Jesus's siblings

[Julius_Caesar]

Simon + Cleopas + Luke = 3 disciples.

Here’s another:

Me referring to a case of bilocation isn’t me saying there were three at Emmaus. Jesus appeared to Peter while at Emmaus with Cleopas and his friend Luke.

That’s not me saying Peter was at Emmaus. That’s me saying Jesus appeared to Peter and two people at the same time in different places.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

Initially, you were accurate in acknowledging two disciples were on the road to Emmaus, though you were inaccurate on identifying one of them as Luke. After I had shown it was actually Cleopas and another disciple named Simon, you have been arguing for three disciples on the road to Emmaus, and that Simon and Simon Peter were one and the same.

However, again, there is two, not three disciples mentioned on the road to Emmaus (see Lk. 24:13). And, in 1: Cor. 15:5 the account is Jesus was seen by Cephas (Simon Peter), and after that the eleven apostles, not twelve, and Peter is included in the eleven. This means Peter had seen Jesus in two separate instances: without and with the other ten apostles. And, the instance Jesus was seen by Peter, and not with all ten apostles, could not have been on the road to Emmaus with Cleopas, as that would mean Peter was in two places at the same time: Emmaus and Jerusalem (see previous post for explanation).

Or, as the commentaries have stated, the third disciple is unnamed by Luke, and Luke 24:34 is the same as 1 Coribthians 15:4-5. You didn’t show. You used private revelation and conjecture.

Again, Lk. 24:13 accounts for two disciples on the road to Emmaus, not three as you claim. And, it was by referencing from the Bible, specifically Lk. 24:34, not private revelations, nor using conjecture, that I have shown the “unnamed disciple” to be identified by Luke as Simon, whom you claim to be Simon Peter. However, see previous posts as to why they were not one and the same.

…you make an unsubstantiated claim that I said there were three disciples at Emmaus. I said there were two, and Luke 24:34 refers to a separate appearance to Peter.

Your own posts substantiate my claim you said there were three disciples at Emmaus:

Next, Lk. 24:34 refers to a separate appearance to Peter? Initially you claimed it wasn’t: “Simon is none other than Simon Peter. Jesus appeared to him while at Emmaus with Cleopas and Luke.” And, again, as I have shown, the Simon identified in Luke 24:34 and Simon Peter are not one and the same.

Me referring to a case of bilocation isn’t me saying there were three at Emmaus. Jesus appeared to Peter while at Emmaus with Cleopas and his friend Luke.

That’s not me saying Peter was at Emmaus. That’s me saying Jesus appeared to Peter and two people at the same time in different places.

After hours of discussion, without any implication you were arguing for bilocation, only now do you say so, and conveniently after I proved you did say there were three disciples at Emmaus, etc.

Nonetheless, this new position of yours is not doing you any favors either, as the second disciple is not named Luke, rather Simon (Lk. 24:34), and he and Simon Peter are not one and the same (see previous posts for explantion).

 

[TMC]

Different culture?
No

Lot, who lived hundreds of years before Jesus in a completely different setting shared the same cultural, including linguistic idioms? That makes no sense, and certainly requires more than a bare assertion.

Paul was referring to James as being a close relative, cousin. James had other parents besides Mary and Joseph.

What do you base this statement on? Paul spoke and wrote in Greek and knew and used the word for cousin, but with James he used the word brother.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

The commentary I posted shows the Simon in Luke 24:34 is none other than Peter.

Would you like to check it or are you still gonna make unsubstantiated claims to show your lack of comprehension?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

After hours of discussion, without any implication you were arguing for bilocation, only now do you say so, and conveniently after I proved you did say there were three disciples at Emmaus, etc.

You didn’t prove anything, just your lack of understanding of my point.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Commentaries on Luke 24:34

AUGUSTINE. (de Con. Ev. l. iii. c. 25.) It had been already reported that Jesus had risen by the women, and by Simon Peter, to whom He had appeared. For these two disciples found them talking of these things when they came to Jerusalem; as it follows, And they found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.

BEDE. It seems that our Lord appeared to Peter first of all those whom the four Evangelists and the Apostle mention.

CHRYSOSTOM. For He did not shew Himself to all at the same time, in order that He might sow the seeds of faith. For he who had first seen and was sure, told it to the rest. Afterwards the word going forth prepared the mind of the hearer for the sight, and therefore He appeared first to him who was of all the most worthy and faithful. For He had need of the most faithful soul to first receive this sight, that it might be least disturbed by the unexpected appearance. And therefore He is first seen by Peter, that he who first confessed Christ should first deserve to see His resurrection, and also because he had denied Him He wished to see him first, to console him, lest he should despair. But after Peter, He appeared to the rest, at one time fewer in number, at another more, which the two disciples attest; for it follows, And they told what things were done by the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

The Simon in Luke 24:34 is none other than Peter.

 

[hope]

Again there was not word for cousin in their language it did not change from Abraham to Jesus. Paul used brother because that was his culture. He was a Jew. I ran into this recently with a family from the Philippines. They called a relative their aunt when in truth it was their cousin. Now they knew the word for cousin but chose another relationship because that was their culture.

 

[TMC]

Again there was not word for cousin in their language it did not change from Abraham to Jesus.

The Gospels were written in Greek.

Paul used brother because that was his culture. He was a Jew.

I have seen no evidence this is true, and it is not even internally consistent with how Paul referred to others in his writings.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

The Gospels were written in Greek.

So was the Septuagint. Brother is still translated as brother when referring to Abraham and Lot. Tobit is another example.

 

[TMC]

So was the Septuagint. Brother is still translated as brother when referring to Abraham and Lot. Tobit is another example.

