Talk:Sabbath in Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Catholicism / Eastern / Lutheranism / Latter Day Saints / Adventist (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Archived old talk page[edit]

I've gone ahead and archived the talk page which was largely outdated discussion and overly bloated as is. Vincent Valentine 04:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Sabbatarianism, which was not merged to this talk when its article was merged here, has now been moved to Archive 2. Its timeframe interleaves with Archive 1 and with the present page. JJB 07:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes[edit]

Since it looks like the content of what does or does not get put in this article is a hot topic I thought I would put this here. Only recently came across the quote. If people would like to use it or not, or parts of it, I'll let others decide:

"Moreover, it is disputed whether bishops or pastors have the right to introduce ceremonies in the Church, and to make laws concerning meats, holy-days and grades, that is, orders of ministers, etc. They that give this right to the bishops refer to this testimony John 16, 12. 13: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth. They also refer to the example of the Apostles, who commanded to abstain from blood and from things strangled, Acts 15, 29. They refer to the Sabbath-day as having been changed into the Lord's Day, contrary to the Decalog, as it seems. Neither is there any example whereof they make more than concerning the changing of the Sabbath-day. Great, say they, is the power of the Church, since it has dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments!"

The quote is from the 28th article of the Augsburg Confession written by Philip Melanchthon (the closest associate to Luther I know of) when asked by the princes of Germany to give an account to Charles V about their protection of Martin Luther and his followers. It was read to Charles V at Augsburg, by the princes.

Another quote:

“In the New Law the keeping of the Sunday supplants that of the Sabbath, not in virtue of the precept of the law, but through determination by the church and the customs of the Christian people.”

This quote is from Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae, virtues of justice in the human community, question 103, the virtue of respectful service, the third point.

SDA POV[edit]

I have worked hard over the last couple of days to remove the SDA POV. Hopefully I have been successful. As such, I am removing the NPOV tag from the article, but adding a cleanup tag to the Seventh-day sabbatarian section, which is still very messy. Tonicthebrown 16:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

what does sda and cog mean?

???Seventh Day Adventist Point of View??? ???Church of God??

We really need to rein in the sda's on any article to do with the sabbath or sunday or anything related to it. The article just becomes an apologetic for sda teachings and all to often a chance for some catholic bashing. How about we find someone who isn't sda to write it?

I'm not SDA and I wrote a good deal of it. I'll admit many SDAs and COG have been coming to inject their doctrines as incorrigible truth but I've tried to keep the article relatively NPOV. Can you point out specific issues with any parts of it? I'd be glad to help revise sections you find to be POV. Vincent Valentine 01:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this section needs to be revised:

[The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the early Church met on Sunday according to its own authority, and not on the basis of any Scriptural mandate to do so. Although of no official standing, the Keenan's Doctrinal Catechism, a Catholic Catechism, declares that there is no scriptural basis for first day observance: "Q; Have you any other way of proving that the [Roman] Church has power to institute festivals? A: Had she not such power she could not have instituted one in which all modern religionists agree with her - she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day of the week. A change for which there is no Scriptural authority"

Other Roman Catholic sources can be cited, to show that according to the Catholic Church, there is no scriptural basis for neglecting Saturday observance: "Nowhere in the bible do we find that Jesus or the apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that is, the seventh day of the week, Saturday. Today, most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the [Roman] church outside the bible." (Catholic Virginian, Oct. 3, 1947)]

Sda's have a nasty habit of using obscure quotes. Why not use the official catechism of the catholic church instead of an old out of date one? You don't have to go to the Catholic Virginian which is merely a diocesan newspaper. The sda's want it to appear that catholicism is cavalier when it comes to scripture. Here is what the offical catechism says:

[ The day of the Resurrection: the new creation

2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."[104] Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath,[105] it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday: We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.[106] Sunday- fulfillment of the sabbath

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:[107] Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.[108] 2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."[109] Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people. The Sunday Eucharist

2177 The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church."[110]

2178 This practice of the Christian assembly dates from the beginnings of the apostolic age.[112] The Letter to the Hebrews reminds the faithful "not to neglect to meet together, as is the habit of some, but to encourage one another."[113] Tradition preserves the memory of an ever-timely exhortation: Come to Church early, approach the Lord, and confess your sins, repent in prayer.... Be present at the sacred and divine liturgy, conclude its prayer and do not leave before the dismissal.... We have often said: "This day is given to you for prayer and rest. This is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it."[114]]

You can also use the cited footnotes. I think this is much more accurate then the unofficial resources quoted in the article.

There are some other very official quotes that are quoted stating that the Catholic church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. I will be happy to share them with you or you can see many of them for yourselves at Light Ministries. Most Catholics that I know are proud of the fact that the man that they follow (the Pope) has the power to change the day of worship. If you believe that the Pope is the Vicar or substitute of Jesus Christ, then you must believe that he has the power to do this. So whether the quote is from an obscure but valid source such as the Catholic Virginian or else from more recent, less obscure, and official sources such as The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine or Canon and Tradition or Catechism Made Easy or The Catholic Encyclopedia, which all state that the Catholic church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, it matters not. The Catholic church is not shy about admitting to making this change, and since it is NOT shy, why should you be upset about the fact that they did?--Song Of The Forest 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day." The Catholic Encyclopedia --Song Of The Forest 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Also beware of S. Bacchiochi. He is a sda apologist. Studied in Rome and uses that as a bid for legitimacy. He is certainly biased.

Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi is an Italo-American scholar who has studied and lived in several countries. He was born and brought up in Rome, Italy, a stone-throw from the Vatican wall. For his college education he went to England where he earned a B. A. degree in Theology at Newbold College. From England he came to America for his graduate studies and earned a M. A. and a B. D. degrees at Andrews University Theological Seminary. Upon completing his seminary training in 1964, he went with his wife, Anna, to Ethiopia where he served for five years as Bible and History teacher.

In 1969 Dr. Bacchiocchi returned to his native city of Rome to study at the prestigious Pontifical Gregorian University, where he was the first non-Catholic to be admitted in over 450 years of its history. At the Gregoriana he spent the next five years working toward a Doctoratus in Church History. He was awarded a gold medal by Pope Paul VI for attaining the academic distinction of summa cum laude for his class-work and dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday.

After completing his doctorate in 1974, Dr. Bacchiocchi was invited to teach in the Religion Department of Andrews University, in Berrien Springs, Michigan. He has served at Andrews for 26 years as Professor of Theology and Church History until his retirement on July 2000.

Dr. Bacchiocchi is more than qualified to make legitimate, intelligent, and well-researched contributions. What makes you think that he is a biased apologist?--Song Of The Forest 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Also I notice COGwriter has made contributions. He is a member of an Armstrong offshoot group. A rather small sectarian movement. Like sda's they are very biased and their scholarship is...interesting for lack of a better word. They have their blinders on.

Thank GOD someone finally agrees with me. I kept saying that but we'd just get in revert wars and it was going nowhere. I completely agree, the obscure SDA quote thing is 100% accurate, this is a common method, kinda like quoting a single scientist who says "evolution is bunk" when you have a million voices screaming the opposite behind him. Let's revise, remove the obscure quotes and add official catechism quotes and footnotes, shall we? I can't get to it tonight but I will try tomorrow.
I'm also aware of COGWriter's additions and his unorthodox sect. I never agreed with any of his work but I didn't have the background to debunk it. I was very cautious of his additions and many of them seemed borderline POV to me. I figured I'd let it slide until someone came along with more knowledge on the subject.
Vincent Valentine 02:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


I am happy to help. I did some checking on COG and his degrees are not in theological studies. He is an ex-Catholic. Obviously his pov is not shared by the vast majority of scholars who are not sabbatarians. His denomination is a splinter of a splinter. Of course for them the Pope is the anti-Christ etc. Not exactly mainstream. In the interest of full disclosure I am a Catholic priest with several degrees and am currently studying at a Pontifical University for my Licentiate. I also was a Presbyterian minister in a previous incarnation with a graduate degree from a Protestant seminary as well as my Catholic seminary training. If you need it I can ask some of the finest scripture and patristic scholars in the world to check facts, but I don't think COG or the sda's would like it. I was just looking around and discovered this entry. I wondered if the sda's were trying to stake a claim. It is important that this be as objective as possible. I don't mind having their pov recognized, but they can't be allowed to falsify the other pov. Thanks for helping to keep this entry accurate.

I chagned the section you mentioned. Let me know if it's any better now, I did try to keep it NPOV and in line with the Catechism. I'd be glad to rewrite/revise/reconsider any parts.
I've kept a personal eye on this article since I figured it would be a hotbed for sectarian activity since many new Christianity splinter cells are based entirely on Sabbatarianism and most older churches have considered the issue long since settled and likely wouldn't even think to visit let alone edit an article on Sabbath observance. To them, I conjectured, it would seem as silly as putting contemporary Christian arguments in a kosher eating section. As I thought this article has, at various times, become an intense battleground between smaller splinter sect representatives and ... well, me. I can attest that Godwin's law is 100% accurate. :-P
Hopefully my newest edits are helpful. Vincent Valentine 23:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to bad. It makes things clearer. Also it omits the unofficial texts for something that is endorsed by the Church. Maybe you could refer them to paragraph 2174ff, so they can refer to the whole section of the catechism on the sabbath if they are interested. You are correct this is a battleground. Some of these groups have staked their souls on it and view Catholicism as the archenemy. They tie the two issues together. Ah, the stories I could tell. But I think this is much improved. Be aware that the Lewis book they mention is a 1903 work of uncertain reputation. SDA's tend to be very iffy on their sources both for others and even their own. I actually caught them using the elipse to omit part of a quote and made the quote say the opposite of what the author intended. When I pointed it out they shrugged and refused to correct it. If I think of anything else that might be useful I will let you know. Btw, the is the first time I have really made a contribution to wikipedia, hooray.

I made the change as to what I think you meant, if I messed up please feel free to fix it (I'll be honest -- I've never quoted an official catechism before :-P). Vincent Valentine 14:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"New Christianity splinter cells," "His denomination is a splinter of a splinter," "Not exactly mainstream." Careful, Christianity itself started as a small (acts 1:15) sect known by the Jews as "The Way" (Acts 24:14,22). Christ Himself declares that it is the minority that will find life (Matt 7:13-14; Matt 22:14). "SDA's tend to be very iffy on their sources both for others and even their own." This is sadly true many times even in my own experience, and I do agree that good sources should be expected. "Also beware of S. Bacchiochi. He is a sda apologist." As a priest are you not an apologist for your church as well? While you may be loyal to the ex cathedra position of your church, I certainly don't recognize that authority. And while I don't have a clue what this "Lewis" book is, to simply say of "uncertain reputation," doesn't tell me any reason why one way or the other. Without a rationale, and no it doesn't matter how may degrees you have, positions taken up against Sabbatarianism can be just as fickle. I gather by your statements you have had or known negative experiences with Sabbatarians, particularly SDAs; consider that SDAs may have their own stories to tell on the opposite side. Further, a large part of the negative position that various Protestants have with the Catholic system is the knowledge of its past persecution, by way of inquisition, and the concern that as it gains its power back, and I personally believe it inevitably will gain it back, so also will open persection begin afresh. Before running with picking out specific groups for labeling Catholicism as anti-Christ, consider that it doesn't take much to find that Martin Luther and other Protestant reformers said as much as well. Don't think that I hate Catholics, there are many at my place of work and I love them all. As to why some Sabbatarians resort to old sources, this is due to the observation that over the last ~200 years there has been a shift in mainstream Protestantism from opposition to Catholicism to embracing it; a stellar example would be the presence of the US President at the funeral of the late John Paul II; simply, they don't trust modern scholarship because they believe it has turned a blind eye to the past and contains a bias in the present. Wintermancer 07:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

We are just saying their groups are splinters and don't represent mainstream thought. These splinter groups tend to be illogical and fanatical, and positively hostile toward anyone who disagrees with them. Trust me, I've been called many nasty names on this talk page alone when just asking for fact-checking and reliable sources.
I'm simply saying that we need to watch out for them to insidiously infect the article with their POV throughout its contents. I'm not saying their POV should be ignored or that they are vandalizing lunatics just because they are part of a small sect. All I'm saying is that if someone is a convicted pedophile, you wouldn't put them in charge of a daycare. This has nothing to do with us trying to exclude others or force our POV on the article, it is simply us trying to maintain neutrality in this article which easily becomes a battleground between various warring sects. Vincent Valentine 14:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Vincent, maybe you should simply post all the catechism paragraphs I cited above. Together they explain why Catholicism rejects the sabbatarian position. And it does so in a nonpolemical way. I don't see how anyone could object.

