Jesus's siblings

[Julius_Caesar]

but they were not total faithless brainlet’s.

And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember?
Mark 8:17‭-‬18 RSV

The Eleven lacked the Spirit. It might not be brainless but they were C+ students at best.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

…if you want me to see you can support your claim the supposed unnamed disciple at Emmaus is named Luke, then you are going to have to quote from the tradition exactly what gives you certainty of this.

I have actually posted a link from my source.

Check my convo with TMC.

I can’t find it! Help?

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

The eleven and their companions are saying this:

NIV
Luke 24:34: “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.”

ESV
Luke 24:34: “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”

Assuming that is true, assuming that Simon and Simon Peter are one and the same, and assuming Luke’s accounts in Lk. 24 are in order, after having said that, Jesus appeared amidst the apostles in the supper room (Lk. 24:36-49). And, in that instance, for the apostles present, especially Peter, to have been so fearful and disbelieving so as to act as though they had never seen, heard, or believed Jesus had risen at any point prior to does not follow your and other’s claim…

The eleven lacked the Spirit. It might not be brainless, but they were C+ students at best.

Assuming it is true Lk:24-34 is attributed to having been spoken by the eleven, and assuming that Simon and Simon Peter are one and the same, Peter did not lack faith and understanding when he testified to having seen Jesus risen, and nor did the other ten apostles for believing his testimony, and proclaiming He had.

That is an A+.

And, assuming Luke’s accounts in Lk. 24 are in order, in the next instance, Lk. 34:36-39, Peter suddenly acted as though he was seeing Jesus for the first time, and the others suddenly acted as though they had never already believed or proclaimed He had risen.

That is an F.

The apostles were not completely devoid of the Spirit, nor of common sense either. So, for them to react in the extreme ways I described does not follow your claim.

 

[hope]

Mark 16

11 When they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.

13 They returned and told the others; but they did not believe them either.

Luke 24
11 but their story seemed like nonsense and they did not believe them.

25 And He said to them, "Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke!

37 But they were startled and terrified and thought that they were seeing a ghost.

John

9 For they did not yet understand the scripture that he had to rise from the dead.
Mark 16
14 (But) later, as the eleven were at table, he appeared to them and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed those who saw him after he had been raised.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Assuming it is true Lk:24-34 is attributed to having been spoken by the eleven, and assuming that Simon and Simon Peter are one and the same, Peter did not lack faith and understanding when he testified to having seen Jesus risen, and nor did the other ten apostles for believing his testimony, and proclaiming He had.

That is an A+.

And, assuming Luke’s accounts in Lk. 24 are in order, in the next instance, Lk. 34:36-39, Peter suddenly acted as though he was seeing Jesus for the first time, and the others suddenly acted as though they had never already believed or proclaimed He had risen.

That is an F.

Luke, as many have mentioned, doesn’t name names.

And there were countless others in the room besides the Eleven. Like the women, Mark, etc.

Augustine says it best.

But with respect to what Mark says, that they told the rest, and they did not believe them, whereas Luke says, that they had already begun to say, The Lord is risen indeed, what must we understand, except that there were some even then who refused to believe this?

Problem solved.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

…if you want me to see you can support your claim the supposed unnamed disciple at Emmaus is named Luke, then you are going to have to quote from the tradition exactly what gives you certainty of this.

I have actually posted a link from my source.

Check my convo with TMC.

I can’t find it! Help?

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

The eleven and their companions are saying this:

NIV
Luke 24:34: “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.”

ESV
Luke 24:34: “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”

Assuming that is true, assuming that Simon and Simon Peter are one and the same, and assuming Luke’s accounts in Lk. 24 are in order, after having said that, Jesus appeared amidst the apostles in the supper room (Lk. 24:36-49). And, in that instance, for the apostles present, especially Peter, to have been so fearful and disbelieving so as to act as though they had never seen, heard, or believed Jesus had risen at any point prior to does not follow your and other’s claim…

The eleven lacked the Spirit. It might not be brainless, but they were C+ students at best.

