Who was James the Just?  I heard that he was a famous leader in the early Church.?
371185
Saint James the Just (יעקב "Holder of the heel; supplanter"; Standard Hebrew Yaʿaqov, Tiberian Hebrew Yaʿăqōḇ), also called James Adelphos or the Brother of the Lord and sometimes identified with James the Lesser, (died AD 62) was an important figure in Early Christianity. According to tradition, he was the first bishop or Patriarch of Jerusalem, the author of the Epistle of James in the New Testament, and the first of the Seventy of Luke 10:1-20. Paul of Tarsus in Galatians 2:9 (KJV) characterized James as such: "... James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars..." He is described in the New Testament as a "brother of Jesus" and "in the Liturgy of St James, the brother of Jesus is raised to the dignity of the brother of the very God (Adelphotheos)"
763053
birdman,\nI think that one of the most influencial Gay people in all the annals of history is . . . . King James (Prince James) who was responsible for the translation of the King James Bible. He was about as Gay as anyone could be. \n\nIt's not like there weren't any bibles before that, there were. The Great Bible was the main bible of the time, but the King James became more used sometime after that. \n\nBut look at it's influence upon so many people, for so many years. I have no doubt that King James was a saved man, though Gay, and could quote verses and argue effectively with the clergy of the day. He would look forward to the chances that he got to do so.\n\nStrangely enough, those that are most strict with their condemnation of Gays, use the King James Bible, while saying proudly that they use the "inerrant word of God" the King James 1611 version. \n\nAnd they don't.\n\nNo. The 1611 King James Bible had the Apocrypha in it. The Puritans decided that it should not be in there, and so it was taken out.\n\nSo the Fundies that condemn Gays are:\n1) Wrong about the Bible.\n2) Wrong about condemning Gays, rather than presenting the Gospel to them\n3) Are using a Bible that was funded lovingly by a Gay \nking.\n\nI call that VERY influential!
1095398
hey pervey pirate, i think he did because he didn't want all his followers thrown in jail and crucified. they needed to be free to expell the romans when the time came. how could simon the zelot fight the romans if he had been put in jail or crucified?\n     brother simon needed to be free, and the rest of the liberation movement too. the time came decades later and the liberation movement failed.
587438
QUESTION: Why did the first Protestant, Martin Luther, take out from the bible Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, plus 7 books from the Old Testament—and put them in an appendix without page numbers?\n\nANSWER: Luther deleted those 7 books because they did not suit his doctrines.  He called the book of James “an epistle of straw…”.  The argument that the Jews did not accept them as scripture is based on the fact that they were not written in Hebrew.  That was never the criteria for the 27 New Testament books set forth by the Catholic Church that Protestants accept. Apostolic Teaching was the primary measurement for proving inspiration, not some mans opinions 1100 later.  By accepting Jewish standards for what should be in the Bible, you are accepting an authority that rejected Christ and the message of the New Testament. \n\nQUESTION: Also, why do some Protestants accept some of the 7 sacraments while others only accept only 1 or 2 of them while still others will reject them all?\n\nANSWER: By doing so they diminish the importance of the Incarnation, and the sacramental principle of the Incarnation. When God became man, physical matter was elevated to new heights.  Matter is not evil, as the heretics have taught. Physical matter can be used to convey grace, as “things” were used in the New Testament for healing. Bread, wine, oil and water are found throughout the Old Testament as outward signs of God’s actions. These same elements are used by the Church in the administration of the Seven Sacraments. The Bible shows they were instituted by Christ. \n\nQUESTION: Why do some Protestants insist that the Sabbath be observed on Saturday while other Protestants insist that it is Sunday while still other Protestants will claim that people don't have to go to Church?\n\nANSWER: The “Saturday” Protestants are mostly cults who are anti-Protestant. Christians who say you don’t have to go to a church are socially dysfunctional, or the churches they have been in don't have Real Food, and Real Drink.
738338
James, Peter, John, and Jude
238005
he was also called pilgrim pope. he made more foriegn trips ( over 100) than all prevous popes put together. ex. 1st to go to U.K. to the Queen.
943849
You're right. The original church of Christ fell into apostacy and disappeared from the earth, to be restored in the last days. The Catholic belief is that Peter (head of the church after Christ died) gave his Priesthood to a bishop, who became the first Pope. However, that can't be proven and some evidence shows that Peter died a few years before the bishop claimed he was given the Priesthood. Also, Peter was an apostle and would not have given apostolic power to bishop. The man who claimed the power became the first Pope and every Pope after that was voted upon by men - never chosen by God. Some Popes were extremely evil, some forced or bribed their way into the position, and none of them ever held the Priesthood power. Many are good men, true, but they are not God's chosen, and their church and teachings are very different from Christ's church as set forth in the Bible. (Baptism by immersion, not infant sprinkling; leaders will be a prophet and 12 apostles, not a Pope; no mention of nuns or priests or celibacy, no mention of granting sainthood to men; no mention of Mary being divine or accepting prayers; no mention of a trinity, they don't believe in revelation, and where are tithing and temples?)\n\nYou're right. Faith is based on truth. Seek and ye shall find.
593235
cheri_da_rn: he meant carpentry!\n\nI wonder, was it before or after he got married to Mary Magdalene? You couldn't really hold it against the guy if he was already married and THEN found out that he was supposed to be the Messiah, and die on the cross, etc.
567350
james. i think he was the son of elizabeth's cousin mary. there was this thing about mary wanting to get ride of elizabeth so that her son would get the throne since he is the closet in the line. the funny thing is that though she tried and didn't succeed, james was still the king.
