Talk:Sabbath in Christianity/Archive 1

Deleting Redundant Entries

The entire argument that follows this paragraph, from here to the TOC, is repeated at the end of this discussion page (under the TOC heading of "Sabbath: An Article on Sabbath Observance, or Arguments Against?". Except for some minor edits and the concluding paragraph, it is repeated word-for-word. And as anyone who edits this discussion page can see, the length has become exceedingly cumbersom. But Vincent wants to preserve this redundant information many times more than it already is. There is no need to preserve a record of what the edits to the original were, that is already established by the function of the WikiPedia History page. Therefore, there is no valid argument for keeping both sets of these entries; it is doubly redundant!!!!

---

This is supposed to be an article about the Sabbath, and yet more than 50% is about Sunday. It seems that there should be a reference to Sunday as a separate article. Even more if it is too long. What do you think? --Kevin 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It's about the Sabbath in Christianity. Most consider this Sunday (if not abolished.) 50% Saturday discussion is generous. -Vincent.

This article should be about the Sabbath generally, not just in Christianity (a seventh day sabbath is kept in judaism). Obviously the general protestant view should be mentioned in a concise way, but being the controversial issue that Sunday vs Saturday is, there should be main articles for the keeping of Saturday, the keeping of Sunday and the argument for and against the abolition of the Sabbath. This article should describe what the Sabbath is, rather than become a place where people try to push their views on others. --m0rt

"This article should be about the Sabbath generally,..."

At the risk of SOUNDING anti-semetic (because I'm not), the Jews won't have it. Just look at what happened to the "Passover" entry -- for all intents and purposes, the Jews kicked out the Christian portion of the entry. Why do you think this entry begins with a redirection comment about the Jewish Sabbath (Shabbat)?

"This article should describe what the Sabbath is."

That is part of the problem here -- people can't agree on what the Sabbath is. The modern, coloqueal definition is, "the day of the week that one worships their god on"; others adhere to the biblical definition.

The majority of the Christian world does observe Sunday worship, agreed. Most do not keep Sunday as a Sabbath. If the the fourth commandment had been undeniably abolished, then that would be a legitimate addition. 10% would be generous! A reference to Sunday Sabbatarianism, and arguments for first day and/or eighth day worship will be forwarded. --Kevin 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not right. First, saying most Christians don't keep Sunday as a Sabbath may be true, but it is also true they believe Sunday to be the New Covenant Sabbath. Hence the article spends enough time on both Sunday/Saturday. Second, you should not be making a distinction between "Sunday Sabbatarianism" and "Sabbatarianism" as separate articles (if I'm understanding correctly what you wrote, your wording was rather unclear); those are just your personal prejudices clouding your judgment. The article is fine how it stands, it explores both sides of the argument adequately. There is no need to split it up. -Vincent.

The Catholic Encyclopedia as well as many other Protestant sources reveal that the Sabbath observance has very little and/or nothing to do with Sunday worship. There are some that do see Sunday Sabbatarianism as a replacement for seventh day Sabbatarianism, and that view will be included. This article also includes the arguments for both sides, and only the justifications for change according to the Ante-Nicene Fathers will be referred to those articles, and the subjects that one might be researching. The separation of observances is a matter of history, and those that are interested can follow up by the references included in the article. --Kevin 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)03:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

And your point is...? All I said that's what most 'believe', not that it made sense. It's patently absurd, I agree. Nonetheless it warrants the space it is given as a result. Also the last part of your post made no sense. -Vincent.

It is good to see that you understand to some extent. My point is that belief has little to do with factual information. There are numerous writings extant about belief, but what we should be dealing with in an encyclopedia article are the beliefs dealing with the subject at hand (Sabbatarianism), and the information that deals with that subject. Opposing views when in direct opposition may be considered, but views that are tangentially related (related but in an off the subject manner), should be referred to another article. --Kevin 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

In your opinion. Don't forget this is all subjective -- you shouldn't be so quick to discredit the beliefs of others. And you are misunderstanding me regardless, to be 'Sabbatarian' one needn't specifically consider Sabbath to be Saturday or Sunday, but merely to avoid doing work or certain activities on Sunday constitutes Sabbatarianism to some extent and hence most conservative Christians fit this description. That is why the article's material distribution is not only acceptable but warranted. -Vincent.

Sabbatarian may fit some conservative Christians' belief about Sunday, but it does not fit what the Bible says about keeping the Sabbath. That is the difference between what some view as acceptable Sunday observance, and what most view as an obsolete requirement. The subject is not in question, just the application of the subject; there are some that view Sunday Sabbatarianism as a rational alternative, but a majority of this worlds Christians view Sabbatarianism as obsolete and cultish. "Most conservative Christians" do not consider Sabbatarianism as a correct label. Where are your facts; if you can document your concerns they will be included. --Kevin 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 04:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

One, stop acting like you own this article, it's very irritating. Two, it's considered quite rude to completely disfigure an article while having an active discussion. Three, I'm off to bed, I'll post more tomorrow. -Vincent.

While attempting to show consideration for your point of view, there seems to be no substantiative effort to reason, or support for your argument. I would welcome open discussion of your points, yet the only answers seem to be unsupported and irritated. Corrective rearrangement and disfigurement are a matter of opinion. I will give reason for my rearrangement as I have previously. If you have legitimate reasoning for your changes, let me know and I will listen. --Kevin 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)06:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC) ----

I've been quite patient with you, and all I said was you were making large edits while in an active discussion, which is not something you do at Wikipedia (see the Wikipedia usage guidelines). Also you have given no factual support for your beliefs and yet you still hold to them and mutilate the existing article to fit what you see as right. Also you said 90% of Christians find Sabbatarianism cultish. I have not found a reference to this statistic, please provide one or else your argument is based on original research, which is not allowed at Wikipedia (see Wikipedia: No Original Research). Now let's look up the American Heritage dictionary article on the Sabbath to find:

  1. The seventh day of the week, Saturday, observed as the day of rest and worship by the Jews and some Christian sects.
  2. The first day of the week, Sunday, observed as the day of rest and worship by most Christians.

From the Encyclopaedia Brittanica article on the Sabbath:

 "Day of the week set aside for worship and observance of religious duties in Judaism and Christianity.

 "The Jewish Sabbath begins at sunset on Friday and lasts until sunset 
 the next day, during which time no ordinary work or act of
 labor is performed. For most Christian denominations, the Sabbath 
 is on Sunday; prescribed conduct varies considerably, but   
 attendance at worship services is a feature common to all. 
 In Islam, Friday is the day of worship."

Do you see a trend?

-Vincent.

Yes Vincent, we often do casually use terms that are not really descriptive of the subject. Dictionaries incorporate the changing usage with regard for the original intent of the word. The first definition is the best for understanding the origins of any word. The trend is to water down the meaning with time. Thank you for including the first usage in your quote!

Webster's Dictionary has a very good understanding of someone who is called a Sabbatarian:

   "1. of the Sabbath and its observance 2. of the doctrines of the Sabbatarians
    1. a person, esp. a Christian who observes the Sabbath (sense 1) 
    2.a Christian who favors  strict observance of Sunday as the Sabbath"

Therefore, although the term, Sabbath, has become associated with activities that have very little to with the original commandment, it should be secondary to the origins of the word. That is what I am doing to improve the article. My purpose was not to delete any of the well written and studied explanations, but to put them in their proper order. Look at any encyclopedia or dictionary and you will find the proper order of understanding.

As for your desire to see support of my statement that most (maybe 90%) of the Christian world finds Sabbatarianism to be obsolete and/or cultish, although I believe this to be a conservative estimate here is some substantiation of my statement. First, look at the definition of Sabbatarian one more time.

 "1. of the Sabbath and its observance 2. of the doctrines of the Sabbatarians
    1. a person, esp. a Christian who observes the Sabbath (sense 1) 
    2.a Christian who favors  strict observance of Sunday as the Sabbath"

I think more than 90% of the world would agree that less than 10% of Christians fit this definition. I have not observed any congregation that observes Sunday as a strict observance. Second, lets look at the definition of a cult. Webster's describes it in this manner:

   "1. A system of religious worship or ritual 2. a) devoted attachment for, a person, principle, etc. when regarded as a fad b) the object of such devotion 3. a group of followers; sect"

I would estimate that by these definitions 99.9% would agree that Sabbatarianism is cultish (there are always the beligerant who will not agree to anything). Yet, if you would like numbers, according to the World Christian Database, of the 2,135,784,198 enrolled Christian members, the largest groups claiming seventh day Sabbath worship are the SDA, and SBD groups. The approximate total is well under 10% and appears to be less than 1%. Sunday Sabbatarians seem to be limited to the Lord's Day Alliance, and the Lord's Day Observance Society. Their numbers appear to be far less than 1% of seventh day observers.

All of this evidence is not really meaningful, but I wanted to entertain your challenge. I think the main point is clear. Strict Sunday Sabbatarians are placed secondary to seventh day Sabbatarians in any other reputable source. Casual Sunday worshippers who use the term liberally are normally relegated to a obligatory mention and/or referred to in another article. If this is to be a reputable source, we should continue with the current convention of order. Correct? --Kevin 04:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)02:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

You quoted a dictionary, I quoted a dictionary and the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. I asked for you to substantiate your claim, you provided original research (see Wikipedia: No Original Research). Thus far, your claim is that Sunday Sabbatarians should be secondary because they represent a minority. I've provided a source that suggests otherwise (actually two sources). You have provided a dictionary reference, and so did I. So far I don't see how you've sufficiently evidenced your claim, besides providing a dictionary reference. The numbers you provided do not incorporate all groups which fall under the "Sabbatarian" umbrella. Read the article for more information on that. VincentValentine 03:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Even your sources disagree with you Vincent. It becomes apparent that this Sabbath keeping article is being kept hostage by someone who does not keep it! The validity of your argument is without reason or concern for the truth. I suppose that is what happens in a publicly edited forum. It is dissapointing that we cannot discuss things rationally, Vincent. Your anger and frustration are getting in the way of your mind. --Kevin 04:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually I'm not mad at all, nor am I "holding hostage" the article, I'm supporting reason and truth, something Wikipedia is primarily about. The rules of Wikipedia are No Original Research (see Wikipedia:No original research) which is what you provided to evidence your claim that Sabbatarians are a minority in conservative Christianity. I produced a reputable source claiming otherwise. You provided original research, which is not acceptable for Wikipedia. If you can produce a relaible source claiming otherwise then we can talk. The ordering of entries in a dictionary article is not necessarily applicable to the matter at hand, and should certainly not be given more weight than the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, which gave a much more in-depth discourse of the subject. VincentValentine 13:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a discussion page, Vincent. Evidence cited is the example of other types of reference materials that use a proper order in relation to relevance. Either you, or someone else has arranged the article in a manner of favoring modern Sunday worship, which is secondary even in the sources you have cited. Once again, primary description of the Sabbath (NPOV) is the seventh day, from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. There are also some POV in some of the arguements that need to be discussed. --Kevin 04:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC) 18:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This article concerns the Sabbath in Christianity. Most Christian denominations consider this Sunday (see my references). The flow of the article is quite logical and does not violate any NPOV guidelines as you suggest. The article flow is:

