Jesus's siblings

[Lunam_Meam]

…Gorgias is showing that it wasn’t Cleopas speaking, but those in the room he was entering saying that Jesus had appeared to Simon.

If Lk. 24:34 is attributed to the eleven apostles and others, as Gorgias and Julius_Caesar claim, that means the eleven apostles believed Jesus had risen when the two disciples from Emmaus found them. However, in Mk. 16:12-14, it says the two disciples from Emmaus told the rest and they were not believed, then Jesus upbraided the eleven apostles for their unbelief in what the two disciples and others had said they had seen.

Therefore, how could have the eleven apostles simultaneously believed and not believed Jesus had risen? And, if not all the eleven apostles believed He had risen, then how do Gorgias and Julius_Caesar know Simon in Lk.24:34 is Simon Peter? And, why would Peter have been called Simon still at that point and not Peter?

 

[BartholomewB]

f Lk. 24:34 is attributed to the eleven apostles and others, as Gorgias and Julius_Caesar claim,

It’s not what @Gorgias and @Julius_Caesar “claim.” Nobody’s “claiming” anything. It’s what Luke wrote. Open your eyes.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

If Lk. 24:34 is attributed to the eleven apostles and others, as Gorgias and Julius_Caesar claim, that means the eleven apostles believed Jesus had risen when the two disciples from Emmaus found them. However, in Mk. 16:12-14, it says the two disciples from Emmaus told the rest and they were not believed, then Jesus upbraided the eleven apostles because they did not believe the two disciples and others had seen Him risen.

Therefore, how could have the eleven apostles simultaneously believed and not believed Jesus had risen? And, if not all the eleven apostles believed He had risen, then how do Gorgias and Julius_Caesar know Simon in Lk.24:34 is Simon Peter? And, why would Peter have been called Simon still at that point and not Peter?

It’s not what @Gorgias and @Julius_Caesar “claim.”

Then you have some reading to do.

 

[BartholomewB]

Look at Luke’s Greek. It’s there in black and white. It can only mean one thing.

You’re wasting your time. Day after day after day. You’re fantasizing.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Look at Luke’s Greek. It’s there in black and white.

If Lk. 24:34 is attributed to the eleven apostles and others, as Gorgias and Julius_Caesar claim, that means the eleven apostles believed Jesus had risen when the two disciples from Emmaus found them. However, in Mk. 16:12-14, it says the two disciples from Emmaus told the rest Jesus had risen, and they were not believed, then Jesus upbraided the eleven apostles because they did not believe the two disciples from Emmaus and others had seen Him risen.

Therefore, how could have the eleven apostles simultaneously believed and not believed Jesus had risen? And, if not all the eleven apostles believed He had risen, then how do Gorgias and Julius_Caesar know Simon in Lk.24:34 is Simon Peter? And, why would Peter have been called Simon still at that point and not Peter?

 

[BartholomewB]

Whether you like it or not, it’s what Luke wrote.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

If Lk. 24:34 is attributed to the eleven apostles and others, as Gorgias and Julius_Caesar claim, that means the eleven apostles believed Jesus had risen when the two disciples from Emmaus found them. However, in Mk. 16:12-14, it says the two disciples from Emmaus told the rest Jesus had risen, and they were not believed, then Jesus upbraided the eleven apostles because they did not believe the two disciples from Emmaus and others had seen Him risen.

Therefore, how could have the eleven apostles simultaneously believed and not believed Jesus had risen? And, if not all the eleven apostles believed He had risen, then how do Gorgias and Julius_Caesar know Simon in Lk.24:34 is Simon Peter? And, why would Peter have been called Simon still at that point and not Peter?

Whether you like it or not, it’s what Luke wrote.

That is not an answer to any of the questions.

 

[BartholomewB]

You first need to accept that Luke wrote what he wrote. If you want to find out why he wrote that, you can go to one of the specialists, such as Luke Timothy Johnson or Pablo T. Gadenz. But if you’re going to go on pretending that Luke wrote something else, you’ll still be just wasting your time.

https://www.amazon.com/Sacra-Pagina...Johnson,p_28:Luke&s=books&sr=1-1&unfiltered=1

https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Catho...+gadenz,p_28:Luke&s=books&sr=1-1&unfiltered=1

 

[billsherman]

You’re fantasizing.

Is there even a point to this bizarre trip down an alternate textual reality rabbit hole?

Most of these are aimed at some odd theological interpretation, but I can’t even see that going on in this case.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

You first need to accept that Luke wrote what he wrote.

No, I do not, because the following is reason to doubt you and other’s interpretation of what Luke wrote: Assuming Lk. 24:34 is attributed to having been spoken by the eleven apostles and others, as you, Gorgias, and Julius_Caesar claim, that means the eleven apostles believed Jesus had risen when the two disciples from Emmaus found them. However, in Mk. 16:12-14, it says the two disciples from Emmaus told the rest Jesus had risen, and they were not believed, then Jesus upbraided the eleven apostles because they did not believe the two disciples from Emmaus and others had seen Him risen.

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

Telling me:

Whether you like it or not, it’s what Luke wrote.

is not an answer to any of the aforementioned questions.

 

[Pattylt]

is not an answer to any of the aforementioned questions.

