Admittance: Mark 15:42 marks the start of the next day

[EdSutton]

Why not simply throw the body away as they did with the other crucified? – exactly as the Jews actually had requested some 21 hours before, Jn19:31.

Jn. 19:31 says nothing about any 'bodies being thrown away'.

In fact, it reads (in context):

28 After this, Jesus, knowing[a] that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!” 29 Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. 30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

Jesus’ Side Is Pierced

31 Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, (so - NASB, ESV) that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe. 36 For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken.”[b] 37 And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced.”[c]

Jesus Buried in Joseph’s Tomb

38 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took the body of Jesus. 39 And Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. 40 Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury. 41 Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. 42 So there they laid Jesus, because of the Jews’ Preparation Day, for the tomb was nearby.

John 20

The Empty Tomb

1 Now the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. 2 Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”
3 Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb. 4 So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. 5 And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. (NKJV)

Note that the NASB and ESV here correctly translate the force of " ἵνα " which means 'in order that' or 'so that' with the subjunctive.
FTR, I am not one of your so-called "Sunday-resurrectionists" because of any tradition, Roman Catholic or otherwise, but from what I believe the totality of Scriptures seem to say, namely that 'Jesus was risen "early' (while it was yet dark) on the first day of the week'. (Mt. 28:1; Mk. 16:2,9; 24:1; Jn. 20:1 - all NKJV).

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

This seems overly convoluted and complex.

You have noticed that too, I see. :thumbsup:

Ed

 

[billwald]

Some people have to much time on their hands. Abraham Maslow is vindicated! <G>

 

[EdSutton]

John does not give every or all the detail, as is obvious from the other Gospels. (The laying in the tomb was the penultimate action; the closing of the grave with the stone door, was the final action. John says nothing about it.)

Which 'proves' what??

Nor do any of the other Gospels give all the details, and I've never said otherwise. Yet all do give some details.

John does not to the sequence of his sentences follow chronological sequence. On the contrary, it is characteristic of John by way of parentheses to ever so often look back, and give a summary of events up to a certain point in time past. Like in verse 41-42, where John refers back and reminisces,

“There was in the place where He was crucified, a garden; and in the garden a new tomb (Joseph’s) in which was never man laid yet. There, where the tomb was nearby therefore, they by the Jews’ preparation-hours beginning (on Fridays) had finished to bury Jesus.”

I disagree with your assessment here. It takes a preconceived notion to assume John is 'reminiscing' to support this, and the language would imply nothing other that chronological reading, here.

On both aspects I beg to differ with you greatly, but which things at this point in time and argument are of less importance. See other discussions between us and sundry studies of mine on these issues.

We don't agree on all these details??

After probably at least 100 posts from each of us, this one almost escaped this old 'unlearned farmer'.

Ed

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I am an unlearned mr Nobody. Bilwald, what does this mean? No, don't tell me; I'm not interested. You simpy had to say you've got nothing to say -- wind.

 

[EdSutton]

I am an unlearned mr Nobody. Bilwald, what does this mean? No, don't tell me; I'm not interested. You simpy [sic] had to say you've got nothing to say -- wind.

Why this attempted "put-down" of another, by inference??

The comment of billwald may or may not have been appropriate, but your self-deprecation, here, is little different, than a put-down in reverse, considering I have read several of your articles here - http://www.biblestudents.co.za

plus replied to many of your posts, on this board.

You are not claiming to be unlearned, in most of these, but rather demonstrating anything but this, so why now??

Simply because many of us do not agree, especially when it appears one's objections to what is postured are ignored, does not rate this. I have read many of billwald's posts. He does not seem to be the type that puts down another with any personal attacks, as a rule.

Frankly, when one seems to be the only one with such a divergent and unusual viewpoint, I tend to look at it a bit more closely, than I might otherwise.

Ed

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

ES:
Jn. 19:31 says nothing about any 'bodies being thrown away'.

