KeralaBrethren.net
New User? Register Today!
Registered Users, LOGIN
What we believe (Eng) What we believe (Mal) About Us Contact Us
Forums Home General Forum Youth Forum Sisters Forum Archives (2005-2007) Archives (2001-2004)
Listing of Brides Listing of Grooms
Assemblies in Kerala Evangelists in India Instituitions in India
Christian Albums Christian Songs
Audio Sermons Bible Wallpapers Brethren Links KB History (Eng) KB History (Mal)

K E R A L A  B R E T H R E N
General Forum

Forums Home ::
This Message Forum is to discuss spiritual topics only. Please avoid personal or assembly matters.
Let us use this facility for our spiritual enrichment and for bringing glory to our Lord almighty.
Webmasters reserve the right to delete any topic or posting partly or completely from this forum.
View Topics :: :: Post new topic


Keralabrethren.net: General Forum: The First Day, The Lord's Day, and The Day of the Lord

Post Reply
Go to bottom of the page

# 07781 :  The First Day, The Lord's Day, and The Day of the Lord

The First Day, the Lord’s Day, and the Day of the Lord

The three expressions ‘the First Day,’ ‘the Lord’s Day,’ and the ‘Day of the Lord’ could create confusion in the mind of many believers. It should be studied as given in the Bible by reading them as they are written (Luke 10:26). If we follow this as our principle in studying the Scriptures, then we will find a clear difference between the expressions ‘the Lord’s Day’ and ‘the Day of the Lord.’ In the former, the ‘day’ follows ‘Lord’s.’ In the latter, the ‘day’ precedes ‘the Lord.’  This as our starting point let us proceed to understand the three expressions.

Let me state that the subject of what is the ‘Lord’s Day’ in Revelation 1:10 is not a doctrinal issue but it is a subject of interest.

The first day of Creation is a shadow of the ‘First Day’ of the week. In the New Testament, the expression, ‘first day,’ appears in Matthew 26:17; 28:1; Mark 14:12; 16:2, 9; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7, 18; 1 Corinthians 16:2, Philippians 1:5. In Matthew 26:17 and Mark 14:12, it is in connection with the ‘first day’ of the feast of the unleavened bread. In Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; John 20:1, and 19, the ‘first day’ is in connection with the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. In Acts 20:7, 18 and 1 Corinthians 16:2, the ‘first day’ is in connection with the observation of the Lord’s Supper. In Philippians 1:5, the ‘first day’ is in connection with the fellowship in the gospel.

In addition to these, we read this day as the Lord’s Day, in Revelation 1:10. The Greek expression is TE KURIAKE HEMERA (= The Lord’s Day). This is not to be confused with the expression, “The day of the Lord,” in 1 Thessalonians 5:2, and 2 Peter 3:10. “The day of the Lord,” in Greek is E HEMERA KURIOU. In 2 Thessalonians 2:2, we read about “the day of Christ,” (E HEMERA TOU CRISTOU). In these three scriptures, we read about the judgment of God and Christ.

On the other hand, in Revelation 1:10 we read about a day in which John was alive on this earth and he was in the Island of Patmos, because of his testimony of the Lord. The “Lord’s Day” in Revelation 1:10 was not the judgment day, but it was the day of revelation of what is to come to pass. At the same time, the Book of Revelation deals with the judgment of God and of the Lamb as revealed to John on the “Lord’s Day,” in Patmos. That is, the Day of the Lord was revealed to John on the Lord’s Day.

The easy way to distinguish the difference between these two expressions could be: if the “day” follows the word “Lord,” it deals with the ‘first day’ and if it is the other way around, then it is the judgment day of God and the Lamb. The ‘first day’ for a Christian is the day in which we gather to remember our Lord in His death according to His command and wish on this earth. It is the first day of the week as we read in Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2.

The major differences between ‘The Lord’s Day’ and ‘The Day of the Lord’:

The first and foremost is the order of words in which these two expressions are given to us by the inspiration of God. We have already looked into this as the order of words in the original.

We should also consider other reasons why we should distinguish them as different and distinct.

Some may say that the ‘Lord’s Day’ in Revelation 1:10 is not clearly defined. There may be some truth to that. Some may take it as a period of time and others take it as a definite day in the life of John. They have not given any justification other than they do not know what it is. After admitting that they do not know what it is, they want others to accept what they make that to be. In almost all of these cases, there is an assumption that the ‘Lord’s Day’ and the ‘Day of the Lord’ are synonymous, if not interchangeable. This error in their assumption is the cause that results in the effect of not knowing the difference between ‘Lord’s Day’ and the ‘Day of the Lord.’