Assuming it is true Lk:24-34 is attributed to having been spoken by the eleven, and assuming that Simon and Simon Peter are one and the same, Peter did not lack faith and understanding when he testified to having seen Jesus risen, and nor did the other ten apostles for believing his testimony, and proclaiming He had. That is an A+.

And, assuming Luke’s accounts in Lk. 24 are in order, in the next instance, Lk. 34:36-39, Peter suddenly acted as though he was seeing Jesus for the first time, and the others suddenly acted as though they had never believed or proclaimed He had risen. That is an F.

The point is, according to you, at one point the eleven apostles all believed and were proclaiming He had risen (Lk. 24:34). Then, in the following instance, Lk. 34:36-39, the apostles present acted as though they never did just before. That does not follow as it wasn’t as if they were completely devoid of faith, understanding, or the Spirit, nor common sense.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Read my last post.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Read my last post.

The two disciples at Emmaus, one being Cleopas, told the apostles Jesus had risen and appeared to Simon (Lk. 24:33-34). And, the apostles did not believe them (Mk. 16:12-14). So, Lk. 24:34 could not have been spoken by the eleven apostles as you claim if not all eleven believed. And, therefore how can you know Simon in the verse and Simon Peter are one and the same?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

And, the eleven apostles did not believe (Mk. 16:11-14). So, Lk. 24:34 could not have been spoken by the eleven apostles as you claim, and therefore the Simon in that verse was the second disciple at Emmaus, and not Simon Peter.

Augustine, Chrystotom and Bede along with the Cathehism say it was Simon Peter.

So it’s majority opinion.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

The two disciples at Emmaus, one being Cleopas, told the apostles Jesus had risen and appeared to Simon (Lk. 24:33-34). And, the apostles did not believe them (Mk. 16:12-14). So, Lk. 24:34 could not have been spoken by the eleven apostles as you claim if not all eleven believed. And, therefore how can you know Simon in the verse and Simon Peter are one and the same?

Augustine, Chrystotom and Bede along with the Cathehism say it was Simon Peter.

So it’s majority opinion.

I just explained why it was not, so the “majority” is incorrect.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

…if you want me to see you can support your claim the supposed unnamed disciple at Emmaus is named Luke, then you are going to have to quote from the tradition exactly what gives you certainty of this.

I have actually posted a link from my source.

Check my convo with TMC.

I can’t find it! Help?

 

[hope]

I am not sure if this is the link he meant???
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Luke

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Julius_Caesar:

Lunam_Meam:

…if you want me to see you can support your claim the supposed unnamed disciple at Emmaus is named Luke, then you are going to have to quote from the tradition exactly what gives you certainty of this.

I have actually posted a link from my source.

Check my convo with TMC.

I can’t find it! Help?

I am not sure if this is the link he meant???
Apostle Luke - OrthodoxWiki

Thank you, @hope, for being more helpful than the one who should be citing their sources, not sending their opponent on a hunt for them.

So, is that the link @Julius_Caesar?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Thank you, @hope, for being more helpful than the one who should be citing their sources, not sending their opponent on a hunt for them.

If you can’t find a link on a thread which I referenced, who’s fault is it?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

I just explained why it was not, so the “majority” is incorrect.

Or you’ve just made conjecture.

 

[hope]

The two disciples at Emmaus, one being Cleopas, told the apostles Jesus had risen and appeared to Simon (Lk. 24:33-34). And, the eleven apostles did not believe them (Mk. 16:12-14). So, Lk. 24:34 could not have been spoken by the eleven apostles as you claim, and therefore the Simon in that verse could not have been Simon Peter.

This scripture is ambiguous.

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!”

