At last! Something that approaches the true origins of Christianity and its message ( the original essence of the Torah as taught by Moses). I don't think the Christian Church would like this video but for me it's the keystone that binds all of your other work together because James's letter is REAL and as valuable for what it doesn't say as it is for what it does say. Great work professor!
@@gacitizen2 I said Christian Church might not like it not Christians (who generally are just followers who have trust in their leaders). The Professors letter brings into question the very cornerstone of Christianity as a religion. You may look at this video and interpret it another way and of course you are entitled to do that. BUT the untruth has no existence whereas the truth never ceases to exist. It's never about opinion in the end, only truth.
@@gacitizen2 The idea that Jesus is not God would be blasphemy in most christian churches today. It seems Jesus was only raised to divine status long after his death. The voice and beliefs of James who had direct and intimate knowledge of the historical life of his brother Jesus, was overshadowed by the loud arguments of Paul, who had only ever met Jesus in mystical visions.
Judaism knows only the 1 God. Even the Prophets say that God said There was None Before Me and None After Me. GOD SAYS HE DOES not Share his Glory. Paul began his own re6
To me, this is the most plausible explanation of the events of the first century CE and later. Thank you, Dr Tabor, for your diligent research and effort to get this out.
@@LoftOfTheUniverse the apostles affirmed who? I mean, its obvious that Jesus´teachings were lifting boundaries and that his apostles were less reluctant to teach and invite the gentiles to this new Jewish interpretation auf worshipping Jahwe by following his son. I dont think that the apostles affirmed Paul. Paul was a kind a n ambitious "freak" who self endorsed his role by telling that Jesus directly been talking to him after crucifiction and moe weird statements. Paul was in my eyes an imposter, highly educated intellectual expad and related to the Herodians ("my kin") and since he was obviousely gay what made it impossible to have a Pharisean career within the Jewish church he decided to take over the new Messiah movement by blending it with Enochian - Greek philosophy and that specific interpretations of the divine close to the Mitras cult of Egypt. He was nothing but a clever spin doc. hahaha i dont know but it makes much more sense to me than anything i learned of this Pauline success and the pagean Christian church! What a grotesque! Lets have big sarcastic laugh!. But we have to thank him since otherwise we wouldnt even know about Jesus anymore nowadays i assume. Thats how history works with ambiguity, confusion,vanity and lies. Greets from Hamburg, Germany
@@edvaneckert2348 Paul hated Christians, yet died a martyr for that same Christ. He founded many churches that stood against the ways of the world yet gave all credit to God. God wouldn't allow His Word to have an imposter in the entirety of the new testament. People are still choosing trust in self over trust in the work of Christ (who calls Himself the Alpha and the Omega, and shared the glory with God the Father in the beginning). And Peter says the writings of Paul were misunderstood "like the rest of scriptures". Paul couldn't have been what he became without the work of God. Don't be led astray by people who can't even keep half of the law.
@@edvaneckert2348 Most of what you said I agree with, but what evidence is there that Paul was gay? I don't doubt it, I was just wondering what proof there is.
@@LoftOfTheUniverse Paul contradicts Jesus in many areas. You need to decide whether you follow Christ or Jesus. Read the rest of the Bible to see if Paul's characterization of the law is correct. Moreover, Paul was probably not a martyr. That story came later on, to solidify the power of the Catholic Church.
Robert Eisenman has gone some great work on James over several decades and according to him, discover who James was and you discover whom the real historical Jesus was, not the Pauline Jesus.
A true picture of 'Jesus' (Ye'shua) shows the agenda to reform Judaism for Jews. He didn't preach Christianity at all, that fraudulent agenda was created by Paul for Rome.
Many thanks for Dr.James Tabor's sincere effort to bring up the truth for layman, because there are so many who knows the truth but hide it from people.
Thank you James Tabor. Your honest, lucid and evidence-based narrative is compelling and fearless. Absolutely, the focus was the "Divine message not the person of Jesus"..A fundamental theological point framing the heart of Quran's critical Christology and its critique of the post-Pauline Christianity. My late Birmingham Uni. colleague, Michael Douglas Goulder, the unusual humanist scholar of the NT and Hebrew Bible, appears to be right in his thesis that the mission of Jesus and Paul were fundamentally different (explained in his brilliant book A Tale of Two Mission ).
So powerful Dr. Tabor. We all must do good works which improve and clarify our faith. James was an incredible person in the history of religion who is passed by without much consideration.
Thank you for sharing this story. The last time I heard it was over sixty years ago from my uncle who had traveled the Bible Lands after WWII as a way of healing from the war.
James is the favorite book of the Bible for millions of Christians. The fact that some say that the book of James is viritually forgotten says that many in the theology business have no idea what ordinary Christians think.
I don't believe that James disputed salvation by faith without works of the law, nor did James say works "of the law". Nor do I agree that Paul disagreed that faith without works is dead. Nor do I see James as forgotten or nearly forgotten. Maybe because I read the Bible myself apart from ever having been a Christian and was woken up to the word of G'd in my heart from the words from G'd in the scripture and not from a preacher or teacher or christian. 5:50 what is the spelling for the lost source? "dida k"?
Yes it's very frustrating to see experts you want to learn from misunderstanding Paul or other authors on such a fundamental level. Dont get me wrong we're very blessed to be able to learn from experts in history and language, who have also studied the Bible for a long time, but when they don't understand the simple basic concepts of Paul it's mind blowing. Like that Paul never imagined a faith without works or that in James letter, at the very least, James doesn't seem to be advocating for works of the law but for good works in general like feeding someone or clothing them. I'd love to pick your brain on something actually, there is one thing that seemed like a discrepancy, though maybe minor, between Paul's argument in Romans and James in his letter. Paul makes the argument that Abraham was justified when he trusted/believed God and his promises. However James argues, seemingly, that Abraham was justified when he attempted to sacrifice Isaac. On the one hand it doesn't really seem like a big deal because they are essentially saying the same thing. That you must have faith and that your faith must produce good works for you to be justified and righteous on judgement day. On the other hand it feels like a big deal to see what appears to be a contradiction on paper between two pillars of the church. Paul's m.o. in Romans is to reassure Gentiles (and Jews) that they were made right with God when they believed the gospel message and were baptized. Paul just assumes that this belief obviously means they will obey the Gospel too and he says clearly thay if their is no obedience they are doomed. James says outright "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." James 2:24
I've read your books, and I love the podcast. How best to be a follower of Jesus and not Paul? Christian theology evolved largely from Paul's teachings, Paul's understanding of Jesus. I am raised Catholic, have visited many Christian denominations, including more recent churches such as LDS. Paul's teachings underpin all. On some level, I never agreed with Paul, less as an adult, even less after studying theology and philosophy and ancient religions. But where can one actually go, attend, be a part of community where emphasis is on James and the Jewish teachings? It seems that to truly live as a follower of Jesus, one should convert to reformed Judaism. Thoughts?
2 Peter 3:15,16 says much about the beloved brother Paul.... But he is ( one of) the most misunderstood figure in the new testament. Both by people for him as well as those against. You are to imitate me, just as I imitate Christ. ( 1 Corinthians 11:1 )
Hi there, you hit the nail on the head. They were all Jews. It means the Law/Torah is sacred to them, as it should be to us also (I am a Gentile, and I assume you are too). As Jesus said, not one stroke of a pen will pass from the Law until all has been fulfilled. There are 613 Laws. But as Gentiles, which ones do we keep? James, the brother of Jesus said in Acts 15:19 "For this reason I judge not to trouble those from the nations turning to God, 20 but to write to them to hold back from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and blood." So, do not commit idolatry (part of the Commandments), sexual immorality (Leviticus Ch 18), do not eat blood (Leviticus 16:10). In all these verses in the OT, God includes the non-Israelites with a line such as "neither the native nor the _alien_ who is staying in your midst". The foreigners/sojourners/aliens are the fore-runners of Gentiles - us. Jesus said to inherit life - keep the Commandments. God's Covenant (to keep the Commandments) is extended to all nations. Isaiah 56 is so beautiful: "1 So says YAHWEH: Keep justice and do righteousness, for my salvation is coming soon, and My righteousness will be revealed. 2 Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who lays hold on it; keeping the Sabbath, from defiling it; and keeping his hand from doing every evil. 3 And do not let the son of the foreigner speak, he who joins himself to YAHWEH, saying, surely, YAHWEH separates me from His people; and do not let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dried tree. 4 For so says YAHWEH to the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths and choose things I am pleased with, and take hold of My covenant: 5 I, even I will give to them in My house and in My walls a hand and a name better than sons and than daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which shall not be cut off. 6 And the sons of the foreigner, who join themselves to YAHWEH to serve Him, and to love the name of YAHWEH, to be His servants, everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and takes hold of My covenant: 7 even them I will bring to My holy mount and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted on My altar, for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the peoples, 8 states Adonai YAHWEH, who gathers the outcasts of Israel; I will yet gather others beside him to his gathered ones." It is beautifully summed up in Ecclesiastes: 12: "12 And more than these, my son, be warned: The making of many books has no end, and much study is the weariness of the flesh. 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear The Elohim, and keep His commandments; for this applies to every man. 14 For The Elohim shall bring every work into judgment, with all that is hidden, whether it is good, or whether it is evil."
Jew here, in no sense a Christian. There is no need to convert to Judaism to acknowledge and worship G-d, and there is nothing missing in you if you don't. It is impossible for any Jew of the Second Temple era to see it differently, and reading James.... James saw it no differently and Jesus saw it no differently. At the time, the term used for Gentiles who acknowledged and worshipped G-d without conversion was "G-d-Fearers." It makes no sense for Jesus, James, or any of the others to have required conversion. What then should a Gentile G-d-fearer do, if it is not necessary to keep the full set of Torah Commandments? According to Judaism, there are a set of seven Commandments, known as the "Noachide Laws" sometimes spelled "Noahide Laws" and you can look them up if you're really interested. At the time of Jesus the details were still being debated, and the indications we have in the NT suggest that "something like" the Noahide Laws were then taught by the "Jesus movement" but perhaps not in the eventual, final, agreed form. I don't see them listed very explicitly, but the principles expressed are certainly consistent with them. In this context, in the question of how good Gentile G-d-fearers should behave the advice offered by James, Paul, and directly by Jesus are ---- with the obvious exception of the special role of Jesus!!!! --- very consistent with all this. So if you want to know what Jesus, James, Paul, and the others taught that Gentile followers should do -- the Seven Noahide Laws are a reasonable point to start from. It's at the very least, "close" to what they would have listed, had they been explicit enough to make a definite list. You will find at least six of the seven very clearly specified - just not all in one place. Also, if you are interested in conversion to Judaism.... you'll have to give up Jesus altogether. I doubt that this path will work for you.
If you go through Tanach ("OT" to Christians) you'll find many examples of Gentiles worshipping the same G-d that we do. Abraham and Melchitzedek worshipped together. Jethro and Moses did so also. You can't get a much better pair of examples than Abraham and Moses. Many examples of Gentiles bringing sacrifices to the Temple. It's all good. No need to convert. No need for a Gentile to follow "all 613."
The spiritual link between the two is so tight. John says Jesus could have granted his beloved immortality if Jesus wanted too. I read somewhere that nowadays, it is thought John the evangelist is still alive.
Both Paul and James quoted from Genesis 15:6, which states: “[Abraham] put faith in Jehovah, and He counted it to him as righteousness.” Righteousness basically refers to the state in which a person is viewed by God as acceptable, even guiltless. HOW ARE FAITH AND WORKS RELATED? For centuries, the relationship between faith and works has been hotly debated in Christendom. Some clergymen teach that all you have to do to be saved is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. You may have heard them say, “Accept Jesus and be saved.” Clergymen may even quote Paul’s words: “God counts righteousness apart from works.” (Rom. 4:6) However, others contend that you can “save yourself” by going on religious pilgrimages and by performing other duties as outlined by the church. They perhaps quote James 2:24: “A man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith alone.” As a result of such positions, some religious writers have concluded that Paul and James disagreed on the subject of faith and works. Clergymen may claim that while Paul believed that a man is declared righteous by faith apart from works, James taught that works are essential in order to have God’s approval. A professor of divinity put it this way: “James did not understand Paul’s motive for insisting that [being declared righteous] is by faith alone and not by works.” But Yehovah inspired both Paul and James to write what they did. (2 Tim. 3:16) So there must be a simple way to harmonize their statements. There is-by considering their writings in context. What “works” did Paul focus on in Romans 3 and 4? He was primarily referring to “works of law,” the law of Moses, given at Mount Sinai. (Read Romans 3:21, 28.) It seems that in Paul’s day some Jewish Christians were having a hard time accepting that the Mosaic Law and the works required by that Law had been done away with. Consequently, Paul pointed to Abraham’s example to prove that a righteous standing with God does not result from “works of law.” It comes from faith. That is encouraging because knowing this gives us confidence that a good standing with God is within our reach. It means that we can develop faith in God and in Christ, which can actually lead to divine approval. On the other hand, the “works” discussed in James chapter 2 are not the “works of law” mentioned by Paul. James is referring to the works, or activities, that Christians do in their daily life. Such works indicate whether a Christian has genuine faith in God or not. Consider two examples that James used. 12 In the first example, James spoke of the need for Christians to be impartial in their dealings with others. He illustrated this point with the case of a man who showed favor to a wealthy person but looked down on a poor person. James pointed out that such a man might claim to have faith, but where are his corresponding works? (Jas. 2:1-5, 9) As a second example, James mentioned someone who saw ‘a brother or a sister lacking clothing or food’ but did not provide practical help. Even if that one claimed to have faith, it was not backed up by actions; therefore, it was useless. As James wrote, “faith by itself, without works, is dead.”-Jas. 2:14-17. James referred to Rahab as a positive example of faith in action. (Read James 2:25, 26.) She had heard about Yehovah and recognized that he was supporting the Israelites. (Josh. 2:9-11) She showed her faith by her actions-she protected two Israelite spies when their lives were in danger. As a result, this imperfect, non-Israelite woman was declared righteous, just as Abraham had been. The example she set emphasizes the importance of having faith backed up by works. The two Bible writers Paul and James were simply approaching the subject of faith and works from different angles. Paul was telling the Jewish Christians that they would never be able to obtain Yehovah’s approval simply by performing works of the Mosaic Law. James was emphasizing the need for all Christians to show their faith by doing good to others.
