James and his resurrected brother
Paul begins 1 Corinthians 15 by recounting a teaching he had given the Corinthians (c. AD 50/51) which he had himself received from others: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance….” This is technical rabbinical phrasing. One does not innovate on the teachings of the tradition. One faithfully passes it on without innovation or embellishment. It is this commitment which has made Judaism one of the great enduring faith and cultural traditions in all history. And it is this careful commitment to the guarding of tradition over extended periods of time which makes the claim that resurrection belief arose from legendary development in a handful of decades (often complemented with a facile appeal to the “telephone game”) so implausible.
What was it that Paul received? He explains: Christ died, was buried, and was raised. And “raised” here is clearly a bodily resurrection as the rest of the chapter (as well as the background worldview of the time) makes abundantly clear.
Next, Paul lists in this teaching he received several names of those who witnessed the risen Jesus and thereby became converts to him. Among them was the brother of Jesus: “Then he appeared to James….”
This is striking because the gospels give no evidence that the siblings of Jesus were “on board” with his ministry. If anything, the pericope in Matthew 12:46-50 marginalizes family, placing them on the outside while his disciples are on the inside. Even more explicitly, John 7:2-5 avers that the brothers of Jesus openly rejected his teaching:
But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, 3 Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. 4 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
This is hugely significant. According to the criterion of embarrassment in assessing ancient historical claims the testimony which is embarrassing to one’s cause is more likely to be true because it would not have been included otherwise. This is a plausible general principle. And thus it seems highly unlikely that the general incredulity of the brothers of Jesus toward his teaching and ministry would have been included if it had not been true. This means that it is highly likely that James was not a disciple of Jesus during his brother’s life and ministry.
But 1 Corinthians 15, this very early testimony which Paul taught twenty years (or less) to the Church in Corinth after having received it himself years earlier, records James as a disciple. In Acts James is viewed as having become the de facto leader of the Jerusalem Christians (Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18; Gal. 1:19; Gal. 2:9; Gal. 2:12). And for those with an irrational aversion to any first century writings which were later collected into a group and called the “New Testament” there is Antiquities (Bk. 20; ch. 9) where Josephus provides an account of the martyrdom of James in Jerusalem in AD 62.
So here is the problem. We know on solid historical grounds that James did not accept his brother’s teaching during his life. His brother was then crucified, and cursed is he who hangs on a tree (Deut. 21:23). So James would surely have believed his suspicions were confirmed: his brother really was a false teacher.
And yet James clearly changed his mind after his brother died. Why? According to the evidence, he did so based on the belief that he saw his brother alive again. Moreover, this man was no fool for James then became the leader of the Jerusalem Christians for approximately three decades, a role that would have demanded high intelligence and administrative skills, until he was finally martyred for belief in his brother’ identity.
What is the best explanation of James’ transforming belief? That he saw a vision? But remember, he believed his brother died with a curse. “Visions” come within a climate of background expectation. A hypnotist or magician doesn’t choose the person in the audience with their arms crossed skeptically. He chooses the one who is on the edge of their seat ready to be manipulated. That clearly wasn’t James.
So did he make up the whole story? Was it a conspiracy? We could consider this possibility if there was some motivation. So to what end would he feign the experience? So that he could be martyred?
The historian who seeks to reconstruct past events based on available evidence needs something to work with here. If you want to reconstruct a non-miraculous reconstruction of the events you can do so, but it has to work with all the available data and be plausible. For those not closed a priori to the invocation of miraculous causes, the bodily resurrection of Jesus remains the most plausible explanation of the transformation of James.
If you don’t believe me then just ask yourself: what would it take to convince you that one of your siblings was the messiah? I’ll tell you this: my brother is a fine chap. But to believe he’s the messiah? That’d take nothing short of a miracle.
Tags: 1 Corinthians 15, abduction, inference to the best explanation, James, Jesus Christ, miracle, Paul, resurrection
51 Comments
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
Walter says:
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 2:13pm
What if a burgeoning religious movement started around belief that your brother was something special, then after your brother dies everyone looks to you to be the leader of this group. You don’t see how there could be purely human reasons for wanting to go from “Joe Nobody” to being the head guru of a group such as this. Not saying that this is what happened, but there can always be more than one explanation as to why something happened that none of us witnessed directly.
