Gospel of the Holy Twelve

a reply to: Mazzini

the pot calls the kettle black

Is that supposed to mean something to me, Chester?

I am just minding my business and enjoying myself.

You are trolling because you have no interest in the thread topic.

I don't ever do that, so I am no troll.

I make comments that have to do with the topic, never anything that is not substantive.

You are a notorious Christian troll and many people have said the same thing.

Would you children please behave yourselves or no cookies for you.

a reply to: mamabeth

So you only reply when people start trolling? You are no better than him if that is all you have to say. Your judgement is not applicable to the topic.

I will defend when attacked by trolls who despise my right to post topics.

You behave. Everything is under control here.

a reply to: Mazzini

NO I just troll you and your now close to 20 ATS Accounts.

But don't let me stop you, please continue.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

That's great fiction. You have a good day now. I will not respond to anything you say if it is not topic related. Your fantastic grudges and neurotic comments have no value.

a reply to: Mazzini

James was the appointed successor of Jesus. The Jewish branch of what would become Christianity.

do you have a source for this ?

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Mazzini

James was the appointed successor of Jesus. The Jewish branch of what would become Christianity.

do you have a source for this ?

.

Yeah, I believe it is common knowledge and in the New Testament, I will find it...

a reply to: Mazzini

Nope not there in the NT.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Clement of Rome called him Bishop of bishops.

It is extra biblical tradition but official Catholic doctrine that James was Bishop of Jerusalem and head of Jewish Christianity, and I believe Peter as the first Pope is only an honorary title.

Just Google James bishop of Jerusalem and you will find all the info I can.

But to correct myself, I don't know if it's in the New Testament off the top of my head. If it is I will find it and get back to you because now I want to know where that tradition started.

I know it is a common belief that James the Just was head of the Essenes or Jewish Christians. James the Just translates to James the Zaddik. Zaddik was the title of the leader of the Essenes.

a reply to: Mazzini

Just because he spoke up does not mean he was the Bishop of Jerusalem. He is one of the apostles and elders mentions in ACTS 15 but it no where says he was the successor of Jesus. Wondering why you didn't use the name Yeshua, seeing you already said under this ATS account user name, Jesus is not his name.

Jesus needs no successor. He is still in charge and leading from a far.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Eusebius also says the same thing.

But if you need biblical evidence that James was the leader of the Apostles I refer you to when Paul and Barnabas are seeking wisdom, specifically regarding circumcision, it is James that they seek answers from and who, along with other Apostles, consults the Holy Spirit.

If James has power to consult the Holy Spirit, and is the prominent Apostle in the story where Paul seeks answers, I will let that be enough proof for me.

But you are free to interpret it as the Spirit guides you.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

That's great but he still had a half brother named James who was essentially his successor on earth. Even Paul initially sought guidance from James.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

What difference does it make if I say Yeshua or Jesus your splitting hairs looking for any reason to criticize me.

If you knew how much I enjoy being the source of your contempt you wouldn't endulge me. Thank you.

a reply to: Mazzini
It is more like this

1Cor 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

IN Acts 15 Peter (a prophet) spoke first, Barnabas and Paul (prophets) spoke second, then James (s prophet) spoke last. However just because he spoke does not prove he was the successor of Jesus. Remember after he spoke it says,

Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church

They were pleased by what James said and chose men to take letters to the Gentile churches with the words of encouragement not to yoke themselves to the law, abstain from fornication, eating and drinking blood and food sacrificed to idols.

Opinions does not proof make.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Text ( James was the appointed successor of Jesus. The Jewish branch of what would become Christianity.)

You asked "do you have a source for this ?"

There are numerous sources both Jewish and Christian but the most common is that of the gospel of Thomas.

Gospel of Thomas 12
(12) - The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"
Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I really couldn't care less what you think. You are only providing what you think.

But the church doesn't/didn't agree and I don't care if it was official or not in the New Testament.

This is not a New Testament only proposition and you are scared of anything extra biblical even if it's evident but not stated.

James was Bishop of Jerusalem. The Jerusalem church was the Apostolic church until Rome expelled the Jews.

You are wrong a LOT.

a reply to: Mazzini

A Bishop you say ......Yes James did play a important role in the Church in Jerusalem . It all started there and went out ...Funny that Peter would not have been the head over the Church there ,no ? ....So you have no supporting evidence from scripture to why James ? He was Jewish I will give you that .Paul was Jewish as well as Peter . Do you think there may have been a drawing of straws to decide the positions they ended up occupying and the minstery they were commissioned by Christ ? Do we have any supporting documents from that time we can use ?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I would not say no evidence as I clearly displayed his prominence in the New Testament and the statements of church fathers.

Plus someone cited the Gospel of Thomas, which I believe to be a legitimate Gospel and a probable source for some of the "official" Gospels quotes as they appear in both.

a reply to: Seede

And the gospel of Thomas is from a few generations removed from that time . It is a Gnostic gospel and is not collaborated by others reporting on what Jesus said .We need or should need two or more witnesses .Thomas fails in that respect .