1. Overview of the Sabbath

2. History of the Sabbath

3. Why Christians Don't Meet on Saturday Anymore (this is reasonable given the previous two sections

4. Sunday vs. Saturday Debate (a logical place for this)

5. Arguments For/Against Sabbatarianism

None of this is illogical or represents any particular point of view. The concept of Sabbath and the related nuances and debates are all represented in an order befitting the subject at hand. Feel free to bring up any NPOV issues you see in the article though. VincentValentine 20:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• The flow that you suggest might be better than the one presently shown in the article. It actually reads:

1 Overview of The Sabbath

2 Early Observance of the Sabbath

1 Basis of First Day Observance

2 Sunday vs Saturday

3 Arguments Used Against Sabbath Observance

4 Pro-Sabbatarian Points

1 Protestant Sabbatarianism

2 Seventh-day Sabbatarianism

6 Biblical References to the Sabbath Day

7 References

8 External links

9 Churches Keeping the Seventh-Day Sabbath

10 Churches Keeping a Sunday Sabbath

The section titled "Early Observance of the Sabbath" begins with the primary definition of the Sabbath, but the two following points do not flow correctly from that heading. They both are articles that argue for the early favorance of Lord's Day observance over Sabbath observance. These articles do not reference any sources that cite first and/or eighth day observance and refer to them as Sabbath observance. In fact the Ante-Nicene Fathers quoted made explicit the difference between Sabbath observance, and Lord's Day observance. The purpose was to distinguish the new Roman Christianity from the primitive Apostolic Judaic Christianity. Therefore the two subpoints are more logically placed under the third title, "Arguments Used Against Sabbath Observance".

The fourth section, "Pro-Sabbatarian Points" would be more appropriately be titled, "Basis for Sabbath Observance" and follow the section on "Early Observance of the Sabbath". Sabbath observance is what is being referred to primarily in this article entitled, "Sabbath"; not arguments against Sabbath observance. Seventh day Sabbatarianism is in agreement with the primary description of the Sabbath. Protestant Sabbatarianism is secondary and did not follow in the historical timeline until well after the Reformation.

The flow, therefore, should be as follows:

Contents

1 Overview of The Sabbath

2 Early Observance of the Sabbath

3 Basis of Sabbath Observance

1 Seventh-day Sabbatarianism

2 Protestant Sabbatarianism

3 Arguments Used Against Sabbath Observance

1 Basis of First Day Observance

2 Sunday vs Saturday

6 Biblical References to the Sabbath Day

7 References

8 External links

9 Churches Keeping the Seventh-Day Sabbath

10 Churches Keeping a Sunday Sabbath

Furthermore, the article is already longer than Wikipedia suggests. A Sabbath article, should primarily be about Sabbath observance, and not be over 50% about early arguments against Sabbath observance. I would suggest that these arguments be referred to another article, such as the Sunday Christian article, or an historical timeline of changes in Christianity.

Modern Christians that refer to Sunday worship as Sabbath observance are tertiary both in relevance to the original description of the Sabbath, and the historical description of "Lord's Day" observance. This should be a minor inclusion or a reference as well.

Some of the wording is still POV, and some minor changes would improve the article. More on this in the future.

--Kevin 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, "Arguments for Sabbath Observance" is better than "Pro-Sabbatarian Points." I never liked the way that was worded either (I didn't write that section, obviously). I see your points above, but I think you're looking at this article as though Saturday Sabbatarianism is the one and only way. The only real place I think that change is warranted would be to cut down a bit of the Basis of First-day Observance section. Lots of users plopped their own two cents in that section and eventually it became a tad bloated as you see now. Regardless, you don't seem to be understanding the whole "Sabbath in Christianity" concept; think less of the Sabbath as Friday to Saturday and more as the generic Christian day of worship. This article explores just that.

But your new layout does seem reasonable, if you want you can rearrange it to meet that new design as it does seem to flow more logically that way. Before making any significant changes to the content (as opposed to layout) of the article I would ask you to discuss the edits here first, however. Again feel free to bring up any POV issues you see. VincentValentine 23:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Vincent, and I did not intend to exclude other points of view. It just seems important to place things in their proper order, and I realize that when articles are added, it sometimes puts things out of sequence. Actually the articles on the basis for first day observance, and Sunday vs. Saturday, are very well written and balanced. It is mainly the headings and placement that seem incongruous. It makes me glad that we can agree!--Kevin 04:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I too am glad we agree, I think you will definitely improve this article with your proposed edits. I know I and many, many other contributors have put a lot of work into the sections you've mentioned so it's good to know you find them well-written. VincentValentine 12:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Shabbat

Shabbat literally translates as "the seventh day" but means "the day of rest."

It seems to me that Shabbat is more related to the root Sh-B-T (which signifies the concept of sitting or staying static, hence "lashevet"), than to Sh-B-A' (hence "sheva'", "seven"). So I'd rather say that "Shabbat" only means "the day of rest". What do you think about it? --Uriyan

I have heard otherwise, but perhaps I (and anyone else) can check with some people who know Hebrew grammer. (Hebrew speakers who don't specialize in grammar probably shoulnd't be consulted, as most speakers of most languages know what words mean, but that is a different issue. How many people actually know about the details of grammar and root words? That's a smaller group.) RK

Well, I'm not a language scholar; but I'm a Hebrew speaker living in Israel, and I've studied Hebrew grammar at school (it is a part of the obligatory program of the Ministry of Education). Although Shabat does not fall into any of the "weights" through which nouns are usually formed (i.e. R-K-B (ride) with Quatelet pattern -> Rakevet "train") Shabat looks like it's formed from the root Sh-B-T (compare Modern Hebrew "shvita", "strike").

BTW, I was wrong about "lashevet", "to sit", it's derrived from the root Y-Sh-B (it's probably related, but not the same). But unlike the weak Y in Y-Sh-B, I don't think that the A' in Sh-B-A' could disappear this easily. --Uriyan

---

A different issue: The end of this article is strikingly argumentative - it seems to be more interested in proving that Paul wasn't keeping some day or another as the Sabbath than explaining the concept. I suppose that's relevant in a section called 'development of Sunday as the day of worship in Christianity', but it needs clearer framing. --MichaelTinkler

I agree; the last part of the article is part of an inter-Christian dispute. Some Christian sects have a stake in proving that Paul followed Jewish law in certain areas; other Christians sects disagree. Their inter-religious argument on this point seems very tangential to the concept of the Sabbath. It would be better to replace it with a more neutral discussion of how various Jewish, Christian and Islamic movements historically have observed the Sabbath. The practices of just one person (i.e. Paul) are quite irrelevant. RK

---

About Genesis 2:2-3--the word Sabbath is not in the text. It was not a "Sabbath." According to Strong's Concordance, the definition of the Hebrew word for Sabbath is "intermission." But the word for "rest" used in this passage means "to cease." God ceased his work of creating the world. It was not an "intermission" or "Sabbath" as He did not start creating again on the 1st day of the week or any other day. He ceased creating the world. It was not the first "Sabbath"--it was not a "sabbath" at all.--JJ

---

Shabbat/Sabbath split

The proper split of material is not Saturday=Shabbat, Sunday=Sabbath. It would make more sense for the all of the varieties of Christian observance of a sabbath to remain in this article, and Jewish observance to remain under the topic designated by the Hebrew word. The Friday day of prayer for Muslims is not a sabbath, strictly speaking. Mkmcconn 16:23, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

In Islam there is technically no Sabbath, as Mkmcconn stated. I've never read much on the translations for 'rest' but if it means from exhaustion, Islam would disagree (Comparing these: "...on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed"[Exodus 31:17] "Neither slumber nor sleep overtakes Him"[Quran 2:255]). If 'rest' means a ceasing because of completion, there is room for discussion since Friday - in Arabic Yawm al-Jumu'ah - means the day of congregation and this time is for remembrance and acknowledgement. Friday (the Day of Assembly) is a day to hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of Allah. Thats also how many view Sabbath in the Judeo-Christian faith.
And there is a claim that when the Julian calendar was replaced by the Gregorian calendar, 10 days were deleted to bring the calendar in synchronism with the seasons, suggesting Sabbath was originally Friday, rather than Saturday. Anyone else heard of this, and does it have any grounding? Take care. Usedbook 16:09, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No Sabbath in Christianity?

I'm of what I might call the "no Sabbath in Christianity" viewpoint. For me, Sunday is the day of observance of the resurrection. Saturday WAS the Sabbath under Jewish law, which is not given to Christians for observance. So they are two separate events. I would never call Sunday "the Christian Sabbath."

I think the usage of Christian Sabbath was more popular in the earlier days of America.

I've identified my viewpoint as "a minority" with my most recent edit. I found, however, this posting in a long discussion about "what is the first day of the week?" that states this is a majority Christian view.

Jdavidb 13:42, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article, over-all, asserts that for most Christians Sunday is only called a "Sabbath" colloquially, if at all. That includes Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and much of Protestantism, especially in the U.S. It would not be inconsistent with the rest of the article to say that the "no Sabbath" view is a majority view. On the other hand, a more observant keeping of the Lord's Day is on the rise, as is seventh-day sabbatarianism. Sometimes this more strict is called Sabbath-keeping. Mkmcconn — 14:22, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

According to the Catholic Church, it has on many occasions stated that no where in the bible does it say to celebrate Sunday as the Sabbath. The Catholic Church claims that church tradition is on par with holy scripture (because Peter was in Rome for many years before the Gosples were written) and therefore, by virtue of its unique role it transfered the solemnety of the Sabbath onto the Lord's Day.

Neutrality?

This is a very nice article, but in a few places it smacks of SDA.

>> According to church scholars, Gentile Christians openly observed the seventh-day Sabbath until the time of the Laodicean council.

Not entirely accurate. I could go into detail, but I'll summarize for now. (Also quoting the first five people who agree with you doesn't prove your point.) The fact is, initially there was dual Sat-Sun worship, but it was pretty unpopular except in Palestine, and so it died out.

>> Biblical evidence suggests that Paul was a lifelong Sabbath keeper for the sake of the Jews, and if Sunday was now the Sabbath, then this journey would have been contrary to his character. ... It is not generally debated that Paul did keep the Jewish Sabbath

This needs evidential justification or removal. Either one.

As it stands, the end of this "Saturday vs. Sunday" article is really quite belligerent and doesn't seem to even address the topic at hand.

>> Also in Acts 2:46, they went to the Temple in Jerusalem and broke bread from house to house "daily". There is no mention of the Sabbath, and it is debatable whether this is a reference to Communion. There are many instances of the Gospel being taught and preached on non-specific days as well as daily. One example is in Mark 2:1-2 another is Luke 19:47-20:1, where it clearly indicates that Jesus himself taught and preached daily.

Why is this turning into a debate? This article is supposed to be describing the Sabbath.

