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.
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 2:
Re: “Lukes 24 starts on a Sunday morning, i.e., sunup on the first day of the week (as it was dawning).”
The time of night given in Lk24:1 (Gr. ‘orthrou batheohs’) is ‘earliest morning of night / deep darkness / after midnight morning’. It was not “sunup ..... as it was dawning”.
Re: “Luke 23:56, as you pointed out in various terms, was the day before the High Sabbath - the day Jesus was crucified!”
Now for certain I, did not in any ‘terms point out’ “the day” implied in “Luke 23:56” was “the day before the High Sabbath - the day Jesus was crucified!”
This is one of the commonest errors of confusion with regard to the chronology of the days of Jesus’ last passover. What I did say, was this:
“Any theory about on which days of the week our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected stands or falls by its answering for the day He was BURIED on: “That Day great day sabbath” of the passover, Abib 15, from its BEGINNING “EVENING HAVING HAD COME”, Mk15:42 Mt 27:57 Lk23:50 Jn19:31,38 — UNTIL its ENDING having begun “MID-AFTERNOON” “by the time of the Jews’ prepararions” “the Sabbath (Seventh Day of the week) drawing near”, Lk23:54 Jn19:42 — “That Day having been The Preparation which is The Fore-Sabbath” : the Sixth Day of the week, ‘Friday’.”
I said – in other words – the day Jesus was BURIED -— NOT “crucified” -— was the day OF -— NOT “before” -— the High Sabbath. Because Abib 15 the ‘great day sabbath’ of passover or passover FEAST or passover Feast-Sabbath, is (or was) “That Day”, “great day”, “sabbath”, “in-the-bone-of-day-day”: BURIAL DAY by distinction of passover season. BURIAL was of the essence of this particular day right through its history as right through the Scriptures. BURIAL was the faithful and unfaithful DUTY of this day performed on this day, the ‘sabbath’ of passover. SO, was it in the Passover of Yahweh once for all through Jesus Christ’s INTERMENT on that one and for eternity ONLY ‘Friday’. The Crucifixion had NOTHING MORE to do with THIS day! The Crucifixion by the time the day of BURIAL had begun “When now it having become evening already” Mk15:42 Mt27:57 was at least, THREE HOURS PAST. No word of the Crucifixion is found in between the fiftieth verse of Luke 23 the BEGINNING of Burial-day and “Luke 23:56” the END of Burial-day.
Re:
“There is a few days missing between Luke 23:56 and Luke 24:1.”
Lk23:56b indicates the start of the Seventh Day “Sabbath according to the (Fourth) Commandment”. Its following morning is mentioned by Matthew in 27:62, and its “mid-afternoon as it began to dawn towards the First Day of the week” in 28:1. Its completion is presupposed in Mk16:1, “the Sabbath having gone through”. Its total interval before it is implied in the mention of “the First day of the week” in Lk24:1 Mk16:2 Jn20:1 and Mk16:9. There are NO “days missing between” anywhere in the Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ last Suffering, Death and Resurrection.
Are you going post the whole article? I don't think many, if any, are still reading this thread. It has the same number of readers as it did a few days ago. Have you read any of the other threads on the forum? Hardly any of them are worthy of reading :-) - they are simply partisan threads pushing their denominational connections. Sad in a way.
I'll continue to read it, but sure wish some others were accessing it to express their opinions.