Jesus's siblings

[Julius_Caesar]

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)

No.

The eleven and their companions are saying this. Not Cleopas as you’d have us believe.

NIV
Luke 24:33–34 (NIV): 33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.”

ESV

33 And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, 34 saying, "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!"

Scripture isn’t saying what you’re saying.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

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’s the eleven and their companions. Cleopas found them saying it.

This refers to Jesus appearing to Peter as he does in 1 Corinthians 15:4-5.

Again, Augustine, Bede and Chrystotom say the Simon in question is none other than Simon called Peter.

 

[TMC]

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

Yes, I agree. As I understood you, you were comparing the use of the word “brother” in the Septuagint to its use in the Gospels and Paul. That comparison is not helpful because the Septuagint is a translation, so it would be possible for a translator to mistranslate a word as “brother” when “cousin” was meant. But that is not possible with the Gospels or Paul’s letters, which were written in Greek.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Julius_Caesar:

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.

Furthermore, after Cleopas stated Jesus appeared to Simon, they explained how they knew it was Him.

You and others are overthinking this.

 

[TMC]

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

I am not sure how that matters. Paul knew James, met him, talked to him, and so forth. That seems clear from both Galatians and Acts, would you agree? I don’t see why one would assume that Paul would rely on Barnabas for his understanding of who James is.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

But it explains why Barnabas gets called cousin and why James is referred to as brother. Barnabas is a Greek Jew and James is a Hebrew Jew. They’d be influenced by their culture.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Furthermore, after Cleopas stated Jesus appeared to Simon, they explained how they knew it was Him.

Again it’s the eleven who are saying this. The eleven!

 

[Julius_Caesar]

You and others are overthinking this.

Does the Catechism overthink too?

497 Thus the women were the first messengers of Christ’s Resurrection for the apostles themselves. 498 They were the next to whom Jesus appears: first Peter, then the Twelve. Peter had been called to strengthen the faith of his brothers, 499 and so sees the Risen One before them; it is on the basis of his testimony that the community exclaims: “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” 500

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Lunam_Meam:

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.

Furthermore, after Cleopas stated Jesus appeared to Simon, they explained how they knew it was Him.

You are overthinking this.

Does the Catechism overthink too?

497 Thus the women were the first messengers of Christ’s Resurrection for the apostles themselves. 498 **They were the next to whom Jesus appears: first Peter, then the Twelve. Peter had been called to strengthen the faith of his brothers, 499 and so sees the Risen One before them; it is on the basis of his testimony that the community exclaims: “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” 500

You believe it was the apostles and others who said “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” (Lk. 24:34), and that Simon and Simon Peter are one and the same. If that is true, continue reading on in the chapter, and you’ll notice the next account is Jesus appearing amidst the apostles who responded in fear and disbelief. Why such a response if Simon Peter had already seen Jesus, and the others had already heard his testimony? Do you think this mean some or all of the accounts in Lk. 24 are out of order?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

If that is true, continue reading on in the chapter, and you’ll notice the next account is Jesus appearing amidst the apostles who responded in fear and disbelief. Why such a response if Simon Peter had already seen Jesus, and the others had already heard his testimony? Do you think this mean some or all of the accounts in Lk. 24 are out of order?

The Twelve weren’t full of the Spirit. When at the mountain in Galilee, they worshipped and some doubted.

Notice how Luke doesn’t name names.

 

[Gorgias]

You believe it was the apostles and others who said “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” (Lk. 24:34), and that Simon and Simon Peter are one and the same.

Yes and yes.

Why such a response if Simon Peter had already seen Jesus, and the others had already heard his testimony?

Disbelief from those who heard the story but hadn’t seen any proof.

Fear from those who suddenly had a guy (whom they had seen killed or heard from eyewitnesses about his execution) walk through a wall and start talking to them. Next time that happens to you, let us know what your reaction is…

 

[Lunam_Meam]

@Julius_Caesar,

You claim it was the eleven apostles who said “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” (Lk. 24:34). After this, according to Luke, and assuming the accounts in Lk. 24 are in order, Jesus appeared amidst the apostles who responded in fear and disbelief (Lk. 24:36-49). Why would any or all of the apostles be fearful and disbelieving if Simon Peter and the others were already proclaiming Jesus had risen due to Simon Peter’s testimony of having seen Him?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Again, you believe it was the eleven apostles who said “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” (Lk. 24:34).

Scripture says so explicitly.

They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.”

So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them who were saying, “The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!”
Luke 24:33‭-‬34 NABRE

The CCC takes it for granted.

You’re the only one making assumptions.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Again, you believe it was the eleven apostles who said “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” (Lk. 24:34).

Scripture says so explicitly.

Assuming that is true, and assuming Luke’s accounts in Lk. 24 are in order, after they said this Jesus appeared amidst the apostles who responded in fear and disbelief (Lk. 24:36-49). Why would any or all of the apostles be fearful and disbelieving if Simon Peter and the other apostles were already proclaiming Jesus had risen, due to Simon Peter’s testimony of having seen Him?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Why would any or all of the apostles be fearful and disbelieving if Simon Peter and the others were already proclaiming Jesus had risen due to Simon Peter’s testimony of having seen Him?

The same reason why Peter can call Jesus Son of God and stand in His way the next. Human nature.

 

[TMC]

But it explains why Barnabas gets called cousin and why James is referred to as brother. Barnabas is a Greek Jew and James is a Hebrew Jew. They’d be influenced by their culture.

Or, maybe its the simpler explanation, that requires no leaps of logic or suppositions about “culture”- that James was Jesus’ brother.

 

[hope]

There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. The other James is called James the less or the brother of Jesus Mark 15:40: "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome. Matt 10:3: “…’ James the son of Alphaeus , and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” This is James the less whose parents are not Mary and Joseph.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Or, maybe its the simpler explanation, that requires no leaps of logic or suppositions about “culture”- that James was Jesus’ brother.

“Brother” in Hebrew was a wide range of words. Also there’s the explanation that James was Joseph’s son from a previous marriage so that’s another proof that adelphos isn’t always from the same womb.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

Again, you believe it was the eleven apostles who said “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” (Lk. 24:34).

Scripture says so explicitly.

Assuming that is true, and assuming Luke’s accounts in Lk. 24 are in order, after they said this Jesus appeared amidst the apostles who responded in fear and disbelief (Lk. 24:36-49). Why would any or all of the apostles be fearful and disbelieving if Simon Peter, and the other apostles were already proclaiming Jesus had risen, due to Simon Peter’s testimony of having seen Him?

Human nature.

Not good enough.

 

[TMC]

There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. The other James is called James the less or the brother of Jesus Mark 15:40: "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome. Matt 10:3: “…’ James the son of Alphaeus , and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” This is James the less whose parents are not Mary and Joseph.

James was a common name in that time, as was John, so it is sometimes hard to tell when two people are the same person, and so on. But what we know is that Paul described the James that was the leader of the community in Jerusalem as Jesus’ brother.