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

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.

 

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.”

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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