Jesus's siblings

[BartholomewB]

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

No, @Julius_Caesar did not “attribute” that. That’s not what “attribute” means. @Julius_Caesar told you, correctly, what Luke has written in his Gospel. You are arguing that those words must have been spoken by the two who arrived from Emmaus. That means you think Luke has made a mistake. That is why I suggested a couple of highly recommended, authoritative Catholic commentaries. You can see whether they agree with you that Luke must have made a mistake.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

No, @Julius_Caesar did not “attribute” that.

Yes, he did. He said the eleven apostles said: “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon” (Lk. 24:34)

 

[BartholomewB]

He said the eleven apostles said: “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon” (Lk. 24:34)

It wasn’t @Julius_Caesar who said that. It was Luke.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

He was already being called Peter. See earlier in the chapter: Lk. 24:12. So, for him to have already been going by his new name “Peter”, then back to “Simon” (Lk. 24:34), then back to “Peter” later on is nonsensical…

And Jesus called him Simon multiple times, in fact even more than Peter!

 

[Lunam_Meam]

It wasn’t @Julius_Caesar who said that. It was Luke.

Luke wrote “The Lord has risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon” (Lk 24:34)? Who is Luke quoting? Julius_Caesar says the eleven apostles and others:

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!”

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Luke wrote Lk. 24:34. Who is speaking "“The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”? Julius_Caesar says the eleven apostles and others

Let’s pull up the translations approved for use.

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

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

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

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Luke wrote “The Lord has risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon” (Lk 24:34)? Who is Luke quoting? Julius_Caesar says the eleven apostles and others:

Let’s pull up the translations approved for use.

Pull up as many as you want. For reasons explained to you, the interpretation it was the eleven apostles does not work.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Pull up as many as you want. For reasons explained to you, the interpretation it was the eleven apostles does not work.

As you can see, the text refers to the Eleven saying this. So according to you, the Bible translators and the Church who indicated it in the Cathechism, got it wrong.

 

[hope]

If the text plainly says one thing,

It isn’t plane. It is hard and there are others who see it the same way [
Lunam_Mea. But I think you are right that more learned interpretation doesn’t hurt.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

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.

I have not demanded that. I have been explaining why the interpretation the eleven apostles spoke “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon” (Lk. 24:34) does not work, and why that Simon being the apostle Peter does not work, and asking questions as to why people think it does.

 

[hope]

Verse(s)?

1 Corinthian 15:5

He was already being called Peter. See earlier in the chapter: Lk. 24:12. So, for him to have already been going by his new name “Peter”, then back to “Simon” (Lk. 24:34), then back to “Peter” later on is nonsensical…

From the first Jesus called him Peter but that does not equate to all of them calling him Peter always.
Luke 22:31 Jesus says Luke Chapter 22

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like
wheat,

This was after Jesus named him Rock or as we know him Peter. He was known by both names.

that means the eleven apostles believed Jesus had risen when the two disciples from Emmaus found them.

No, it means that they were discussing it. They must have been very confused. They knew Jesus died. No one had come back from the dead and they didn’t understand Jesus when He told them He would rise again. They thought He was a ghost and that included Cleopas.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

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

If it was the apostles quoted as saying “The Lord has risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon" (Lk. 24:34), as some claim, 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 risen, but that verse does not indicate the Simon in Lk. 24:34 is Simon Peter.

He was known by both names.

I agree Peter was also known as Simon, but there was more than one apostle/disciple named Simon.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

If it was the apostles quoted as saying “The Lord has risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon" (Lk. 24:34)

Apostles AND everyone else in the room. And this doesn’t mean ALL the Apostles believed.

 

[hope]

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

Just a few versus later they think Jesus is a ghost. I think the evidence shows that they knew that Jesus had risen but they didn’t truly grasp what that meant.

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

I agree Peter was also known as Simon, but there was more than one apostle/disciple named Simon.

There are two reasons.
I hope you agree that all the apostles were there except Judas which means Peter was there as was Simon the Cananaean also known as Simon who was called the Zealot. He was so called in order not to confuse him with Peter. In the verse, it calls him Simon only which is the designation of Peter. Never is Simon the Zealot or Cananaean referred to as only Simon.
two we know from Paul that Jesus appeared to Peter before the other Apostles.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

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

Apostles AND everyone else in the room. And this doesn’t mean ALL the Apostles believed.

That statement (Lk. 24:34) shows belief Jesus had risen. So, if the eleven apostles are some of those who said it, as you claim, then they all believed Jesus had risen…

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

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

Just a few versus later they think Jesus is a ghost. I think the evidence shows that they knew that Jesus had risen, but they didn’t truly grasp what that meant.

Or, the quote in question is incorrectly attributed to the eleven apostles.

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 risen, but that verse does not indicate the Simon in Lk. 24:34 is Simon Peter.

Lunam_Meam:

hope:

He was known by both names.

I agree Peter was also known as Simon, but there was more than one apostle/disciple named Simon.

In the verse, it calls him Simon only which is the designation of Peter. Never is Simon the Zealot or Cananaean referred to as only Simon.

Simon was not only known as Peter, but Simon Peter as well. If Peter had more than one name, it is nonsensical to assume Simon the Zealot/Canaanite did not go by, at the very least, just Simon at times. And, can you deny there was not another disciple(s), not apostles, named Simon?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

So, if the eleven apostles are some of those who said it, as you claim, then they all believed Jesus had risen…

No. I said some of the Apostles. The text doesn’t say ALL.

Else James, Joses, Judas, and Simon all are unbelievers.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

If Peter had more than one name, it is nonsensical to assume Simon the Zealot/Canaanite did not go by, at the very least, just Simon at times.

So the other dudes couldn’t have just called him Zelotes.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

No. I said some of the apostles.

No. You said all eleven apostles said it too:

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!”

 

[Julius_Caesar]

No. You said all eleven apostles said it too:

Nope. I didn’t.

I merely quoted the text.