How would an Historical JC be Defined?

[steeltoes]

How am I indoctrinated? This stuff was never taught to me in church. It was never brought up in Bible studies or the like. And quite honestly, I have rejected much of what the "Church" has taught. To try to dismiss me as being indoctrinated is foolish.

The conclusion you are making is based off of a misunderstanding of the culture, and the language. People were identified by others, or by titles. There weren't last names. Since many people had the same name then, in order to identify them, they did so by naming a family member (either one that was important, or a father), or some title. And looking of Josephus, he names many different people named Jesus. After all, it was a highly common name. Just because to people share the name Jesus, that does not make them the same person.

Now, for the way that Josephus phrases this section, it is apparent that to different people with the name Jesus are being talked about. If they were the same person, Josephus would not need to identify each in specific manners. Either Josephus would have identified them in the same exact manner repeatedly, or, as we see with James (and more commonly), by simply using his first name. After all, he was already identified, and there was no reason to identify him again as the reader knows who it is.

Going to the actual title, the Greek is 'Ιησου του λεγουμενου Χριστου. It translates to something like Jesus, who is called Christ. The manner in which it is phrased does not allow for the term Christ (which here is clearly a title) to mean anointed. It does not make sense in the context of the phrase as the term Christ is being used as a title.

It is not indoctrination that makes me accept this idea. It is research, and the fact that I know the language, and have done a lot of work on Josephus.
How doesn't literary Christian tradition not support what I am saying? At what point does literary Christian tradition deny that Jesus had a brother name James? While yes, the Gospel tradition shows that James was not a follower of Jesus during the life of Jesus, it does show (with Acts) that he became a follower afterwards. Why should that be surprising?

Also, I did not just adopt the position that Jesus is historical. In fact, I spent years thinking that Jesus did not exist. I was a mythicist. After I did actual research on the subject, I then accepted that there was a historical Jesus. Please do not try to comment on my background when you have no idea where I am coming from.
Or, maybe I just actually understand Josephus, the language he wrote in, and the manner in which ancient sources used to distinguish between individuals.

Acts does not support you either. Luke/Acts does not so much as name the siblings of Jesus. You are in a little over your head desperately trying to link a believing James with a written tradition. You won't find one in the gospels or Acts nor the epistle writers. The epistle writers do not support Paul meeting with a brother of an earthly Jesus. The James and the Jude epistles do not support the notion, nothing does. I am afraid that you are so indoctrinated that you have nothing but unsupported belief to offer anyone that you are trying to convince. Unfortunately you are up against one that has so far refused to take a position, I just read people's claims and check them out and yours are not substantiated. It's not to say that Jesus is not historical, just that your arguments don't hold water.

 

[outhouse]

How would anyone be in a position to know that, assuming he even existed? Maybe one of those impressed with his teachings was literate and willing to take some notes?

And he very well may have. But I doubt it. He was a nobody while alive. I doubt he considered himself a messiah, if he did, it went to his head and got himself killed.

It is stated we only have a fraction of the text that once existed.

War
Natural disaster
purposely destroyed

take your pick


Only Romans is attributed to Tertius.

Poor peasants with heart and good will, could not afford anything. And that is exactly what we see with the original sect.

 

[fallingblood]

It isn't just that, however. We have the very striking fact that church doctrine followed Paul's path, which broke with Jewish law. According to his own words, Peter preached against that. All of these people had incomes that depended on their credibility as leaders in the movement. I can see where they might have reached some temporary accommodation that fell apart. Or maybe not. All of this is way too dependent on speculation to merit the kind of steadfast credibility that scholars give to the fragmentary historical record that comes down to us. We simply must acknowledge the obvious efforts made by people in those times to shape the record to confirm their doctrinal assertions. And a key part of the doctrine became that Jesus Christ was a real historical person who was crucified by Pontius Pilate, not the Jews. The custodians of the record were aware of future generations, and they were very consciously manipulating the record that was transmitted to us--either through neglect of alternative perspectives or outright suppression, modification, and censorship. Too much of the historicist argument is based on a myopic view of the data that is being analyzed.

You make very good points.

I think one of the large problems is the destruction of Jerusalem. It was a huge changing point for Judaism, and what would be Christianity. It also greatly changed the direction that both went.