Another thing. Perhaps the reason Jesus’ family was so skeptical of him is because they knew him for over thirty years, versus the short time that his followers knew him, and they had a hard time believing all the wild tales circulating about him because he was just a normal Joe growing up. I mean, if my brother was God himself, you would think that I would realize it a long time before he ever started his wandering prophet routine. I think the skepticism of the family is good evidence that Jesus was just a man.
chris says:
Friday, June 3, 2011 at 2:18pm
If Steve Jobs were to pass away do you think everyone would look to some brother of his to take over, or do you think they would look to someone who has been with him/following him for years and ha learned Steve’s vision and goal? That’s quite a stretch you must admit.
Walter says:
Friday, June 3, 2011 at 2:32pm
@Chris.
The division between Shia and Sunni dates back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and the question of who was to take over the leadership of the Muslim nation. Sunni Muslims agree with the position taken by many of the Prophet’s companions, that the new leader should be elected from among those capable of the job. This is what was done, and the Prophet Muhammad’s close friend and advisor, Abu Bakr, became the first Caliph of the Islamic nation. The word “Sunni” in Arabic comes from a word meaning “one who follows the traditions of the Prophet.”
On the other hand, some Muslims share the belief that leadership should have stayed within the Prophet’s own family, among those specifically appointed by him, or among Imams appointed by God Himself.
Not such a stretch after all.
Walter says:
Friday, June 3, 2011 at 2:36pm
ETA: The above quote was taken from about.com’s article on Islam.
Why else do you think that James would become the leader of the nascent Christian movement versus a disciple like Peter? A family member would have been exposed to a lifetime of Jesus’ teachings.
chris says:
Friday, June 3, 2011 at 3:05pm
Walter you say –
Why else do you think that James would become the leader of the nascent Christian movement versus a disciple like Peter? A family member would have been exposed to a lifetime of Jesus’ teachings?
Im not at all understanding what you are saying.
1. Why else do you think that James would become the leader of the nascent Christian movement versus a disciple like Peter?
- James was the “the leader” of the movement
2 Why else do you think that James would become the leader of the nascent Christian movement versus a disciple like Peter?
- James was not superior in any way to Peter.
3. A family member would have been exposed to a lifetime of Jesus’ teachings?
- there is no evidence to suggest that Jesus was teaching his whole life
4. A family member would have been exposed to a lifetime of Jesus’ teachings?
-there is evidence to suggest that his teaching only started the last 3 years of his life.
5. A family member would have been exposed to a lifetime of Jesus’ teachings?
- there is evidence that his family members did not believe what Jesus was teaching once Jesus did start teaching.
chris says:
Friday, June 3, 2011 at 2:58pm
Ok, fair analogy considering mine.
But The ultimate problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever to support your suggestion that:
“What if a burgeoning religious movement started around belief that your brother was something special, then after your brother dies everyone looks to you to be the leader of this group.”
The leader of the “burgeoning religious movement” had already chosen people as leaders. He did not assign a leader however per se because He is still the leader. But He assigned other people to lead and spread the message.
Now if you where the brother of the leader and during the leaders time he had a group of men following him and yet you as the brother denied he was what he claimed, do you really think that group of men is just going to let you take a leadership role in what they start doing, after their leader made them all leaders in the movement? Is it really a reasonable to suggest that he just took over and that people followed this brother, even though the other followers would have made it public that he was trying to mislead them for his own selfish reasons…?
Walter says:
Friday, June 3, 2011 at 4:21pm
We seem to be getting crossed up here, Chris.
According to the limited historical evidence we have it seems that James *was* the de facto leader of the Jewish Christian movement, not Peter or any other disciple of Jesus. By your reckoning, that position should not have gone to a family member at all. Randal presents one scenario of why James changed his mind from a supposed pre-easter skepticism, and I present another plausible scenario. My scenario suggests that it is at least plausible that James had somewhat selfish motives in going from “skeptic” to defender of the faith without ever having witnessed a supernatural resurrection of his brother.
And before someone trots out the tired argument that James would not die for a lie, I would adjure them to read what Josephus writes concerning James’ murder, and tell me if there is anything there about James dying for the belief that his brother was the messiah.
chris says:
Friday, June 3, 2011 at 5:36pm
Walter yes we are getting our wires crossed.
James was NOT the leader of the “jewish christian movement”
You are either intentionally, or unintentionally twisting and misinterpreting what Randal wrote:
” In Acts James is viewed as having become the de facto leader of the Jerusalem Christians”
Please read that carefully and you see it says “Jerusalem Christians”
This refers to the Christians in Jerusalem.