Yes, but the Septuagint was translated into Greek. The Gospels and Paul’s letters were written in Greek. Also, its hard to deny that Paul uses “cousin” when he means cousin, and does not have other instances of using “brother” to mean something other than “brother.” So the argument would have to be that he used “brother” to mean “cousin” only when talking about James, which makes little sense to me.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Also, its hard to deny that Paul uses “cousin” when he means cousin, and does not have other instances of using “brother” to mean something other than “brother.” So the argument would have to be that he used “brother” to mean “cousin” only when talking about James, which makes little sense to me.

Or could just be simply that Barnabas used what was true for his culture. Barnabas was a Cypriot by birth, so he wouldn’t be using Hebrew distinctions for relatives.

 

[TMC]

Or could just be simply that Barnabas used what was true for his culture. Barnabas was a Cypriot by birth, so he wouldn’t be using Hebrew distinctions for relatives.

Sorry, are you suggesting that Barnabas wrote Galatians?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

The reference in Colossians to Barnabas is where cousin pops up, no?

 

[BartholomewB]

So the argument would have to be that he used “brother” to mean “cousin” only when talking about James, which makes little sense to me.

The oldest interpretation was that James and the other “brethren” were Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage. There would be no difficulty with the word adelphos there.

 

[TMC]

The oldest interpretation was that James and the other “brethren” were Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage. There would be no difficulty with the word adelphos there.

I agree that the step-brother theory resolves everything nicely. I am not sure it is the oldest interpretation, but it does go back to at least the Protoevangelium, so no later than early to mid second century.

 

[hope]

The Gospels were written in Greek.

The comments were on the old testament. It was not written in Greek.

 

[BartholomewB]

Jerome was the first to propose the “cousins” theory, when he was living in Rome in the 380s. According to Richard Bauckham, it was a completely new idea at the time.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

After hours of discussion, without any implication you were arguing for bilocation, only now do you say so, and conveniently after I proved you did say there were three disciples at Emmaus, etc.

You didn’t prove anything, just your lack of understanding of my point.

My understanding is based on your presentation. And, prior to me proving there were two disciples at Emmaus, and that you had been arguing for three, there was no implication from you of advocacy for bilocation of Jesus, and that Lk. 24:34 refers to Simon Peter having seen Jesus in a separate instance.

Now, this seemingly newly adopted belief of bilocation does not work either. In Lk. 24: 33-35 we read the two disciples at Emmaus departed for Jerusalem to report to the eleven apostles of what had transpired:

“33 And, rising up, the same hour, they went back to Jerusalem: and they found the eleven gathered together, and those that were staying with them,…”

The following verse 34 is where one of the disciples says to the eleven:

“34 Saying: The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. 35 And, they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking of the bread.” (In Lk. 24: 33-35)

If Simon in verse 34 and Simon Peter were one and the same, and that verse was in reference to a separate instance, then that would mean those two disciples went back to Jerusalem to tell the eleven, which would include Simon Peter, not only of their experience with Jesus, but Simon Peter’s as well, which they were not present for, and neither is there support for Jesus, or anyone else having told them about it. Additionally, why would Luke refer to Peter as Peter in Lk. 24:12, then refer to him as Simon in Lk. 24:34?..

It is far more simpler than that. Obviously, Cleopas was the disciple who said to the eleven: “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon”. Simon was the name of the second disciple, though not Simon Peter for reasons explained, and the reason Luke only named Simon as having seen Jesus was because he had already named the other disciple who had seen Jesus: Cleopas. Then, Cleopas continues on speaking of what transpired in verse 35.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

My understanding is based on your presentation. And, prior to me presenting proof there were two disciples at Emmaus, and that you had been arguing for three, there was no implication from you of advocacy for bilocation of Jesus, and Lk. 24:34 referring to Simon Peter having seen Jesus in a separate instance.

Augustine, Bede and Chrystotom think otherwise.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

After hours of discussion, without any implication you were arguing for bilocation, only now do you say so, and conveniently after I proved you did say there were three disciples at Emmaus, etc.

You didn’t prove anything, just your lack of understanding of my point.

My understanding is based on your presentation. And, prior to me proving there were two disciples at Emmaus, and that you had been arguing for three, there was no implication from you of advocacy for bilocation of Jesus, and that Lk. 24:34 refers to Simon Peter having seen Jesus in a separate instance.

Augustine, Bede and Chrystotom think otherwise.

This belief of bilocation does not work either. In Lk. 24:33-35 we read the two disciples at Emmaus departed for Jerusalem to report to the eleven apostles of what had transpired:

“33 And, rising up, the same hour, they went back to Jerusalem: and they found the eleven gathered together, and those that were staying with them,…”

The following verse 34 is where one of the disciples says to the eleven:

“34 Saying: The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. 35 And, they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking of the bread.” (In Lk. 24:33-35)

If Simon in verse 34 and Simon Peter were one and the same, and that verse was in reference to a separate instance, then that would mean those two disciples went back to Jerusalem to tell the eleven apostles, which would include Simon Peter, not only of their experience with Jesus, but Simon Peter’s as well, which they were not present for, and neither is there support for Jesus, or anyone else having told them about it. Additionally, why would Luke refer to Peter as Peter in Lk. 24:12, then refer to him as Simon in Lk. 24:34?..

One of the two disciples said to the eleven apostles: “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon”. It is easy to deduce Simon was the name of the second disciple, though not logical to have been Simon Peter for reasons explained, and the reason Luke only named Simon as having seen Jesus was because he had already named the other disciple who had seen Jesus: Cleopas. Therefore, it was Cleopas who was speaking initially to the apostles, then, in verse 35 we read they both spoke of what transpired between them and Jesus.