I agree with much of what you're saying though. The historicist argument, I think, hasn't developed as well as it could as it really has never been challenged, or the challenges were not seen as being serious. Bruno Bauer denied the historicity of Jesus in the 1800's, yet it was largely ignored (and there were a couple before that as well, but they basically went without much notice). Since then, the view really was not addressed. So when scholars end up having to defend such, they just are not really prepared, especially for a more reasonable argument.

 

[fallingblood]

Acts does not support you either. Luke/Acts does not so much as name the siblings of Jesus. You are in a little over your head desperately trying to link a believing James with a written tradition. You won't find one in the gospels or Acts nor the epistle writers. The epistle writers do not support Paul meeting with a brother of an earthly Jesus. The James and the Jude epistles do not support the notion, nothing does. I am afraid that you are so indoctrinated that you have nothing but unsupported belief to offer anyone that you are trying to convince. Unfortunately you are up against one that has so far refused to take a position, I just read people's claims and check them out and yours are not substantiated. It's not to say that Jesus is not historical, just that your arguments don't hold water.

You didn't understand my argument then.

The Gospel of Mark and Matthew state that James was the brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55). So yes, it is in the Gospel tradition. And Acts states James was a leader of the Jerusalem group. Seeing that Paul also speaks of this same James, and labels him as the brother of Jesus, the assumption is sound that the James in Acts is one and the same as the brother of Jesus.

The Pauline epistles, specifically Galatians, does state that Paul met with James, the brother of Jesus. There is no suggestion that this is anything but an earthly figure.

And you're only argument that you have used is that I am indoctrinated into believing stuff. That is an attack on the messenger, which makes me assume that you don't actually have a logical argument, and thus have to resort to trying to discredit me, when you in fact have no idea of my background.

 

[steeltoes]

You didn't understand my argument then.

The Gospel of Mark and Matthew state that James was the brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55). So yes, it is in the Gospel tradition. And Acts states James was a leader of the Jerusalem group. Seeing that Paul also speaks of this same James, and labels him as the brother of Jesus, the assumption is sound that the James in Acts is one and the same as the brother of Jesus.

The Pauline epistles, specifically Galatians, does state that Paul met with James, the brother of Jesus. There is no suggestion that this is anything but an earthly figure.

And you're only argument that you have used is that I am indoctrinated into believing stuff. That is an attack on the messenger, which makes me assume that you don't actually have a logical argument, and thus have to resort to trying to discredit me, when you in fact have no idea of my background.

The gospel writers tell us that Jesus' brothers were non believers, that is the gospel tradition. Luke/Acts does not name Jesus' siblings, so again you cannot assume that James in Acts is the same as the brother of Jesus, you have nothing to base such an assumption on when reading Acts. You wonder why I think you are so soundly indoctrinated, well these are some of the reasons why, you simply assume evidence of Jesus where none exists.

Paul states he met with the brother of the Lord, you interpret Paul to mean that he met the brother of Jesus when nothing in the epistles otherwise support that interpretation. The epistles James and Jude put nails in that coffin, Paul stating that he did not receive his gospel from any man puts another nail in that coffin. Paul could have been referring to the James that was later portrayed as a son of Zebedee that we read of in the gospels for all we know, it's a safer assumption since Paul viewed James as a religious leader.

Again, none of this is to suggest that Jesus is not historical, just that you give nothing but tired old arguments that are unsupported.

 

[Havitor]

All that historians are saying is that the man Jesus of Galilee actually excited. He was a real person in human history. The question of miracles or not is a matter of faith, it has been and always will be. I think it is wonderful that history has acknowledged the existence of the man Jesus. This opens the opportunity for us to testify of Christ and his miracles.

A true historian should not take a position of faith concerning a point in history. The definition of history is... recorded information from the past. It should never be the position of a historian to take sides. Just report the information from all sources.

It sounds like you want them to choose a side. That is not the kind of historian we want. We want one that provides us with all information from all sides. Then we can choose for ourselves. Hopefully all will choose Christ.

Every knee shall bow and tongue confess, that Jesus is the Christ.

 

[fallingblood]

The gospel writers tell us that Jesus' brothers were non believers, that is the gospel tradition. Luke/Acts does not name Jesus' siblings, so again you cannot assume that James in Acts is the same as the brother of Jesus, you have nothing to base such an assumption on when reading Acts. You wonder why I think you are so soundly indoctrinated, well these are some of the reasons why, you simply assume evidence of Jesus where none exists.

