It is historically attested with more proof than Christ Jesus even that Jacob, the brother of the Lord, was a historical fogure and leader of the first Christian Church in Jerusalem before his matyrdom. Then how cone Pauline Christianity managed to completely smother his existence from the theology and history of every major branch of Christianity?Surely, the BROTHER OF JESUS and FIRST PATRIARCH would have a movement coalesce around him, even after his death in opposition to Paul? He's been so utterly irrelevant that for thousands of years the Catholic, Orthodox and most other branches deny his existence or his relationship with the Lord because of their obsession with the doctrine of perpetual virginity of Mary.
>>18722659The christological controversies of the 4th century were too autistic to allow for such a basic ecclesiological error to creep in. Anyone who held to an ecclesiology that didn't allow for attendance of an ecumenical council would've been rather recognizable as a charlatan.
>>18722659Napoleon’s brother that ruled Italy is not mentioned much either today but even still ruling Italy is an accomplishment I figure
>>18722659Catholicism is comparably similar to Shia than Sunni
>>18722659It's possible that he wasn't much competition against Paul because he didn't exist. He was made up by connecting scattered references in the new testament to different people called James. Paul calls one James a brother of the Lord (likely non-literally given his usual use of the word "brother" and his explicit indication to the contrary in a few cases where he does want to imply a biological kinship) but not an apostle or a leader of the church. The pillar James he mentions later alongside Peter and John is more naturally identified with James son of Zebedee, who alongside Peter and John are said in the gospels to have witnessed with transfiguration. Then Mark and Matthew mention a James who is literally Jesus' brother, but Jesus seems to practically disown him along with his other brothers in favor of his spiritual family, and there's no hint of a post-resurrection reconciliation. Luke-Acts, which at no point even mentions Jesus having a brother James, does have a James with some leadership role in the church after James son of Zebedee's death, but this James can be identified with James son of Alphaeus, one of the twelve and the only other James Luke-Acts does explicitly introduce.The apparent reference in Josephus to James brother of Jesus, "who is called the Christ" could easily be interpolated and originally referred to James, brother of Jesus, "son of Damneus," who is mentioned in the same passage. "Who is called the Christ" may have been added in the margin by someone attempting to reconcile Josephus with Origen's poor memory, when he attributes to Josephus a story about James that fits better with an apocryphal account written by a guy named Hegesippus, because Origen claims Josephus said the temple was destroyed on account of James being killed, but that's what Hegesippus said, not Josephus, and Josephus gives a different reason.
>>18722659Islam was centralized from the start. The Sunni/Shia split in its origin is an inheritance argument. Christianity was decentralized from the beginning, such an argument couldn't arise for the whole church.
>>18722659>Jesus and Paul disagreed>its Paul's fault that Christianity isn't noahidismfuck off, jew
