ROAD TO EMMAUS: Names of "Disciples"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tommyc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tommyc

Guest
Do we have any idea of who the “disciples” were who walked with Jesus and “recognized Him in the breaking of the bread”?

Do we have to believe that the Last Supper instituted the Eucharist? It seems it could have been earlier, perhaps a full year or more.

Was it normal for Jews to have someone break the bread?
 
See Luke 24 : 13 - 18. My Douay - Rheims Commentary says that Cleophas was one of the two men who walked on the road to Emmaeus and met Christ. Cleophas had a house in Emmaeus which was later turned into a church. That church-house existed in Jerome’s time (400 AD)The name of the second man isn’t given. Cleophas was said by St. Jerome to be thinks Cleophas was the brother ro St. Joseph aand others saay he was the husband of Mary, the sister of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the father of James the lesser.Usuard says Cleophas was martyered by the Jews.
 
40.png
Exporter:
See Luke 24 : 13 - 18. My Douay - Rheims Commentary says that Cleophas was one of the two men who walked on the road to Emmaeus and met Christ. Cleophas had a house in Emmaeus which was later turned into a church. That church-house existed in Jerome’s time (400 AD)The name of the second man isn’t given. Cleophas was said by St. Jerome to be thinks Cleophas was the brother ro St. Joseph aand others saay he was the husband of Mary, the sister of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the father of James the lesser.Usuard says Cleophas was martyered by the Jews.
Click to expand...
The Scripture does not say two men. Some believe that it may have been his wife who was present at the crucifixion that was walking with Cleophas. The Scriptures seem to state that the other Mary, the Blessed Virgins sister, was the wife of Cleophas. John 19:25
 
Cleopas and his wife, one of the other Marys at the foot of the cross, this is what I heard at an Emmaus retreat a couple of weeks ago.
 
In the book “The Dolorous Passion Of Our Lord Jesus Christ” by Anne Catherine Emmerich, the two disciples were mentioned as Luke and Cleophas.

Was this Luke the author of the Gospel? Probably not.

The only reason I mentioned it is that this book was a major inspiration for Mel Gibson in the making of “The Passion of the Christ”

PF
 
If Mary From Bethany was not an Apostle, would she count as a Disciple?
 
Br. Rich SFO:
The Scripture does not say two men. Some believe that it may have been his wife who was present at the crucifixion that was walking with Cleophas. The Scriptures seem to state that the other Mary, the Blessed Virgins sister, was the wife of Cleophas. John 19:25
Click to expand...
Sorry. St. Luke XXIV: v 13, of the 1582 Douay-Rheinss Bible gives us this. V13. “And behold, two of them went that same day to a town which was sixty furlongs from Jerusale, Emmaus”.
v14, “And they talked together of all these things which had happened”…v15, " And it came to pass, that while they talked and reasoned with another one…"
v13, THE TWO of them.
v14, They talked ( more than one!)
v15, That while they talked - again there is not one but more than one.

Brother Rich, Not only the D-R Bible reads as I have said but the Protestaant KJV has the same words except the KJV said about threescore furlongs. (same thing)

So This poster doesnt know why you wrote that one of them was most likely a woman.
St Jerome wrote that Cleophas was one of the disciples on the road to Emmaus to stay the night in the house of Cleophas which was in Emmaus. Jerome said that the house of Cleophas was made into a Church that was still standing in the year 400. This comes from commentaries in the D-R Bible by Haydock.

Yes, Luke’s passage doesn’t say “THERE WERE TWO MEN WALKING TO EMMAUS”… If Cleophas was a disciple it make more sence to read it as two men, not a man and a woman.

I have given the commentary ( most of it) . I would like for you, Bro Rich, explain to me why it is more logical to think there was a woman on the road to Emmaus.
 
I am new here, but what I find so intersting is the fact that He was present in body, (He was already glorified), yet He took part in the breaking of the bread, and when He blessed (prayed in thanks for it) and broke it, their eyes were opened? There was no blessing of wine that I have found. It seems to me when I read the Gospel acounts of Jesus in like Matthew and John one of the ways He gives HImself away is the blessing of the bread. Yet when He speaks of it all in John 6 He also says that His words are spirit and truth. That is long before the crucifixion from the passages I read.
But Jesus did explain from “Moses and prophets from the Scriptures all things concerning Himself.” Luke 24:19-27.

What I am wondering is that if He talked of what Moses said, when is He talking from? Genesis or what? According to other beliefs, Genesis to Deuteronomy were recorded by Moses. Is that right?
 
Exporter said:
***************************************************************************

I have given the commentary ( most of it) . I would like for you, Bro Rich, explain to me why it is more logical to think there was a woman on the road to Emmaus.
Click to expand...