Acts mentions that James is a leader with the Jerusalem group. From Paul, we know that the leaders of the Jerusalem group are John, Peter, and James, the brother of Jesus. Thus, through just a little rational thought, we can come to the conclusion that the James mentioned in Acts, that is a leader of the Jerusalem group, is also the James that Paul speaks about. There simply is no other James that is a leader of the Jerusalem group.

Paul states he met with the brother of the Lord, you interpret Paul to mean that he met the brother of Jesus when nothing in the epistles otherwise support that interpretation. The epistles James and Jude put nails in that coffin, Paul stating that he did not receive his gospel from any man puts another nail in that coffin. Paul could have been referring to the James that was later portrayed as a son of Zebedee that we read of in the gospels for all we know, it's a safer assumption since Paul viewed James as a religious leader.

The epistles of James and Jude were written by unknown figures. How do they even factor in here?

Paul uses the term Lord for Jesus. This is obvious if you read his epistles. Paul calls James the brother of the Lord. Since Paul has already made clear that when he speaks of the Lord, that means Jesus, the conclusion that we come to is that this James is the brother of Jesus.

Again, none of this is to suggest that Jesus is not historical, just that you give nothing but tired old arguments that are unsupported.

Is that why you haven't touched the Josephus passage again? You can run around this information as much as you want, but misunderstandings are not credible.

 

[steeltoes]

Acts mentions that James is a leader with the Jerusalem group. From Paul, we know that the leaders of the Jerusalem group are John, Peter, and James, the brother of Jesus. Thus, through just a little rational thought, we can come to the conclusion that the James mentioned in Acts, that is a leader of the Jerusalem group, is also the James that Paul speaks about. There simply is no other James that is a leader of the Jerusalem group.

Who were Peter, James, and John as portrayed in the gospels and Acts? Where did Jesus' brother James fit into all of this? You really should read the gospels and Acts because it is apparent that you are grasping at straws here. Your assumptions conflict within the very writings you are using for support.

 

[steeltoes]

The epistles of James and Jude were written by unknown figures. How do they even factor in here?

The unknown authors of the James and Jude epistles applied those names to give an air of authority, or so it is claimed. If that is indeed the case, all the more reason for these unknowns to introduce this James as a brother of Jesus if he in fact was known to be. Instead we are left with Jude being introduced as the brother of James, and James being introduced as a servant of Christ. Nails in the coffin of this James being a brother of Jesus. Again, these writings do not support your interpretation of Paul meeting the brother of Jesus, you might want to think about that.

 

[steeltoes]

Is that why you haven't touched the Josephus passage again? You can run around this information as much as you want, but misunderstandings are not credible.

I posted the Josephus passage. You have a need to see two different Jesus' there because you are on a mission. This Jesus was the brother of a James and the son of Damneus, no conflict there, but then I am not looking for a biblical Jesus in all of this.

 

[fallingblood]

Who were Peter, James, and John as portrayed in the gospels and Acts? Where did Jesus' brother James fit into all of this? You really should read the gospels and Acts because it is apparent that you are grasping at straws here. Your assumptions conflict within the very writings you are using for support.

How do they conflict? They don't.

In Acts 15:13-21, we see James taking a leadership position at the council. He is the leader of the Jerusalem group.

In Acts 21:17, James is once again addressed as being in the leadership position. In this verse, Paul goes to James, and all of the elders. The manner in which it is phrased shows us that James was considered the leader.

So it is clear that James is considered to be the leader of the Jerusalem group by Acts. We can then compare this to Paul, and what Paul has to say. He also lists a James as the leader of the Jerusalem group. This same James, Paul states is the brother of Jesus.

Since there is only one James who is talked about as being the leader of this Jerusalem group, we can conclude that both Acts and Paul are talking about the same exact person. There really is no other James that it can be, as there is only one leader, and both Acts and Paul agree that it is James. Paul simply clarifies this even further.

The unknown authors of the James and Jude epistles applied those names to give an air of authority, or so it is claimed. If that is indeed the case, all the more reason for these unknowns to introduce this James as a brother of Jesus if he in fact was known to be. Instead we are left with Jude being introduced as the brother of James, and James being introduced as a servant of Christ. Nails in the coffin of this James being a brother of Jesus. Again, these writings do not support your interpretation of Paul meeting the brother of Jesus, you might want to think about that.