Kudos to you, professor, for pointing out this, short yet very important document of the brother of our Lord, who is called James in the English Bible. However, his actual name is Jacob, in Hebrew (Ya’aqov).
I was once told that( only )through my faith could I ascend to heaven…then I quoted “ a faith without acts is a dead faith” the man then called me a zealot… I am saddened by there (Fatal ) relationship with there own (uncircumcised ) ego.
I was told again yesterday by someone that she was saved and felt sorry for the people that are not saved. My heart ached. The ego is blinding people. They are so full of themselves, the can't hear. Humility is gone.
They say: "the victor writes the history" and since God is the victor who tells us the end from the beginning, I hold suspect the accounts of history given by those who want to hide their culpability regarding their evil deeds by giving a slightly distorted view of what really happened. With that said, what do you make of the account of Hegesippus as recorded by Eusebius in his "Ecclesiastical History"? In this account it appears that Annus ben Annus was far more impulsive and took James up to the pinnacle of the Temple to either recant of Jesus before all the worshippers (coming from all over the known world) at Passover, or he would be made an EXAMPLE which would be widely circulated. This seems to also fit Jesus prophecy of the beginning of our tribulation when he was quoting Daniel in. Mat. 24:15 & Mk. 13:14. I would also point out the constant "shadow power" which remained from the time Jesus was executed until he snuck himself out of the besieged Temple in a casket and into Gen. Vespasian's tent to prophesy he would become the next Emperor after 3 "horns" would be "plucked up" (I'm referencing Daniel 7:8). This shadow power referred to by many as the "saviour" of the Jews, was clearly a "master and scholar" (Mal. 2:12) was none other than Yochanan Ben Zakkai, the leader of the Pharisees when Jesus was "cut off" (Dan. 9:26). It appears he was instrumental in James' murder by instigating Annus to do this thing and then having the High Priest assassinated shortly after to end any potential Roman investigation into the matter, thereby covering his tracks. As a final note it's interesting the Talmud gives Zakkai credit for giving Vespasian the prophecy, but their interpreter Josephus (the Historian whose account you referenced) takes credit for the prophecy himself. It's also VERY INTERESTING that the two letter word עם in Dan. 9:26 is "pointed" as "people" and is translated as "with the people" when the conjugation of the verbs in 3rd person masculine singular indicate it should read simply "with". In other words, the one who is being fingered by God in this book which is to remain sealed until the end days at judgement, is none other than Zakkai, the eyes on the little horn (Vespasian) who he hailed to power together with their interpreter Josephus. Zakkai is the "master and scholar" of Mal. 2:12 AND he's the 3rd person being identified by the verbs in Dan. 9:26: "HE cut off moshiach...and WITH the coming Prince, HE destroyed the sanctuary and city" in a conspiracy to enslave his own people to the fraud Sabbath which the 1st Pontifex Maximus of Rome (Julius Caesar) created and implemented in 46 BCE which ended the Roman Republic. So what I'm saying is Vespasian was the "little" 10th "horn", Zakkai was his "eyes", and the "mouth" between them which took credit for Zakkai's prophecy was Josephus. Vespasian is the "7th King" which John tells us would soon be coming (Rev. 17:10). So history was sealed up but now it's time for the rest of the prophecies to begin manifesting as God already told us. I have much more but I thought we might start there if you care to.
Great job professor. One thing I might add though. Is that Jude quotes Enoch and says “Jesus led the Hebrews out of eygpt.” This lines up with both traditional and Enoch Judaism that “the angel of Yahweh” led the Hebrews in those days. James also says “our Glorious Lord Jesus.” So it seems that James church were Nazarenes. So they believed Jesus was “the son of God.” Like many Hebrews who called angels sons of God. But that he was the most trusted of the angels legit by Yahweh’s side. Also it seems by the didache they believed the Eucharist was the new sacrifice which was a meal of some kind. I think they believed Jesus death was seen as the true sacrifice. But it was his knowledge that granted you victory over death. Also it seems that after Jesus “mortal body” was destroyed his angel form was the resurrection. Almost as a knowledge will grant you eternity like the angels. Which lines up with the lost Hebrew gospel . So I’d say the Nazarenes were the closest we have to the church of James.
Professor Tabor, if you were to put a “Non Pauline New Testament” together, which writings would you include? Epistle of James, Jude, Q source, Didache? What about Revelations? Gospel of Thomas? Would any of the synoptic gospels make it in? Could you even have a “New Testament”, or a “New Covenant”, without Paul? Would you personally see any benefit in this exercise, or do you feel there is no real Christianity without Paul?
The majority of scholars believe Mark was the first Gospel written. So, they believe Matthew and Luke COPIED stories from Mark to create their Gospels. However, there’re some stories found in both Matthew and Luke which are NOT in Mark. Thus, scholars have proposed a theory that there was another Scripture (they refer to it as Q) which had the sayings of Jesus and they believe this is the Scripture Luke and Matthew borrowed the sayings (which are not found in Mark) of Jesus from. No one has ever seen the “Q source” though because it’s a theory.
Thank you, Dr Tabor for more extremely interesting content on UA-cam! I'm on the last 50 pages of Dr Eisenman's book "James the Brother of Jesus" and your video(s) and Eisenman's book(s) left me with this question: If Jesus was for the most part illiterate (being a carpenter or carpenter's son), what about James given how long he was leader of this movement in Jerusalem? I don't know if you agree with Eisenman about James being an '"Opposition Priest" at the Temple, but it does make me wonder how much he could read and write, espessially if he was issuing letters of recommendation and that Paul was a educated dude.
I know a bluecollar “handyman” whose shabby clothes and plain house disguise how much he really earns. He is very street smart and business savvy, which is to say, I wouldn’t be surprised if Joseph and Mary were the same. And that’s how Jesus and James got a leg up. Kind of like Abraham Lincoln.
@@xifangyangren9997 Fwiw, it wasn't meant as a derogatory comment but a question in light of 95% of that population couldn't read or write and that Paul was reported to be literate and that Jesus was not. Otoh, if James worked his way up to be leader of a major Jewish community and was writing letters I was curious what Dr Tabor thought.
Many people over the years have said that Jesus was illiterate. The main argument seems to be that since his family was poor he could not have been educated thus he could not have been able to read. The thing is history does not support that theory. There are numerous examples of people that lived in poverty that could read and write and sometimes even educated themselves in more advanced fields such as mathematics. Really the only way to know if a historical figure was illiterate is if someone stated that they did not know how to read or had to have documents read to them. For most people we will never know if they could read or not.
@@lorisewsstuff1607Maybe...I guess the thing that gets me is that 7 letters of Paul evidently survived and he was reportedly educated. Otoh, nothing from Jesus or James and yet the latter wrote recommendations and lead the community for almost 30 years. Iit seems Paul's letters are the ONLY thing that survived before the fall of the Temple dealing with Jesus and James.
I read in the apocrypha and notes that James was nicknamed camel knees, as he spent so much time in prayer (or what we call housemaid knee today). And his shocking end makes his story exceptional)
This is tragic As a complete atheist , those guys were willing to die for their religious ideas That entire era was tragic. But still it seems that some ppl were and still are taunting death itself.
was Jesus really the son of God nobody really knows if he was then HELL is going to be very crowded, did he die on the cross for our sins, i was a strict vegan christian for 30 years i'm still a vegan but i don't believe he died on the cross the only person Jesus saved was himself and we have to do the same by how we live our lives faith has nothing to do with it, all the early true believers were ascetics in all areas of their lives and obtained true salvation!
Thank you! I have felt this way for decades, but had nothing but my own voice to hear on the subject. I read every word of the Bible, but I didn't figure things out, I just intuited a personal opinion. But, it was just as this lecture says. First rule: not Paul. Paul was a spy, not a "Christian" "saint". He infiltrated the group and spoiled it from the inside. Stalin did the same thing. James the Just was the Dobrynin of Christianity.
In the new covenant those who have been born of the Fathers incorruptible seed have already been resurrected into new life and will never die as Jesus explained. The NT is about eternal life not physical life. The flesh profits nothing. I think this is why people are so confused about what death burial and resurrection actually is referring to in the NT. I was resurrected in 2016 and I have the exact same physical body as I did before. I came out of my grave and now wear my new clothes. This is what the gospel story was trying to say. It was a spiritual metaphor concerning Jesus, not literal.
Paul and James don’t contradict - one is talking about the spirit (Paul) and one is talking about the soul (James) when we are saved our spirit is perfect for eternal. James a pastor is more interested in the personal daily walk as opposed to an apostle that is concerned about the foundations. When James says justification he is talking about being justified in our sanctification not in our salvation. There is perfect harmony between the two.
Your assumptions are nonsense. Jesus himself in Mark and Matthew claimed ro be the 2nd YeHoVah figure in the prophecy of Daniel, to the High Priest, and was labeled a blasphemer for it. Sorry, but you are incorrect.
How come people don't question Jesus?(I sound like Andy Rooney) why didn't Jesus leave any written.. write . I mean literally, and not just a little? Where are the hand writing single source scroll's written by mystro ? Just wondering
Scholars and anti-Pauline : “Paul peached that we are saved by faith alone and not by works. Which means, Paul taught we shouldn’t keep any law.” Paul: “Romans 3:30-31 “since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.” “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.”
Dr. Tabor, I brought this same subject to your attention recently, but didn't get a response back....There is also much QUESTION, that it was entirely possible that the Stoning of Steven & the stoning of James, with the clothes of Steven laid at the feet of Paul....are ONE in the SAME event....We have very little to go by, other than the events described in Acts & Josephus...but, we do know for a certain fact, through Acts, & the statements that Peter makes concerning Paul in 2nd Peter 3, and through the dispute Paul had with Peter in Galatians, that Paul despised James & Peter....Paul was a Herodian Edomite and very possibly the direct son of Herod Antipas, who officiated the beheading of John the Baptist...and he was also the step brother of Salome...daughter of Herodias...
Any chance we could get you to turn some of your books, into audio books, with you as the narrator? My grammr/punctuation isn't great, obviously. The audio would be nice, especially with the author as the narrator.
James is undoubtedly incorporated into the discipleship of Jesus by the appearance of the risen Christ to him. To this James testifies and he shares this testimony with Peter, John and, yes, Paul. It is the organic unfolding of the truth of the risen Jesus wherein lies all the consequences of Christ's paschal sacrifice, the eucharist, Christ's divinity and the Church's ascendancy after the Temple's destruction. Paul, not having direct knowledge of the historical ministry of Jesus emphasizes the consequences; James, having a knowledge of Jesus from before his ministry cannot forget it. Besides, thee may be a Davidic lineage claim that the "brother of the Lord", ie, king, could press.
James believed if you really have faith, then it has to show through the fruit you produce. For instance, if you’re a Christian who believes has been saved, you’ve to help the poor. You can’t claim that you’ve been saved through faith while you watch the poor go hungry. This is why some Christians believe a saving faith produces good works, but works don’t produce salvation. Paul did NOT contradict James because although Paul taught that, “we are saved by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ”, there were a number of times where he commanded the Churches to stop leaving unrighteous life and live righteously. In 1 Corinthians 6:10, Paul talks about things that would prevent people from entering into the kingdom of God and this was a letter to the Corinth Church. Because Paul preached that we’re saved through faith alone (which is a constant theme in the New Testament), people wrongly accuse him that he didn’t want people to live righteously or keep the law. Romans 6:1-4 “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? “By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.”
