Mary the Mother of Jesus, "present untill the end" (Ryle)?

ap' ekeinehs tehs hohras - "immediately", cf. other instances of the ENGLISH idiom "from that hour", simply meaning 'immediately'!
lambanoh - "take away physically" - not "take in idiomatically" !
(eis) ta idia - without exception meaning "(to) (his) place" (French: chez luiz). Simply, "home" - "John then and there took Mary home".
Women at entombment mentioned - three of them - Mary Jesus' mother not mentioned - not per accident!
Luke expressly states "everybody left / went back (to Jerusalem)" Nobody stayed behind! In fact, later Versions changed the text in order to get the relatives remaining standing after Jesus died. False prophets they are!

 

That is debatable, particularly since John was a Galilean. It is unlikely he took her home since he remained in Jerusalem with the other disciples.
Secondly ta idia does not necessarly mean home, idiomatically it means personal possession which can include home.

The phrase from that hour does not mean "immediately" generally it means "since that time". You need to get your idioms straight.

Convenient argument claiming false prophets changed the text. You sound almost like the KJVonly people. The textual evidence for the verse in Luke is very strong, not to mention consistant with the other Gospels. </font>[/QUOTE]Consider: "since he remained in Jerusalem with the other disciples."
John stayed in a place, a home.

Consider: "with the other disciples"
Who says so?

Consider: "personal possession"
Check up www.biblestudent.co.za where I present every instance in the Gr of the Scriptures of ta dia's use - without exception the meaning is strongly 'home', and in most cases, exclusively. Much depends on the Case used.]

Consider: "get your idioms straight"
My conclusion was no leap of faith. Again, check up www.biblestudents.co.za - every case of its use I could find, examined.

Consider: "The textual evidence for the verse in Luke".
Maybe I expressed myself poorly. I have nothing against the textual evidence for the passage; I have it against attempts at its translation or interpretation.
But thanks, you confirm what I've said - everybodey LEFT the scene of the crucifixion, which means, NOBODY STAYED for a funeral directly afterwards - also Mary and John IF, they were there still. Therefore: Jesus removed from the cross and buries before sundown is not true, but deliberately, FALSE!

 

But not John's home, somebody else's home.

What diference does it make?

The Gospels say so, the disciples were so afraid they hid themselves in a room.

They certainly did not hide in John's house or the place where he stayed for Feast. So the Gospels do not 'say so'.

As in a possession, not as a place. ta idia refers to something as a possesion not a place.
Besides which ta idia is used in the begining of the Gospel of John and does not refer to a home. The context of the verse has it refering to the possession of His people. I will say it again ta idia is in reference to possession not location.

I made effort. You not at all. Go check up the 'context' and at the same time the case, friend!

Where did you get such a patently horrible conclusion?

Horrible conclusion? "According to Scriptures ... DIED ... and was BURIED ... and the THIRD DAY ROSE" - 'according to the Scriptures BOTH Old and New Testament, though a "horrible conclusion"?

There is nothing to confirm your conclusion.

You confirmed it for me when you confirmed "the text" cannot be doubted.

It appears you arrived at your conclusion before you even examined the evidence. </font>[/QUOTE]Again, I have done my homework before I went to BaptistBoard. You haven't.

 

posted October 18, 2005 08:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
It makes a big deal since the Greek is very specific in saying his own. If it is somebody else's than it can not be his own.

You answered yourself,
quote: "they list ta idia as primarly refering to possessions and idiomatically used to refer to home."
John uses it ...?

 

In the beginning of John:
He 'tabernacled' - pitched tent; put up HOME among His own. His own, never denied! Context? Very different from John 19. John physically "took away" Mary, only to from some uncertain point in time, provide in her needs? Why leave from the cross for the purpose?

 

KJV, "From that hour the disciple took her unto his own home".
The clincher, French Bible, "Puis il dit au disciple: Voila ta mere. Et, des ce moment, le disciple la prit chez lui." Not happy yet?
Modern Language:
"And from that moment the disciple took her to his home"
Revised Standard:
"And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home"
Nuwe Afrikaanse Bybel:
"Van daardie oomblik af het die dissipel haar in sy huis geneem."

Gr. lambanoh - "to handle", "to take", "to remove" - see not only incidences in NT, but dictionaries.

Why argue? To prove Mary and John stayed behind and attended entombment there and then because there and then was shortly before sunset?
If yes, then the next question is, Why? And I'll leave that for you to answer.

 

You argue on alternative possibilities of words per se - which I never denied.
But take all the different factors that played a role together, and it becomes unavoidable to accept the MORE probable alternatives (as I suggested).
Contextually, besides, it is a very distant and irrelevant possibility the story unfolding before one's eyes from the scene of the crucifixion would concern John's having taken care of Mary from some future circumstance. In the record of things, actualities are of concern - the actuality of Jesus' being "left ALONE" as He also predicted (and dispensed or provided) it would happen.
Now what do have against what you call my preconceived ideas or agenda? Do you even have a proper conception of what I, shall I say, promote?