Undeniable Historical Evidence of Jesus Reaction

Undeniable Historical Evidence of Jesus Reaction

HAN PODCAST:

OUT NOW! ON ALL PLATFORMS!
My NEW Meditation Album:

Get 5% OFF A SPARKLEMAT!
CODE: HANMEDITATIONS

[XaeeD]

Notice what the man says about Paul. Paul was an eyewitness to the eyewitnesses, and then he says that Paul went to Jerusalem and met James. James being the eyewitness. Eyewitness to the life of Jesus. And not just any eyewitness. James grew up alongside Jesus, because James was his older brother. James was most likely the son of the husband of Maryam. The one they call Joseph. So James is called "the brother of Jesus". They grew up together, they knew one another better than any of the other followers knew them, and furthermore; James becomes the Leader of the Believers after Jesus was gone. So when Jesus leaves the movement, it's James who becomes their leader. He was called James the Just, or the Righteous, he was the High Priest in the Jerusalem Temple, and the only man alive who was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies. He was the head of the Israelite tribes, and had the authority to write to them, and inform them in regards to their faith.

So why mention all of that? Because of the New Testament Epistle of James. It's a short letter that's attributed to James, and if he didn't author it, then someone writing in his name and on his behalf; i.e. someone from amongst his movement, wrote the letter. Here's the main point..

In the Epistle of James the Just, the most important of eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus: there is not a single mention of the death and resurrection of Jesus. James, for some reason, completely omits the whole doctrine of the cross. He doesn't mention Jesus' death, there is no crucifixion in his letter, no resurrection, and no salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ. It's not in there.

The letter is addressing the scattered Israelite tribes, in order to clarify some of their confusion. James is writing to these tribes and telling them how to live their lives and be upright people, so that they can go to Paradise (basically). The fact that James excludes the death and resurrection of Jesus is extremely damning to the doctrine of the cross. It's a crucial, essential and necessary aspect of the Christian religion, and yet, James doesn't talk about it. Instead, he keeps urging the believers to cling to the Law; follow the Law; don't abandon the Law; work in accordance with the Sacred Law. Quite the opposite of Paul's "sola fide" teaching. I.e. salvation through faith alone. Christians don't know that Paul and James were far from bff's. The reason Paul went to see James in Jerusalem, is because James had summoned him, and he was forced to humble himself before James, because it was said that Paul was spreading false teachings (outside of James' geopolitical reach). When Paul goes to James, James commands him to renew his Jewish vows, which included making a sin-offering. This was after the (supposed) crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. So why is James telling Paul to make a sin-offering to God, to repent for his mistakes, when Jesus had (supposedly) died for the sins of the world already? Why is James telling the tribes that faith alone means nothing if you abandon God's revealed Law? Who do you think James is indirectly refuting throughout his Epistle? It's Paul and the likes of Paul (i.e. compromised Jews that were spreading their own (per)version of the faith).

Why doesn't James talk about the death of Christ; the crucifixion and resurrection, and that the second persona of a triune godhead;s blood washed away the sins of man, and all that? Did he forget? Did he assume that everyone and their momma already knew all about that, and that there was no need to repeat it? Surely, something like that, he wouldn't just forget to mention. And the Epistle of James as well as Paul's letters, were written before the four Gospels existed. If some proto-Gospel existed at that time, then it wasn't wide-spread yet. Meaning that the Israelite tribes that are addressed by James, and who lived in remote locations, and needed to be told about certain religious and spiritual teachings; they wouldn't have known about the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So no, James wouldn't have assumed that these people already knew about the doctrine of the cross, because that whole storyline shows up in Paul's writings, and subsequently in the four Gospels. James doesn't mention it, and so that leaves only one rational reason to consider: James didn't believe in it. He knew Jesus wasn't crucified. That's why he doesn't write about it. It didn't happen.

The Gospels are biographies produced by unknown authors. In those books, it says that Jesus used to go around Galilea, preaching the euangélion to the crowds. Jesus was informing people of the Gospel. What Gospel? It can't be the four Gospels, because they didn't exist yet. Jesus wasn't preaching to the people, quoting passages from John. So what was the Gospel of Jesus? The Gospel was the good news, or the glad tiding. Imo, what he was preaching and teaching was the concept of Paradise. You might think that's an odd thing to say, but you open your Old Testament, and read through it, and count how many times it describes the concept of Paradise, and see for yourself. The Jews don't have a concept of Paradise like you do, because the afterlife is almost never discussed in any of their books. And look at the Gospels; when Jesus is spreading this Injeel, there's always mention of the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of Heaven, etc. It's about Paradise. Was he telling the people that they had to believe in his future crucifixion and resurrection, and in his supposed divinity, in order for them to enter Paradise? No. Even the four Gospels, when they talk about this stuff, they seem to match what James is saying. The Gospels are weird like that; they have these internal contradictions that cannot be resolved. Almost as if the authors were confused, and weren't really sure what happened.

[rmannamr]

Can you react to jesus in india

And also to: what is Jewish mysticism