Thanks for posting this. Seems to me the world would've been better off if Christianity had been more influenced by James and less by that weirdo from Tarsus.
I’d like to make an observation: If the letter of James and James himself have been ignored because he doesn’t support Paul’s view of a divine Christ and then salvation with works of the law….then let me say this: Had this been true, wouldn’t the reformers 1500 yrs after Christ have caught this? Isn’t it a bit telling, that the greatest reformer of all (due to his impact & influence) Martin Luther, discovers peace in Christ through Romans 1:17 justification by faith? If u are a Protestant can u deny the work of the Holy Spirit in Luther’s day against the church, did Luther not restore the authority of the Bible as the greatest authority of all? But yet Luther along with other reformers does not support justification through works.
Martin Luther wrote Against the Antinomians later in life in which he reversed much of what he earlier said. Antinomianism is being against the law. He came to understand that view is bankrupt.
@@ThePropriate Did any of the works that Luther did as a monk of the strictest order bring him any peace? On the contrary, he states “had I been saved through the these, I would have gained Heaven cause I did them better than anybody” (paraphrasing) . It’s until he encounters Roman’s 1:17 “the just shall live through faith” that he finds rest and is able to move on. The impact of this cannot be overstated as to how the Christian world received this.
I don't recommend becoming a monk. I recommend following the teaching of Jesus, which were utterly consistent with the law. Neither were a great burden as Paul said. I guess the law was a burden for him because he couldn't stop violating it. You can walk the narrow path of the law, as Jewish Jesus told his Jewish followers, unlike what Paul contradictorily declared. People who deny that you can obey the Law of the Most High are antinomians, lawless and wild.
@@ThePropriate The works come after salvation, they don't give you salvation. Salvation only comes by grace. It is Christ that said that the fruitless branch will be chopped off and used for fire. which supports the idea that your faith in Him must bear fruit. Love you brother
@@tokologomalatsiAu With all due respect, that view originates in Paul's letters and contradicts the teaching of Jesus. Remember that Jesus said that if you have an issue with your brother when you go to offer your sacrifice, go fix the problem with your brother and then come back and do your sacrifice. At that time you will be given grace and forgiveness. You must do righteous works to repair what you have done wrong first. Otherwise, you are conforming to the words of Paul and not Jesus. Jesus had God inside him. Paul did not. Be careful who you put as an idol before God. I hope this has blessed you.
If I am remembering correctly, Robert Eisenman posits that he went into the holy of holies to pray for the people on a day he wasn't supposed to according to Ananus ben Anunus so he called up the Sanhedrin and then had him stoned.
So, it appears that the faith of James and the Jerusalem church, while lost to gentile christians who flirted with idolatry by way of Paul and his ilk, was later to be found in the teachings of the prophet Mohammed. Including the coming kingdom of God the Father, ushered in by his servant, Isa of Nazareth (Jesus, using the Greek term), after his second coming.
There is an anomally overlooked in this analysis... the gospel preached by Jesus in the Galilee got him killed by the Jews of Jerusalem within three years. Stephen's teaching was an extension of that ministry and cost him his life in a matter of months. When Peter first preached that original gospel in Jerusalem, he and others had to flee for their lives as a bitter persecutionby the Jews broke out against them. When we are first introduced to Paul as Saul, we are told that he was engaged in this persecution of the followers of, "the Way." This , by direct association, would be the gospel of Jesus that he preached in Galilee and it raised lethalJewish objections because it completely bypassed the Law, the Temple worship practices and the understanding that the Jews were the priveledged people of Yahweh... all gentiles were fit to belong to Yahweh if only they turned o him in repentance and began listening to hos voice. After Paul's conversion and reception of the gospel of the Way from Jesus, we see the Asian Jews from Acts giving witness to the nature of his gospel that he peached everywhere to everyone from the beginning. It is impossible that James preached the same gospel in Jerusalem in the late 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s and managed to survive all that time without getting killed. Of particular contradiction to the idea that James was the faithful broher and envoy of Jesus's gospel of the Way is that when Paul goes to Jerusalem in the late 40s, he finds James leading and Peter living comfortably in the community with the rest of Jesus's brothers and supposed original disciple/apostles. In their mission to the circumcision, they had to have drastically changed the original gospel to make it palatable enough to the Jews of Jerusalem that hey were allowed to live among them and to even fully participate in the Temple worship practices. This would be the form of the original gospel of the Way that Paul charges is no real gospel at all but rather a perversion of the original gospel of the Way. Under James's leadership, the Jewish identity was added to the gospel of Jesus, and he was made out to be the Jewish messiah of Davidic origins. This is the gospel and the people that Paul and his associates fight tooth and nail against... a battle they eventually lose. What happened after the destruction of the Temple is that Helenization occured to the perverted form of the gospel of the Way that had been changed to a teaching about Jesus as the Christ. This new form was still faithful to the Hebrew Genesis understanding of creation. However, this new form, it is plain to see, was not the original gospel... when Paul went to Jerusalem in the late 40s, it was not to seek aproval for his new gospel to the gentiles, but in reality, check out the new gospel that James Peter and the rest of the pillars of the faith had concocted to make it suitable to their new ministry to the, "Circumcision." ... and as one can tell by his attitude in Galatians, he was not impressed! It was the Helenized New Testament authors who added the dualistic elements to the person, ministry, and teachings of Jesus, and interpolated Pauls letters to deceptively make it appear that his gospel was the gospel of Christ. James abused the person and ministry to reinstate all things Jewish under Jesus's authority, and the New Testament authors played along at first and went so far as to use the same method to abuse the person, minisstry and teachings of Paul for their purpose of incorporating their dualisic ideas into James perversion of Jesus's authentic gospel of the Way. The authentic and original form of the gospel was purposefully and effectively, subverted and hidden away by both the James community and these later anonymous NT authors. As a move of Yahweh, the gospel of the Way would have been an extension of the Hebrew Genesis understanding of reality and not dualistic in nature. Paul's preaching would be in keeping with this, and further, have nothing to do with Jesus as the Jewish messiah. To the extent we find anything to do with Christ and dualism attributed to Paul by any NT document, including his own letters, we have insight into the degree that Paul's person, ministry and teachings were distorted by the later gospel of Christ interpolators. This understanding of what actually happened indicates that this form of the original gospel of the Way may be the source of the mysterious Q sayings of Jesus. As far as I can see, this explanation fits our limited knowledge of this time much better than current understandings proposed.
@@Tom-sd9jb There were about 613 laws given to the Israelites. If you read these laws, you could group them into two; one being about how we have to worship and obey God alone without worshipping other gods and the other involving laws that would prevent your from doing bad stuff to other people. Thus in Matthew 22:37-38, Jesus made that statement; 1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 2. Love your neighbor as yourself. The law and the prophets hang on these two because if you love God with all your heart, soul and mind, you won’t go and worship another god (a false god). Also, if you love your neighbour as yourself, you won’t feel jealous about him, commit adultery with his wife, cause physical harm to him and all the other laws that prohibit people from doing bad stuff.
I don’t necessarily agree with all your points though I do appreciate some of your teachings, in particular you paint the picture that Paul distorted the original teachings about Jesus’ divinity but Paul didn’t write the Gospel of John did he? You refer to a Q source document however that’s speculation since no document has been found that you’re referring to. Actually during the 2nd temple period there were Rabbi’s who believed in the Two Powers in Heaven, Paul was a scholar unlike James who most likely was a tradesman and not a trained scholar. I believe in Jesus’ divinity because He transformed my life, I had a similar Saul on the road to Damascus event in my life about 40 years ago and I’ve never been the same since ❤️👍✝️
Tabor, your argument is emotionally compelling but neglected to elucidate what advantages were afforded to Annas for this initiative of his order. I agree with your perspective - so please get up from the table Mr. Tubby and answer our questions.
Hadith on Maryam: Why Mary is called sister of Aaron Mughira ibn Shu’ba reported: When I came to Najran, the Christian monks asked me, “You recite the verse, ‘O sister of Aaron,’ (19:28) but Moses was born long before Jesus by many years.” When I came back to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, I asked him about it and he said, “Verily, they used to name people with the names of prophets and righteous people who had passed before them.” Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2135 Grade: Sahih (authentic)
Mary is called the sister of Aaron because your false prophet was an illiterate caravan robber who confused Mary the mother of Jesus, with Miriam (Mary) the sister of Moses. If your false prophet could read, he would know that these women lived fourteen centuries apart. I find it amazing that you would arbitrarily cite his dumbness, without recognizing that what you cite, authenticates your silly beliefs as false.
@@HHasan-of2vi So that you may know that I’m not jumping to conclusions and that I know precisely what I am talking about… the “sister of Aaron” was laughed at, even back when Muhammad was asserting that the mother of Jesus was the sister of Aaron. When confronted by Christians about this error, Muhammad’s response was that people during the time of Mary was to refer to pious persons as the sister of…. See Sahih Muslim 5326 We have no record of such a practice in first century Israel, nor do we have this practice elsewhere in the Quran. The obvious conclusion is that Muhammad made a mistake and tried to correct it, by making something up. The Christians at that time rejected this explanation (sister of Aaron as a metaphor) because they knew nothing of this practice. Moreover, in Ibn Kathir’s commentary on Sura 19:28 we read that Aisha, states “you have lied” when defending the authenticity of the Quran. That is, someone tells Aisha that Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the sister of Aaron aren’t the same person and she calls him a liar. See Q66:12, where the confusion and error is unequivocally certified. “And Mary, daughter of Imran…” Sahih al-Bukkari 3769 “Maryam, the daughter of Imran…” Imran is the father of Moses. Are these verses metaphors too? The Quran identifies Mary the mother of Jesus, as the sister of Aaron and as the daughter of Imran. You place your trust in a silly book… that is not the word of God.
It is possible in my view that the Hebrew mind/psychological disposition was in some sense completely hostile to the Gospel. And although God was able to bring a clean thing out of an unclean thing and a straight out of a crocked that the non-Hebrew mind provided a more fertile ground. Jesus hinted at these things when he said one puts new wine in new bottle skins. The Hebrew mind was a very constricted one the non-Hebrew mind demonstrated in the elastic mind of Paul is the better wineskin into which to put the ever advancing and ever expanding Gospel of Christ. I perceive a coldness in the Hebrew mind. A kind of distance as they see the Christ more through a earthly kingship mentality. The "gentile" I think furnished Christianity with the worshipful personal God dwelling in the heart that has brought in a real compassionate/passionate love. Somewhat like how the Romans roads network gave a free passage to spread the word and the Greeks a language that affords abstract thought. For we were by and large entering the age of the "spirit and truth" worship. A religion void of all external paraphernalia and dependent totally on an internal system spiritual thoughts. I could be wrong.
False! The canon had already been accepted by the early Christians prior to the 4th C. If you are referring to the Council of Nicea the books of the canon were not even discussed.
I am not an expert by any means, but I have read the account Josephus gives of the death of James, the brother of Jesus, and it seems to me that this passage bears all the hallmarks of having been tampered with in order to make it seem as if the "James" and the "Jesus" that are mentioned are the ones we all know and love from the New Testament. In the context, it seems much more plausible to me that the "James" and "Jesus" mentioned are the sons of Damneus, and that that the clause _"..., who was called Christ, ..."_ after the mention of "Jesus" was just inserted by some well-meaning Christian scribe. If you take out this single clause, I don't think there is any way you can read the passage as referring to anyone else than the sons of Damneus.
@@Ucedo95 I know, and like I said, I am not an expert, but even so, I cannot read that passage and think anything other than that the "Jesus" and "James" mentioned there are the sons of Damneus. The passage makes so much more sense that way, that it is impossible for me to agree with the experts on this.
Hmm, it's a surprise to listen to this again and realise that Dr Tabor is actually making the case that the Greek letter of James is written by the actual illiterate Aramaic speaking James from the book of Galatians and Corinthians! By contrast, most scholars would point out that it's much more likely to be a Greek writer using Paul, and the synoptic gospels, as sources. The verses quoted in this video are the main evidence for this. PS and the book of Jude as well! Fringe, for sure, and evidence would be required. Fascinating, nonetheless.
@@thegallantsaint2034 No, he says if someone tells you it is don't eat it. He said if you're in the market and buy meat and don't know if someone did or not, you will be okay ( because there's no way of knowing, are you going to eat nothing? )
@@LoftOfTheUniverse Your example of not knowing is another matter. I want to point out that Paul teaches contrary to Jesus in _wilfully_ eating meat sacrificed to idols. If you read 1 Corinthians Ch 8, Paul basically says if one's conscience is weak, and another with a stronger conscience influences the weaker to eat meat sacrificed to idols, then you sin against the Messiah. However, if your conscience is strong, and you wilfully eat sacrificed to idols, then it's ok. This is bizarre. Please read what Jesus said about this matter in Revelation 2:14. If Paul does not contradict Jesus, then Paul would unequivocally say that eating meat sacrificed to idols is a sin, period.