How is it a nail in the coffin? So any James that is mentioned must be the same exact person? And Jude that is mentioned must be the same exact person? Such an interpretation only shows a lack of knowledge on the subject of how people were acknowledged.

Jesus had a disciple named James. The Gospels never state that this disciple was the same James that is described as his brother. The fact that the Epistle of James does not label him as the brother of Jesus only suggests that a different James was being referenced.

 

[fallingblood]

I posted the Josephus passage. You have a need to see two different Jesus' there because you are on a mission. This Jesus was the brother of a James and the son of Damneus, no conflict there, but then I am not looking for a biblical Jesus in all of this.

I don't have a need to see two different Jesuss, I simply know how Josephus distinguishes between people, and I explained that.

Josephus never states that this Jesus was both the brother of James, as well as the son of Damneus. If Jesus was both, Josephus would have addressed him as such from the beginning, not by introducing him twice in the same passage. The reading you are suggesting makes no sense as why would anyone introduce an individual twice in the same passage?

You can continue to just state that your view is right, but it means absolutely nothing unless you can actually show why my argument is incorrect. I supported my view, you haven't.

 

[steeltoes]

How do they conflict? They don't.

In Acts 15:13-21, we see James taking a leadership position at the council. He is the leader of the Jerusalem group.

In Acts 21:17, James is once again addressed as being in the leadership position. In this verse, Paul goes to James, and all of the elders. The manner in which it is phrased shows us that James was considered the leader.

So it is clear that James is considered to be the leader of the Jerusalem group by Acts. We can then compare this to Paul, and what Paul has to say. He also lists a James as the leader of the Jerusalem group. This same James, Paul states is the brother of Jesus.

Since there is only one James who is talked about as being the leader of this Jerusalem group, we can conclude that both Acts and Paul are talking about the same exact person. There really is no other James that it can be, as there is only one leader, and both Acts and Paul agree that it is James. Paul simply clarifies this even further.
How is it a nail in the coffin? So any James that is mentioned must be the same exact person? And Jude that is mentioned must be the same exact person? Such an interpretation only shows a lack of knowledge on the subject of how people were acknowledged.

Jesus had a disciple named James. The Gospels never state that this disciple was the same James that is described as his brother. The fact that the Epistle of James does not label him as the brother of Jesus only suggests that a different James was being referenced.

The readers of Acts have no way of knowing that this James is the brother of Jesus since the brother of Jesus is never introduced in Luke/Acts. You claim it based solely on your interpretation of brother of the Lord. Wishful thinking on your part, or simply indoctrinated to believe you have it right.

You haven't answered who Peter, James, and John are portrayed as in the gospels and Acts and where Jesus' brother James fits into all of this. In the Luke community the siblings of Jesus go unnamed because they are non believers. How does an unnamed brother of Jesus become a religious leader? Because of your interpretation of brother of the Lord? Talk about the cart in front of the horse.

 

[steeltoes]

I don't have a need to see two different Jesuss, I simply know how Josephus distinguishes between people, and I explained that.

Josephus never states that this Jesus was both the brother of James, as well as the son of Damneus. If Jesus was both, Josephus would have addressed him as such from the beginning, not by introducing him twice in the same passage. The reading you are suggesting makes no sense as why would anyone introduce an individual twice in the same passage?

You can continue to just state that your view is right, but it means absolutely nothing unless you can actually show why my argument is incorrect. I supported my view, you haven't.

You haven't supported anything. You have simply seen that some names are the same as what you read in The Bible and so jump to conclusions. We read that this Jesus turns out to be the son of Damneus, no big deal unless one is a Christian and on a quest. It's no wonder that one line is always pulled out of context from this passage, it sounds so good on its own. Too bad that when read within its context that it turns out to be too good to be true.

 

[fallingblood]

The readers of Acts have no way of knowing that this James is the brother of Jesus since the brother of Jesus is never introduced in Luke/Acts. You claim it based solely on your interpretation of brother of the Lord. Wishful thinking on your part, or simply indoctrinated to believe you have it right.

But we do. The fact that the readers of Acts may not have had a way of knowing (which isn't true as they could have had access to Paul's writings, as well as Mark) that his James was the brother of Jesus means absolutely nothing. We can know based on comparing sources, which is perfectly natural to do.