This DOES NOT refer to all jewish Christians, or all Christians in general.
James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem. But Jerusalem is not like Rome to the catholic cult. Jerusalem was just the hub or originating point of the faith. In all actuality, Antioch was really the base of the Christian movement. It was the hub in which Paul used to spread the message to the gentile believers.
All apostles were equal. They voted in groups and appointed leaders under them. The apostles would have been the ones who appointed James.
Walter says:
Friday, June 3, 2011 at 9:17pm
Careless on my part, Chris. I did mean that James was the leader of the Jerusalem faction of Christians, not all of Christianity, as it is my belief that the Christian movement has been divided since it first began. It has been posited by scholars that James was the leader of the torah-observant, circumcision party of Christianity that Paul would have considered “Judaizers.” It’s my belief that the Jewish faction of Christianity was essentially wiped out after two Jewish-Roman wars culminating in the diaspora of the Jews away from Jerusalem. This left the door open for Pauline Christianity with its Gentile-friendly belief in “faith only” salvation.
chris says:
Friday, June 3, 2011 at 9:52pm
Is there any evidence for your opinion, or is it completely arbitrary?
It was not even Paul who made the decision that the faith was open to the gentiles.
The real problem here is that what you call:
” Pauline Christianity with its Gentile-friendly belief in “faith only” salvation.”
Is actually what Jesus is recorded teaching in the gospels and other books NOT written by Paul. Salvation is not earned.
John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”
- this is because no man can go without living to all standards of the law, so salvation is a gift of God. God gives salvation to people, when He does that, they receive the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus gave the apostles. Once you the Holy Spirit has entered your life, you will then WANT to obey the law, which is evidence of your salvation.
Or John 1:12-13
“But to all who did receive him,who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Or read Isaiah 53.
Or read Genesis 15:6
Im sure you have already read all of these things, but you are trying to come up with and agree with some opinions and ideas that have no evidence to support them, and are totally against the evidence we do have today.
chris says:
Friday, June 3, 2011 at 9:54pm
Dont forget Acts 15
chris says:
Friday, June 3, 2011 at 9:55pm
When you say you believe that the Christian movement was divided from the beginning, what do you mean exactly and how do you support that opinion?
beetle says:
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 5:54pm
> We know on solid historical grounds that James did not accept his brother’s teaching during his life.
Sure that is the accepted narrative, and it is hardly unbelievable, but what “solid historical grounds” are you referring to?
> According to the evidence, he did so based on the belief that he saw his brother alive again.
According to the STORY, he did so based on the belief that he saw his brother alive again. Please do use the word “evidence” more sparingly!
A vision, even if James was initially skeptical, is possible. Yes it is also possible he made up the whole story. Yes, it is possibly part of a conspiracy. Walter gave you a few plausible reasons to feign the experience. James probably did not plan to be martyred, and such expectations are not unreasonable given that, even with the accepted narrative, he had a good career for thirty years. Even meeting a violent end, did he not live longer than most at the time?
> The historian who seeks to reconstruct past events based on available evidence needs something to work with here.
Again, there is precious little evidence, mostly just an accepted narrative. As Walter has pointed out, one can reconstruct a few plausible non-miraculous reconstructions of the events using the accepted data from the narrative. Of course, James might just be fictional character in a fictional story. There is no data and no evidence, so there is no compelling reasons to invoke miracles, unless I guess one makes a habit of that. Even for those not closed a priori to the invocation of miraculous causes, the bodily resurrection of Jesus remains a remarkably far-fetched explanation for the transformation of James.
> If you don’t believe me then just ask yourself: what would it take to convince you that one of your siblings was the messiah? If I perceived that making such a claim might be a once-in-a-lifetime an opportunity for a good career, I could fake it.If I lived in a pre-scientific superstitious age, a vision could do it. If I were a fictional character in a story, I could be written that way!
beetle says:
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 5:56pm
The Atheist Missionary says:
Thursday, June 2, 2011 at 10:59pm
People don’t rise from the dead. If Jesus disagrees with that, please ask him to give me a call. I’m all ears. He should know how to get in touch with me.
James F. McGrath says:
Friday, June 3, 2011 at 3:24am
I’m not as certain as you are that James was not supportive of Jesus’ ministry prior to the crucifixion. Jesus refers to families being divided because of him, and it would not be surprising if he had his own in mind as a prime example.
randal says:
Friday, June 3, 2011 at 11:44am
If Jesus family was indeed split (and I bet it was; no doubt his mum always believed in him), John 7:5 seems to indicate that his brothers didn’t believe.
