Featured Sunday vs Saturday Resurrection?

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.

 

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.

 

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 . . . .

 

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' 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!

 

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.

 

Repeating won't get you nowhere.

 

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

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

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,

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,

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?