Saint James of Zebedee

[Charlatan]

Saint James son of Zebedee was a warrior after the death of Christ. He travelled to Spain and fought for their army and was beheaded in the year fourty four. It is a pity that He saw the way to spread the word of God with a sword, as people then see you as an enemy. Think now if you come to a new land with the word of God and the people, moors I am told, reject it and hold their own beliefs true. Then you come on horse with sword shining high, and then they see your word as poison, right? Jesus would never have lifted a hand to other followers, so neither should His disciples have, instead have debating with the others in their places of worship, I suppose if they were brave enough. This would have opened hearts and minds to new ideas, and God would have surely been pleased for both parties, right?

[FenianKiwi]

Jesus said (in a parable, but he seemed to approve of the notion), 'But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.' (Luke 19:27) This, coupled with Jesus' promise to bring division, his hypocrisy regarding the Pharisees, and his treatment of the money-changers, sort of gives the lie to the idea that Jesus eschewed violence regarding people who didn't like what he had to offer. Not a particularly good moral model.

[loser]

You're getting fact, fiction, and legend all mixed up. The 'sword' that James fought with was the "sword of the Spirit".

Catholics have always been a superstitious lot and many legends and/or traditions are based on such. For example, Marian visitations are a recurrent theme in their ideology. The idea that Mary appeared to James (or to anyone else, for that matter) is strictly a Catholic tradition and has no basis in reality.

Similarly, (Catholic) tradition has it that (Saint) James appeared fighting with the 'Christians' against the Muslims (Moors) during the Reconquista and specifically the battle of Clavijo. The trouble is that this battle took place in 844 A.D., some 800 years after James's death.

Myths and legends, like Santa Claus, may be fine for children (though debatable) but when we grow up we need to separate these stories from the truth.

[loser]

FenianKiwi: The fact that you don't think that Jesus was "a particularly good moral model" indicates that your knowledge of Him is minimal at best or negatively biased at worst.

With words so easily twisted out of context, is it any wonder that deception rules the day and Satan is called the "father of all lies".

[Charlatan]

Well ok loser, seeing as how you know so much about him, what were his teachings about. All I could find on the wiki was violence brought by him to the world, so tell me then what he did and said, please.

[FenianKiwi]

Because someone disagrees with you doesn't make that person either ignorant or biased. I can think of a great many moral teachers whose precepts are at once more humane and more ethically sound than those of the quasi-historic Jesus of Nazareth.

Further, I'm interested in why, in your reply to Charlatan, you invoke and summarily dismiss myths such as Santa Claus, yet you seem fine with your own Christian myths. Why is that?

[loser]

Well ok loser, seeing as how you know so much about him, what were his teachings about. All I could find on the wiki was violence brought by him to the world, so tell me then what he did and said, please.

When you say "him", are you referring to Jesus or Saint James? Since the thread is about James, I would assume that you are referring to 'him' but I wanted to be certain before I responded.

Thanks...

Because someone disagrees with you doesn't make that person either ignorant or biased.

Absolutely and I agree completely! I hope that my response didn't seem to suggest this about Charlatan. I was merely pointing out that the information that he was basing his post upon was highly speculative and/or imaginative. Rarely can we arrive at logical conclusions if we start with faulty assumptions.

Further, I'm interested in why, in your reply to Charlatan, you invoke and summarily dismiss myths such as Santa Claus, yet you seem fine with your own Christian myths. Why is that?

There are very big differences between the two, don't you think? The tenets of the Christian faith are presumed to be based on fact. Santa Claus (or, at least, our modern concept of him) is presumed to be fictitious.

I readily admit that the exploits of Jesus may seem ever bit as incredulous as the feats of Santa. This is irrelevant, however. All of our beliefs are based on assumptions, presumptions, and deductions...logical or otherwise. There is no proof that Abraham Lincoln ever lived, I just assume that the historical account is correct. In the same way, I accept as fact the story of Jesus.

I think that I am like most people in that I don't want to be fooled (a fool). If Christianity was as ridiculous a myth as Santa, I wouldn't believe it. My experiences have shown the Christian faith to be a reality and Santa not.

I am a thinker and a skeptic. I don't blindly follow any beliefs without question. God and the Bible have sufficiently 'proven' themselves to me many times over. That's a lot more than I can say about other 'truths' such as evolution. To a logical thinker like myself, evolution just hasn't measured up.

