Twelve, Eleven, then Ten? (Apostles)

[Soul.og]

That makes it even worse: it's now just a special pleading fallacy argument.

It’s not special pleading to say a term can function differently in different contexts—that’s simply how language works, and the Gospel writers use numerical titles that way all the time. My point is straightforward: in Luke 24:33, “the Eleven” cannot be a literal headcount, because the narrative itself makes that reading impossible.

John explicitly states that Thomas was absent at the first appearance (John 20:24). If Thomas is absent in John, then he cannot simultaneously be present in Luke’s parallel moment. That’s not convenience—that’s the text forcing the conclusion.

If you want “the Eleven” in Luke 24:33 to be a literal census, then you need to explain how:

• Thomas is absent in John 20:24,
• yet supposedly present in Luke 24:33,
• and still somehow hears the news for the first time later that same evening (John 20:25).

Simply labeling my argument a fallacy doesn’t resolve that contradiction. It just sidesteps the narrative evidence.

If your interpretation creates an internal conflict between Luke and John, the burden is on you to show how both accounts can be true under your reading. My reading preserves both texts without forcing them to contradict each other.

This is one of the hidden truths in the passages in question:

Luke 24:29 N/A-W/H
29 και παρεβιασαντο αυτον λεγοντες μεινον μεθ ημων οτι προς εσπεραν εστιν και κεκλικεν ηδη η ημερα και εισηλθεν του μειναι συν αυτοις

οτι προς εσπεραν εστιν και κεκλικεν ηδη η ημερα
for it is toward evening-time, and the day is now in decline

This text informs the observant reader of the exact time of day at this point in the narrative: it is the midday oblation, (hour of prayer), and this is when the Master sits down with them to break bread, and their eyes are opened, so that they finally knew who he was. This is the Tzohorim Hour, (the two lights), the midday hour of prayer, the sixth-to-seventh hour of the civil calendar day: it is the time when "the women go forth to draw water", (Gen 24:11, Jhn 4:6-7), wherein the sun reaches its apex in the sky at solar noon. And at this time the sun crosses over and begins its decline, (Luke 24:29), into the west.

From this time of day, the end of the Tzohorim Hour, the two decide they must return to Yerushalem to inform the others that the Master had appeared to them. Their trip is sixty Greek stadia from Emmaus according to the text. That is just about seven miles. 3 mph is the average walking pace, but at a more brisk pace, (probably to be assumed here), the pace would most likely be at about 3.5 mph. So then, assuming they were walking a brisk pace to get back to Yerushalem as soon as possible, (3.5 mph), their trip from Emmaus back to Yerushalem would have taken 2 hours. Now therefore we are somewhere near the bottom of the ninth hour when they arrive back at the place where the apostles and disciples were gathered. Understand the times? The Master appears this time, to the whole group, during the Shabbat hour of the sacred calendar day, which is from the bottom of the ninth hour to the bottom of the tenth hour of the civil calendar day.

John 20:19 N/A-W/H
19 ουσης ουν οψιας τη ημερα εκεινη τη μια σαββατων και των θυρων κεκλεισμενων οπου ησαν οι μαθηται δια τον φοβον των ιουδαιων ηλθεν ο ιησους και εστη εις το μεσον και λεγει αυτοις ειρηνη υμιν

I have seen other posts of yours a while back in other threads, and have seen how proficient you appear to be in the Greek language, but especially concerning the Shabbat in a thread where you were debating/discussing the topic.

Learn therefore what this means:

ουσης ουν οψιας τη ημερα εκεινη τη μια σαββατων

Your interpretation only works by importing a ritual time‑system into Luke that Luke himself never uses. Nothing in Luke 24:29 suggests Temple hours, liturgical schedules, or symbolic solar terminology. Luke is writing straightforward narrative Greek, and your reconstruction depends on redefining his words.

Luke’s actual Greek says:​

• πρὸς ἑσπέραν ἐστίν — “it is toward evening”
• κέκλικεν ἤδη ἡ ἡμέρα — “the day has already declined / is far spent”

These idioms always refer to late afternoon moving toward evening. They never mean:

• solar noon
• the midday oblation
• the sun at its apex
• the sixth–seventh hour

Your reading reverses the meaning of the Greek. Luke says the day is ending, not beginning its decline.

And Luke uses none of the liturgical terms you’re importing:​

• tzohorim
• “two lights”
• midday oblation
• sixth–seventh hour
• Temple prayer schedule
• solar‑noon symbolism

These belong to Jewish ritual vocabulary, not Luke’s narrative style. Bringing them into Luke 24 is not exegesis—it’s rewriting Luke to fit a theory.

Luke’s narrative gives no timeline for your reconstruction​

Luke does not tell us:

• how long the walk took
• how long the conversation lasted
• how long they sat at the table
• how fast they returned
• what time they arrived back in Jerusalem

Your hour‑by‑hour reconstruction is built on details Luke never provides.

Luke’s sequence is simple and coherent​

1. Jesus walks with two disciples to Emmaus in the late afternoon.
2. Jesus reveals Himself at the table in the early evening.
3. The two disciples immediately return to Jerusalem and report to “the Eleven and those with them.”
4. Jesus appears to the apostles (Thomas absent) later that same evening.

Nothing in Luke requires the Emmaus appearance and the locked‑room appearance to be simultaneous.

John describes a different event entirely​

John 20:19-25 has:

• a different location (locked house)
• a different circumstance (doors shut for fear)
• a different purpose (commissioning and breathing the Spirit)
• a different audience (ten apostles)
• a different detail (Thomas absent)

Luke’s Emmaus account has:

• a road
• no locked house
• no commissioning
• two disciples
• no mention of Thomas

These are not the same scene. If Luke and John intended them to be identical, the differences in setting, audience, and actions would be inexplicable.

The accounts fit together without forcing them​

Luke describes:

• the Emmaus journey
• the evening meal revelation
• the disciples’ return to Jerusalem
• their report to the apostolic group

John describes:

• Jesus’s separate appearance to the apostles (Thomas absent)
• Jesus’s second appearance eight days later (Thomas present)

Parallel timing does not make two clearly different scenes the same event.

The Luke and John passages under discussion are the same event, (companion passages).

Saying Luke 24 and John 20 describe the same event ignores the most basic narrative facts. They are thematically related—both occur on Resurrection Day—but they are not companion passages in the sense of depicting a single moment.

Luke 24:13-35 (with Mark 16:12-13) describes Jesus appearing to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, then revealing Himself to them at a table in Emmaus.

John 20:19-25 (with Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-43) describes Jesus appearing later that same day to the ten apostles in a locked house in Jerusalem, with Thomas absent.

Different location. Different audience. Different setting. Different purpose. Different details.

Those are not parallel accounts of the same moment—they are distinct episodes within the same resurrection sequence.

Luke narrates the Emmaus encounter. John narrates the later appearance to the gathered apostles.

Calling them “companion passages” only works if you ignore the differences in setting, characters, and actions. The texts themselves do not support conflating them.

 

[dak]

It’s not special pleading to say that a term can function differently in different contexts. That’s just how language works. My point is simply that in Lk. 24:33, "the Eleven" cannot be a literal headcount because the narrative itself makes that impossible — Thomas is explicitly absent in the parallel scene (Jn. 20:24). That’s not convenience; that’s the text.

Already answered: everywhere else in the Gospel accounts, and even Acts 1, it means the entire eleven apostles called "the eleven".

If you think Luke must be using it as a literal number in that verse, then you need to explain how Thomas could be absent in John yet already present in Luke. Simply calling it a fallacy doesn’t resolve the contradiction — it just avoids dealing with the narrative evidence.

Already explained: Thomas is absent in the pericope inserted into the Gospel of John because the whole reason for the so-called church fathers for inserting the pericope was for one reason and one reason only: to find a way to insert the Trinity dogma into the text of that Gospel account.

John 20:28 KJV
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

There it is: the above statement is the sole reason why the Thomas pericope was inserted into the Gospel of John. It is also the reason why neither Mark nor Luke knew anything about this Thomas passage: it did not exist when they wrote their accounts.

Your interpretation depends on overriding Luke’s Greek with a ritual time‑system that Luke never uses. Nothing in Lk. 24:29 suggests liturgical hours, Temple schedules, or symbolic solar terminology. Luke’s wording is straightforward narrative Greek, and your reconstruction only works by redefining his language.

You are missing so much by casting aside the sacred calendar day, such as time prophecies in Sefer Daniel fulfilled in the ministry of the Meshiah and his crucifixion, the fulfillment of the six yamim of the new creation and the eternal Shabbat from the opening creation account fulfilled in the crucifixion, and many other prophecies which one cannot understand without understanding the sacred calendar day: even Pentecost had not fully come until the third hour of the day in Acts 2. These things are related and referenced all over the place in the Gospel accounts, and especially in the Gospel we now know as John. Prophetically speaking, you are walking blind without this knowledge, and very close to actually, (unwittingly), denying the work of the Meshiah during his ministry and his crucifixion and resurrection.

The crucifixion contains the six yamim of the new creation, and what follows is the eternal Shabbat, the seventh yom-hour of the sacred calendar day.

Mark 15:25-34 KJV
25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,
30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.
31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.
32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.
33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.
34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15:42
42 και ηδη οψιας γενομενης επει ην παρασκευη ο εστιν προσαββατον

Moreover προσαββατον, (singular), is not what most assume or have been taught.
You should have listened: but to each his or her own I suppose.