You haven't answered who Peter, James, and John are portrayed as in the gospels and Acts and where Jesus' brother James fits into all of this. In the Luke community the siblings of Jesus go unnamed because they are non believers. How does an unnamed brother of Jesus become a religious leader? Because of your interpretation of brother of the Lord? Talk about the cart in front of the horse.

I answered who James was. I see no reason to delve into Peter and John, as they are not in question. I have shown how Acts presents this James, and have compared it to what Paul says. You haven't actually addressed what I said, but instead are simply repeating yourself without supporting your argument. Mind actually addressing the case I have presented, or are you going to just insult my methods?

ou haven't supported anything. You have simply seen that some names are the same as what you read in The Bible and so jump to conclusions. We read that this Jesus turns out to be the son of Damneus, no big deal unless one is a Christian and on a quest. It's no wonder that one line is always pulled out of context from this passage, it sounds so good on its own. Too bad that when read within its context that it turns out to be too good to be true.

If I haven't supported anything, then you should easily be able to refute my argument. Instead of just repeating yourself, why not actually address the argument I presented? I'm thinking it is because you can't. If you are not going to actually address what I have said though, and just want to continue rambling off the same played out ideas, then I have no more use to discuss this subject with you.

 

[fallingblood]

You haven't supported anything. You have simply seen that some names are the same as what you read in The Bible and so jump to conclusions. We read that this Jesus turns out to be the son of Damneus, no big deal unless one is a Christian and on a quest. It's no wonder that one line is always pulled out of context from this passage, it sounds so good on its own. Too bad that when read within its context that it turns out to be too good to be true.

And just to make it easy for you, here was my argument:

How am I indoctrinated? This stuff was never taught to me in church. It was never brought up in Bible studies or the like. And quite honestly, I have rejected much of what the "Church" has taught. To try to dismiss me as being indoctrinated is foolish.

The conclusion you are making is based off of a misunderstanding of the culture, and the language. People were identified by others, or by titles. There weren't last names. Since many people had the same name then, in order to identify them, they did so by naming a family member (either one that was important, or a father), or some title. And looking of Josephus, he names many different people named Jesus. After all, it was a highly common name. Just because to people share the name Jesus, that does not make them the same person.

Now, for the way that Josephus phrases this section, it is apparent that to different people with the name Jesus are being talked about. If they were the same person, Josephus would not need to identify each in specific manners. Either Josephus would have identified them in the same exact manner repeatedly, or, as we see with James (and more commonly), by simply using his first name. After all, he was already identified, and there was no reason to identify him again as the reader knows who it is.

Going to the actual title, the Greek is 'Ιησου του λεγουμενου Χριστου. It translates to something like Jesus, who is called Christ. The manner in which it is phrased does not allow for the term Christ (which here is clearly a title) to mean anointed. It does not make sense in the context of the phrase as the term Christ is being used as a title.

It is not indoctrination that makes me accept this idea. It is research, and the fact that I know the language, and have done a lot of work on Josephus.
How doesn't literary Christian tradition not support what I am saying? At what point does literary Christian tradition deny that Jesus had a brother name James? While yes, the Gospel tradition shows that James was not a follower of Jesus during the life of Jesus, it does show (with Acts) that he became a follower afterwards. Why should that be surprising?

Also, I did not just adopt the position that Jesus is historical. In fact, I spent years thinking that Jesus did not exist. I was a mythicist. After I did actual research on the subject, I then accepted that there was a historical Jesus. Please do not try to comment on my background when you have no idea where I am coming from.
Or, maybe I just actually understand Josephus, the language he wrote in, and the manner in which ancient sources used to distinguish between individuals.

And here is my argument for James in Acts:
How do they conflict? They don't.

In Acts 15:13-21, we see James taking a leadership position at the council. He is the leader of the Jerusalem group.

In Acts 21:17, James is once again addressed as being in the leadership position. In this verse, Paul goes to James, and all of the elders. The manner in which it is phrased shows us that James was considered the leader.

So it is clear that James is considered to be the leader of the Jerusalem group by Acts. We can then compare this to Paul, and what Paul has to say. He also lists a James as the leader of the Jerusalem group. This same James, Paul states is the brother of Jesus.

Since there is only one James who is talked about as being the leader of this Jerusalem group, we can conclude that both Acts and Paul are talking about the same exact person. There really is no other James that it can be, as there is only one leader, and both Acts and Paul agree that it is James. Paul simply clarifies this even further.

You have also failed to explain how the Epistle of Jude or James are nails in the coffin.