Compared to them, let us search the Scriptures to understand the Scriptures.

In Revelation 1:10 we read, “I became in the Spirit on the Lord’s day,…”  In KJV, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day…”  Which one is the better translation of the original?  To answer this question we must go to the original language in which this verse was written. Let me provide it using the Greek word and its meaning, next to it:

EGENOMEN (I come to be) EN (in, on) PNEUMATI (Spirit) EN (in, on) TE (the) KURIAKE (of Lord) HEMERA (day)…

It is clear that the translation “I became in the Spirit on the Lord’s day…” is a better translation than what is in KJV. In Revelation 1:10 we read that Apostle John “became in the Spirit.”  It was a state that he was not in before—the day before that Lord’s Day, or any other day. It also implies that he was not in that state when he wrote Revelation after that ‘Lord’s Day.’

On the contrary, the expression, “I was in the Spirit” implies that he was in that state before and continued in such a state. The expression “Lord’s day” indicates the time of the revealing of the things that was, is, and is to come to John, so that he could write and send what he saw and came to know on that day to the local assemblies. To the local assemblies it was the Lord’s Day in which they gathered together to remember the Lord as stated in 1 Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 11-16. It is what is written in the letter to Laodicea, where the Lord is standing outside their gathering place and knocking at the door to open to Him. The Lord gave us the needed information that the ‘Lord’s Day’ in Revelation 1:10 is the ‘first day’ of the week. It was an earthy day.

Those who try to establish this ‘Lord’s Day’ as a period of time, greater than one physical day, should also insist that John was in that state for a longer period of time, because this day was specified as the “Lord’s day.”

When we try to understand about this “Lord’s Day,’ the importance should not be on the day, but to whom it belonged. It belonged to the Lord. What else in the scriptures, especially in the New Testament, we read that belongs to the Lord. There is only one thing—the Lord’s Supper, and we read about it in 1 Corinthians 11:20. Because of this connection, many correctly conclude that the Lord’s Day in Revelation 1:10 is the first day of the week. On that day, the disciples gathered together to break bread, to eat the Lord’s Supper.

In the general Christian literature, we read about the “Lord’s day” to be the same as the “Day of the Lord.”  We read about the “Day of the Lord” (E HEMERA KURIOU) in 1 Thess. 5:2 and 2 Peter 3:10; and the “Day of Christ” (E HEMERA CHRISTOU) in 2 Thess. 2:2. In these three places, the “Day of the Lord” is in connection with judgment and wrath of the Lord or Christ—the Messiah.

Therefore, it is safe to state that the Old Testament prophecies about the “Day of Jehovah” in Isaiah 27:1 and Joel 2:1 are what is mentioned as the “Day of the Lord” in the New Testament. In 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; and 2 Peter 3:10 we are told that we are delivered from the wrath and judgment of God. In the Old Testament, the KJV translators changed the name Jehovah to the Jewish practice and used LORD in place of Jehovah. Therefore, we read about the ‘the Day of the Lord’ in KJV in the Old Testament. They should not have changed the name of God—Jehovah—using a noun. Such mishaps could happen in all translations and we should be aware of them.

It is true that there is no grammatical difference in English between ‘the Lord’s Day’ and ‘the Day of the Lord.’  But, is there a structural difference?  Yes, there is. Is there a difference in emphasizing the message?  Yes, there is. Is there a scriptural difference?  Yes, there is. Is there a difference between them in the lives of the New Testament believers? Yes, there is. What is that difference?  The expression, “the Lord’s Day” tells us that the importance of the day is derived from its ownership. While the expression, “the Day of the Lord” tell us that day is set aside by the Lord for a purpose and that purpose is to manifest the wrath and judgment of God, Jehovah.

Let me explain using a passage from history. When President Abraham Lincoln made the Gettysburg speech, he said, “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  He could have said “Government of, by, and for the people.”  He could have also said, “People’s government.”  Grammatically all these convey the same meaning, but not by its expression. The way in which it was spoken gave it a meaning far surpassing the other two. We should remember that expressions of words as in a sentence have the differing appeals as stones or pearls are placed in a necklace or jewelry. It is not the string that which gives the appeal, but they keep the stones or pearls in its place for our appreciation and value. Those who appeals to the grammar to interpret the expressions should remember that the grammar is to a sentence as the string to the necklace. The Holy Spirit used different expressions to provide the differing meaning of what seems to be grammatically same composition of words.