>>...indicates that Sabbath keeping is central to following Christ. In other words, since Christ kept the seventh day Sabbath, this is the true Lord's day, according to Him. On the weight of Hebrews 4:8-11, the Sabbath (that is, Saturday) remains a Christian Holy Day, and Sabbath-keeping is an abiding duty as prescribed in the fourth commandment of Exodus 20:8-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15. Since the Sabbath was blessed and hallowed in Genesis 2:3 and was therefore observed even before the fall of Adam, it is the day of rest, given by God, for all humanity, for all time. Generally the religious festivals, new moons, and accompanying high sabbaths of Leviticus 23, Numbers 28-29, Isaiah 1:13-14, Hosea 2:11 and Colossians 2:16-17 are not observed, as these are understood to have been fulfilled by the coming of Christ and their misused practice condemned by Isaiah and Hosea.

This is largely speculation and is a common SDA argument for the Sabbath. This is an article on the Sabbath, not a debate, and statements as rigid and argumentative as this should be removed. They compromise the neutrality of this argument.

If a section is included about "contemporary Sabbath keeping" and arguments, it needs to make the currently accepted argument more well-developed; as it currently is, it makes opponents of Sabbath keeping appear as if they have no real ground to stand on.

I would edit the page myself, but that would be rude, since the author clearly spent quite some time crafting it. I don't have any objection with his/her work per se -- in fact, I think they did quite a nice job. This is a very well-written and scholarly article, for th most part. It is just the personal biases of the author are reflected too much in the article. Given permission, I would attempt to bring the article to neutrality without losing the substance it contains.

And, the latest edit sliding in the "in winter or on Sabbath" comment in sideways is still arguing where there shouldn't be an argument. C'mon, debating the Sabbath in an encyclopedia really isn't appropriate.

EDIT: If I don't see any response here soon, I'll take that as a call to action to properly NPOV this article.

EDIT2: Fixed. :)

There is no possible way that the Sabbath can be anything but a controversial issue in today’s climate. Comments such as SDA ‘speculation’ and ‘argumentative,’ smack just as well of Sunday keeping without Biblical justification. There is plenty of room to make your own arguments to the contrary. To suggest that 'controversial' points of view be removed is to suggest that the reality of the real world debate on the issue not be touched in the article. Anybody reading this topic should have ample opportunity to see both sides. When a list of verses makes you uncomfortable, then come up with your own list for Sunday, nobody is going to stop you.

Easy, kupo. I didn't suggest we take out the controversial stuff, I said let's NPOV it, and if we can't make it strictly factual, then it gets taken out. As it stands the whole thing gives the gist that Christians have been observing Sunday for 1800 years because they misunderstand the Bible, and that the Sabbath is a blatantly obvious abiding duty for Christians. While this may be true, most Christian theologians nowadays believe the Sabbath to be no longer in effect, on the weight of things like Colossians 2:16-17 and Romans 14:5. I am not saying the Sabbath is moved to Sunday; rather Sunday is an entirely different species of observance altogether. At least that's the Sunday-keeper's claim. Besides, I don't even think any room for argumentation is granted here -- this is an encyclopedia, and as such it should be strictly factual. And keep in mind I'm trying to help here, insulting me with things like "a neutral point of view doesn't exist unless it agrees with your own" is unwarranted. Remember we are both on the same team. If I offended you with my earlier comments, I assure you it was not intended. Love in Christ, Vincent 69.201.117.204 02:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The historical comments at the beginning, and the Seventh-day sabbatarianism are not sections I am responsible for. But, the biblical comments I believe are very important. All to often I hear that there is "no Biblical justification for Seventh-day observance." Well, I don't agree, obviously, and I think it's appropriate to give the opposite side and let people go from there. The vast majority of the rest of the article I've left alone because I don't care about anything other than Biblical perspective on the topic. I do get a little touchy because there have been previous comments in the article about "tolerance" in the US of seventh-day observance, which is rather strong. So, incorrectly so, I've tended to lump most of the opposing comments together as one voice.

I hear you. I quickly put together a section on the common "No Sabbath in Christianity" argument which basically sums up the whole case against the Sabbath. I need to work on it a bit more and refine it, and add links where appropriate, but I think this is at least a step in the right direction. Feel free to cut it up as you please. :) For what it's worth, I offer no condemnation whatsoever to Sabbath observance. If anyone claiming to be Christian does, they need to reread Colossians 2:16-17. Let no man judge you -- this is a pretty clear statement, no matter which side of the fence you sit on. Yours, Vincent 69.201.117.204 03:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS: That Wetman guy isn't me, I dunno who that is 69.201.117.204 04:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In context, and without exegesis, Colossians 2:14-16 is speaking of letting no man judge you in either food, or drink, except in regards of an holy day, new moon, or Sabbath. In other words, we should not judge the outcome of one another, of course. It becomes evident that Paul was speaking of requirements of food and drink and specifically regarding the holy day, new moon, or sabbath. The Greek word translated as "or" in some translations is a connective or disjunctive particle connecting two separate terms. The statement is connecting food and/or drink, and/or regarding holy days, new moons, and Sabbaths. He is not arguing for changing the appointed times that were written conclusively beforehand; he is letting the gentile Christians know that the traditional, man inspired, customs of food or drink were not necessarily prescribed by the Law. The Talmud (rabbinical thought and discussion), written by scholarly men, were not ordinances required by God. If Paul had been prescribing that there was no preference in God's eyes as to the Sabbath, high Sabbaths, or timing of the moons, there would have been a more complete discourse on the subject, such as the example in Hebrews that discusses the hierarchy of the Melchisedeck and Levitical priesthoods, and the superior sacrifice of the Christ that was "once for all".--67.41.2.238 02:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Um..no? This is a lot of hand-waving but really what you're saying makes no sense at all. It especially doesn't fit with Paul's style of writing. If what you're saying is accurate (and it isn't) the Judaizers would have been very happy to receive this letter, not infuriated (which they were). Plus Paul would've quickly make himself more clear if a misunderstanding had occurred. -Vincent

Even Peter said that Paul, "according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures".

There was a difference between the "judaizers" of the fourth century and the "circumcision" of the first century. The term "judaizing" was the invention of people that wanted to have nothing to do with the Jewish roots of their Christian faith. Unfortunately it was like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The "circumcision" on the other hand, did not welcome Paul's message because he was teaching that the sacrifices and circumcision, rituals, and customs of uncleanness had been fulfilled by Christ's sacrifice. Everyone was now clean, and the temple sacrifices were no longer required. For some, if Paul had been speaking of the Sabbath being changed or fulfilled, that would have required a more complete argument. The evidence of Paul observing the Sabbath even after his letters is there, written in the book of Acts.

You used the "hard to understand" verse from Peter. This is a classic escape for anyone who wants to misuse the words of Paul, because they can simply twist his words to mean just about anything and then say "well, that sure was hard to understand! It must be the correct interpretation!" Also Judaizing is the opposite of the definition you gave -- Judaizers wanted to keep their Jewish roots and be "Jewish-Christians" and Paul was furious about this. In no uncertain terms he told them they were "baby Christians" if they thought this -- read Galatians. Paul is downright MAD when he writes that, and uses very harsh language to rebuke those who want to keep a strong Jewish influence in Christianity.

There is no evidence of Paul keeping the Sabbath in Acts. I know the verses you're gonna pull out -- they are all Paul trying to find Jews on the Sabbath in places where Jews worship. This is kinda like saying a Church of God minister is a Sunday-keeper if he evangelizes at a Baptist church on Sunday to try to teach them his beliefs.

To put it bluntly, if you were trying to find Jews in the temple you'd have a hard time finding them there on Sunday. -Vincent.

I did not state the point correctly, and I apologize. I edited to correct my point above. I see where you are coming from and your point of view. I was there at one point. That is fine, but you are expressing your point of view and stating it as though you have complete understanding, and perhaps you are correct. I just see things differently, and wish to discuss the writings of Paul in context and in an open dialogue.

If Paul was furious, when speaking of those that were judging them regarding food or drink in regards to certain high days, new moons, or Sabbaths, I do not see his anger. I see patience and concern.

What Peter was referring to in the passage about Paul writing things that are hard to understand in his second letter, is evidently people using Paul's words to allow for lawlessness (see 2 Peter 2), and the gnostic belief that some prophecies had already been fulfilled and the day of the Lord was at hand or already occurred (see 2 Peter 3).

In many Sabbatarians view, Sabbath breaking is the lawlessness that Peter, and many other writers of Biblical passages speak against. They could be mistaken, but what I am asking for is a reasonable discussion of the differences. There is very little evidence of Paul keeping Sunday as the Sabbath, and that minute reference is almost completely late Sabbath evening, when the first day normally began, although several references were to High Sabbaths when it could have been any day of the week. There are seven or more incidences of Paul observing the Sabbaths. If you are open to discussion, I will point these things out, Vincent, and we can discuss them.

Sure, but I've had this discussion about ten thousand times before and it always ends up the same.

Also, Paul's writing in Galatians is pretty much an emotional outburst, which is something Paul was known for. You're right about Paul's words being misused to allow lawlessness, but you're wrong about the "laws" he was trying to enforce. Paul wanted the spirit, not the letter, of the law kept. Keeping a strict Sabbath was one of the things that infuriated Paul the most -- being a slave to weak and beggarly elements. To him it was like watching full grown men want breastmilk again, it just didn't make sense. To say Paul kept Sunday as a Sabbath is surely nonsense, but to say he observed it as his religious day of worship is quite another. Anyway, fire away. -Vincent.

Yes the spirit, but that does not do away with the letter. We should all obey the traffic laws, correct? Is it because we might break the law and be fined or imprisoned? That is the letter of the law written against us as a debt. Could it be for consideration of our brother, who we also desire to obey for our safety as well as their own? This is the Spirit of the Law. This is the Love of God fulfilled, that we obey His commandments (see 1 John). If we obey by the letter, well, we are doing what he desires out of a sense of duty (the letter of the Law), but if we understand the Spirit, then we obey out of love; both for our brother, and more importantly our Father. The Sabbath can be an example for our brother, but it is more of a demonstration of our love for our Father, our Creator, our Firstborn brother. Remember the Sabbath, to keep it separated or Holy. We should do it to remember Him.

You don't "do away with" the letter so to speak, but you do make distinctions based on three types of "laws." There are moral imperatives, which no one denies the applicability of. There are cultural laws (e.g., Israel's prohibition of trimming your beard). Finally there are ceremonial laws. The latter two don't apply and the moral law remains. All the law can be summed up in love for God and love for man, as you descrbied. Keeping a Sabbath may indeed be one way you show your love for God, if so, great, continue to do so, but you cannot ask others to nor demand they do.

And in 1 John, you must be very careful assuming much about the word "commandments." The gist of what he's saying is "do what God wants you to do," not specifically following some rigorous dogma. -Vincent.

The Law that was fulfilled is made very clear in the book of Hebrews. We should still distinguish ourselves from the nations that do not honor the One. Christ made us all clean, and the Levitical sacrifices and ceremonies were shadows. There remains a Sabbath Rest for the people of God as is stated in Hebrews 4, therefore this is one shadow that is still foreshadowing the Rest that He promised, and has yet to come. What God wants us to do is very clear when John states that His Love is fulfilled by keeping His Commandments (1 John 5:3). What He wants us to do is made very clear, in that He is the same, past, present, and future. Why is it against our nature to do what He desires of us? The flesh is at emnity, the scripture says, and apparently this is the truth.

