Sunday vs Saturday Resurrection?

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Be His disciple. Trust Him to teach you and to discern everything.

Thanks for the good advice, or must I say thanks for the covert judgment?

I'll take both in goodwill. I can afford to, because I know in Whom I have believed all my life (of Biblestudy) by the grace of God.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Gerhard is quoting himself as evidence of what he believes. That is circular argument.


He needs to demonstrate from Calvin's works that 1 Corinthians 16:2 is referring to a Sabbath day, and if that is this is the case, that it is right dividing of the Word.


A popular Sabbatarian tactic is to deliberately distort the phrase 'FIRST OF SABBATH' which is translated as First day of the week and understood to be a term for Sunday, as meaning 'First Sabbath'.


We have to ask what 'first Sabbath' in the heart of an epistle is. Is it the immediate next Sabbath after the epistle is penned or the one immediately after the epistle lands in Corinth?

Re:

“~Gerhard is quoting himself as evidence of what he believes. That is circular argument.~”

I have not ~quoted myself~. I quoted Calvin, exactly and in contextual essence. Hark quoted me where I quoted Calvin exactly and in contextual essence.

So Vooks is his same own self again --- featherweight.


Re:

“~He needs to demonstrate from Calvin's works that 1 Corinthians 16:2 is referring to a Sabbath day, and if that is this is the case, that it is right dividing of the Word.~”

I ~demonstrated~ nothing like, nor needed “~to demonstrate from Calvin's works that 1 Corinthians 16:2 is referring to a Sabbath day~”. I did that letting the Scripture 1Corinthians 15/16 do that itself.


I also ~demonstrated from Calvin's works that 1 Corinthians 16:2 is referring~, NOT to Sunday like you, Hark and Vooks do, but to “~a Sabbath day~”. Calvin wrote and argued, so, word for word; he was honest and great enough to write it clearly and unambiguously in the face of disagreement and disapproval by his peers.

So Vooks is his same own self again --- featherweight entering the ring with giants. Vooks of course will say he is David against Goliath . . . using insults instead of stones with his catapult.


Re:

“~A popular Sabbatarian tactic is to deliberately distort the phrase 'FIRST OF SABBATH' which is translated as First day of the week and understood to be a term for Sunday, as meaning 'First Sabbath'.~”


True with a minority of Sabbatarians. The vast majority of Sabbatarians though—the SDAs—fight side by side with you, Vooks, against Calvin on this issue. Two featherweights in one another’s way, is all you’ll get.


Re:

“~We have to ask what 'first Sabbath' in the heart of an epistle is. Is it the immediate next Sabbath after the epistle is penned or the one immediately after the epistle lands in Corinth?~”


You will first have to explain to this Boer what meaning there is supposed to be in your ‘question’, and what relevancy your presupposition has on the meaning of the phrase ‘kata mian sabbatou’.

So you can have this round, dear Vooks. Prolong your suffering.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

By the way, I do not endorse everything Calvin said and that is why I am not a Calvinist.

And I have no authority or qualification or rating or position to "~endorse~" anything Calvin wrote; but as a believer in Christ I received the right and freedom to question what even this great man and greatest of Reformers in my eyes, wrote. And that is why I am a Calvinist. Strange . . . .

 

[vooks]

Gerhard,
Calvin contradicted himself on 1 Corinthians 16:2 if on it he insinuated a Saturday resurrection. The reason is because on Luke 24, he not only reckoned the Sunday resurrection, he also blasted the utterly confused fellas who may read 'first of the sabbath' as Sabbath and not the day after sabbath.

Here;
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc33/cc33046.htm
Mark 16:1 And when the Sabbath was past. The meaning is the same as in Matthew, In the evening, which began to dawn towards the first day of the Sabbaths, and in Luke, on the first day of the Sabbaths. For while we know that the Jews began to reckon their day from the commencement of the preceding night, everybody understands, that when the Sabbath was past, the women resolved among themselves to visit the sepulcher, so as to come there before the dawn of day. The two Evangelists give the name of the first day of the Sabbaths, to that which came first in order between two Sabbaths. Some of the Latin translators 302 have rendered it one, and many have been led into this blunder through ignorance of the Hebrew language; for though (303 But that no one may be led astray by the ambiguity, I have stated their meaning more clearly.