(To be continued)

Post by : George P. Koshy  View Profile    since : 6 Aug 2015


Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 6 Aug 2015 6:42:13 PM Close

In Revelation 1:10, the Lord was walking among the local assemblies on the Lord’s Day and that was shown to John on the Lord’s Day. John was ordered to write what he saw on that earthy day, the Lord’s Day, and not what he saw as the “Lord’s day.” We should not make the Lord’s Day to be the day—a time period of seven years—in which the wrath of the Lamb was poured on this earth. John wrote what he saw on that day and not what happened on that day as the pouring out of the wrath of God as the punishment and judgment.

It is true that Abraham saw “His day” (John 8:56-58) and rejoiced. Whether that day is what we read in Genesis 18 or not should not be the issue. Abraham could have been looking forward to see the day his Seed will be a blessing to the earthly (sand of the seashore) and heavenly (stars) ones. If we consider Genesis 18 as referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, then Abraham was looking forward to a blessing and not judgment. The blessing was universal, but the judgment of Genesis 19 is local and limited. The blessing was the promise he received from Jehovah, earlier in Genesis 18.

Another point of confusion could be: did Jehovah destroy Sodom on the same day as He met with Abraham?  In Genesis 19, we read that the destruction of those cities was on the next day or the day after and not on the day the blessing was given to Abraham. Here, they are confounding the day that Abraham met Jehovah and the day Jehovah destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Similarly, if we confound the “Lord’s Day” with the “Day of the Lord,” then that will not justify making the day in which John, the beloved, became in Spirit to a day of judgment.

In the literature written by those who consider the “Lord’s day” and “Day of the Lord” to be the same, we read that John saw the great day of the wrath of God as written by him in Revelation 6:17. We should read Revelation 1 through 5 before we read Revelation 6, especially 6:17, which is the last verse in that chapter. If we do, then we read that the local assembly will not go through this wrath of the Lamb (Rev. 2-3). In Revelation 4:1 we read that John was removed from the earth and he was witnessing all that follows on this earth from heaven. John was not here till “He come,” if His coming was in Revelation 19 or later. Before the Lord came in Revelation 19, John was asked to come up to heaven (Revelation 4:1). The wrath to come is not to take place during the events of Revelation 1-5. The wrath of God is for the children of disobedience (Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6). Our Lord has delivered us from the coming wrath (1 Thess. 1:10). He did not deliver us into the wrath of God.

In John 21:22-23 we read, “Jesus says to him, If I will that he abide until I come, what is that to thee?… Jesus did not say to him, He does not die, but, If I will that he abide until I come, what is that to thee?”  There was no indication of a judgment or a judgment day. “Till I come” was the hope of the Jewish nation, similar to the hope of Abraham, their Messiah. The disciples were asking repeatedly about this to Him. Revelation 1:10 is associated with the local assembly and Revelation 19 is not associated with the Assembly—the body and bride of Christ.

In Revelation 3:10 John was asked to write and sent to the seven local assemblies that they will not be subjected to the hour (a period of time) of trial that is to come upon all the habitable world. The end of that trial is seen in Revelation 19. According to those who hold the view that Abraham was looking forward to a judgment time and John was to abide till the judgment are telling us that John will not be with the saints at the rapture. May be, they may say that what they meant was that John will see it but will not go through it.

They are those who insist that what we read in the Book of Revelation is not a vision, but it is what he actually saw in a ‘space-time’ travel. In their haste, they overlooked Revelation 9:17, “And thus I saw the horse in the vision…”  Here we do not read about “a vision,” but “the vision.” The Holy Spirit hid this for us to find by careful reading and not reading in haste by using speed reading technique. I hope that they will be careful in the future, because this book starts as “APOKALUPsIS,” a Revelation, implying that which was hidden was revealed. This Revelation was done at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son (Hebrews 1:1-3). Compare this with Revelation 1:1-2. Apostle John “became in the Spirit” and saw all these in the vision, not in a vision, and he was asked to write and send it to the local assemblies.

