Jesus's siblings

[Lunam_Meam]

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?” (Mt. 13: 55-56)

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon?
Are not also his sisters here with us?” (Mk. 6:3)

“For neither did his brethren believe in him” (Jn. 7:2-9)

“But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord” (Ga. 1:19)

At times, the term “brethren” refers to Jesus’s disciples in general, or His “cousins”, the sons of Joseph’s brother, Alphaeus (or Clopas/Cleophas): Simon, Joseph, Judas (Thaddeus), and James (James the Less/Just) – the latter two apostles. And, the reason James of Alphaeus was referred to as “brother of the Lord” was because He resembled Jesus in manner and demeanor.

Additionally, Alphaeus, and his two sons, Simon and Joseph, did not believe in what Jesus was preaching and doing, and it made them angry. Alphaeus remained angry and hateful up until his death bed, though Simon and Joseph eventually came to believe and become disciples.

Furthermore, in regards to “His sisters”, it refers to the women disciples. To name a few:

Mary of Joseph (Jesus’s mother)
Mary of Alphaeus (or of Clopas/Cleophas)
Mary Salome (wife of Zebedee)
Mary of Clopas (daughter-in-law to Mary Salome)
Mary of Bethany or Mary Magdalene (sister to Lazarus of Bethany)
Martha of Bethany (sister to Lazarus of Bethany)
Joanna of Chuza (Chuza was house-steward of Herod Antipas)
Annaleah of Jerusalem
Eliza of Bethzur
Marcella
Nike
Porphirea
Susanna
Sarah
…and so on

Cleopas was at Emmaus.

Correct, and nowhere in my previous post was I talking about that Cleopas.

That Cleopas IS Alphaeus.

Another name for Alphaeus is Clopas or Cleophas. However, the Cleopas you are speaking of was the son of Cleopas the Synagogue Leader, and the son-in-law to a fellow disciple named Simon, who was with him on the road to Emmaus.

Furthermore, just from reading Lk. 24:13-35, and using my reason, I knew the Cleopas you are speaking of was not Alphaeus, as Alphaeus lived in Nazareth, not Emmaus.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Cleopas and Luke arriving at an inn in Emmaus doesn’t mean that either of them lived their.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?” (Mt. 13: 55-56)

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon?
Are not also his sisters here with us?” (Mk. 6:3)

“For neither did his brethren believe in him” (Jn. 7:2-9)

“But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord” (Ga. 1:19)

At times, the term “brethren” refers to Jesus’s disciples in general, or His “cousins”, the sons of Joseph’s brother, Alphaeus (or Clopas/Cleophas): Simon, Joseph, Judas (Thaddeus), and James (James the Less/Just) – the latter two apostles. And, the reason James of Alphaeus was referred to as “brother of the Lord” was because He resembled Jesus in manner and demeanor.

Additionally, Alphaeus, and his two sons, Simon and Joseph, did not believe in what Jesus was preaching and doing, and it made them angry. Alphaeus remained angry and hateful up until his death bed, though Simon and Joseph eventually came to believe and become disciples.

Furthermore, in regards to “His sisters”, it refers to the women disciples. To name a few:

Mary of Joseph (Jesus’s mother)
Mary of Alphaeus (or of Clopas/Cleophas)
Mary Salome (wife of Zebedee)
Mary of Clopas (daughter-in-law to Mary Salome)
Mary of Bethany or Mary Magdalene (sister to Lazarus of Bethany)
Martha of Bethany (sister to Lazarus of Bethany)
Joanna of Chuza (Chuza was house-steward of Herod Antipas)
Annaleah of Jerusalem
Eliza of Bethzur
Marcella
Nike
Porphirea
Susanna
Sarah
…and so on

Cleopas was at Emmaus.

Correct, and nowhere in my previous post was I talking about that Cleopas.

That Cleopas IS Alphaeus.

Another name for Alphaeus is Clopas or Cleophas. However, the Cleopas you are speaking of was the son of Cleopas the Synagogue Leader, and the son-in-law to a fellow disciple named Simon, who was with him on the road to Emmaus.

Furthermore, just from reading Lk. 24:13-35, and using my reason, I knew the Cleopas you are speaking of was not Alphaeus, as Alphaeus lived in Nazareth, not Emmaus.

Cleopas and Luke arriving at an inn in Emmaus doesn’t mean that either of them lived their.

It was Simon, and not Luke who was with Cleopas. And, when it says they invited Jesus to stay with them at Emmaus, there is no mention they were staying at an Inn.