Walter says:
Friday, June 3, 2011 at 10:45pm
Chris, I do not wish for the topic to get too far afield from the discussion about James’ purported “conversion” from skepticism, so we will have to stick a pin in these other topics and come back to them some other time. Suffice it to say I don’t agree that Jesus taught “faith only” salvation, so we’ll just have to disagree for now.
chris says:
Friday, June 3, 2011 at 11:20pm
Walter,
You are making claims that you don’t want to try and support.
Jesus taught:
“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Thats pretty straight forward. If you believe that He is who He says He is then you will want to follow the law God laid out.
That’s what Jesus taught. The claims you are making are outright dishonesty!
That’s a perfect example of what you all like to label dogmatism.
chris says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 4:19am
Walter you continue to post without showing any support for your position.
Would you please tell us why you say:
” Suffice it to say I don’t agree that Jesus taught “faith only” salvation, so we’ll just have to disagree for now.”
Walter says:
Friday, June 3, 2011 at 11:43pm
Chris,
The bible is a compilation of works collected from various authors who had different ideas about the nature of God, Jesus, salvation, and just about everything else. Of course you can produce “proof-texts” to support just about any given theological viewpoint. I can produce several different “proof-texts” mined from the synoptic gospels that show that Jesus did not teach the lawless easy-believism that Paul seemed to be peddling.
Here’s some examples:
For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.–Matt 16:27
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.–Rev. 20:12-13
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?–James 2:14,17,20,24,26
Need I continue?
chris says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 4:10am
Walter these are pretty simple.
We can start with the James passage, since it is the most misunderstood.
If you really want to be a textual critic, you need to go back to the original language. You need to see whether the tenses used in the passage.
Then you can really apply some common sense to it. James is saying that if you say you have faith in Jesus Christ for your salvation, and yet you do not do any of the things he asks you, it shows that your faith is in word only and not real. Its like telling your wife you love here as you walk out the door to go blow the rent and food money on hookers and coke. You say one thing, but your actions display the truth.
You can apply that principal to every one of those tests you cited.
The bible teaches over and over again that salvation comes from God.
Abraham didnt have the law, yet he found favor with God.
Noah, Enoch, none of them had the law.
Then go to the Exodus – God first delivered them, THEN gave them the law. They were promised free entrance into the promised land, yet they showed along the way that they did not believe. Their works displayed what they truly believed.
I’ve only been a Christian for a year and I can easily put your arguments to shame. For being as educated as you are Im truly amazed that you dont have a better grasp of what the bible teaches…. I mean how else do you know you don’t agree with it if you havent studied it somewhat?
Andrew EC says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 3:28am
I think the most parsimonious explanation is that during the late 1st and early 2nd century CE you had (at least) two warring factions contesting for leadership of the nascent Christian church — on the one hand, (1) the eventual winners, who contested that leadership should pass on to Jesus’s apostles, and on the second hand, (2) those who thought leadership should pass on to Jesus’s family.
So faction (1) had a strong motive to discredit Jesus’s family; that’s why we get all those passages about how James the Just never believed Jesus while alive. And faction (2) had similar motives to discredit the disciples; that’s why we get all those passages about how the disciples were credulous idiots.
chris says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 3:54am
Since that is not what was passed down to any of the successors of any of the apostles, what evidence do you have to give this any credence at all?
Walter says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 11:26am
I’ve only been a Christian for a year and I can easily put your arguments to shame. For being as educated as you are Im truly amazed that you dont have a better grasp of what the bible teaches…. I mean how else do you know you don’t agree with it if you havent studied it somewhat?
It is obvious that you belong to a Protestant Church that interprets the NT through the primacy of Paul’s teachings of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. You take the passages that clearly teach works salvation and you subordinate these passages to the ones where Paul teaches otherwise. Catholics go in the opposite direction by subordinating Paul’s message to the teachings in the bible that clearly support works salvation. Since I do not attempt to “straight jacket” the New Testament with some kind of externally imposed systematic theology, I am content to let the various authors say exactly what they meant. The bible is a library of works from different authors. Quit treating it like it is the product of a single author–it isn’t.
chris says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 3:02pm
Walter I dont “belong” to a church. I am part of the universal church – the body of Christ.
I let the bible interpret the bible.