Some may cite Luke 17:24 in support of their contention that the ‘Lord’s Day’ and the ‘Day of the Lord’ are the same. Luke 17:24 reads, “… thus shall the Son of man be in His day.”  To understand this in its fullness, we should look into the original language. We read in Greek: … OUTOS (so) ESTAI (will be) KAI (and) O (the) UIOS (son) TOU ANTHROPOU (OF MAN) EN (in) TE (the) HEMERA (day) AUTOU (of Him).”  The expression TE HEMERA AUTOU (= the day of Him – to make sense in English, it is translated as “His day.”) is very similar to: “the Day of the Lord” (E HEMERA KURIOU) in 1 Thess. 5:2 and 2 Peter 3:10, and the “Day of Christ” (E HEMERA TOU CHRISTOU) in 2 Thess. 2:2. It is different from the “Lord’s day” (TE KURIAKE HEMERA) in Revelation 1:10.

In the former, the “day” (HEMERA) preceded the ‘Lord’ or ‘Christ,’ while in the later the “day” (HEMERA) followed the ‘Lord.’  That was the order of words in the originals. When the ‘day’ preceded the Lord it was in connection with the wrath and judgment. In Revelation 1:10 the immediate connection is with writing to the assemblies. Of course, He was telling what was wrong with the administration of the assemblies and the Lord was exhorting those who have ears to hear to hear Him and calling us to be overcomers. It was to the local assemblies and not to the children of Israel or to the followers of the man of sin.

In Revelation 1:10 we read TE KURIAKE HEMERA (The Lord’s Day) and not E HEMERA KURIOU (The day of the Lord). Therefore, what we read in Revelation 1:10 is not the judgment day, but it is the Lord’s Day as in ‘Lord’s Supper’ in 1 Corinthians 11:20. It is the first day of the week. Fortunately or unfortunately, it is not called “Sunday” in the Word of God, because it was not called Sunday in the first century. Please remember that ‘Sunday’ is an English word.

The scriptural expressions, “The Lord’s Day” is the first day of the week were the children of God are to become in the Spirit to realize that the Lord Jesus Christ is walking among the local assembly as they gather together to remember Him in His death, and “the Day of the Lord” is the period of wrath of God on the children of disobedience and their judgment. This is clearly given in the New Testament.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 17 Aug 2015 6:07:33 PM Close

Dear Mr Koshy,

Quote "It is what is written in the letter to Laodicea, where the Lord is standing outside their gathering place and knocking at the door to open to Him."

Rev 3:20 is what you are referring to above, I think. But is your interpretation of Rev 3:20 is correct as impied in your quote? Was the Lord Jesus literally standing outside the Laodicean church and knocking on the door of their place, as stated by you? Perhaps you can clarify why/how?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 18 Aug 2015 1:12:57 PM Close

Dear ‘moses2006,’

You wrote on 17 Aug 2015, “Rev 3:20 is what you are referring to above, I think. But is your interpretation of Rev 3:20 is correct as impied in your quote? Was the Lord Jesus literally standing outside the Laodicean church and knocking on the door of their place, as stated by you? Perhaps you can clarify why/how?” Let me say that I did not quote Revelation 3:20 on this thread. If I did, please tell the date of my posting.

Since, I did not quote Revelation 3:20, I ask you to quote that verse?

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 18 Aug 2015 7:05:37 PM Close

Dear Mr. Koshy,

You did not quote Rev 3:20 (I never said that you did!..?). Here is the verse, quoted as you requested: Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.

Since I asked what you requested, could kindly clarify your statement w.r.t this verse, thank you!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 19 Aug 2015 1:24:57 PM Close

Dear ‘moses2006,’

Thank you for quoting Revelation 3:20. You asked on 17 Aug 2015, “Was the Lord Jesus literally standing outside the Laodicean church and knocking on the door of their place, as stated by you?” In the verse you quoted, there is the statement, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock.” There is another statement from the One who stands and knock at the door, “If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.” These two statements should provide the answer.

As a side note: You wrote, “You did not quote Rev 3:20 (I never said that you did!..?).” This is what you wrote on 17 Aug 2015, “But is your interpretation of Rev 3:20 is correct as impied in your quote?” You wrote, “as impied in your quote.” When I read that, I understood that has the implication that I quoted something. I knew that I did not quote it for you to write “your quote.” Now I understand that when you write “you quote” it is not that I quoted something. Thank you for the clarification.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 19 Aug 2015 5:51:10 PM Close

Dear Mr. Koshy,

Quote, "These two statements should provide the answer."