GE:
You can see it? Well, why can’t you see the Jews made their request to have the legs of the crucified crashed only after and “because since it had become the Preparation” and “great that (specific) sabbath-day it had been” / would be? (‘oun epei paraskeyehn ehn .... ehn gar megaleh heh hehmera ekeinou tou sabbatou’)


John did not say these things before, where the Jews requested Pilate to have Jesus crucified. The Jews would not in the first place “while the Preparation” and “because that great day had been sabbath”, have requested Pilate to have Jesus crucified; then suddenly have changed their mind it “(is) the Preparation”, “and great (is) that sabbath-day” : ‘Have the bodies removed, you hear us Pilate?’

Then you ignore John in 19:38 tells of the same person, Joseph, and same event, day, and time, some time later on in the night, of which Mark and Matthew tell in 15:42 and 27:57, where the between two consecutive days intervening “evening had already occurred” (‘ehdeh opsias genomenehs’) after, ‘sundown’ and never in your life as you allege, “before sundown”.

You ignore John in 19:38 tells of the same person, Joseph, in the night, “and there came also Nicodemus who the first time in the night came to Jesus”.

Joseph operated in the night, after the Jews, after sunset, must have had their passover meal, because they no longer had had scruples to enter Pilate’s house to make their request. (Cf. Jn18:28)

It would have been completely senseless for the Jews to have asked for the bodies to be taken away only at the last minutes of their “great day sabbath”; they wanted the crosses removed for, “that great day sabbath” of theirs because they would have been, an offence to their national pride on “that day”.

Joseph began his undertaking in the night, long after sunset, and therefore did everything he did, on the day after the day of Jesus’ crucifixion. That is common sense; anything else that negates that, is senseless, ‘Sunday resurrectionist bickering’, to try to have something to say for a Sunday resurrection. Anything else than what John really wrote and meant is a scramble for proof that Jesus rose on Sunday, so that things are innovated that never would have entered any sane mind had it not been infested with Sunday resurrection enthusiasm.

Innovative things that are saintly confessed, “I believe the totality of Scriptures seem to say, namely that 'Jesus was risen "early' (while it was yet dark) on the first day of the week'. (Mt. 28:1; Mk. 16:2,9; 24:1; Jn. 20:1 - all NKJV)” .... without attention being paid to it that “all” this,
1) has been taken from the “NKJV” which in these Scriptures is an utter misrepresentation of the real KJV;
2) that of “all” this “totality of Scriptures”, only Mt28:1 is relevant and
3) that the rest of this ‘totality of Scriptures’ has no bearing on the day or time of the Resurrection except that it mentions an opened and empty and desolated tomb
4) visited several times from “while it was early darkness still” until after sunrise during the night of the First Day of the week.


Therefore, because Joseph’s grave was “at hand” – “near”, “they buried Jesus there”. The near grave was the only commodity “to bury as the custom / law of the Jews prescribed to bury” that was ready and available because “near” from the first! No contingency, ‘O my, where are we going to lay the body down because it is almost sundown!’ forced itself upon Joseph’s mind like an afterthought, as though time had run out on him. ‘My own grave nearby! It’s our only option!’ False! The whole notion is, made up to confuse and impose.

No! Joseph used his own tomb to bury Jesus in because he had his undertaking properly planned, as show every move he made, from daring to ask for the body and getting Pilate to give orders to have the body delivered to his place away from the crosses, buying the linen; advising Nicodemus; arranging with the women to attend; and eventually to bring the body to its place of interment and lay it down. John relates the whole process, like this: “Then ....” – that was long after Joseph had asked Pilate’s permission and long after Nicodemus “came there also” – “Then took they the body of Jesus and wound it in linen sheets with the spices – as the manner of the Jews (according to the passover-prescriptions) is to bury.”

And so they buried Jesus.

John does not give every or all the detail, as is obvious from the other Gospels. (The laying in the tomb was the penultimate action; the closing of the grave with the stone door, was the final action. John says nothing about it.)

ES:
Which 'proves' what??
Nor do any of the other Gospels give all the details, and I've never said otherwise. Yet all do give some details.
GE:
It proves John often makes use of interjected parentheses; that’s all. But which says more than what you can be comfortable with, because John does not to the sequence of his sentences follow chronological sequence. On the contrary, it is characteristic of John by way of parentheses to ever so often look back, and give a summary of events up to a certain point in time past. Like in verse 41-42, where John refers back and reminisces,

“There was in the place where He was crucified, a garden; and in the garden a new tomb (Joseph’s) in which was never man laid yet. There, where the tomb was nearby therefore, they by the Jews’ preparation-hours beginning (on Fridays) had finished to bury Jesus.”

