how come the gospel of james contradicts every gospel of the apostles?

The fact of the matter is that the canonical gospels were written 1-2 generations after Jesus' death and are the written record of oral histories (and how accurate are those?). I am not familiar with the Gospel of James, but the accuracy of it tends to rest on the fact that it does appear in the the Nag Hammadi texts, which are widely quoted by the christians where it suits their convenience. The focus of James is on the teachings of Jesus on how to live in the here and now and less on the resurrection,Which I personally agree with, in that Jesus came to teach us how tio LIVE, not to wait for the "pie-in-the-sky"reward. I rather like the approach.

Blessings on your Journey!

The infancy gospel of James does not contradict the other gospels. The Bible does not mention Joseph's earlier life and the gospel's mention Jesus giving John His mother Mary to take care of. Joseph could have had even more children with Mary after Jesus and Joseph could have had children with another wife before Mary that may have died.

Mary is not the important figure of the Gospels. The Bible from Genesis to Revelation is all about Jesus the Christ. James may have written for history's sake, but Mary's former life was of little importance to the gospel.

James Zebedee is the beloved disciple in the gospel of John who asked to sit on his right hand side! James was a priest in the temple and was also the teacher of righteousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls who was called the messiah! There are 2 messiahs in the Dead Sea Scrolls! One is a priest and the other is a king (James & Jesus)!

The angel Gabriel told me that James Zebedee wrote the book of James and was the beloved disciple!

there is no gospel of james, only an epistle. many of these so called gospels by different authors were found to be false and written long after the death of the apostles.

Darrin, you do realize that the gospels were voted on, right? It wasn't some miraculous sign or anything that they picked those particular books almost 300 yrs after the fact. They VOTED on it. And at the time those other gospels were not widely used. That doesn't make them false or not a gospel.

And what's even funnier is the fact that it was mostly Catholic Church Fathers that got to vote on it. :O

Um, Mark and Luke were NOT disciples of Jesus. That was NOT criteria for it to be considered "gospel"

Its impossible to get an cohesive story from 40 different authors. Main reason I reject the Bible as nothing more than the word of man and his interpretation of God.

James was a stoner. he wasn't even there for half of the stuff he writes about in the gospel. he was always sleeping. it stands to reason that his gospel would just be filled with receipts from taco bell.

If I wrote a book and called it a gospel would Christians have to accept it as fact?....I think not...........>

Obviously the text that you refer to was rejected for several reasons not the least being that it doesnt line up with canonized scripture nor was it written by a direct disciple of Jesus or their disciple and it was written 400 years after the fact by the gnostics.......>

@ Robin.No they were not voted on. They were men guided by the spirit of God to choose the texts to be canonized......and the RCC didnt exist then.

The canon of scripture was completed in the very early 2nd century, not 300 years later.

Halley's Bible Handbook has a section in it about 'how we got our Bible'.

If properly understood, the bible has no contradictions.