NEVER met Jesus.

That is - only TWO Gospels were written by disciples (according to Christian beliefs.)


But according to scholars -
not one of the Gospels was written by anyone who ever met Jesus.


Yet, you claim -
"The writers of the four Gospels, all met Him touched him walked with Him,"


So, who do you think wrote G.Mark and G.Luke ?


Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by Imago Dei
I have posted regarding the pattern in the bible on the thread....
...
The Inspiration of Scripture Scientifically Demonstrated.

So, you posted someone ELSE's opinion.

But then you attack me for doing that :

Originally posted by Imago Dei
Now what exactly is your point and when are you going to provide some proof other than cutting and pasting other peoples opions?

Yes, I posted evidence about the NT books because I was ASKED to.

I have also posted at length in my own words, showing that not one single Christian ever claimed to have met Jesus personally. You failed to answer that.

All you have done is copy and paste someone ELSE's work, unlike myself who studied the facts and posted my OWN work.


K.

Gday,

Originally posted by Imago Dei
Because you would first have to prove that the bible is not an accurate Historical record of His life, which you have yet failed to do.

Do you believe all the saints rose from their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem, like it says in the NT ?

The NT is religious legends.

Only faithful believers faithfully believe it.
It is up to YOU to prove it is history.


K.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by Imago Dei
Because you would first have to prove that the bible is not an accurate Historical record of His life, which you have yet failed to do.

Do you believe all the saints rose from their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem, like it says in the NT ?

The NT is religious legends.

Only faithful believers faithfully believe it.
It is up to YOU to prove it is history.


K.

What scripture are you referring too?

I didnt post an opinion, I posted proof, scientific mathamatical facts AKA evidence. Thats different from the ramblings and musings of someone who has no proof at all KAKA theories and opinions. The Christians at the time Christ was here in the flesh met jesus Personally, no one has met personally in the flesh after he went back up to heaven, what are you ranting about?

The historical accounts of the bible have been proven scientifically in every field of science known to mankind. Indlcuing prohecy taht is now coming true. keep your head in the sand if you like, but dont think you will get away with disinformation, because you wont.




[edit on 1-7-2009 by Imago Dei]

well, I am going to go on a limb here and say this:

As I believe in mediums etc; and thru my own thoughts and perceptions while growing up. I know that Jesus walked the earth. Maybe not in that name. How do i know? not really sure, but like what most that i believe, it was ingrained in my mind before I was born. Thru past lifes, etc. I have had a few mediums tell me that I was around when Jesus lived.
My beliefs: He was just a man, who went thru out the lands, on hillsides and preached about God. a higher being. He didnt have churches built, he didnt do it for money or donations. He just went out and spoke about what he had in his mind. He did live longer than what is said ( I think i was told 33? well that is a joke, cause he did live longer than that. He did have a family too. Why the churches/bible never mentioned it i have no clue. There is nothing to gain by this. And also if you believe in the bible/ moses then the message was to procreate, so why would Jesus not follow that same message? He was still a man, same as us all.
When did i have these feelings? well, I was raised in a catholic family, and sitting in church when i was 14- 16 years old.. was half listening to the priest. Thinking.. that isnt the way it happened. another sunday.. well that is not true, and again.. that isnt the way it happened. Sorry I dont remember the surmon of the day way back then. I am 47 now. But I do remember that, thinking to myself.. be quiet. and later when at home thinking and wondering how i knew those things. it wasnt until i was in my mid 30's that i went to a medium, and at one session another 2 ladies were there. I was having troubles in a relationship and they said: oh, she has done this to you before, in a previous life. And i asked what time frame was that.. and they gave me 2 different times. one of which was during the time when Jesus was alive. That kind of blew me away, cause it was not just one but 2 ladies who said this to me. And neither one had any financial gains to lead me on. I have a more intuitive thinking, and am still trying to figure things out.
I used to have my own deja vu dreams and to an extent still have a few. But around 1980, I had a dream about an airplane exploding or crashing. And about a week later, my dream came true while watching the news one night. At that point it really freaked me out and Asked for this to stop happening to me.
hope there is others out there that have the same thoughts and ideas i have had.