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Why this attempted "put-down" of another, by inference??

The comment of billwald may or may not have been appropriate, but your self-deprecation, here, is little different, than a put-down in reverse, considering I have read several of your articles here - http://www.biblestudents.co.za

plus replied to many of your posts, on this board.

You are not claiming to be unlearned, in most of these, but rather demonstrating anything but this, so why now??

Simply because many of us do not agree, especially when it appears one's objections to what is postured are ignored, does not rate this. I have read many of billwald's posts. He does not seem to be the type that puts down another with any personal attacks, as a rule.

Frankly, when one seems to be the only one with such a divergent and unusual viewpoint, I tend to look at it a bit more closely, than I might otherwise.

GE:
I see langauge (sic) cop is at his post one again : "You simpy [sic] had to say". You yourself, dear Ed Sutton, are making mistakes like these -- in your most recent posts you have committed most cruel offence having made an ordinary 'typo' --- just go through your posts, I'm sure you'll find it. I don't WOORY about things like that. But I mention it here, because look at this post of yours : you do just what you are here accusing me of doing. What offends me of all this beating around the bush is exactly it is just beating about and around and away of the bush ---- ALWAYS ---- diverging; derailing, hi-jacking the REAL ISSUE. I would not mind even personal attacks or insults; just keep to the subject, that's all I ask; and that's why I answered Billwald in the way I did.

Anyway, see how I have now been swept with in the current you have turned on me.

I did post you something relevant, if you might please read it. I must still finish to answer your last sort of relevant comment, DV.



By the way that 'unlearned' "put-down" derives from someone who mentioned an unlearned farmer; I guess it could not have been Billwald.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE:
“There was in the place where He was crucified, a garden; and in the garden a new tomb (Joseph’s) in which was never man laid yet. There, where the tomb was nearby therefore, they by the Jews’ preparation-hours beginning (on Fridays) had finished to bury Jesus.”

ES:
I disagree with your assessment here. It takes a preconceived notion to assume John is 'reminiscing' to support this, and the language would imply nothing other that chronological reading, here.

GE:
I don’t know what you actually mean; whether you are confirming what I have said, or are negating it.

However, John follows the historical sequence of events in chapter 19 from verse 30 on – clearly.
Verse 30 : Jesus died;
verse 31, “The Jews therefore ....” that is, “because”, it in the mean time, “had become the Preparation Day (Friday, i.e., Thursday night : cf. Mk15:42) .... asked Pilate ....”
32— “Then came the soldiers ....”
33— “But when they came to Jesus ....”
34— “But one of the soldiers ....”
35— Parenthesis: “But he that saw bare record ....” of the things that had happened up to this point and after.
36-37— Another parenthesis within a parenthesis.

Historical chronology resumed ....
38— Joseph after this (the Jew’s preventive request in verse 31)
Parenthesis: “being a disciple ....”
Sequence: “besought Pilate ....”
Parenthesis: “but secretly ....”
Sequence: “Pilate gave leave ....”
Sequence: “He (Joseph) came therefore ....”
Sequence: “and he took the body ....”
Sequence: “And there came also Nicodemus ....”
Parenthesis (past): “which at the first came to Jesus ....”
Sequence: “and brought a mixture of myrrh ....”
Parenthesis: “about an hundred pound ....”
Sequence: “Then took they the body ....”
Sequence: “and wound it ....”
Parenthesis: “according to the traditional laws ....”
Parenthesis: “now there was in the place ....
Parenthesis (past): where He was crucified, a garden; ....
Parenthesis: and in the garden a new tomb ....
Parenthesis: in which was never man laid yet.
Parenthesis: There, where the tomb was nearby therefore ....
Parenthesis: by the Jews’ preparation-hours beginning ....
Sequence: they finished to bury Jesus.”