· πρὸς ἑσπέραν ἐστίν — “it is toward evening”
· κέκλικεν ἤδη ἡ ἡμέρα — “the day has already declined / is far spent”

These idioms consistently refer to late afternoon approaching evening. They never mean:

· solar noon
· the midday oblation
· the sun at its apex
· the sixth‑to‑seventh hour

Your reading reverses the meaning of the Greek. Luke says the day is ending, not beginning its decline.

Luke uses none of the following:

· tzohorim
· “two lights”
· midday oblation
· sixth‑to‑seventh hour
· Temple prayer schedule
· solar‑noon symbolism

These are Jewish liturgical terms, not part of Luke’s vocabulary or narrative framework. Importing them into Luke and then using them to override Luke’s own wording is not sound exegesis.

Luke’s time references are ordinary narrative markers, not ritual ones.

Luke does not tell us:

· how long they walked
· how long they talked
· how long they stayed at the table
· how fast they walked back
· what time they arrived

Your hour‑by‑hour reconstruction is built on details Luke never gives.

Luke’s narrative sequence is simple and coherent:

I. Jesus walks with two disciples to Emmaus in the late afternoon
II. Jesus reveals Himself to the two disciples at the table in Emmaus in the early evening
III. The two disciples immediately return to Jerusalem and report to the Eleven and their companions what they have seen
IV. Jesus appears to the gathered apostles (Thomas absent) later that same evening

Nothing in Luke requires the Emmaus appearance and the locked‑house appearance to be simultaneous.

John describes a different event entirely.
John 20:19-25 has:

· a different location (locked house)
· a different circumstance (doors locked for fear)
· a different purpose (commissioning and breathing the Spirit)
· a different audience (ten apostles)
· a different detail (Thomas absent)

Luke’s Emmaus account has:

· a road
· no locked house
· no commissioning and breathing of the Spirit
· two disciples
· no mention of Thomas

These are not the same scene. If Luke and John intended them to be the same event, the differences in setting, audience, and actions would be inexplicable.

The two accounts fit together without conflation.

Luke describes:

· Jesus walking with two disciples to Emmaus in the late afternoon
· Jesus revealing Himself to the two disciples at the table in Emmaus in the early evening
· The two disciples immediately return to Jerusalem and report to the apostolic group (“the Eleven”) and their companions what they have seen

John describes:

· Jesus’s separate appearance to the apostles (Thomas absent) in the evening "of that same day"
· His second appearance eight days later (Thomas present)

Parallel timing does not make two clearly different scenes the same event.



As shown above, Lk. 24:13-35 (cf. Mk. 16:12-13) and Jn. 20:19-25 (cf. Mk. 16:14; Lk. 24:36-43) are related thematically, but they are not companion passages in the sense of describing the same event. Luke narrates Jesus’ appearance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, while John narrates Jesus’ later appearance to the gathered ten apostles in a locked house in Jerusalem that same day. These are distinct episodes within the same resurrection sequence, not parallel accounts of a single moment.

Again, to each his or her own I suppose.

 

[Soul.og]

everywhere else in the Gospel accounts, and even Acts 1, it means the entire eleven apostles called "the eleven".

Again, the claim that “the Eleven” or “the Twelve” must always be a literal headcount simply doesn’t hold up. These phrases function as established group designations, not constant census reports.

So let me put the question to you: when John refers to Thomas as “one of the Twelve” in John 20:24, do you treat that as a literal numerical statement? Because that scene occurs after Judas’ death and before Matthias’ selection.

If you insist the phrase must always reflect an exact number, then you’re forced to say John made an error by calling Thomas “one of the Twelve” at that moment. But if you acknowledge that “the Twelve” can operate as a fixed title for the apostolic group—even when the literal number isn’t twelve—then your objection collapses.

Thomas is absent in the pericope inserted into the Gospel of John because the whole reason for the so-called church fathers for inserting the pericope was for one reason and one reason only: to find a way to insert the Trinity dogma into the text of that Gospel account.

John 20:28 KJV
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

There it is: the above statement is the sole reason why the Thomas pericope was inserted into the Gospel of John. It is also the reason why neither Mark nor Luke knew anything about this Thomas passage: it did not exist when they wrote their accounts.

Every ancient manuscript of John—including the earliest ones we possess—contains the Thomas episode. To name just a few:

• 66 (c. 200 AD) — includes John 20:24–29
• 75 (late 2nd / early 3rd century) — includes it
• Codex Vaticanus (4th century) — includes it
• Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) — includes it
• All later manuscripts — include it

If this were a later insertion, we would expect at least one of the following:

• a manuscript lacking the passage
• textual seams or disruptions
• marginal notes flagging uncertainty
• variant traditions omitting it

But none of that exists. There is no textual tradition in which the Thomas episode is missing. The “later insertion” claim simply isn’t viable.

And even if your theory were correct—it isn’t— it still wouldn’t touch the argument I actually made:

• Luke uses “the Eleven” in a scene where Thomas is not present
• John calls Thomas “one of the Twelve” after Judas is dead and before Matthias is chosen

This demonstrates that “the Eleven” and “the Twelve” can function as group titles, not strictly literal headcounts.

Your insertion hypothesis doesn’t resolve this; it sidesteps the narrative evidence entirely.

You are missing so much by casting aside the sacred calendar day, such as time prophecies in Sefer Daniel fulfilled in the ministry of the Meshiah and his crucifixion, the fulfillment of the six yamim of the new creation and the eternal Shabbat from the opening creation account fulfilled in the crucifixion, and many other prophecies which one cannot understand without understanding the sacred calendar day: even Pentecost had not fully come until the third hour of the day in Acts 2. These things are related and referenced all over the place in the Gospel accounts, and especially in the Gospel we now know as John. Prophetically speaking, you are walking blind without this knowledge, and very close to actually, (unwittingly), denying the work of the Meshiah during his ministry and his crucifixion and resurrection.

The crucifixion contains the six yamim of the new creation, and what follows is the eternal Shabbat, the seventh yom-hour of the sacred calendar day.

Mark 15:25-34 KJV
25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,
30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.
31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.
32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.
33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.
34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15:42
42 και ηδη οψιας γενομενης επει ην παρασκευη ο εστιν προσαββατον

Moreover προσαββατον, (singular), is not what most assume or have been taught.
You should have listened: but to each his or her own I suppose.

You’re shifting the discussion away from Luke’s actual wording and into a symbolic calendar framework that Luke never uses.

My argument is grounded in what Luke wrote in Greek, not in later prophetic systems or liturgical reconstructions.

Luke’s language in 24:29 is completely straightforward:

• πρὸς ἑσπέραν ἐστίν — “it is toward evening”
• κέκλικεν ἤδη ἡ ἡμέρα — “the day has already declined / is far spent”

These expressions consistently refer to late afternoon moving into evening. They never mean:

• solar noon
• the sixth hour
• the midday offering
• the start of a symbolic “yom‑hour”

Those interpretations are not part of Luke’s vocabulary, nor of standard Koine usage.

Appealing to Daniel, sacred‑calendar structures, or symbolic time divisions does nothing to change what Luke actually wrote. Luke is giving narrative time markers, not liturgical ones.

And none of this touches the central issue:

• Luke’s Emmaus appearance
• John’s locked‑room appearance

These are different events with different settings, different audiences, and different narrative purposes.

Importing an external symbolic system to collapse them into a single moment isn’t exegesis—it’s imposing a framework onto the text.

If you want to argue that Luke intended a ritual time system here, then you need to demonstrate:

1. that Luke uses such a system anywhere in his writings,
2. that he signals he is using it in this passage, and
3. that the Greek expressions in 24:29 can legitimately carry the meaning you’re assigning to them.

So far, none of those requirements have been met.

 

[dak]

Again, not every use of "the Eleven" or "the Twelve" is meant as a literal headcount. Sometimes these terms function as group titles.

Prove your assertion.

So let me ask you: when John calls Thomas "one of the Twelve" in Jn. 20:24, do you take that as a literal numerical statement? Because that scene takes place after Judas had died and before Matthias was chosen.

Yes, I do take it literal, because Thomas was indeed one of the original twelve.

If you insist the phrase must always reflect an exact count, then John is wrong to call Thomas "one of the Twelve" at that moment. But if you recognize that "the Twelve" can sometimes function as a group designation rather than a literal number, then your objection disappears.

No, John is not wrong for speaking the truth, that indeed Thomas was one of the twelve.

Every ancient manuscript of John — including the earliest ones we possess — contains the Thomas episode.

· 66 (c. AD 200) — includes Jn. 20:24-29
· 75 (late 2nd / early 3rd century) — includes it
· Codex Vaticanus (4th century) — includes it
· Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) — includes it
· All later manuscripts — include it

If it were a later insertion, we would expect:

· at least one manuscript without it
· or signs of textual disruption
· or marginal notes
· or variant traditions

But we have none of that.
There is no textual tradition in which the Thomas episode is missing, so the idea of a later insertion is not viable.