Did Calvin on 1 Corinthians 16:2 suggest a Saturday resurrection?
I will quote him verbatim and prove that he suggested a Sunday resurrection
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/1_corinthians/16.htm
2. On one of the Sabbaths. The end is this -- that they may have their alms ready in time. He therefore exhorts them not to wait till he came, as anything that is done suddenly, and in a bustle, is not done well, but to contribute on the Sabbath what might seem good, and according as every one's ability might enable -- that is, on the day on which they held their sacred assemblies. The clause rendered on one of the Sabbaths, (kata mian sabbaton,) Chrysostom explains to mean -- the first Sabbath. In this I do not agree with him; for Paul means rather that they should contribute, one on one Sabbath and another on another; or even each of them every Sabbath, if they chose. For he has an eye, first of all, to convenience, and farther, that the sacred assembly, in which the communion of saints is celebrated, might be an additional spur to them. Nor am I more inclined to admit the view taken by Chrysostom -- that the term Sabbath is employed here to mean the Lord's day, (Revelation 1:10,) for the probability is, that the Apostles, at the beginning, retained the day that was already in use, but that afterwards, constrained by the superstition of the Jews, they set aside that day, and substituted another. Now the Lord's day was made choice of, chiefly because our Lord's resurrection put an end to the shadows of the law. Hence the day itself puts us in mind of our Christian liberty. We may, however, very readily infer from this passage, that believers have always had a certain day of rest from labor -- not as if the worship of God consisted in idleness, but because it is of importance for the common harmony, that a certain day should be appointed for holding sacred assemblies, as they cannot be held every day. For as to Paul's forbidding elsewhere (Galatians 4:10) that any distinction should be made between one day and another, that must be understood to be with a view to religion, [150] and not with a view to polity or external order. [151]

Calvin strangely believes one of the sabbath means not first day of the week as he believes elsewhere in the resurrection commentaries but sabbath.

Note he differs with Chrysostom view that the day here is the 'Lord's Day' of Revelation 1:10 that is a Sunday. He also remarks that the Lord's Day was 'made choice of chiefly because of our Lord's resurrection'

In other words, 1 Corinthians 16:2 according to Calvin is Sabbath and that Sabbath is not the Lord's Day, and the Lord's Day was picked because of the Lord's Resurrection'

Calvin is very dead but we may wish to ask him why one of the sabbath everywhere else in NT means Sunday but not this

 

[vooks]

Re:

“~Gerhard is quoting himself as evidence of what he believes. That is circular argument.~”

I have not ~quoted myself~. I quoted Calvin, exactly and in contextual essence. Hark quoted me where I quoted Calvin exactly and in contextual essence.

So Vooks is his same own self again --- featherweight.


Re:

“~He needs to demonstrate from Calvin's works that 1 Corinthians 16:2 is referring to a Sabbath day, and if that is this is the case, that it is right dividing of the Word.~”

I ~demonstrated~ nothing like, nor needed “~to demonstrate from Calvin's works that 1 Corinthians 16:2 is referring to a Sabbath day~”. I did that letting the Scripture 1Corinthians 15/16 do that itself.


I also ~demonstrated from Calvin's works that 1 Corinthians 16:2 is referring~, NOT to Sunday like you, Hark and Vooks do, but to “~a Sabbath day~”. Calvin wrote and argued, so, word for word; he was honest and great enough to write it clearly and unambiguously in the face of disagreement and disapproval by his peers.

So Vooks is his same own self again --- featherweight entering the ring with giants. Vooks of course will say he is David against Goliath . . . using insults instead of stones with his catapult.


Re:

“~A popular Sabbatarian tactic is to deliberately distort the phrase 'FIRST OF SABBATH' which is translated as First day of the week and understood to be a term for Sunday, as meaning 'First Sabbath'.~”


True with a minority of Sabbatarians. The vast majority of Sabbatarians though—the SDAs—fight side by side with you, Vooks, against Calvin on this issue. Two featherweights in one another’s way, is all you’ll get.