 

[TMC]

Brothers in that culture did not necessarily mean siblings. We see this when Lot is referred to as Abraham’s brother not nephew and yes some translations do you use nephew but that is a translation of what actually was used.
Here is the Strong’s transplantation of the word brother:
80

Well, Lot was from a different time and culture than Jesus, so I don’t see how that supports that position. It also would not explain why Paul referred to Jesus and James as brothers.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Nope. The other disciple is unnamed, and as I’ve shown from the link, the other disciple is Luke. These are disciples on the run. Kinda hard to believe they’d go to the place where they were known to live.

 

[hope]

Different culture?
No
Paul was referring to James as being a close relative, cousin. James had other parents besides Mary and Joseph.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

Correct, and nowhere in my previous post was I talking about that Cleopas.

That Cleopas IS Alphaeus.

Another name for Alphaeus is Clopas or Cleophas. However, the Cleopas you are speaking of was the son of Cleopas the Synagogue Leader, and the son-in-law to a fellow disciple named Simon, who was with him on the road to Emmaus.

Furthermore, just from reading Lk. 24:13-35, and using my reason, I knew the Cleopas you are speaking of was not Alphaeus, as Alphaeus lived in Nazareth, not Emmaus.

Cleopas and Luke arriving at an inn in Emmaus doesn’t mean that either of them lived their.

It was Simon, and not Luke who was with Cleopas. And, when it says they invited Jesus to stay with them at Emmaus, there is no mention they were staying at an Inn.

Nope. The other disciple is unnamed, and as I’ve shown from the link, the other disciple is Luke. These are disciples on the run. Kinda hard to believe they’d go to the place where they were known to live.

You have not linked anything, so I do not know what you are talking about. If you claim the second disciple is unnamed, then how can you be certain it was not Simon, and that it was Luke? And, why do you claim they were “disciples on the run”?..

 

[Julius_Caesar]

See my conversation with @TMC. The reference to Jesus’s appearance to Simon is His appearance to Peter.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

Correct, and nowhere in my previous post was I talking about that Cleopas.

That Cleopas IS Alphaeus.

Another name for Alphaeus is Clopas or Cleophas. However, the Cleopas you are speaking of was the son of Cleopas the Synagogue Leader, and the son-in-law to a fellow disciple named Simon, who was with him on the road to Emmaus.

Furthermore, just from reading Lk. 24:13-35, and using my reason, I knew the Cleopas you are speaking of was not Alphaeus, as Alphaeus lived in Nazareth, not Emmaus.

Cleopas and Luke arriving at an inn in Emmaus doesn’t mean that either of them lived their.

It was Simon, and not Luke who was with Cleopas. And, when it says they invited Jesus to stay with them at Emmaus, there is no mention they were staying at an Inn.

Nope. The other disciple is unnamed, and as I’ve shown from the link, the other disciple is Luke. These are disciples on the run. Kinda hard to believe they’d go to the place where they were known to live.

You have not linked anything, so I do not know what you are talking about. If you claim the second disciple is unnamed, then how can you be certain it was not Simon, and that it was Luke? And, why do you claim they were “disciples on the run”?..

See my conversation with @TMC. The reference to Jesus’s appearance to Simon is His appearance to Peter.

See Luke 24:31-25. After the two disciples realize they had been in the company of Jesus, they went back to Jerusalem to tell the eleven apostles, and others they were with saying Jesus had appeared to Simon, what things were done in the way; and how they knew Him in the breaking of the bread. Luke only mentions Simon because he already made it known the other disciple whom Jesus appeared to on the road to Emmaus: Cleopas.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

After the two disciples realize they had been in the company of Jesus, they went back to Jerusalem to tell the eleven apostles, and others they were with saying Jesus had appeared to Simon

Simon is none other than Simon Peter. Jesus appeared to him while at Emmaus with Cleopas and Luke.

Commentaries agree.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/24-34.htm

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

If you claim the second disciple is unnamed, then how can you be certain it was not Simon, and that it was Luke? And, why do you claim they were “disciples on the run”?..

See my conversation with @TMC. The reference to Jesus’s appearance to Simon is His appearance to Peter.

See Luke 24:31-25. After the two disciples realize they had been in the company of Jesus, they went back to Jerusalem to tell the eleven apostles, and others they were with saying Jesus had appeared to Simon, what things were done in the way; and how they knew Him in the breaking of the bread. Luke only mentions Simon because he already made it known the other disciple whom Jesus appeared to on the road to Emmaus: Cleopas.

Simon is none other than Simon Peter. Jesus appeared to him while at Emmaus with Cleopas and Luke.

Commentaries agree.

In Lk. 24:13 it is described only two disciples are on the road to Emmaus, and one is not named Luke, rather one Cleopas (Lk. 24:18), and the other Simon (Lk. 24:34). No, not Simon Peter, because according to Lk. 24:33, after the two disciples realized they had been in the company of Jesus, they departed from Emmaus and went back to Jerusalem, found the eleven apostles, and relayed to them their experiences with Him. I repeat: they found the eleven apostles, which would include Simon Peter, and mean he was already in Jerusalem.

