Luke 24 and John 20 connection?

[thecone137]

Is the resurrection story in Luke 24:33-49 the same one as John 20-24 from a different perspective? Both passages have Chist giving a similar greeting, showing his real body, and speaking of forgiveness of sins. In addition both accounts seems to happen on the same day. If so how many apostles were actually there? Luke claims it was 11 apostles and “those that were with them”, while John uses the general word “disciples”. If there were 11 apostles present (according to Luke) and Thomas wasn’t present (according to John), wouldn’t that be 10 apostles? Paul wasn’t in the picture at that point and Judas was dead.
I’m confused.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Is the resurrection story in Luke 24:33-49 the same one as John 20-24 from a different perspective? Both passages have Chist giving a similar greeting, showing his real body, and speaking of forgiveness of sins. In addition both accounts seems to happen on the same day. If so how many apostles were actually there? Luke claims it was 11 apostles and “those that were with them”, while John uses the general word “disciples”. If there were 11 apostles present (according to Luke) and Thomas wasn’t present (according to John), wouldn’t that be 10 apostles? Paul wasn’t in the picture at that point and Judas was dead.
I’m confused.

You are right to be confused.
The Gospels were written many years after Jesus’life, in Greeek, which was a foreign language, by disciples who listened to what the old apostles said.
No wonder there are discrepancies. If you say the same story 10 times, for sure there are discrepancies in YOUR own tale.
Dont worry about them.Focus the essential.
Jesus was risen, Jesus is alive, We will be one day with Him.
Then, everything will be all right.

 

[thecone137]

You are right to be confused.
The Gospels were written many years after Jesus’life, in Greeek, which was a foreign language, by disciples who listened to what the old apostles said.
No wonder there are discrepancies. If you say the same story 10 times, for sure there are discrepancies in YOUR own tale.
Dont worry about them.Focus the essential.
Jesus was risen, Jesus is alive, We will be one day with Him.
Then, everything will be all right.

This is true, but I’d still like know if there is another valid explanation. We have this thing called confession, and if these events were related and Luke’s account came first, then how do we derive the power of confession to just the apostles when Luke initially speaks of forgiveness of sins as a proclamation? In addition, there were people other than the apostles in that room.

 

[TimothyH]

Luke says that the eleven Apostles were gathered together.

So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them. (Luke 24:33)

Luke also has Jesus addressing their fears and the fact that they did not believe it was Jesus.

But they were startled and terrified and thought that they were seeing a ghost. Then he said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do questions arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have.” (Luke 24:37:39)

John tells the story slightly differently, telling us that Jesus appeared twice, once without Thomas present and once a week later when “his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them.” (John 20:26). The point is that both Luke and John have Jesus appearning to the all eleven apostles at one point in time or another. The only discrepancy is when it happened, not whether it happened. Both Luke and John describe the Apostles and disciples fear and disbelief in slightly different ways as well. Luke attrributes the fear and disbelief to the all present saying “they were startled and terrified” while John personifies that fear and disbelief in one particula person, namely Thomas. Again, the only discrepancy is who was afraid and who disbelieved, not whether there was fear and disbelief.

Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.” Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me?r Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” (John 20:27-29)

If you read the fourth Gospel, you can see that John often personifies groups of people in a particular and specific person. John personifies the gentiles and non-Jews in the Samaritan woman. He personfies those under the law, which is unable to sanctify, as the man who was ill for 38 years and had no one to put lower him into the pool called Bethesda by the Sheep Gate in John 5:1-3. John even goes so far as to personify you and I as himself, calling himself “The disciple whom Jesus loved.”

So Luke and John are not that far apart. Jesus appears to all eleven Apostles along with the disciples at some point in both accounts. Both acounts have Jesus dealing with fear and disbelief at his having risen from the dead by telling the apostles to come and see him, to touch him, and to experience his risen body.

I see both accounts as Eucharistic, expecially John’s account. We are no different from those present, including Thomas. The world refuses to believe that the bread and wine can be turned into the body, blood, soul and divinity of a God-man who rose from the dead and calls us idiots for believing it. Like Thomas and the apostles, we sometimes doubt it ourselves. But like Thomas and the disciples, Jesus invites us forward to the altar to see him and to touch him. Like Lukes account where Jesus eats baked fish, Jesus invites us forward to have a meal with him.

I see the whole thing as Eucharistic. Then again, I see the Eucharist everywhere in the Bible.

-Tim-

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Note that Saint John writes as an eye-witness to the events while Saint Luke writes from the testimony of eyewitnesses. It seems reasonable that they may have neglected some detail when telling him the story, e.g. they may have said “He appeared to us” without noting that Saint Thomas was absent.

 

[TimothyH]

Note that Saint John writes as an eye-witness to the events while Saint Luke writes from the testimony of eyewitnesses. It seems reasonable that they may have neglected some detail when telling him the story, e.g. they may have said “He appeared to us” without noting that Saint Thomas was absent.

That’s a great point.

And brevity is the soul of wit.

-Tim-

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

This is true, but I’d still like know if there is another valid explanation. We have this thing called confession, and if these events were related and Luke’s account came first, then how do we derive the power of confession to just the apostles when Luke initially speaks of forgiveness of sins as a proclamation? In addition, there were people other than the apostles in that room.

Again, it always come to interpretation. It is not up to us, 2000 apart to discover new meanings that the Early Church, who knew Old Greek and had the tradition close, did not discover.

Your question is real but I think that cannot be solved, 2000 years apart. That why we have, twin to the Scripture, the Tradition of the Church, ie, the feeling of the Community for these 2000 years.

You will find a book written by a priest which surname is Brown (forgot name and title), that deals in 600 pages, with all the comparisons and contradictions of the Gospels.