Re:

“~We have to ask what 'first Sabbath' in the heart of an epistle is. Is it the immediate next Sabbath after the epistle is penned or the one immediately after the epistle lands in Corinth?~”


You will first have to explain to this Boer what meaning there is supposed to be in your ‘question’, and what relevancy your presupposition has on the meaning of the phrase ‘kata mian sabbaou’.

So you can have this round, dear Vooks. Prolong your suffering.

THIRD day is the day after tomorrow or the day before yesterday.

Read up there Calvin's commentary I just quoted.

Question for you.
What day of the week did the disciples walk to Emmaus in Luke 24?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Calvin contradicted himself on1 Corinthians 16:2if on it he insinuated a Saturday resurrection. The reason is because onLuke 24, he not only reckoned the Sunday resurrection, he also blasted the utterly confused fellas who may read 'first of the sabbath' as Sabbath and not the day after sabbath.


Here;

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc33/cc33046.htm

Mark 16:1And when the Sabbath was past.The meaning is the same as in Matthew,In the evening, which began to dawn towards the first day of the Sabbaths,and in Luke, onthe first day of the Sabbaths.For while we know that the Jews began to reckon their day from the commencement of the preceding night, everybody understands, that when the Sabbath was past, the women resolved among themselves to visit the sepulcher, so as to come there before the dawn of day.The two Evangelists give the name ofthe first day of the Sabbaths,to that which came first in order between two Sabbaths.Some of the Latin translators302have rendered itone,and many have been led into this blunder through ignorance of the Hebrew language; for though (303But that no one may be led astray by the ambiguity, I have stated their meaning more clearly.


Did Calvin on1 Corinthians 16:2suggest a Saturday resurrection?

I will quote him verbatim and prove that he suggested a Sunday resurrection

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/1_corinthians/16.htm

2. On one of the Sabbaths. The end is this -- that they may have their alms ready in time. He therefore exhorts them not to wait till he came, as anything that is done suddenly, and in a bustle, is not done well, but to contribute on the Sabbath what might seem good, and according as every one's ability might enable -- that is, on the day on which they held their sacred assemblies. The clause rendered on one of the Sabbaths, (kata mian sabbaton,) Chrysostom explains to mean -- the first Sabbath. In this I do not agree with him; for Paul means rather that they should contribute, one on one Sabbath and another on another; or even each of them every Sabbath, if they chose. For he has an eye, first of all, to convenience, and farther, that the sacred assembly, in which the communion of saints is celebrated, might be an additional spur to them. Nor am I more inclined to admit the view taken by Chrysostom -- that the term Sabbath is employed here to mean the Lord's day, (Revelation 1:10,) for the probability is, that the Apostles, at the beginning, retained the day that was already in use, but that afterwards, constrained by the superstition of the Jews, they set aside that day, and substituted another. Now the Lord's day was made choice of, chiefly because our Lord's resurrection put an end to the shadows of the law. Hence the day itself puts us in mind of our Christian liberty. We may, however, very readily infer from this passage, that believers have always had a certain day of rest from labor -- not as if the worship of God consisted in idleness, but because it is of importance for the common harmony, that a certain day should be appointed for holding sacred assemblies, as they cannot be held every day. For as to Paul's forbidding elsewhere (Galatians 4:10) that any distinction should be made between one day and another, that must be understood to be with a view to religion, [150] and not with a view to polity or external order. [151]


Calvin strangely believes one of the sabbath means not first day of the week as he believes elsewhere in the resurrection commentaries but sabbath.


Note he differs with Chrysostom view that the day here is the 'Lord's Day' ofRevelation 1:10that is a Sunday. He also remarks that the Lord's Day was 'made choice of chiefly because of our Lord's resurrection'


In other words,1 Corinthians 16:2according to Calvin is Sabbath and that Sabbath is not the Lord's Day, and the Lord's Day was picked because of the Lord's Resurrection'


Calvin is very dead but we may wish to ask him whyone of the sabbatheverywhere else in NT means Sunday but not this

It seems at last, dear Vooks, we have found something we agree on, more or less at least.

