I think in my response I was a little too fast in typing. I had much going on yesterday and was thinking of two or three things at once - not a very good thing to do. In doing that I didn't really examine every one of your words (your style of writing is different than most people. :-)
Yes, I now think I understand you much better. I just went over all that you posted - took quite a while, there were a lot of them! And I had to also examine those who responded to you to understand your response in various post. Together that took up the greater part of this morning.
I have developed my own transliteration, and find it working very comfortably; so kindly allow me presenting to you the Greek as is.
Okay, I can do the same - but I was thinking of the actual Greek. But a transliteration? No, not really. Anyway, thanks for the time you spent doing so. I too am a student of the Greek Scriptures, and of history. That I disagree with the well-known so-called "church fathers", and take their writings as merely their opinions, I do consider the period in which they wrote. To understand my studies of the Greek better you would have to read two rather long articles concerning Greek terms which I feel have been overworked to the detriment of end-time doctrines. I'll send the links to you in a private message.
You having claimed “Luke 24:1 is Luke’s record of the same event!”
My error, sorry. Lukes 24 starts on a Sunday morning, i.e., sunup on the first day of the week (as it was dawning). Luke 23:56, as you pointed out in various terms, was the day before the High Sabbath - the day Jesus was crucified! There is a few days missing between Luke 23:56 and Luke 24:1.
These things may all have been “explained to the women” by the angel of Sunday morning, at least 15 hours after the Resurrection as such “On the Sabbath mid-afternoon” BEFORE.
I think we will just have to disagree with this "15 hours after the resurrection" and the "mid-afternoon" part - although you may be right and I'm leaning in that direction! I have a close buddy who I worked with for over 20 years who really dug into this event. He is now retired and living in the Philippians for a few years before moving back to the USA. He would probably agree with you!
A while back I wrote a little article supposing that Jesus rose on Saturday afternoon (like you say), and it really enticed a lot of people to send me letters :-) It resulted in me saying "Good, maybe it will cause people to really start reading and examining what they were told to believe by their leadership". PS: that was quite "a while back" - 25 years ago!
Thanks for your patience and endurance in your beliefs.
Obj:
You having claimed “Luke 24:1 is Luke’s record of the same event!”
My error, sorry. Lukes 24 starts on a Sunday morning, i.e., sunup on the first day of the week (as it was dawning). Luke 23:56, as you pointed out in various terms, was the day before the High Sabbath - the day Jesus was crucified! There is a few days missing between Luke 23:56 and Luke 24:1.
Ans:
Part 1:
Lk24:1 records the first visit to or rather AT the tomb -— the women REACHED the tomb; they did not only “LEFT TO go and have a look at the tomb” like in Mt28:1 (‘thehohrehsai ton tafon’).
It was the First visit to the tomb. That means I say the women had SEVERAL accomplished visits at the tomb during Saturday night before the Lord “first appeared to MM.” Now obviously Jesus did not at this visit according to Luke appear to anyone. So it could not have been one visit the women made to the tomb on Sunday morning. Admitting more than one visit, one allows for more than one visit. Which in fact there were.
It was the First visit to the tomb. Why was it the first?
It was the first because “they came unto the sepulchre bringing the spices with them, ready / prepared” -— which means they DID NOT YET KNOW THE TOMB WAS EMPTY, but that the body was still in it intact. Had any one of them been to or at – inside – the tomb before, that person would certainly have told them the body was gone and they just as certainly would not have bothered to bring their spices along.
Did anyone tell these women the tomb was opened? Of course, MM must have told them. But that, is not recorded; but is inferred. How is it inferred? By taking into consideration Jn20:1-10, where it says that MM “on the First Day of the week cometh unto the sepulchre and seeth the STONE TAKEN AWAY FROM the sepulchre; THEN she runneth to SP and to the other disciple .... and told THEM”. The text goes on to tell that the two MEN went to the tomb, and that the MEN found the tomb EMPTY before any WOMAN or WOMEN, did! Then the two men went back home. Because when the two Mary’s (mentioned at the closing of the Burial in Lk23:55 Mk15:47 Mt27:61) “with others” came to the grave bringing their spices with in Lk24:1, EXPECTING the body still in the tomb, Mary Magdalene could not yet have known that the body was gone. She therefore when, according to Jn20:1-2 she had seen the taken away stone, could not have ENTERED the tomb also, but must have left without having discovered that it was empty. And she must have left where she had told Peter and John before they returned and she could be informed by them that the tomb in fact was empty. So she still did not know the tomb was empty when she and the other women came to the tomb according to the story told in Luke 24:1. When Mary told Peter and John “they took away the Lord”, she only could have said what she SUSPECTED; not what she really knew. And, if John 20 tells of the resurrection happening at the time of Mary’s arrival at the tomb in Jn20:1 -— as tradition wants it -— she should have SEEN nobody took the body away, but the Lord coming forth from the grave. Which of course is untrue and the vain imaginations of men.
Therefore Lk24:1 was the first realised visit of any women inside the tomb. And therefore Luke’s time on the clock given is the earliest of any of the Gospels’. And because the first witness that the Lord was risen, it was given at the women’s first visit by two angelic witnesses to ensure its trustworthiness. And many other factors count, that clearly indicate that Luke’s record is of the women’s discovery of the EMPTY tomb, while Mary’s discovery recorded in Jn20:1-10 was of the OPENED tomb.
Mary’s discovery of the opened tomb was the earlier; the several women’s discovery of the empty tomb was the later. Therefore though the discovery of the empty tomb was the first of the visits women paid the tomb during the rest of the course of that night and morning, it was later, and AFTER, Mary’s first sight of the taken away door stone and Peter and John’s subsequent visit in Jn20:1-10 ..... CONTRARY TRADITION that John the twentieth chapter AS A WHOLE and UNINTERRUPTED FROM verse 1 past verse 11 tells of Jesus’ resurrection and simultaneous appearance to Mary Magdalene.
Mary’s discovery of the opened tomb was the earlier; the several women’s discovery of the empty tomb was the later. Therefore the time on the clock given for Mary’s coming and seeing in Jn20:1 is the earlier; and Luke’s for the several women’s visit in 24:1 is the later -— CONTRARY TRADITION that the two Gospels record the SAME EVENT, supposedly the Resurrection, supposedly ‘more or less at the same time’!
TBC.