@@thegallantsaint2034 No, Paul isn't telling people to eat meat sacrificed to idols. He's accurately saying all that meat is just meat regardless of a false idol that is nothing. If you never were a pagan it probably wouldn't bother you. If I were a pagan, then a convert, it would probably mess me up. Paul was saying to be considerate of weaker people who feel that it compromises them. Paul ALSO says: 1 cor 10:25-32 and both passages need to be read together instead of ripped out individually. Jesus said it's what comes out of a man's mouth that makes them unclean, not what goes in.
@@LoftOfTheUniverse Revelation 2:14 - it is clear where Jesus stands on this matter. There's no ambiguity. James (the brother of Jesus) says in Acts 15:20 "but to write to them to hold back from the _pollutions_ _of_ _idols_ , and from fornication, and from things strangled, and blood." 1 Cor 10:25-32 is just as contradictory, as Paul tells us not to at least examine whether this meat is polluted/defiled. You mentioned "Jesus said it's what comes out of a man's mouth that makes them unclean, not what goes in." - Matt 15:1-20. The context in which Jesus was speaking was regarding the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. They tell everyone to keep the dietary laws about what is clean/unclean/washing hands yet they speak lies and have evil thoughts. So morally, they are filthy; and no amount of clean foods/hygiene is able to offset this. The moral laws take precedence over dietary laws. Because you linked the dietary laws to eating defiled meat, so I am anticipating the question: "Is eating meat sacrificed to idols just an extension of dietary laws?" The answer is no. Eating meat sacrificed to idols goes beyond the act of just eating. Paul argues that eating is just eating. But Jesus obviously takes exception to this. It is appeasing false pagan gods and it it violates the commandment of "you shall have no other gods before Me." God detests it. Paul's argument is akin to saying adultery is just sex.
James' brother was John the Baptist (also the same as the apostle and Revelator) who received his NEW NAME of Salvation (Hebrew Yeshua) at his spiritual birth at the Jordan, the same new name all firstborn sons of the spirit receive. Revelation 3:12. The chosen elect who are prophets, witnesses, suffering servants, kings, high priests. The saviors who gather in the lost flock. James 5:20. The seed/offspring of David. The light of salvation was personified in the gospels as a separate god-man. It was actually John speaking Salvation (word of God) to the people. John the old man 1st Adam vs his new man, last Adam. It was the same man whos was dualized as two men. We all have dual natures if we are born from above while in our earthly bodies. We must crush our old man, the Satan, so the new man can live. All elect firstfruits sons born of the light are divine eloheim not Elohiem. The coming of the LORD in Isaiah 40:3 was personified as a human being in the gospels. The anointed one is the spirit that is born in his elect firstborn sons. The light that rises within us.
Lol, Mt Tabor on the Just😎 Nice work, but I think we need some qualifyers here on the epistles of Jude and James. The epistle of jude, Judas, was supposed to be written by Yahudah brother of Yeshua_. This authority has problems. Tomas (Yahudah Dumas) is supposed to be the brother of Yeshu_ but by some his twin (dumas) brother. In the syriac tradition Dumas traveled about the east and eventually went to India in 52CE. As dumas traveled in syriac circles the written language he would have used is syriac, an aramaic derivative that was still used until recently and is still read among syriac christians. In their tradition, the fate of Dumas in Indus was not learned for hundreds of years. Whereas Dumas was in India scholars place the epistle between 65ish and 100 CE, after Dumas had supposedly had departed, but according to lore he lived to about 70-75 CE. But the letter mentions nothing of India or his sojourns in SW asia. So the Yahudah of the epistle could not be 'that' brother, he must have been some other brother of Yeshu_? Another brother who wrote greek? It seems the provenance of this epistle has at least a couple of question marks. The epistle of Jude is part of another of another mystery. 2 Peter, a favorite source amoung protestant clergy in Sunday services, but is a chimera of different source material and almost certainly not petrine. Among its problems it appears that an editor sliced Jude into a dozen pieces and wove his sermonal theology between the pieces, going so far as to denounce those that are writing false works (you know like the king of fake news calling the news fake). The epistle of James (Yacov) is less troubled than Jude but still troubled. When the church fathers got around to create a wall around their doctrine, the fall out was that the Evyon's fractured descendants, the ebionites were declared neither christian or Jew. And at least in definition this was correct. While it is certainly true that the epistle of James represented a conservative piety of second temple adherance, it should be noted that the Q source according to DR McDonald does not employ the christ title once. Moreover, among the Evyon, Yacov was the more conservative. We can see this in Paul's letter where he remarks upon Cephas for fearing association with gentiles when Yacov's watchers were about. There is no doubt that among the 'Jesus Movement' that Yacov had a low christology, but how exactly low was this. We could assume that both the Baptizer and Yeshu_ had prophet status. Within the culture people like Cyrus were deemed messiah, and we also know there are beliefs in a messianic pair, a priestly and davidic messiah. So that Yacov might have though of Yeshu_ as the priestly messiah. If that were the case then Q, didache and the heresiologies might have mentioned this. The problem with priestly designation is that the priest needs to have authority to perform rituals, and its rather difficult to assume authority from a small band of itenerate followers. The Davidic messiah is something I consider a city-State tradition, pagan notions. One might be pulled to think well the Deuteeonomic history of the late conquest overemphasizes the violent nature of the Israelites. But David is more than violent, he is disrespectful, engages in sexual behaviors that would be considered pagan, fights for the enemies of Israel, and commits religious sacriledge. The image we have of David is a bad-ass fair weather loyalist of Israel, with an emphasis on bad-ass. What we see in the story is that David is a Power symbol, as Samuel would say, so you want a king, here is what you are going to get. As Israel follows him he is a good King, but as it turns so does he. Sound familiar? Narcissistic Yahweh of Judah? Does this sound anything like Yeshu_: a voice in the desert, a mystic in a cave, a blessing on a hillside? And when exactly was Yeshu_ anointed, his baptism, a self-revealed mystical experience? The third level of messiah comes from the behavior, as the baptizer and Yacov both stood up to tyranny (Herod and Ananus) we could call the lesser messiahs in the vein of king cyrus. But Yeshu_ did what? turned tables in the gentil quarter of the temple, hardly credible. What injustice did he exactly stand up to? In Q he makes note that the sword of his tongue was to cut yahudah apart because they were bad vineyard custodians. Or was it the fact that he saved a sinful woman from her sinful persecutors? Was it his treatment of Samaratins? Lingering among the poor, sinners and tax collectors? When I look for a most conservative reason for his execution, I find that herod Antipas in need of allies warmed up to Pilate, and when he heard that Yeshu_ was in Judea had his allies in the sanhedrin capture Yeshu_ and coherced Pilate to execute him, quietly, with as few followers around to witness the transpiring event. Yes, it is possible that the Evyon saw this as a grave injustice and that the unrighteous sacrificed the righteous to save sinner skin. What Yeshu_ really stood for was apocalyptic judaism and the Saducees and Herodians did not. From Yeshu_'s point of view it was mystic reinforcement, but from Yacov's point of view did he see that as crazy (See Mark)? But Yacov was painfully aware of the tricky politics in Jerusalem and he walked a fine line between the watchful eyes of the saducees (anti-apocalyptic) and the mystical desires of the disciples to expand their messaging to wider categories of the Yahweh reverent. He went so far as to gaun the respect of many Jews as being 'the Just'. Saying that Yeshu_ was either a priestly or kingly messiah would have had negative consequences, but I could see him using the messianic lingo in a limited context if Yacov really believed Herodian influence was a plague on Israel. The Epistle of James (Yakov) is not written in galillean aramaic or hebrew but in greek. The title he uses for Yeshu_ is similar to Paul's. While Paul's notion of anointment is both transcendent and kingly, there is no reason to believe that Yacov believed either. Thus these two passages minimally are interpolations. The rest of the text fits into Jewish notions but could be from practically any Jewish member of the movement. I personally fall into the camp that Yacov is the aramaic source of the letter, but I need to be clear that its a 'Christian' hand that translated and inscribed it and for that James appears christian in name, but not in doctrine. Yacov would fall in the camp of people Paul calls the anti-christ. They know of Jesus and have seen his deeds and yet they do not believe in the christology that Paul believes in. Rabbi Micheal Skobac has three videos on the epistle of James at Tenakh Talk. These videos are well worth watching as he goes through each chapter. What we gain from the videos is what evyon peity looks like. For anyone wanting to join the modern Nazarene movements these videos will be eye-opening. The Nazarenes of today are not the Nazarenes of the first century. Note: The idea of anointment in the Jewish context is extremely complex, I must admit. I want to point out the ceremony was practiced in syroanatolian city-states and assyria in an earlier period as well as egypt. The authority of the ceremony in Samuel appears ad-hoc. The key problem I see in the OT is that the transition from canaanite religion and Judaism appears to transition around Eli and the loss of the Ark and demise of Shiloh. It is unclear whether Eli was a Elyonist, a splinter sect of Geirizim, or Yahwist. But by the time the Ark reaches Jerusalem, Jahwism is on the rise and David is at the center of it. This may be an Akhenaten moment in Israel and the anointment notion is borrowed from Egypt in an effort to create a sense of Holy that could not be derived from Israel tribal notions. Again I can only see the pagan-magick nature of its meaning. When I see religious groups emphasizing the christ it appears that they are either trying to fashion a new god or split a god into greco-roman attributes.
q source is a theory not a fact and the obviousl fact as to why the gospels are similar is simply that they all talk about the same JESUS during the same time period
So, James believes Jesus is the Davidic king or Messiah promised and yet still Jesus died? Why would James hold that view when Jesus died without assuming the throne? If James didn't believe Jesus is divine and will return to judge as Lord then what's the purpose of his movement? This is the contradiction of James Tabor when he decides to put words into people's mouths. James must actually be the dumbest guy out there for him to proglaim Jesus as Messiah, not divine, and died. According to James Tabor James was stupid to realise his brother was a fraud.
Truthful Kindness here. James has been my favorite New Testament book for almost 20 years. Thanks for further sharing on this topic.
Same
At last! Something that approaches the true origins of Christianity and its message ( the original essence of the Torah as taught by Moses). I don't think the Christian Church would like this video but for me it's the keystone that binds all of your other work together because James's letter is REAL and as valuable for what it doesn't say as it is for what it does say. Great work professor!
@@gacitizen2 I said Christian Church might not like it not Christians (who generally are just followers who have trust in their leaders). The Professors letter brings into question the very cornerstone of Christianity as a religion. You may look at this video and interpret it another way and of course you are entitled to do that. BUT the untruth has no existence whereas the truth never ceases to exist. It's never about opinion in the end, only truth.
@@gacitizen2
The idea that Jesus is not God would be blasphemy in most christian churches today. It seems Jesus was only raised to divine status long after his death. The voice and beliefs of James who had direct and intimate knowledge of the historical life of his brother Jesus, was overshadowed by the loud arguments of Paul, who had only ever met Jesus in mystical visions.
@@robsellars9338 you are correct it shows how Paul and his Gentile Church changed the message
Judaism knows only the 1 God. Even the Prophets say that God said There was None Before Me and None After Me. GOD SAYS HE DOES not Share his Glory. Paul began his own re6
James is quoting the Golden Rule of Hillel, and what sums up the Torah. Gentiles have no knowledge of these facts
To me, this is the most plausible explanation of the events of the first century CE and later. Thank you, Dr Tabor, for your diligent research and effort to get this out.
Paul was msileading the whole live and preaching of Jesus! Its so obvious! Thank you Prof.Tabor! You commited your live to the truth!
This is false. The apostles affirmed him.
@@LoftOfTheUniverse the apostles affirmed who? I mean, its obvious that Jesus´teachings were lifting boundaries and that his apostles were less reluctant to teach and invite the gentiles to this new Jewish interpretation auf worshipping Jahwe by following his son. I dont think that the apostles affirmed Paul. Paul was a kind a n ambitious "freak" who self endorsed his role by telling that Jesus directly been talking to him after crucifiction and moe weird statements. Paul was in my eyes an imposter, highly educated intellectual expad and related to the Herodians ("my kin") and since he was obviousely gay what made it impossible to have a Pharisean career within the Jewish church he decided to take over the new Messiah movement by blending it with Enochian - Greek philosophy and that specific interpretations of the divine close to the Mitras cult of Egypt. He was nothing but a clever spin doc. hahaha i dont know but it makes much more sense to me than anything i learned of this Pauline success and the pagean Christian church! What a grotesque! Lets have big sarcastic laugh!. But we have to thank him since otherwise we wouldnt even know about Jesus anymore nowadays i assume. Thats how history works with ambiguity, confusion,vanity and lies. Greets from Hamburg, Germany
@@edvaneckert2348 Paul hated Christians, yet died a martyr for that same Christ. He founded many churches that stood against the ways of the world yet gave all credit to God.
God wouldn't allow His Word to have an imposter in the entirety of the new testament. People are still choosing trust in self over trust in the work of Christ (who calls Himself the Alpha and the Omega, and shared the glory with God the Father in the beginning).