The catholic “church” is a cult that was started in the 4th century. They killed people who tried to let commoners read the bible because they would then see that it is a cult and opposed to what the bible teaches.
I did not grow up religious at all. But it doesnt take but a 5-year old to see that the catholic church is man made religion and far from what Jesus taught – its all about power and control.
Jesus didnt teach religion. He didnt teach rituals.
Actually if you were to replace all the pharisees in all of his heated exchanges rebukes and condemnations with the religious leaders of today, it fits perfectly, especially the catholic leaders.
Read Jesus’s prayers – its obvious what he taught. He taught personal relationships and he condemned religion and ceremony and hypocrisy.
He spoke over and over about how worthless the external changes and appearances are, without an internal change.
If someone takes the time to read the bible, on their own, without another man’s interpretation, the overall message is very clear.
A person cannot earn their salvation/justification.
But if it has been given to you – if you have been “born from above” of “born of water and spirit” you life will reflect it. Your life will change.
Salvation is like a invaluable treasure that you find and hide under your shirt. You can tell people you have it, but you never show it to them. They have no way of knowing if you are telling the truth. But if you truly have, what you say you have you are going to change as a person. The way you carry yourself will change. You will have joy in even in tough times because of the treasure. You wont worry about financial situations because of the treasure you have.
All humans are forgetful. We forget what we have, if even for a moment. But when you truly have something and you truly understand and appreciate what you have, it is reflected in how you live.
This is NOT a “straight-jacket” to the NT.
I dont think anyone treats the bible like it has one author. It obviously have many different authors, who are all writing about the same subject and describing it from different angles and in different contexts.
So now please, I ask you for the 4th time – give some supporting evidence to your claims and opinions, or keep them to yourself. I’ve been read alot of posts on here and I see that you normally back up your position somewhat. If you are unable to do so, just admit it.
Walter says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 4:05pm
So now please, I ask you for the 4th time – give some supporting evidence to your claims and opinions, or keep them to yourself. I’ve been read alot of posts on here and I see that you normally back up your position somewhat. If you are unable to do so, just admit it.
Which claim is the one that has your hackles up? Is it the one about Christianity being divided almost from the start? If so, then I point to the letters of Paul as prima facie evidence that Christianity has been divided almost since its inception.
To wit:
For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; indeed, in every way we have made this plain to you in all things.
Here we have Paul writing a few decades after Jesus death warning the Corinthians about “super-apostles” preaching another gospel than his.
Here we see what the author of Matthew’s Gospel thinks of Paul’s antinomian beliefs:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
chris says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 4:59pm
Walter now you are just flat out being dishonest.
You know that when you quote Matthews gospel it is not a rebuttal to Paul’s teachings. But you try to make it look as if it is.
Why don’t you explain to us what Paul was talking about? He makes it vey clear in the context of his 2 letters to the corinthian churches. This is a really simple one and either you have relaly not spend ANY time trying to figure it out, or you are just being flat out dishonest.
In regard to what Jesus said, lets look at it.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ”
- OK so here he is talking about the entire OT. He came to fulfil what it teaches. He came to finish it. He made that clear at the last supper when he announced the NEW Covenant. He fulfilled what was prophesied about substitutionary atonement, and the messiah in general. In Isaiah, Malachi, Genesis, Psalms etc.
Then He says:
“For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, ”
-OK he says that the law will never pass away. And this is true! The law even today is what shows that YOU are in need of a savior and need to BELIEVE in JESUS.
Then he talks about someone who relaxes the commandments – but yet they are still in the kingdom of heaven…. and so is the one who does them and teaches them.
And you decided to cut out a verse that brings this all together. Jesus says:
“For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
So what we have here is Jesus saying that the scribes and pharisees who hold very closely to their interpretation of the law, and externally look good, do good works, teach the law etc are not righteousness enough to enter the kingdom of heaven. Later he teaches that everything they do is outward appearance, trying to look holy and righteous, because they think they can earn salvation by their actions. But because their is no inward change, holding to and teaching the law is worthless.
So we have 2 generalizations of people who will be IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN – those to relax the law and those who encourage it. They are both in heaven.
So YOU tell me what it means now that Ive done all but solve the puzzle for you.
Walter says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 5:22pm
Walter now you are just flat out being dishonest.
I prefer to keep the discussion at a more civil level. Accusations of dishonesty is a trollish behavior. I will no longer respond if you keep up the personal attacks.
Chris says: I’ve only been a Christian for a year and I can easily put your arguments to shame.
