Question about Martin Luther

shnarkle

Well-known member
There are sites which explain the Israelite lunar calendar, but to illustrate the matter considering the following.

The measure of days are equidistant (24hours) and seven days comprise a week. Three hundred and sixty five days is not evenly divisible by seven days. So both in the Israelite lunar calendar and in our current solar calendar the day shifts every year.
No. They don't. Saturday is always the seventh day of the week. There is no shifting whatsoever. We never skip, shift, or add days to the week. This is what it sounds like you're saying.
For example, using January first on our current solar calendar each year that date, like all other dates on the calendar, occurs on a different day from year to year.
Granted, but that doesn't change what day the Sabbath falls. Again, you're not proving much of anything.
It cycles through the days of the week.
Sure, but at no time do we ever shift a day of the week. We never skip a day (e.g. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday...etc.)
In a similar manner, there are left over days at the end of each year in the Israelite calendar.
So what? This doesn't change what day the weekly Sabbath falls on.
So regardless of when a person reckons the sabbath to be made for man our Saturday, our seventh day, is going to shift from and to that fixed day on which it is reckoned as it annually cycles through the days of the week.
This doesn't change the fact that the weekly Sabbath always falls on the seventh day of the week. More importantly, there is no shifting of the days of the week. What you're pointing out is that the dates change, not the days of the week.
 

pythons

Active member
Correct. In both cases, the biblical god states they are "abominations". The biblical god states that eating any unclean thing is "an abomination". Likewise, he says the same thing for sodomy.

Its important folks know just how far you've departed from the Trinity Doctrine, Luther, Calvin, Baptists, Methodists, etc.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
No. They don't. Saturday is always the seventh day of the week. There is no shifting whatsoever. We never skip, shift, or add days to the week. This is what it sounds like you're saying.

Granted, but that doesn't change what day the Sabbath falls. Again, you're not proving much of anything.

Sure, but at no time do we ever shift a day of the week. We never skip a day (e.g. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday...etc.)

So what? This doesn't change what day the weekly Sabbath falls on.

This doesn't change the fact that the weekly Sabbath always falls on the seventh day of the week. More importantly, there is no shifting of the days of the week. What you're pointing out is that the dates change, not the days of the week.
The point being made is that observing the weekly rest on our solar calendar Saturday is not the same as observing the weekly rest according to the lunar calendar of the Israelites.
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
From what little I know of Luther's works I am under the impression that Luther believed that the Moral Law of God pre-existed the Children of Israel and that it was only at the time of Moses that God appointed Israel to "observe a particular day" and prior to Moses anyone could have observed the Sabbath on ANY DAY within the week. The poster who provided these posts is claiming that Luther believed the True Sabbath in Enoch's day was the same exact day that a Gregorian Calendar Saturday is on.
I've interacted with people obsessed with the Saturday Sabbath before.

In this instance in bringing in Luther, in my world, the entire encounter you've described leads only to the question, "so what?" What does Luther have to do with any of this? Luther was not a Saturday Sabbatarian. If Luther described a speculative method of Sabbath observance pre-fall... well, there's all sorts of things we could describe pre-fall. For instance, there were no clothes in the Garden of Eden, that was God's ideal, so now, everyone should walk around naked in order to worship God correctly.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Its important folks know just how far you've departed from the Trinity Doctrine, Luther, Calvin, Baptists, Methodists, etc.
Then why are you bringing up different abominations? I believe in what the creed states, e.g. "one in being with the father". That isn't departing from the doctrine much at all.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
The point being made is that observing the weekly rest on our solar calendar Saturday is not the same as observing the weekly rest according to the lunar calendar of the Israelites.
The Israelite/Jewish calendar is a lunar/solar calendar. The only major difference is in when the day begins which is at sunset. So when the sun goes down on what we reckon as Friday evening, the Sabbath begins. It ends the following evening which is when Saturday day ends for everyone else as well. So while Saturday doesn't officially end until midnight for everyone else, the fact remains that the day is the exact same day. The weekly Sabbath is Saturday. They are always the same day; the seventh day of the week. Always. The only other difference would be due to the rotation of the earth getting around to the seventh day. In other words, the Sabbath begins 3 hours earlier in Florida than it does in California because the sun sets three hours earlier.

You have a theory that cannot be proven, and there is no historical evidence to suggest it can. You may think you understand what you're talking about, but you clearly don't. You haven't articulated a coherent argument yet.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
The Israelite/Jewish calendar is a lunar/solar calendar. The only major difference is in when the day begins which is at sunset. So when the sun goes down on what we reckon as Friday evening, the Sabbath begins. It ends the following evening which is when Saturday day ends for everyone else as well. So while Saturday doesn't officially end until midnight for everyone else, the fact remains that the day is the exact same day. The weekly Sabbath is Saturday. They are always the same day; the seventh day of the week. Always. The only other difference would be due to the rotation of the earth getting around to the seventh day. In other words, the Sabbath begins 3 hours earlier in Florida than it does in California because the sun sets three hours earlier.