For one, P66 does not contain the pericope adulterae, moreover it employs the staurogram, a telltale sign that it has been in the hands of RCC scribes and is probably later than originally proposed. Its dating is contested to this day. Dating estimates vary and are given in the right side panel of the link following this and the other quotes below:

"Date c. 150-250, about AD 200 (Martin), AD 100-150 (Hunger), "early or middle fourth century" (Nongbri)"

"In common with both the other surviving early papyri of John's Gospel – P45 (apparently), P75, and most New Testament uncials – Papyrus 66 does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53-8:11),[4] demonstrating the absence of this passage in all the surviving early witnesses of the Gospel of John. The manuscript also contains, consistently, the use of Nomina Sacra."
"Studies done by Karyn Berner[5] and Philip Comfort[6] contended that 66 had the work of three individuals on it: the original, professional scribe; a thoroughgoing corrector; and a minor corrector. But more recently James Royse argues that, with the possible exception of John 13:19, the corrections are all by the hand of the original copyist.[7] Elizabeth Schrader Polczer adds that, in the case of John 11, the copyist may have introduced an entirely new character, Martha, to the text, but this argument remains controversial."
"The staurogram appears in at least ten places in the papyrus (corresponding to chapter 19 of the Gospel)."

Papyrus 66 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

P75 does not contain any portion of John chapters 16-20.
Moreover it also does not include the pericope adulterae.

"Papyrus 75 (formerly Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV, now Hanna Papyrus 1), is an early Greek New Testament manuscript written on papyrus containing text from the Gospel of Luke 3:18–24:53, and John 1:1–15:8."

Papyrus 75 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Under "Notable Readings" in the same link:
"The manuscript lacks the Pericope of the Adulteress, usually placed in translations at John 7:53–8:11. This omission is supported by: 66 א‎ B A(vid) C(vid) L N T W X Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 3 9* 22 33 72 96 97 106 108 123 131 139 157 179* 249 250 253 565 1241 1333 1424 2768 a f l q sy ly pbo bopt; Or Hiermss; plus according to Tischendorf, at least 50 others (see manuscript evidence against PdA)."

Papyrus 75 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are indeed 4th century, as you say: so of course they and all others after them are going to contain the Thomas pericope which was added before those 4th century MSS. were copied/written. The earliest manuscript we have of the Gospel of John, whichever one that might be, is no earlier than late 3rd century to middle fourth century.

And even if your claim were true (it isn’t), it still wouldn’t address the point I raised:

· Luke uses “the Eleven” in a scene where Thomas is absent
· John calls Thomas “one of the Twelve” after Judas is dead and before Matthias is chosen

This shows that “the Eleven” and “the Twelve” can sometimes function as group titles, not only literal headcounts.

Your claim about an “insertion” doesn’t resolve that — it simply avoids engaging with the narrative evidence.

Answered above herein.

 

[dak]

You’re shifting the discussion away from the text into a symbolic calendar system that Luke never uses.
My argument is about what Luke actually wrote in Greek, not about later prophetic frameworks or liturgical symbolism.

For one, it is not a symbolic calendar: it is the sacred calendar day introduced in the opening creation account. Yom is Light, not "a day", review Gen 1:5 where Elohim calls the Light, Yom, not day as rendered by natural minded translators. The hour is the base unit when yom is used for time increments. Sadly this definition is the only time increment not found in the lexicons.

A yom can be a twelve hour day, and that day can also be a day for a year or a year for a day, and one yom is as a thousand years and a thousand years are as one yom with the Master, and in Psalm 90, a Psalm of Mosheh, a thousand years are as yesterday when it is passed, and as a watch in the night in the eyes of the Most High, and a watch in the night is of course only three hours.

If a yom can be all these things then no doubt a yom can be an hour: and the Master himself confirms this in the parable of the vineyard workers using the twelve hour civil calendar day, wherein those who worked twelve hours received one denarius, but those who came at the eleventh hour and only worked one hour also received one denarius. Why? because one yom is counted in that parable as being worth one denarius: and one yom can be either an hour or the twelve hour civil calendar day, one full day.

Do you really suppose that Luke did not understand this?

Luke 5:17 KJV
17 And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.

Luke 5:17a T/R
17a και εγενετο εν μια των ημερων
17a And it came to pass in (day) one of the days (of the week)

Next Day:

Luke 6:1 KJV
1 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

Luke 6:1a T/R
1a εγενετο δε εν σαββατω δευτεροπρωτω
1a And it came to pass in the second primary Shabbat

This is the Shabbat hour of the second day of the week: for the Shabbat hour is the Primary Shabbat, (not the weekly Shabbat), for the daily Shabbat hour is from the opening creation account.

Next Day:

Luke 6:6 KJV
6 And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.

G2087 ἕτερος heteros (he'-te-ros) adj.
(an-, the) other or different.
[of uncertain affinity]
KJV: altered, else, next (day), one, (an-)other, some, strange

Luke 6:6a T/R
6a εγενετο δε και εν ετερω σαββατω
6a And it came to pass in the next Shabbat

Luke 5:17a ~ the first day of the days of the week
Luke 6:1a ~ the second primary Shabbat of the week
Luke 6:6 ~ the next primary Shabbat, (which would have been the third of the week).

In both instances above, (Luke 6:1 and Luke 6:6), Shabbat, σαββατω n-dns, is singular, which I already tried to clue you in about, (study the Septuagint). Yes, the author of the Gospel account we now know as Luke understood the sacred calendar day and is using it in his Gospel account. Moreover: I told you it was hidden.

Luke’s wording in 24:29 is unambiguous:
· πρὸς ἑσπέραν ἐστίν — “it is toward evening”

Agreed.

· κέκλικεν ἤδη ἡ ἡμέρα — “the day has already declined / is far spent”

Nope.

These expressions always refer to late afternoon moving into evening.
They never mean:

· solar noon
· the sixth hour
· the midday oblation
· the beginning of a sacred‑calendar “yom-hour”

Those meanings are not in Luke’s vocabulary and not in Koine Greek usage.

Study the Torah: I've already pointed you to some of the important passages.

Appealing to Daniel, the sacred calendar, or symbolic “yom-hours” does not change what Luke actually wrote. Luke is giving narrative time markers, not liturgical ones.

Says you: prove you own assertion which I've already shown to be in error.

And none of this addresses the central point:

· Luke’s Emmaus appearance and
· John’s locked‑room appearance

are different events with different settings, audiences, and purposes.

I have not said that "Luke's Emmaus appearance" was the same as "John's locked-room appearance". My claim is that Luke's upper room appearance is the same occasion as "John's locked upper room appearance".

Importing an external symbolic system to force them into one moment is not exegesis — it’s overriding the text.

Already proven to be false.

If you want to argue that Luke intended a ritual time system, you would need to show:

I. Luke ever uses that system anywhere else
II. Luke signals that he is using it here
III. The Greek expressions in 24:29 can actually mean what you claim

So far, none of that has been demonstrated.

All of that has now been demonstrated.

 

[dak]

More important background information which has already been posted, referenced, and mentioned, but which I only hinted at and did not try to expound upon at that time:

Mark 16:9-14 ASV
9 Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, [πρωτη σαββατου] he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.
10 She went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11 And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved.
12 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country. [Emmaus, Luke 24:13]
13 And they went away and told it unto the rest: neither believed they them. [Luke 24:33-35]
14 And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen.

Luke 24:4-11 ASV
4 And it came to pass, while they were perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel:
5 and as they were affrighted and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
7 saying that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
8 And they remembered his words,
9 and returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.
10 Now they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James: and the other women with them told these things unto the apostles.
11 And these words appeared in their sight as idle talk; and they disbelieved them.

Mark and Luke are in agreement in these passages.

The eleven apostles did not believe the testimony of the women who said that the tomb was empty and the Master was risen. Apparently "all the rest", (Luke 24:9), did not believe their testimony either: for even the two on the road to Emmaus were rebuked by the Master for not having understood the scriptures which foretold what the Meshiah must suffer and after that rise the third day.

Luke 24:15-27 ASV
15 And it came to pass, while they communed and questioned together, that Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
17 And he said unto them, What communications are these that ye have one with another, as ye walk? And they stood still, looking sad.
18 And one of them, named Cleopas, answering said unto him, Dost thou alone sojourn in Jerusalem and not know the things which are come to pass there in these days?
19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him.
21 But we hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel. Yea and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things came to pass.
22 Moreover certain women of our company amazed us, having been early at the tomb;
23 and when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive.
24 And certain of them that were with us went to the tomb, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
25 And he said unto them, O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
26 Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

(Footnote: first comes the rebuke, then the blessing.)

Now therefore, according to Mark 16:14, one of the reasons for appearing to the eleven apostles "later", (that evening), was to "upbraid" or chastise them for their unbelief and hardness of heart concerning the testimony of the women from earlier that same day, which they counted as idle talk or idle tales, (Luke 24:11).

And if this be true then why would the Master appear to the eleven apostles knowing that Thomas was not there? (for surely he would have known it if there were really only ten present, according to your viewpoint @Soul.og ???) Moreover why would Thomas not be there since this was the Shabbat hour of the day, (the primary daily Shabbat), no matter what day of the week it was? Thomas could not have been traveling or shopping or doing much else in the Shabbat.

Even the main portion of the very same Luke text under discussion states that they were still in unbelief even after he appeared to the eleven all together for the first time:

Luke 24:33 ASV
33 And they rose up that very hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
34 saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
35 And they rehearsed the things that happened in the way, and how he was known of them in the breaking of the bread.
36 And as they spake these things, he himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do questionings arise in your heart?
39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having.
40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here anything to eat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish.
43 And he took it, and ate before them.
44 And he said unto them, These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scriptures;
46 and he said unto them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day;
47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
48 Ye are witnesses of these things.

The underlined portion of Luke 24:44 is a gentle rebuke: he is at the same time telling them that they should have believed the words which he spoke to them while he was yet with them. And then in the next verse comes blessing: "Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scriptures".

