Nobody Dies for a Lie

[Sparko]

You're reading into my words something that I don't think is there, and wasn't intended.But was he an eyewitness to Jesus post-resurrection? There's nothing in Luke to suggest that, unless he was one of "the eleven and those with them" in Luke 24:33; and Acts implies that Mary and the brothers of Jesus weren't at the ascension. The only explicit mention of James meeting Jesus post-resurrection is from Paul, who doesn't say which James he's referring to.

If James b.o. Jesus did see Jesus post-resurrection, it's odd that Luke, who met him James personally, never mentions it.

He does in Acts 1 as I already posted to you twice now.

[Roy]

He does in Acts 1 as I already posted to you twice now.

You mean this bit, which does not list James brother of Jesus among those who returned from the ascension, saying only that Jesus's brothers were among those that prayed together after the apostles returned?

[Sparko]

You mean this bit, which does not list James brother of Jesus among those who returned from the ascension, saying only that Jesus's brothers were among those that prayed together after the apostles returned?

Yes.

1. James is a brother of Jesus so he would have been there.
2. It shows that Mary and Jesus' brothers were part of the group and believed because they were praying.
3. Jesus was running around for 40 days after his resurrection. It doesn't make a lick of sense for you to propose that during all that time they didn't see or talk to him, and just appeared out of nowhere to pray after his ascension.

[One Bad Pig]

You're reading into my words something that I don't think is there, and wasn't intended.But was he an eyewitness to Jesus post-resurrection? There's nothing in Luke to suggest that, unless he was one of "the eleven and those with them" in Luke 24:33; and Acts implies that Mary and the brothers of Jesus weren't at the ascension. The only explicit mention of James meeting Jesus post-resurrection is from Paul, who doesn't say which James he's referring to.

If James b.o. Jesus did see Jesus post-resurrection, it's odd that Luke, who met him James personally, never mentions it.

I'm not sure that Luke had occasion to mention it; he certainly wasn't writing an exhaustive account. Paul identifies James as the Lord's brother in Gal. 1:19 (generally considered one of his earliest epistles), and mentions him twice more in Galatians without the appellation. He also mentions James (without the appellation) having encountered Jesus post-resurrection in 1 Corinthians. Odds are at least good that it's not another James.

Acts only explicitly mentions the apostles before/during the ascension, and only subsequently adds that Mary and Jesus' brothers habitually gathered at the same spot. However, Luke 24 indicates that more than the apostles were gathered together when Jesus appeared to them post-resurrection - so it's more than possible that they were present then, too. Also, John 20 implies that the group, even before the ascension, contained more than just the (11) apostles.

[Roy]

You mean this bit, which does not list James brother of Jesus among those who returned from the ascension, saying only that Jesus's brothers were among those that prayed together after the apostles returned?

Yes.

1. James is a brother of Jesus so he would have been there.
2. It shows that Mary and Jesus' brothers were part of the group and believed because they were praying.
3. Jesus was running around for 40 days after his resurrection. It doesn't make a lick of sense for you to propose that during all that time they didn't see or talk to him, and just appeared out of nowhere to pray after his ascension.

So your claim is that Luke mentions that James b.o.J. met the risen Jesus because Luke says Jesus's brothers were around after the ascension.

Luke does not mention that James b.o.J. met the risen Jesus. That's your inference.

[Roy]

I'm not sure that Luke had occasion to mention it; he certainly wasn't writing an exhaustive account. Paul identifies James as the Lord's brother in Gal. 1:19 (generally considered one of his earliest epistles), and mentions him twice more in Galatians without the appellation. He also mentions James (without the appellation) having encountered Jesus post-resurrection in 1 Corinthians. Odds are at least good that it's not another James.

Good odds, but not guaranteed, since he doesn't specify which James and there were at least four in that area, and probably more. Also, Paul uses the same phrasing for the appearance to James as for his own, and implies James's encounter was also post-ascension.