In Hebrews 4 Paul is talking about an eschatological Sabbath (see the context of Heb 4), echoing his calls not to run a race in vain. Besides, how you'd "labor to enter" that rest on Earth is an interesting question indeed. He isn't saying "keep Sabbath, fellas!" he's saying, "don't give up, there's a Sabbath rest for us on the other side!" Besides, if this is the only admonition to keep Sabbath in the NT you're hanging by a very loose thread. Also God has 613 Commandments by rabbinical count, and back in the days when the NT was written "The Commandments" meant all or none. Don't be too quick to assume "Commandments" = "10 Commandments" -Vincent.

It is good that you understand some of the spirit of Sabbath observance, partially there is the eschatological references of a future rest. There is much more to be gleaned in addition to an eternal Sabbath rest promised for the children of God. Perhaps it was not your intention but you seem to be presumptuous in your describing in your own words what Paul is both saying and not saying. Obedience and disobedience to the spoken word of God is what he was referring to in this passage:

The Holy Bible, New King James Version-4For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; 5and again in this place: “They shall not enter My rest.” 6Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, 7again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.” 8For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. 9There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. 10For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. 11Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.

At the time this letter was written, what we call the Old Testament was the only scripture available for Paul to draw upon for his teaching:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The 613 "commandments" of the Tanakh are not necessarily God's words. Most of the Tanakh coincides with what is written in the Scriptures, but many of these writings take great care to gaurd against breaking the true ordinances and statutes, to extreme. These are mens' commandments which He warned us about. The Ten Commandments encompass every other ordinance that is written in the Pentateuch. Every ordinance is applicable, and some have been superceded by a better Way, but the 10 will always be.

There are 9 of those 10 that almost everyone can agree on, but the fourth is always an obstacle for the disobedient. Yet, when we become obedient, the weight of this world, and our sins, and every worry, or frustration, or confusion are lifted from our shoulders and we begin to understand what His rest is all about!

If what you, Vincent, and the majority of this world believe the Commandments referred to in the new Testament concern, are correct then so be it. If some of us believe the Commmandments are about what is written throughout His Word, then it may be we are trying to be obedient for nothing. Yet I would rather be obedient for nothing, than disobedient and miss out on the invitation to enter into His eternal Sabbath rest.

There are so many scriptures to which I could refer, that support my belief, but I know that until the veil is lifted from ones eyes, it is a worthless effort. If you would like to hear and have ears that hear, let me know. I enjoy discussing the Scriptures with those that are of a like mind, more than any other endeavor I can imagine. One day everyone will be given the opportunity to understand, because He promised that everyone will be called to judgement, and be given the opportunity to repent and be covered in His name! For most salvation does not occur in this lifetime.

The bottom line is essentially Romans 14:5, where Paul basically leaves matters such as this up to individual conscience. Paul never formally "bans" Sabbathkeeping, he merely states it is unecessary in the new grace we are given from God. Additionally don't misinterpret my resistence as true believer syndrome, I've merely had this discussion a thousand times with various scholars, some Sabbatarians, some not, and so my answers may seem a bit brief. Anyway it seems your patience for this discussion has run dry so I won't pres you any further. VincentValentine 13:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Your resistance is welcome! What would be edifying is an open-minded discussion of the arguments for both sides of the issue. Acknowledgement, or disagreement with each point would open the discussion. It seems that you have calmed down, and might be agreeable to acknowledgement, and or discussion of our differences.

For example, I have tried to acknowledge your points and give you my views without simply saying you are wrong. The academic way to discuss things is to show what the source says about an issue or give other evidence to support your views. As attempted before, lets take a look at Romans 14:5 in context to see what Paul is discussing.

"1Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand." "5One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks."

Romans 15:4 may merely be referring to the day of worship, but if we examine the entire passage, there is evidence that he is speaking of eating certain foods and/or fasting. In fact the entire chapter is about eating and drinking, and there is only reference to a day regarded differently in one verse inserted in the middle of this discussion of food and drink. For some the discussion concerns the day one regards as one to abstain from certain foods or drink, and another who feels it to be good to eat or drink whatever God has provided. It could be the Sabbath or the Lord's Day, or there has even been discussion of the Pharisees requiring fasting once or twice every week.

In any case for Sabbatarians, if Paul was granting license to stop observing the fourth Commandment, it would have required a more complete discussion of the day, and would have nothing to do with food or drink.

There are other verses in Romans that show Paul was not giving license to break the Law; he was showing us that grace was freeing us from the death penalty that we all have incurred by our transgression of the Commandments. It takes him eight chapters to discuss the Law, our position in relation to the Law, and the consequences of our continuance in transgression of the Commandments and he names some of the Ten. Romans 3:31 is the defining statement regarding any thought of abrogating the Law.

Kevin--67.41.2.238 17:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

What is true believer syndrome? I think my guess would be close but it would help to have your definition.

---

I am willing if you can be open minded. Kevin--67.41.2.238 01:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

New Covenant ratification section

LORD OF THE SABBATH Yeshua is the center of Christianity, if He observed the Sabbath then Christians should observe the Sabbath.

If, post-Resurrection, He did, then I agree. 69.201.117.204 01:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While some require that Sabbath keeping be further supported by Christ Himself subsequent His death, a line of reasoning to the contrary follows. In Exodus 24:4-8, the giving of the first covenant is complete and ratification of that convenant occurs with the shedding of blood and sprinkling on the people. This is reiterated in Hebrews 9:18-19. In Galatians 3:15-17, there is evidence that a covenant, once established, is not to be changed; thus the conditions of that covenant must precede ratification. In Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, and Luke 22:20 Christ maintains His blood is to be spilled for the new covenant defined in Jeremiah 31:31-33. Up to His death, the only changes in worship established are the Lord's supper, Matthew 26:17-30, and the rending of the temple curtain, Matthew 27:51, which symbolized the end of the forward looking, earthly sanctuary system as predicted in Daniel 9:27. If Christ were to make changes to established covenant worship, which He did, they must be done prior to His death.

If all the changes to the New Covenant had to be made before its ratification, doesn't that mean that all the Jewish festivals remain intact, along with Mosaic law and animal sacrifices? If not, how do you explain this?

Additionally, should all the terms of the covenant precede ratification, and if such, doesn't that mean anything not directly stated is not a term of the contract? (In other words, the Old Covenant becomes obsolete and we start from scratch) Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you've written. If so I apologize.

While I don't have all the verses lined up to make a justified response to this question, I'll just state my position, and when I get the time I'll try to put something better together. I'm in the camp of individuals that does not believe the law is done away with. I realize that Colossians is often quoted as nailing the law to the cross; I don't believe that's how it reads, if you take a look at the NRSV version it goes, "...erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross." In other words, it's the condemnation of the law, but not the law itself; if the law was done away with, does that mean it is ok to murder, lie, steal, take God's name in vain, worship idols, adulterate, worship the sun or moon, covet, or dishonor your parents? So, why do I not keep the festivals? Well, I believe that starting from Christ's death, the festivals are lived out in the lives of Christians as actual events. The Passover was lived out in the person of Christ on the cross, Pentacost (feast of weeks) was lived out in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and spreading of the gospel to the world. I think we are living in the time of the trumpets and the day of atonement, and feast of tabernacles are yet to come. Remember, these are a shadow of what is to come, I think they are landmarks of the time from the death of Christ up to His second coming. The sacrificial system was looking forward to, and predicting the sacrificial work of Christ, and the sanctuary system that originally was acted out on earth, is now going on in our hearts and in Heaven. Hebrews 9:24-28, "For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another-- He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation." So, while they were fulfilled, that doesn't mean they are gone; rather I think they are more important for modern Christians to understand, than they were for the Jews who kept them only in the festival and sanctuary form; they are another form of prophecy.

A question for you this time, you say "The New Covenant "law" is based entirely upon love, and love is considered the fulfillment of the law." That's good, how do you respond to Christ's, and other's, statement, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." John 14:15,21; John 15:10; 1 John 5:2-3; 2 John 1:6.

Your position is very well-stated so it's easily understood. My objection would be that the law is fulfilled and replaced by love. As Jesus said, love your God and love your neighbor. Paul answers the obvious objection to this in Romans 6:1 "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?...Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

So there's our answer. If you're truly saved and walking with God, you won't want to sin anymore, the law will be written on your heart and following the letter of the law would be meaningless. I think the whole thrust of the Pauline epistles seem to have a singular tone -- the idea is that the law is the "schoolmaster" which we are no longer under. (Gal. 3:24) Further our faith will be evidenced by our works if it is genuine. It is in this way the law has been, in a sense, replaced.

I think your view on the festivals is entirely reasonable, though I quesion why the Sabbath has been able to escape a similar fate as one of the "shadows of things to come" (Col. 2:17). I don't feel that its presence in the decalogue is enough, however, since when the 10 Commandments are established it would appear that they were written as part of the Old Covenant and specifically for the Jews. (note particularly the language "throughout your generations" which is used in conjunction with the Sabbath; language which typically applies to ceremonial laws applicable strictly to the Jews).

So -- I feel that "following the Commandments" as Jesus said, is following the covenant of love toward (first and foremost) God and your neighbor as well. You can read the verse as "If you love me, then I want you to try to follow my commandments the best you can because I'm asking you to." OR you can read it like I do, "If you love me, you'll know it because you'll be keeping my commandments." -- Faith evidenced by works.

Now, an obvious question arises -- if you love God, why don't you keep His Sabbath? The answer to this, I find in Heb. 4:8-11 -- there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, albeit an eschatological one of enduring praise and sacrifice in the next life. In this way the Sabbath is a "shadow of things to come" like the ceremonial festivals. Nonetheless, we are not to judge those who keep or don't keep the Sabbath, since devoting an entire day to God may be just what God is asking of a certain person. Who are we to judge another man's servant? (In other words, people's spiritual lives are between them and God, not us.)

So there you have it -- this coupled with the normal crew of Col. 2:14-17 and Gal. 4:7-9 and so on -- that's about all the anti-Sabbatarian logic that ever existed. If you feel you can refute all of it, then it'll be a hell of a lot harder for me to get a haircut. :o)

Love in Christ, Vincent. 69.201.117.204 15:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, a quick bit of research indicates your comments regarding Col. 2:14-17 are correct. The word "handwriting" is cheirographon, which is used in the Bible only this once. The word means a handwriting of a debt, basically an IOU in today's language. So the debt we owe because of our sins was nailed to the cross. Nevertheless, I still contend it stands to reason that we are under a new law, even though our debt from any law (old or new) is gone. Further, even with Colossians out of the way, Eph. 2:14-15 seems to refer to the Commandments in a similar fashion.