[samsara15]

That's a weird legend. The warrior part of the legend doesn't even begin until long after he had died, 800 years later, in 844 AD. Supposedly, he was executed by King Herod Archelaus in 44 AD.

James, son of Zebedee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think the legend is a good example to make of anything, it's simply too unbelievable.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Charlatan Saint James son of Zebedee was a warrior after the death of Christ. He travelled to Spain and fought for their army and was beheaded in the year fourty four. It is a pity that He saw the way to spread the word of God with a sword, as people then see you as an enemy. Think now if you come to a new land with the word of God and the people, moors I am told, reject it and hold their own beliefs true. Then you come on horse with sword shining high, and then they see your word as poison, right? Jesus would never have lifted a hand to other followers, so neither should His disciples have, instead have debating with the others in their places of worship, I suppose if they were brave enough. This would have opened hearts and minds to new ideas, and God would have surely been pleased for both parties, right?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

It is merely legend that James, son of Zebedee and older brother of John, even went to preach the gospel to Jewish colonists and slaves in Spain. That James fought in Spain's army is utter nonsense! Spain was a province of Rome and was just the name of the region. It did not have its own government and certainly didn't have its own army.

James was the first of the Apostles to be martyred, having been martyred some 14 years after Jesus' resurrection - he was beheaded by sword.

[FenianKiwi]

>Absolutely and I agree completely! I hope that my response didn't seem to suggest this about Charlatan. I was merely pointing out that the information that he was basing his post upon was highly speculative and/or imaginative. Rarely can we arrive at logical conclusions if we start with faulty assumptions.

Actually, I thought you were suggesting it about me. And I think you were. No matter.

>There are very big differences between the two, don't you think? The tenets of the Christian faith are presumed to be based on fact. Santa Claus (or, at least, our modern concept of him) is presumed to be fictitious.

No, I honestly don't see the difference. Very good arguments can be made that the stories about Jesus in the NT are a case of historicizing a myth, sort of the opposite of what happened with Nicholas of Myra (mythicizing an historic figure). And presumptions of fact or fiction are just that...presumptions. They have no bearing in a discussion of historicity.

>I readily admit that the exploits of Jesus may seem ever bit as incredulous as the feats of Santa. This is irrelevant, however.

How can it be irrelevant? If we accord all fabulous stories equal weight, then the historic record becomes meaningless.

>All of our beliefs are based on assumptions, presumptions, and deductions...logical or otherwise.

Actually, this is untrue. There is also personal experience (I've seen a tree), commonality of experience (everyone agrees on what a tree is) and definitional consensus (no one seriously argues that trees have fur, four legs, and chase cats).

>There is no proof that Abraham Lincoln ever lived, I just assume that the historical account is correct. In the same way, I accept as fact the story of Jesus.

You're either having me on or you're being wilfully ignorant. The case for an historic Abraham Lincoln is far, far better than the case for an historic Jesus of Nazareth. We have photographs of Lincoln. We have things Lincoln wrote. We have responses to what Lincoln wrote by people who refer to him as 'Lincoln'. We have records of his birth, life and death. We have none of this for Jesus (to forestall the inevitable compalint, no...the Gospels do not qualify as historic documents. they are hagiographies, quite a different kettle of fish).

>I think that I am like most people in that I don't want to be fooled (a fool). If Christianity was as ridiculous a myth as Santa, I wouldn't believe it. My experiences have shown the Christian faith to be a reality and Santa not.

But that's just the point. Looked at objectively, there's not a lot of epistemic difference between a jolly fat man who comes down your chimney and leaves you gifts and an itinerant rabbi who can walk on water and raise the dead. I do, however, agree with your last point...the Christian faith is undoubtedly real. whether it is true or not is another matter.

>I am a thinker and a skeptic. I don't blindly follow any beliefs without question. God and the Bible have sufficiently 'proven' themselves to me many times over. That's a lot more than I can say about other 'truths' such as evolution. To a logical thinker like myself, evolution just hasn't measured up.

You're an odd sort of skeptic, I'll give you that much (Keep in mind what Hume had to say about miracles).

Evolution is a fact, pure and simple. I'm not sure how you can rationally deny that.