Moreover, @Soul.og , is it not you who is wresting the scripture? The text plainly says "the eleven" but you have concocted a way to get around that so that you can say it was really only ten. It is preposterous, there is too much scripture reasoning, (logos), against your view: too many passages and statements in their contexts that refute your view.

 

[Soul.og]

Part 1.

Prove your assertion.

You asked me to prove my assertion. I already did with one example—but Scripture actually gives multiple clear cases where “the Twelve” and “the Eleven” function as group titles, not literal headcounts. And the evidence is overwhelming.

1. “The Twelve” used even when the group is not all present​

“He called the Twelve together…” (Luke 9:1) Even when they later split up, the title remains. It’s a label, not a census.

2. “The Twelve” used when there are only eleven​

“Thomas, one of the Twelve, was not with them…” (John 20:24)

At this moment:

• Judas is dead
• There are only eleven apostles
• Yet Thomas is still called “one of the Twelve”

This cannot be a literal headcount. It is a fixed group designation.

3. “The Twelve” used as a title even after Judas’s betrayal and death​

“These are the names of the Twelve apostles…” (Matthew 10:2)

Matthew is writing after Judas’s fall, yet he still refers to the apostolic body as “the Twelve.” The title identifies the group, not the number—just as “the Supreme Court” remains the Supreme Court even if a seat is empty.

4. “The Eleven” used when Thomas is absent and more than eleven are present​

“They found the Eleven and those who were with them…” (Luke 24:33)

Notice:

• Thomas is absent (John 20:24)
• More than eleven people are present (“those who were with them”)
• Yet the core group is still called “the Eleven”

This is unmistakably a title, not a literal number.

5. Paul uses “the Twelve” when the group literally contains eleven​

“He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve…” (1 Corinthians 15:5)

At the time of the resurrection appearances:

• Judas is dead
• Matthias has not yet been chosen
• The group literally contains eleven men

Yet Paul still calls them “the Twelve.”

This alone disproves the idea that the term must always reflect a literal count.

In conclusion​

You asked for proof. Scripture provides it—repeatedly.

• “The Twelve” used when there are eleven
• “The Twelve” used when not all are present
• “The Twelve” used as a fixed title after Judas is gone
• “The Eleven” used when Thomas is absent and more than eleven are present
• Paul uses “the Twelve” when the group literally contains eleven

The scriptural evidence is consistent and decisive: “The Twelve” and “the Eleven” are fixed group titles, not strict numerical descriptions.

This isn’t my opinion—it’s what the text itself demonstrates.

 

[Soul.og]

Part II.

For one, P66 does not contain the pericope adulterae, moreover it employs the staurogram, a telltale sign that it has been in the hands of RCC scribes and is probably later than originally proposed. Its dating is contested to this day. Dating estimates vary and are given in the right side panel of the link following this and the other quotes below:

"Date c. 150-250, about AD 200 (Martin), AD 100-150 (Hunger), "early or middle fourth century" (Nongbri)"

"In common with both the other surviving early papyri of John's Gospel – P45 (apparently), P75, and most New Testament uncials – Papyrus 66 does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53-8:11),[4] demonstrating the absence of this passage in all the surviving early witnesses of the Gospel of John. The manuscript also contains, consistently, the use of Nomina Sacra."
"Studies done by Karyn Berner[5] and Philip Comfort[6] contended that 66 had the work of three individuals on it: the original, professional scribe; a thoroughgoing corrector; and a minor corrector. But more recently James Royse argues that, with the possible exception of John 13:19, the corrections are all by the hand of the original copyist.[7] Elizabeth Schrader Polczer adds that, in the case of John 11, the copyist may have introduced an entirely new character, Martha, to the text, but this argument remains controversial."
"The staurogram appears in at least ten places in the papyrus (corresponding to chapter 19 of the Gospel)."

Papyrus 66 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

P75 does not contain any portion of John chapters 16-20.
Moreover it also does not include the pericope adulterae.

"Papyrus 75 (formerly Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV, now Hanna Papyrus 1), is an early Greek New Testament manuscript written on papyrus containing text from the Gospel of Luke 3:18–24:53, and John 1:1–15:8."

Papyrus 75 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Under "Notable Readings" in the same link:
"The manuscript lacks the Pericope of the Adulteress, usually placed in translations at John 7:53–8:11. This omission is supported by: 66 א‎ B A(vid) C(vid) L N T W X Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 3 9* 22 33 72 96 97 106 108 123 131 139 157 179* 249 250 253 565 1241 1333 1424 2768 a f l q sy ly pbo bopt; Or Hiermss; plus according to Tischendorf, at least 50 others (see manuscript evidence against PdA)."

Papyrus 75 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are indeed 4th century, as you say: so of course they and all others after them are going to contain the Thomas pericope which was added before those 4th century MSS. were copied/written. The earliest manuscript we have of the Gospel of John, whichever one that might be, is no earlier than late 3rd century to middle fourth century.

You’ve given a lot of information, but none of it actually touches the claim I made.

My point was very specific and very narrow:

"Every manuscript of John that contains John 20 includes the Thomas episode (John 20:24-29)."

Your response does not refute that. Let’s walk through your points.

1. Appealing to the omission of John 7:53-8:11​

You repeatedly mention that 66, 75, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus omit John 7:53-8:11.

That is irrelevant to John 20:24-29.

The fact that a different passage (the Pericope Adulterae) is missing in early manuscripts does nothing to show that the Thomas episode is a later addition. You’re changing the subject, not answering the claim.

2. Debating the date of 66​

You can dispute the dating of 66 all you like—scholars debate dates for virtually every papyrus—but none of that changes the simple fact:

• 66 contains the Thomas episode.

Whether you date it to 150, 200, or 250, John 20:24-29 is still there. Nothing in the material you cited shows otherwise.

3. Misusing 75​

You wrote:

“75 does not contain any portion of John chapters 16–20.”

Exactly.

That means 75 is neutral on the Thomas episode. It cannot be used as evidence for or against John 20:24-29, because it simply doesn’t preserve that section of the Gospel.

Appealing to 75 does nothing to support your insertion theory.

4. Irrelevant scribal and textual details​

You cite discussions about:

• corrections
• nomina sacra
• the staurogram
• possible changes in John 11

None of these:

• involve John 20,
• remove John 20, or
• affect the Thomas episode.

They are completely irrelevant to the question of whether John 20:24-29 is original.

5. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus​

You acknowledge that both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (4th century) contain the Thomas episode, and then say:

“Of course they contain it—it was added before the 4th century.”

But that is pure assertion. You have not produced:

• a single manuscript lacking the Thomas episode,
• a single textual variant omitting it,
• a single patristic witness who knows a version without it, or
• a single concrete piece of evidence that it was added.

You are assuming an interpolation without any textual support.

6. The missing evidence​

You still have not produced one manuscript that contains John 20 and omits John 20:24-29.

If the Thomas episode were a later insertion, we would reasonably expect at least one of the following:

• a manuscript without it,
• marginal notes flagging doubt,
• signs of textual disruption, or
• variant traditions that omit it.

We have none of these.

Every manuscript that preserves John 20 includes the Thomas episode.

Conclusion​

Your response brings in:

• the Pericope Adulterae (irrelevant to John 20),
• debates about papyrus dating (irrelevant to whether John 20 is present),
• scribal corrections and symbols (irrelevant to John 20:24-29), and
• manuscripts that don’t contain John 20 at all (irrelevant by definition).

But you still have not produced:

"a single manuscript of John that contains chapter 20 and omits the Thomas episode."

Until you can do that, the claim that John 20:24-29 is a later addition has no textual basis.

 

[Soul.og]

Part III.

For one, it is not a symbolic calendar: it is the sacred calendar day introduced in the opening creation account. Yom is Light, not "a day", review Gen 1:5 where Elohim calls the Light, Yom, not day as rendered by natural minded translators. The hour is the base unit when yom is used for time increments. Sadly this definition is the only time increment not found in the lexicons.

A yom can be a twelve hour day, and that day can also be a day for a year or a year for a day, and one yom is as a thousand years and a thousand years are as one yom with the Master, and in Psalm 90, a Psalm of Mosheh, a thousand years are as yesterday when it is passed, and as a watch in the night in the eyes of the Most High, and a watch in the night is of course only three hours.

If a yom can be all these things then no doubt a yom can be an hour: and the Master himself confirms this in the parable of the vineyard workers using the twelve hour civil calendar day, wherein those who worked twelve hours received one denarius, but those who came at the eleventh hour and only worked one hour also received one denarius. Why? because one yom is counted in that parable as being worth one denarius: and one yom can be either an hour or the twelve hour civil calendar day, one full day.

Do you really suppose that Luke did not understand this?

Luke 5:17 KJV
17 And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.

Luke 5:17a T/R
17a και εγενετο εν μια των ημερων
17a And it came to pass in (day) one of the days (of the week)

Next Day:

Luke 6:1 KJV
1 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

Luke 6:1a T/R
1a εγενετο δε εν σαββατω δευτεροπρωτω
1a And it came to pass in the second primary Shabbat

This is the Shabbat hour of the second day of the week: for the Shabbat hour is the Primary Shabbat, (not the weekly Shabbat), for the daily Shabbat hour is from the opening creation account.

Next Day:

Luke 6:6 KJV
6 And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.

