Talk:Sabbath in Christianity/Archive 3

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


 * I don't know exactly what that Rursus guy could have meant, but the meaning must have been something like warning from Template:Religious text primary: the topic requires secondary sources analysing the bible. Primary sources aren't valid for statements of bible interpretation. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 18:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Quotation styles
And now for something completely different! In section Early church practice these horrificutingly blobby quotes (Template:cquote) are used but in section Early church

while in section Edict of Constantine
 * a crudely simple indentation with leading ':' is used

and in section New Testament arguments an oldfashioned is used Which give the text a weird appearance. Since it will take years before anyone reacting, if I would be bold enough to ask what citation style would be preferrable, and using WP:MoS quotations as an argument, I hereby boldly select the template Template:Quote as my template of choice, and use that as a "standard" replacement for all other quotation styles. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 18:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

New Sabbath spinout
Having considered the state of Sabbath articles closely, I think there is still one topic to create, namely Biblical Sabbath. Currently this phrase redirects to the summary article "Sabbath" even though that article includes many other Sabbath adaptations that are not Biblical. A new article would compile the Biblical references to Sabbath in a thorough, orderly way, and give all the main viewpoints and interpretations of each passage (compare creation according to Genesis, figs in the Bible, wells in the Bible, etc.). None of the current articles do either of these, because they are quite rightly focused on Sabbath in this or that mainstream viewpoint. However, the notion of "Sabbath as the Bible describes it, without making judgments in favor of any viewpoint" is a topic frequently discussed but lacking. No need to warn me about POV risks, because I am already on duty policing those. It is just my observation that, very often, a WP editor wants to refer just to that notion, "Biblical Sabbath with essentially no POV", and has no recourse to do so (as noted, the summary "Sabbath" article is not Biblically limited, and the Biblically based articles give only one POV each). Particularly, there are many links to "Sabbath" that should very clearly, in context, be directed to Biblical Sabbath, and permitting the weaker link is suboptimal and easily remediable. Also, many of the IP contributors to "Sabbath" would do better to have such a separate article; and some of the debates about where to put this or that apologetic (if at all) would be more readily solved if there were a central article. I will be happy to move this forward, but I wanted to get a couple more opinions first, to confirm my belief that this is a good division of topics. Cross-posted to Shabbat, Sabbath in Christianity, and Sabbath in seventh-day churches. JJB 05:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Creation of an article "Biblical Sabbath" did not solve the problem as you hoped, in my opinion. It just created the same problem found here, in a different context and format.  It's a handsomer page, and cleaner (because it is newer) but in reading that article, I discover that the parameters of that page ("Sabbath as the Bible describes it, without making judgments in favor of any viewpoint") turns out not to be very different from what this page attempted to do.  &mdash; Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Article size
Streamlining to Christian Sabbath and Sunday observance and Christian Sabbath theology: I've been watching this article grow over time and have reached the conclusion that it is now far too big. I think that it will make a lot of sense to streamline most of the content to 2 separate articles -- one dealing with theology of the Sabbath and one dealing with Sabbath/Sunday observance. I will replace Sabbath in Christianity as a disambiguation page. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * After several hours of work, I think this article is considerably better shape than before. There's a lot more to do another time... Tonicthebrown (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree strongly

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

I would add, having now skimmed the split, that one reason for the length is, as I suspected, policy obliviousness. There is ONE FULL SCREEN of footnotes in "theology" listing dozens of books simply to define "non-Sabbatarian"! But please discuss below. JJB 16:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC) "Merge" proposal added. JJB 20:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, JJB. I took the action that I did (in line with WP:BRD -- way back in April, i.e. 5 months ago during which time there has been no objection) because quite honestly the article as it originally stood was atrocious. It's size was not the only issue. Many parts of it were verbose, poorly written, disorganised and full of WP:OR. There was also a lot of WP:UNDUE; it appeared to me that the article had attracted numerous seventh-day Sabbatarians who were using it as a stomping ground for POV-pushing.
 * Part of the reasoning behind the split was that the history of Sabbath/Sunday observance is objective and not open to dispute. (i.e. there is broad shcolarly consensus now that Sunday was universally observed as a day of worship from the first century; the traditionalist SDA opinion that the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday in the 4th century is a WP:FRINGE view). Whereas the theology of Sabbath observance is highly contentious, with people arguing aggresively from at least 3 different perspectives (Saturday sabbath, sunday sabbath, no sabbath).
 * Another part of the reasoning is that a discussion of the history of Sunday worship under a "Sabbath" article is inaccurate, because -- as the scholars have noted -- Sunday worship was not sabbatarian in nature in the primitive and early church; Sunday worship only became associated with sabbatarian theology in the middle ages. And following the Protestant reformation this link has again been broken. The interweaving of discussion about Sabbath observance and Sunday worship contributes to the ongoing muddled confusion on these topics.
 * but "Christian Sabbath" contained a proper short summary of "seventh-day Sabbath" like any other minority report within a majority article" --- My reply to this is that seventh-day Sabbath was not a minority report in the original article. It took up pretty much the same amount of space as the discussion about Sunday worship and Sunday sabbatarianism.
 * the long title can be construed as making 7th-day Sabbath an equal, not minority, report, and thus as emboldening its proponents toward article war --- My reply to this is that, in the 5 months since my revisions in April, 7th day Sabbatarians have in fact backed off. There has been no article warring, like there was previously. This confirms my suspicion that if the objective facts of history are kept separate from the subjective theology, things turn out better.
 * JJB, I am willing to consider and work together with you on a merge proposal but I will only support a merge which keeps the historical material as it is largely intact. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