Thank you very much for your civility in this matter.


But, to begin with,

Re:

“~Calvin contradicted himself on1 Corinthians 16:2if on it he insinuated a Saturday resurrection.~”

Yes, “~_if_ he insinuated a Saturday resurrection.~” I don’t think he did. But Calvin without a doubt did not ~insinuate~ a Sunday collection as way of Christian worship. That is my point! Not whether Calvin meant ~Saturday~ with “kata mian sabbatou”, or whether “~he insinuated a Saturday resurrection.~” That is not my point.


So,

Re:

“~he also blasted the utterly confused fellas who may read 'first of the sabbath' as Sabbath and not the day after sabbath~”

. . . which of course is “the First Day of the week”. You are perfectly right, “mian sabbatou” is “First Day of the week”; not, “~'first of the sabbath' as Sabbath~”. And I agree with you totally, those ~fellas~ are, “~utterly confused fellas~”. So this is a very refreshing point of agreement between you and me. All thanks to Calvin, my ou bielie!


Now,

Re:

Q~ Here;

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc33/cc33046.htm

Mark 16:1And when the Sabbath was past.The meaning is the same as in Matthew,In the evening, which began to dawn towards the first day of the Sabbaths,and in Luke, onthe first day of the Sabbaths.For while we know that the Jews began to reckon their day from the commencement of the preceding night, everybody understands, that when the Sabbath was past, the women resolved among themselves to visit the sepulcher, so as to come there before the dawn of day.The two Evangelists give the name ofthe first day of the Sabbaths,to that which came first in order between two Sabbaths.Some of the Latin translators302have rendered itone,and many have been led into this blunder through ignorance of the Hebrew language; for though (303But that no one may be led astray by the ambiguity, I have stated their meaning more clearly.~EQ


Here especially, I totally agree with you Calvin is an utterly confused fella himself who utterly “~contradicted himself~” ---which utterly proves the utterly singular meaning of ‘kata mian sabbatou’ in Corinthians FOR NOT MEANING SUNDAY WORSHIP!

Notice however the words which you have emphasised, Q~The two Evangelists give the name ofthe first day of the Sabbaths,to that which came first in order between two Sabbaths.~EQ Calvin leaves no option except for anyone to conclude that he alluded to “the First Day of the week”. It is only the First Day of the week which can be the day of the week Q~which came first in order between two Sabbaths.~EQ

Suddenly Calvin seems to have been not so utterly confused after all (but the typical lawyer sort of interpreter of the Scriptures).


.Therefore,

Re:

“~Calvin strangely believes one of the sabbath means not first day of the week as he believes elsewhere in the resurrection commentaries but sabbath.~”


What do you mean by “~the resurrection commentaries~”? I know of the statement which Calvin made about how life re-entered the shivering body of Jesus (or word in that vein), on the Sabbath, indeed! But of “~the resurrection commentaries~” I never knew.


Re:

“~Note he differs with Chrysostom view that the day here is the 'Lord's Day' ofRevelation 1:10that is a Sunday. He also remarks that the Lord's Day was 'made choice of chiefly because of our Lord's resurrection'~”


I cannot recall that it was Chrysostom’s view that “the Lord’s Day” ---‘kuriakeh hehmera’ in Revelation 1:10, “~is a Sunday~”.

But is true “~that the Lord's Day was 'made choice of chiefly because of our Lord's resurrection'~”. Absolutely so. I would go so far as to say ONLY because of our Lord's Resurrection!


Re:

“~In other words,1 Corinthians 16:2according to Calvin is Sabbath and that Sabbath is not the Lord's Day, and the Lord's Day was picked because of the Lord's Resurrection'~”

I would rather say, In other words,1 Corinthians 16:2according to Calvin is a Sabbath and that that ‘Sabbath’ which Calvin meant, was not the First Day of the week. I would also say that not Calvin or Paul from 16:2 on, had the Lord's Day-“Sabbath” because of the Lord's Resurrection, in mind. No, Paul and Calvin had in mind announcement “regarding measure taken concerning the collection on the First Day of the week”.