Also after reading a few more posts before mine:

Remember the bible was written more than a few generations after jesus died. So how could anyone write in the bible, and yet already have passed away?

I have never read the whole bible, just because i have not believed that i need to. I am not that big on reading books. Not to say that i havent read any, just that I prefer to read what interests me at the time.

Also, what is called jesus apostles, and the last supper.
These were friends of jesus, that he met thru time. They were his confidants and their "job" was to go ahead and set up for the next town to where he would talk to the people. To send out the word ahead of time, to find a place for him to talk about God, and where people could listen to him. Also to see if the next town was safe for him to speak. Some walked with him, some stayed behind to help or answer questions afterwards, and then like i said some to go ahead and set up the next speaking engagement. Remember, life then was not even close to the way it is now. He just didnt show up in a town and people gathered.. there was no posters proclaiming he was coming etc etc. Also they were traveling on foot or mule/camels. depending on where they were.

Also I have been looking lately and trying to understand why people proclaiming themselves as atheists, have such a hate against religion? If you have your beliefs then good for you. have strong convictions, whatever gets you thru the day. BUT why do you have to be so aggressive against those that believe in God or a higher being? Why do you have this need to come off as the school yard bully and try to belittle those that have beliefs.? Is it because you are actually still searching and in your mind, there is not plausible way that there could be a GOD? is your mind that closed that you cant believe in something you cant see?
most athiests use science as their "way" to disprove religion. YET, science uses theories and guesstimates to what "THEY" think happened in the past. What they think the world was like way back when.. millions of years ago.. 100,000s of years ago, and even 4-5000 yrs ago. yes there are ways for them to have a better guess at what happened.
But let me ask you this: How do you know carbon dating actually works as they say it does? maybe it is just a way that scientists have come up with a scientific way to date things. yet it actually is nothing but a pile of crap? we really dont know at what age these fossils really are.. it is just a guess or guesstimate. For every scientist you can find to favor your opinion, I can find one that will refute your claim. Same as we see with global warming.. etc etc.
So dont believe everything you read or see on the internet is true.
What if the scientists are wrong, and we are living at the same time as our predessesors, and future generations, but just being in a different dimension or level? Theoretically, it can be done with time warps and dimensions. The future, already has designs on being able to time travel, why we are seeing more and more "ufos" lately than before.
they are coming back to check on us.. to figure out where we made the mistake and hope to change it .. on a miniscule basis. cause changing it drastically, will change their lifes too.

I for one do not believe that Jesus is a myth or did not walk this earth.
There is too muxh proof if one has eyes that are open to see it. Even Sir Isaac Newton, whose name is synonymous with loyalty to facts, said, "I find more sure marks of authenticity in the New Testament, than in any profane history whatever."

At least three ancient manuscripts of the New Testament still in existence, bearing names of their authors and held as sacred treasures in three of the world's great libraries, date back to the fourth century.

But the greatest proof to me is that ALL of the disciples went to their death still peoclaiming the truth of a risen Christ who was the Son of God. Even though they could have saved their llives if they rebuked Jesus as the Messiah, not one of them different. A man who is sure of what he believes is not afraid to die for his cause.

Plus I also have my own personal relationship with Christ. I can't proove it to you but it is a real spiritual happening. It is beautiful and humbling experience. It is truley a love story.


Peace,
Grandma

Gday,

Originally posted by Imago Dei
I didnt post an opinion, I posted proof, scientific mathamatical facts AKA evidence.

No scholar thinks that nonsense is true.

Originally posted by Imago Dei
The Christians at the time Christ was here in the flesh met jesus Personally,

So YOU say.
But none of those Christians actually claim to have met Jesus.

NOT ONE authentic claim to have met a historical Jesus.

Originally posted by Imago Dei
no one has met personally in the flesh after he went back up to heaven, what are you ranting about?

Well, another poster here claimed exactly that !

Originally posted by Imago Dei
The historical accounts of the bible have been proven scientifically in every field of science known to mankind.

Rubbish.
Only faithful believers fathfully believe that faithful belief.


K.