JCanon, you apparently didn't get that the critical term is not the common word "day" (hemera) but the rare qualifying epithet adjective kuriakos (= "dominical," # 2960 in your post), which occurs only in Revelation 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 11:20 in the NT, both in liturgical, not eschatological, contexts (the Lord's supper, the Lord's day). This is not the phrase for the eschatological "day of the Lord," hemera Kuriou (= Kurios genitive).
Hi Narkissos: Thanks for your comment. I hope you are well. My issue is whether or not 2 Thess 2 which is translated as the "day of Christ" is an equivalent expression of "Lord's day"? A specific day the Christ/Lord is associated with. Immediately though, it occurs to me that the other common reference for the "day of the Lord" in terms of Jehovah's is not the same thing. Generally, though I might have to refine that, Jehovah's day is Armageddon. The "Lord's day" is either the specific day he returns or generally the concept of his "parousia" which would be the events within a generation of his return. So with these "options" what will preempt is what we individually think John is referring to at these varioius verses, in this case and most pertinently Revelation 1:10. John was having a vision on this particular day. What day was he most likely referring to? First of all, the Lord's day would never be a "Sunday" but the sabbath. Not sure if anybody noticed that. That is, if we go with the idea this was a specific day of the week, it would be the sabbath. So we have to consider that John decided to characterize the common sabbath day as the "Lord's day." Which is possible. But we ask why not just say "the sabbath"? Thanks to 1 Corinthians though where this term is otherwise exclusively used, it is reference to the passover. So that would be a possibility as well, that this vision of John was seen on the day of Passover. But in actuality, that is not a likely correct understanding. Since he says it was by "inspiration" that he came to be "on" or "in" the Lord's day. So we can presume this particular day of the week was not the sabbath or the Passover, but that particular day setting under inspiration. But that alone is a hint he's not talking about an ordinary day, right? He's being transported by inspiration to a particular day, which lends itself more to a particular time? Thus at this point I would look for any other clues that using this phrase is "defined" by the situation and circumstance of what is actually going on. That is, what is actually going on will define for us which particular interpretation of the "Lord's day" John is referring to, regardless of the terms he chooses to use. The context of that day, if we apply it to some of the things he saw in this vision would set that day into the future during Christ's paraousia. So at his point our literary options would be that John went out of his way to tell us the more likely of either: 1. Even though it was a Tuesday (or Monday, Wednesday, Sunday, Thursday, or Friday) that by inspiration it became Saturday under inspiration; or 2. Even though it was not Passover on that particular day, he was transported to a day of Passover under inspiration to see this vision about the future; or 3. His transference by inspiration to the "Lord's day" is his reference to being in the general time of the parousia or the time of the second coming. Either of the above three work for me. Ultimately if by the semantics one favors #1 or #2 then this particular verse would not be effective in establishing that John was referencing future events. But other passages do (i..e Satan getting kicked out of heaven 2520 years after the fall of Jerusalem), so it doesn't change the primary reference. Thus a revision of my own argument would prefer not to use this controversial text at Rev. 1:10 to establish a reference to the future, but one of the numerous other unique events mentioned in Revelation that only happends in the end times, such as the second coming, the ouster of Satan from heaven, the eventual millennium, followed by Judgment Day and Satan's death, etc. all things that happen in the distant future, clearly. But also in regard to some, like preterists who seem to be able to itnerpret all these things in a contemporary setting back then, even the return of the messiah, for a chronologist, this is not an option because of the "day for a year" formula. That requires specific 20th century fulfillments for some of the events mentioned. To each his own, but once the chronology is factored in, because some of the events are linked specifically to chronology per some exegetical interpretation, the idea that John's work is directed contempoarily and only applies to future events when applied out of context is simply not an option; it's an incompent point of view. But that's just my position as a Biblical chronologist, and particularly in the JW setting who likewise focus on chronology, particularly the "7 times" prophecy about the 2520 years linking the fall of Jerusalem with the 2nd coming. THANKS, though for pointing out the detailed I missed via the comparison. SEE? I do get something out of these discussions!!! Cheers, JC