Isn't luke the second disciple who was with cleophas on the way to emmaus?

[Ndegwahumble]

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich has four volumes detailing the life of Jesus and one of the shows that luke was indeed the second disciple going to emmaus when Jesus appeared the the two. Luke did not reveale his name in the bible the same way John did not reveal his name as the most loved disciple in the bible.

 

[paperwight]

Well we just don’t know. And we do not have to believe private revelations.

 

[thistle]

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich has four volumes detailing the life of Jesus and one of the shows that luke was indeed the second disciple going to emmaus when Jesus appeared the the two. Luke did not reveale his name in the bible the same way John did not reveal his name as the most loved disciple in the bible.

I hope you are aware that not only are the writings of Anne Emmerich not approved by the Church but she did not actually write any of them. They were written by by Clemens Brentano and nobody knows if they are simply false in total, meaning Anne Emmerich did not tell him anything that is written by him, or if they are a mixture of his own thoughts and those of Anne.
Basically, the kind way to view the writings is with a grain of salt because even the Church does not know if they are fraudulent writings by Clemens Brentano.
While Catholics anyway do not have to believe approved writings there are many writings (approved) by other saints and pious people that are worth reading.

 

[Dan_Defender]

We simply don’t know. But there are people through history who thought so and it is certainly possible.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I’ve heard this as a legend.
I don’t think it’s a dogma, though.

 

[po18guy]

Luke is known to be a Gentile convert. Personally, I think it is highly doubtful that he would have been involved in the nascent Church on that first Easter. Saint Paul alone names him, and those letters were written years, even decades later.

I know that speculation is intriguing, but it carries the potential to lead us away from that which is known.

 

[BartholomewB]

Luke is known to be a Gentile convert.

That’s not what I’ve read. He is known – as far as anything about him can be “known” for certain – not to have been familiar witb the geography of Judea, suggesting that he originally came from somewhere else and never lived in Judea for any length of time. But that doesn’t necessarily mean he wasn’t Jewish. He could be from the Diaspora.

 

[po18guy]

From the introduction to The Holy Gospel Of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke from a 1953 example of the Confraternity bible:

“Saint Luke was born at Antioch, Syria, according to the church historian Eusebius… He was a Gentile by birth (Colossians 4:10-14) and a physician by profession (Colossians 4:14). According to a legend of the 6th century, he was also a painter. He was one of the earliest converts to the faith and later became the missionary companion of Saint Paul”

 

[Dan_Defender]

As I recall, some theologians consider Luke to have been a Hellenized Jew not a Gentile. In any event, we don’t know for sure.

 

[po18guy]

As a general rule, I distrust modern theologians. It strikes me as odd that, 2000 years later, we claim to know more about historical events than those who witnesses them.