Yes, there is a good reason: the vocabulary and grammar in Gal. 1 tells us that James was a low-ranking church member and not an Apostle but the vocabulary and storyline of Gal. 2 tells us that James was one of the highest ranking Apostles in the church. And both are identified differently, so no one should even be assuming they are the same.

You do not apparently know the grammar of Gal 1. I told you where to read up on that. Gal. 1 actually says in the Greek that Paul met NO Apostles, only Peter, and someone else who WASN’T an apostle, James the Brother of Jesus. And remember, even if you think that means a real, biological brother of Jesus, in no list of Apostles anywhere in the first hundred years of the church is any brother of Jesus, much less one named James, included as an Apostle.

This is not evidence. There is no good reason to believe that “James”, some words after, is now a totally diffrent person just because of “well, this must be a apostle because he is leadership but the other might not be”! There is some odness in this way Paul refers to James in Gal 1, but he said that in Jerusalem were “those who were apostles before I was”. Why this isn’t enough for catch that James was a Apostle and same Apostle some words after? ’cause then this is really a odd way of refer to two diffrent person with the same name without not expecification, like “Paul, The Apostle”!

Wich is the Evidence that James of Gal. 2 is an apostle?!

He would not be a pillar if he was not an Apostle. Paul elsewhere says Apostles hold rank over everyone else. No one identified as a pillar of the movement would be a low-ranking non-Apostle; much less have held authority equal to Peter’s as Gal. 2 depicts. And the juxtaposition of three pillars (Peter, James, and John) matches the Synoptic tradition of that same triad as the pillars of the movement (the three men of the highest rank among the Apostles, that James being the brother of that John). The James of Gal. 1 is not called the pillar but in the Greek idiom there is said to not even be an Apostle, which means no one of any authority; unlike the James of Gal. 2.

You seem not to understand why Paul could not be one of the first three founders of the church (the “three pillars”). Paul joined the church years later, long after they started it. He therefore cannot have been among the founders (the pillars) of the movement.

And yes, Romans 16:25-26 means source. That the “gospel and preaching of Jesus Christ” came “through” (dia) the scriptures can have no other meaning. Just as that they were also manifest “according to” revelation can only mean they derived from—were learned from—revelation and nothing else (context allows no other plausible meaning in the Greek).

As to the rest, you don’t know what you are talking about. If you want to understand the evidence and the theory, you will have to read the peer reviewed literature. That’s On the Historicity of Jesus.

The difference in the comments was Mistakes of English and a ‘is rather then a isn’t”

The right question:
Wich is the Evidence that James of Gal. 2 is an apostle?! Please give-me. ‘Cause if don’t exist, must be the same person by the context.

*As I realized you are just assuming that James of Gal 2 is a Apostle ’cause he was a pillar! But this assumption isn’t true since that Paul was Apostle and note a pillar. Without that, I don’t see no reason to avoid that must be same James too.

In Romans 16:25-26 “in Keeping”(NIV) don’t mean necessarily source off course. The mention of Scripture in the next text again suggest the ordinary meaning. The context of Scandal of Christ’s in the “occult mystery” in 1 Cor suggest that the function of the death of Messiah was the mystery revealed; not necessarily the event in the an prophecy text, Wich is also a point of “occult mystery” the fabrication of prophecys by the Christan message in the Chris, not necessarily the events again.

I don’t see any difference between this and the last version of your comment.

The evidence is the evidence. There is no “surely.” There is only what is in evidence. And what is in evidence is that this all came through spirit-communications. Paul refers to no Apostle ever having any other source of information, or there ever being any other.

The Greek phrase “according to” most typically meant source, so when anyone said “according to scripture” they were most commonly saying “scripture tells us this; I am citing scripture as my source.” That’s simply how it is. I know you were lied to and told something else. But it isn’t true. It can sometimes mean “in conformity to” but only when the context establishes that, rather than the reverse.

Acts purports to cover the entire period Paul lived. It is not covering a “different” period. Acts repeatedly contradicts the eyewitness reports of Paul, so we know Acts is fabricating (see Chapter 9 of On the Historicity of Jesus).