G2087 ἕτερος heteros (he'-te-ros) adj.
(an-, the) other or different.
[of uncertain affinity]
KJV: altered, else, next (day), one, (an-)other, some, strange

Luke 6:6a T/R
6a εγενετο δε και εν ετερω σαββατω
6a And it came to pass in the next Shabbat

Luke 5:17a ~ the first day of the days of the week
Luke 6:1a ~ the second primary Shabbat of the week
Luke 6:6 ~ the next primary Shabbat, (which would have been the third of the week).

In both instances above, (Luke 6:1 and Luke 6:6), Shabbat, σαββατω n-dns, is singular, which I already tried to clue you in about, (study the Septuagint). Yes, the author of the Gospel account we now know as Luke understood the sacred calendar day and is using it in his Gospel account. Moreover: I told you it was hidden.

You’ve now shifted entirely away from Luke’s Greek and into a speculative symbolic system that:

• Is never used by: Luke
• Is never used by: the New Testament
• Is never used by: Koine Greek
• Is never used by: Second Temple Judaism
• Is never recognized by: any lexicon
• Is never reflected in: any manuscript
• Is never mentioned by: any early Christian writer

None of this has anything to do with what Luke actually wrote in Luke 24:29.

You are importing a private, modern symbolic system into a first‑century Greek narrative. That is not exegesis.

1. What Luke actually says in Greek​

Luke writes:

• πρὸς ἑσπέραν ἐστίν — “it is toward evening”
• κέκλικεν ἤδη ἡ ἡμέρα — “the day has already declined / is far spent”

These expressions:

• Are: standard Koine Greek
• Always refer to: late afternoon / early evening
• Never mean: “the sixth hour,” “solar noon,” “a yom‑hour,” or “a sacred‑calendar increment”

Your symbolic definitions of yom have no bearing on Luke’s Greek vocabulary.

2. Importing an external system onto Luke​

You are taking:

• yom from Genesis
• rabbinic symbolic interpretations
• parable imagery
• later Jewish calendrical concepts

…and retroactively imposing them onto Luke’s Greek narrative.

But Luke:

• never uses yom
• never uses Hebrew time‑keeping
• never signals symbolic time
• never uses “hour” or “day” in the way you’re describing

You are forcing Luke to obey an external system he never employs. That is the opposite of exegesis.

3. Misuse of other Lukan passages​

You cite:

• Luke 5:17
• Luke 6:1
• Luke 6:6

But none of these passages:

• redefine “evening”
• redefine “day”
• redefine “declined”
• redefine “toward evening”
• introduce a symbolic yom‑hour system
• or suggest Luke is using a mystical calendar framework

You are reading your system into the text, not out of the text.

4. The core linguistic question​

The issue is simple:

Can πρὸς ἑσπέραν ἐστίν (“it is toward evening”) and κέκλικεν ἤδη ἡ ἡμέρα (“the day has already declined”) mean “midday” or “the sixth hour”?

In Koine Greek, the answer is:

"No. They cannot."

Not in:

• Luke
• Acts
• the Gospels
• the Septuagint
• Greek literature
• Greek lexicons
• Greek usage anywhere

Your symbolic system does not change the meaning of Greek words.

5. The three points you still haven’t demonstrated​

I said that if you want to argue Luke is using a ritual time system, you must show:

• That Luke ever uses that system anywhere else
  • You have not shown this.
• That Luke signals he is using it here
  • You have not shown this.
• That the Greek expressions in 24:29 can actually mean what you claim
  • You have not shown this.

You have provided zero linguistic evidence.

Conclusion​

You are building an argument on:

• symbolic reinterpretations of yom
• later Jewish concepts
• parable imagery
• speculative numerology
• calendar theories Luke never uses

But none of this changes the Greek text.

Luke says:

• “toward evening”
• “the day has already declined / is far spent”

These are plain Greek time markers, not mystical codes.

Until you can demonstrate—using Greek, not symbolism—that these expressions can mean “midday,” your argument remains an imposition on the text, not an interpretation of it.

 

[Soul.og]

Part IV.

My claim is that Luke's upper room appearance is the same occasion as "John's locked upper room appearance".

We agree on one point:

The house where the Emmaus disciples found “the Eleven and those with them” (Luke 24:33) is the same house John describes in John 20:19.

The texts make that clear:

• It was already toward evening and the day was far spent when Jesus stayed with the Emmaus disciples (Luke 24:28-29)
• They immediately returned to Jerusalem and found “the Eleven and those with them” (Luke 24:33-35)
• John describes Jesus appearing in a locked house in Jerusalem that same evening (John 20:19)

So yes—same location.

But same location does not mean same event.

1. Luke 24:33-35 and John 20:19-25 are not a single moment​

The Gospel narratives themselves separate these into two distinct events.

Event 1 — The Emmaus report (Luke 24:33-35; Mark 16:12-13)​

• The Emmaus disciples return “toward evening” when the day is “far spent”
• They find “the Eleven and those with them”
• They report what happened
• The apostles do not believe them (Mark 16:12-13)

Event 2 — The later locked‑room appearance (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-25)​

• “Later that evening” (Mark 16:14; John 20:19)
• Only “the Eleven” are mentioned; the doors are locked
• Jesus appears and rebukes them for not believing the earlier witnesses
• Thomas is absent (John 20:24)

These scenes differ in:

• time
• audience
• actions
• narrative purpose

They cannot be collapsed into a single moment without overriding the Gospel accounts.

2. The Thomas Problem​

If Luke 24:33-35 and John 20:19-25 were the same event, then:

• Luke says “the Eleven and those with them” were present
• John says “Thomas was not with them”

Both statements cannot be literally true if they refer to the same moment.

This leaves two options:

Option A:​

“The Eleven” is a group title, not a literal headcount.

Option B:​

Luke and John contradict each other.

Your position requires Option B. But Scripture itself supports Option A:

• Thomas is called “one of the Twelve” when there are only eleven (John 20:24)
• Paul says Jesus appeared to “the Twelve” when Judas is dead and Matthias not yet chosen (1 Corinthians 15:5)
• Luke refers to “the Eleven” even when more than eleven people are present (Luke 24:33)

These are group labels, not census numbers.

Therefore, Luke 24:33 cannot be describing the same moment as John 20:19-25.

3. The “Eleven” as a group title​

Your argument depends on “the Eleven” being a literal number.

But Scripture repeatedly uses “the Twelve” and “the Eleven” as fixed titles, even when the literal number is different.

Examples:

• John 20:24 — Thomas absent, yet still “one of the Twelve”
• 1 Corinthians 15:5 — Paul calls them “the Twelve” when only eleven exist
• Luke 24:33 — “the Eleven” named even though “those with them” are also present

This is exactly how group titles function:

• “the Twelve” = the apostolic body
• “the Eleven” = the apostolic body after Judas
• Not literal headcounts

Thus, you cannot use “the Eleven” in Luke 24:33 to claim Thomas was present.

And if Thomas was not present—as John explicitly states—then the two scenes cannot be the same event.

4. The fatal problem for your position​

To merge these scenes into one moment, you would have to claim that:

• the Emmaus arrival
• the report
• the unbelief
• the presence of “the Eleven and those with them”
• the absence of Thomas
• the locked‑room setting
• Jesus’ rebuke
• the breathing of the Spirit
• the eating of fish
• the Scripture exposition

…all happened simultaneously, in one continuous scene.

But the Gospels do not allow this.

The timing, the audience, the actions, and the narrative flow all point to two separate events on the same evening, in the same house, but not at the same moment.


Same house? Yes. Same event? No.

 

[dak]

Here are the clearest examples:

I. "the Twelve" used when the group is not all present
"He called the Twelve together..." (Lk. 9:1)
Even when they later split up, the title remains.
It’s a label, not a census.

More nonsense from your imagination.

Luke 9:1-6 ASV
1 And he called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases.
2 And he sent them forth to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staff, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats.
4 And into whatsoever house ye enter, there abide, and thence depart.
5 And as many as receive you not, when ye depart from that city, shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
6 And they departed, and went throughout the villages, preaching the gospel, and healing everywhere.

He called the twelve together, gave them the power to fulfill his commands, and sent them forth to preach the kingdom of Elohim. When they depart, and go throughout the villages, each one of them is one of the twelve. You are playing semantics based on your paradigm and designed to uphold your paradigm. However, you have again damaged your own paradigm by admitting that the twelve, all twelve, were gathered together because he called them in order to command them.

Do you say that only ten showed up when he called the twelve? No, you did not, but this is exactly what the Gospel of Luke says in the passage you dispute: the two disciples returning from Emmaus "found the eleven gathered together", and yet you say it wasn't the eleven but only ten.

This mindset revealed your loss of the debate in your very first post in this thread: the rest has just been icing on the cake, and thanks for the opportunity.

II. "the Twelve" used when there are only eleven

“Thomas, one of the Twelve, was not with them…” (Jn. 20:24)

At this moment:

· Judas is dead
· There are only eleven apostles
· Yet Thomas is still called “one of the Twelve”

This is not a literal headcount.
It is a fixed group designation.

III. “the Twelve” used as a title even when the number is not literally twelve

“These are the names of the Twelve apostles…” (Matt. 10:2)

Matthew is writing after Judas’s betrayal and death, yet he still refers to the apostolic group by the fixed title “the Twelve".

This shows:

· “The Twelve” is the name of the apostolic body
· The title remains even when the number is not twelve
· The term identifies the group, not the headcount

Just like “the Supreme Court” remains the Supreme Court even if a seat is empty.

IV. "the Eleven" used when Thomas is absent and more than eleven are present

“They found the Eleven and those who were with them…” (Lk. 24:33)

Notice:

· Thomas is absent (John 20:24)
· More than eleven people are present (“those who were with them”)
· Yet the core group is still called “the Eleven.”