And Peter says the writings of Paul were misunderstood "like the rest of scriptures".
Paul couldn't have been what he became without the work of God.
Don't be led astray by people who can't even keep half of the law.
@@edvaneckert2348 Most of what you said I agree with, but what evidence is there that Paul was gay? I don't doubt it, I was just wondering what proof there is.
@@LoftOfTheUniverse Paul contradicts Jesus in many areas. You need to decide whether you follow Christ or Jesus. Read the rest of the Bible to see if Paul's characterization of the law is correct. Moreover, Paul was probably not a martyr. That story came later on, to solidify the power of the Catholic Church.
So sad and ironic that the person that could most give modern Christianity a true picture of Jesus has been mostly forgotten.
Robert Eisenman has gone some great work on James over several decades and according to him, discover who James was and you discover whom the real historical Jesus was, not the Pauline Jesus.
He was the First Leader of the Church after Jesus. Not Peter, Is there any actual evidence Peter died in Rome?
Beverly Traino - Why say that?! - Professor Tabor hasn’t been forgotten.
A true picture of 'Jesus' (Ye'shua) shows the agenda to reform Judaism for Jews. He didn't preach Christianity at all, that fraudulent agenda was created by Paul for Rome.
They had a choice back then
Or support Paul's religion or James teachings..
We know whom they have chosen.
Many thanks for Dr.James Tabor's sincere effort to bring up the truth for layman, because there are so many who knows the truth but hide it from people.
Thank you James Tabor. Your honest, lucid and evidence-based narrative is compelling and fearless. Absolutely, the focus was the "Divine message not the person of Jesus"..A fundamental theological point framing the heart of Quran's critical Christology and its critique of the post-Pauline Christianity. My late Birmingham Uni. colleague, Michael Douglas Goulder, the unusual humanist scholar of the NT and Hebrew Bible, appears to be right in his thesis that the mission of Jesus and Paul were fundamentally different (explained in his brilliant book A Tale of Two Mission ).
So powerful Dr. Tabor. We all must do good works which improve and clarify our faith. James was an incredible person in the history of religion who is passed by without much consideration.
Thank you for sharing this story. The last time I heard it was over sixty years ago from my uncle who had traveled the Bible Lands after WWII as a way of healing from the war.
This is so cool because James has been my favorite book of the Bible for a long time.
Thank you for this information. It is much appreciated.
before i knew anything I loved james the most, my intuition felt this was and is the truth, many thanx, I so enjoy your talks
Thank you. I really enjoyed listening 👂 Looking forward to more. Have a great weekend.
Thank you very much for this, Dr. Tabor!
Just here for James the Just 😇 Thanks for the video!
Thank you, Dr. Tabor. This ia a revelation in that what is revealed is Truth. I look forward to many more scholarly videos. ❤️
Thanks for this narration.
Thank you Dr Tabor for another excellent video.
James is a favorite of mine.🥰
Thank you again Dr. Tabor.
dr t thank u 4 all ur hard work.ur a true treasure. hopefully ill join 1 of ur tours of the holy land in the future.
James is the favorite book of the Bible for millions of Christians. The fact that some say that the book of James is viritually forgotten says that many in the theology business have no idea what ordinary Christians think.
Missing gaps clearly brought to light, for what reason, where how and why. The clearer picture now emerges. Thanks .
Amazing work ahdn insights brother. God would be proud
I love when you say John the baptizer
Thank you.
I don't believe that James disputed salvation by faith without works of the law, nor did James say works "of the law". Nor do I agree that Paul disagreed that faith without works is dead. Nor do I see James as forgotten or nearly forgotten. Maybe because I read the Bible myself apart from ever having been a Christian and was woken up to the word of G'd in my heart from the words from G'd in the scripture and not from a preacher or teacher or christian.
5:50 what is the spelling for the lost source? "dida k"?
Didache I believe.
Yes it's very frustrating to see experts you want to learn from misunderstanding Paul or other authors on such a fundamental level. Dont get me wrong we're very blessed to be able to learn from experts in history and language, who have also studied the Bible for a long time, but when they don't understand the simple basic concepts of Paul it's mind blowing.
Like that Paul never imagined a faith without works or that in James letter, at the very least, James doesn't seem to be advocating for works of the law but for good works in general like feeding someone or clothing them.
I'd love to pick your brain on something actually, there is one thing that seemed like a discrepancy, though maybe minor, between Paul's argument in Romans and James in his letter. Paul makes the argument that Abraham was justified when he trusted/believed God and his promises. However James argues, seemingly, that Abraham was justified when he attempted to sacrifice Isaac.
On the one hand it doesn't really seem like a big deal because they are essentially saying the same thing. That you must have faith and that your faith must produce good works for you to be justified and righteous on judgement day.
On the other hand it feels like a big deal to see what appears to be a contradiction on paper between two pillars of the church. Paul's m.o. in Romans is to reassure Gentiles (and Jews) that they were made right with God when they believed the gospel message and were baptized. Paul just assumes that this belief obviously means they will obey the Gospel too and he says clearly thay if their is no obedience they are doomed. James says outright "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
James 2:24
Glad i found you i enjoy your videos
I've read your books, and I love the podcast. How best to be a follower of Jesus and not Paul? Christian theology evolved largely from Paul's teachings, Paul's understanding of Jesus. I am raised Catholic, have visited many Christian denominations, including more recent churches such as LDS. Paul's teachings underpin all. On some level, I never agreed with Paul, less as an adult, even less after studying theology and philosophy and ancient religions. But where can one actually go, attend, be a part of community where emphasis is on James and the Jewish teachings? It seems that to truly live as a follower of Jesus, one should convert to reformed Judaism. Thoughts?
2 Peter 3:15,16 says much about the beloved brother Paul.... But he is ( one of) the most misunderstood figure in the new testament. Both by people for him as well as those against.
You are to imitate me, just as I imitate Christ. ( 1 Corinthians 11:1 )
Hi there, you hit the nail on the head. They were all Jews. It means the Law/Torah is sacred to them, as it should be to us also (I am a Gentile, and I assume you are too). As Jesus said, not one stroke of a pen will pass from the Law until all has been fulfilled. There are 613 Laws. But as Gentiles, which ones do we keep?
James, the brother of Jesus said in Acts 15:19 "For this reason I judge not to trouble those from the nations turning to God, 20 but to write to them to hold back from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and blood." So, do not commit idolatry (part of the Commandments), sexual immorality (Leviticus Ch 18), do not eat blood (Leviticus 16:10). In all these verses in the OT, God includes the non-Israelites with a line such as "neither the native nor the _alien_ who is staying in your midst". The foreigners/sojourners/aliens are the fore-runners of Gentiles - us.
Jesus said to inherit life - keep the Commandments.
God's Covenant (to keep the Commandments) is extended to all nations. Isaiah 56 is so beautiful:
"1 So says YAHWEH: Keep justice and do righteousness, for my salvation is coming soon, and My righteousness will be revealed.
2 Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who lays hold on it; keeping the Sabbath, from defiling it; and keeping his hand from doing every evil.
3 And do not let the son of the foreigner speak, he who joins himself to YAHWEH, saying, surely, YAHWEH separates me from His people; and do not let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dried tree.
4 For so says YAHWEH to the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths and choose things I am pleased with, and take hold of My covenant:
5 I, even I will give to them in My house and in My walls a hand and a name better than sons and than daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which shall not be cut off.
6 And the sons of the foreigner, who join themselves to YAHWEH to serve Him, and to love the name of YAHWEH, to be His servants, everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and takes hold of My covenant:
7 even them I will bring to My holy mount and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted on My altar, for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the peoples,
8 states Adonai YAHWEH, who gathers the outcasts of Israel; I will yet gather others beside him to his gathered ones."
It is beautifully summed up in Ecclesiastes: 12:
"12 And more than these, my son, be warned: The making of many books has no end, and much study is the weariness of the flesh.
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear The Elohim, and keep His commandments; for this applies to every man.
14 For The Elohim shall bring every work into judgment, with all that is hidden, whether it is good, or whether it is evil."
Jew here, in no sense a Christian. There is no need to convert to Judaism to acknowledge and worship G-d, and there is nothing missing in you if you don't. It is impossible for any Jew of the Second Temple era to see it differently, and reading James.... James saw it no differently and Jesus saw it no differently. At the time, the term used for Gentiles who acknowledged and worshipped G-d without conversion was "G-d-Fearers." It makes no sense for Jesus, James, or any of the others to have required conversion.
What then should a Gentile G-d-fearer do, if it is not necessary to keep the full set of Torah Commandments? According to Judaism, there are a set of seven Commandments, known as the "Noachide Laws" sometimes spelled "Noahide Laws" and you can look them up if you're really interested. At the time of Jesus the details were still being debated, and the indications we have in the NT suggest that "something like" the Noahide Laws were then taught by the "Jesus movement" but perhaps not in the eventual, final, agreed form. I don't see them listed very explicitly, but the principles expressed are certainly consistent with them. In this context, in the question of how good Gentile G-d-fearers should behave the advice offered by James, Paul, and directly by Jesus are ---- with the obvious exception of the special role of Jesus!!!! --- very consistent with all this.
So if you want to know what Jesus, James, Paul, and the others taught that Gentile followers should do -- the Seven Noahide Laws are a reasonable point to start from. It's at the very least, "close" to what they would have listed, had they been explicit enough to make a definite list. You will find at least six of the seven very clearly specified - just not all in one place.
Also, if you are interested in conversion to Judaism.... you'll have to give up Jesus altogether. I doubt that this path will work for you.
@@metsfan1873 Thank you. That is very helpful.
If you go through Tanach ("OT" to Christians) you'll find many examples of Gentiles worshipping the same G-d that we do. Abraham and Melchitzedek worshipped together. Jethro and Moses did so also. You can't get a much better pair of examples than Abraham and Moses. Many examples of Gentiles bringing sacrifices to the Temple. It's all good. No need to convert. No need for a Gentile to follow "all 613."
Thank you
Brilliant as always. Are you reading from one of your books here? If so, which one?
The spiritual link between the two is so tight. John says Jesus could have granted his beloved immortality if Jesus wanted too. I read somewhere that nowadays, it is thought John the evangelist is still alive.
Both Paul and James quoted from Genesis 15:6, which states: “[Abraham] put faith in Jehovah, and He counted it to him as righteousness.” Righteousness basically refers to the state in which a person is viewed by God as acceptable, even guiltless.
HOW ARE FAITH AND WORKS RELATED?
For centuries, the relationship between faith and works has been hotly debated in Christendom. Some clergymen teach that all you have to do to be saved is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. You may have heard them say, “Accept Jesus and be saved.” Clergymen may even quote Paul’s words: “God counts righteousness apart from works.” (Rom. 4:6) However, others contend that you can “save yourself” by going on religious pilgrimages and by performing other duties as outlined by the church. They perhaps quote James 2:24: “A man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith alone.”
As a result of such positions, some religious writers have concluded that Paul and James disagreed on the subject of faith and works. Clergymen may claim that while Paul believed that a man is declared righteous by faith apart from works, James taught that works are essential in order to have God’s approval. A professor of divinity put it this way: “James did not understand Paul’s motive for insisting that [being declared righteous] is by faith alone and not by works.” But Yehovah inspired both Paul and James to write what they did. (2 Tim. 3:16) So there must be a simple way to harmonize their statements. There is-by considering their writings in context.
What “works” did Paul focus on in Romans 3 and 4? He was primarily referring to “works of law,” the law of Moses, given at Mount Sinai. (Read Romans 3:21, 28.) It seems that in Paul’s day some Jewish Christians were having a hard time accepting that the Mosaic Law and the works required by that Law had been done away with. Consequently, Paul pointed to Abraham’s example to prove that a righteous standing with God does not result from “works of law.” It comes from faith. That is encouraging because knowing this gives us confidence that a good standing with God is within our reach. It means that we can develop faith in God and in Christ, which can actually lead to divine approval.
On the other hand, the “works” discussed in James chapter 2 are not the “works of law” mentioned by Paul. James is referring to the works, or activities, that Christians do in their daily life. Such works indicate whether a Christian has genuine faith in God or not. Consider two examples that James used.
12 In the first example, James spoke of the need for Christians to be impartial in their dealings with others. He illustrated this point with the case of a man who showed favor to a wealthy person but looked down on a poor person. James pointed out that such a man might claim to have faith, but where are his corresponding works? (Jas. 2:1-5, 9) As a second example, James mentioned someone who saw ‘a brother or a sister lacking clothing or food’ but did not provide practical help. Even if that one claimed to have faith, it was not backed up by actions; therefore, it was useless. As James wrote, “faith by itself, without works, is dead.”-Jas. 2:14-17.
James referred to Rahab as a positive example of faith in action. (Read James 2:25, 26.) She had heard about Yehovah and recognized that he was supporting the Israelites. (Josh. 2:9-11) She showed her faith by her actions-she protected two Israelite spies when their lives were in danger. As a result, this imperfect, non-Israelite woman was declared righteous, just as Abraham had been. The example she set emphasizes the importance of having faith backed up by works.
