This will BLEW your Mind!

[Ninurta]

So was this James the black sheep of the famiily ?

Kenzo,

(assuming what information is available is accurate)

I think it is like the "books" omitted from the Bible by decision of the meeting of bishops (I think that was a few hundred years after the life of Jesus); information that did not support a particular point of view was suppressed.  That what is essentially became of almost all of Gnostic Christianity -- excluded from the "standard narrative" and known today only to a few people.

Similar are the assertions that Jesus married and had children (hardly surprising for a Jewish man back then).  It doesn't support the preferred narrative, so it is only seldom mentioned and usually is considered heresy.

As with all matters of faith, people will believe what they wish to believe, which is okay by me.

Cheers

The Canon was arrived at over a long period of time. Different "Church fathers" had entirely different lists of what they considered to be canonical and non-canonical. Over several decades, a consensus emerged, but in the final analysis all of them were picked by mere fallible mortals as either "true" or "not true". Some of them can be falsified via internal inconsistencies, others not so much.

The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with it, just as the gent in the video says. the Council of Nicea established the false doctrine of "The Trinity" as Church doctrine, and gave birth to the Roman Catholic Church. It had nothing to do with the Canon, it steered Christianity away from it's Jewish Christian roots into Roman pagan territory. It's actually because of that doctrine, among others, which have no support in the Bible that Catholics have to rely on "traditions" as well as the Bible, and why they fight so hard against "sola scriptura".

Regarding Jesus' alleged marriage, the facts are sparse, but there, to indicate that he probably was, and that bit was just lost in the narrative because it had no bearing on the main message of the Bibile. For example, many folks referred to him as "rabbi", and at that time, in order to be considered a rabbi, a man had to be "the husband of but one wife" - i.e. he had to be married.

But as far as that - or anything else - being "heresy", I tend to let folks believe what they want. It's not my call whether any particular notion is "heresy" or not. that is between the believer and his God, none of my business. I'm only responsible to answer for my own beliefs.

.