To clarify, the way I've always been taught the New and Old Covenants work is it's kinda like going from the US to Canada -- some laws still apply, some don't. You get the idea. This is really what the whole subject hinges on -- either the New Covenant has done away with observance of days (and any day for worship is ok, Sunday, Wednesday or whatever), or it hasn't (in which case, Saturday is not only the Sabbath but is still in effect). Additionally, I don't buy the whole "moved to Sunday" argument, unless one grants the church the ability to move God's holy days to whenever is convenient (COUGH for pagans COUGH). ;) 22:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The idea that there is a new covenant or that you can pick and chose which of the ten commandments you wish to follow is antinomianism and gnosticism. You don't put new wine in old wineskins - it's in the bible, look it up. Marcion was the first to attempt to do that, though some think Paul was the first. In any case, Jesus as recorded was fairly specific, it's called the Sermon on the Mount, look it up. Look up antinomianism in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, most libraries have a copy. Read the Epistle of James, faith without works is death. Check the following references:

Relationship of Christ and Law in Early Christianity:

Orthodox: Christ and Law are equal:

 Law is Perpetual [Exodus 31:16; Leviticus 16:31, 23:3, 24:8; Numbers 15:14-
 16; Isaiah 56:6-7, 66:23; Psalms 19:7; ...]; Lawlessness is AntiChrist
 [Daniel 7:25, ...]; James; Romans 2:12-16, 3:31, 5:13, 6:15, 7:12, 8:7-8,
 9:4-5, 10:4-5 (telos=goal); 1 Thessalonians 4; 2 Thessalonians 2; Mark
 1:44, 7:8-9, 10:18-19, 12:28-31; Matthew (Sermon on the Mount); Luke 5:36
 (against Gnostics), 5:39 (against Marcion); John 12:49-50, 14:15,21,28,31,
 15:10,17, 17:3; Acts (Jerusalem Church of Peter and James); 1 John 2:1-7,
 3:4; Didache 4.13, 6, 8, 11.8, 16; 1 Clement (Pope Clement to Corinth) 1.3,
 2.8, 3.4, 9.3, 10.1, 14.1, 30, 33-35, 40-41, 46, 56.1, 58; 2 Clement 3.4,
 4, 5.6, 6.7-9, 8.4, 9, 17.3-7, 18, 19.3-4, 20.5; Shepherd of Hermas 3.4,
 13.3, 30.4, 32.4, 37, 46, 49-50, 54.5, 56, 59.3, ...; Polycarp of Smyrna to
 Philippi 2.2, 4-5, 6.2, 9, 10.2; Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus 3.12;
 Hegesippus (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 4.22.3); Polycrates to Pope
 Victor (EH 5.24); Irenaeus' Against Heresies 4.12.3; Apostolic Constitu-
 tions 2.36, 6.19, 7.23 (Approved at 692 Orthodox Synod of Trullo); ...

Gnostic: Christ is superior to Law:

Jeremiah 31:31 (out of context); Simon Magus of Samaria (Acts 8:9-24, Petr-
 ine Acts, EH 2.13, ...); Romans 10:4 (if telos=end); Hebrews 8:6-13 (out of
 context; old agreement = Roman appointed "House of Annas" Jerusalem Priest-
 hood); Nicolaus of Antioch (Acts 6:5, Revelation 2:6,15, EH 3.29, ...);
 Menander; Ignatius of Antioch to Magnesia 8-10 (possible forgery); Basili-
 des; Satorninus; Silvanus; Montanus; Valentinus; Heracleon; ...

Marcionite: Christ abrogates Law:

 Hebrews 7:18-19 (out of context); Marcion (inspired by Luke 5:36); Epistle
 of Barnabas 2.5-6, 3.6, 4.8, 9-10, 15, 19-20; Justin's Dialogue 11; Epistle
 to Diognetus 3-4; ...

There is a new covenant, read Heb 8:13. The 10 Commandments are called the Old Covenant in the Bible (Exd. 34:27-28). Plus, Paul comes right out and says we aren't under the law like we used to be (Rom 7:1-7, Eph 2:15). The old wine in new wineskins reference basically proves my point for me -- it's an allusion to the new and old covenants, and Jesus is basically saying the new covenant isn't a "patch" you can apply to an old garment -- it's a whole new species of "garment" altogether. In the Semon on the Mount, Jesus says he is here to fulfill the Law, and (I presume you're talking about the "jot and tittle" reference in Matt. 5:18) the law won't pass away 'until all is fulfilled' -- that is, when he was crucified and resurrected. I know what antinomianism is, and I've read the book of James. James is saying if you have faith, but not works, you don't really have faith at all. I agree (read what I've written above). Antinomianism probably isn't what Paul had in mind when he wrote his Epistles, it seems he had a position roughly akin to moralism. At any rate, in the future, try to be understanding instead of condescending, you'll find it gets you farther. 69.205.117.160 14:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The True Sabbath Found in the Languages of the World

We have added an extensive listing of the various names of the Sabbath given to the seventh day of the week, in different languages of the world. We feel this will increase the knowlege of those that may be in question as to which day is truely God's holy Sabbath -- the seventh day on which He rested and COMMANDS (not a request or suggestion) man to do the same.

-- SwordOurs

http://www.amethystministries.org

How about in table format?--Prem 06:15, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Better question -- does the latest update add any value? It just looks like some rambling nonsense about the research of a crackpot Doctorate. Hardly worthwhile to plop in the middle of the article. It's just the research of some Meade guy. Who cares? Why is his work so groundbreaking that it should be part of this article?

No, it doesn't. Google gives 20 hits for William Meade Jones. The added section is very large but the information it imparts is very small and interupts the otherwise very fine article. This is non-notable original research. Let's remove it, all agreed? func(talk) 05:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd be amenable to that. You're absolutely right about the latest addition. -Vincent 69.205.117.160 13:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protestant sabbatarianism

This is section 3. But what about Orthodox sabbatarianism? Specifically the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (cite listed in section on churches that are sabbatarian). Should this section be renamed something like Christian sabbatarianism? Or if there is a section on Protestant sabbatarianism should there be a section on Orthodox sabbatarianism? As far as I know there is no Roman Catholic sabbatarianism.

That is not correct. Roman Catholics observe Sunday as the Sabbath. Protestant Sabbatarianism (as a term) covers orthodoxy as well as adventist/evangelical/generic denominations. To use the term "Christian Sabbatarianism" would implicitly equate Catholic and Protestant observance, which is incorrect. 69.205.117.160 21:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the same note, I should point out that the Catholic "Sabbath" isn't quite as strict as the Jewish one -- it's more like a day you're "supposed" to relax ... almost a "quasi-Sabbath." Tough to explain, which leads to the question -- should a Catholic Sabbath section be added? Also since no one seems to disagree, I've gone ahead and removed the SwordOurs addition, which we all seemed to agree was rubbish. 69.205.117.160 22:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe section 3 should be renamed Modern Sabbath observance with subsections for Saturday Sabbath and Sunday Sabbath and then the appropriate subsections under that? The idea that Protestant Sabbatarianism covers Orthodox as well makes no sense to me, the Ethiopian Orthodox (the orthodox church that specifically observes a Saturday Sabbath) has no connection to Protestantism. In addition, I believe some Orthodox churches still follow the old Saturday Sabbath and Sunday Lord's Day observances as specified in the Orthodox Apostolic Constitutions.

Actually, that's a pretty good idea about section 3. The whole article does need a sort of a rearrangement. The flow of information isn't very logical as it stands. But it's not awful by any stretch of the imagination. Oh, and you're right, that Orthodox /Protestant comment I made didn't make any sense at all. My bad. What I meant was the section on Saturday vs. Sunday covered the orthodox conventions as well as Protestant/Evangelical/Baptist/Generic/I have a disk/blah blah blah. Re-reading the article I guess Orthodoxy is sort of glossed over, as well as Catholicism. Parts of the article tend to have almost SDA leanings to them, but what do you expect, it's an article on the Sabbath. So for the future, I'd say top of the list is rearrangement, second would be expanding the sections on inidividual group's observance to be both more logically outlined and have more diverse content. What does everyone think? -Vincent.

At first blush I'd have to wonder what the need of reorganization might be. Despite the constant intrusion of Seventh-day arguments into the narrative, it seems to flow rather logically. The Orthodox/Catholic issues are handled early, and remain relatively unchanged to the present, as should be expected. Controversial aspects arise later, especially in recent Protestantism since the 19th century, as the article reports, also as should be expected. It might seem strange to some to put a discussion of the New Testament between early practice and later practice - but actually, even this flows logically, even if not in a linear way, historically speaking. The issues of the keeping of the Sabbath in the New Testament are primarily prominent outside of those churches where the issue had long since been settled. In my opinion, even though no Seventh-day folk have spoken up openly, there is a rather profitable collaboration evident here, over all. That's an remarkable thing, considering that some of them believe that a Sunday-instead-of-Saturday observance is (or will become) the Mark of the Antichrist, and the ultimate expression of the Great Apostasy! Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Stop editing the Matt. 24:20 section of the article. It is correct the way it stands. -Vincent.

(I restored the comment, because I don't know whether Vincent was the one who deleted it. Deleting other peoples' comments is of course a big no-no). Mkmcconn (Talk) 30 June 2005 05:37 (UTC)

I (Vincent) didn't delete your comment. If you'll notice someone deleted your comment and then put a hefty pro-SDA section into the article. **Sigh** ...what were you saying about a profitable collaberation? :-P Anyway I wouldn't delete your comments because, yes, that is a big no-no, and you had a lot of good things to say. I really appreciate your input on this article, I am very pleased with how it stands (I wrote that comment suggesting a re-org a while ago, when the article was in a much poorer state). So, what I'm saying is, thanks! -Vincent 69.205.117.160 1 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

In an article on the topic of the SABBBATH which has as its second heading a discussion of the "basis of first day observance" (what on earth?! **sigh**) a paragraph changed from a discussion of sabbath-breaking and law breaking to a sabbatarian perspective on keeping the day I would think refreshing to a sunday-worshipper.

On a different note: eighth day observance is actually an interesting topic. I've seen pictures of early baptismal fonts that were octagonal. It seems the number eight is connected with the theme of new life/resurrection/baptism. The new life from the flood came from eight people, 1 Peter 3:18-22. New life of the circumcised baby occurred on the eighth day, genesis 17:12. The feast of tabernacles, is eight days long, and ushers in the new Jewish civil year as well as new life back in home. If you believe in the approximate 6000 year age of the earth, you have a millennium away from the earth, Revelation 20:1-15, John 14:3, Zephaniah 1:2-6, Jeremiah 4:23-31, Isaiah 24, in which the earth has a 1000 year sabbath, then is recreated/resurrected in the eighth mellennium, and also the righteous come back to their earth home (like in the feast of tabernacles) to begin a new life here. And then Christ, if you follow the sequence of days, resurrected on the eighth day. It is in fact interesting that the "first day of the week" is meantioned just eight times in the Bible: Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Mark 16:9, Luke 24:1, John 20:1, John 20:19, Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2.