I am sorry to say that these two statements (in Rev 3:20) are not providing an answer to the question I asked regarding your statement.

To the best of my limited exegetical capability, Rev 3:20 does not state that the "Lord is standing outside their gathering place and knocking at the door to open to Him." (quoting only a part of your full statement).

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 24 Aug 2015 1:24:23 PM Close

Dear ‘moses2006,’

I am sorry to read that you cannot see the answer to your question from the two statements of the Lord Jesus Christ in Revelation 3:20.

Let us go back to your question of 17 Aug 2015, “Rev 3:20 is what you are referring to above, I think. But is your interpretation of Rev 3:20 is correct as impied in your quote? Was the Lord Jesus literally standing outside the Laodicean church and knocking on the door of their place, as stated by you? Perhaps you can clarify why/how?” Revelation 3:20 is not a verse by itself, but it is one of the verses that is associated with Revelation 1:1 through all the verses up to Revelation 3:19, at least. That is what we usually refer to as the context. Therefore, we will proceed in our exegesis in a slow format. Please answer my questions.

In Revelation chapter one, where was the Lord Jesus Christ? Was He inside the local assemblies or outside? (You may use Revelation 1:9-16 to answer this question.) We will go to the next step after we understand this aspect.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 24 Aug 2015 4:30:02 PM Close

Dear Mr. Koshy,

Quote, "In Revelation chapter one, where was the Lord Jesus Christ? Was He inside the local assemblies or outside? (You may use Revelation 1:9-16 to answer this question.) We will go to the next step after we understand this aspect."

In Rev 1 (specifically v 9-16) the Lord Jesus is with Apostle John, on the island of Patmos. Being omnipresent, He is also everywhere. Relative to the seven golden lampstands, He is seen standing in the midst. In 2:1, He is stated as 'walking' in the midst of the seven golden lampstands.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 25 Aug 2015 12:55:06 PM Close

Dear ‘moses2006,’

Your answer is not from Revelation 1:9-16. It is from your mind.

Please limit yourself to answer the questions and it will helpful if you limit your editorializing. I am repeating my question: “In Revelation chapter one, where was the Lord Jesus Christ? Was He inside the local assemblies or outside? (You may use Revelation 1:9-16 to answer this question.)” After you answering the question, we will continue.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 25 Aug 2015 3:04:32 PM Close

Dear Mr. Koshy,

If my answers are not correct, you have the ability to provide the right answer. I hope you will.

Here is Rev 1:9 - 16:

I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

 

Now your questions:

In Revelation chapter one, where was the Lord Jesus Christ? - He is on the island of Patmos(see v9), with Apostle John. John saw the Lord standing in the midst of the seven golden lampstands (see v13).

Was He inside the local assemblies or outside? - There are no local assemblies in Patmos that John mentions in this passage. But the Lord is omnipresent and He is everywhere. So His presence is both physically outside and inside all local assemblies that existed anywhere at the time.

Again, if the above answers are incorrect (from my mind or my own editorializing), please let me know what are correct answers. I hope you will do that from Rev 1:9 - 16.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 26 Aug 2015 12:59:05 PM Close

Dear ‘moses2006,’

For you to say that there are no local assemblies in Patmos, I did not ask anything about the assembly in Patmos. A local assembly in Patmos is not even mentioned in the Revelation. I asked about the local assemblies mentioned in Revelation 1:9-16 and that was in connection with your reference to the assembly at Laodicea as found in Revelation 3:20. It was not an independent question for you take the opportunity to wander into assemblies in Patmos to take this thread into a drunkard’s walk.

Since I made that clear, could you answer my question, “In Revelation chapter one, where was the Lord Jesus Christ? Was He inside the local assemblies or outside? (You may use Revelation 1:9-16 to answer this question.)” After you answering the question, we will continue.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 26 Aug 2015 1:48:05 PM Close

Dear Mr. Koshy,

I have asked for clarification and you have already attacked me twice! The first time you attacked me for giving answers from my mind and my editorializing. Second time you accused me of taking this thread into a drunkard's walk.

If you prefer to deal with my question on a seperate thread, I will start another one. Otherwise, allow to continue here.

I think I have answered your questions as much as I know from Rev 1. If what I have writtten so far is incorrect, then there is no point in you asking the same question over and over. Please let me and the other readers know what the right answer is. Unless you don't really plan on giving a straight answer to my question.