You have a theory that cannot be proven, and there is no historical evidence to suggest it can. You may think you understand what you're talking about, but you clearly don't. You haven't articulated a coherent argument yet.
Suit yourself. Colossians 2:1-17. -NASB 1995
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Suit yourself. Colossians 2:1-17. -NASB 1995
"Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect..."


RESPECT is not equivalent to DISRESPECT. Note also the context is pointing out that "no one" is to judge in "REGARD" which in the Greek literally means "taking part; participation".

"... to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath [o]day— 17 things which are"

Note that they ARE (not to be confused with "WERE")

".. a mere shadow of what is to come; but the [p]substance [q]belongs to Christ.

These words, "substance" and "belongs" are not in the manuscripts. What it actually says is "but the body of Christ" which is the church. The church is to judge regarding eating and drinking, and respect for new moons and Sabbaths, and the church plainly and clearly judged that new converts should take advantage of the wealth of information found in the book of Moses each and every Sabbath Acts 15:21.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
When I referenced Colossians 2:17 it was to say that how you regard feasts or holy days, and sabbaths is on you.

On to the actual text of Colossians 2:1-17...
"Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect..."
To whom in particular is he primarily directing this statement? Answer: to those who were dead in their transgressions and uncircumcised in the body. "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions," Col. 2:13 -NASB https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+2:1-17&version=NASB1995
RESPECT is not equivalent to DISRESPECT.
Pointing out a difference that makes no difference in the context of the discussion is pointing out no difference at all. Or are you implying that your view rests on disrespect? I'm asking because Paul's imperative to the faithful Gentiles is to let no man, no Jew or Gentile, judge them with respect to holy days or festivals, sabbaths, etc.
Note also the context is pointing out that "no one" is to judge in "REGARD" which in the Greek literally means "taking part; participation".
Sure, they are only a shadow of things to come.
"... to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath [o]day— 17 things which are"

Note that they ARE (not to be confused with "WERE")
Sure, they are only a shadow, nothing more, of things come. That doesn't mean that the faithful Gentiles are supposed to pretend they are something more than a shadow or that they are not already full or complete and will continue to be full or complete in Christ Jesus.
".. a mere shadow of what is to come; but the [p]substance [q]belongs to Christ.

These words, "substance" and "belongs" are not in the manuscripts.
There isn't a one to one correspondence between languages. The goal of translation is to make something in the source language readily understandable in the target language. Sometimes that will take more or less words and sometimes different words because of how they are differently used and understood in the source and target languages.

So it is more often than not the case that a person may have a preferred translation of a passage and it is another thing to demonstrate the exclusion of this or that translation of the same passage.
What it actually says is "but the body of Christ" which is the church.
This is a good example of a person having a preferred translation but not being able to exclude a particular translation of the same passage. Take the cue from the NASB use of footnotes.
The church is to judge regarding eating and drinking, and respect for new moons and Sabbaths, and the church plainly and clearly judged that new converts should take advantage of the wealth of information found in the book of Moses each and every Sabbath Acts 15:21.
That is clearly eisegesis with regard to both Col 2 and Acts 15. Looking at the matter in chronological order, the events of Acts 15 occurring before Paul writing his epistle to the Colossians, will make things clear.

"Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from [j]things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” Acts 15:19-21 - NASB

The point is what seemed good to the Holy Spirit, the Apostles, and those gathered at Jerusalem is that they trouble not the Gentiles turning to God beyond the few things mentioned. What is not included in that list are festivals or holy days, new moons, and sabbaths.

Paul, in his letter to the Colossians, is not claiming the shadow is anything more than a shadow. Preaching Moses in the context of Acts 15, that he is read in the synagogues, is not the same as preaching Christ to Gentiles.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
When I referenced Colossians 2:17 it was to say that how you
Your insistence in resorting to Ad Hominem has grown too tiresome to bother with any further. Your posts are all over the place, and too incoherent to decipher.

Go with God.

Be blessed.
 

Nic

Well-known member
Your insistence in resorting to Ad Hominem has grown too tiresome to bother with any further. Your posts are all over the place, and too incoherent to decipher.

Go with God.

Be blessed.
Hi Shnarkle, I read BJ Bear differently than you did. The way I read it endorses each persons preference as to how an individual or group honors or celebrates these things.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
The way I read it endorses each persons preference as to how an individual or group honors or celebrates these things.
I see that as well. However, God is not a respecter of persons therefore one cannot honor those who think God is biased in his judgements. it necessarily follows that God is capricious which isn't much of a God to begin with.

God says it is an abomination to engage in sodomy, but then suddenly after the crucifixion, it's perfectly acceptable and condoned? I don't think so.
 