444902
Hi there,\n\nThe apostles are listed in Matthew 10:2 "These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him."\n\nJudas Iscariot is replaced by Matthias in Acts 1:23-26.\n\nMark is understood to be the sidekick or secretary of Peter. This is why his Gospel is included, as it contains information of an eyewitness (Peter), even though the author themselves may not have been one of the twelve. This however, does not mean they were not necessarily there.\n\nLuke makes it known that his account is compiled from an investigation of the events. (Luke 1:1-4)\n\nLuke is also the author of the book of Acts (or The Acts of the Apostles). Although written mainly in the third person, Luke makes it known that we was present at the events starting from Luke 16:10 by using the word "we" instead of "they".\n\nAs a bit of trivia, Luke appears to have written Luke and Acts as one volume, to the same audience, a person referred to as Theophilus (Luke 1:1, Acts 1:1).
804649
Apparently he's the son of Enoch, and the father of Lamech. He apparently reached the age of 969!!!xxx
982221
There is no ( or at the very least, precious little) evidence of a person called Jesus outside of the bible.  Xians will say Josephus mentioned him, but in fact, the only translation we have of Josephus was done by a christian writer in the 4th century...we don't have it in the original Latin.  And what is mentioned is very weak and open to interpretation and very likely was subject to interpolation.\n\nThe Romans were meticulous record keepers.  If Jesus existed, and had fostered the kind of revolution that would get their attention by threatening Roman rule, performing miracles, there would be copious writings about him from the Romans, and other sources.\n\nPaul the Apostle is agreeably the earliest christian writer, and he wrote probably a couple decades after the putative events.  Yet Paul makes no reference to a recently living Christ...and if you read his works separate from the rest of the NT, he seems to be writing of a supernatural creature who fought a battle, died and rose again in a spiritual realm, eons ago.  Paul went to Jerusalem to visit Peter, and yet he makes no mention of a pilgramage to Golgotha, or the tomb or any sites that would be shrines to a real person recently living, crucified and risen again ascending into heaven. Paul is bizarrely disinterested in anything relating to a real physical Jesus.\n\nAll other accounts, were written much later.  The earliest Gospel of Mark (by the way, it wasn't written by anybody called Mark, it is anonymous) couldn't have been written any earlier than 40-50 years after the events.  The Gospels all contradict each other as to Jesus life, miracles and death.  I recommend any of Randall Helms books on the New Testament and Gospels for a detailed overview of the problems.\n\nIt really is quite interesting if you are prepared to have an open mind about it.  Jesus, if he existed, was at best a wandering prophet/holyman/philospher.  We have lots of legendary heroes with stories about them, like King Arthur, William Tell...but we know they never actually existed.  I think it more likely he never actually existed, and was created as a "founding father" in the heroic tradition by the early church.
1059197
God chose us to be a holy people (separate, apart).  His people would not do certain things other peoples do.  \nHis people would not worship any other God.\nHis people could continue to make sacrifices like other peoples, but NEVER a human sacrifice.\nHis people would not murder.\nHis people would not judge without written laws that apply to all -- including the leaders -- and appointed judges to determine guilt.\n\nand so it goes on and on for 613 laws.\n\nIn other words His people were, and still are, the dissenting voice when the majority has gone awry.  Where was the dissenting voice during the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust?  \n\nWhy would anyone want to be God's holy (separate/apart) people?
501217
If someone had stepped forward in the 7th Century and claimed to be God or the Son of God, the Catholic church would have burned him at the stake (and probably did more than once.)\n\nKing James would have done the same after he came to power in the 16th Century.
723491
The original twekve are:\n\n Matthew, Peter, James (the Greater), John, Judas Iscariot, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, James (the Lesser), Simon, and Thaddeus (Jude).\n\nMatthias was selected to replace Judas Iscariot after Jesus' death in Acts 1:16
234464
Jesue used parables so we would understand what he was saying exactly. Remember HE was speaking the way the people spoke back in the day. It used parables for examples.
199396
I've been slowly studying it for a long period of time, picking up pieces here and there.  I can't give you a complete account, but I can give you a rundown:\n\nThe vessel that God used to initiate this "movement" was John Wesley.  His brother and helper was Charles Wesley, the famous hymn writer.  \n\nEngland at this time had come past the Reformation...not very changed, because of all the politics involved (such as King Henry VIII dabbling into making his own "Anglican" church).  With a few exceptions (such as John Knox) the Reformation in England had man's handprints all over it...\n\nThus, God's spirit was hindered from moving and the moral atmosphere was poor both inside and outside the Church.  \n\nGod used John Wesley to preach "holiness" to his listeners and had a "method" for seeking God.  This was not a Martin Luther "We are justified by faith" movement (which I also believe God initiated), but a "We need to clean up our act" movement.  \n\nIronically, while Wesley was intensely protestant, some saw him as a traitor trying to bring back the law, tradition and rituality of the catholic church.  Wesley did not bring in dead ritual and men's traditions; He sought God's will with a fury on moral issues and preached his findings to his adherents.  Also note that on certain issues he was incredibly liberal compared to his times:  when pastors wouldn't let him preach in their buildings, he simply preached in fields!  This was NOT conventional.\n\nMany in England were violently opposed to these new religious fanatics called "Methodists" because things changed wherever they went...  If you hired a Methodist housemaid, you'd risk loosing members of your family and others to their energetic proselyting and you would feel convicted for your actions!  God forbid...\n\nThus is a very rough and superficial layout.  Hope it helped!  Any questions, just e-mail me.\n\nKeep in mind that when these movements took place, they had God pushing them forward and were not the dry lifeless denominations you see today; e.g. Lutheran, Methodist, etc.  Perhaps we (the Christian church as a whole) should seek God for what His "movement" would be in *this* hour instead of becoming stale by having our worship revolve around past movements...  :)