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 27 Aug 2015 2:35:06 PM Close

Dear ‘moses2006,’

You have not asked for clarification on what I wrote. You asked for something based on what you thought that I wrote. In that you wrote that I quoted something, while I did not. You later admitted that you did not write that I quoted. Such denials are becoming part of your clarification efforts.

You began your questions by asking about my quote—which is a false claim from you—from Revelation 3:20.  I only mentioned about the assembly at Laodicea in my initial postings. I did not even mention Revelation 3:20. After you quoted Revelation 3:20, I asked you two questions, “In Revelation chapter one, where was the Lord Jesus Christ? Was He inside the local assemblies or outside? (You may use Revelation 1:9-16 to answer this question.)” You have not answered these two questions. From the historical context, the subject of discussion or ‘clarification’ should be the assembly at Laodicea.

However, you wrote as the answer to the first question that the Lord Jesus Christ was with the Apostle John at Patmos. Where did John saw the Lord Jesus Christ? That was my question. Could you answer it?

You also wrote, “There are no local assemblies in Patmos that John mentions in this passage. But the Lord is omnipresent and He is everywhere.”  Neither You, nor me asked about the assembly at Patmos. I asked about the assemblies that are mentioned in Revelation 1:9-16. Could you answer my questions, because that answers will clarify whatever you want to be clarified.

In the recent posting you said that I accused you of forcing a drunkard’s walk. I am not forcing you to do a drunkard’s walk, but you are doing that beautifully. You started your query with Revelation 3:20 and Laodicea. Then you write about an assembly at Patmos, which is not mentioned in the Bible. This kind of going away from the initial subject of interest is what is known as a drunkard’s walk.

When a man get drunk and starts his way back from the bar to home, let us say he is doing that by walking, he takes steps one after the other. However, because he is drunk, his feet are not coordinated to reach home. One foot does not know what the other foot is doing. The go forward independent of each other and he will end up at a different place than his home. Sometimes, he may exclaim that he did not know that his house was that big and he has to be a rich person to occupy such a house. Some other times, he may exclaim that he did not know that he was such a poor man because he is standing in front of a hut. That is how the drunkards walk.

In your case, the ‘clarification’ started with Revelation 3:20 and has already ended in a not-mentioned assembly at Patmos with the Lord Jesus Christ at John’s side. That is your drunkard’s walk. You wrote that I quoted Revelation 3:20—not true, but later wrote that you did not write that I quoted it. Now you are discussing about an assembly that is not mentioned in the Bible.

Yes, you are trying to hijack this thread.

I am not accusing you of anything, but am stating the fact about what you are trying to do. If I am wrong, then please answer my questions from the Scriptures and not about what you think as what is in the Word of God. Christ told the doctor of the law that he should read what is written as they are written (Luke 10:26). If you could do that, please provide the answers to my questions that are in the second paragraph of this posting.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 27 Aug 2015 3:17:43 PM Close

Dear Mr. Koshy,

Quote, "Yes, you are trying to hijack this thread."

I politely asked you if you want me to start a new thread, to which you did not respond. Now you are accusing me of trying to hijack this thread.

I will start a new thread and delete my postings from this thread. I will do do in the next couple of days.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 28 Aug 2015 1:22:28 PM Close

Dear ‘moses2006,’

You are not politely asking me anything. If you are, then you would have answered my questions on Revelation 3:20 without any ‘smart Alek’ answers. Starting a new thread is not the answer to your mindset of hijacking any thread of your choice. You could hijack your own thread. As a matter of fact, you have already hijacked your own question on Revelation 3:20.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 14 Sep 2015 5:33:59 AM Close

Dear Mr. George, 

You have compared the first day of a week with the first day of creation saying that the first day of Creation is a shadow of the ‘First Day’ of the week. The significance of the first day of a week, as you ascertain is, it is Lord’s Day. Then what is the significance of the first day of creation that made you to compare both these days?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 14 Sep 2015 1:06:58 PM Close

Dear ‘kristianjude,’ a.k.a. ‘kristine,’

Your question on 14 Sep 2015 is almost the same as that yours of 8 Sep 2015. Therefore, I am copying my answer from my posting of 11 Sep 2015:

Quote begins , <<<“Your questions are not fair, because they are contrary to what is written in the Scriptures. You have admitted that you consider the creation of Adam is the new creation. It shows that you are not a born again believer—to be guided by the Holy Spirit—in Christ as your personal Savior, Lord, and God.