The two Bible writers Paul and James were simply approaching the subject of faith and works from different angles. Paul was telling the Jewish Christians that they would never be able to obtain Yehovah’s approval simply by performing works of the Mosaic Law. James was emphasizing the need for all Christians to show their faith by doing good to others.
Kudos to you, professor, for pointing out this, short yet very important document of the brother of our Lord, who is called James in the English Bible. However, his actual name is Jacob, in Hebrew (Ya’aqov).
I was once told that( only )through my faith could I ascend to heaven…then
I quoted “ a faith without acts is a dead faith” the man then called me a zealot…
I am saddened by there (Fatal ) relationship with there own (uncircumcised ) ego.
Being a zealot is a good thing
I was told again yesterday by someone that she was saved and felt sorry for the people that are not saved. My heart ached. The ego is blinding people. They are so full of themselves, the can't hear. Humility is gone.
this person used it as a stone to throw.
Sometimes we can be so close and far away at the same time
@@marybaumer9812 hoping for the faithful remnant.
They say: "the victor writes the history" and since God is the victor who tells us the end from the beginning, I hold suspect the accounts of history given by those who want to hide their culpability regarding their evil deeds by giving a slightly distorted view of what really happened.
With that said, what do you make of the account of Hegesippus as recorded by Eusebius in his "Ecclesiastical History"? In this account it appears that Annus ben Annus was far more impulsive and took James up to the pinnacle of the Temple to either recant of Jesus before all the worshippers (coming from all over the known world) at Passover, or he would be made an EXAMPLE which would be widely circulated. This seems to also fit Jesus prophecy of the beginning of our tribulation when he was quoting Daniel in. Mat. 24:15 & Mk. 13:14.
I would also point out the constant "shadow power" which remained from the time Jesus was executed until he snuck himself out of the besieged Temple in a casket and into Gen. Vespasian's tent to prophesy he would become the next Emperor after 3 "horns" would be "plucked up" (I'm referencing Daniel 7:8). This shadow power referred to by many as the "saviour" of the Jews, was clearly a "master and scholar" (Mal. 2:12) was none other than Yochanan Ben Zakkai, the leader of the Pharisees when Jesus was "cut off" (Dan. 9:26). It appears he was instrumental in James' murder by instigating Annus to do this thing and then having the High Priest assassinated shortly after to end any potential Roman investigation into the matter, thereby covering his tracks.
As a final note it's interesting the Talmud gives Zakkai credit for giving Vespasian the prophecy, but their interpreter Josephus (the Historian whose account you referenced) takes credit for the prophecy himself. It's also VERY INTERESTING that the two letter word עם in Dan. 9:26 is "pointed" as "people" and is translated as "with the people" when the conjugation of the verbs in 3rd person masculine singular indicate it should read simply "with". In other words, the one who is being fingered by God in this book which is to remain sealed until the end days at judgement, is none other than Zakkai, the eyes on the little horn (Vespasian) who he hailed to power together with their interpreter Josephus. Zakkai is the "master and scholar" of Mal. 2:12 AND he's the 3rd person being identified by the verbs in Dan. 9:26: "HE cut off moshiach...and WITH the coming Prince, HE destroyed the sanctuary and city" in a conspiracy to enslave his own people to the fraud Sabbath which the 1st Pontifex Maximus of Rome (Julius Caesar) created and implemented in 46 BCE which ended the Roman Republic. So what I'm saying is Vespasian was the "little" 10th "horn", Zakkai was his "eyes", and the "mouth" between them which took credit for Zakkai's prophecy was Josephus. Vespasian is the "7th King" which John tells us would soon be coming (Rev. 17:10). So history was sealed up but now it's time for the rest of the prophecies to begin manifesting as God already told us.
I have much more but I thought we might start there if you care to.
13:12 Well that's something to do on my bucket list. Go and pay my respects to James the Just when I go to Israel and visit the temple mount.
You are correct in your work.
Great job professor. One thing I might add though. Is that Jude quotes Enoch and says “Jesus led the Hebrews out of eygpt.” This lines up with both traditional and Enoch Judaism that “the angel of Yahweh” led the Hebrews in those days. James also says “our Glorious Lord Jesus.”
So it seems that James church were Nazarenes. So they believed Jesus was “the son of God.” Like many Hebrews who called angels sons of God. But that he was the most trusted of the angels legit by Yahweh’s side. Also it seems by the didache they believed the Eucharist was the new sacrifice which was a meal of some kind. I think they believed Jesus death was seen as the true sacrifice. But it was his knowledge that granted you victory over death. Also it seems that after Jesus “mortal body” was destroyed his angel form was the resurrection. Almost as a knowledge will grant you eternity like the angels. Which lines up with the lost Hebrew gospel .
So I’d say the Nazarenes were the closest we have to the church of James.
Things once hidden are now being revealed.
Professor Tabor, if you were to put a “Non Pauline New Testament” together, which writings would you include? Epistle of James, Jude, Q source, Didache? What about Revelations? Gospel of Thomas? Would any of the synoptic gospels make it in? Could you even have a “New Testament”, or a “New Covenant”, without Paul? Would you personally see any benefit in this exercise, or do you feel there is no real Christianity without Paul?
What is the Q source
It's a list of sayings that yahshua
The majority of scholars believe Mark was the first Gospel written.
So, they believe Matthew and Luke COPIED stories from Mark to create their Gospels.
However, there’re some stories found in both Matthew and Luke which are NOT in Mark.
Thus, scholars have proposed a theory that there was another Scripture (they refer to it as Q) which had the sayings of Jesus and they believe this is the Scripture Luke and Matthew borrowed the sayings (which are not found in Mark) of Jesus from.
No one has ever seen the “Q source” though because it’s a theory.
Thank you, Dr Tabor for more extremely interesting content on UA-cam! I'm on the last 50 pages of Dr Eisenman's book "James the Brother of Jesus" and your video(s) and Eisenman's book(s) left me with this question: If Jesus was for the most part illiterate (being a carpenter or carpenter's son), what about James given how long he was leader of this movement in Jerusalem? I don't know if you agree with Eisenman about James being an '"Opposition Priest" at the Temple, but it does make me wonder how much he could read and write, espessially if he was issuing letters of recommendation and that Paul was a educated dude.
I know a bluecollar “handyman” whose shabby clothes and plain house disguise how much he really earns. He is very street smart and business savvy, which is to say, I wouldn’t be surprised if Joseph and Mary were the same. And that’s how Jesus and James got a leg up. Kind of like Abraham Lincoln.
@@xifangyangren9997 Fwiw, it wasn't meant as a derogatory comment but a question in light of 95% of that population couldn't read or write and that Paul was reported to be literate and that Jesus was not. Otoh, if James worked his way up to be leader of a major Jewish community and was writing letters I was curious what Dr Tabor thought.
@@Zen_Traveler Jesus was literate because he was reading Hebrew scrolls in the synagogue.
Many people over the years have said that Jesus was illiterate. The main argument seems to be that since his family was poor he could not have been educated thus he could not have been able to read. The thing is history does not support that theory. There are numerous examples of people that lived in poverty that could read and write and sometimes even educated themselves in more advanced fields such as mathematics. Really the only way to know if a historical figure was illiterate is if someone stated that they did not know how to read or had to have documents read to them. For most people we will never know if they could read or not.
@@lorisewsstuff1607Maybe...I guess the thing that gets me is that 7 letters of Paul evidently survived and he was reportedly educated. Otoh, nothing from Jesus or James and yet the latter wrote recommendations and lead the community for almost 30 years. Iit seems Paul's letters are the ONLY thing that survived before the fall of the Temple dealing with Jesus and James.
thank you for sharing this information.
So sad.
What does this all mean? Wheres this family ? Where are these peoples descendants?
I read in the apocrypha and notes that James was nicknamed camel knees, as he spent so much time in prayer (or what we call housemaid knee today). And his shocking end makes his story exceptional)
This is tragic
As a complete atheist , those guys were willing to die for their religious ideas
That entire era was tragic. But still it seems that some ppl were and still are taunting death itself.
was Jesus really the son of God nobody really knows if he was then HELL is going to be very crowded, did he die on the cross for our sins, i was a strict vegan christian for 30 years i'm still a vegan but i don't believe he died on the cross the only person Jesus saved was himself and we have to do the same by how we live our lives faith has nothing to do with it, all the early true believers were ascetics in all areas of their lives and obtained true salvation!
Thank you! I have felt this way for decades, but had nothing but my own voice to hear on the subject. I read every word of the Bible, but I didn't figure things out, I just intuited a personal opinion. But, it was just as this lecture says. First rule: not Paul. Paul was a spy, not a "Christian" "saint". He infiltrated the group and spoiled it from the inside. Stalin did the same thing. James the Just was the Dobrynin of Christianity.
Check out 'Caesars Messiah', and 'Creating Christ'.
9:57 - indeed, it's either that, or else a fair amount of copypasting has gone on between the two versions of this story.
In the new covenant those who have been born of the Fathers incorruptible seed have already been resurrected into new life and will never die as Jesus explained. The NT is about eternal life not physical life. The flesh profits nothing. I think this is why people are so confused about what death burial and resurrection actually is referring to in the NT. I was resurrected in 2016 and I have the exact same physical body as I did before. I came out of my grave and now wear my new clothes. This is what the gospel story was trying to say. It was a spiritual metaphor concerning Jesus, not literal.
Paul and James don’t contradict - one is talking about the spirit (Paul) and one is talking about the soul (James) when we are saved our spirit is perfect for eternal. James a pastor is more interested in the personal daily walk as opposed to an apostle that is concerned about the foundations. When James says justification he is talking about being justified in our sanctification not in our salvation. There is perfect harmony between the two.
Do we have any sense or info about what happened to Jude, younger brother of Jesus, and the Jesus supporters when the Romans sacked Jerusalem?
Your assumptions are nonsense. Jesus himself in Mark and Matthew claimed ro be the 2nd YeHoVah figure in the prophecy of Daniel, to the High Priest, and was labeled a blasphemer for it.
Sorry, but you are incorrect.
Willful ignorance isn't really ignorance so much as it is choosing to be wrong. Also, you don't seem to understand what "assumptions" are.
'HoVah' = ruin [ Hebrew ]
How come people don't question Jesus?(I sound like Andy Rooney) why didn't Jesus leave any written.. write . I mean literally, and not just a little? Where are the hand writing single source scroll's written by mystro ?
Just wondering
Scholars and anti-Pauline : “Paul peached that we are saved by faith alone and not by works. Which means, Paul taught we shouldn’t keep any law.”
Paul: “Romans 3:30-31 “since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.”
“Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.”
Could James be the Q source?
Did James believe Jesus would return?
What this is teaching is basically what Muslims believe! The truth! Allah is calling……. We will leave a light on for you 💡
Calling through a PDF file. No thanks.
Dr. Tabor, I brought this same subject to your attention recently, but didn't get a response back....There is also much QUESTION, that it was entirely possible that the Stoning of Steven & the stoning of James, with the clothes of Steven laid at the feet of Paul....are ONE in the SAME event....We have very little to go by, other than the events described in Acts & Josephus...but, we do know for a certain fact, through Acts, & the statements that Peter makes concerning Paul in 2nd Peter 3, and through the dispute Paul had with Peter in Galatians, that Paul despised James & Peter....Paul was a Herodian Edomite and very possibly the direct son of Herod Antipas, who officiated the beheading of John the Baptist...and he was also the step brother of Salome...daughter of Herodias...
Lords prayer - is anti thesis to Paul's teachings.
@@BabaRabba2 Agreed
I thought the q document was fictitional and theoretical not actual
Any chance we could get you to turn some of your books, into audio books, with you as the narrator? My grammr/punctuation isn't great, obviously. The audio would be nice, especially with the author as the narrator.
Maybe I should have looked before I leaped. Oof. Found exactly what I asked for available online.
James is undoubtedly incorporated into the discipleship of Jesus by the appearance of the risen Christ to him. To this James testifies and he shares this testimony with Peter, John and, yes, Paul. It is the organic unfolding of the truth of the risen Jesus wherein lies all the consequences of Christ's paschal sacrifice, the eucharist, Christ's divinity and the Church's ascendancy after the Temple's destruction. Paul, not having direct knowledge of the historical ministry of Jesus emphasizes the consequences; James, having a knowledge of Jesus from before his ministry cannot forget it. Besides, thee may be a Davidic lineage claim that the "brother of the Lord", ie, king, could press.
Can any one explain what James meant by "works?"
I think he means strategy and knowledge. Just as hope is useless without direction, faith is useless without works.
Works- deeds, labor, acts, actions. Etymology is what youre after.
No, don't need a dictionary.@@amalgamating
It means applying the word practically to your life.
James believed if you really have faith, then it has to show through the fruit you produce.