Reason. Use it.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

and the other Simon (Lk. 24:34).

The Simon in Luke 24;34 is Peter. This matches up with 1 Corinthians which says that Jesus appeared to Cephas then to the Twelve.

Luke is the unnamed disciple at Emmaus

Notice how the Eleven are saying that Jesus appeared to Simon, as Cleopas and Luke enter the Cenacle.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

My Catholic Bible has Luke 24:34 linked with Jesus appearing to Peter.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[EugeneCharles]

Hi YHWH_Christ! Some Bible Scholars says that there’s no specific Greek word for the word cousin. The whole testament is almost written in Greek. Others claimed that they could be the sons of St. Joseph through his former wife. But I firmly believe that they are only cousins of Jesus and not the brother that speaks as His siblings.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

If you claim the second disciple is unnamed, then how can you be certain it was not Simon, and that it was Luke? And, why do you claim they were “disciples on the run”?..

See my conversation with @TMC. The reference to Jesus’s appearance to Simon is His appearance to Peter.

See Luke 24:31-25. After the two disciples realize they had been in the company of Jesus, they went back to Jerusalem to tell the eleven apostles, and others they were with saying Jesus had appeared to Simon, what things were done in the way; and how they knew Him in the breaking of the bread. Luke only mentions Simon because he already made it known the other disciple whom Jesus appeared to on the road to Emmaus: Cleopas.

Simon is none other than Simon Peter. Jesus appeared to him while at Emmaus with Cleopas and Luke.

Commentaries agree.

In Lk. 24:13 it is described only two disciples are on the road to Emmaus, and one is not named Luke, rather one Cleopas (Lk. 24:18), and the other Simon (Lk. 24:34). No, not Simon Peter, because according to Lk. 24:33, after the two disciples realized they had been in the company of Jesus, they departed from Emmaus and went back to Jerusalem, found the eleven apostles, and relayed to them their experiences with Him. I repeat: they found the eleven apostles, which would include Simon Peter, and mean he was already in Jerusalem.

Reason. Use it.

The Simon in Luke 24;34 is Peter. This matches up with 1 Corinthians which says that Jesus appeared to Cephas then to the Twelve.

Luke is the unnamed disciple at Emmaus

Notice how the Eleven are saying that Jesus appeared to Simon, as Cleopas and Luke enter the Cenacle.

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).

Note: for a time there was only eleven apostles, which was after the twelfth apostle, Judas Iscariot, committed suicide, and before the disciple, Mathias, was elected by the eleven to be the twelfth apostle.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

However, again, there is no third disciple named Luke 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.

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. Douay Rheims has “eleven”

 

[Julius_Caesar]

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.

You didn’t show. You used private revelation and conjecture.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

In Lk. 24:13 it is described only two disciples are on the road to Emmaus, and one is not named Luke, rather one Cleopas (Lk. 24:18), and the other Simon (Lk. 24:34). No, not Simon Peter, because according to Lk. 24:33, after the two disciples realized they had been in the company of Jesus, they departed from Emmaus and went back to Jerusalem, found the eleven apostles, and relayed to them their experiences with Him. I repeat: they found the eleven apostles, which would include Simon Peter, and mean he was already in Jerusalem.

Reason. Use it.

The Simon in Luke 24;34 is Peter. This matches up with 1 Corinthians which says that Jesus appeared to Cephas then to the Twelve.

Luke is the unnamed disciple at Emmaus

Notice how the Eleven are saying that Jesus appeared to Simon, as Cleopas and Luke enter the Cenacle.

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).

Note: for a time there was only eleven apostles, which was after the twelfth apostle, Judas Iscariot, committed suicide, and before the disciple, Mathias, was elected by the eleven to be the twelfth apostle.

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.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

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

And in addition to referencing private revalation, you also 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.

And, it was by referencing from the Bible, specifically Lk. 24:34, not private revelations, 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.

Commentaries agree that the Simon in Luke 24:34 is none other than Peter.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

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).

Note: for a time there was only eleven apostles, which was after the twelfth apostle, Judas Iscariot, committed suicide, and before the disciple, Mathias, was elected by the eleven to be the twelfth apostle.

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. Commentaries agree that the Simon in Luke 24:34 is none other than Peter.

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

Simon is none other than Simon Peter. Jesus appeared to him while at Emmaus with Cleopas and Luke.

Simon + Cleopas + Luke = 3 disciples. Here’s another:

Or as the commentaries have stated, the third disciple is unnamed by Luke…

Now, it’s weird you repeat a claim the third is unnamed after you named all three, but whatever…

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.

Commentaries agree that the Simon in Luke 24:34 is none other than Peter? Tell me who and I’ll show them to be wrong just as I have you.