Ok

Sorry. St. Luke XXIV: v 13, of the 1582 Douay-Rheinss Bible gives us this. V13. “And behold, two of them went that same day to a town which was sixty furlongs from Jerusale, Emmaus”.
v14, “And they talked together of all these things which had happened”…v15, " And it came to pass, that while they talked and reasoned with another one…"
v13, THE TWO of them.
v14, They talked ( more than one!)
v15, That while they talked - again there is not one but more than one.

Brother Rich, Not only the D-R Bible reads as I have said but the Protestaant KJV has the same words except the KJV said about threescore furlongs. (same thing)

I still do not see where it says two “MEN”?

So This poster doesnt know why you wrote that one of them was most likely a woman .

I didn’t say “that one of them was most likely a woman” I said that some Scripture scholars think that it may have been his wife.

St Jerome wrote that Cleophas was one of the disciples on the road to Emmaus to stay the night in the house of Cleophas which was in Emmaus. Jerome said that the house of Cleophas was made into a Church that was still standing in the year 400. This comes from commentaries in the D-R Bible by Haydock.

You don’t think that it makes sense that Cleophas lived in the same house as his wife? They both were in Jerusalem. Why would they not have walked back home together?

Yes, Luke’s passage doesn’t say “THERE WERE TWO MEN WALKING TO EMMAUS”… If Cleophas was a disciple it make more sence to read it as two men, not a man and a woman.

Why?
The term “Disciple” applies to both male and female followers of Jesus.
 
Remember that in those days and in that culture, women were not given much consideration. And according to the customs of the Jews of that time, a man would not be carrying on a conversation like that with his wife in public, let alone having his wife join in a discussion with a stranger who came along. So they were most likely two men.
 
Bro Rich S. F. O.,

Thank You for your answer. I have read that verse maybe 50 times and never realised that it said ,“And the two…” We fool ourselves when reading as well as when seeing. I think its called “accomodation”. So now a real live Brother has straightened me out, and I value that, thanks.

So I suppose a reader of those few verses could think that Cleophas was walking with either another man or possibly a woman. Yes Bro Rich, way in the recesses of my mind I do recall that a few disciples were women.

I hope that you sleep well, have a good meal and keep your feet warm.
 
40.png
Exporter:
So I suppose a reader of those few verses could think that Cleophas was walking with either another man or possibly a woman. Yes Bro Rich, way in the recesses of my mind I do recall that a few disciples were women.
Click to expand...
It could mean a number of situations, and the Scriptures don’t tell us. Walking along with your wife towards home after the events that just happened? Alone on the road they could converse with each other. Even with a stranger I don’t think would be out of place. In a more public setting with many others, it would be different.
 
does it matter who they were, if the point is that they were among those disciples who had been following Jesus all along, in His company almost daily, had been shattered by recent events, longed to see Him again and be assured that the resurrection rumors were true, yet when He did join them, they did not recognize Him?

Same Emmaus retreat said that the reason He disappeared as soon as they recognized Him in the breaking of the bread is proof of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, since He was now fully present to them, just as He had been moments before when they could see Him and talk to Him.
 
Same Emmaus retreat said that the reason He disappeared as soon as they recognized Him in the breaking of the bread is proof of the Real Presence in the Eucharist said:
I don’t mean to be so outspoken but this has got to be the most insane explanation of the encounter these two disciples had with the risen Lord.

The fact is that He was made known by the same practice He had always done blessing the food before partaking. Read the accounts of the 3,000 and the 5,000 as well as the Passover Supper. It was the fact that Jesus showed Himself to them in His risen body that caused them to rush back to Jerusalem to announce that they had also seen Jesus alive from the grave, and how He revealed Himself to them in the breaking of bread just as He did at the Passover Supper.
Click to expand...
 
I can’t speak to the sanity of the presenters of the retreat, but as I understood the presentation, the breaking of the bread means the sacrament of the Eucharist, instituted at the Last Supper, and that is the terminology used by the early Church to describe the Sacrament. Even though Jesus had been physically present the entire time, and explained all of scripture to them, even tho in retrospect the felt their hearts had been burning within them the entire time, yet still they did not recognize him until he again “broke the bread”, as in, “Do this in memory of me”.
 
40.png
Aurelia:
. . . And according to the customs of the Jews of that time, a man would not be carrying on a conversation like that with his wife in public, let alone having his wife join in a discussion with a stranger who came along. So they were most likely two men.
Click to expand...
do we have other than anecdotal proof of this assertion regarding the deportmant of Jewish husbands and wives at this time and place?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top