 

[vooks]

It seems at last, dear Vooks, we have found something we agree on, more or less at least.

Thank you very much for your civility in this matter.


But, to begin with,

Re:

“~Calvin contradicted himself on1 Corinthians 16:2if on it he insinuated a Saturday resurrection.~”

Yes, “~_if_ he insinuated a Saturday resurrection.~” I don’t think he did. But Calvin without a doubt did not ~insinuate~ a Sunday collection as way of Christian worship. That is my point! Not whether Calvin meant ~Saturday~ with “kata mian sabbatou”, or whether “~he insinuated a Saturday resurrection.~” That is not my point.


So,

Re:

“~he also blasted the utterly confused fellas who may read 'first of the sabbath' as Sabbath and not the day after sabbath~”

. . . which of course is “the First Day of the week”. You are perfectly right, “mian sabbatou” is “First Day of the week”; not, “~'first of the sabbath' as Sabbath~”. And I agree with you totally, those ~fellas~ are, “~utterly confused fellas~”. So this is a very refreshing point of agreement between you and me. All thanks to Calvin, my ou bielie!


Now,

Re:

Q~ Here;

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc33/cc33046.htm

Mark 16:1And when the Sabbath was past.The meaning is the same as in Matthew,In the evening, which began to dawn towards the first day of the Sabbaths,and in Luke, onthe first day of the Sabbaths.For while we know that the Jews began to reckon their day from the commencement of the preceding night, everybody understands, that when the Sabbath was past, the women resolved among themselves to visit the sepulcher, so as to come there before the dawn of day.The two Evangelists give the name ofthe first day of the Sabbaths,to that which came first in order between two Sabbaths.Some of the Latin translators302have rendered itone,and many have been led into this blunder through ignorance of the Hebrew language; for though (303But that no one may be led astray by the ambiguity, I have stated their meaning more clearly.~EQ


Here especially, I totally agree with you Calvin is an utterly confused fella himself who utterly “~contradicted himself~” ---which utterly proves the utterly singular meaning of ‘kata mian sabbatou’ in Corinthians FOR NOT MEANING SUNDAY WORSHIP!

Notice however the words which you have emphasised, Q~The two Evangelists give the name ofthe first day of the Sabbaths,to that which came first in order between two Sabbaths.~EQ Calvin leaves no option except for anyone to conclude that he alluded to “the First Day of the week”. It is only the First Day of the week which can be the day of the week Q~which came first in order between two Sabbaths.~EQ

Suddenly Calvin seems to have been not so utterly confused after all (but the typical lawyer sort of interpreter of the Scriptures).


.Therefore,

Re:

“~Calvin strangely believes one of the sabbath means not first day of the week as he believes elsewhere in the resurrection commentaries but sabbath.~”


What do you mean by “~the resurrection commentaries~”? I know of the statement which Calvin made about how life re-entered the shivering body of Jesus (or word in that vein), on the Sabbath, indeed! But of “~the resurrection commentaries~” I never knew.


Re:

“~Note he differs with Chrysostom view that the day here is the 'Lord's Day' ofRevelation 1:10that is a Sunday. He also remarks that the Lord's Day was 'made choice of chiefly because of our Lord's resurrection'~”


I cannot recall that it was Chrysostom’s view that “the Lord’s Day” ---‘kuriakeh hehmera’ in Revelation 1:10, “~is a Sunday~”.

But is true “~that the Lord's Day was 'made choice of chiefly because of our Lord's resurrection'~”. Absolutely so. I would go so far as to say ONLY because of our Lord's Resurrection!


Re:

“~In other words,1 Corinthians 16:2according to Calvin is Sabbath and that Sabbath is not the Lord's Day, and the Lord's Day was picked because of the Lord's Resurrection'~”

I would rather say, In other words,1 Corinthians 16:2according to Calvin is a Sabbath and that that ‘Sabbath’ which Calvin meant, was not the First Day of the week. I would also say that not Calvin or Paul from 16:2 on, had the Lord's Day-“Sabbath” because of the Lord's Resurrection, in mind. No, Paul and Calvin had in mind announcement “regarding measure taken concerning the collection on the First Day of the week”.