Sorry to butt in on this lively discussion. What conclusion are you looking for? That the two are placed in the wrong time frame or that there’s some serious problem with the text rendering it untrue? I’m trying to figure out what conclusion you are trying to reach.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Assuming Lk. 24:34 is attributed to having been spoken by the eleven apostles and others, as you, Gorgias, and Julius_Caesar claim, that means the eleven apostles believed Jesus had risen when the two disciples from Emmaus found them. However, in Mk. 16:12-14, it says the two disciples from Emmaus told the rest Jesus had risen, and they were not believed, then Jesus upbraided the eleven apostles because they did not believe the two disciples from Emmaus and others had seen Him risen.

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

Sorry to butt in on this lively discussion. I’m trying to figure out what conclusion you are trying to reach.

No need to apologize. What about my post is unclear?

 

[whatistrue]

Assuming Lk. 24:34 is attributed to having been spoken by the eleven apostles and others, as you, Gorgias, and Julius_Caesar claim,

Try reading what @Gorgias actually wrote (bold mine):

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

Based on the actual Greek, it is not definite that everyone in the room was saying the same thing, and Mark has a similar (although compressed) scene where the ones who were told of His resurrection did not believe it. So when He appeared suddenly in their midst, it was a surprise and rather starling if not actually frightening.

 

[hope]

If Lk. 24:34 is attributed to the eleven apostles and others, as Gorgias and Julius_Caesar claim, that means the eleven apostles believed Jesus had risen when the two disciples from Emmaus found them. However, in Mk. 16:12-14, it says the two disciples from Emmaus told the rest and they were not believed, then Jesus upbraided the eleven apostles for their unbelief in what the two disciples and others had said they had seen.

You are equating the fact that they are talking about it to believing what they are talking about. They are hearing reports of Jesus’ resurrection all around them. It is the subject of their talking. But what happens when Jesus appears? They think He is a ghost. They have been hearing that Jesus has resurrected but they don’t believe. Even though some of them, Simon, Mary Magdalene have seen Him but still they think He is a ghost
Why?

John
9 For they did not yet understand the scripture that He had to rise from the dead.

So yes they heard of the resurrection but they didn’t believe it. Even when some of their own told them. Of course, it was the topic of conversation. They (Cleopas and his unnamed companion)found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who( the eleven gathered together and those who were with them,) said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

If Lk. 24:34 is attributed to the eleven apostles and others, as Gorgias and Julius_Caesar claim, that means the eleven apostles believed Jesus had risen when the two disciples from Emmaus found them.

You are equating the fact that they are talking about it to believing what they are talking about. They are hearing reports of Jesus’ resurrection all around them. It is the subject of their talking.

“The Lord has risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon"

That statement expresses belief. And, if Lk. 24:34 is attributed to having been spoken by the eleven apostles and others, as Julius_Caesar and others claim, that means the eleven apostles believed Jesus had risen when the two disciples from Emmaus found them. However, in Mk. 16:12-14, it says the two disciples from Emmaus told the rest and they were not believed, then Jesus upbraided the eleven apostles for their unbelief in what the two disciples and others had said they had seen.

Therefore, the eleven apostles simultaneously believed and not believed Jesus had risen, and that is nonsensical. And, if not all the eleven apostles believed He had risen, then how does Julius_Caesar and others know Simon in Lk.24:34 is Simon Peter? And, why would Peter have been called Simon still at that point and not Peter?

 

[hope]

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

Repeating it without reading the answer is not good. I answered you.
You are equating them talking about the resurrection as believing it.

you, Gorgias, and Julius_Caesar know Simon in Lk.24:34 is Simon Peter?

Paul said so. Why he isn’t referred to as Peter? I don’t know but it is possible because he had not received the Holy Spirit. I would assume that it was still His name.

 

[Pattylt]

No need to apologize. What about my post is unclear?

You’re not being unclear. You are just demanding that the passage be interpreted in a manner the church fathers don’t agree with and therefore you are trying to reconcile it to your satisfaction.

Perhaps there is a better explanation. Have you researched what theologians think? If the text plainly says one thing, even if it isn’t making sense to you and the church says otherwise, you might get more satisfaction discussing it with them than us.

 

[BartholomewB]

Assuming Lk. 24:34 is attributed to having been spoken by the eleven apostles

In Lk 24:34 Luke is reporting that the people who stayed behind in Jerusalem gave certain information to the two who arrived from Emmaus. Nobody is “attributing” anything to anybody. If you think Luke is making a mistake, the next step is to see whether the experts agree with you. You’re not going to find any expert Biblical commentators here on a comments thread at CAF. You’re looking in the wrong place.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Nobody is “attributing” anything to anybody.

Need me to quote for you where Julius_Caesar attributed Lk. 24:34 to having been spoken by the eleven apostles?

 

[Lunam_Meam]

You are equating them talking about the resurrection as believing it.

If the apostles said “The Lord has risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon" (Lk. 24:34), then how does that statement not show belief Jesus had risen?

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

Lunam_Meam:

And, if not all the eleven apostles believed He had risen, then how does Julius_Caesar and others know Simon in Lk.24:34 is Simon Peter?

Paul said so.

Verse(s)?

1 Corinthian 15:5

I agree at one point Peter saw Jesus, but that verse does not indicate the Simon in Lk. 24:34 is Simon Peter.

He was known by both names.

Yes, but there was also more than one apostle/disciple named Simon.