Thomas said:
Possibly ... but we can never be sure.
Quite right -in this case, one deals in uncertainties. As they stand, history, and the one epistle of his that remains, do, however, provide clues. It is said, for instance, that St. James, like the Nazars, neither cut his hair nor, like the Essenes, ate meat. I would also guess, and again only a guess it is, that, if he abstained from meat, he must also have had nothing to do with the blood rites and rituals which, by the sounds of it, were practically the preoccupation of the Jewish priesthood in Jerusalem at the time (immediately prior to the destruction by Titus).
Furthermore, in marked contrast to the “vicarious atonement” doctrine articulated in detail by St. Paul and, to a lesser extent, others, I read precious little in St. James’ epistle on the subject. James’ epistle, as I read it, is comparatively long on behavior and short on belief. Again, my only wish -and, from a Christian standpoint, it is a noble one- is that James could have lived to write a few epistles more. But it was not to be, I understand, and “God, in his providence ….”
Thomas said:
That rather depends on whom one thinks Jesus to be.
It does indeed. It is, after all, to this question that issues of Christology have forever devolved. Our ideas of Jesus are -or at least involve- an inheritance. How we inherited these ideas (e.g., the canonical gospels), instead of others, has, at times, it seems to me, been as much a matter of the vagaries of history as divine providence. Oh me of little faith.
Thomas said:
I tend to disagree ... as I'm sure you would expect.
Thankfully.
Thomas said:
James was in receipt of what one might call 'esoteric' or 'gnostic' instruction, by which I mean he, along with James and John, were witness to certain extraordinary events, and as such were instructed in a way beyond words.
Agreed.
Thomas said:
My personal view is that the Ebionite and other groups were founded before Pentecost — there's evidence in Acts to support the idea of inchoate communities — and that these groups remained separate from the post-Pentecost foundation of the Church by the Disciples.
Possibly … but we can never be sure. Hey, there’s an echo in here. But seriously, your statement reminds me that, from a certain standpoint, it can be said that Christianity itself was born a sectarian dispute with Judaism, or at least the Judaism of its day, and it remained continuously disputatious, all if its talk of doctrinal unanimity and of the original gospel having once been “delivered unto the saints” notwithstanding. The Pauline sect became dominant and we owe as much to Paul, it seems to me, as to Jesus for what we call Christianity. I do not, by the way, begrudge St. Paul for that. On the contrary, I thank him.
Speaking of either original or unoriginal gospels, for instance, Origen, as I recall, said the Ebionites had a “Gospel According to the Hebrews,” or some such thing, in their possession and quoted portions thereof. It would be interesting to know whether or not and how that gospel related to the Aramaic (or Hebrew) gospel that St. Jerome, some time later, said he had at hand when he composed the Vulgate. These gospels have evidently been lost to posterity.
Thomas said:
It's also a point of note that the Jerusalem community did not welcome Gentiles, and were establishing themselves as an elite group from the word go ... or rather, non-Jewish Christians were second-class Christians, and would not have been covered by the promises made by Christ.
I understand. That was part of the debate. And it is a long way from that, the inclusion of Gentiles, to their absolute ascension and to having one of St. Paul’s disciples, St. Luke, report, in his
Acts of the Apostles, that St. Peter saw a vision in which, suddenly, pigs, customarily considered unclean and forbidden as food, became edible pork chops. Evidently, if the Ebionites were ever made aware of that reported vision, they questioned its veracity and were not buying.
Thomas said:
Whether James would have put up with this is another question …
I am quite sure that he would not have put up with it: he was altogether too cool. I love the brother and he would have loved my Gentile self in return.
Thomas said:
, but it's evident that some did, and it took Paul's argument with Peter to put the matter right.
I wonder if the epistle St. Paul wrote to the Galatians was ever delivered to Jerusalem. The Galatians might have been convinced, but the Jerusalemites, on the other hand, might not have been.
Thomas said:
That's no longer a point of contention between us.
Oh blessed relief! I know those Christological controversies which, to my view, made Christianity at times as fascinating as at others ridiculous are for the most part spent. May they rest in peace.
Thomas said:
As for the other theological differences, they can be overcome if there was a will to do so (which there generally isn't).
Right. At the moment, I have my money on the redoubtable Marcel LeFebvre and his progeny at the SSPX. Go Marcel!
Thomas said:
The Office of Peter is problematic, but not insurmountable, and I think the same applies to doctrine generally.
It might be advisable, however, if we never, ever, under any condition, call an ecumenical Council to prove it. (Please don't mistake my levity with sarcasm: it's a defense, of sorts, I learned to employ in Sunday School when dealing with subjects of this sort).
Thomas said:
Whilst Rome presents a problem for the Oriental Patriarchates, the nationalism of the Patriarchates is equally problematic, sometimes moreso.
It would be nice, to me, if a Christian catholicity, or universalism, without the “Roman” necessarily attached, could again emerge. Nevertheless, as radarmark and others of us have in this thread hoped, the Brotherhood (which, of course, includes and is often predominated by the Sisters) seems operative, if not always apparent.
Thomas said:
As has long been observed, the West tends to a more determinate outlook, whereas the East are more abstract (not necessarily a good thing on either side); the West is God is One, God is Three, the East is God is Three, God is One.
Beware. If we persist, we might have to invite Charlemagne in to add a “filio que” clause to reboot history and force a wedge between East and West …
Thomas said:
And to you.
(I perhaps ought to have provided references for some of my claims, and am happy to do so, if asked, but, in the meantime, for most of these statements, I rely upon what might, at times, prove a potentially faulty (organic) memory, namely, mine, because it has been a long time since I undertook to study ante-Nicene Christianity and I am trying to recollect highlights of that study and present them here, informally.)
. This, I am not sure even St. Peter, as headmaster, would have been able to solve with his cane in hand.