You asked about the significance of the first day of creation over other days. It shows that you do not even know the meaning of the word ‘first.’ You may use any dictionary to know the meaning of that word. Then you will know the significance.

If I ask you about the first modern day transgender person, could you answer that question? If you could, please answer. You must know the meaning of the word ‘first’ to answer this question.” >>> Quote ends

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 15 Sep 2015 8:07:12 AM Close

Dear Sir,

My question is not anything about the scripture; it is only about your statement. We read nowhere in the scripture that the first day of Creation is a shadow of the ‘First Day’ of the week. It is only your statement. You cannot make a statement without any sense. What should one understand on reading your statement?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 15 Sep 2015 3:22:51 PM Close

Dear ‘kristianjude,’ a.k.a. ‘kristine,’

My clarification was already included in my initial posting. I also asked you to consult any dictionary to understand the meaning of the word ‘first’ in relation to anything, including the expression ‘first of the week.’ After consulting the dictionary, you have to answer my question that I repeated on 14 Sep 2015 from 8 Sep 2015. That will give me some idea about your ability to comprehend the meaning and use of the word ‘first’ in connection with nouns or things.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 16 Sep 2015 6:33:14 AM Close

No Sir, you have not provided any clarification for your statement ‘The first day of Creation is a shadow of the ‘First Day’ of the week’ in the initial posting. Unlike the other days of a week, the first day is a special day for you, because it is the ‘Lord’s day’.  If the first day of the creation is a SHADOW of the first day of a week, then how is this day a special day for you?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 16 Sep 2015 1:40:10 PM Close

Dear ‘kristianjude,’ a.k.a. ‘kristine,’

I wrote about the significance of the shadow of the ‘first day of creation’ with the ‘first day of the week’ on my initial frame. You must read it to understand.

You wrote on 16 Sep 2015, “the first day is a special day for you, because it is the ‘Lord’s day’” Did I write, ‘the first day is the Lord’s Day?’ If I did, could you tell where I did that, especially on this thread? It will help me to answer your question. Otherwise, you are asking me to answer what you write by accepting that that is what I wrote. If you cannot show where I wrote that ‘the first day is the Lord’s Day’ as you make that to be, then your accusation is a falsification of fact. You should apologize for making-up stories that are false.

However, you are hung-up on to ask questions for the sake of asking them. Your lack of understanding on the word ‘first’ has to be addressed first. I wrote this on 8 Sep and also repeated it on 14 Sep 2015. You should read those postings also. You must understand the meaning of the word ‘first’ from a dictionary. Then you should understand about the various use of that word. To help you, I asked a question for you to answer. Let me repeat that again, “You asked about the significance of the first day of creation over other days. It shows that you do not even know the meaning of the word ‘first.’ You may use any dictionary to know the meaning of that word. Then you will know the significance.

If I ask you about the first modern day transgender person, could you answer that question? If you could, please answer. You must know the meaning of the word ‘first’ to answer this question.”

After reading your answers, I will help you further to understand the use of that word along with others.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 17 Sep 2015 8:02:47 AM Close

No Sir, you did not write about the significance of the shadow of the ‘first day of creation’ with the ‘first day of the week’ on your initial frame.

Your question: Did I write, ‘the first day is the Lord’s Day?’ If I did, could you tell where I did that, especially on this thread?

My answer: There is a paragraph in your initial post that starts reading “On the contrary, the expression…” At the end of the paragraph, you have written “The Lord gave us the needed information that the ‘Lord’s Day’ in Revelation 1:10 is the ‘first day’ of the week. It was an earthy day”. At the end of your second post, you have written “…what we read in Revelation 1:10 is…the Lord’s Day as in ‘Lord’s Supper’ in 1 Corinthians 11:20” (The day of ‘Lord’s supper’ is the first day of a week, isn’t it?)

OK, then Sir, you need not apologize for your grave mistake and I have already pardoned. It is my sincere advice that you may refer to your previous posts thoroughly before making any comments or accusations against anyone.

I have no problem with the word ‘first’. My interest is to read your clarification for your COMPARISION between the first day of creation and the first day of a week. In what way, does the ‘first day of creation stand as a SHADOW of the first day of a week?