There is another passage in the book that you revere that goes something like this:
Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.
I’ll gladly admit that I don’t have all the answers. What I do object to is when a person looks at the historical evidence, then tendentiously presents one particular scenario as the only explanation of a past event. This is why we are discussing alternative scenarios to the theory that James converted because he saw his dead brother (or cousin, if your Catholic) walking around again.
If you have a bee in your bonnet about some of my theories, then I invite you to discuss it with me over at:
http://www.freeratio.org/
chris says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 5:30pm
Walter why is it so hard to just provide some evidence?
you say:
I’ll gladly admit that I don’t have all the answers. What I do object to is when a person looks at the historical evidence, then tendentiously presents one particular scenario as the only explanation of a past event. This is why we are discussing alternative scenarios to the theory that James converted because he saw his dead brother (or cousin, if your Catholic) walking around again.
Ok, so you suggest alternative scenarios, but you aren’t willing to support them with evidence.
You give me a verse out of the corinthian letters, yet you take it out of context. If simple layman such as myself who investigated Christianity without being brought up religious and without preconceived notions can figure out the context of what is happening in the letter but you cannot, then you honestly haven’t tried. Or the alternative is that you are being dishonest. I personally find it hard to believe that you spend all this time researching, all this time posting on blogs and yet you either cannot understand the context and meaning of what you write about, or choose to be misleading about.
chris says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 5:46pm
Walter,
That site is an embarrassment !!
Its like watching a pack of hungry wolves tear apart a piece of meat.
I go to the abrahamic religions page, and the first thread is “Why is the Bible so contradictory”
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=301199
There are no examples given, no evidence, no discussion.
That is sad.
James F. McGrath says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 3:14pm
“Letting the Bible interpret the Bible” is just a way of saying that one takes the passages that agree with one’s point of view, and then say that others which say something else “can’t possibly mean” what they clearly do, because the Bible must be uniform in it’s teaching. Of course, one can start with the passages that “can’t possibly mean” what they seem to, take them at face value, and decide on that basis that the ones you originally built your doctrine on are the ones that “can’t possibly mean” what they seem to.
Jesus, according to Matthew, described wise and foolish builders, and they were not those who believed or did not believe, but those who did or did not put his words into practice. But using the method described above, one can be sure that those teachings do not say what they clearly do, based on some verses from John (and perhaps also a few from Paul, interpreted in a way that ignores the “new perspective on Paul”).
chris says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 3:49pm
James –
How about you give us some examples?
I’m not sure I understand the point of the verses in Matthew you referenced. Again, if you believe that Jesus is who he claimed to be, then you would listed to his words. If you don’t believe, then you don’t do what he says. Pretty simple.
Why don’t you explain to me what Jesus means in the verses preceding what you just quoted – ie matthew 7:21-23 ??
Jesus is talking about people who call him Lord. It can promise you that he’s not talking about atheists and agnostics. Then he says these people have been speaking to others in about him and in his name, they have been doing deeds in his name, and yet he tells them to depart from him because he never knew them.
If that doesnt disprove salvation by works then I don’t know what does.
But since I am clearly biased as you say, why dont you explain to me what Jesus meant.
chris says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 3:53pm
In those verses I am referring to above – matthew 7:22-23 Jesus says that only those who do the will of the father will enter heaven.
I am pretty sure that there are some other places in the bible where Jesus is asked what the will of the father is, and there are other times where he says it in prayer and just volunteers it.
Maybe you can show me what Jesus himself taught since I sem to be biased. I would really appreciate it. I don’t like to be wrong any longer than absolutely necessary.
James F. McGrath says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 3:54pm
It certainly seems to be saying that what one does matters.
Why don’t we take the parable of the sheep and the goats as another example. Who do the sheep and goats represent, in your opinion?
chris says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 5:21pm
James, my opinion is worthless. I let the bible speak for itself.
In the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 it says:
31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world…”
So you ask me what do the sheep and goats represent and Jesus tells us plainly what they represent:
He says to the sheep : ” Come, ye BLESSED OF MY FATHER..”
in the NT there are at least (4) diffent words that have been translated into the english word BLESSED is a greek word that is actually a compound of 2 words, one basically meaning good and the other is the word logos, which basically means the word of God, his spoken word, his utterance or declaration.
So what we have is Jesus saying that the sheep are those that who have been declared good by God and then he gives an example of the work they did that showed they had been changed and then he gives an example of the goats who did not display the godly change from the inside.