 

[steeltoes]

But we do. The fact that the readers of Acts may not have had a way of knowing (which isn't true as they could have had access to Paul's writings, as well as Mark) that his James was the brother of Jesus means absolutely nothing. We can know based on comparing sources, which is perfectly natural to do.

I answered who James was. I see no reason to delve into Peter and John, as they are not in question. I have shown how Acts presents this James, and have compared it to what Paul says. You haven't actually addressed what I said, but instead are simply repeating yourself without supporting your argument. Mind actually addressing the case I have presented, or are you going to just insult my methods?

If I haven't supported anything, then you should easily be able to refute my argument. Instead of just repeating yourself, why not actually address the argument I presented? I'm thinking it is because you can't. If you are not going to actually address what I have said though, and just want to continue rambling off the same played out ideas, then I have no more use to discuss this subject with you.

Nowhere in Acts is a James identified as a brother of Jesus, but if you simply believe because you have read an epistle and interpret as such, and seeing that a common name is the same, then I am having a discussion with a faith based believer which is not much of a discussion at all.

 

[fallingblood]

Nowhere in Acts is a James identified as a brother of Jesus, but if you simply believe because you have read an epistle and interpret as such, and seeing that a common name is the same, then I am having a discussion with a faith based believer which is not much of a discussion at all.

In Acts 15:13-21, we see James taking a leadership position at the council. He is the leader of the Jerusalem group.

In Acts 21:17, James is once again addressed as being in the leadership position. In this verse, Paul goes to James, and all of the elders. The manner in which it is phrased shows us that James was considered the leader.

So it is clear that James is considered to be the leader of the Jerusalem group by Acts. We can then compare this to Paul, and what Paul has to say. He also lists a James as the leader of the Jerusalem group. This same James, Paul states is the brother of Jesus.

Since there is only one James who is talked about as being the leader of this Jerusalem group, we can conclude that both Acts and Paul are talking about the same exact person. There really is no other James that it can be, as there is only one leader, and both Acts and Paul agree that it is James. Paul simply clarifies this even further.


Until you address my points, I will just keep bringing them up.

 

[steeltoes]

In Acts 15:13-21, we see James taking a leadership position at the council. He is the leader of the Jerusalem group.

In Acts 21:17, James is once again addressed as being in the leadership position. In this verse, Paul goes to James, and all of the elders. The manner in which it is phrased shows us that James was considered the leader.

So it is clear that James is considered to be the leader of the Jerusalem group by Acts. We can then compare this to Paul, and what Paul has to say. He also lists a James as the leader of the Jerusalem group. This same James, Paul states is the brother of Jesus.

Since there is only one James who is talked about as being the leader of this Jerusalem group, we can conclude that both Acts and Paul are talking about the same exact person. There really is no other James that it can be, as there is only one leader, and both Acts and Paul agree that it is James. Paul simply clarifies this even further.


Until you address my points, I will just keep bringing them up.

You prove how weak your argument is, Paul does not state that James is the brother of Jesus as you say, he states that James was the brother of the Lord. The case for Jesus is so weak that believers have to resort to interpreting Paul's metaphors to establish James' existence in order to hopefully verify Jesus' existence. That's really sad not to mention pathetic. Acts doesn't even name James as a brother of Jesus.

 

[steeltoes]

In Acts 15:13-21, we see James taking a leadership position at the council. He is the leader of the Jerusalem group.

In Acts 21:17, James is once again addressed as being in the leadership position. In this verse, Paul goes to James, and all of the elders. The manner in which it is phrased shows us that James was considered the leader.

So it is clear that James is considered to be the leader of the Jerusalem group by Acts. We can then compare this to Paul, and what Paul has to say. He also lists a James as the leader of the Jerusalem group. This same James, Paul states is the brother of Jesus.

Since there is only one James who is talked about as being the leader of this Jerusalem group, we can conclude that both Acts and Paul are talking about the same exact person. There really is no other James that it can be, as there is only one leader, and both Acts and Paul agree that it is James. Paul simply clarifies this even further.


Until you address my points, I will just keep bringing them up.

Believers maintain that Paul met with disciples of Jesus, namely Peter, James, and John. According to the gospels James was Peter's partner and this same James was the brother of John, they were the sons of Zebedee. So there you have it, according to written tradition, Paul referred to James, the son of Zebedee as the brother of the Lord.