I guess some history is in order. During the lifetime of this article, a group of contributors will get it into good shape and then suddenly someone will drop by and heavily alter the article, inserting SDA (or sometimes LDS) propaganda. They won't post to the discussion and are never seen from or heard from again. It's a tad irritating after a while. At any rate, the Sabbathkeeping part you added isn't as bad as I first thought. I read it again and tried to view it in light of your comments, and it does seem less confrontational than before (when I read it the first time), it just seemed like a lot of information was lost (stuff you referred to as "redundant"). Anyway I'll look at it again later. The eighth-day observance stuff is interesting, but I don't find it more than a mere academic curiosity since vague numerology would hardly be a good way to change a law that was literally written in stone. Still interesting stuff though. -Vincent 69.205.117.160 1 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

Disputed

"the Lord's Day", which in extrabiblical literature always refers to Sunday"

"always" is a strong claim, such a strong claim calls for a reference, otherwise it is merely original research which is prohibited on wikipedia.

What are the references for this claim?

Here are some references that exemplify the point:

  1. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (110 AD), wrote: "If, then, those who walk in the ancient practices attain to newness of hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but fashioning their lives after the Lord's Day on which our life also arose through Him, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ, our only teacher." 
  
  2. The Didache (70-75) instructs believers: "On the Lord's own day, gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks." (Yes, he means Sunday if you read the whole thing and understand the context)

  3. And other later testimonies from Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Pliny the Younger.

A good professional reference for this claim is Archer's "The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" -- look up the section on Revelation 1:10. It talks about the "Lord's Day" comprehensively. You'll find the Greek in Rev. 1:10 (kuriakos hemera) is always used for Sunday. -Vincent

Can you quote a reference work that states ""the Lord's Day", which in extrabiblical literature always refers to Sunday"? If not it is original research which is not allowed. See Wikipedia:No original research. Certainly, the "Lord's Day" *generally* refers to Sunday in extrabiblical lit, but *always* is a strong claim. There is a lot of extrabiblical lit, I find it hard to believe that "Lord's Day" *always* refers to Sunday in all of it. It's a strong claim, a reference is required. Then that reference should be cited in the article, otherwise the claim to "always" is original research and should be droped. 209.78.20.108 18:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I gave you the reference. Actually I gave you two that you'll need to refute before we can move on. Check Archer's and look up the Greek. Now give me a SINGLE reference where it doesn't mean Sunday and I'll glady change it. I think you'll find there is really no debate on this issue. It's like I've said "trees are always made of wood" and you want to change it to "trees are generally made of wood" because I haven't looked at all the trees in the world. -Vincent

No, you misunderstand. It doesn't matter on wikipedia what you or I claim. See Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for original research. Does Archer's "The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" say "the Lord's Day, which in extrabiblical literature always refers to Sunday" or is that just your conclusion? If Archer says it, then Archer should be listed in the article as the reference for the statement, otherwise the statement should be deleted. 64.169.2.77 17:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Archer's says it. I'll put the reference in. -V

But Archer is wrong. He is not a primary source, but simply passing on a tradition from others. The primary source is the Greek language.

The term "Lord's Day" is not in the original Greek. I have a copy of Michael Holmes' Apostolic Fathers, which has those books in the original, classic, Greek. The term day is not in the Didache or Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians. Κυριακήν did not mean “Lord’s Day” in the original, classic, Greek. The Greek term for day, ήμερα, is missing from both documents.

Not only have I studied Greek, I went to Greece in June to discuss this matter. The problem is that that Greek term is now used in Greece for Sunday, but that was not the case in the second century.

In Justin Martyr's Apology, he used a different Greek expression. If you wish, I can post the actual Greek for that.

But the reality is that the term day is not in the original Greek, nor required by the context, for the Didache or Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians. Almost everyone that says it is rely on the mistranslation of three or four 19th century translators--and they sadly based it on modern, NOT classical, Greek. Any 21st century scholar, who is not biased, will tell you that "Lord's way" is an appropriate and better translation for what that term meant in the 2nd century.

Thus, I believe it is inappropriate to say what this page says about always. I am going to submit a relatively minor edit, and if someone determines that it is not appropriate, I would like an explanation. FWIW, the last Greek scholar I consulted about this (July 2005) was Theony Condos, whose Ph.D. is in classic Greek and she is a part of the Greek Orthodox Church (they worship on Sunday). COGwriter.

P.S. The passage in the Didache, in all due respect, is discussing keeping the Christian Passover, in the Lord's own way, not the Lord's day. The early Christians kept the Passover on the same day as the Jews, but not in the same way. It was Jesus who instituted the bread and the wine portion on the night of the Passover as the Gospel accounts show. FWIW, I believe that because most who profess Christianity do not keep the Quartodeciman Passover, they simply reinterpret the Didache in the context of current Sunday eucharist practices. COGwriter.

No offense, but I have a scholarly source...and so far you've said "I studied Greek and I know a guy who said it's wrong." Sorry but I'll need some more to be convinced. Everyone I've spoken with on the matter (admittedly informally) seems to understand that "day" isn't necessary, and that the context makes it obvious its a reference to Sunday. Also plopping Greek in the middle of the article is obstrusive and unecessary. We should figure out a better way to word that section. Your recent edits are more NPOV than before, which is a plus. You especially irritated me with your "professing Christians" remark last time. Very cute, don't think I didn't see what that was. -Vincent.

First, I am sorry that I irritated you with the comment about "professing Christians". It is essentially a habit, which I will try to be more careful about here.

But, I do take exception to the belief that the context makes an obvious reference to Sunday and that it is inappropriate to mention Greek as that is the language that this was all written in.

In all due respect, after I translated those passage, I did consult with multiple scholars (and even went to Greece) to be sure that I made no grammatical error. Κυριακήν only clearly means Sunday if someone hopes it means Sunday. The first specific reference to Κυριακήν and the first day of the week is in the Gospel of Peter--a document long discredited--and it was written circa 140-180 C.E.?

Ignatius wrote around 110. The Didache is anyone's guess (70-140?). Hence when those documents were written Κυριακήν had never one time been a clear reference to Sunday.

The changes I posted yesterday truly are accurate, and in my opinion, a fair way of adding balance to a subject that I have been focusing on for the past six months. I have also written a paper on Revelation 1:10 which is the only place in the New Testament that uses the precise term Κυριακήν. While most scholars claim this is a Sunday reference, the context (and the rest of the New Testament as far as I can tell) does not.

What does all this mean?

It means that it is not clear that Κυριακήν always meant Sunday in pre-150 CE literature and that there are other views that are not necessarily in error.

As far as other scholarly sources, I refered to S. Bacciochi's book, which has the Imprimatur of the Vatican's University, and although I am not a Seventh Day Adventist, I consulted with him on this as well - COGwriter

Fair enough. What I meant was, I cited a scholarly source, I think if you cited yours (the scholars you consulted with would be sufficient) it would add some needed reputability to your claim, that's all. (I'm speaking specifically of the claims about the Didache, Ignatius you cited a reputable source, who I happen to be familiar with no less!). And I didn't mean that having a discussion of Greek was obtrusive, I mean dumping the word in the middle of a sentence was. In other words, one typically puts the Greek in parenthesis, like:

"The Greek word used in the passage (Κυριακήν) means Sunday only if...(etc)"

Or something like that. Putting in the middle of the sentence seems obtrusive to me. Other than that your edits seem ok to me.

-Vincent

I slightly modified the previous edit. I added a reference to the lack of day in the Didache (a book by A.H. Lewis, D.D., LL.D.). I also previously corresponded about the lack of the term day in the Didache with Dr. Bacchiochi. The other scholar I discussed this with is Tom Roberts, Ph.D. (which he got in Greece--he graduated from a seminary there, Hellenica I believe he said). He is the author of a book titled Sacral Kingship which discusses early Church practices and his book goes into what the Greek may mean for us today. Anyway, he feels that since the Didache is discussing sacrifice in that specific section, that it is either:

1) a reference to the Christian Passover or

2) it may simply be a reference to Christians being a living sacrifice, as Paul teaches in Romans 12:1.

He says it could be either since there is no specific day in that section. He also feels that "Lord of Lords" is the most literal translation of this passage, and that not "Lord's Day" is not literal--I re-looked at the Greek and agree with him on the "Lord of Lord's" comment (and changed it appropriately) which he preferred to "Lord's way". COGwriter

Looks good. Thanks for the references. -Vincent.

I did a small re-wording for clarification and added an additional reference. I agree that it seems fine. Thanks for your input as your comments did improve my original edit. COGwriter 16:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

S. Bacchiochi trades on having studied in Rome, but he doesn't have Vatican approval. The guy is an sda apologist. Anyone can study in Rome. I go to a Pontifical University myself. He is quite biased. The translation of "Lord's Day" is indeed accurate.

Jews Being Christians, "Primative" Observance

Honestly, I don't see how something like this can make it onto the Wikipedia. "The first Christians were Jews and Proselytes". Judaism is not a "primitive" form of Christianity, and to be overinsistent on this fact would be anti-Semitic. Catholisism is a religion which built upon some aspects of Judaism combind with the teachings of the New Testament, and from there other forms of Christianity evolved. Judaism however should not be considered an early form of Christianity. The line has been rewritten and paragraph renamed "early observance of the sabbath" as opposed to primative. Evolver of Borg 20:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Jews meaning the race, Proselyte meaning they converted (in this case, to Christianity). Judaism is not, and was never, referred to as a "primitive" Christianity. "Primitive" in the sense it was used meant "early" so replacing it with that didn't change anything. Perhaps it will make the article more accessible. -Vincent.

You have misconstrued the sentence. It does not say that Judaism is a primitive form of Christianity. It says that the first converts to Christianity were Jews. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The sentance wasn't the issue, it was the title. Evolver of Borg 13:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Primitive: Not derived from something else; primary or basic. Look it up in a dictionary. Yes, it can mean "unsophisticated" or "crude" but that was clearly not the intent of the title. And if your problem was only with the title, why did you change the opening sentence as well? -Vincent.

In the first century, and earlier, Proselytes were Greeks who followed Jewish practices. "And Pilate, summoning the Jews, says to them: You know that my wife is a worshipper of God, and prefers to adhere to the Jewish religion along with you. ... Annas and Caiaphas say to Pilate: All the multitude of us cry out that he [Jesus] was born of fornication, and are not believed; these [who disagree] are proselytes, and his disciples. And Pilate, calling Annas and Caiaphas, says to them: What are proselytes? They say to him: They are by birth children of the Greeks, and have now become Jews" -Roberts Translation [1]

More info from History of Christianity: Circumcised and uncircumcised are generally interpreted to mean Jews and Greeks, who were predominate, however it is an oversimplification as 1st century Iudaea Province also had some Jews who no longer circumcised, and some Greeks (called Proselytes or Judaizers) and others such as Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Arabs who did.

...Sigh. Proselyte means "religious convert." You rewrote the sentence to read "The first converts to C. were Jews and Proselytes" in other words, "The first converts to C. were Jews and converts." -V.

In the first centuries, proselutos (proselyte) meant specifically Greeks who followed Jewish customs. See Proselyte. Sentence has been changed to "Jews and Jewish Proselytes", same as History of Christianity and Jewish Christians. From Proselyte: "In Hellenistic and Roman times, some Pharisees were eager proselytizers, and had at least some success throughout the empire. Some Jews are also descended from converts to Judaism outside the Mediterranean world. It is known that some Khazars, Edomites, and Ethiopians, as well as many Arabs, particularly in Yemen before, converted to Judaism in the past; today in the United States, Israel and Europe some people still convert to Judaism. In fact, there is a greater tradition of conversion to Judaism than many people realize. The word "proselyte" originally meant a Greek who had converted to Judaism. As late as the 6th century the Eastern Roman empire (i.e., the Byzantine empire) was issuing decrees against conversion to Judaism, implying that conversion to Judaism was still occurring."