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

My pleasure

 * My pleasure, JJB. I think that moving the bulk of material pertaining to Sunday traditions to Lord's Day might be a good way forward. So we'd be looking at something like this?


 * Sabbath in Christianity article:
 * 1 Biblical traditions (with emphasis on New Testament texts INCLUDING the non-sabbatarian texts)
 * 2 Early Church (judaizing sabbatarian practice and its criticism by Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, Tertullian, Council of Laodicea)
 * 3 Middle Ages (Augustine spiritualising the commandment; shift to Lord's Day sabbatarianism)
 * 4 Post reformation & modern era
 * 4.1 Roman Catholicism
 * 4.2 Eastern Orthodoxy
 * 4.3 Puritan 1st day sabbatarianism (including transfer theology)
 * 4.4 Revival of 7th day sabbatarianism (history: Traske and Brabourne, 7th day baptists, SDAs, Church of God; theology: summarised from main article Sabbath in Seventh-day Churches)
 * 4.5 Non-sabbatarianism
 * 4.6 Other groups and practices - in brief to avoid WP:UNDUE (eg. Latter day saints)


 * Lord's Day article:
 * 1 Biblical traditions
 * 2 Early Church
 * 2.1 Patristic writings
 * 2.2 Origins of Sunday worship (3 theories: Carson/Bauckham vs. Beckwith/Stott/Jewett vs. Bacchiochi)
 * 3 From 4th century to today
 * 3.1 Constantine
 * 3.2 Middle Ages
 * 3.3 Protestantism (non-sabbtarian vs. sabbatarian)
 * 3.4 Modern Roman Catholicism
 * 3.5 Eastern Christianity
 * 3.6 Other groups


 * What do you think? Tonicthebrown (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good start. Lord's Day outline is usable though I'd put Constantine at 2.3. And this article needs to contain Lord's Day insofar as it equals Sabbath in some POVs, and that seems accomplished. I'm still concerned about the outline being as balanced as possible. The narrative I receive from yours on first glance is this: Sabbath starts with deemphasis on OT and moves to criticism (always edit that word out) of Sabbath as Judaizing; it becomes spiritualized by Augustine as the norm, without mention of medieval seventh-day indications; and from there it branches out into several first-day versions, plus a "new" seventh and a non. But the seventh-day version did not branch out as from a monolith or something dead (revival), it was regarded as part of the reform of the covenant that overarched all along. Granted, the evidence of continuity and the evidence of local novelty need to be both weighed.
 * Instead, this is very very similar to a-, post-, and pre-mill positions; all 3 claim continuous descent despite their vicissitudes, and that should be reflected here too. No position should be presented as unopposed at any juncture unless we have secondary-source testimonies of that, and then we should source that. Thus after the Biblical-text base I would still press for a long 1st-day section AS ONE POV, and then summary sections on 7th-day, 2-day, other-day and no-day. (Later on I will also be sourcing indications that some "non-Sabbatarians" permit the other types of observance, i.e., are not technically in opposition, FYI.) But we'll work that out; for now I'd just note that starting with insufficient OT and with Judaizing (5 critics!) does not account for the wide POV that Christianity is continuous with the faith of the OT writers, and for the local POV that seventh-day was the conservative tradition. JJB 16:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As a compromise between org by viewpoint and org by chronology, I'd be willing to use an ambiguous organization by changing the last few points from second-level to first-level: 7th-day from 4.4 to 5, non-Sab from 4.5 to 6, and "other" from 4.6 to 7. "Other", however, would mean the other Christian definitions of "Sabbath" that are NOT seventh, first/Lord's, or spiritual/millennial (I listed them below). LDS would remain in 4, modern era, because 2-4 would be recognized as focusing on (eras of) the 1st-day view (defined as 1st-day rest AND/OR Lord's-day worship), and 5 and 6 focusing on the other minority views. This seems a good enough compromise to run toward. JJB 21:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC) And those giant footnotes for non-Sabbatarianism are enough to make me want to create the article just to have someplace to stow them! JJB 21:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, we have to be careful to present the diversity of viewpoints at every point in history. I do think that the OT teaching needs to be canvassed but given that this is an article about Sabbath in Christianity there will appropriately be more emphasis on the NT material. So it should be noted that the Sabbath was observed by the early Jewish Christians, that the apostle Paul attended the synagogue on Sabbath, etc; while there is no evidence in the NT that Gentiles were expected to keep the Sabbath, indeed, the decree of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) and texts such as Col 2:16 and Rom 14:5 point to non-observance for Gentiles.