Nic

Well-known member
I see that as well. However, God is not a respecter of persons therefore one cannot honor those who think God is biased in his judgements. it necessarily follows that God is capricious which isn't much of a God to begin with.

God says it is an abomination to engage in sodomy, but then suddenly after the crucifixion, it's perfectly acceptable and condoned? I don't think so.
I see the sabbath commandment similar to that of honoring your parents commandment. They both serve as placeholders. For the sabbath commandment I see that Christians are called worship God [relevance, Romans 14] and with honoring are parents; we are to honor the authorities God has placed over us. Neither of these understandings would violate either of these commandments as sodomy would goes against the emanating character of God revealed on the Ten Words.
 
Last edited:

shnarkle

Well-known member
I see the sabbath commandment similar to that of honoring your parents commandment. They both serve as placeholders. For the sabbath commandment I see that Christians are called worship God [relevance, Romans 14]
I'm a bit slow. What are you pointing out here?
and with honoring are parents; we are to honor the authorities God has placed over us.
Here again, I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. if there is someone in authority over you, and they decide to molest or harm you, do you think you are necessarily supposed to just allow them to do that?
Neither of these understandings would violate either of these commandments
Again, I don't know what any of this is supposed to mean.
as sodomy would goes against the emanating character of God revealed on the Ten Words.
So does profaning the Sabbath, violating the dietary laws, and committing adultery, but that doesn't stop Christians from doing all three. I'm just using the same logic for those and applying it to any other law.
 

Nic

Well-known member
I'm a bit slow. What are you pointing out here?
A greater depth to the commandment.
Here again, I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. if there is someone in authority over you, and they decide to molest or harm you, do you think you are necessarily supposed to just allow them to do that?
Christ permitted the authorities over him to put him to death. Turn the other cheek... . I point these out to explain context determines what and how a person respond in a given and every changing context that each of us live in. There are times when we obey and then there may be times when we don't submit, we act in faith not by sight and evaluate each context for the decision we make. There may be a time when in a given situation we are faced with fighting for our lives or laying it down freely. This could very well be the exact scenario with a simple change in context. What could drive that distinction? Whether or not you have a spouse and children needing you for remaining love and support in this life. If the person was not serving as a family man, then his context could leave open the possibility of being slayed without defiance as a martyr of the faith, if this sinner-saint saw it fit as the right decision at the time.
Again, I don't know what any of this is supposed to mean.

So does profaning the Sabbath, violating the dietary laws, and committing adultery, but that doesn't stop Christians from doing all three. I'm just using the same logic for those and applying it to any other law.
It isn't profaning the Sabbath to worship God as a Christian would see fit in faith. Nor is it violating dietary laws that gentiles were also never given to eat whatever he chooses as long as he doesn't do so to the point of making his brother stumble.
Adultery is a heart issue and not just the subsequent act as it is with all sin. If you hate someone, you're guilty of murder and that's without a physical corpse lying in wake. Anyone doing any of these or any other sin is guilty of breaking every last commandment ever given understood or otherwise.
 
Last edited:

shnarkle

Well-known member
A greater depth to the commandment.
Could you elaborate? Provide some examples?
Christ permitted the authorities over him to put him to death. Turn the other cheek... .
Not always. He tossed the money changer's tables. He referred to some people as "A brood of vipers; fools" etc. He slipped away from a crowd that was intent on murdering him.
It isn't profaning the Sabbath to worship God as a Christian would see fit in faith.
By this same logic, it isn't adultery for a Christian to marry whomever he sees fit in faith.
Nor is it violating dietary laws that gentiles were also never given to eat whatever he chooses as long as he doesn't do so to the point of making his brother stumble.
Violating the dietary laws causes observant Jews to stumble. Observant Jews will never come to the gospel because Christians could follow the dietary laws, and observe the Sabbath, but they would rather not even though they believe Paul says it makes no difference.
Adultery is a heart issue and not just the subsequent act as it is with all sin.
I agree, but that doesn't make it right to commit adultery.
If you hate someone, you're guilty of murder and that's without a physical corpse lying in wake. Anyone doing any of these or any other sin is guilty of breaking every last commandment ever given understood or otherwise.
And yet, a person can still follow the law while sinning in their heart. Just because someone can't refrain from sinning in their heart, it doesn't then follow that it's acceptable to carry out the sin.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Your insistence in resorting to Ad Hominem has grown too tiresome to bother with any further. Your posts are all over the place, and too incoherent to decipher.

Go with God.

Be blessed.
That is one way to deflect and avoid what Scripture says according to it's God given perfect immediate context.

"that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, and attaining to all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the knowledge of the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Colossians 2:2-3 -NKJV

For the record, the lunar/solar calendar you referred to earlier isn't the calendar of Moses but a recent novelty that only delays some of the slippage between calendars.

Right back at you.
 
Top