To follow the historical sequence of events one may read the predicative clauses only; the parenthetic phrases and clauses are not ordered by chronological sequence. It requires no “preconceived notion to assume John is 'reminiscing'”— actual events, content and context show John employed chronological and parenthetical, non-chronological language and style here.

GE

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

ES:
"38 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission.
Note that the NASB and ESV here correctly translate the force of " ἵνα " which means 'in order that' or 'so that' with the subjunctive."

GE:
Thank you very much; it is only confirming what I have been trying to say all the time, that the day that already had begun with the evening and Joseph's actions, the great day sabbath, had only begun and was in progression and prospective still, so that all these things recorded from Mk15:42/ Jn19:31 on, might or could still be done on it until such time "that day", Friday would END: "mid-afternoon the Sabbath pending".
The "force" of the Subjuctive is clearly emphatic: These things all would be done. I think I said it in that way somehow, from the beginning until now.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I guess Billwald can speak for himself ..... the way he did .....

 

[EdSutton]

Innovative things that are saintly confessed, “I believe the totality of Scriptures seem to say, namely that 'Jesus was risen "early' (while it was yet dark) on the first day of the week'. (Mt. 28:1; Mk. 16:2,9; 24:1; Jn. 20:1 - all NKJV)” .... without attention being paid to it that “all” this,
1) has been taken from the “NKJV” which in these Scriptures is an utter misrepresentation of the real KJV;

I really resent this sort of implication, for it is implying that the "NKJV" (or whatever version that is not that of the KJV, when cited or used by another that is the current 'target' by any poster) is a travesty of Scripture, when such an implication is made by anyone. And I do consider this an attack on the Bible!

I have never made any such allegations about any versions of Scripture cited, by anyone, except to say that there are a very few versions that I do not use and do not trust, for the simply reason that they are 'manufactured' to support the views of particular "groups", with those versions mainly including the NWT, CWT, and JST. FTR, I also use and actually prefer, along with the NKJV, a genuine KJV, 1967 Oxford edition, and the sole reason I do not often quote from it, is that I do not know where to find it 'on-line', thus being able to "copy" it to these pages, without having to painstakingly do so letter by letter. Thus I usually 'copy' from versions that are available 'on-line'.

I see langauge (sic) cop is at his post one again : "You simpy [sic] had to say". You yourself, dear Ed Sutton, are making mistakes like these -- in your most recent posts you have committed most cruel offence [sic] having made an ordinary 'typo' --- just go through your posts, I'm sure you'll find it.

Of course I have made many typos. I have never claimed otherwise, and I have said as much before. In fact, I believe that I have stated that a physical condition that I have (plus never having been instructed in typing in any manner) leads to more than I would otherwise make.

Once again, as I have noted elsewhere, the designation of "[sic]" means "as written", and has so meant for a century before either of us were even born, when one individual quotes another from some copyrighted source. I expect to see my own typos so noted when I happen to be quoted, as this merely happens to be proper procedure, and is not any "put-down" in any manner, whatsoever.

Anyway, see how I have now been swept with in the current you have turned on me.

I have never "turned" on anyone on the Baptist Board in over three years, my entire time here. I agree with someone when I think they are correct, and disagree with them when I think they are incorrect in some assessment. That is what I always do "across the board" (and not merely on the Baptist Board) and is not ever selective, nor is it ever 'personal' by any stretch.

By the way that 'unlearned' "put-down" derives from someone who mentioned an unlearned farmer;

Yes, I am the one who characterized myself as an "unlearned farmer" as I am a farmer and sometimes cabdriver, by trade. And I make no great claims to being highly trained or educated, for my own 'earned' academic credentials are limited to a "B.A. in Biblical Education" from a Bible College with a cumulative G.P.A. of 2.35 on a 4.0 scale, where the minimum graduating qualifications were a 2.0 G.P.A..

Ed

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I really resent this sort of implication, for it is implying that the "NKJV" (or whatever version that is not that of the KJV, when cited or used by another that is the current 'target' by any poster) is a travesty of Scripture, when such an implication is made by anyone. And I do consider this an attack on the Bible!