Wintermancer, I suppose I could refer you to the Protestant inquisitions. Ask the Catholic Irish how they were treated. Perhaps read about the English martyrs. Maybe the last 200 years has been good for all of us. It is nice the President would go to the Popes funeral. I suppose I am an apologist, but a relatively benign one. You on the other hand accuse us of nefariously planning to kill you and all your Protestant brethren. Please share with us the evidence of this coming Catholic persecution. You simply prove my point by such absurd statements. Yes, I have had bad experiences with sda's. I don't care for bigots of any stripe. Especially I don't like it when they misrepresent or even lie about my beliefs. Truthfulness should transcend ones individual bias. My desire here was to ensure that our reasons for worshipping on the Lord's Day were accurately stated. The catechism does that well and it avoids the typical strawman approach favored by anti-Catholics.

I considered posting the whole catechism section but I was concerned about going off-track and adding to article bloat (which I'm afriad this article already suffers). Feel free to revise my edits if you like, you're certainly more qualified to talk about the Catholic position on the Sabbath than I am. Vincent Valentine 02:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I made the change and just put in the sections of the catechism. I figured that it would speak for itself without commentary. At the very least it says what we really believe. Hopefully this is adequate.

It's a shame that you took out legitimate sources, of which I can name a hundred more, and only put in part of the Catholic Catechism. Just because a source is old or local doesn't mean that it is not a valid source. The Catechism itself states that the Catholic church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, as does the Catholic Encyclopedia. If the Catholic church is proud of this fact, why are you so loathe to allow any sources be cited to this affect on this page? Are you ashamed of what your church is not? --Song Of The Forest 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jewish naming of festivals[edit]

Some of the Hebrew names used in this article, have no source in the Hebrew Bible, however, come from the Rabbis. Why are they even in this article? ems 17:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what Hebrew do you speak[edit]

You got some weird translation of Simchat Torah. its defently not the Hebrew the whole world accepts as Hebrew. ems 17:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding factual templated, or anything else that might be more fitting. ems 17:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You should only tag the section you have an issue with, not the whole article. Or, hey, fix it yourself. Don't just haphazardly toss tags around. Most of the article is well-sourced and it's very annoying to have someone barge in and toss factual accuracy tags around. I agree the Hebrew part is probably bunk, that was added by a fringe sect member who claimed to be an authority -- I don't know any Hebrew so I took his word for it. Take it out if you have evidence that it's no good. Vincent Valentine 20:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You see, I added it to the section that had the error, the intro. ems 13:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Um, no? You used the "whole article" tag and put it at the very top of the article, flagging the entire article as needing factual reinforcement. You can use the section tag on sections you find to be factually lacking, but I'm curious -- what specifically are you referring to? The "Simchat Torah" simply is referring to the Eight Day of the Feast. The sentence after that "the Hebrew word refers to.." is talking about what the word "Shabbat" means. I don't see any problems here except maybe you think the "Simchat Torah" is what is being defined as "day of rest" which I agree is wrong. If you want to clarify that part go ahead. Vincent Valentine 13:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Simchat Torah means 'rejoucing of the Torah'. It isn't even the Eighth day of the featival, its the last day, which in Israel is the Seventh day. ems 14:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all Hebrew translations, because:

  1. Half of them were wrong.
  2. They all link to the Jewish version of the holiday, which is confusion, as the Christian holiday can be something totally different.
  3. Half of them were wrong. Oh wait, I said this one already. :P

ems 14:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

-Obscure quotes-

I find it interesting that those who are bothered by "obscure quotes", from the various Catholic sources, want it replaced with something updated. The updated quote from the Cathechism (above), does absolutely nothing to change what is found in the obscure, and outdated quotes. Still, not one Biblical authorative reason is found in their updated version. The only real difference is the obscure quotes boldly announce they are basing Sunday keeping upon church authority and not the Bible. It's no wonder why Sunday advocates want such texts removed and replaced with something that doesn't make their ears itch.

Just my 2cents.

This page and Seventh day Christian groups[edit]

The list of Saturday keeping groups here seems to be more expansive than the one at Seventh day Christian groups should that page simply redirect here? MyNameIsNotBob 09:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Many seventh-day keepers see the Sabbath as an object of personal pride and sect identification. Because of its status and supposed uniqueness, many sect members have been more than willing to identify their churches on this list. At times we've had to pare it down as it was beginning to get bloated with miniscule churches in remote areas with total memberships of less than two dozen. As for your concern, I think the "Seventh day Christian Groups" should link here, not the other way around. I see virtually no purpose in having an obscure article title like that -- I don't find it notable. Linking here would be fine, though. Vincent Valentine 17:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Seventh day Christian groups now redirects here. MyNameIsNotBob 09:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks really good, thanks. I think this was a positive change. Vincent Valentine 13:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mexican minority sect?[edit]

Is the Soldiers of the cross link in violation of WP:NN?Dominick (TALK) 22:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NN is not actually a wikipedia policy, it is not even a guideline, it is just an essay about what is generally thought about the topic by wikipedians. Furthermore, the essay is about articles, however, if there are too many links, it is a good guideline about what to keep and what not to keep. Ansell 23:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
OK is a mexican sect notable enough,considering they are such a small group? Dominick (TALK) 00:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Removed. It was non-notable and added nothing worthwhile to the article. And was entirely in Spanish. Functionally equivalent to linkspam. Vincent Valentine 14:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, the Soldiers of the Cross Church is not a Mexican sect. Although small, it is an international religious organization with headquarters in the United States. See their Atlanta, GA Spanish/English website [1], or their Dallas, TX site [2]
The Mexican site functions as their web portal and mentions over 20 countries in which the organization operates. One of the group's core beliefs is Sabbath keeping, and it seems perfectly appropriate to include them in a list of Sabbath-keeping churches. Excluding them seems arbitrary and overly dependent on a particular POV about what counts as a significant or important religious movement.
That's fine. Before someone had just dumped a link to a remote church with some .com.mx address (the site was entirely in Spanish) which is totally inappropriate for the English Wikipedia article on the Sabbath. Plus you should note we're very accustomed to linkspam on this page. Vincent Valentine 20:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of external links[edit]

Has anyone else been noticing how anonymous contributors have slowly removed all the anti-Sabbath external links? Vincent Valentine 11:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how the people who have removed the superfluous external links can be considered "anonymous" as they each have usernames logged in the edit history ... --Vamp:Willow 01:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I can't imagine that VampWillow and I would be considered anonymous. You should probably check our User pages first. As for removing the links, we were clearing the way so as to replace them with links to Wikisource, a Wikimedia Foundation project. In my view at least, that is far better than maintaining 196 external links to a decidedly POV website. Danny 01:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why we need so many external links in this article. This is supposed to be an article about the Sabbath as a Christian concept, not a linkfarm. And I'd hardly call Danny Wool "anonymous". Kelly Martin (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Easy. I wasn't referring to Danny, see when I posted that it was before his "contributions." We used to have it nice and separated, with "Anti-Sabbath" and "Pro-Sabbath" sites. Yea, a lot of it was linkspam but after many revisions I thought it ended up quite nice. Then you barge in, don't bother posting to the talk page, delete all the nice Bibleverse links we so carefully constructed and dump half the links. The churches keeping a Sabbath/no Sabbath I thought was informative at the least. I mean that information seems relevant to the article. So rather than get offended by my revert let's talk about the reasons you've decided to dice up most of the references/links in the article. The only ones I particularly care about are the Catholic Catechism links (which were useful and well-placed I thought) and the church links. The rest I could care less about. I'm not sure a separate "List" page is warranted on account of notability, but the information certainly seems relevant to an article. Vincent Valentine 04:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah - date noted; our mistake. This page has one of the highest counts of links leading outside Wikipedia and the sister projects and leading users away is not of benefit to us; as such where verses need to be quoted they should be from one of our projects (in this case, Wikisource). The links to lists of churches, again, offers nothing of *encyclopedic* value. --Vamp:Willow 11:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)`
How does the list add nothing of encyclopedic value? I mean, if nothing else it seems like it is an obvious thing to have, even if only keeping the main churches (ie, SDA, Seventh Day Baptists, etc.) listed. I agree the fringe churches can go, I've tried to keep those trimmed off as much as possible. I could be seeing this from the wrong light, I just think it's a useful tool in understanding where the concept takes shape. I would reference other articles that do the same, but just because someone else does it doesn't make it right :) Vincent Valentine 03:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Biblical references to the Sabbath Day[edit]

Is there something wrong with using the {{bibleverse}} template for this section? The last reversion removes all of the templates... I don't see any possible reason for not having the links. Ansell 10:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing links to external projects because it will divert traffic is not a valid reason. Reverting because of that. Ansell 11:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:NOT. rv'd There appears to have been an edit overwrite/conflict earlier as I did not see your comment previously, nor delete it. --Vamp:Willow 11:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you point out what part of WP:NOT tells people to avoid using the bibleverse template to reference bible verses? Ansell 11:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think our goal should be to link internally, in this case to Wikisource, when possible. There is no need for us to augment traffic to other websites, when we can direct it to our own. Danny 11:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
So deleting the templates does that how? It just removes easy access to the references. Its like removing a website link and saying, copy and paste this in. If wikisource has modern versions of the bible, and as many as available through {{bibleverse}} then why haven't the links been translated, not simply removed as they were. Ansell 11:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files number 1. This isn't about the *Template*, per se, but about the fact that at the present time that template inserts external links. --Vamp:Willow 11:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not giving a "list" or repository of links. That part of policy is meant for putting in multiple links that are not valid as references, why not discuss this on the bibleverse talk page instead of removing the links here. Ansell 11:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
An *external* link to the text of the verse concerned can hardly be callsed a useful "reference" though. The target page has commercial elements on it too; indeed the text being referred to forms only a small part of that page. WP is not a link-farm --Vamp:Willow 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
So an external link that has advertising is not classed as a reference? The text is the part of the page that is being referenced. As I said before, dont remove the way wikipedia "could" link to the verses, get the place they link to changed. Please keep the variety that is currently available with bibleverse though.Ansell 11:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW, biblegateway.com doesn't have any commercial banners on it. It has one reference to a commercial company on it, in reference to keeping the website in business. It is a related company at that, a bible seller. Ansell 12:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is a problem witht he {{bibleverse}} template, take it up on the Template talk:bibleverse page or WP:AfD. MyNameIsNotBob 12:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

NotBob, did you mean WP:TfD??? Ansell 12:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I came upon this discussion because I have Essjay's page on my watchlist for reasons I've forgotten now. It seems to me that the {{bibleverse}} template should stay until there is a Wiki source for the same content. I think it is useful and consistent with guidelines and policies on this matter. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's keep the bibleverse tags in. Vincent Valentine 03:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep bibleverse until there is a useful internal alternative, NIV at the minimum, KJV is out of date and used by few Christians today.209.78.19.253 20:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Many churches still use the KJV because it can be more accurate in most cases compared to others such as NIV... Some of these bibles like the NIV or the ASV, in fact most new translations take whole verses out and in a couple of cases whole chapters out of the bible.... KJV scriptures should be kept in my opinion... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexme (talkcontribs) 12:39, 3 May 2006.

Could you point to some references for your claims? Such as for the many churches claim, and to some notable removals of verses in some new translations? Ansell 12:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There are missing verses and changed language for sure, but this is because the documentary evidence nowadays shows the occasional ancient copyist would embellish with his own ideas. The older documents we have that are much more reliable went into the NIV, whereas the KJV was based on more recent and less sound documentation. See http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_vers1.htm for a comparison. The NIV should be used when possible. Vincent Valentine 15:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Additions: Mark 16, Western Acts, Pericope_Adulteræ, Comma_Johanneum, Additions to Luke —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.78.20.61 (talkcontribs) 20:46, 3 May 2006.

With the exception of Western Acts, I believe that the other cases are included in the NIV but noted as objectively as possible to describe their history. The "Additions to Luke" are also as objective as possible given the total supply that was used to compile the NIV compared to the KJV. I believe that something compiled using more sources is much more likely to be closer to the truth. Hence I also recommend that the NIV be the standard version to use. KJV is not acceptable as the only possibility in a new system given that we have so many now to choose from. Ansell 23:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Another page listing 40 missing or changed verses is http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet.htm

Main important verses missing in the NIV: Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses." Mark 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

Mark 16:9-20 (ALL 12 verses MISSING!!!)... Why are these 12 verses missing... Maybe the translators didn't like them, who knows?

John 5:4 "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

Acts 8:37 "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." COMPLETELY removed. It's deletion makes one think that people can be baptized and saved without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Sounds Catholic. What are you NIV readers missing?

Romans 16:24 - "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen." Sounds like a good verse why is it missing?

In the NIV I John 5:7 says,

NIV "For there are three that testify:"

Instead of KJV "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This verse listed in the KJV affirms the whole belief of the TRINITY where is it in the NIV? Do they not like the TRINITY? Well I know what Bible I will be using...

--Alexme 11:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because you are more personally comfortable with a particular point of view says nothing of that point of view's accuracy. It is unfortunate that the documentary evidence does not support your preferred beliefs and preconceived notions, but comfort is not a reason to ignore a conclusion reached by the weight of available evidence. The NIV is the edition we ought to use. The links right now point to the NKJV, I will try to fix that later. Vincent Valentine 13:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not just about comfort it's what I think God would prefer the whole Bible... not just parts of it... God's word says we shouldn't add or take from the Bible, the NIV Bible had done that.. If you choose to use the NIV because of the clarity of it's that's fine, no more arguments from me. --Alexme 06:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
From what I have read the NIV actually reverts additions to the bible that happened in the few centuries after Christs death. It goes back to the earliest known sources to determine this, sources which were not available to the KJV scholars. I am sure the KJV was the best interpretation that was available at the time, but we know more now. Ansell 07:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Some, if not many, Eastern Orthodox would prefer the King James line (new King James preferably) because it follows the "majority text" (aka textus receptus) instead of other translations that aim for antiquity. Similarly, we prefer the Septuagint over either the Masoretic text or the Dead Sea scrolls (note that the New Testament authors also quoted from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew). It's a question of whether or not you trust the ongoing editing community or not. Orthodox would tend to say that the Septuagint and textus receptus have been refined, made to say what was originally intended. What becomes accepted by the whole Church is also important to us, individual texts possibly being aberrant. Roman Catholics would tend to agree, I would think (correct me if I'm wrong). Some Protestants, on the other hand, would see the continual editing as intervening interpretation to be avoided. They try to get back to the original author's intent. Likewise, they would view majority acceptance as irrelevant because they don't trust the editing body. The "correctness" of one translation over another will be colored by your interpretive community.
Of course, there are other reasons to not prefer a certain translation. The NIV, for instance, is either preferred or discarded because of the way in which it was edited. Having so many people working on disparate sets of scriptures makes for either a good common denominator, or a monstrous patchwork of differing theological positions.
No one translation should be used for this page. If representing the Orthodox opinion, supporting verses should be in NKJV. Likewise, a viewpoint dependent on the NIV translation should use NIV verses to support it. Sometimes the difference in POV can be traced (at least partially) to the sources you are using -- such an observation might be valuable content for this page.
BTW, saying that one version "took verses out" or another "put verses in" is merely an appeal to one's own POV. You could similarly say that the first appropriately left out unique inventions and the second preserved an otherwise missing text. Certainly you can't say that the NIV modified the text of the KJV or vice versa, it's simply not true (the former wasn't their MO, the latter isn't possible chronologically).
An appeal for "this or that translation is correct" is usually, IMHO, a masked battle for the correctness of one's theology, ecclesiology, etc... If theology or ecclesiology (or other) is at issue, then let's talk about that and not the intermediate issue of translation. Translation without interpretation is impossible.
(an Eastern Orthdox, who as a Protestant, studied under NIV translators) Epte 23:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"In the Bible, the Sabbath is a weekly religious day of rest as ordained by one of the Ten Commandments: the third commandment by Eastern, Roman Catholic and Lutheran numbering, the fourth by other Protestants" you need to add "and Jews" to this, as they use the Biblical reference that places it as fourth also.

Biblical references[edit]

The section "Biblical references to the Sabbath Day" is missing quite a few references such the begining of Genesis were God blessed the Sabbath.--63.42.12.24 03:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Find the word Sabbath in there. Can't find it? That's because it isn't there. That verse is probably literary prolepsis from Moses btw. Vincent Valentine 12:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no: Sabbath simply appears as a verb and not a noun in the verses: Vayishbot = And he rested, ki bo shabat mikol melachto = Because on it he rested. Danny 12:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
If you want to get all literal, I was tacitly referring to "The Sabbath" as in the day of rest which runs from Friday sunet to Saturday sunset -- which isn't in there. Vincent Valentine 02:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Claim of misleading sentence[edit]

How is this sentence misleading?:

According to Exodus 31:16-17, the Sabbath is to be a "lasting covenant ... a sign ... forever."

"Therefore the Israelites shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign for ever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.’" (NRSV)

Read again skippy. "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant.
Perpetual covenant for the children of Israel (Jews). Leaving that part out is misleading and wrong. This article is about the Sabbath in Christianity, not Judaism. Vincent Valentine 22:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added "perpetual covenant ... [for] the people of Israel". Also note that this is the Old Testament Sabbath, the Old Testament is part of most forms of Christianity. 64.169.0.16322:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

hi if you were to read or only take into consideration what the Bible says to Christians then we might as well scrape out 80% of the Bible. The Bible was written for every one togain knowledge from, it is directed to everyone, so please do not choose the stuff that sounds easy and morally acceptable thing to do. the Bible is a basic instruction kit to the road of salvation even the Old Testament[[Category:no misleading sentence]] )

Unfair Removal[edit]

Hello. I would really like to talk to someone about how to post to this site without getting my postings immediately deleted. I added a large amount of content to this topic and within minutes, it had been deleted, cited for reason of Original Research. My subject matter was not original research, and was well cited, and the person who deleted the information did not even have time to read everything I input before he deleted. I went back in and added back in one paragraph, again citing my sources, and I added a link to the external links. Again, within a couple of hours, someone else deleted my information, and also my link. This time I received a message saying that I was spamming. The link in question is http://www.sabbathtruth.com. It is a webpage full of the history of the Sabbath. It is not spam and has plenty of wonderful information concerning the topic of the page. My paragraph that was deleted stated "The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day." The Catholic Encyclopedia. I have written and asked what exactly I need to do to get this information posted, but have received no response so far. I certainly want to stay within the Wikipedia guidelines for posting, but I cannot see what I have done wrong. Any help or suggestions in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Kimberlie Currier, Ph.D.

Other removals[edit]

Was it really correct to revert these edits? At least some of the content seemed good to me, although I don't know much about the Seventh Day Baptists. Colin MacLaurin 05:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for Sabbatarianism[edit]

Call me crazy, but shouldn't " arguments for Sabbatarianism" go in the Sabbatarianism page? Epte 22:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean? I've read this (and the preceding paragraph) several times and I don't think it makes any sense. I don't want to remove it if the information is important, but could someone please remove it or rewrite it so that a reasonable literate person could understand it. It is in the New Testament Arguments for Sabbatarianism section -Diego Gravez 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Another consideration can be given to Biblical Typology. This is taking into consideration stories told in the Bible that have happened, and how the same story might show relevance at a later time such as 1st) CREATION WEEK of 7 days 2nd) the time span of humanly recorded History as reckoned by some people. James Ussher placed creation of man (not earth's creation as it was already in eixstence when man was created)) at 4004 B.C. and it has been 2000 + years into "Anno Domini" "In the Year of the Lord" see Psalm 90:4, II Peter 3:8. This example shows a connection between creation week and the span of time humanity has existed since creation week.

POV[edit]

This article appears to be a favorite of anonymous editors and vandals. Over time, it has acquired a distinctly polemical character in favor of seventh-day observance, so that readability and credibility have suffered. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

ToDo[edit]

  1. When catholic sources are cited for polemical purposes by a seventh-day apologist, the source (and thus, its polemical purpose) should be clarified. This mis-identification of sources is the principal weakness of the article. For example, instead of claiming "catholic sources freely admit that they are cavalier regarding scripture's authority (references) ", the article should state, "seventh-day apologists cite catholic sources with the intention of showing them to be cavalier regarding scripture's authority (references)". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Cite credible and general sources rather than obscure and narrow ones. Mis-use of sources seriously weakens the credibility of the article. If a narrow source is cited (such as a church newsletter!), make sure that it is cited only for a narrow purpose (such as, proving that such and such is the view of a certain priest in Alganac Michigan).— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. The article contradicts itself. The catholics are said in one place to have "changed" "from a Saturday Sabbath to a Sunday Sabbath". But in the later discussion of the catholic practice, the article says (correctly) that the catholics make a distinction between the Lord's day and the Sabbath - while certain moral Sabbath obligations apply to the Lord's day, other, ceremonial obligations, do not. While the Sabbath concerns the creation, the dawning of the promised Day, κυριακήν, concerns the passing away of the old creation: they are not the same ordinance transferred to another day. The article should agree with itself.Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources[edit]

There are currently primary sources from the early centuries since Christ quoted in the article, but without any citations of modern scholars to give interpretation of the sources. The policy Wikipedia:No original research states that a good article can use a mix of primary and secondary sources, but that "most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources..." –Colin MacLaurin 03:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - this is a problem in both the Early church observance of the Sabbath and Christian Sunday observance sections. Hopefully when I get some time I'll have a look at Carson's book and introduce some secondary material. Tonicthebrown 10:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

This article is very lacking in good sources, as hinted above by another editor. Let's discuss which sources are the best ones to use. For the Saturday Sabbath POV, I understand that Seventh-day Adventist Samuele Bacchiocchi is the leading scholar and hence best reference to use. Comments please. For the non-Saturday-Sabbath POV, the best reference I know of is Don Carson, ed. From Sabbath to Lord's Day. Apparently this book is not unanimous in its POV, with some contributors believing that the day does not matter, and others that observance has been transferred from Saturday to Sunday. Your comments on sources please! Colin MacLaurin 06:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Desmond Ford's book could also be used as a good source for the Saturday POV. I have access to Carson's book, and will make use of it to update the article in about a month's time (when exams are over!) Tonicthebrown 06:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Great. I would also be interested to know the POV of each individual author in Carson's book, and think this would be relevant to the article (if very brief). Colin MacLaurin 17:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added a few other sources to the "Recommended Resources" section. I am confident that these are some of the best available, but am not an expert so if anyone knows of any others, please add them. Any additional ones now should be justified. There is also information in Ten Commandments#Sabbath day and Christian Torah-submission#Late History we could add, although technically this ought to be independently verified. Colin MacLaurin 16:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This amazon.com list of Books on the Sabbath contains many of the most important books; although remember the compiler is presumably non-notable. Another list, So you'd like to... Learn more about the Jewish roots of Christianity may also contain some good references, although probably from a more Sabbatarian POV. Colin MacLaurin 14:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Change From Saturday to Sunday as a Holy Day[edit]

Hi, folks. Someone created this new article about the Saturday/Sunday switch in Christianity, which seems to be mostly original research and may overlap with the Saturday vs. Sunday section here. I don't know enough about the subject to know whether to suggest a merge or whatnot, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Feeeshboy 06:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

After no attempts were made to save the content, the PROD warning expired. So, nevermind... Feeeshboy 00:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge / Wikipedia is not a dictionary[edit]

Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I propose Sabbath (the english version of the word) incorporate the other variations of the word, since they all share the same etymology, and it would also help to avoid edit disputes and duplication of effort. Comments anyone? --Rebroad 11:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I disagree. Though these articles are related in concept they should be kept separate due to the basic and fundamental differences about them. One is about the Christian day of rest and the other is about the Jewish day of rest. Merging them would create confusion and chaos. YaanchSpeak! 21:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy disagree. Rebroad, have you read the pages in question? They are full of encyclopedic content that is not suitable for merging. Oh, and I see you started Chip on shoulder. JFW | T@lk 22:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No way. It's a huge article! - Y (Y NOT?) 03:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Though the word is basically the same, the concepts & their practical consequences are completely apart from each other. A merger would be akin to trying to undertake a Theology course by attending classes alternatively in a Yeshiva one day and in a Christian Seminary the next. Guess what would be the outcome! --AVM 18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Disagree. Article contains too much encyclopedic content on its own to be merged. Also agree with AVM. --Smokizzy 02:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree - for reasons already stated above. I think it is necessary to have 2 separate articles for a concept in 2 different religions. Tonicthebrown 11:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree the disambig at the top works fine. the word sabbath (sah-bauth) and shabbath (sha-baut) have very different connotations that make them distinct. While they have the same etymology they are still very different words and ideas. Jon513 18:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Disagree. If you merge the two, you're going risk having the Jewish community go crazy on the topic. For example, take a look at the Passover wikipedia article. The Jews will absolutely not allow any non-Jewish commentary on Passover, period. In fact they've forced any other views into another junk "Passover (Christian holiday)" article. If people are worried about groups such as SDA or COG or others and their influence on this article; you haven't seen anything once the Jews decide they're going to own it. They use Jewish Wikipedia admins to block others out annonymous or not, I've seen it personally...it's just a really bad idea.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.100.241 (talk)
  • Disagree because the Shabbat article is not about a "dictionary" definition, it's about the day that is holiest to Judaism, the Jewish RELIGION, and it has unique sources, laws, observances, customs, and a history all of its own that merits and justifies its long-established status as "Shabbat." The Shabbat article is the lead article for Category:Shabbat with many articles in it and many being added constantly. Would User:Rebroad now also propose to eliminate Category:Shabbat? That would be a fine joke indeed! P.S. This discussion was also held once-upon-a-time and it was decided that it was best that the Shabbat article be created as a separate article NOT to be conjoined or merged with any "Sabbath" articles. In any case this proposal is a huge joke that shows that it's based on ignorance of the subject matter. For example, there are multiple articles that are DIRECTLY connected to the Shabbat article only and could not exist without it, such as Special Sabbaths, Kiddush as well as everything connected with the Shabbat Torah readings (Parshas, and Maftirs and Haftarahs) all contained in Category:Weekly Torah readings. IZAK 07:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree As Yaanch points out, as used in English and described in the articles, Sabbath in Christianity describes a Christian holiday and Shabbat a Jewish one. Merging would seem to be a bit like merging Bar Mitzvah with Confirmation, Brit Milah with Circumcision, or Kohen with Priest. Also, as AVM points out, there is enough content involved that were the articles merged right now, the total would be too big and we'd be looking for ways to split it up into sub-articles. Finally, not sure what merge proposal has to do with WP:NOT#DICTIONARY since both articles clearly address different encyclopedic concepts in an encyclopedic fashion. Indeed, WP:NOT#DICTIONARY would seem to be a strong argument against basing article merge decisions on dictionary definitions. I simply don't understand how it is being used as an argument in favor. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree per arguments already stated. The two articles address different concepts and are not mergeable. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree --eLeigh33 17:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree Absolutely no merging. Just because they look like cognates doesn't make them the same thing. --Khanele 20:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly Disagree ABSOULTY NOT! If you have read both articals, they are of two different religions and two different holidays. None of the page content is duplicated, and there is no posible way to merge them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.249.109 (talk)
  • Strongly Disagree - Christian tradition has, for many people, given "Sabbath" a different meaning to "Shabat". r.v. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.157.71 (talk)
  • Comment - I disagree with the merge just like all above. However the articles seem like POV forks to me. I agree with the nominator that while the concepts are quite different, the colloquial English term for Shabbat is "Sabbath", the etymologies and origins are the same, and that this article should cover all nuances of the word Sabbath in common usage. I agree with everyone else that a merger is not needed, but I propose that a short summary-style paragraph on Shabbat be included in this article, with a {{main}} link to Shabbat as a legitimate content fork. Colin MacLaurin 17:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC) There is a common POV shared by Jews and Christians from Creation right through to the time of Jesus, regarding Sabbath. I suggest content forks after that time. Colin MacLaurin 04:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
For the same reasons, I think Passover in the Christian tradition, such as the NT view of Passover, ought to be mentioned in the Passover article. 2 billion Christians in the world constitute a significant POV. Passover is the commonly used English word, so should serve all definitions. A fork to "Pesach" or similar title about contemporary Jewish observance with a summary left behind could be justified. Colin MacLaurin 17:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolution[edit]

The overwhelming consensus here is that there should be no attempt to merge the articles on Christian sabbath and Jewish sabbath, which in reality are two separate topics. However, Rebroad and Colin MacLaurin have legitimately pointed out that the etymology of Sabbath and Shabbat are the same. Therefore, there is genuine potential for confusion. To deal with these concerns, I have renamed the "Sabbath" article to Sabbath in Christianity, and replaced "Sabbath" with a disambiguation page. This parallels what has been done with Faith in Christianity, Hell in Christianity and other similar issues. In addition, it removes the implication that Christianity has a greater claim than Judaism on the word "Sabbath"—this was a problem with the previous state of affairs. I hope that satisfies everyone. Tonicthebrown 08:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Restructure proposal[edit]

The flow of the page seems awkward. I propose some restructuring. How about two major divisions:

  • a "History" section of various movements and POVs regarding the Sabbath, including the ancient Hebrew views and that of the Hebrew Bible/OT, then branching into various POVs. One: Sabbath/Sunday in early Christianty through to modern views concluding in a (brief) mention of the impact major events of modern scholarship have made their mark on history. Another is a contemporary Jewish POV if it differs from the ancient concept or biblical view.
  • a "Theology" or Arguments section. This would include all the variations of forms of Saturday/Sunday keeping, and most importantly the major scholarly views to back up information which is currently uncited and hence presented as original research.

Currently sections on Saturday and Sunday are separated. I propose that these be combined into a single coherent history section, so that the interaction between the two is more apparent. I also suggest a brief "Cultural references" section at the end, which would mention sabbatical year and also the use of "sabbath" in other religions apart from Judaism and Christianity (could be kept brief if the idea is to keep this as an Abrahamic religions POV article). (I don't suppose the Friday prayer in Islam has any relation?) Colin MacLaurin 05:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article needs 4 main sections: (1) Outline of early church history, documenting the decline of Sabbath observance and rise of Sunday worship; (2) A section about sunday observance, which includes some history as well as a more extensive focus on contemporary practice among various Christian denominations; (3) A section about contemporary Saturday-sabbatarianism, where we can include SDA and COG points of view and arguments; (4) A section about non-Sabbatarianism (i.e. the Christian opinion that we are not under law and therefore do not need to keep a sabbath).
I am prepared to work on (1) and (2) when I have more time (i.e. in mid-semester break). Personally, I would hesitate to include much Hebrew/Jewish content since this is already covered in Shabbat, and this article is specifically about the Christian POV. Tonicthebrown 10:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Colin MacLaurin 13:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I assume that point (4) above, non-Sabbatarianism, is actually the majority view among Christians today? Would someone please comment. Also, there are some notable individual Christians who keep a Sabbath, but not on either Saturday nor Sunday (I have some to add). I have not read it yet, but I understand that From Sabbath to Lord's Day edited by Don Carson actually contains different POVs - some contributors believe in Sunday Sabbath, others believe that the day does not matter. Colin MacLaurin 06:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I can only comment on Australian protestantism. In my experience, most Anglicans do not believe we have to keep a Sabbath, or that it is a matter of personal choice (as per Romans 14). Presbyterians tend to be stronger on Sunday=Sabbath. Baptists can go either way, though my observation is that they are increasingly less sabbatarian. Not too sure about Pentecostals, though I suspect they are not very sabbatarian either. Out of quite a large number of Christians I know, very few (if any) would object to working on sunday, or playing sport, or shopping, etc. Anyone else have any observations? Tonicthebrown 05:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I should add that the predominant view of Mosaic Law among Australian evangelicals (particularly Anglicanism) is that it should not be divided into moral/ceremonial, but that the whole Law is fulfilled in Christ. So none of Exodus-Deuteronomy applies today as binding Law; our task is to seek out the underlying principles for modern application. This means that some laws (eg. do not commit adultery) are more directly applicable, whereas others (including the sabbath) are less directly applicable.Tonicthebrown 05:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sabbath" POVs[edit]

I can think of many different possible beliefs about "Sabbath": Friday sunset to Saturday sunset; midnight to midnight Saturday; Sunday (is there variation in the time periods?); any day or 24-hour period as a Sabbath; no Sabbath necessary but spiritualised. There is a big difference even among Sunday/Lord's Day POVs - Sabbatarian-Sunday observers; and those who worship on Sunday but do not observe it as a day of rest. Also different beliefs about Sabbath in context of Lord's Day interpretations - Sabbath is Saturday and should be observed; Sunday and should be observed; or Saturday but obselete and Sunday should be observed as the Lord's Day; Saturday but both days should be observed; Saturday but spiritualised and no longer needed; Saturday but any 24-period OK (perhaps). Presumably some are more significants POVs than others, and others may be primarily historical with little or no representation today. I look forward to this information, together with answers, being integrated into the article eventually. Colin MacLaurin 17:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

History of modern Sabbatarian movement[edit]

Sorry Colin, but I'm removing this paragraph because I think it is misleading:

The modern Sabbatarian movement primarily traces its history to the Adventist movement sparked by Baptist layman William Miller in the mid 1800s; a movement which was characterized by questioning traditional Biblical interpretation.

It seems to suggest that Miller originated Sabbath-keeping when actually the truth is that Sabbath-keeping started with the Seventh-day Baptists and was spread to (some of) Miller's descendants via Rachel Oakes Preston and T. M. Preble. Also, it implies that the SDA church is the exclusive body which is keeping saturday Sabbath today, when in fact there are almost certainly other (albeit much more smaller) groups who keep the Sabbath who don't trace their lineage back to Miller. Tonicthebrown 08:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean it to suggest that the Millerites originated Sabbath-keeping. Certainly, they derived it from the Seventh Day Baptists, who in turn got it from other groups, and so on. My source for this information was a website, which is why I didn't cite it (yes, all major Wikipedia additions should be cited, and I was hoping it would be eventually, but then again this page is very poorly cited overall ATM). It was not a Seventh-day Adventist source, and I don't think it was Millerite or Adventist at all (if it was one could suspect bias). I believe the statement is accurate. For example, The Worldwide Church of God traces back to the Millerite movement (please note I'm not saying they are Millerite, nor that they actually started then). Of course the Seventh-day Adventist Church is descended from the Millerites. The two earliest founders of the True Jesus Church were SDA or had read SDA theology. Their belief in the Sabbath was confirmed by a seventh day Church of God missionary (another Millerite group). Colin MacLaurin 10:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that if a statement like this is included, there needs to be a very clear explanation that Sabbatarianism per se did not come from the original Miller movement (which was sunday keeping), and that it was a post-Miller/post-1844 development. There would also have to be a clear definition of what exactly is meant by "the modern Sabbatarian movement". Otherwise there would be a hazard of creating historical inaccuracy. Sabbatarianism should not be regarded as a bizzare 19th century innovation, but rather as something which had been around for 2 centuries prior.
I think it is important to keep in mind that historical Seventh-day Adventism is a conglomeration of ideas and theologies which derive from diverse backgrounds. Sabbatarianism comes from the Seventh-day Baptists, the prophetic/premillennial system from the Millerites, free will soteriology from the Methodists, sacramental theology from the Baptists, Arianism and Christology from the Christian connexion, soul sleep and annihilationism from somewhere else. Even if there is a (small) link between the True Jesus Church and SDAism in terms of sabbatarianism, I very much doubt that that there much about the TJC that could be called "Millerite"! Even the pre-reformed WWCOG seems to have had very little overlap with Millerite theology! Hence I would be very hesitant to make much of a connection between Millerism and Sabbatarianism -- they are separate categories as far as I'm concerned Tonicthebrown 11:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Biblical references in Wikiquote article?[edit]

How about moving all biblical references to Sabbath to an article on Wikiquote like wikiquote:The Bible on the Sabbath? This would remove the need for "Biblical references to the Sabbath Day", as the major texts in the debate would be discussed in this article, and a link to a Wikiquote article for a complete list. Colin MacLaurin 16:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church as a "Sabbatarian" sect?[edit]

I just discovered this treatment, & I think it is not accurate. The Ethiopian Church is not part of this Sabbatarian movement -- which grew out of Protestantism -- but is one of the Oriental Orthodox churches, in communion with the Copts, Armenian, Syrian and Indian churches. That the Ethiopian Church observes two Sabbaths -- Saturday in honor of the Old Testament, & Sunday in honor of the New -- dates back to the 14th century when the monk & religious leader Ewostatewos first advocated this practice, & is a secondary development. I feel is only proper that this unique practice merits a separate section for the Ethiopians. -- llywrch 22:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but IIRC, the view predates Ewostatewos, and he was calling for a return to the Saturday Sabbath (perhaps as well as the Sunday one, in order to honor both Testaments? This is the view taken after the council of Debre Mitmaq). He may have been referring to the OT rather than the Zagwe dynasty, though. — ዮም | (Yom) | TalkcontribsEthiopia 22:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Major changes[edit]

Regarding User:Ipernar's large changes, please discuss on the talk page before making such, particularly as this topic has been moderately controversial. The two new articles Christian Sabbatarianism and Opposition to Christian Sabbatarianism are a clear POV-fork, in direct contrast with the required neutral point of view. Related changes have also been made on other articles. I do think that a legitimate content fork could be made at some stage - maybe a History of the Sabbath in Christianity, which would include Sabbatarian groups (in place of the new Christian Sabbatarianism). After all the current page is long and has lots of information, and still needs more work. For now, I believe the changes should be reverted. Colin MacLaurin 16:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely agreed. The massive changes and 2 new articles reflect a POV. I'm going to revert. Tonicthebrown 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear users, its not about POV, its just that I have divided article. It has been to big. I just divided it on three sections. One article cant discuss too many things.

Futuremore there is a history of Christian Sabbatarianism, as well as Sunday observing. That is the only reason why I have divided this article. I have not added or remove text. If I did there were only minor changes. Also if there is one singe article only about "Sabbath in Seventh-day Adventism" or simmilar, there can be one single about Christian Sabbatarianism at all. user ipernar

I agree that the article is large. I also think it is unfinished, and I agree that a legitimate content fork could be warranted in the future. I created the article Sabbath in Seventh-day Adventism. It is not a polemic for the Adventist point of view, it is largely a summary of the history of the Sabbath within that church, and I have described many detractors of the teaching, particularly as it relates to the church, e.g. from former Adventists. However your articles cover subjects from particular points of view only - see the fundamental policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. On another positive note, thank-you for discussing this on the talk page. It's a good sign. Colin MacLaurin 13:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Category[edit]

I propose a new Category:Sabbath. It would be a child category of the categories this article is currently listed in. Category:Shabbat would be one subcategory. There are lots of articles floating around relating to the Christian Sabbath, so this would collect them, into Category:Sabbath in Christianity I guess. Colin MacLaurin 13:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


Mistake in Text[edit]

Category: Christian Sunday observance, sub catagorie: New Testament background.

It is suggested here that eight days after a Sunday is a Sunday. I am going to remove this, unless someone points out what I am missing.

Eight days later, I am finally making this change, as there have been no comments. Note for someone interested, or the original author: the text used to read that Jesus appeared on "first day" i.e. a Sunday, then eight days later, which is another Sunday. As a metaphor this is interesting, so there could be some justification here... But literally this would be the second day of the week.

I don't understand what makes Sunday the "second day of the week", in your argument above. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverting[edit]

I find the edits made by 98.197.18.75 to be less than helpful to the article. To call it the "Biblical" Sabbath as opposed to the "Jewish" Sabbath actually makes the article less clear, since most Christians would read that as Sunday. The other edits I would almost call vandalism, but it isn't quite. However, I seem to be unable to revert them. Would an admin roll it back?

Also, I would like to debate one edit made by Timotheus7--I don't have anything personal, I'm just curious for the rationale behind deleting "for the sake of the Jews", something that I'm pretty sure has been proven from Biblical text. His other edit was a good catch, so please don't take this the wrong way and satisfy my curiosity. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC))

New Sabbath spinout[edit]

Having considered the state of Sabbath articles closely, I think there is still one topic to create, namely Biblical Sabbath. Currently this phrase redirects to the summary article "Sabbath" even though that article includes many other Sabbath adaptations that are not Biblical. A new article would compile the Biblical references to Sabbath in a thorough, orderly way, and give all the main viewpoints and interpretations of each passage (compare creation according to Genesis, figs in the Bible, wells in the Bible, etc.). None of the current articles do either of these, because they are quite rightly focused on Sabbath in this or that mainstream viewpoint. However, the notion of "Sabbath as the Bible describes it, without making judgments in favor of any viewpoint" is a topic frequently discussed but lacking. No need to warn me about POV risks, because I am already on duty policing those. It is just my observation that, very often, a WP editor wants to refer just to that notion, "Biblical Sabbath with essentially no POV", and has no recourse to do so (as noted, the summary "Sabbath" article is not Biblically limited, and the Biblically based articles give only one POV each). Particularly, there are many links to "Sabbath" that should very clearly, in context, be directed to Biblical Sabbath, and permitting the weaker link is suboptimal and easily remediable. Also, many of the IP contributors to "Sabbath" would do better to have such a separate article; and some of the debates about where to put this or that apologetic (if at all) would be more readily solved if there were a central article. I will be happy to move this forward, but I wanted to get a couple more opinions first, to confirm my belief that this is a good division of topics. Cross-posted to Shabbat, Sabbath in Christianity, and Sabbath in seventh-day churches. JJB 05:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Creation of an article "Biblical Sabbath" did not solve the problem as you hoped, in my opinion. It just created the same problem found here, in a different context and format. It's a handsomer page, and cleaner (because it is newer) but in reading that article, I discover that the parameters of that page ("Sabbath as the Bible describes it, without making judgments in favor of any viewpoint") turns out not to be very different from what this page attempted to do. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; perhaps you perceive the problem as the occasional POV warring, which I was not intending to solve directly? However, the problems I cited seem to have good solutions now: the better fit to a "Biblical Sabbath" search; the presence of a text-based list of points; the ability to link, as needed often, a nonsectarian but Bible-based Sabbath article; and a repository for text-based apologetics and responses. JJB 22:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

New Testament arguments[edit]

Cites the New Testament only. That's improper, it should cite theological sources using those new testament citations and synthetizing them in the same way as the text, otherwise the WP:SYN apply. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what that Rursus guy could have meant, but the meaning must have been something like warning from Template:Religious text primary: the topic requires secondary sources analysing the bible. Primary sources aren't valid for statements of bible interpretation. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why[edit]

Merged from "Talk:Sabbath in Christianity/Comments":

Why do you consistantly say that it is a Jewish day?

wasn't it established at creation well before any Jews, Hebrews or any other such nations of people? I am a reletivly new christian & am baffled buy peoples interpritations.

Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.54.202 (talkcontribs) 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotation styles[edit]

And now for something completely different! In section Early church practice

but in section Early church

this type (Template:quotation) of alarmingly screaming quotes are used

Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) screamed hysterically

while in section Edict of Constantine

a crudely simple indentation with leading ':' is used

and in section New Testament arguments

an oldfashioned <blockquote> is used

Which give the text a weird appearance. Since it will take years before anyone reacting, if I would be bold enough to ask what citation style would be preferrable, and using WP:MoS quotations as an argument, I hereby boldly select the template Template:Quote as my template of choice, and use that as a "standard" replacement for all other quotation styles. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Article size[edit]

Streamlining to Christian Sabbath and Sunday observance and Christian Sabbath theology: I've been watching this article grow over time and have reached the conclusion that it is now far too big. I think that it will make a lot of sense to streamline most of the content to 2 separate articles -- one dealing with theology of the Sabbath and one dealing with Sabbath/Sunday observance. I will replace Sabbath in Christianity as a disambiguation page. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

After several hours of work, I think this article is considerably better shape than before. There's a lot more to do another time... Tonicthebrown (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree strongly[edit]