I guess you're right, seeing as we are living in first century Greece and all and hence we should use the English equivalents of Greek words interchangeably with their contemporarily accepted definitions. -V.

Are you just being sarcastic? The section is "Early observance of the Sabbath", thus the context is Iudaea Province and the primary language is Koine Greek.

Yes I realize that. The article is fine the way it is now so there's no need to discuss this further. -V.

---

These latest edits didn't have enough evidential support to warrant the conclusions drawn. I looked into the books and supposed "translation errors" and they are really more a misunderstanding on the part of the one supposing the error. I'd be happy to keep the link in there, except it has nothing to do with the Sabbath and hence does not belong here. Plus some language was inserted such that it blurred the meaning of many sentences needlessly. I'd be happy to discuss any points of dispute here. -Vincent.

Sabbath: An Article on Sabbath Observance, or Arguments Against?

This is supposed to be an article about the Sabbath, and yet more than 50% is about Sunday. It seems that there should be a reference to Sunday as a separate article. Even more if it is too long. What do you think? --Kevin 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It's about the Sabbath in Christianity. Most consider this Sunday (if not abolished.) 50% Saturday discussion is generous. -Vincent.

The majority of the Christian world does observe Sunday worship, agreed. Most do not keep Sunday as a Sabbath. If the the fourth commandment was undeniably abolished, then that would be a legitimate addition. 10% would be generous! A reference to Sunday Sabbatarianism, and arguments for first day and/or eighth day worship will be forwarded. --Kevin 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not right. First, saying most Christians don't keep Sunday as a Sabbath may be true, but it is also true they believe Sunday to be the New Covenant Sabbath. Hence the article spends enough time on both Sunday/Saturday. Second, you should not be making a distinction between "Sunday Sabbatarianism" and "Sabbatarianism" as separate articles (if I'm understanding correctly what you wrote, your wording was rather unclear); those are just your personal prejudices clouding your judgment. The article is fine how it stands, it explores both sides of the argument adequately. There is no need to split it up. -Vincent.

The Catholic Encyclopedia as well as many other Protestant sources reveal that the Sabbath observance has very little and/or nothing to do with Sunday worship. There are some that do see Sunday Sabbatarianism as a replacement for seventh day Sabbatarianism, and that view will be included. This article also includes the arguments for both sides, and only the justifications for change according to the Ante-Nicene Fathers will be referred to those articles, and the subjects that one might be researching. The splitting up of things is a matter of history, and those that are interested can follow up by the references included in the article. --Kevin 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)03:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

And your point is...? All I said that's what most 'believe', not that it made sense. It's patently absurd, I agree. Nonetheless it warrants the space it is given as a result. Also the last part of your post made no sense. -Vincent.

It is good to see that you understand to some extent. My point is that belief has about 10% or less to do with factual information. There are numerous writings extant about belief, but what we should be dealing with in an encyclopedia article are the beliefs dealing with the subject at hand (Sabbatarianism), and the information that deals with that subject. Opposing views when in direct opposition may be considered, but views that are tangentially related (related but in an off the subject manner), should be referred to another article. --Kevin 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

In your opinion. Don't forget this is all subjective -- you shouldn't be so quick to discredit the beliefs of others. And you are misunderstanding me regardless, to be 'Sabbatarian' one needn't specifically consider Sabbath to be Saturday or Sunday, but merely to avoid doing work or certain activities on Sunday constitutes Sabbatarianism to some extent and hence most conservative Christians fit this description. That is why the article's material distribution is not only acceptable but warranted. -Vincent.

Sabbatarian may fit "some" conservative Christians belief about Sunday, but it does not fit what the Bible says about keeping the Sabbath. That is the difference between what some view as acceptable Sunday observance, and what most view as obsolete. The subject is not in question, just the application of the subject; there are some that view Sunday Sabbatarianism as a rational alternative, but over 90% of this worlds Christians view Sabbatarianism as obsolete and cultish. "Most conservative Christians" do not consider Sabbatarianism as a correct label. Where are your facts; if you can document your concerns they will be included. --Kevin 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 04:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

One, stop acting like you own this article, it's very irritating. Two, it's considered quite rude to completely disfigure an article while having an active discussion. Three, I'm off to bed, I'll post more tomorrow. -Vincent.

While attempting to show consideration for your point of view, there seems to be no substantiative effort to reason, or support for your argument. I would welcome open discussion of your points, yet the only answers seem to be unsupported and irritated. Corrective rearrangement and disfigurement are a matter of opinion. I will give reason for my rearrangement as I have previously. If you have legitimate reasoning for your changes, let me know and I will listen. --Kevin 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)06:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC) ----

I've been quite patient with you, and all I said was you were making large edits while in an active discussion, which is not something you do at Wikipedia (see the Wikipedia usage guidelines). Also you have given no factual support for your beliefs and yet you still hold to them and mutilate the existing article to fit what you see as right. Also you said 90% of Christians find Sabbatarianism cultish. I have not found a reference to this statistic, please provide one or else your argument is based on original research, which is not allowed at Wikipedia (see Wikipedia: No Original Research). Now let's look up the American Heritage dictionary article on the Sabbath to find:

  1. The seventh day of the week, Saturday, observed as the day of rest and worship by the Jews and some Christian sects.
  2. The first day of the week, Sunday, observed as the day of rest and worship by most Christians.

From the Encyclopaedia Brittanica article on the Sabbath:

 "Day of the week set aside for worship and observance of religious duties in Judaism and Christianity.

 "The Jewish Sabbath begins at sunset on Friday and lasts until sunset 
 the next day, during which time no ordinary work or act of
 labor is performed. For most Christian denominations, the Sabbath 
 is on Sunday; prescribed conduct varies considerably, but   
 attendance at worship services is a feature common to all. 
 In Islam, Friday is the day of worship."

Do you see a trend?

-Vincent.

Yes Vincent, we often do casually use terms that are not really descriptive of the subject. Dictionaries incorporate the changing usage with regard for the original intent of the word. The first definition is the best for understanding the origins of any word. The trend is to water down the meaning. Thank you for including the first usage in your quote!

Webster's Dictionary has a very good understanding of someone who is called a Sabbatarian:

   "1. of the Sabbath and its observance 2. of the doctrines of the Sabbatarians
    1. a person, esp. a Christian who observes the Sabbath (sense 1) 
    2.a Christian who favors  strict observance of Sunday as the Sabbath"

Therefore, although the term, Sabbath, has become associated with activities that have very little to with the original commandment, it should be secondary to the origins of the word. That is what I am doing to improve the article. My purpose was not to delete any of the well written and studied explanations, but to put them in their proper order. Look at any encyclopedia or dictionary and you will find the proper order of understanding.

As for your desire to see support of my statement that 90% of the Christian world finds Sabbatarianism to be obsolete and/or cultish, although I believe this to be a conservative estimate here is some substantiation of my statement. First, look at the definition of Sabbatarian one more time.

 "1. of the Sabbath and its observance 2. of the doctrines of the Sabbatarians
    1. a person, esp. a Christian who observes the Sabbath (sense 1) 
    2.a Christian who favors  strict observance of Sunday as the Sabbath"

I think more than 90% of the world would agree that less than 10% of Christians fit this definition. I have not observed any congregation that observes Sunday as a strict observance. Second, lets look at the definition of a cult. Webster's describes it in this manner:

   "1. A system of religious worship or ritual 2. a) devoted attachment for, a person, principle, etc. when regarded as a fad b) the object of such devotion 3. a group of followers; sect"

I would estimate that by these definitions 99.9% would agree that Sabbatarianism is cultish (there are always the beligerant who will not agree to anything). Yet, if you would like numbers, according to the World Christian Database, of the 2,135,784,198 enrolled Christian members, the largest groups claiming seventh day Sabbath worship are the SDA, and SBD groups. The approximate total is well under 10% and appears to be less than 1%. Sunday Sabbatarians seem to be limited to the Lord's Day Alliance, and the Lord's Day Observance Society. There numbers appear to be far less than 1% if the seventh day observers.

All of this proof is not really meaningful, but I wanted to entertain your challenge. I think the main point is clear. Strict Sunday Sabbatarians are placed secondary to seventh day Sabbatarians in any other reputable source. Casual Sunday worshippers who use the term loosely are normally relegated to a obligatory mention and/or referred to in another article. If this is to be a reputable source, we should continue with the current convention of order. Correct? Kevin--67.41.2.238 02:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

You quoted a dictionary, I quoted a dictionary and the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. I asked for you to substantiate your claim, you provided original research (see Wikipedia: No Original Research). Thus far, your claim is that Sunday Sabbatarians should be secondary because they represent a minority. I've provided a source that suggests otherwise (actually two sources). You have provided a dictionary reference, and so did I. So far I don't see how you've sufficiently evidenced your claim, besides providing a dictionary reference. The numbers you provided do not incorporate all groups which fall under the "Sabbatarian" umbrella. Read the article for more information on that. VincentValentine 03:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Even your sources disagree with you Vincent. It becomes apparent that this Sabbath keeping article is being kept hostage by someone who does not keep it! The validity of your argument is without reason or concern for the truth. I suppose that is what happens in a publicly edited forum. It is dissapointing that we cannot discuss things rationally, Vincent. Your anger and frustration are getting in the way of your mind.

Actually I'm not mad at all, nor am I "holding hostage" the article, I'm supporting reason and truth, something Wikipedia is primarily about. The rules of Wikipedia are No Original Research (see Wikipedia:No original research) which is what you provided to evidence your claim that Sabbatarians are a minority in conservative Christianity. I produced a reputable source claiming otherwise. You provided original research, which is not acceptable for Wikipedia. If you can produce a relaible source claiming otherwise then we can talk. The ordering of entries in a dictionary article is not necessarily applicable to the matter at hand, and should certainly not be given more weight than the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, which gave a much more in-depth discourse of the subject. VincentValentine 13:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a discussion page, Vincent. Evidence cited is the example of other types of reference materials that use a proper order in relation to relevance. Either you, or someone else has arranged the article in a manner of favoring modern Sunday worship, which is secondary even in the sources you have cited. Once again, primary description of the Sabbath (NPOV) is the seventh day from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. There are also some POV in some of the arguements that need to be discussed. Kevin--67.41.2.238 18:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This article concerns the Sabbath in Christianity. Most Christian denominations consider this Sunday (see my references). The flow of the article is quite logical and does not violate any NPOV guidelines as you suggest. The article flow is:

1. Overview of the Sabbath

2. History of the Sabbath

3. Why Christians Don't Meet on Saturday Anymore (this is reasonable given the previous two sections

4. Sunday vs. Saturday Debate (a logical place for this)

5. Arguments For/Against Sabbatarianism

None of this is illogical or represents any particular point of view. The concept of Sabbath and the related nuances and debates are all represented in an order befitting the subject at hand. Feel free to bring up any NPOV issues you see in the article though. VincentValentine 20:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The flow that you suggest might be better than the one presently shown in the article. It actually reads:

1 Overview of The Sabbath

2 Early Observance of the Sabbath

1 Basis of First Day Observance

2 Sunday vs Saturday

3 Arguments Used Against Sabbath Observance

4 Pro-Sabbatarian Points

1 Protestant Sabbatarianism

2 Seventh-day Sabbatarianism

6 Biblical References to the Sabbath Day

7 References

8 External links

9 Churches Keeping the Seventh-Day Sabbath

10 Churches Keeping a Sunday Sabbath

The section titled "Early observance of the Sabbath" begins with the primary definition of the Sabbath, but the two following points do not flow correctly from that heading. They both are articles that argue for the early favorance of Lord's Day observance over Sabbath observance. These articles do not reference any sources that cite first and/or eighth day observance and refer to them as Sabbath observance. In fact the Ante-Nicene Fathers quoted made explicit the difference between Sabbath observance, and Lord's Day observance. The purpose was to distinguish the new Roman Christianity from the primitive Apostolic Judaic Christianity. Therefore the two subpoints are more logically placed under the third title, "Arguments Used Against Sabbath Observance".