For instance, if you’re a Christian who believes has been saved, you’ve to help the poor. You can’t claim that you’ve been saved through faith while you watch the poor go hungry.
This is why some Christians believe a saving faith produces good works, but works don’t produce salvation.
Paul did NOT contradict James because although Paul taught that, “we are saved by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ”, there were a number of times where he commanded the Churches to stop leaving unrighteous life and live righteously.
In 1 Corinthians 6:10, Paul talks about things that would prevent people from entering into the kingdom of God and this was a letter to the Corinth Church.
Because Paul preached that we’re saved through faith alone (which is a constant theme in the New Testament), people wrongly accuse him that he didn’t want people to live righteously or keep the law.
Romans 6:1-4
“What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?
“By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
“Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?”
“We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.”
Thanks for posting this.
Seems to me the world would've been better off if Christianity had been more influenced by James and less by that weirdo from Tarsus.
Try 'The Gospel of Tugat Galut', the Davidic King, the Messiah. The Truth is out there... 🙏
I’d like to make an observation:
If the letter of James and James himself have been ignored because he doesn’t support Paul’s view of a divine Christ and then salvation with works of the law….then let me say this:
Had this been true, wouldn’t the reformers 1500 yrs after Christ have caught this? Isn’t it a bit telling, that the greatest reformer of all (due to his impact & influence) Martin Luther, discovers peace in Christ through Romans 1:17 justification by faith? If u are a Protestant can u deny the work of the Holy Spirit in Luther’s day against the church, did Luther not restore the authority of the Bible as the greatest authority of all?
But yet Luther along with other reformers does not support justification through works.
Martin Luther wrote Against the Antinomians later in life in which he reversed much of what he earlier said. Antinomianism is being against the law. He came to understand that view is bankrupt.
@@ThePropriate Did any of the works that Luther did as a monk of the strictest order bring him any peace? On the contrary, he states “had I been saved through the these, I would have gained Heaven cause I did them better than anybody” (paraphrasing) . It’s until he encounters Roman’s 1:17 “the just shall live through faith” that he finds rest and is able to move on.
The impact of this cannot be overstated as to how the Christian world received this.
I don't recommend becoming a monk. I recommend following the teaching of Jesus, which were utterly consistent with the law. Neither were a great burden as Paul said. I guess the law was a burden for him because he couldn't stop violating it. You can walk the narrow path of the law, as Jewish Jesus told his Jewish followers, unlike what Paul contradictorily declared. People who deny that you can obey the Law of the Most High are antinomians, lawless and wild.
@@ThePropriate The works come after salvation, they don't give you salvation. Salvation only comes by grace. It is Christ that said that the fruitless branch will be chopped off and used for fire. which supports the idea that your faith in Him must bear fruit. Love you brother
@@tokologomalatsiAu With all due respect, that view originates in Paul's letters and contradicts the teaching of Jesus. Remember that Jesus said that if you have an issue with your brother when you go to offer your sacrifice, go fix the problem with your brother and then come back and do your sacrifice. At that time you will be given grace and forgiveness. You must do righteous works to repair what you have done wrong first. Otherwise, you are conforming to the words of Paul and not Jesus. Jesus had God inside him. Paul did not. Be careful who you put as an idol before God. I hope this has blessed you.
One must ask why they thought James were breaking the law? What would make them think this?
If I am remembering correctly, Robert Eisenman posits that he went into the holy of holies to pray for the people on a day he wasn't supposed to according to Ananus ben Anunus so he called up the Sanhedrin and then had him stoned.
he was rebelling against Lord Tiberius (his brother), Tiberius then had him assassinated by Ananias.
So, it appears that the faith of James and the Jerusalem church, while lost to gentile christians who flirted with idolatry by way of Paul and his ilk, was later to be found in the teachings of the prophet Mohammed. Including the coming kingdom of God the Father, ushered in by his servant, Isa of Nazareth (Jesus, using the Greek term), after his second coming.
James was a mystery indeed
There is an anomally overlooked in this analysis... the gospel preached by Jesus in the Galilee got him killed by the Jews of Jerusalem within three years. Stephen's teaching was an extension of that ministry and cost him his life in a matter of months. When Peter first preached that original gospel in Jerusalem, he and others had to flee for their lives as a bitter persecutionby the Jews broke out against them. When we are first introduced to Paul as Saul, we are told that he was engaged in this persecution of the followers of, "the Way." This , by direct association, would be the gospel of Jesus that he preached in Galilee and it raised lethalJewish objections because it completely bypassed the Law, the Temple worship practices and the understanding that the Jews were the priveledged people of Yahweh... all gentiles were fit to belong to Yahweh if only they turned o him in repentance and began listening to hos voice.
After Paul's conversion and reception of the gospel of the Way from Jesus, we see the Asian Jews from Acts giving witness to the nature of his gospel that he peached everywhere to everyone from the beginning.
It is impossible that James preached the same gospel in Jerusalem in the late 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s and managed to survive all that time without getting killed. Of particular contradiction to the idea that James was the faithful broher and envoy of Jesus's gospel of the Way is that when Paul goes to Jerusalem in the late 40s, he finds James leading and Peter living comfortably in the community with the rest of Jesus's brothers and supposed original disciple/apostles. In their mission to the circumcision, they had to have drastically changed the original gospel to make it palatable enough to the Jews of Jerusalem that hey were allowed to live among them and to even fully participate in the Temple worship practices. This would be the form of the original gospel of the Way that Paul charges is no real gospel at all but rather a perversion of the original gospel of the Way.
Under James's leadership, the Jewish identity was added to the gospel of Jesus, and he was made out to be the Jewish messiah of Davidic origins. This is the gospel and the people that Paul and his associates fight tooth and nail against... a battle they eventually lose.
What happened after the destruction of the Temple is that Helenization occured to the perverted form of the gospel of the Way that had been changed to a teaching about Jesus as the Christ. This new form was still faithful to the Hebrew Genesis understanding of creation. However, this new form, it is plain to see, was not the original gospel... when Paul went to Jerusalem in the late 40s, it was not to seek aproval for his new gospel to the gentiles, but in reality, check out the new gospel that James Peter and the rest of the pillars of the faith had concocted to make it suitable to their new ministry to the, "Circumcision." ... and as one can tell by his attitude in Galatians, he was not impressed!
It was the Helenized New Testament authors who added the dualistic elements to the person, ministry, and teachings of Jesus, and interpolated Pauls letters to deceptively make it appear that his gospel was the gospel of Christ. James abused the person and ministry to reinstate all things Jewish under Jesus's authority, and the New Testament authors played along at first and went so far as to use the same method to abuse the person, minisstry and teachings of Paul for their purpose of incorporating their dualisic ideas into James perversion of Jesus's authentic gospel of the Way. The authentic and original form of the gospel was purposefully and effectively, subverted and hidden away by both the James community and these later anonymous NT authors.
As a move of Yahweh, the gospel of the Way would have been an extension of the Hebrew Genesis understanding of reality and not dualistic in nature. Paul's preaching would be in keeping with this, and further, have nothing to do with Jesus as the Jewish messiah. To the extent we find anything to do with Christ and dualism attributed to Paul by any NT document, including his own letters, we have insight into the degree that Paul's person, ministry and teachings were distorted by the later gospel of Christ interpolators.
This understanding of what actually happened indicates that this form of the original gospel of the Way may be the source of the mysterious Q sayings of Jesus. As far as I can see, this explanation fits our limited knowledge of this time much better than current understandings proposed.
Jesus called himself Son of Man and gave us Two Commandments on which hang the Law and the Prophets.
What does it mean "to hang"? I am always confused by that phrase.
@@Tom-sd9jb
There were about 613 laws given to the Israelites.
If you read these laws, you could group them into two; one being about how we have to worship and obey God alone without worshipping other gods and the other involving laws that would prevent your from doing bad stuff to other people.
Thus in Matthew 22:37-38, Jesus made that statement;
1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
The law and the prophets hang on these two because if you love God with all your heart, soul and mind, you won’t go and worship another god (a false god).
Also, if you love your neighbour as yourself, you won’t feel jealous about him, commit adultery with his wife, cause physical harm to him and all the other laws that prohibit people from doing bad stuff.
I don’t necessarily agree with all your points though I do appreciate some of your teachings, in particular you paint the picture that Paul distorted the original teachings about Jesus’ divinity but Paul didn’t write the Gospel of John did he? You refer to a Q source document however that’s speculation since no document has been found that you’re referring to. Actually during the 2nd temple period there were Rabbi’s who believed in the Two Powers in Heaven, Paul was a scholar unlike James who most likely was a tradesman and not a trained scholar. I believe in Jesus’ divinity because He transformed my life, I had a similar Saul on the road to Damascus event in my life about 40 years ago and I’ve never been the same since ❤️👍✝️
What if the man James was also incarnating in the time of the second coming? A reinterpretation
A faith w/o deeds is. like big resounding bell ......hollow.....
Tabor, your argument is emotionally compelling but neglected to elucidate what advantages were afforded to Annas for this initiative of his order. I agree with your perspective - so please get up from the table Mr. Tubby and answer our questions.
Hadith on Maryam: Why Mary is called sister of Aaron
Mughira ibn Shu’ba reported: When I came to Najran, the Christian monks asked me, “You recite the verse, ‘O sister of Aaron,’ (19:28) but Moses was born long before Jesus by many years.” When I came back to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, I asked him about it and he said, “Verily, they used to name people with the names of prophets and righteous people who had passed before them.”
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2135
Grade: Sahih (authentic)
Mary is called the sister of Aaron because your false prophet was an illiterate caravan robber who confused Mary the mother of Jesus, with Miriam (Mary) the sister of Moses. If your false prophet could read, he would know that these women lived fourteen centuries apart.
I find it amazing that you would arbitrarily cite his dumbness, without recognizing that what you cite, authenticates your silly beliefs as false.
@@fluentreasoningchannel5778 Try to understand, don't jump to conclusion.
@@HHasan-of2vi So that you may know that I’m not jumping to conclusions and that I know precisely what I am talking about… the “sister of Aaron” was laughed at, even back when Muhammad was asserting that the mother of Jesus was the sister of Aaron.
When confronted by Christians about this error, Muhammad’s response was that people during the time of Mary was to refer to pious persons as the sister of…. See Sahih Muslim 5326
We have no record of such a practice in first century Israel, nor do we have this practice elsewhere in the Quran. The obvious conclusion is that Muhammad made a mistake and tried to correct it, by making something up.
The Christians at that time rejected this explanation (sister of Aaron as a metaphor) because they knew nothing of this practice.
Moreover, in Ibn Kathir’s commentary on Sura 19:28 we read that Aisha, states “you have lied” when defending the authenticity of the Quran. That is, someone tells Aisha that Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the sister of Aaron aren’t the same person and she calls him a liar.
See Q66:12, where the confusion and error is unequivocally certified. “And Mary, daughter of Imran…”
Sahih al-Bukkari 3769 “Maryam, the daughter of Imran…”
Imran is the father of Moses. Are these verses metaphors too?
The Quran identifies Mary the mother of Jesus, as the sister of Aaron and as the daughter of Imran. You place your trust in a silly book… that is not the word of God.
I thought that Josephus's reference in the James story was to a different Jesus. This was just priests at each other's throats.
It is possible in my view that the Hebrew mind/psychological disposition was in some sense completely hostile to the Gospel. And although God was able to bring a clean thing out of an unclean thing and a straight out of a crocked that the non-Hebrew mind provided a more fertile ground. Jesus hinted at these things when he said one puts new wine in new bottle skins. The Hebrew mind was a very constricted one the non-Hebrew mind demonstrated in the elastic mind of Paul is the better wineskin into which to put the ever advancing and ever expanding Gospel of Christ.
I perceive a coldness in the Hebrew mind. A kind of distance as they see the Christ more through a earthly kingship mentality. The "gentile" I think furnished Christianity with the worshipful personal God dwelling in the heart that has brought in a real compassionate/passionate love. Somewhat like how the Romans roads network gave a free passage to spread the word and the Greeks a language that affords abstract thought. For we were by and large entering the age of the "spirit and truth" worship. A religion void of all external paraphernalia and dependent totally on an internal system spiritual thoughts.
I could be wrong.
False! The canon had already been accepted by the early Christians prior to the 4th C. If you are referring to the Council of Nicea the books of the canon were not even discussed.
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT
JAMES WROTE TO JEWS PAUL WROTE TO THE GENTILES.
I am not an expert by any means, but I have read the account Josephus gives of the death of James, the brother of Jesus, and it seems to me that this passage bears all the hallmarks of having been tampered with in order to make it seem as if the "James" and the "Jesus" that are mentioned are the ones we all know and love from the New Testament.
In the context, it seems much more plausible to me that the "James" and "Jesus" mentioned are the sons of Damneus, and that that the clause _"..., who was called Christ, ..."_ after the mention of "Jesus" was just inserted by some well-meaning Christian scribe. If you take out this single clause, I don't think there is any way you can read the passage as referring to anyone else than the sons of Damneus.
