This is funny, coming from someone who specifically state we shouldn't use Acts or the gospels to read Paul. Unless of course you think it backs you. Then it is ok.Yet somehow fails to mention that Jesus' brother became a religious leader of a Christian community. Heck, he doesn't even so much as mention his name in Luke or Acts.
And you are wrong. He just doesn't specifically say "james jesus' brother." After "James, brother of John" dies in Acts 12, Peter makes sure that James is told about what happened (Acts 12:17).
That's all very sweet but Acts is confusing because there's no explanation as to whom this James is that is being referred to after reading that James was killed.
Again, Luke is writing to a christian community. The whole purpose of using kin is to distinguish between various people. If you don't need to, because it is obvious, you don't have to. James the brother of John is dead.
No he doesn't. He doesn't write a word about Jesus' brother being a religious leader. Not one word.
Again, you make this claim simply because he doesn't use the identification formula "james, the brother of the lord." Of course, he does mention "James, the brother of Jude" and Jude was another brother of Jesus. Its entirely plausible that Luke wanted to downplay James' significance. Or not. We don't know. We have enough information to know from Paul, the gospels, and Josephus that James, Jesus' brother, was fairly well known. Luke makes mention of an important James other than the brother of John. He doesn't specifically state this is Jesus' brother, which would be helpful to us. But he wasn't writing to us. He was writing to christians, documenting what he thought important in Jesus' mission and in the early days of the church. If there were only two big players named James, and one of them dies, then he doesn't really need to say "james, the brother of the lord" does he?
Moreover, Luke does explicitly state that James had brothers in Luke 8:20-1.
This is simply another example of you trying to manipulate sources to support an untenable position.
Paul, Josephus, and Mark all record that Jesus had a brother named James.
You claim that the later sources can't be read into Paul. Then you want to use Acts to support your claim that Paul, Josephus, and Mark are all wrong. This is the same Acts you called a piece of "2nd century mythmaking." Hypocrite?
hmmmm...
Last edited: