The Disciple James was called 'The Righteous' by the other 11 Disciples Jesus chose himself, Jesus never chose Paul (in fact the 12 Disciples said in the Dead Sea Scrolls - which the Church that Paul's doctrines founded could not destroy or hide from us - that 'Paul is a LIAR'), yet every Sunday you hear 'Paul's sayings quoted more than Jesus - do you not think this is suspicious? Especially when you KNOW Jesus (and almost every other tribal person on Earth at that time) had long hair like every other member of the Hebrew tribe - and Paul teaches 'Christians' (who are supposed to be followers of JESUS not 'Paul') that "It is a disgrace for a man to have long hair on his head like a woman" ...who are YOU really following if you consider yourself a 'Christian'? The doctrines of Jesus - or the doctrines of the ex-mass murderer and LIAR Paul?
You might ask yourself - If James played so important a role in the events of the time, why do we know so little about him? Why has he been relegated to the status of a shadowy figure in the background? Those questions can be answered simply enough.
Unlike a number of personalities in the New Testament, James does seem to have been an historical personage, and yet, moreover, he was one who played a more prominent role in the affairs of his time than is generally recognized. There is, in fact, a reasonably copious body of literature pertaining to James, even though most of it lies outside the canonical compilation of the New Testament that the followers of Paul successfully excluded from our Bible (but not the Ethiopian Bible which is the most complete one in existence) .
In the New Testament itself, James is mentioned in the Gospels as one of Jesus' brothers, though the context is generally vague or confusing and has obviously been tampered with. In Acts, as we have discussed, he assumes rather more prominence, though it is not until the second part of Acts that he emerges in any kind of perspective. Then, with Paul's letter to the Galatians, he is clearly identified as the leader of the 'early Church', who resides in Jerusalem and is attended by a council of elders.
Such is James's role in scripture proper. But if one looks further afield, a portrait of James does begin to emerge. One source of information he has emphasized is an anonymous text of the 'early Church', the so-called 'Recognitions of Clement', which surfaced very early in the 3rd century. According to this document, James is preaching in the Temple when an unnamed 'enemy', accompanied by an entourage of followers, bursts in.
'with reviling and abuse, and, like a madman, to excite everyone to murder, saying, "What do ye? Why do ye hesitate? Oh, sluggish and inert, why do we not lay hands upon them, and pull all these fellows to pieces?"
Much blood is shed; there is a confused flight, in the midst of which that enemy attacked James, and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him to be dead, he cared not to inflict further violence upon him.
This attack on James is pivotal. The parallels between it and the attack on 'Stephen' as recounted in Acts. It suggests that 'Stephen' may be an invented figure, to disguise the fact that the attack - as Acts could not possibly have admitted - was really directed at James. And he points out that Jericho, where James flees for refuge, is only a few miles from Qumran of the 'Stephen' version Paul peddled..
Then after three days one of the brethren came to us from Gamaliel... bringing us secret tidings that the enemy had received a commission from Caiaphas, the chief priest, that he should arrest all who believed in Jesus, and should go to Damascus with his letters...
Perhaps the major source is Eusebius, 4th-century Bishop of Caesarea (the Roman capital of Judea) and author of one of the most important early Church histories. In accordance with the conventions of the time, Eusebius quotes at length from earlier writers, many of whose works have not survived. In speaking of James, he cites Clement, Bishop of Alexandria (c. AD 150-215).
Later in his chronicle, Eusebius quotes extensively from a 2nd-century Church historian, Hegesippus. All of Hegesippus' works were reputedly extant as late as the 16th or 17th century. Everything has since disappeared, though copies may well exist in the Vatican Library (99% the contents of which is secret), as well as in the library of one or another monastery -in Spain, for example. At present, however, almost everything we have by Hegesippus is contained in the excerpts from his work cited by Eusebius.
Quoting Hegesippus, Eusebius states that James 'the Righteous' 'was holy from his birth':
he drank no wine ... ate no animal food (indicating vegetarianism was an ancient practice); no razor came near his head (PROVING HE HAD LONG HAIR LIKE JESUS ANDEVERY OTHER DEVOUT JEW); he did not smear himself with oil. He alone was permitted to enter the Holy Place [the Holy of Holies in the Temple], for his garments were not of wool but of linen [i.e. priestly robes]. He used to enter the Sanctuary alone, and was often found on his knees beseeching forgiveness for the people, so that his knees grew hard like a camel's... Because of his unsurpassed righteousness, he was called the Righteous and... 'Bulwark of the people'...
- What, then, can James be doing there -and without eliciting any explanation or expression of surprise from Church historians, who seem to find nothing untoward or irregular in his activities?
- Did he, perhaps, by virtue of his birth, have some legitimate right to wear priestly apparel and enter the Holy of Holies?
- Or might he have been acting, as Eisenman suggests, in the capacity of a kind of 'opposition high priest' - a rebel who, defying the established priesthood's accommodation with Rome, had taken upon himself the role they had betrayed? I suspect the latter! Which would explain the hatred the fraud Paul had towards him - as Paul wanted to lead a 'pseudo spiritual revolution' not a genuine one....you think not? You forget Paul is the one who's doctrines tell slaves to be 'obedient to your earthly masters and even take beatings with humility' - this was used as a justification for the African slave trade! Does the deceiving Paul who was actually helping to maintain the wicked status quo become a bit clearer to you now? No wonder the Churches that resulted from Paul's doctrines caused so much misery and EVIL in the world!...and poor Jesus is the one who gets the blame and hatred for Paul's FALSE 'Christianity'. It is CLEAR who Paul is truly serving on the Earth.
So they went up and threw down the Righteous one. They said to each other 'let us stone James the Righteous', and began to stone him, as in spite of his fall he was still alive... While they pelted him with stones... [a member of a particular priestly family] called out: 'Stop! What are you doing...' Then one of them, a fuller, took the club which he used to beat clothes, and brought it down on the head of the Righteous one. Such was his martyrdom... Immediately after this Vespasian began to besiege them.
To support this startling contention, Eusebius invokes Josephus. The passage of Josephus he quotes, although no longer to be found in any extant version of Josephus, was unquestionably what Josephus wrote, because Origen, one of the earliest and most prolific of the Church Fathers, quotes precisely the same passage.
'these things happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous, who was a brother of Jesus known as Christ, for though he was the most righteous of men, the Jews put him to death'.
The only uncertain element in this scenario is the nature and magnitude of the part played by James's death. Did it merely coincide chronologically? Or was it, as Josephus and Eusebius assert, the primary causal factor? The truth, almost certainly, lies somewhere in between: the revolt stemmed from enough contributing factors for the historian not to have had to fall back on James's death as a sole explanation. On the other hand, the evidence unquestionably indicates that James's death was not just a marginal incident. It would seem to have had at least something to do with the course of public events.
In any case James, as a result of careful analysis, indubitably James emerges as a more important personage in 1st-century history than Christian tradition has hitherto acknowledged. And the 'early Church' emerges in a very different light. It is no longer a congregation of devotees eschewing politics and public affairs, pursuing a course of personal salvation and aspiring to no kingdom other than that of heaven.
Luke 22:36-38 - He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.
Yet Paul's doctrines paint a picture of a Jesus who would rather that we suffer and die never resisting our oppressors - only forgiving and praying for them......this was used wonderfully by so-called Christians for centuries who invaded native lands and peoples all over the world and brainwashed them to 'remain peaceful' while the invaders gave them the Bible and took every dam thing the natives had of their own - including their bodies. Can't you see how effective Paul's doctrines of lies have become? Most Christians are TERRIFIED of physically fighting for anything - because they have been conditioned to be sheep, always following orders from someone 'higher' than themselves who claims to speak for or represent God. If Jesus was so devotedly pacifist - why did he loose his temper in the temple? Was Jesus shizofrenic? Or Is Paul's doctrine merely being used to PACIFY you so those more cunning can do with you as they will?
John 2.15 So Jesus made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
Here we see Jesus not only lost his temper - he WHIPPED people and threw over their tables....go and 'overturn' a table in your home and tell me that is not an act of violence!
I am not saying Jesus was a warmonger, but he was not a pathetic wimp either, he kept his cool most of the time, but even he had his breaking point, so do not feel 'guilty' because you will not tolerate certain obnoxious things in this life...there is no sin in standing up for what is right against what is wrong, even if you must use violence as a last resort when you take such a stand,
But what has all this to do with Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls?
From the Acts of the Apostles, from Josephus and from early Christian historians, there emerges a coherent, if still incomplete, portrait of James, 'the Lord's brother'. He appears as an exemplar of 'righteousness' - so much so that 'the Just', or 'the Righteous', is appended as a sobriquet to his name.
With this scenario in mind, look to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and particularly the 'Habakkuk Commentary'. When the fragmentary details of the Qumran texts had been assembled into a coherent sequence, what emerged was something extraordinarily similar to the chronicle of Acts, Josephus and early Christian historians.
One of these was dubbed the 'Liar', an outsider who was admitted to the community, then turned renegade, quarreled with the 'Teacher' and hijacked part of the community's doctrine and membership. According to the 'Habakkuk Commentary',
the 'Liar' 'did not listen to the word received by the Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of God'.Instead, he appealed to 'the unfaithful of the New Covenant in that they have not believed in the Covenant of God and have profaned His holy name'.
'the Liar... flouted the Law in the midst of their whole congregation'.
'The God and Father of the Lord Jesus... knows that I am not lying.'
According to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the 'Liar' was the adversary of the 'Teacher of Righteousness' from within the community. The 'Teacher's' second adversary was from outside. This was the 'Wicked Priest', a corrupt representative of the establishment who had betrayed his function and his faith. He conspired to exterminate the 'Poor' - those 'zealous for the Law' - said to be scattered about Jerusalem and other places.
In his book on James, Eisenman explores these parallels - James, Paul and Ananas on the one hand, the 'Teacher of Righteousness', the 'Liar' and the 'Wicked Priest' on the other - in exhaustive detail. He goes through the 'Habakkuk Commentary' and other texts line by line, comparing them with information vouchsafed by Acts, by Josephus and by early Christian historians.
This conclusion is reinforced by the striking and pervasive recurrence of Qumranic philosophy and imagery in Acts, in the Letter of James and in Paul's copious epistles. It is also reinforced by the revelation that the place for which Paul embarks and in which he spends three years as a postulant is in fact Qumran, not the city in Syria. Even the one fragment that would not, at first, appear to fit -the fact that the persecution and death of James occurs quite specifically in Jerusalem, while the Dead Sea Scrolls have been assumed to chronicle events in Qumran - is explained within the texts themselves.
There is another point that is particularly important. In the Letter to the Romans (1:17), Paul states that,
'this is what reveals the justice of God to us: it shows how faith leads to faith, or as scripture says: the upright man finds life through faith'.
'the Law will not justify anyone in the sight of God, because we are told: the righteous man finds life through faith'.
From where does Paul derive this principle of the supremacy of faith? It was certainly not an accepted part of Judaic teaching at the time. In fact, it derives from the original Book of Habakkuk, a text of Old Testament apocrypha believed to date from the mid-7th century BC. According to Chapter 2, Verse 4 of the Book of Habakkuk, 'the upright man will live by his faithfulness'. Paul's words in his letters are clearly an echo of this statement; and the Book of Habakkuk is clearly the 'scripture' to which Paul refers.
More important still, however, is the 'Habakkuk Commentary' - the gloss and exegesis on part of the Book of Habakkuk found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
But the righteous shall live by his faith. Interpreted, this concerns all those who observe the Law in the House of Judah, whom God will deliver from the House of Judgment because of their suffering and because of their faith in the Teacher of Righteousness.
Here is an example of Paul's false doctrines leading braiwashed 'Christians' to deceive in the name of God once again: