Anyone else fascinated by this guy? Jesus's biological brother who became the head of the Jerusalem church, and despite Paul revering him highly, the New Testament barely talks about him. Hell, even Josephus likes him so much he gives him a shout out and frames his death as an injustice that caused the high priest to lose his job.Do you buy the theory that he was written out of it to diminish his role in the early church?
There’s literally a book of the NT written by him
>>18763469it's Peter that gets all the iconic moments though, Paul dominates the NT, James gets one book that protestants dont like that much and that's it
>>18763468The interesting thing to me is John gets one mention by Paul but at some point clearly became a more prominent figure than James is.
>>18763511James also presides over the Council of Jerusalem>protestants dont like that muchA literal delusional tradcath meme
>>18763468>Anyone else fascinated by this guy?Muslims, if you don't James over Paul, you're not a real Christian.
>>18763563yet not once the author of Acts state that James was Jesus's brother. I wonder why?
>>18763570Because act was written to defame Christ apostles and justify why a random pharisee was trying to take over
>>18763570Because Luke assumed you would be familiar with the gospels
>>18763593Luke does not mention that James was Jesus's brother either. If you just read Luke-Acts, you would think James was just some random dude when he shows up.
>>18763573>>18763593>Luke never explicitly uses the phrase "brother of Jesus" to identify James in either the Gospel of Luke or the Acts of the Apostles.>Luke omits the passage found in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 that explicitly names Jesus's brothers (James, Joses, Judas, and Simon) during the Nazareth rejection scene.Uh oh
>>18763607Luke writes another book explaining why the Disciples were actually dumb and wrong.
>>18763606>>18763607Well Luke doesn’t expect you to be familiar with his gospel alone. Literally the very first thing he says is a direct reference to other gospels and verbal eyewitness testimony.
>>18763612It's a pretty important thing to leave out dude
>>18763612>Well Luke doesn’t expect you to be familiar with his gospel alone.Luke wrote a book to introduce people to Christianity, I'm pretty sure he does expect readers to not know much about what happened.
>>18763606>If you just read Luke-Acts, you would think James was just some random dude when he shows up.Or you would think he was the second disciple named James, the one who didn't get martyred (there were two of them).
>>18763615?It’s not “left out”. It’s like saying that if there was a sermon that didn’t explain who Paul was it’s “left out”. You don’t need to explain who Paul was to a church.>>18763616>Luke wrote a book to introduce people to ChristianityWhere are you getting that from? He gives the opposite impression, that he was writing for those who were already instructed in the faith.Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, handed them down to us, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in orderly sequence, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty about the things you have been taught.
>>18763564Well that sucks for me
>>18763616Luke 1 and 2 were added to the gospel later
>>18763657Probably, schoolarship on Luke cries "mess"
>>18763657Cope>>18763659>muh basedlarshipNot even worth using as toilet paper. Sorry!