And Romans 16:25-26 says exactly what I said. It says, literally, “my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ is according to revelation … and disclosed through the scriptures.” No ministry in Galilee. All revelation and scripture. That’s it.

As to the Greek of the James passage in Gal 1 entailing that James wasn’t an apostle, read the peer reviewed literature. I cite and cover it in OHJ (author index, “Trudinger”). But you are still confusing the James of Gal. 1 (not an apostle) with the James of Gal 2 (who was an apostle, as was probably at least one other James we know about; James was a common name). The James in Gal. 1 is not the “pillar.” The James in Gal. 2 is, who was the brother of the other pillar John (the Synoptic Gospels all agree those are the three pillars: Peter at the top, followed by the brothers James and John, the leading triad of Apostles).

PLEASE CONSIDER THIS COMMENT, NOT THE FIRST!

Shurely the content of “Gospel that I preache” had tradition that don’t came of comum revelations and visions; or you believe that every apostle hallucianated the major points of Ancension of Isaiah or Whatever?!
And “Acording to the Scripture” could not be unique source for that shurely, ’cause also appear in the context of “I recieve”. Only in Acts and in the Gospel appear attempts of quote as fullfilment about Death and Ressurection of Jesus, the messiah. Paul never did this, even if he did believe that all that had happen to Jesus was “Acording [Agreement] to the Scripture”.
*Romans 16:25-26 don’t say what you said… and 26 give the clear idea that “Acording with the Scripture” means “in [Agreement] to the Scripture”….

Let’s also center the debate:
Wich is the Evidence that the James of Gal. 2 is an apostle?! Please give-me. ‘Cause if don’t exist, must be the same person by the context.

And “Acording to the Scripture” could not be unique source for that shurely ’cause also apper in the context of “I recieve”. Only in Acts and in the Gospel apper attempts of quote fullfiment in Death and Ressurection of Jesus, the messiah. Paul never did this, even if he did believe that all that had happen to Jesus was “Acording [Agreement] to the Scripture”.

*Romans 16:25-26 don’t say what you said… and 26 give the clear idea that “Acording with the Scripture” means “in [Agreement] to the Scripture”….

Let’s also center the debate:

Wich is the Evidence that the James of Gal. 2 isn’t an apostle?! Please give-me. ‘Cause if don’t exist, must be the same person by the context.

False.

Galatians 1 says a vision turned Paul an Apostle and in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul says he was the same in this respect as all previous Apostles. That concludes the point. Likewise in Romans 10 Paul says only Apostles heard Jesus preach (which entails he preached only in visions) and in Romans 16 Paul says the gospel and preaching (kerygma) of Christ was known only from visions. Thus 1 Corinthians 9:1 only repeats a fact Paul elsewhere established multiple times. See OHJ, as I directed.

As to how we know the James of Gal 1 is not the same James as Gal 2, that is entailed by the underlying Greek grammar, as shown in the peer reviewed literature and accepted by the most objective and up-to-date Bible translations. That is the exact opposite of “an assumption.” See OHJ, as I directed.

As to which James is meant in 1 Cor 15 we literally don’t know. So we literally cannot say. End of story.

There were in fact several men named James. Of the twelve legendary Apostles, lists contain only two, neither of whom is the brother of Jesus. And we know the real Apostles included others besides (e.g. Apollos), and Paul appears to believe there were more than twelve (as he includes himself and others in between); and since James (Jacob) was among then the most common of names, there were in all probability more Apostles so-named than we have direct record of.

With exception of maybe 1 Cor 9.1, none of those texts say that a vision turn someone a an apostle! And then in the next verse he said that the ” seal of my apostleship” was the own church. Pointing to Missionary function purely, as the most important.

I’m skeptic about your cut of different James in galatians, since that you are just assuming that a not-apostle could not be a leadership; since that Paul was an Apostle and wasn’t a “pillar” for him! If Paul then is talking about the same James, if he wrote 1 Cor 15, James would probably be the “pillar” of galatians. But we don’t know for shure as you said.