Acts only explicitly mentions the apostles before/during the ascension, and only subsequently adds that Mary and Jesus' brothers habitually gathered at the same spot. However, Luke 24 indicates that more than the apostles were gathered together when Jesus appeared to them post-resurrection - so it's more than possible that they were present then, too. Also, John 20 implies that the group, even before the ascension, contained more than just the (11) apostles.

It's possible they were. It's also possible they weren't.

The accounts vary and occasionally contradict, and it's clear that the tale grew and changed over time, and that the earliest gospel was altered to fit the later ones. We know that the gospel texts themselves were changed and harmonized. This is particularly true of the post-resurrection appearance passages.

[Sparko]

So your claim is that Luke mentions that James b.o.J. met the risen Jesus because Luke says Jesus's brothers were around after the ascension.

Luke does not mention that James b.o.J. met the risen Jesus. That's your inference.

It is a pretty logical inference. Why else would James and Mary et al BE at the upper room praying after the ascension if they didn't believe? And why would they believe if they didn't meed the risen Christ? After all they were there when he was killed. What other explanation is there? Why else would James end up being a leader in the Church?

Do you think they just showed up out of the blue after Jesus died and the apostles said "oh yeah by the way we saw Jesus just now. No, sorry you can't see him, he went back to heaven. But yeah you should totally believe us and wait here in the upper room praying"

Jesus walked around for 40 days showing himself to people. Do you think if he did not, the apostles would be able to convince his own mother and family he did without them seeing him? Please.

[Roy]

It is a pretty logical inference. Why else would James and Mary et al BE at the upper room praying after the ascension if they didn't believe? And why would they believe if they didn't meed the risen Christ?

You do, Sparko.

[Sparko]

You do, Sparko.

If I were there and he was my family member, I would not believe unless I met him risen. I believe by faith and having seen Jesus work in my life. They would have witnessed him die on the cross and have no reason for faith unless they saw him risen. None of the apostles would either.

[JimL]

If I were there and he was my family member, I would not believe unless I met him risen. I believe by faith and having seen Jesus work in my life. They would have witnessed him die on the cross and have no reason for faith unless they saw him risen. None of the apostles would either.

And they who were closest to him didn't believe until supposedly seeing it with their own eyes, but the rest of us are just supposed to believe them.

[Sparko]

And they who were closest to him didn't believe until supposedly seeing it with their own eyes, but the rest of us are just supposed to believe them.

We call it faith. And we have more evidence than just their word for it. At least I do. I have seen Jesus work in my life and in the lives of my family. It would not convince you but it did me. I hope one day you will have such an experience.

[Roy]

If I were there and he was my family member, I would not believe unless I met him risen. I believe by faith and having seen Jesus work in my life. They would have witnessed him die on the cross and have no reason for faith unless they saw him risen. None of the apostles would either.

Luke says otherwise:Though maybe you've been seduced by the extra verses added on the end of Mark.

I'm beginning to wonder whether y'all actually read your bible, what with this, and seer forgetting there were two apostles named James, and Teallaura mixing up Luke's and Matthew's accounts of Judas's death.

[Roy]

We call it faith. And we have more evidence than just their word for it. At least I do. I have seen Jesus work in my life and in the lives of my family.

And the apostles hadn't had more evidence than just some-one's word? All those miracles of water-walking and healing and fish-multiplying and transmutation and so on weren't more evidence? You think you have more evidence than they did???

[Sparko]

Luke says otherwise:Though maybe you've been seduced by the extra verses added on the end of Mark.

I'm beginning to wonder whether y'all actually read your bible, what with this, and seer forgetting there were two apostles named James, and Teallaura mixing up Luke's and Matthew's accounts of Judas's death.

[Sparko]

And the apostles hadn't had more evidence than just some-one's word? All those miracles of water-walking and healing and fish-multiplying and transmutation and so on weren't more evidence? You think you have more evidence than they did???

no idjut. I was saying that I believe because I have more than just the word of a book. They believed because they actually witnessed the risen Christ.