I have never made any such allegations about any versions of Scripture cited, by anyone, except to say that there are a very few versions that I do not use and do not trust, for the simply reason that they are 'manufactured' to support the views of particular "groups", with those versions mainly including the NWT, CWT, and JST. FTR, I also use and actually prefer, along with the NKJV, a genuine KJV, 1967 Oxford edition, and the sole reason I do not often quote from it, is that I do not know where to find it 'on-line', thus being able to "copy" it to these pages, without having to painstakingly do so letter by letter. Thus I usually 'copy' from versions that are available 'on-line'.Of course I have made many typos. I have never claimed otherwise, and I have said as much before. In fact, I believe that I have stated that a physical condition that I have (plus never having been instructed in typing in any manner) leads to more than I would otherwise make.

Once again, as I have noted elsewhere, the designation of "[sic]" means "as written", and has so meant for a century before either of us were even born, when one individual quotes another from some copyrighted source. I expect to see my own typos so noted when I happen to be quoted, as this merely happens to be proper procedure, and is not any "put-down" in any manner, whatsoever.I have never "turned" on anyone on the Baptist Board in over three years, my entire time here. I agree with someone when I think they are correct, and disagree with them when I think they are incorrect in some assessment. That is what I always do "across the board" (and not merely on the Baptist Board) and is not ever selective, nor is it ever 'personal' by any stretch.Yes, I am the one who characterized myself as an "unlearned farmer" as I am a farmer and sometimes cabdriver, by trade. And I make no great claims to being highly trained or educated, for my own 'earned' academic credentials are limited to a "B.A. in Biblical Education" from a Bible College with a cumulative G.P.A. of 2.35 on a 4.0 scale, where the minimum graduating qualifications were a 2.0 G.P.A..

Ed

Refering your above post, Dear Ed Sutton, it shows what I meant to avoid - going off the topic. I don't want to repeat the mistake.

Therefore, re: what is topical (If there's no such word as 'topical', then I make it a word.) .....

Re:
"I really resent this sort of implication, for it is implying that the "NKJV" (or whatever version that is not that of the KJV, when cited or used by another that is the current 'target' by any poster) is a travesty of Scripture, when such an implication is made by anyone. And I do consider this an attack on the Bible!" ....
1) It is not implying "whatever version that is not that of the KJV"; it is stated of the NKJV.
2) It is not implying or stated about any Bible 'version' or 'translation' in whole; it is implying and is stated about the passage or passages relevant and under consideration.

You are being unfair therefore to 'imply' my 'implication' a "travesty" of and "attack on the Bible!"
You are actually transferring the guilt of the so-called 'translators' of the NKJV onto me, the not guilty party. The adulterations of the texts referred to, are not mine; they are the work of the so-called 'translators' of the NKJV.

And it requires no clairvoyance to see why this "travesty" of and "attack on the Bible" has been deliberated and executed by the unscrupulous 'translators': to destroy the impression the true Written Word, the Bible creates, of a Fifth Day Crucifixion and Sabbath Resurrection. It does not ask for education or a degree of any kind or intelligence of better than very average -- and that was how somebody like even me who has no 'education' or status or gifts whatever, was able to unaided see these undeniable and unforgivable differences the first time I read them. THEY, A-S-K-E-D for it! They invite to be detected and unveiled for their true character: that of fraudsters, who abuse the Scriptures to their own ends. I have for decades been in the heat of this very skirmish in South Africa with the living translators of the Afrikaans Bible, and my personal involvement as I am typing here is at its most intense stage ever. I shall just have to see what the outcome will be; but my expectations are not positive. Which you I think will say, is to be expected. Which I thank you for honestly and cincerely --- it is much more bearable than the treatment I get from the workers of iniquity and inventors of lies and deception who lock themselves behind closed doors and were appointed by apostate churches. You say I am giving false witness?

Example: the latest i have learned of: Genesis 1, "The Bible for the deaf" (was meant for the deaf but became so popular it now is published "The Bible for All / Everybody" 'Die Bybel vir almal') ".... Only the sea, had been there .... (Net die see, was daar)": which for the deaf, will in hand-sign Afrikaans be translated, before God created all things, the sea was there already.

So, please understand that I cannot for the life of me trust these people or the Bible they put in the hands of everybody.

GE