Contemporary scholars actually consider the Luke&Acts' author to use Josephus as source, and that passage as true.
@@Ucedo95 I know, and like I said, I am not an expert, but even so, I cannot read that passage and think anything other than that the "Jesus" and "James" mentioned there are the sons of Damneus. The passage makes so much more sense that way, that it is impossible for me to agree with the experts on this.
No crucifixion was ever done at the hands of any priest, it was a Roman punishment.
Joshua was not crucified, he went to France. Thats a paulean creation mythos.
James was the Beloved Disciple who wrote the Johannine works. His writings created the belief that Jesus was the only son of god. He was wrong
.
Did you ever think, Dr. Tabor, that you are Jame’s the Just reincarnated?
The Bogumils in the Balkans had Jamse's Biblle. And were persecuted by the Catholic church.
The messages of Paul is not only by Paul. It is also clear from the Gospel of John. I think several points here was not accurate. Please be careful.
Was not Thomas Jesus' identical twin brother (which is why Judas had to signnal Jesus out in the garden so the soldiers arrested the right person)?
Hmm, it's a surprise to listen to this again and realise that Dr Tabor is actually making the case that the Greek letter of James is written by the actual illiterate Aramaic speaking James from the book of Galatians and Corinthians!
By contrast, most scholars would point out that it's much more likely to be a Greek writer using Paul, and the synoptic gospels, as sources. The verses quoted in this video are the main evidence for this.
PS and the book of Jude as well! Fringe, for sure, and evidence would be required. Fascinating, nonetheless.
Paul led them astray. Still doing it.
His name was Jacob not James. His name has meaning. “for the Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and glorified himself in Israel” (Isaiah 44:23). Clue
His teaching doesn't contradict Paul, nice bias there. Not everybody should be teachers.
Paul says eating meat offered to idols is ok.
@@thegallantsaint2034 No, he says if someone tells you it is don't eat it.
He said if you're in the market and buy meat and don't know if someone did or not, you will be okay ( because there's no way of knowing, are you going to eat nothing? )
@@LoftOfTheUniverse Your example of not knowing is another matter. I want to point out that Paul teaches contrary to Jesus in _wilfully_ eating meat sacrificed to idols. If you read 1 Corinthians Ch 8, Paul basically says if one's conscience is weak, and another with a stronger conscience influences the weaker to eat meat sacrificed to idols, then you sin against the Messiah. However, if your conscience is strong, and you wilfully eat sacrificed to idols, then it's ok.
This is bizarre.
Please read what Jesus said about this matter in Revelation 2:14. If Paul does not contradict Jesus, then Paul would unequivocally say that eating meat sacrificed to idols is a sin, period.
@@thegallantsaint2034 No, Paul isn't telling people to eat meat sacrificed to idols.
He's accurately saying all that meat is just meat regardless of a false idol that is nothing. If you never were a pagan it probably wouldn't bother you. If I were a pagan, then a convert, it would probably mess me up. Paul was saying to be considerate of weaker people who feel that it compromises them.
Paul ALSO says: 1 cor 10:25-32 and both passages need to be read together instead of ripped out individually.
Jesus said it's what comes out of a man's mouth that makes them unclean, not what goes in.
@@LoftOfTheUniverse Revelation 2:14 - it is clear where Jesus stands on this matter. There's no ambiguity.
James (the brother of Jesus) says in Acts 15:20 "but to write to them to hold back from the _pollutions_ _of_ _idols_ , and from fornication, and from things strangled, and blood."
1 Cor 10:25-32 is just as contradictory, as Paul tells us not to at least examine whether this meat is polluted/defiled.
You mentioned "Jesus said it's what comes out of a man's mouth that makes them unclean, not what goes in." - Matt 15:1-20. The context in which Jesus was speaking was regarding the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. They tell everyone to keep the dietary laws about what is clean/unclean/washing hands yet they speak lies and have evil thoughts. So morally, they are filthy; and no amount of clean foods/hygiene is able to offset this. The moral laws take precedence over dietary laws.
Because you linked the dietary laws to eating defiled meat, so I am anticipating the question: "Is eating meat sacrificed to idols just an extension of dietary laws?" The answer is no. Eating meat sacrificed to idols goes beyond the act of just eating. Paul argues that eating is just eating. But Jesus obviously takes exception to this. It is appeasing false pagan gods and it it violates the commandment of "you shall have no other gods before Me." God detests it. Paul's argument is akin to saying adultery is just sex.
Paulus loved Jesus Messiah over ALL things and he preach the supernatural greatness of Him..
James' brother was John the Baptist (also the same as the apostle and Revelator) who received his NEW NAME of Salvation (Hebrew Yeshua) at his spiritual birth at the Jordan, the same new name all firstborn sons of the spirit receive. Revelation 3:12. The chosen elect who are prophets, witnesses, suffering servants, kings, high priests. The saviors who gather in the lost flock. James 5:20. The seed/offspring of David.
The light of salvation was personified in the gospels as a separate god-man. It was actually John speaking Salvation (word of God) to the people. John the old man 1st Adam vs his new man, last Adam. It was the same man whos was dualized as two men. We all have dual natures if we are born from above while in our earthly bodies. We must crush our old man, the Satan, so the new man can live.
All elect firstfruits sons born of the light are divine eloheim not Elohiem. The coming of the LORD in Isaiah 40:3 was personified as a human being in the gospels. The anointed one is the spirit that is born in his elect firstborn sons. The light that rises within us.
He sounds like Jesus
Lol, Mt Tabor on the Just😎
Nice work, but I think we need some qualifyers here on the epistles of Jude and James.
The epistle of jude, Judas, was supposed to be written by Yahudah brother of Yeshua_.
This authority has problems. Tomas (Yahudah Dumas) is supposed to be the brother of Yeshu_ but by some his twin (dumas) brother. In the syriac tradition Dumas traveled about the east and eventually went to India in 52CE. As dumas traveled in syriac circles the written language he would have used is syriac, an aramaic derivative that was still used until recently and is still read among syriac christians. In their tradition, the fate of Dumas in Indus was not learned for hundreds of years. Whereas Dumas was in India scholars place the epistle between 65ish and 100 CE, after Dumas had supposedly had departed, but according to lore he lived to about 70-75 CE. But the letter mentions nothing of India or his sojourns in SW asia. So the Yahudah of the epistle could not be 'that' brother, he must have been some other brother of Yeshu_? Another brother who wrote greek? It seems the provenance of this epistle has at least a couple of question marks.
The epistle of Jude is part of another of another mystery. 2 Peter, a favorite source amoung protestant clergy in Sunday services, but is a chimera of different source material and almost certainly not petrine. Among its problems it appears that an editor sliced Jude into a dozen pieces and wove his sermonal theology between the pieces, going so far as to denounce those that are writing false works (you know like the king of fake news calling the news fake).
The epistle of James (Yacov) is less troubled than Jude but still troubled. When the church fathers got around to create a wall around their doctrine, the fall out was that the Evyon's fractured descendants, the ebionites were declared neither christian or Jew. And at least in definition this was correct. While it is certainly true that the epistle of James represented a conservative piety of second temple adherance, it should be noted that the Q source according to DR McDonald does not employ the christ title once. Moreover, among the Evyon, Yacov was the more conservative. We can see this in Paul's letter where he remarks upon Cephas for fearing association with gentiles when Yacov's watchers were about.
There is no doubt that among the 'Jesus Movement' that Yacov had a low christology, but how exactly low was this. We could assume that both the Baptizer and Yeshu_ had prophet status. Within the culture people like Cyrus were deemed messiah, and we also know there are beliefs in a messianic pair, a priestly and davidic messiah. So that Yacov might have though of Yeshu_ as the priestly messiah. If that were the case then Q, didache and the heresiologies might have mentioned this. The problem with priestly designation is that the priest needs to have authority to perform rituals, and its rather difficult to assume authority from a small band of itenerate followers.
The Davidic messiah is something I consider a city-State tradition, pagan notions. One might be pulled to think well the Deuteeonomic history of the late conquest overemphasizes the violent nature of the Israelites. But David is more than violent, he is disrespectful, engages in sexual behaviors that would be considered pagan, fights for the enemies of Israel, and commits religious sacriledge. The image we have of David is a bad-ass fair weather loyalist of Israel, with an emphasis on bad-ass. What we see in the story is that David is a Power symbol, as Samuel would say, so you want a king, here is what you are going to get. As Israel follows him he is a good King, but as it turns so does he. Sound familiar? Narcissistic Yahweh of Judah? Does this sound anything like Yeshu_: a voice in the desert, a mystic in a cave, a blessing on a hillside? And when exactly was Yeshu_ anointed, his baptism, a self-revealed mystical experience?
The third level of messiah comes from the behavior, as the baptizer and Yacov both stood up to tyranny (Herod and Ananus) we could call the lesser messiahs in the vein of king cyrus. But Yeshu_ did what? turned tables in the gentil quarter of the temple, hardly credible. What injustice did he exactly stand up to? In Q he makes note that the sword of his tongue was to cut yahudah apart because they were bad vineyard custodians. Or was it the fact that he saved a sinful woman from her sinful persecutors? Was it his treatment of Samaratins? Lingering among the poor, sinners and tax collectors? When I look for a most conservative reason for his execution, I find that herod Antipas in need of allies warmed up to Pilate, and when he heard that Yeshu_ was in Judea had his allies in the sanhedrin capture Yeshu_ and coherced Pilate to execute him, quietly, with as few followers around to witness the transpiring event. Yes, it is possible that the Evyon saw this as a grave injustice and that the unrighteous sacrificed the righteous to save sinner skin. What Yeshu_ really stood for was apocalyptic judaism and the Saducees and Herodians did not. From Yeshu_'s point of view it was mystic reinforcement, but from Yacov's point of view did he see that as crazy (See Mark)?
But Yacov was painfully aware of the tricky politics in Jerusalem and he walked a fine line between the watchful eyes of the saducees (anti-apocalyptic) and the mystical desires of the disciples to expand their messaging to wider categories of the Yahweh reverent. He went so far as to gaun the respect of many Jews as being 'the Just'. Saying that Yeshu_ was either a priestly or kingly messiah would have had negative consequences, but I could see him using the messianic lingo in a limited context if Yacov really believed Herodian influence was a plague on Israel.
The Epistle of James (Yakov) is not written in galillean aramaic or hebrew but in greek. The title he uses for Yeshu_ is similar to Paul's. While Paul's notion of anointment is both transcendent and kingly, there is no reason to believe that Yacov believed either. Thus these two passages minimally are interpolations. The rest of the text fits into Jewish notions but could be from practically any Jewish member of the movement. I personally fall into the camp that Yacov is the aramaic source of the letter, but I need to be clear that its a 'Christian' hand that translated and inscribed it and for that James appears christian in name, but not in doctrine. Yacov would fall in the camp of people Paul calls the anti-christ. They know of Jesus and have seen his deeds and yet they do not believe in the christology that Paul believes in.
Rabbi Micheal Skobac has three videos on the epistle of James at Tenakh Talk. These videos are well worth watching as he goes through each chapter. What we gain from the videos is what evyon peity looks like. For anyone wanting to join the modern Nazarene movements these videos will be eye-opening. The Nazarenes of today are not the Nazarenes of the first century.
Note: The idea of anointment in the Jewish context is extremely complex, I must admit. I want to point out the ceremony was practiced in syroanatolian city-states and assyria in an earlier period as well as egypt. The authority of the ceremony in Samuel appears ad-hoc. The key problem I see in the OT is that the transition from canaanite religion and Judaism appears to transition around Eli and the loss of the Ark and demise of Shiloh. It is unclear whether Eli was a Elyonist, a splinter sect of Geirizim, or Yahwist. But by the time the Ark reaches Jerusalem, Jahwism is on the rise and David is at the center of it. This may be an Akhenaten moment in Israel and the anointment notion is borrowed from Egypt in an effort to create a sense of Holy that could not be derived from Israel tribal notions. Again I can only see the pagan-magick nature of its meaning. When I see religious groups emphasizing the christ it appears that they are either trying to fashion a new god or split a god into greco-roman attributes.
Can you place chapters on your post?
This is more similar to the Jesus of ISLAM than the Jesus of Christianity
q source is a theory not a fact and the obviousl fact as to why the gospels are similar is simply that they all talk about the same JESUS during the same time period
This is because the evangelist continues to b mistakenly thought to b the "beloved" of Jesus
So, James believes Jesus is the Davidic king or Messiah promised and yet still Jesus died? Why would James hold that view when Jesus died without assuming the throne?
If James didn't believe Jesus is divine and will return to judge as Lord then what's the purpose of his movement?
This is the contradiction of James Tabor when he decides to put words into people's mouths.
James must actually be the dumbest guy out there for him to proglaim Jesus as Messiah, not divine, and died.
According to James Tabor James was stupid to realise his brother was a fraud.