This is unmistakably a title, not a literal number.

V. Paul uses "the Twelve" even when the group literally contains eleven

“He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve…” (1 Cor. 15:5)

At the time of the resurrection appearances:

· Judas is dead
· Matthias has not yet been chosen (Ac. 1:26 happens later)
· The group literally contains eleven men

Yet Paul still calls them “the Twelve".

This proves beyond dispute that “the Twelve” and “the Eleven” function as group titles, not strict numerical descriptions.

In conclusion, you asked for proof.
Scripture provides it — repeatedly.

· “The Twelve” used when there are eleven
· “The Twelve” used when not all are present
· “The Twelve” used as a title after Judas is gone
· “The Eleven” used when Thomas is absent and more than eleven are present
· Paul uses “the Twelve” when the group literally contains eleven

Therefore, Scripture itself demonstrates that “the Twelve” and “the Eleven” are fixed group titles, not strict headcounts. This isn’t my opinion — it’s what the text actually shows.

More nonsensical opinions to avoid the elephant in the room: you refuse to believe the easy to understand plain statement in Luke 24:33 because it reveals the error in a pericope inserted at the end of John 20 which just happens to contain yet another hotly debated so-called Trinity proof text.

Again, Luke 24:33.......

Luke 24:33 ASV
33 And they rose up that very hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,

The phrase is not just "the eleven", but "the eleven gathered together". That very strongly implies all of the eleven because the eleven were gathered (all) together. It's preposterous to make the false claim that the eleven GATHERED TOGETHER only means ten: it's a fantasy doctrine designed to undermine the plain and clear statement of Luke 24:33.

Some of this your post was repetitious, and I can understand that, and why, (I asked you to prove your assertion), but it looks like much of what follows in your other posts, parts 2, 3, and 4, are more of the same points you have already made. I see no need to go over all those things again because you yourself have already proven that your paradigm has a serious error: for if you cannot accept Luke 24:33 for what it plainly states, and need to make excuses for why Luke really only meant ten, then that is surely for no other reason than that your paradigm king cannot allow you to believe what it says.

 

[Soul.og]

More nonsense from your imagination.

Luke 9:1-6 ASV
1 And he called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases.
2 And he sent them forth to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staff, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats.
4 And into whatsoever house ye enter, there abide, and thence depart.
5 And as many as receive you not, when ye depart from that city, shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
6 And they departed, and went throughout the villages, preaching the gospel, and healing everywhere.

He called the twelve together, gave them the power to fulfill his commands, and sent them forth to preach the kingdom of Elohim. When they depart, and go throughout the villages, each one of them is one of the twelve. You are playing semantics based on your paradigm and designed to uphold your paradigm. However, you have again damaged your own paradigm by admitting that the twelve, all twelve, were gathered together because he called them in order to command them.

Do you say that only ten showed up when he called the twelve? No, you did not, but this is exactly what the Gospel of Luke says in the passage you dispute: the two disciples returning from Emmaus "found the eleven gathered together", and yet you say it wasn't the eleven but only ten.

This mindset revealed your loss of the debate in your very first post in this thread: the rest has just been icing on the cake, and thanks for the opportunity.

You’re misunderstanding the argument. I’m not claiming that fewer than twelve were present in Luke 9:1.

My point is much simpler:

“The Twelve” is a title—not a running headcount of who is physically in the room.​

And Luke 24:33 proves this beyond dispute.

Luke calls the group “the Eleven” even though Thomas was absent (John 20:24). That means Luke is using “the Eleven” as a group designation, not as a literal numerical tally.

This is exactly how group titles work in normal language:

• “the Big Ten” (which has 14 teams)
• “the G7” (even when membership changes)
• “the Four Horsemen” (a fixed label, not a census)

The scriptural authors use “the Twelve” and “the Eleven” the same way—as titles for the apostolic body, not as precise headcounts every time the terms appear.

So the issue isn’t whether twelve were present in Luke 9:1. The issue is that Scripture itself shows these terms function as group labels, not literal numbers.

And once you recognize that, the entire numerical objection collapses.

My claim is that Luke's upper room appearance is the same occasion as "John's locked upper room appearance".

You’re committing a category mistake. While Luke does record Jesus’s first appearance to the apostles, you’ve been treating Luke 24:33-35 as part of that appearance, even though that verse belongs to the Emmaus Report, which occurs before it. Luke 24:33-35 and John 20:19-25 are thematically related—both occur on Resurrection Day and in the same location—but they are not companion passages in the sense of depicting a single moment.

Let’s lay out the narrative the way the Gospels actually present it.

1. The Emmaus Report (Mark 16:12-13; Luke 24:33-35)​

• It is already evening
• The two disciples return to Jerusalem
• They find “the Eleven and those with them”
• They report what happened
• They are not believed

This is not the appearance scene. Luke’s appearance scene does not begin until 24:36.

2. Jesus’s First Appearance (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-45; John 20:19-25)​

• “Later” on the “same evening”
• Doors locked
• Only “the Eleven” mentioned
• Jesus appears
• He rebukes them for not believing the earlier witnesses

Luke’s structure makes it impossible to merge verse 33 into the appearance scene. The appearance begins three verses later.

And yes—the house in Luke 24:33 is the same house in John 20:19. But Luke and John describe two different moments in that house, not one.

3. Now compare the first appearance across Mark, Luke, and John​

If Mark 16:14, Luke 24:36-45, and John 20:19-25 all describe the same first appearance, then the texts require the following:

• Mark: Thomas was present (“He appeared to the Eleven”)
• John: Thomas was absent (“Thomas… was not with them when Jesus came”)

These cannot both be literally true of the same moment.

So we are left with only two real options:

Option 1​

Mark uses “the Eleven” as a group designation, even if one member is absent.

Option 2​

Mark and John contradict each other.

Your view requires Option 2.

4. Your proposed Option 3—“John 20:24-25 was added later”—fails immediately​

There is:

• no manuscript omitting these verses
• no textual tradition lacking them
• no patristic writer aware of their absence
• no scholarly support for removing them

Every early witness includes them.

This is not a textual‑critical argument—it is an attempt to escape the implications of the text.

And even if (purely hypothetically) John 20:24-25 were removed, that still wouldn’t prove Thomas was present. Mark’s “the Eleven” can still function as a group title, just like “the Twelve” does elsewhere.

Group titles do not require every member to be physically present at every moment.

5. Scripture itself proves “the Twelve” and “the Eleven” are titles, not headcounts​

• John 20:24 — Thomas is called “one of the Twelve” when there are only ten
• 1 Corinthians 15:5 — Paul says Jesus appeared “to the Twelve” when Judas is dead and Matthias not yet chosen
• Luke 24:33 — “the Eleven” are named even though “those with them” are also present

These are group labels, not literal numbers.

Just like:

• “The board met today” — even if one member stepped out
• “The Supreme Court convened” — even if a justice is absent
• “The Big Ten” — even though it has fourteen teams

This is how titles work.

6. Why your position collapses​

To claim Luke 24:33-35 and John 20:19-25 are the same event, you must assert that:

• the Emmaus arrival
• the report
• the unbelief
• the presence of “the Eleven and those with them”
• the absence of Thomas
• the locked‑room setting
• Jesus’s rebuke
• the breathing of the Spirit
• the eating of fish
• the Scripture exposition

…all happened simultaneously, in one continuous moment.

But the Gospels do not allow this.

The timing, the audience, the actions, and the narrative flow all show two separate events.

Summary​

Your position requires:

• collapsing two distinct events into one
• ignoring the narrative sequence in all three Gospels
• and accepting a contradiction between Mark and John

My position:

• accepts all the textual data
• preserves the narrative integrity of each Gospel
• and avoids forcing a contradiction where none is necessary

The only viable reading is that “the Eleven” is a group title, not a literal headcount—and therefore Thomas was not present at the first appearance.

That resolves the tension without rewriting the text.

 

[dak]

You’re misunderstanding the point. I’m not claiming that fewer than twelve were present in Luke 9:1.
My point is that "the Twelve" is used as a title, not as a literal census of who is physically present at every moment.

Luke 24:33 proves this beyond dispute: he calls them "the Eleven" even though Thomas was absent (John 20:24).
That means Luke is using "the Eleven" as a group designation, not as a headcount.

This is exactly how group titles function in normal language ("the Big Ten", "the G7", etc.).

The scriptural authors use "the Twelve" and "the Eleven" the same way — as titles for the apostolic group, not as literal numerical tallies every time the terms appear.



Luke does record Jesus’s first appearance to the apostles, but you’ve been mistakenly treating Luke 24:33 as part of that event, even though that verse belongs to the Emmaus Report — which occurs before Jesus’s first appearance to the apostles.

​

The Emmaus Report ​

(Mk. 16:12-13; Lk. 24:33-35)

· It is already evening
· The two disciples return to Jerusalem
· They find “the Eleven and those with them” gathered
· They report what happened
· They are not believed

Jesus's First Appearance ​

(Mk. 16:14; Lk. 24:36-45; Jn. 20:19-25)

· "Later" on the "evening of the same day"
· The doors are locked
· Only “the Eleven” are gathered
· Jesus appears
· He rebukes them for not believing the earlier witnesses

Luke’s structure makes it impossible to treat verse 33 as part of the appearance scene, because the appearance does not occur until verse 36.