The question which you have been debating is the identity of the who. This is from the NAB.
The RSV renders it

Luke Chapter 24 <!-- .

|33: And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them,
|34: who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”

Again the question is who said.
Who is speaking? You say it is Cleopas
Julius _Caesar believes it is those in the room.

I believe the “who said” and the “were saying” are the ones in the room. Cleopas is entering the room and he hears those in the room speaking. Who said that The Lord had truly risen and had appeared to Simon.
It can be read either way. Dissecting the sentence would probably yield the answer.

 

[Gorgias]

The two disciples at Emmaus, one being Cleopas, told the apostles Jesus had risen and appeared to Simon (Lk. 24:33-34).

No, that’s not true. Check out the grammar in the Greek.

• Nominative: They (Emmaus disciples)
• found
• Accusative: the eleven
• Accusative: and those with them

Now, the key is the participle “saying”. Who’s doing the “saying”? If it’s the returnees from Emmaus, then the participle would be λέγον (in the nominative case), but if it’s the eleven and/or those with them, it would be λέγοντας (in the accusative case). Here’s the text:

Καὶ ἀναστάντες αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ, καὶ εὗρον ἠθροισμένους τοὺς ἕνδεκα καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτοῖς, λέγοντας ὅτι “Ὄντως ἠγέρθη ὁ Κύριος καὶ ὤφθη Σίμωνι.”

Yep. Accusative case. The speakers were the eleven and/or those with them.

 

[BartholomewB]

The two disciples at Emmaus, one being Cleopas, told the apostles Jesus had risen and appeared to Simon (Lk. 24:33-34).

No, you are misquoting Luke. I already showed you that last Wednesday, nearly a week ago now. See my post #154 on this thread.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

The speakers were the eleven and/or those with them.

If Lk. 24:34 is attributed to the eleven and others, as you and Julius_Caesar claim, that means the eleven believed Jesus had risen when the two disciples from Emmaus found them. However, in Mk. 16:12-14 it says the rest did not believe the two disciples from Emmaus and others, and Jesus upbraided the eleven for their unbelief.

Therefore, how can the eleven simultaneously believe and not believe Jesus had risen? And, if not all the eleven apostles believed He had risen, then how do you and Julius_Caesar know Simon in Lk.24:34 is Simon Peter? And, why would Peter be called Simon still at this point and not Peter?

 

[Lunam_Meam]

hope:

Lunam_Meam:

Julius_Caesar:

Julius_Caesar:

I have actually posted a link from my source.

Check my convo with TMC.

I can’t find it! Help?

I am not sure if this is the link he meant???
Apostle Luke - OrthodoxWiki

Thank you, @hope, for being more helpful than the one who should be citing their sources, not sending their opponent on a hunt for them.

So, is that the link @Julius_Caesar?

 

[hope]

Gorgias is speaking of the construction of the sentence

Now, the key is the participle “saying”. Who’s doing the “saying”? If it’s the returnees from Emmaus, then the participle would be λέγον (in the nominative case), but if it’s the eleven and/or those with them, it would be λέγοντας (in the accusative case). Here’s the text:

Καὶ ἀναστάντες αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ, καὶ εὗρον ἠθροισμένους τοὺς ἕνδεκα καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτοῖς, λέγοντας ὅτι “Ὄντως ἠγέρθη ὁ Κύριος καὶ ὤφθη Σίμωνι.”

Yep. Accusative case. The speakers were the eleven and/or those with them.

ark 16
14 (But) later, as the eleven were at table, he appeared to them and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed those who saw him after he had been raised.

Yes it was hard for them to accept.

Luke Chapter 24

But they were startled and terrified and thought that they were seeing a ghost

The they would have included Cleopas and his unnamed companion who many believe was his wife. They had been told and even when they saw Him it was hard to believe. They thought He was a ghost. No matter the scripture as shown by Gorgias is showing that it wasn’t Cleopas speaking but those in the room he was entering saying that Jesus had appeared to Simon.