The fourth section, "Pro-Sabbatarian Points" would be more appropriately be titled, "Arguments for Sabbath Observance" and follow the section on "Early Observance of the Sabbath". Sabbath observance is what is being referred to primarily in this article entitled, "Sabbath"; not arguments against Sabbath observance. Seventh day Sabbatarianism is in agreement with the primary description of the Sabbath. Protestant Sabbatarianism is secondary and did not follow in the historical timeline until well after the Reformation.

The flow therefore should be as follows:

Contents

1 Overview of The Sabbath

2 Early Observance of the Sabbath

3 Basis of Sabbath Observance

1 Seventh-day Sabbatarianism

2 Protestant Sabbatarianism

3 Arguments Used Against Sabbath Observance

1 Basis of First Day Observance

2 Sunday vs Saturday

6 Biblical References to the Sabbath Day

7 References

8 External links

9 Churches Keeping the Seventh-Day Sabbath

10 Churches Keeping a Sunday Sabbath

Furthermore, the article is already longer than Wikipedia suggests. A Sabbath article, should primarily be about Sabbath observance, and not be over 50% about early arguments against Sabbath observance. I would suggest that these arguments be referred to another article, such as the Sunday Christian article, or an historical timeline of changes in Christianity.

Modern Christians that refer to Sunday worship as Sabbath observance are tertiary both in relevance to the original description of the Sabbath and the historical description of "Lord's Day" observance. This should be a minor inclusion or a reference as well.

Some of the wording is still POV as well, and some minor changes would improve the article. More on this in the future.

--Kevin 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, "Arguments for Sabbath Observance" is better than "Pro-Sabbatarian Points." I never liked the way that was worded either (I didn't write that section, obviously). I see your points above, but I think you're looking at this article as though Saturday Sabbatarianism is the one and only way. The only real place I think that change is warranted would be to cut down a bit of the Basis of First-day Observance section. Lots of users plopped their own two cents in that section and eventually it became a tad bloated as you see now. Regardless, you don't seem to be understanding the whole "Sabbath in Christianity" concept; think less of the Sabbath as Friday to Saturday and more as the generic Christian day of worship. This article explores just that.

But your new layout does seem reasonable, if you want you can rearrange it to meet that new design as it does seem to flow more logically that way. Before making any significant changes to the content (as opposed to layout) of the article I would ask you to discuss the edits here first, however. Again feel free to bring up any POV issues you see. VincentValentine 23:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Vincent. I do intend to include the other points of view. It just seems important to place things in their proper order, and I realize that when articles are added, it sometimes puts things out of sequence. Actually the articles on the basis for first day observance, and Sunday vs. Saturday, are very well written and balanced. It is mainly the headings and placement that seem incongruous. It makes me glad that we can agree!--Kevin 04:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Way. Too. Big

The first paragraph of Sabbath#Points Used Against Sabbath Observance is way too big. 70.218.188.189 03:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Lord of the Sabbath? Puh-leez

I checked out this website to see Jesus' otherwise poor counterarguments to the Sages who questioned his apostles' activities:

http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/sabbathViolationQuestion.htm

Then something hit my head with regards to tragic ignorance of the Scriptures. In Exodus 16, we learn that the destitute Israelites gathered a double portion on Fridays - as G-d commanded. Why? Because G-d would not send down manna and quail on Shabbat, to the consternation of a few rebellious idiots.

If Jesus and his disciples were truly observant Jews, they should have known this and gathered double their normal scraps of food on Friday - instead of grinding on Shabbat.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/sinless.html

-- Darth Sidious, 19:46 PST, Feb 13/06

First, Jesus never picked grain, only his disciples did. Second, Jesus never violated the OT law, only the niggling Pharisaic view that had turned Sabbath from a day of rest into a huge, nonsensical burden. In this Jesus was asserting his authority over the interpretation of OT law by the Pharisees, which really, 'really' pissed them off.

Now it's true harvesting is not allowed (Exd 16:29) on Sabbath and this applies to harvest season (Exd 34:21). The disciples weren't harvesting though, as this is not technically the OT definition of 'work', rather they were simply hungry and had no food. After all they had been busy doing God's work (keep this in mind, it ties in with a later point). Read the examples Jesus gives when the Pharisees question him. I think it will make more sense to you then.

Keep in mind Jesus' whole point here:

"If you had known what these words mean, `I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath"

His point is He is more worried about love towards mankind than keeping worship rituals. Vincent Valentine 13:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

My rebuttal to Vincent:

Consider the Wikipedia article on the Exodus-31 juxtaposition of building the tabernacle and keeping Shabbat (tabernacle instructions first, followed by Shabbat reminders). The 39 categories of prohibited activity are derived from this juxtaposition, and not some mumbo-jumbo pronouncement out of the blue.

When Jesus coughed up that poor excuse of being "Lord of the Sabbath," you gotta compare the creation story and the two versions of the "Fourth Commandment." G-d ceased work on Shabbat, and the direct-from-G-d version of the "Fourth Commandment" alluded not to the liberation from slavery (as Moshe's version did), but to the creation story.

Thus, while Shabbat was indeed made for man, it is also greater, for it was made holy, and not just "very good" (unlike man).

-- Darth Sidious, 16:50 PST, Feb 14/06

I am aware of where the prohibitions come from. They are 'interpretations'. They are making assumptions about God's intentions. Hence they are 'interpretations'.

And you're missing the point, the Sabbath is holy but made was not made only to keep it. Even Jews are allowed to dodge Shabbat laws when life is at stake. How much more is at stake when someone's soul is going to perish? You can see the strain of reasoning here.

If you wish to continue debating (and are not just trolling, as I am beginning to suspect you are) please change you tone to something less brimming with presumptuous haughtiness. Vincent Valentine 01:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal:

They're not interpretations - they're facts. To prove that the prohibitions have the spiritual intent that you make them out to not have:

http://www.ou.org/chagim/shabbat/thirtynine.htm

Oh yeah, the disciples committed the act of grinding while reaping the corn because one would normally turn a crank and pull out the corn in a rotating manner (the easiest way to manually reap corn).

When violating Shabbat laws strictly to save a life, one is actually sanctifying Shabbat. As for the disciples' proselytization efforts, they are like the missionary and the rebels mentioned in Deuteronomy 11 and 17, respectively: the one who is to be put to death for preaching in favour of adding and subtracting from the commandments given, and the ones who are to be put to death for rebelling against the interpretations of the Law.

• Since the priests lost their prominence, this applied to interpretations of the Sanhedrin - and since it too is gone, this now applies to rabbinic interpretations (such as those found in the Mishnah, Tosefta, Gemara, and later texts). *

No, they're interpretations. The text doesn't say that, you infer that information from the text.

No, grinding is, as you said, reaping with a crank for commercial purposes. The disciples were just hungry so they got some grain. In other words, "grinding" is NOT what the disciples were doing.

And lastly, you're wrong, because you presuppose Jesus as non-divine. Vincent Valentine 01:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal:

Was grinding for the sake of building the Tabernacle a commercial act as you said? No, therefore grinding was what the disciples did. As for your last statement, need I refer you to the many passages that state the unity of G-d, while at the same time referring you to the full contexts of your "prophecies" that ultimately de-bunk them?

We can start at that "notorious" Immanuel prophecy, if you like.

This is not a debate forum. If you have something relevant to discuss ( ie, relating to the article) please say so otherwise I think we're done here. Vincent Valentine 02:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I heard somewhere that the Pharisees didn't like the picking of grain because they thought it might lead to sowing or something. What's the difference between picking fruit off a plant and picking up a fruit from the table? What about eating seeds or food and pooping? Is pooping fertilizing therefore work? --jeolmeun 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Points Used Against Points Used Against Sabbath Observance?

In this article, are there any Points Used Against Points Used Against Sabbath Observance? If not would you mind a section for Points Used Against Points Used Against Sabbath Observance? --jeolmeun 22:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is not to become a debate or to make sure that one side "gets the last word." What you're suggesting is overkill. If you have specific points to add, list them and then we can discuss integrating them with the existing article, but we don't need a whole new section on Sabbatarian rebuttals to rebuttals (and so forth). Vincent Valentine 23:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The section titled "New Testament Basis for Christian Sabbatarianism" was originally part of the same section now known as "Points Used Against Sabbath Observance?" And the two sections are meant loosely to approach the Biblical positions/interpretations on the Sabbath in the for and against. To achieve NPOV, in this case, it appears best to present opposite views. If you would like to contribute to a position pro Sabbath, using Biblical information and appropriate (esp. readily available) sources feel free to contribute to the former section meantioned. I myself have been hoping to rewrite that section anyway as the middle paragraph has become practically unintelligible (like somebody's college paper or part of a dissertation on the book of Hebrews got thrown in), anyway. So, no, a section on Points Used Against Points is not necessary. Wintermancer 23:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Vincent, Wintermancer. Can anyone suggest a resource with everything from both sides on the issue of the Sabbath? I want to read about every point against every point to the end. --jeolmeun 23:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wintermancer, I agree -- that section has repeatedly come under fire from various groups and so it shows a bit of damage as a result. Kinda like craters in a battlefield. And you're pretty much right about the college paper thing, I think that was COGwriter. I mentioned to him that it was obtrusive but he kept reverting my edits and accusing me of vandalism and POV forcing.

Jeolmeun -- there aren't a lot of good resources because everyone is so incredibly polar on the issue. Basically the reason for this is that most groups consider the sabbath 'question' long since settled and thus feel no need to rehash it over and over. Many new splinter sects have based entire faiths on Sabbatarianism and thus they ravenously defend it as binding on Christians today. My only suggestion is to read all sides and read carefully -- look closely for logical flaws and faulty arguments. If you ever get stuck post to my talk page, I have studied the issue quite extensively. Vincent Valentine 23:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)