 * Concerning the early church (post NT through to Constantine) it seems quite clear that Saturday observance was widely practised in some areas but that the church authorities disapproved of this as a judaizing tendency, to which the patristic quotations and the Council of Laodicea testify. As for Sunday sabbatarianism it may certainly be argued by some that this was practised in the early church but I am not aware of any actual historical evidence of this.


 * Concerning the mediaeval church it appears to me that there was the Augustinian tradition of spiritualising the Sabbath and the Aquinas tradition of applying it to the Lord's day, with the latter becoming more weighty with time. Similarly in the post-Reformation era there was Luther and Calvin on the one hand (spiritualise), and Lord's Day sabbatarianism on the other. 7th day sabbatarianism only becomes notable in the 17th century onwards; the evidence of a strong 7th day sabbatarian tradition linking the early church to the 17th century is extremely scant, if not non-existent. Even SDA writers teach that the 7th day Sabbath was "rediscovered" after the reformation, having been replaced with 1st day sabbath by Rome. SDAs do not typically rely on the continuity argument.


 * So in sum, I think that in NT times there were 2 POVs (sabbath observance for Jewish Christians, freedom/spiritualised sabbath for Gentiles); early church had 2 or 3 POVs (7th day sabbath, spiritualised sabbath, [very tenuous] 1st day sabbath); mediaeval church had 2 POVs (spiritualised sabbath, 1st day sabbath); post-reformation had 3 POVs (spiritualised sabbath, 1st day sabbath, revivied 7th day sabbath). Your thoughts? Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In general yes with unimportant quibbles; the details would wind up through sourcing. The first step is clear definitions, which I have proposed at Biblical Sabbath (and Christian Sabbath theology, which is technically deprecated). Mine may be a bit broader than you are using, because the question is not (only) "when do you rest", but "what is the focus of your Sabbath". So I boil them down to one focus each, "one should rest on seventh day", "one should worship communally on first day", and "one is not required to keep a day". These are nonparallel definitions on purpose to acknowledge overlapping views: e.g., not all first-day people believe in rest on Sunday, not all seventh-day people believe in requiring others to follow suit, not all non-Sabbatarians forbid others to keep days. Particularly, in cases where the early-church "spiritualised sabbath" is a definitional transfer to first-day worship without comment on first-day rest, the POV would not be categorized under "Sabbath" if rest were the only consideration. See also my compromise second-draft outline. JJB 03:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sabbath in Christianity (rejoining two articles split without discussion):
 * Lead (rewritten as SUMMARY of below)
 * 1 Biblical traditions (SUMMARY of Biblical Sabbath, which includes a 3-framework section; Biblical theology T1)
 * 2 Early church (Laodicea fm O1.1; bulk of shorter O1.2-3; Constantine O2.1; 1st-day theology fm T3 as appropriate)
 * 3 Middle ages (=O2.2-3, incl. Augustine, SUMMARY of origins of Sun worship Lord's Day section, Reformation)
 * 4 Modern church (Roman Catholicism O2.4 & shorter T3.2, shorter LDS O2.6, other basic, Puritans)
 * 5 Seventh-day tradition (SUMMARY of seventh-day Sabbath; includes two-day; Ignatius fm O1.1, Eastern Orthodox O2.5, Ethiopian; digression on Judaizing; Traske, Brabourne, SDA, SDB, COG)
 * 6 Non-Sabbatarian tradition (maybe summary of new article: O5-O6, includes weekday, plus Justin+Irenaeus+Tertullian fm O1.1, Gibbons fm T4.2.3, Brinsmead+Ratzlaff from S4)
 * 7 Other definitions (DAB-style SUMMARIES of Sabbath as seven-day week, High Sabbaths, Shmita, Shabbat Messianic POV, new moon, Day of the Vow, millennialism with eschatological T4.1)