1Cor 16:2 does not mean 'Sunday worship' whatever that is; it points to Sunday meetings to collect offerings which is weird if they had met the day before and never collected nothing.

Calvin, Chrysostom and ALL history records that the Lord's Day is Sunday

Why would one of the sabbath in 1 Cor 16:2 mean something different from every other instance in the NT? That is a contradiction right there.

Back to the subject. Walk to Emmaus

THIRD day is the day before yesterday or day after tomorrow

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

1Cor 16:2 does not mean 'Sunday worship' whatever that is; it points to Sunday meetings to collect offerings which is weird if they had met the day before and never collected nothing.

Calvin, Chrysostom and ALL history records that the Lord's Day is Sunday

Why would one of the sabbath in 1 Cor 16:2 mean something different from every other instance in the NT? That is a contradiction right there.

Back to the subject. Walk to Emmaus

THIRD day is the day before yesterday or day after tomorrow

1Cor 16:2 does not mean 'Sunday worship' which is what you say 1Cor 16:2 points to, "~Sunday meetings to collect offerings~" which is weird if they had met the day before and never collected nothing.
Exactly!

 

[vooks]

1Cor 16:2 does not mean 'Sunday worship' which is what you say 1Cor 16:2 points to, "~Sunday meetings to collect offerings~" which is weird if they had met the day before and never collected nothing.
Exactly!

1Cor 16:2 is about Sunday collection, the first day of the week

Gerhard and the ever inconsistent Butcher of Vienna insists it is sabbath

In Luke 24 commentary he vigorously argues against 'one of the sabbath' being sabbath but rather day following sabbath but here he shamelessly cleaves to it

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Calvin, Chrysostom and ALL history records that the Lord's Day is Sunday

That is blatantly untrue.

Calvin---in my opinion a pseudo-Calvin--- in his last sermon on Deuteronomy 5, makes "the Lord's Day" out for Sunday. Otherwise Calvin never treats "the Lord's Day" as though it was Sunday. (Perhaps Calvin played the devils advocate in that sermon of his. But it is so un-Calvin like composed that it seems far more likely the scribe was a Sundayist fraud.)

As for Chrysostom, be that as it may, he was not really of any importance or authority his preaching prowess despite.

But not "~ALL history records that the Lord's Day is Sunday~", You grossly exaggerate and completely fail to distinguish the more than one era which make up Christian history.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

1Cor 16:2 is about Sunday collection, the first day of the week

Gerhard and the ever inconsistent Butcher of Vienna insists it is sabbath

In Luke 24 commentary he vigorously argues against 'one of the sabbath' being sabbath but rather day following sabbath but here he shamelessly cleaves to it

Repeating won't get you nowhere.

 

[vooks]

Repeating won't get you nowhere.

Third day is the day before yesterday or the day after tomorrow.

Jesus rose the THIRD day;

1 Corinthins 15:3-4 (KJV)
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

And, Sunday was the third day since he died, since 'these things were done'

Acts 24:21 (KJV)
But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Third day is the day before yesterday or the day after tomorrow.

Jesus rose the THIRD day;

1 Corinthins 15:3-4 (KJV)
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

And, Sunday was the third day since he died, since 'these things were done'

Acts 24:21 (KJV)
But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done

Repeating got you mixed up between Acts and Luke, That is how far repeating must get you.

 

[Hark]

Gerhard is quoting himself as evidence of what he believes. That is circular argument.

He needs to demonstrate from Calvin's works that 1 Corinthians 16:2 is referring to a Sabbath day,and if that is this is the case, that it is right dividing of the Word.

A popular Sabbatarian tactic is to deliberately distort the phrase 'FIRST OF SABBATH' which is translated as First day of the week and understood to be a term for Sunday, as meaning 'First Sabbath'.

We have to ask what 'first Sabbath' in the heart of an epistle is. Is it the immediate next Sabbath after the epistle is penned or the one immediately after the epistle lands in Corinth?