I have not compared the first modern day transgender person with anything and so if you ask any assumptive question, it is nonsense.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 17 Sep 2015 1:07:13 PM Close

Dear ‘kristianjude,’ a.k.a. ‘kristine,’

Your reply shows that I did not write what you accused me off. Your reply was: “My answer: There is a paragraph in your initial post that starts reading “On the contrary, the expression…” At the end of the paragraph, you have written “The Lord gave us the needed information that the ‘Lord’s Day’ in Revelation 1:10 is the ‘first day’ of the week. It was an earthy day”. At the end of your second post, you have written “…what we read in Revelation 1:10 is…the Lord’s Day as in ‘Lord’s Supper’ in 1 Corinthians 11:20” (The day of ‘Lord’s supper’ is the first day of a week, isn’t it?)” Your accusation on 16 Sep 2015 was: “the first day is a special day for you, because it is the ‘Lord’s day.” Your “answer” testifies that I did not write what you accused me off.

When a person says that another person said something, while he did not, then it may be a mistake. When asked for where and when he said it, then the answer from the accuser does not show anything about what he accused the other with, then it shows his lack of ability to understand what he reads and also his eagerness to accuse others. That is your case.

Let me say that you are a tamperer who tampers with tampering to bring an improper situation by pretentious means by tightly pack down your idea by successive blows as a terrorist may do with dirt on top of an explosive device, similar to a land mine that is prohibited to use. If you do not know what is meant by ‘tampering,’ it is doing your best without knowing what you are doing.

You say that you have no problem with the word ‘first.’ However, you are demonstrating otherwise. That indicates that you have a bigger problem and that is that you do not even know that you have a problem of understanding the meaning of the word ‘first.’ You must seek the help from a dictionary.

Your problem in understanding the meaning of ‘first’ is evident from the fact that you have not answered my question about it. Let me repeat my question for the fourth time, “You asked about the significance of the first day of creation over other days. It shows that you do not even know the meaning of the word ‘first.’ You may use any dictionary to know the meaning of that word. Then you will know the significance.

If I ask you about the first modern day transgender person, could you answer that question? If you could, please answer. You must know the meaning of the word ‘first’ to answer this question.” You could answer only if you know the meaning of ‘first.’

On 17 Sep 2015, you emphasized the word ‘shadow’ by writing that in capital letters, “SHADOW.” Do you anything about shadows? If you do not know, you may ask.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : kristianjude   View Profile   Since : 18 Sep 2015 9:47:45 AM Close

‘The first day of Creation is a shadow of the ‘First Day’ of the week’ is a meaningless statement by Mr. George. George himself is not sure of what message he wants to convey through this statement.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 18 Sep 2015 12:53:10 PM Close

Dear ‘kristianjude,’ a.k.a. ‘kristine,’

Your accusation on 16 Sep 2015 was: “the first day is a special day for you, because it is the ‘Lord’s day.” You repeated that accusation on the following day. In answer to your accusation, I wrote that I did not write what you claimed. You insisted on your claim. Now you write on 18 Sep 2015 that I did not write what you accused me off. You have to answer your willful manipulation of facts on this Forum.

If you read what I wrote and read the verses that I referred to in my initial posting, then you may get some idea about what I wrote. As you are not a born-again person as Christ said in John 3, you may have difficulty in understanding the Scriptures. Anyone who contradicts willfully the Lord Jesus Christ is not a believer. You did contradict Him by writing that the everlasting life that He gives ceased to be everlasting. You also contradicted Him by saying that your salvation depends on your Karma Marg and it will be manifested only at the Great white Throne. You also denied the Doctrine of Predestination as taught by the Lord Jesus Christ. Let me tell you that you must be born from above to be a child of God.  

You have not answered my question. Therefore I am asking you the same question for the fifth time: Your problem in understanding the meaning of ‘first’ is evident from the fact that you have not answered my question about it. Let me repeat my question for the fourth time, “You asked about the significance of the first day of creation over other days. It shows that you do not even know the meaning of the word ‘first.’ You may use any dictionary to know the meaning of that word. Then you will know the significance.

If I ask you about the first modern day transgender person, could you answer that question? If you could, please answer. You must know the meaning of the word ‘first’ to answer this question.” You could answer only if you know the meaning of ‘first.’

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page


Post reply Here

please login to continue..

Registered Users, Login below:

Username Password
Problem Login?

New User? Register Now

Forgot User Name or Password? Click Here

Go to top of the page

All times are GMT -5 Hours
Forums Home ::



HOME
Back to Top