Sorry, there are several problems with this. On the fly, first, <deleted by JJB>. Second, this is not a natural split nor a streamline, because orthopraxy follows orthodoxy (e.g. the "observance" article has "many believe" in the lead). Third, the article titles are much less natural now. Fourth, the correct solution is to cut back redundancy rather than to split; much is just boil-over from the extant debate which would not be resolved by spreading it over two articles. Fifth, it ignores the prior hierarchy, which was widely accepted. (Namely, "Sabbath" as summary page; "Biblical Sabbath" for what the Bible says; and "Shabbat", "Christian Sabbath", and "seventh-day Sabbath" for focusing on the 3 key views on it; but "Christian Sabbath" contained a proper short summary of "seventh-day Sabbath" like any other minority report within a majority article.) Instead this adds a new level unnecessarily when (e.g.) there is no need to distinguish Jewish (Shabbat) observance from Shabbat theology. Sixth, the long title can be construed as making 7th-day Sabbath an equal, not minority, report, and thus as emboldening its proponents toward article war rather than properly having them focus on "seventh-day Sabbath" and the balance sections of "Christian Sabbath". Seventh, HUNDREDS of pages point to this now-disambiguation page (which, I add, is not a true disambiguation nor summary page), and the WP:DAB code of honor is for the "disambiguator" (you) to direct them to the new article(s); but how would you choose rationally, when these hundreds of articles reference "Christian Sabbath", whether they meant observance or theology? Now they point to this unhelpful dab that is contrary to Wikipedians' intent that a link point to the correct supplemental article. No! Far better to restore the text here and clean it up if long, rather than to go through those link-ins by hand to determine some new target. Sorry I've been out of the loop; I'll investigate further then do the appropriate work. JJB 16:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would add, having now skimmed the split, that one reason for the length is, as I suspected, policy obliviousness. There is ONE FULL SCREEN of footnotes in "theology" listing dozens of books simply to define "non-Sabbatarian"! But please discuss below. JJB 16:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC) "Merge" proposal added. JJB 20:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, JJB. I took the action that I did (in line with WP:BRD -- way back in April, i.e. 5 months ago during which time there has been no objection) because quite honestly the article as it originally stood ([3]) was atrocious. It's size was not the only issue. Many parts of it were verbose, poorly written, disorganised and full of WP:OR. There was also a lot of WP:UNDUE; it appeared to me that the article had attracted numerous seventh-day Sabbatarians who were using it as a stomping ground for POV-pushing.
Part of the reasoning behind the split was that the history of Sabbath/Sunday observance is objective and not open to dispute. (i.e. there is broad shcolarly consensus now that Sunday was universally observed as a day of worship from the first century; the traditionalist SDA opinion that the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday in the 4th century is a WP:FRINGE view). Whereas the theology of Sabbath observance is highly contentious, with people arguing aggresively from at least 3 different perspectives (Saturday sabbath, sunday sabbath, no sabbath).
Another part of the reasoning is that a discussion of the history of Sunday worship under a "Sabbath" article is inaccurate, because -- as the scholars have noted -- Sunday worship was not sabbatarian in nature in the primitive and early church; Sunday worship only became associated with sabbatarian theology in the middle ages. And following the Protestant reformation this link has again been broken. The interweaving of discussion about Sabbath observance and Sunday worship contributes to the ongoing muddled confusion on these topics.
but "Christian Sabbath" contained a proper short summary of "seventh-day Sabbath" like any other minority report within a majority article" --- My reply to this is that seventh-day Sabbath was not a minority report in the original article. It took up pretty much the same amount of space as the discussion about Sunday worship and Sunday sabbatarianism.
the long title can be construed as making 7th-day Sabbath an equal, not minority, report, and thus as emboldening its proponents toward article war --- My reply to this is that, in the 5 months since my revisions in April, 7th day Sabbatarians have in fact backed off. There has been no article warring, like there was previously. This confirms my suspicion that if the objective facts of history are kept separate from the subjective theology, things turn out better.
JJB, I am willing to consider and work together with you on a merge proposal but I will only support a merge which keeps the historical material as it is largely intact. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your considerate reply, and please forgive my not considering BRD. Sounds like working together will be sufficiently fruitful. Having been out of the loop I don't know if I'd agree with the characterization of how the POV risk most arises, but the key is that nobody has gotten to work moderating the imbalances and adding the appropriate sources, and now we can do so. I agree entirely on remedying these past problems, and that the Sunday worship (communal hours) and Sabbatarianism (all-day rest) need to be distinguished carefully; but that -might- point to moving more text to Lord's Day perhaps? Something like "first-day Sabbath originated in first-day worship; summary follows (for more see Lord's Day and havdalah)." JJB 18:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure[edit]

My pleasure, JJB. I think that moving the bulk of material pertaining to Sunday traditions to Lord's Day might be a good way forward. So we'd be looking at something like this?
Sabbath in Christianity article:
1 Biblical traditions (with emphasis on New Testament texts INCLUDING the non-sabbatarian texts)
2 Early Church (judaizing sabbatarian practice and its criticism by Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, Tertullian, Council of Laodicea)
3 Middle Ages (Augustine spiritualising the commandment; shift to Lord's Day sabbatarianism)
4 Post reformation & modern era
4.1 Roman Catholicism
4.2 Eastern Orthodoxy
4.3 Puritan 1st day sabbatarianism (including transfer theology)
4.4 Revival of 7th day sabbatarianism (history: Traske and Brabourne, 7th day baptists, SDAs, Church of God; theology: summarised from main article Sabbath in Seventh-day Churches)
4.5 Non-sabbatarianism
4.6 Other groups and practices - in brief to avoid WP:UNDUE (eg. Latter day saints)
Lord's Day article:
1 Biblical traditions
2 Early Church
2.1 Patristic writings
2.2 Origins of Sunday worship (3 theories: Carson/Bauckham vs. Beckwith/Stott/Jewett vs. Bacchiochi)
3 From 4th century to today
3.1 Constantine
3.2 Middle Ages
3.3 Protestantism (non-sabbtarian vs. sabbatarian)
3.4 Modern Roman Catholicism
3.5 Eastern Christianity
3.6 Other groups
What do you think? Tonicthebrown (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Good start. Lord's Day outline is usable though I'd put Constantine at 2.3. And this article needs to contain Lord's Day insofar as it equals Sabbath in some POVs, and that seems accomplished. I'm still concerned about the outline being as balanced as possible. The narrative I receive from yours on first glance is this: Sabbath starts with deemphasis on OT and moves to criticism (always edit that word out) of Sabbath as Judaizing; it becomes spiritualized by Augustine as the norm, without mention of medieval seventh-day indications; and from there it branches out into several first-day versions, plus a "new" seventh and a non. But the seventh-day version did not branch out as from a monolith or something dead (revival), it was regarded as part of the reform of the covenant that overarched all along. Granted, the evidence of continuity and the evidence of local novelty need to be both weighed.
Instead, this is very very similar to a-, post-, and pre-mill positions; all 3 claim continuous descent despite their vicissitudes, and that should be reflected here too. No position should be presented as unopposed at any juncture unless we have secondary-source testimonies of that, and then we should source that. Thus after the Biblical-text base I would still press for a long 1st-day section AS ONE POV, and then summary sections on 7th-day, 2-day, other-day and no-day. (Later on I will also be sourcing indications that some "non-Sabbatarians" permit the other types of observance, i.e., are not technically in opposition, FYI.) But we'll work that out; for now I'd just note that starting with insufficient OT and with Judaizing (5 critics!) does not account for the wide POV that Christianity is continuous with the faith of the OT writers, and for the local POV that seventh-day was the conservative tradition. JJB 16:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
As a compromise between org by viewpoint and org by chronology, I'd be willing to use an ambiguous organization by changing the last few points from second-level to first-level: 7th-day from 4.4 to 5, non-Sab from 4.5 to 6, and "other" from 4.6 to 7. "Other", however, would mean the other Christian definitions of "Sabbath" that are NOT seventh, first/Lord's, or spiritual/millennial (I listed them below). LDS would remain in 4, modern era, because 2-4 would be recognized as focusing on (eras of) the 1st-day view (defined as 1st-day rest AND/OR Lord's-day worship), and 5 and 6 focusing on the other minority views. This seems a good enough compromise to run toward. JJB 21:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC) And those giant footnotes for non-Sabbatarianism are enough to make me want to create the article just to have someplace to stow them! JJB 21:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, we have to be careful to present the diversity of viewpoints at every point in history. I do think that the OT teaching needs to be canvassed but given that this is an article about Sabbath in Christianity there will appropriately be more emphasis on the NT material. So it should be noted that the Sabbath was observed by the early Jewish Christians, that the apostle Paul attended the synagogue on Sabbath, etc; while there is no evidence in the NT that Gentiles were expected to keep the Sabbath, indeed, the decree of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) and texts such as Col 2:16 and Rom 14:5 point to non-observance for Gentiles.
Concerning the early church (post NT through to Constantine) it seems quite clear that Saturday observance was widely practised in some areas but that the church authorities disapproved of this as a judaizing tendency, to which the patristic quotations and the Council of Laodicea testify. As for Sunday sabbatarianism it may certainly be argued by some that this was practised in the early church but I am not aware of any actual historical evidence of this.
Concerning the mediaeval church it appears to me that there was the Augustinian tradition of spiritualising the Sabbath and the Aquinas tradition of applying it to the Lord's day, with the latter becoming more weighty with time. Similarly in the post-Reformation era there was Luther and Calvin on the one hand (spiritualise), and Lord's Day sabbatarianism on the other. 7th day sabbatarianism only becomes notable in the 17th century onwards; the evidence of a strong 7th day sabbatarian tradition linking the early church to the 17th century is extremely scant, if not non-existent. Even SDA writers teach that the 7th day Sabbath was "rediscovered" after the reformation, having been replaced with 1st day sabbath by Rome. SDAs do not typically rely on the continuity argument.
So in sum, I think that in NT times there were 2 POVs (sabbath observance for Jewish Christians, freedom/spiritualised sabbath for Gentiles); early church had 2 or 3 POVs (7th day sabbath, spiritualised sabbath, [very tenuous] 1st day sabbath); mediaeval church had 2 POVs (spiritualised sabbath, 1st day sabbath); post-reformation had 3 POVs (spiritualised sabbath, 1st day sabbath, revivied 7th day sabbath). Your thoughts? Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
In general yes with unimportant quibbles; the details would wind up through sourcing. The first step is clear definitions, which I have proposed at Biblical Sabbath (and Christian Sabbath theology, which is technically deprecated). Mine may be a bit broader than you are using, because the question is not (only) "when do you rest", but "what is the focus of your Sabbath". So I boil them down to one focus each, "one should rest on seventh day", "one should worship communally on first day", and "one is not required to keep a day". These are nonparallel definitions on purpose to acknowledge overlapping views: e.g., not all first-day people believe in rest on Sunday, not all seventh-day people believe in requiring others to follow suit, not all non-Sabbatarians forbid others to keep days. Particularly, in cases where the early-church "spiritualised sabbath" is a definitional transfer to first-day worship without comment on first-day rest, the POV would not be categorized under "Sabbath" if rest were the only consideration. See also my compromise second-draft outline. JJB 03:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal (sort of)[edit]

My first observation is that, among other imbalances, why does the theology article now contain 5 headings on Sabbatarians and SIX on NON-Sabbatarians? Undue weight, anyone? If any split is needed, splitting of the NON- from the Christian-Sabbath overview (focusing on majority first-day view with minority reports) makes more sense; but I don't advocate that right now. Rather, the overreliance on primary sources and the argumentative and redundant presentations should be simply scaled back. Further, even the current length of 44K+29K is not a long article, and the split-time length of 81K is not a long article.

Here's a proposed logical reorganization of affected articles. Using O for Christian Sabbath and Sunday observance, T for Christian Sabbath theology, and S for the extant Sabbath in seventh-day churches (which, we have noted, has always needed reorg ever since it was expanded from an SDA-only article):

Second draft JJB 22:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sabbath in Christianity (rejoining two articles split without discussion):

  • Lead (rewritten as SUMMARY of below)
  • 1 Biblical traditions (SUMMARY of Biblical Sabbath, which includes a 3-framework section; Biblical theology T1)
  • 2 Early church (Laodicea fm O1.1; bulk of shorter O1.2-3; Constantine O2.1; 1st-day theology fm T3 as appropriate)
  • 3 Middle ages (=O2.2-3, incl. Augustine, SUMMARY of origins of Sun worship Lord's Day section, Reformation)
  • 4 Modern church (Roman Catholicism O2.4 & shorter T3.2, shorter LDS O2.6, other basic, Puritans)
  • 5 Seventh-day tradition (SUMMARY of seventh-day Sabbath; includes two-day; Ignatius fm O1.1, Eastern Orthodox O2.5, Ethiopian; digression on Judaizing; Traske, Brabourne, SDA, SDB, COG)
  • 6 Non-Sabbatarian tradition (maybe summary of new article: O5-O6, includes weekday, plus Justin+Irenaeus+Tertullian fm O1.1, Gibbons fm T4.2.3, Brinsmead+Ratzlaff from S4)
  • 7 Other definitions (DAB-style SUMMARIES of Sabbath as seven-day week, High Sabbaths, Shmita, Shabbat Messianic POV, new moon, Day of the Vow, millennialism with eschatological T4.1)

Sabbath in seventh-day churches:

  • Lead (rewritten as SUMMARY of below)
  • 1 Biblical traditions (SUMMARY of Biblical Sabbath)
  • 2 Seventh-day traditions
  • 2.1 Early church (bulk of O1.1; Didache interp, Bacchiocchi fm O1.2; some of history S2.3)
  • 2.2 Middle ages (Africa+Europe O3.1-2 with some of history S3)
  • 2.3 Reformation (bulk of O4, more of history S2.3)
  • 2.4 Modern church (SDB, SDA, WCOG, UCOG, Sabbath-keeping COG, MJ, other fm O4-4.1; S1-2.1, S4-4.1)
  • 2.5 Eschatology (=S2.4, other?)
  • 3 Other traditions
  • 3.1 Interaction with first-day traditions (1st-day and 7th-day POV dialogue: Bauckham to Bacchiocchi fm O1.2, other)
  • 3.2 Interaction with other traditions (non-Sab and 7th-day POV dialogue, stub)

Biblical Sabbath absorbs 7th-day theology fm T2, transfer theology fm T3.1, non-Sabbatarian fm T4.2.1-2, each with balance added; the gigantic T4 footnote insertion should be researched for dropping or move to new non-Sab article; S2.2 should be shortened to a summary of its article on law and any key text moved there; and some of history S3 should move to general SDA history.

Lord's Day:

  • 1 Biblical traditions
  • 2 Early church
  • 2.1 Patristic writings
  • 2.2 Origins of Sunday worship (3 theories: Carson/Bauckham vs. Beckwith/Stott/Jewett vs. Bacchiochi)
  • 2.3 Constantine
  • 3 Middle ages
  • 4 Modern church
  • 3.1 Protestantism (Lord's Day rest v. no rest required) (might be 3.3 instead)
  • 3.2 Modern Roman Catholicism
  • 3.3 Eastern Christianity
  • 3.4 Other groups

End second draft JJB 22:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

During the first week my edits will only be ordinary improvement preparatory to a move and subject to WP:BRD. JJB 20:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to report that (see also previous section) this merge and new outline seems to have been quite successful for some time now. JJB 18:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Willfults[edit]

I don't have a lot of time to analyze disputes in depth, so, recalling our prior discussions, I'm going to trust that you and Tonicthebrown can continue harmonious editing and discussion. While some of your new edits look fine, I see at least two problems. First (though it did not have a secondary source) the apologetic stating that the rest day should agree with the first-day worship, and the supporting primary-source verses, should be represented as a wide view of the mainstream (Jonathan Edwards and G.I. Williamson come to mind). Second, the graf of Ellen White on Constantine is a clear WP:UNDUEWEIGHT; based on Tonic's and my outline above, that is a section for historical discussion, not modern analysis, and modern analysis should always be balanced by the other POV(s), and this being the majority article it should be pretty well limited to the 7th-day section. We all know EGW has a POV on Constantine, but it is quite a bit prejudicial to the issue to discuss it early in the narrative without representing all POVs on him. I see these safeguards as a reasonable method of forestalling WP disputes by keeping discussion neatly categorized. It would be appropriate for you to demonstrate your response to these concerns by making responsive "rebold" edits, or to discuss at talk. Thanks! JJB 18:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wilfullts, you may not have read my note, because you added another EGW quote to the history section, attributing it to "another scholar", which, frankly, could be interpreted by other editors as disingenuous. You also comment out the Didache and delete a paragraph on nonsabbatarianism. If I have time I will interact with these issues, but the edits appear to have a tendency to enlarge one POV over others in a majority article, which is a big difficulty. I take the approach that, since I am secure in my own view, it is appropriate to give well-weighted space to each view so that they can all be considered and the obviousness of the faulty views can be judged fairly. If you believe these edits are not misweighted, that will become manifest by a consideration of sources; but it is inappropriate to delete sources that bear on one or another POV, especially when they are easy to come by. Again, I'd appreciate you commenting on the undue mention of EGW in the historical sections and the other deletions, and what you would like to do to enfold the concerns, also voiced by Tonicthebrown at my talk > JJB 20:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Willfults (and Tmorton), here is why I believe your revisions are inappropriate, and I have reverted them once again.

Firstly, you have removed accurate, properly cited material which contradicts your (SDA) point of view. For example, all of the following:

Since shortly after the church's founding, the majority of Christians have observed the first day for weekly corporate worship (Sunday, now also known as the Lord's Day). From the fourth century onwards, Sunday worship (now "first-day Sabbatarianism") has largely also taken on the observance of Sunday rest. Thus, in early Christianity "Sabbath" still meant the seventh day (observed with diverse practices),[1] while formative first-day Sabbatarianism focused on the communal assembly day.
Nevertheless, widespread Sabbath observance by Gentile Christians prevailed in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Church authorities continued to oppose this as a Judaizing tendency.[1]
Bauckham argues that Sunday worship must have originated in Palestine in the mid-1st century, in the period of the Acts of the Apostles, no later than the Gentile mission. This is because the practice had become universal by the early 2nd century with no hint of controversy in the writings that have survived from the early church. It would have been virtually impossible for a novel practice such as Sunday worship to be agreed upon universally, with no debate, had it been introduced after the Christian church had spread throughout the known world.[2]
Some scholars, such as R. Beckwith and W. Stott (1978), W. Rordorf (1962) and Paul King Jewett (1971) have argued that Christian Sunday worship traces back even further, to the resurrection appearances of Jesus recorded in the Gospel narratives.
The reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin repudiated the idea that Christians are bound to obey the Mosaic law, including the fourth commandment of the Decalogue concerning Sabbath, although they followed Aquinas' concept of natural law. They viewed Sunday rest as a civic institution established by human authority, which provided an occasion for bodily rest and public worship.[3]

Secondly, you have moved the patristic material from Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, Didache and Barnabas down to a section called "Apocrypha". That is just plain incorrect. These authors are patristics, not "apocrypha".

Thirdly, you have added a whole lot of material from Ellen White, and tried to pass it off as historical scholarship. (JJB has already remarked on this.) That is simply not acceptable. Ellen White is not historical scholarship -- she is a strong SDA opinion. For example:

"In the first centuries the true (seventh day) Sabbath had been kept by all Christians. They were jealous for the honor of God, and, believing that His law is immutable, they zealously guarded the sacredness of its precepts".[4] "That the attention of the people might be called to the Sunday, it was made a festival in honor of the resurrection of Christ. Religious services were held upon it; yet it was regarded as a day of recreation, the Sabbath being still sacredly observed."[5]
Ellen White states "The archdeceiver had not completed his work. He was resolved to gather the Christian world under his banner and to exercise his power through his vicegerent, the proud pontiff who claimed to be the representative of Christ. Through half-converted pagans, ambitious prelates, and world-loving churchmen he accomplished his purpose. Vast councils were held from time to time, in which the dignitaries of the church were convened from all the world. In nearly every council the Sabbath which God had instituted was pressed down a little lower, while the Sunday was correspondingly exalted. Thus the pagan festival came finally to be honoured as a divine institution, while the Bible Sabbath was pronounced a relic of Judaism, and its observers were declared to be accursed."[6]
Another scholar has noted that seventh day observance has occurred throughout every age of Christianity.

Amid the gloom that settled upon the earth during the long period of papal supremacy, the light of truth could not be wholly extinguished. In every age there were witnesses for God--men who cherished faith in Christ as the only mediator between God and man, who held the Bible as the only rule of life, and who hallowed the true Sabbath. How much the world owes to these men, posterity will never know. They were branded as heretics, their motives impugned, their characters maligned, their writings suppressed, misrepresented, or mutilated. Yet they stood firm, and from age to age maintained their faith in its purity, as a sacred heritage for the generations to come."

The Great Controversy, p. 61 [7]

I'm sorry, but this is simply inappropriate; it breaks Wikipedia policy left, right and centre. If you think there are problems with this article such as OR, the onus is on you to bring it up here on the talk page and initiate a discussion, rather than forging ahead and making extremely POV revisions. Thanks. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I may have been a bit quick reverting wholesale. But I noted a couple of really bad pieces of OR so reverted to what looked like the best version. After a quick scan through this is the current worst offender, so I cut it. Content like that must be avoided at all costs. Find a secondary source and work from there. Policy overrules everything; and it was such obvious OR I have cut it. No other opinion on the rest of the content; I am not religious and this area of religious history is one I happen to be unfamiliar with --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 20:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, reading through this needs serious work. I see a number of other clear OR sections. always work from sources. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 20:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)And I see it was aded back. Poor show, please find sources then add it back. A "helpful summary of primary source verses" is 100% something you need to avoid like the plague. Seriously. Even with a RS drawing the conclusion made in that section it is inappropriate :) you need to source and sumarise the conclusion. Does that make sense? --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is quite a bit of OR and poor organization still. I restored the graf to WP:PRESERVE the prior consensus and because it is easily sourced (a bit later, if you don't mind). Since I am sympathetic to all POVs on this I have a natural interest in peace and I think this is a good time for the involved editors to get through any current stated issues. I proposed a baseline of this diff for discussion on the disagreements shown there, and your questioned graf is listed. JJB 20:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but OR is something of a bright line. Anything that fails WP:OR should be cut fairly strongly. Then the onus is on the person adding it back to find a source. I won't revert, but I will pop back in a week when I have more time and source/cut anything that is still at issue --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like some people above are complaining about Ellen White references, even though Backhaum has just a strong POV in the other direction, and is a less well known and published author. Tertullian also has a POV, advocating his worship on the day of the sun etc. There is also Joseph Smith references in the article. Seems like any statement that advocates a seventh-day Sabbath is getting removed and deemed POV. Ellen White does constituent scholarship, as she is the most published female religious author of perhaps all time. regarding material removed....

This quote was removed because the same statement was made in the EG White quote...

Nevertheless, widespread Sabbath observance by Gentile Christians prevailed in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Church authorities continued to oppose this as a Judaizing tendency.[1]

The below quote is WP:OR

Some scholars, such as R. Beckwith and W. Stott (1978), W. Rordorf (1962) and Paul King Jewett (1971) have argued that Christian Sunday worship traces back even further, to the resurrection appearances of Jesus recorded in the Gospel narratives.

Also R. J. Bauckham (1982), D. A. Carson, ed., "Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic church", From Sabbath to Lord's Day (Zondervan) has about 10 quotes in this article. And his book is very heavy POV for Sunday worship. Some trimming of his quotes is necessary and he should not be cited as the end all source on matters.

Willfults (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I did see one or two EGW sentences that seemed neutral enough for mention, but the idea that this article (rather than many other WP articles that already do) needs lots of her grafs is a mistake of a type that is often handled by (first) cold revert and (then) warm revert. I don't mind your pressing it in again after those two phases, in that my first baseline is still in edit history, but please don't assume it will stay as is. I personally find EGW a little too poetic and wanting in backup sources, and so on virtually all points she makes there are better sources by WP's standards, especially considering that EGW does invite strong feelings all around. Tertullian's period POV is appropriate; Smith's extended section is (like White) unaddressed undue weight, as noted previously. I would agree that Bauckham and Carson are probably overrelied on as well. You also claim an OR sentence, but that's actually a sourced WP:IMPERFECT sentence that doesn't fully meet V standards and invites completion and verification, not an OR sentence (such as the two unsourced sentences about first-day would be if they remained unsourced for long). Anyway, normal harmonious editing club is still working well, so I can contribute to building out when I have time to review sources. JJB 22:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Gentlemen,
A couple of points. Firstly, I agree that the "Biblical Sabbath" section is full of primary sources, and I can understand the charge that it is OR. However, please note that this applies to both the Sunday texts (3rd paragraph) and the 7th day texts (1st and 2nd paragraph), so it is not appropriate to discriminate as you guys (Willfults, Tmorton) have done. To retain the 7th day texts while removing the Sunday texts, when both are currently unsupported by 2ndary sources, reveals a POV. Either the whole section gets ditched as OR, or, it is retained until adequate 2ndary sources can be provided. JJB has said that he will get to it for the Sunday texts.
Secondly, Bauckham (who may be unknown to you) is in fact a contributor to a well recognised, authoritative book on the Sabbath and Lord's Day edited by D. A. Carson. Carson is one of the best known NT scholars in the world. Their opinions are therefore hardly marginal. Ellen White is significant for Adventists, so it may be appropriate to have some input from her on the 7-th day Sabbatarian position (which does not breach WP:UNDUE), but this must be done with appropriate restraint as she is not a scholarly source and the majority of the Christian world would consider her an opinion on this subject, not a WP:RS.Tonicthebrown (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again[edit]

Tonic asked me to review the topic again. I have been watching the edits fly by and none of them particularly unsettled the radar or undid the prior consensus structure, but the cumulative effect of deleting some sourced POVs and reinforcing others does take a toll on NPOV. I will need to look at the grafs and rationales one by one. I trust that Willfults has not injudiciously inserted or deleted (and will not) without good rationales, but please see the subsequent edit summaries for my details. JJB 01:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC) It appears I was a bit less watchful than I thought, because I identified seven edits by Willfults deleting sections that provided apparently significant POVs, and one of his that misproposed "SDA Church" as the "main" article for a section, when there are many 7th-day denominations, as already linked. There was also one introduction of EGW in an inappropriate section, but I have not removed that, as I am starting from a "preserve" position only (i.e., keep all info in the article so that it can be discussed and properly balanced, rather than deleted with often-tenuous summaries, as my summaries document). Anyway, Willful, I would appreciate your discussing the proper balance of all POVs rather than deleting some, and keep in mind the consensus outline Tonic and I previously worked out. I will get to my sourcing and organizing when I take time for it. JJB 01:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Marva Dawn[edit]

The section "Lutheranism" gives undue weight to one Marva Dawn and her book on the Sabbath. It seems more like a piece of promotion for the book than anything relevant regarding the subject matter. There are surely many, much more important Lutherans (including theologians) who could be quoted on the Sabbath. Lumendelumine (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Lord's Day overlap[edit]

I'm trying to redetermine what I was thinking while writing the outlines above for this article and Lord's Day because the two appear to have too much overlap right now. There is also a small fork created by StAnselm over my redirect at Sunday Sabbatarianism and I'm unsure where to merge. Here's a draft to help me think out loud, and if nobody objects over the next week it might get implemented. Much of it is already.

Generally, Sabbath in Christianity (S) is about rest day but Lord's Day (L) is about worship day.

S:

  • 7th-day rest from 1st c. on
  • 7th-day worship sporadically as influenced by 7th-day rest
  • non-Sabbatarian from patristics on
  • 1st-day rest from 4th c. on
  • SUMMARY of article L insofar as 1st-day worship influences 1st-day rest
  • any statements about rest and worship at same time

L:

  • 1st-day worship from 1st c. hints on
  • 7th-day as "Lord's Day" briefly in modern era
  • SUMMARY of 1st-day rest section of article S insofar as it influences 1st-day worship
  • any statements about rest and worship at same time

JJB 02:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Catholicism[edit]

Bwrs (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

They = Pontiffs, not bishops[edit]

In this edit, a quote from the Augsburg Confession, "They" was wrongly changed to "bishops" when the quote source was changed to a more recent translation.

Old: The Lutheran Augsburg Confession states "They (Roman Catholics) allege the change of the Sabbath into the Lord's day . . .

New: The Lutheran Augsburg Confession states that bishops "refer to the Sabbath-day as having been changed into the Lord's Day . . .

Source: They refer to the Sabbath-day as having been changed into the Lord's Day . . .

The "They" that "refer" are identified earlier in the same paragraph as: "They that give this right to the bishops refer . . ." Obviously "they" are the "Pontiffs" of the first paragraph of that section:

Article XXVIII: Of Ecclesiastical Power.
There has been great controversy concerning the Power of Bishops, in which some have awkwardly confounded the power of the Church and the power of the sword. And from this confusion very great wars and tumults have resulted, while the Pontiffs, emboldened by the power of the Keys, not only have instituted new services and burdened consciences with reservation of cases and ruthless excommunications, but have also undertaken to transfer the kingdoms of this world, and to take the Empire from the Emperor.
[. . .]
Moreover, it is disputed whether bishops or pastors have the right to introduce ceremonies in the Church, and to make laws concerning meats, holy-days and grades, that is, orders of ministers, etc. They that give this right to the bishops refer to this testimony John 16, 12. 13: I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth. They also refer to the example of the Apostles, who commanded to abstain from blood and from things strangled, Acts 15, 29. They refer to the Sabbath-day as having been changed into the Lord's Day, contrary to the Decalog, as it seems. Neither is there any example whereof they make more than concerning the changing of the Sabbath-day. Great, say they, is the power of the Church, since it has dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments!
The Augsburg Confession

Therefore, the questionable beginning of the quote has been changed to: The Lutheran Augsburg Confession, speaking of changes made by Roman Catholic Pontiffs, states: "They refer to the Sabbath-day as having been changed into the Lord's Day . . ."
—Telpardec  TALK  16:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Odd language[edit]

"corporate day of worship on the first day (Sunday, or Saturday night) had become commonplace as attested in the patristic writings"

Two things. "Corporate", as in relating to corporations? And what does "patristic" mean? --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Corporate means group as opposed to individual. Patristic refers to church fathers. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Lord's Day[edit]

This is just another name for the same idea: the weekly day of communal worship and/or rest in Christianity. JFH (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

They are two separate things. In the Bible the Sabbath is the 7th-day (Saturday) day of rest. This is often misapplied to Sunday. The Lord's day is usually applied to Sunday. The distinction of which day is the day of rest is extremely important in religious circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyBurtonson (talkcontribs) 23:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The article makes clear that it covers both interpretations (seventh and first day) of the Sabbath in Christianity. Christians of both traditions are likely to use the term "Sabbath" and "Lord's day" for their respective days of rest and worship, so it wouldn't make sense to divide the articles that way anyway. We already have Sabbath in seventh-day churches for a more in-depth treatment of that tradition. --JFH (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
They are not two "interpretations"; they are separate things. In the Orthodox Church, Saturday is the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, just as it was for the Jews. However, the "Lord's Day" (we don't use the term, but we mean the weekly commemoration of Christ's resurrection) is Sunday, the first day of the week. The Sabbath is the "day of rest"; Sunday is especially a "day for worship", the weekly remembrance of Pascha. Evensteven (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
That's interesting (you learn something everyday), and I admit it complicates things. However, I think that the PRIMARYTOPIC for Lord's Day is going to be a single day of rest/religious observance because the Orthodox Church is much smaller than the rest of Christianity. I can see though, that the Lord's Day article could be focused on religious observance while the Sabbath could be on rest, but we should clarify that in the lead. --JFH (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The size of this or that religious group is irrelevant. Just because the majority of people think this or that doesn't mean that the topic is not contentious nor important. Majority rule is not usually the best. It is usually the easiest and simplistic. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
For any who think size is important (and count me out, personally), Orthodoxy happens to be the second largest communion in Christianity, worldwide. It's proportionately smaller in the west, yes. And lest anyone get heated about Protestantism, that is a grouping, not a communion, because it is a collection of rather widely varying beliefs, some of them so wide that some communions do not like to be called Protestant at all. It happens that Orthodoxy and Catholicism have one really big thing in common (well, a ton of them, really, but one especially counts here): they both remember history. What I said is how it has been in Orthodoxy for 2000 years; it's not a new invention. I expect that Catholics recognize that, and probably affirm it themselves. It is Protestantism that has pushed aside some of the observances that keep alive the remembrance of what the Sabbath is, and it is the prevalence of Protestantism in the U.S. that therefore makes it much less known, or to grow confused. So, seek out an answer from a reliable Catholic source, and see what you get. But even if it's different from Orthodoxy, you'd be off base to ignore Orthodoxy. Notability in the U.S. is a far cry from notability on English WP. There are many editors and readers from all over the world here. English is more international now than it was yesterday, and more than any language has ever been, even Latin or Greek. Evensteven (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Not so hard: the new Catholic Encyclopedia. See Sabbath and Sunday. "Lord's Day" arose as Sunday became the weekly observance of the Lord's resurrection. That, indeed, began in apostolic times, as the Sunday article says. Note the encyclopedia also describes how Sunday came to replace the Sabbath in Christendom as the premier day of worship, for that exact reason of observing the resurrection. But that shift of day of worship did not shift the "Sabbath", for it did not shift the "day of rest", the seventh day, wherein God rested from His labors in Creation. The reason the Jews used the Sabbath as the day of worship was that they were commanded to "keep the Sabbath day holy". Note also how the article on "Sabbath" describes the shift. Evensteven (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't merge. Sabbath and Lord's Day are NOT the same thing. Sabbath is a day of rest, which some celebrate on Saturday and some celebrate on Sunday. Sabbatarianism was not practised widely in Christianity until the middle ages. Lord's Day is Sunday, and is a day of worship but not necessarily of Sabbath-rest. Conflation of the two is inaccurate and confusing and it is right that there are two separate articles. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
And yes, Orthodoxy is a huge Christian grouping, second only to Catholicism. Evensteven is correct. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Quite right about Sabbatarianism. Christian Sunday worship started so early historically, it may well have preceded the founding of the church in Rome (though I'm not sure there is any direct evidence of that for sure). Christians were ejected from the synagogues in Judea quite early, and the direct differentiations were soon in play, Sunday worship among them. The importance of celebrating the resurrection was always primary for Christians, and its connection to the specific day of resurrection was a driving motivation. I'm not sure if or how much the large influxes of Gentiles might have influenced it, but that also occurred early enough that it gave rise to questions and disputes that were recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. So, it's not at all a question of modern "Eastern Orthodox" or "Catholic" as separate from any Christians at all. The church had hardly spread far enough at the time for there to be an east and a west.
Above, I touched on the whys that the day of worship was moved to Sunday, and why it was Saturday for the Jews. There may be some variations (?) in Sabbatarianism as to reasons for resetting worship to the Sabbath, but I think the commandment to "keep the Sabbath day holy" is mostly very high on the list, and that it is differences in the way that Christians interpret that commandment that influences the keeping of the Saturday Sabbath. Certainly, the Orthodox would agree that it should be kept holy. The Orthodox in fact believe that every day should be kept holy, and speak of the Christian life as "the sanctification of time". And it recognizes differences in how each day is kept holy, remembering or honoring specific persons and events (multiple ones) each day of the week, the "day of rest" among them, in a continuous seven-day cycle of observance. It has none of the western notion that Sunday is the day of worship, for every day is a day for worship. Sunday just happens to be the primary day that the observance of the resurrection is kept, the day of the Lord, who is also Lord of the Sabbath. But the Divine Liturgy may be (and is) celebrated on every day of the year except Holy Friday, where the crucifixion is the focus. And thus, there is far less dissonance between Orthodox and Sabbatarian practice on Saturday than there is between some Protestants and Sabbatarians. This is partially an example of western practices that have chosen "either/or", whereas Orthodoxy tends much more frequently to "both/and" (although, of course, that's not all there is to it).
There must be plenty of materials on both current and historical practices for all of this within all the major communions. It seems to me that the biggest current shortcoming of both the articles is that they don't cover the whole ground. If they did, this question of merging would never have arisen. I am going to remove the merge tag from Lord's Day at least for now. That was its old consensus (hence default), and I see consensus here developing in the same way. Evensteven (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)