It’s also straightforward from the text that the place where the Emmaus disciples found the Eleven and those with them is the same house John mentions in John 20:19.

Luke and John are describing the same gathering, but at two different moments in the evening.

Now that the narrative sequence is clear, we can compare the first appearance across Mark, Luke, and John.

If you agree that Mark 16:14, Luke 24:36-45, and John 20:19-25 all describe Jesus’s first appearance to the apostles, then the texts require the following:

· Mark: Thomas was present (“He appeared to the Eleven".)
· John: Thomas was not present (“Thomas… was not with them when Jesus came".)

These two claims cannot both be true of the same moment.

Once this contradiction is acknowledged, the interpretive options narrow to only two:

Option 1​

Mark uses “the Eleven” as a group designation, even if one member is absent at a particular moment.

Option 2​

Mark and John contradict each other.

​

Proposed Option 3 (Your View)​

John 20:24-25 was added later and is not original.

But this third option fails immediately, because there is no manuscript, no textual tradition, and no scholarly support for omitting these verses.

· Every early witness includes them.
· No Greek manuscript, no ancient version.
· No Church Father ever shows awareness of their absence.

Without evidence, this is not a textual‑critical alternative — it is simply an attempt to avoid the implications of the text as it stands.

Even if — purely for the sake of argument — John 20:24-25 were omitted, that still would not prove Thomas was present.
Mark’s phrase “the Eleven” can function as a group designation, just as “the Twelve” does elsewhere. Group titles do not require every member to be physically present at every moment.
So even under your hypothetical, the text would not require Thomas’s presence — or the presence of every apostle individually — it would only identify the apostolic group as such.

Therefore, the only viable options remain Option 1 or Option 2.

I choose Option 1 because it allows both passages to be true at the same time.
You choose Option 2, even though Scripture itself shows that “the Twelve” and “the Eleven” function as titles, not literal headcounts.

And this is exactly how titles work:

· “The board was gathered", even if one member steps out.
· “The Supreme Court convened", even if a justice is absent.
· "The Big Ten", even when it has fourteen teams.
· “Gathered together” describes the group as such, not a second‑by‑second census.

My reading allows both to stand.
Your reading forces you into Option 2 (contradiction), while the textual evidence supports Option 1 (group title).

And Scripture itself proves “the Twelve” and “the Eleven” are titles:

· John 20:24 — Thomas is called “one of the Twelve” when there are only eleven.
· 1 Cor. 15:5 — Paul says Jesus appeared “to the Twelve” when Judas is dead and Matthias not yet chosen.
· Luke 24:33 — “the Eleven” are named even though “those with them” are also present.

These are group labels, not literal numbers.

Therefore, you cannot claim Thomas was present at the first appearance.

Summary​

Your position requires:

· collapsing two distinct events into one
· ignoring the narrative sequence in all three Synoptics
· and accepting a contradiction between Mark and John

My position:

· accepts all the textual data as it stands, preserves the narrative integrity of each Gospel, and avoids forcing a contradiction where none is necessary

There is no reason to keep responding to the same arguments. You still have the same error and are simply not willing to admit it: Luke 24:33 says they found the eleven gathered together, and that no doubt means all eleven, not ten, no matter how much you wish to slice and dice it.

 

[Soul.og]

There is no reason to keep responding to the same arguments. You still have the same error and are simply not willing to admit it: Luke 24:33 says they found the eleven gathered together, and that no doubt means all eleven, not ten, no matter how much you wish to slice and dice it.

Repetition isn't a rebuttal. You’ve still failed to address the three core facts that dismantle your literalist reading:

1. Linguistic Fact: Scripture explicitly uses "the Twelve" and "the Eleven" as group titles, even when members are absent. Paul says Jesus appeared to "the Twelve" when there were only eleven (1 Corinthians 15:5), and Thomas is called "one of the Twelve" when there were only eleven (John 20:24). Your "no doubt" literalism contradicts how Scripture actually uses these terms.

2. Structural Fact: You are trying to force Luke 24:33 into the appearance scene, but the text places it before the appearance starts in verse 36. You are collapsing two different moments of the evening into one to manufacture a headcount that isn't there.

3. Manuscript Fact: You claimed John 20:24-25 was a later addition, yet every single ancient manuscript and Church Father confirms they are original. You’re discarding Scripture to protect your theory.

If your only answer is to ignore the Greek usage, ignore the narrative sequence, and ignore the manuscript evidence, then you aren't arguing from the text—you're arguing from a preference.
I’ll stick with the Gospels as they are written, which clearly state Thomas was not there (John 20:24). Since you're unwilling to engage with these verses, we're done here. All the best.

 

[dak]

Reality: "the twelve"

Matthew 10:1-6 ASV
1 And he called unto him his twelve disciples, and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease and all manner of sickness.
2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphæus, and Thaddæus;
4 Simon the Cananæan, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying, Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans:
6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 10:1 ~ "his twelve disciples", no more, no less.
Matthew 10:2 ~ and once they are commissioned, given power, and sent forth, they become "the twelve apostles", and are named in the passage, no more, no less.

Matthew 19:28 ASV
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Twelve thrones, no more, no less: the twelve tribes, no more, no less.

Matthew 20:17-19 ASV
17 And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples apart, and on the way he said unto them,
18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death,
19 and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify: and the third day he shall be raised up.

The twelve disciples, no more, no less.

Matthew 26:14-15 ASV
14 Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,
15 and said, What are ye willing to give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver.

Behold, Judas the betrayer is separated from the twelve, calling him "one of the twelve".

Matthew 26:19-21 ASV
19 And the disciples did as Jesus appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
20 Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples;
21 and as they were eating, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

The twelve disciples, no more, no less, and although Judas the betrayer is at the table, again, he is separated as the betrayer.

Matthew 26:46-49 ASV
46 Arise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that betrayeth me.
47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.
48 Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he: take him.
49 And straightway he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Rabbi; and kissed him.

Behold, again, Judas the betrayer is separated, calling him "one of the twelve".

Mark 4:10-11 ASV
10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parables.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables:

The twelve, no less, the full twelve, and also the others with them following the Master.

Mark 6:7 ASV
7 And he calleth unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and he gave them authority over the unclean spirits;

The twelve, no more, no less, and it cannot be an odd number because he sent them forth by "two and two".

Mark 9:35 ASV
35 And he sat down, and called the twelve; and he saith unto them, If any man would be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all.

The twelve, no more, no less.

Mark 10:32-34 ASV
32 And they were on the way, going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was going before them: and they were amazed; and they that followed were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them the things that were to happen unto him,
33 saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles:
34 and they shall mock him, and shall spit upon him, and shall scourge him, and shall kill him; and after three days he shall rise again.

The twelve, no more, no less, (companion passage with Mat 20:17-19).

Mark 11:11 ASV
11 And he entered into Jerusalem, into the temple; and when he had looked round about upon all things, it being now eventide, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.

The twelve, no more, no less.

Mark 14:10 ASV
10 And Judas Iscariot, he that was one of the twelve, went away unto the chief priests, that he might deliver him unto them.

Behold, a third time, Judas the betrayer is separated from the twelve, being called "one of the twelve".

Mark 14:16-17 ASV
16 And the disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
17 And when it was evening he cometh with the twelve.

The twelve, no more, no less.

Mark 14:18-21 ASV
18 And as they sat and were eating, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you shall betray me, even he that eateth with me.
19 They began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I?
20 And he said unto them, It is one of the twelve, he that dippeth with me in the dish.
21 For the Son of man goeth, even as it is written of him: but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had not been born.

Behold, a fourth time, Judas the betrayer is separated from the twelve even while he is present at the table with the twelve, being called by the Master himself, "one of the twelve".

Mark 14-42-45 ASV
42 Arise, let us be going: behold, he that betrayeth me is at hand.
43 And straightway, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
44 Now he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he; take him, and lead him away safely.
45 And when he was come, straightway he came to him, and saith, Rabbi; and kissed him.

Behold, a fifth time Judas the betrayer is separated from the twelve, being called "one of the twelve", (companion passage with Mat 26:46-49).

Luke 8:1 ASV
1 And it came to pass soon afterwards, that he went about through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good tidings of the kingdom of God, and with him the twelve,

The twelve, no more, no less.

Luke 9:1 ASV
1 And he called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases.
2 And he sent them forth to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

The twelve, no more, no less.

Luke 9:12 ASV
12 And the day began to wear away; and the twelve came, and said unto him, Send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages and country round about, and lodge, and get provisions: for we are here in a desert place.

The twelve, no more, no less.

Luke 18:31-33 ASV
31 And he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all the things that are written through the prophets shall be accomplished unto the Son of man.
32 For he shall be delivered up unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and shamefully treated, and spit upon:
33 and they shall scourge and kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.

The twelve, no more, no less, (companion passage with Matthew and Mark passages above).

Luke 22:3 ASV
3 And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

Behold, a sixth time, Judas the betrayer is separated from the twelve, "being of the number of the twelve".

Luke 22:28-30 ASV
28 But ye are they that have continued with me in my temptations;
29 and I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me,
30 that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and ye shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

The twelve tribes of Yisrael, no more, no less.

Luke 22:47-48 ASV
47 While he yet spake, behold, a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them; and he drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?

Behold, a seventh time, Judas the betrayer is separated from the twelve, being called "one of the twelve".

Next post: "the twelve", continued.

 

[dak]

Reality: "the twelve", continued:

John 6:66-67 ASV
66 Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67 Jesus said therefore unto the twelve, Would ye also go away?