I see. Well, I reckon the confusion is in the concordance, but the sabbath day cannot be the first day of the week. Indeed, to refer to the actual sabbath, it should use the word "last" day of the week.

The Greek word "sabbaton" is where the concordance gets confusing.

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK45.htm#S4521

of Hebrew origin (shabbath 7676); the Sabbath (i.e. Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension, a se'nnight, i.e. the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications:--sabbath (day), week.

But if we go to the page where the Greek words in the Greek texts are mirroring that English words in the KJV, we find "kata" having the definitions of "after", "against", "aside", "apart" & even "beyond", but I do not see "upon" when you click on that first Greek word in the Greek text.

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/B46C016.htm

So I reckon the translators knew what they were doing when they recognize that it was not referring to the actual sabbath day which is why it is deferring from the sabbath day in the Greek, but made it plainer in English as being the first day of the week and thus "upon" that Sunday.

The message is the same in English as what the Greek was saying as meaning after, aside, apart, beyond the sabbath day which is the first day of the week.

 

[Hark]

"2 Upon the first day of the week"—‘kata mian sabbatou’ = 'Concerning the First Day of the week' = "About the First Day of the week" JUST THE SAME AS "concerning the collection"—‘peri tehs logeias’ = 'upon the (matter of) the collection' = 'about the collection'. In the context ‘kata’ and ‘peri’ are synonymous, perfect equivalents. Consult any Greek grammar.

I was also “~using the KJV~”. And just like you were.

See post # 114 before this reply.

This is why it is better to read the KJV as is, instead of losing sight of the meaning of His words by trying to define it ourselves. The Greek word "kata" defers from the sabbath day.

 

[Hark]

Ja, sure! Which words of Calvin are not italicized, and which words of mine are italicized as were they Calvin's words?

My point is; the source you provided at that link was misrepresenting Calvin by taking his words and wresting them out of context to mean something else with all of their commentaries ( opinions ) around it.

They can get away with lying when they are publishing an opinion. They cannot be prosecuted for expressing an opinion because they can quote the actual words of Calvin and then cover up their lying about what Calvin was saying by their commentaries.

If they lied about what they were quoting of the actual words of Calvin from Calvin's published book when he did not say that in the quotes, then they would be in trouble, but they are not.

Students that question the teachers on that point can defend themselves and the book by saying that the author(s) believed that was what Calvin was actually meaning by those few quoted phrases from Calvin even though if the student read the actual book from Calvin, that was not what he was saying at all.

Try to recognize what they are doing and how they are doing it to smell the manure they are shoveling your way. If they are on the side of truth, they do not need to lie or misrepresent Calvin to do it.

Do not feel obligated to the theology if you had put all your money into this education. Instead, since it claims to be a Reformed Protestant Theology, then they should be open to students challenging the status quo for the sake of being Biblically correct that there can be no lie of the truth. Students have the right to continue the "reformation".

 

[vooks]

Sunday was the THIRD day since Jesus' passion
THIRD day is the day before yesterday
Jesus' passion was on Friday

 

[rstrats]

vooks,

re: "Sunday was the THIRD day since Jesus' passion...Jesus' passion was on Friday"

What would the FIRST day since His passion have been?

 

[vooks]

His

vooks,

re: "Sunday was the THIRD day since Jesus' passion...Jesus' passion was on Friday"

What would the FIRST day since His passion have been?

Friday. It takes far less than common sense to figure it out. And it takes exceptional obtuseness to miss it

THIRD day is the day before yesterday or the day after tomorrow.

His FIRST day in death was the very day he died.
Your FIRST day in school was the very day you went to school,

-President Obama is serving his SECOND not his FIRST term

-The FIRST day of creation was the VERY day God commenced creation. Can you that it is the FIRST day SINCE creation? That's not English


it is self-evident that Saturday resurrection hinges on idiotic semantics

 

[rstrats]

vooks,

Today is Saturday. If I said that today is the first day since I had my car repaired, would you think that I meant that I had the car repaired today?