He says to them:
“For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
So what you see here is that the goats were people who were trying to EARN their way into heaven. They were looking for ways to serve Jesus, and that was all they were interested in. When they didnt see Jesus they didnt serve. What they did was pure external. Whereas a change from the inside, or as Jesus put it born again, or born from above, or born of the spirit is of the spirit – Jesus says “that which is born of the spirit is spirit” makes it pretty clear that when God has given his spirit to you, on the inside, you then see things spiritually, meaning that you recognize that every person is created by God in his image and that he loves and if you are born of the spirit then you will want to go out and serve ALL people, because you realized that God loves all of them and each of them represent him, whereas the people who are not born of the spirit cannot see that, they dont see Gods image in each person, and since they cannot see his image in each person, they did not feed or clothe them.
James F. McGrath says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 5:45pm
Wow, that was convoluted. Let me ask again and see if I can get an answer. Is this
1) a passage about the judgment and separation of all people based on what they had done
2) a passage about the judgment and separation of Christians based on what they had done, or
3) a passage about the judgment and separation of non-Christians based on what they had done?
There is no other option. The sheep are extolled (a better translation than “blessed”)by God because of what they had done. This is in keeping with the overall teaching of the New Testament, including Paul in Romans 2, who reaffirms the axiom that God will render to each according to what he has done, and Revelation.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding these passages, because you are reading into them either John’s realized eschatology, or a Lutheran understanding of Paul uninformed by the new perspective? When Paul speaks of “works of the Law” do you read that as “good works done to earn one’s way to heaven” rather than “works which separated the Jews from other peoples”? If so, you might wish to consult James D. G. Dunn’s commentary on either Romans or Galatians.
chris says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 5:56pm
James why the false dichotomy?
You say:
“1) a passage about the judgment and separation of all people based on what they had done
2) a passage about the judgment and separation of Christians based on what they had done, or
3) a passage about the judgment and separation of non-Christians based on what they had done?
There is no other option.”
Why is there no other option?
I say option there is another option:
4) a passage about the judgement and separation of all peoples.
When you say extoll is a better translation – its really not. That word is actually used in the bible, but its not the best translation of the word used in the original language.
The best translation is to take the original word and figure out what it meant in the original language with the proper context and tense. To try and make it fit into one english word and then call the “best” is ridiculous.
Ill be happy to comment on what you said in the last paragraph, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you could explain exactly what you mean so we can communicate properly?
Beetle says:
Sunday, June 5, 2011 at 11:34am
P.S., What is the accepted answer to this little quiz? I am guessing that it is 2) a passage about the judgment and separation of Christians based on what they had done. Thanks.
James F. McGrath says:
Sunday, June 5, 2011 at 9:08pm
I don’t know that I can say for sure – after all, I only made the answer grid, but didn’t write the quiz myself!
#1 has quite a bit to be said for it, since it is a gathering of the nations, which could be understood as representing all humankind (or all Gentiles). #3, on the other hand, would fit the fact that those who are judged are judged on the basis of what they did to “the least of these” perhaps suggesting that it is non-Christians being judged on how they treated Christians.
In all of the possible interpretations, however, it seems to exclude the option of salvation being solely by faith alone.
chris says:
Monday, June 6, 2011 at 3:32am
So I guess we really have to address what the definition of a “christian” is ??
Are we saying that anyone who labels themself as a christian will be counted as such, and then then everyone will be divided based upon if they actually demonstrated following the teaching of Jesus?
Walter says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 6:01pm
Chris,
Do you know who James McGrath is?
Let me help you:
Dr. James F. McGrath, Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University, Indianapolis
chris says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 6:10pm
Walter – thank you for the introduction.
However James’ academic accomplishments do not guarantee the correct interpretation of scripture.
It didn’t take well educated scholars to understand the message of Jesus while he was alive, in the decades after his death nor does it not.
Not to put down his accomplishments one bit – there are very impressive. I myself have a passion for studying the scripture.
But it is nice to discuss with someone who knows the scripture very well.
James I am curious as to your personal opinion then on the apparent contradiction between Paul and James in regards to justification, faith and works ??
James F. McGrath says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 6:13pm
I understand, Chris, having felt that way myself as a young Christian, that you really, really want the separation of people in this parable to have nothing to do with their actions. But try as one might, the text simply will not conform to such a Lutheran reading.