The twelve, no more, no less.

John 6:68-70 ASV
68 Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God.
70 Jesus answered them, Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil?

The twelve, no more, no less.

John 6:71 ASV
71 Now he spake of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Behold, for the eighth time, Judas the betrayer is separated from the twelve, being called "one of the twelve", and this is the same Gospel account which now says the exact same thing about Thomas in the last passage containing that phrase, "one of the twelve". This is unconscionable: the author of the Gospel now known as John would not have written any such thing because it is a term used only for Judas Iscariot the betrayer anywhere else in the scripture.

John 20:24 ASV
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

This at the point of heretical and is not an original statement from this Gospel account.

Acts 6:1-3 ASV
1 Now in these days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a murmuring of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
2 And the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not fit that we should forsake the word of God, and serve tables.
3 Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

The twelve, no more, no less.

Acts 7:8 ASV
8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob the twelve patriarchs.

The twelve patriarchs, no more, no less.

1 Corinthians 15:5 ASV
5 and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve;

The twelve, no more, no less, (because Matthias was immersed by Yohanne the Immerser, and after that was with the Master throughout all his ministry as one of the other disciples which were not in the inner circle of the twelve, Acts 1:16-26).

Yakob a.k.a. James 1:1 ASV
1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion, greeting.

The twelve tribes, no more, no less.

Revelation 21:10-12 ASV
10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,
11 having the glory of God: her light was like unto a stone most precious, as it were a jasper stone, clear as crystal:
12 having a wall great and high; having twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

The twelve tribes, no more, no less.

Revelation 21:14 ASV
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Twelve foundations with the twelve names of the twelve apostles, no more, no less.

Revelation 21:21 ASV
21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each one of the several gates was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.

The twelve gates are twelve pearls, no more, no less.

In every usage of the phrase "the twelve" in the N/T, (except for when it is part of the larger phrases "one of the twelve" or "numbered with the twelve"), there is no reason, not even a hint, to suspect or believe that "the twelve" does not actually mean exactly what it says, "the twelve".

Next post: "the eleven".

 

[dak]

Reality: "the eleven".

Matthew 28:16 ASV
16 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

The eleven disciples, no more, no less.

Mark 16:12-14 ASV
12 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country. [Emmaus]
13 And they went away and told it unto the rest: neither believed they them.
14 And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen.

The eleven themselves, no more, no less. Companion passage with Luke 24:9-49 and John 20:18-23, proving that John 20:24 is spurious and not original to the Gospel of John.

Luke 24:8-9 ASV
8 And they remembered his words,
9 and returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.

To the eleven, and no less, and to and all the rest, for they told those things to the whole group including those who were followers and disciples but were not apostles of the inner circle: the only one missing was Judas Iscariot the betrayer because he was dead.

Luke 24:33-35 ASV
33 And they rose up that very hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
34 saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
35 And they rehearsed the things that happened in the way, and how he was known of them in the breaking of the bread.

The eleven gathered together, and no less, and those that were with them, for they told those things to the whole group including those who were followers and disciples but were not apostles of the inner circle: the only one missing was Judas Iscariot the betrayer because he was dead. Companion statement with Mark 16:14.

Acts 1:15-26 ASV
15 And in these days Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren, and said (and there was a multitude of persons gathered together, about a hundred and twenty),
16 Brethren, it was needful that the scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was guide to them that took Jesus.
17 For he was numbered among us, and received his portion in this ministry.
18 (Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it became known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch that in their language that field was called Akeldama, that is, The field of blood.)
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no man dwell therein: and, His office let another take.
21 Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us,
22 beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection.
23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen,
25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place.
26 And they gave lots for them; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

The eleven apostles, no more, no less, until this day when Matthias was chosen by lot to replace Judas the betrayer, and was then "numbered with the eleven apostles", correcting the head count back to "the twelve". And Paul rightfully employs this legitimate scripture head count in 1Cor 15:5, ("the twelve"), because, after having been a disciple of Yohanne the Immerser, and having been immersed by him, Matthias then came and followed the Master from the beginning of his earthly ministry throughout, even to the resurrection, (highlighted in the Acts 1:21-26 quote above).

Acts 2:14 ASV
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth unto them, saying, Ye men of Judæa, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and give ear unto my words.

Peter standing up with the eleven = the twelve.

These are all the places where the phrase "the eleven" occurs in the N/T, and again, not one of them even hints at the idea that "the eleven" might only be ten, or anything less than what it says: when the text says "the eleven", it means "the eleven", not ten or any other number.

This again proves that John 20:24 is a spurious addition, and not far from heretical because the statement applied to Thomas therein is only spoken of Judas the betrayer anywhere else in the N/T, (eight times), and especially also since Luke 24:33-49 is a companion passage with John 20:18-23, and Luke proves that all of the eleven were gathered together in that occasion while the spurious text in the John 20:24 now makes it out to be only ten of the eleven.

 

[dak]

Your claim assumes what it needs to prove. The question isn’t whether most NT uses of “the Twelve” refer to a literal group of twelve men—of course they do. The question is whether the term functions as a fixed title that can persist even when the number is no longer literally accurate.

My two posts above this response were not addressed to you because you said in your previous post, "we're done here", and that was more than a week ago, yet now, a week later, you couldn't even allow me to get this three part post submitted without interrupting it, lol.

And on that point, the evidence is straightforward:

• John 20:24 explicitly calls the group “the Twelve” when only eleven are present, because Thomas is absent. If the term were strictly numerical, the author would have said “the Eleven,” but he doesn’t. That’s a strong indicator that “the Twelve” is functioning as a designation, not a headcount.

You do not even realize that you are now saying Judas the betrayer was present in John 20:24? If there were only eleven, yet "the twelve" is mentioned, and you claim that the one missing was Thomas, which made the count only eleven even though the text mentions the twelve, then you are by default claiming that Judas, "one the twelve", (which is the actual phrase in John 20:24), must have been present!

You've now switched from claiming there were only ten present, to now claiming that there were eleven present, and claiming that the one missing was Thomas instead of the obvious truth, which is that Judas the betrayer was already dead and could not have been present. You are still fishing for an answer to your dilemma when there is none to be had unless and until you actually believe what the scripture says and teaches and recognize the error that has been intentionally inserted into the text in the Thomas pericope found at the end of John 20.

• Paul uses “the Twelve” in 1 Corinthians 15:5, even though Judas is already gone and Matthias has not yet been selected. Again, the term is used as a title, not a census.

Again, not true. Matthias was chosen by lot in Acts 1 and numbered with the eleven, long before Paul even entered the Acts narrative. If you had waited for the third part of my above posts you might have seen this explained in my Post#58 above.

So the burden isn’t on me to “suspect” anything;

None of my three-part posts above were addressed to you.

the text itself shows the term being used in a way that cannot be strictly numerical.

Only if you close your eyes to the error in John 20:24. Everywhere else your claim is false, making John 20:24 stick out like a sore thumb, which is the whole point.

The simplest explanation is that “the Twelve” became a recognized label for the apostolic circle, just like “the Twelve Tribes” remained the name of Israel long after the tribal structure changed.

Unfortunately your "simplest explanation" absolutely must include the spurious RCC addition to John 20:24. Otherwise, again, your claim is entirely based on that error.

If a term is used in contexts where it cannot literally describe the number present, then it’s functioning as a title. That’s exactly what we see.

False, because your claim only applies regarding this subject matter when you allow yourself to believe a spurious error that has been inserted into the Gospel of John. Without John 20:24 nobody would see what you say is "exactly what we see" because the claim is based solely on the erroneous verse you uphold, John 20:24. Your claims and your responses herein have been nothing more than an erroneous Trinitarian apologetic.

 

[stevesonthebay]

Could it be that Matthias was considered an apostle even before he was officially appointed. He was said to have been with Jesus from His baptism by John the Baptist.

So he was in the group and perhaps considered as one of them. If he was there in the upper room then he would have been counted as one of them.

 

[dak]

Could it be that Matthias was considered an apostle even before he was officially appointed. He was said to have been with Jesus from His baptism by John the Baptist.

So he was in the group and perhaps considered as one of them. If he was there in the upper room then he would have been counted as one of them.

I see no justification for doing that because the scripture itself doesn't do it. Moreover the scripture uses the phrase "the eleven" instead of doing what you suggest: so if what you suggest was true then why would we find "the eleven"? What is the reason for that terminology in the Gospel accounts where it is found?

From Reply #57

Matthew 28:16 ASV
16 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

The eleven disciples, no more, no less.

Mark 16:12-14 ASV
12 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country. [Emmaus]
13 And they went away and told it unto the rest: neither believed they them.
14 And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen.

The eleven themselves, no more, no less. Companion passage with Luke 24:9-49 and John 20:18-23, proving that John 20:24 is spurious and not original to the Gospel of John.

Luke 24:8-9 ASV
8 And they remembered his words,
9 and returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.

To the eleven, and no less, and to and all the rest, for they told those things to the whole group including those who were followers and disciples but were not apostles of the inner circle: the only one missing was Judas Iscariot the betrayer because he was dead.

Luke 24:33-35 ASV
33 And they rose up that very hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
34 saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
35 And they rehearsed the things that happened in the way, and how he was known of them in the breaking of the bread.

The eleven gathered together, and no less, and those that were with them, for they told those things to the whole group including those who were followers and disciples but were not apostles of the inner circle: the only one missing was Judas Iscariot the betrayer because he was dead. Companion statement with Mark 16:14.