Can you please clarify what texts you have in mind as examples of the meaning of eulogemenos (sorry, I’m writing this on a device that doesn’t do Greek fonts)?
chris says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 6:27pm
James it doesnt matter what I want the text to mean. I take it in contrast and comparison with the rest of the text.
I think the explanation of the apparent contradiction between James and Paul demonstrates the meaning actions or lack there of described in this parable.
But I am curious as to your understanding of the alleged contradiction, but it appears you may be mobile and now is not the best time so I am happy to wait.
In regards to eulogemenos – my understanding is that the word used in Matthew 2534 is eulogeo. I am going off of my hardback concordance, but I havent fired up the Logos software.
James F. McGrath says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 6:49pm
It sounds to me like you are looking up words using software but do not recognize different forms of the word, such as participles.
Given your earlier (correct) statement that one cannot simply treat an English word as fully corresponding to a word in another language, no matter how much their semantic domains may overlap, I really am at a loss to know how you hope to avoid that if you are not proficient in the relevant languages, or how you claim to know what is or isn’t the typical usage of a word in Koine Greek when you are dependent on a Logos product to identify and define the word for you.
chris says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 7:19pm
As of now I have only used a desktop concordance to identify the word we are discussing. It states the word used here is eulogeo and not eulogemenos.
You are absolutely correct, I am not an expert in the language.
This is why I rely upon a software that puts all the resources together for me. Are you saying that a product like Logos is not able to tell me what is or is not a typical usage of a word in the given language?
Are you saying that if I do a word study with just a hardcover concordance and go through some of the older manuscripts and consider every usage of a given word I will not be able to determine the correct interpretation of the word unless I am proficient in the language?
The truth about me is that I hate to be wrong any longer than necessary. Maybe you could answer the couple questions I have asked in the last few replies and help me too see an educated scholars perspective?
chris says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 7:20pm
- by desktop concordance I mean a hard cover book NOT the software.
James F. McGrath says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 7:43pm
Without a knowledge of the language, all one can do with a concordance is find out the root form of the word (as you did) and get a list of some words whose meaning corresponds to the word at least in part in at least some instances. But it won’t give you a sense of how the word is used in that other language, what its connotations and nuances are.
Probably the best one can do without learning the languages is to read more than one translation in English, and make good use of reliable academic commentaries that reflect mainstream scholarship.
And perhaps be slightly more humble in one’s assertions about what words do or do not mean?
chris says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 9:08pm
James – rebuke accepted an noted for future reference.
While I agree mostly with what you are saying, I think we will have to agree to disagree or I am not completely understanding you… I am sure you are not trying to assert that I cannot attain a true understanding until I obtain an education and experience like yours.
Yes, without an intimate knowledge of the language then my understanding will not reach its full potential.
But when I pick up my parallel bible with 4 translations, and then consult 2 more translations, and then go to the manuscripts and see what greek word was actually used, and then find its use in other places in the bible, and then read several dictionary and reference books about the greek word it the original language, I think I can have a pretty good understanding of what the word means.
Would you be so kind as to evaluate my understanding of the word translated as blessed in MAtthew 25:34 ??
My understanding is that the greek word is EULOGEO (strongs # 2127) and is from a compound of EU and LOGOS. Its found about 44 times in the NT and is always used in relation to God, whether it be that God is praising or blessing or bestowing or a person is praising or asking the blessing of God.
James as I said, I truly dislike being wrong any longer than necessary. So if you would be so kind, please do comment on this particular word and the james/paul “contradiction” and in turn I will work on my humility.
James F. McGrath says:
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 9:48pm
I am very much of the view that it is better to read the Bible in translation than not read it at all. My point was simply that there are many who will get into heated debates about the precise meaning of the text, where all they are discussing a the English words, or a list of options in a concordance. Presumably if one wishes to engage in debates about the significance and nuances of a text, then one needs to get beyond the veil of translation.
Since you now accept the meaning that the sheep are, in essence, “praised by God”, I’m not sure why my suggestion of “extolled by God” was unacceptable to you.
At any rate, I think there were things that Paul and Matthew would have agreed on and things they might not have. But I don’t think that Paul meant in his own context what Luther interpreted him to. He was making the case for the inclusion of Gentiles without “works of the Law” such as circumcision, not trying to suggest that obedience to God was secondary to “faith” in the English sense. The Greek word pistis overlaps with the English word “faithfulness” and so the faith vs. works antithesis of the Reformation would probably have been unintelligible to Paul, in my opinion.