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

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

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

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

During the first week my edits will only be ordinary improvement preparatory to a move and subject to WP:BRD. JJB 20:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to report that (see also previous section) this merge and new outline seems to have been quite successful for some time now. JJB 18:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

JJB 02:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Catholicism

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

They = Pontiffs, not bishops
In this edit, a quote from the Augsburg Confession, "They" was wrongly changed to "bishops" when the quote source was changed to a more recent translation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Proposed merge with Lord's Day
This is just another name for the same idea: the weekly day of communal worship and/or rest in Christianity. JFH (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They are two separate things. In the Bible the Sabbath is the 7th-day (Saturday) day of rest.  This is often misapplied to Sunday.  The Lord's day is usually applied to Sunday.  The distinction of which day is the day of rest is extremely important in religious circles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyBurtonson (talk • contribs) 23:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The article makes clear that it covers both interpretations (seventh and first day) of the Sabbath in Christianity. Christians of both traditions are likely to use the term "Sabbath" and "Lord's day" for their respective days of rest and worship, so it wouldn't make sense to divide the articles that way anyway. We already have Sabbath in seventh-day churches for a more in-depth treatment of that tradition. --JFH (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They are not two "interpretations"; they are separate things. In the Orthodox Church, Saturday is the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, just as it was for the Jews. However, the "Lord's Day" (we don't use the term, but we mean the weekly commemoration of Christ's resurrection) is Sunday, the first day of the week. The Sabbath is the "day of rest"; Sunday is especially a "day for worship", the weekly remembrance of Pascha. Evensteven (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's interesting (you learn something everyday), and I admit it complicates things. However, I think that the PRIMARYTOPIC for Lord's Day is going to be a single day of rest/religious observance because the Orthodox Church is much smaller than the rest of Christianity. I can see though, that the Lord's Day article could be focused on religious observance while the Sabbath could be on rest, but we should clarify that in the lead. --JFH (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The size of this or that religious group is irrelevant. Just because the majority of people think this or that doesn't mean that the topic is not contentious nor important.  Majority rule is not usually the best. It is usually the easiest and simplistic. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For any who think size is important (and count me out, personally), Orthodoxy happens to be the second largest communion in Christianity, worldwide. It's proportionately smaller in the west, yes. And lest anyone get heated about Protestantism, that is a grouping, not a communion, because it is a collection of rather widely varying beliefs, some of them so wide that some communions do not like to be called Protestant at all. It happens that Orthodoxy and Catholicism have one really big thing in common (well, a ton of them, really, but one especially counts here): they both remember history. What I said is how it has been in Orthodoxy for 2000 years; it's not a new invention. I expect that Catholics recognize that, and probably affirm it themselves. It is Protestantism that has pushed aside some of the observances that keep alive the remembrance of what the Sabbath is, and it is the prevalence of Protestantism in the U.S. that therefore makes it much less known, or to grow confused. So, seek out an answer from a reliable Catholic source, and see what you get. But even if it's different from Orthodoxy, you'd be off base to ignore Orthodoxy. Notability in the U.S. is a far cry from notability on English WP. There are many editors and readers from all over the world here. English is more international now than it was yesterday, and more than any language has ever been, even Latin or Greek. Evensteven (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not so hard: the new Catholic Encyclopedia. See Sabbath and Sunday. "Lord's Day" arose as Sunday became the weekly observance of the Lord's resurrection. That, indeed, began in apostolic times, as the Sunday article says. Note the encyclopedia also describes how Sunday came to replace the Sabbath in Christendom as the premier day of worship, for that exact reason of observing the resurrection. But that shift of day of worship did not shift the "Sabbath", for it did not shift the "day of rest", the seventh day, wherein God rested from His labors in Creation. The reason the Jews used the Sabbath as the day of worship was that they were commanded to "keep the Sabbath day holy". Note also how the article on "Sabbath" describes the shift. Evensteven (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't merge. Sabbath and Lord's Day are NOT the same thing. Sabbath is a day of rest, which some celebrate on Saturday and some celebrate on Sunday. Sabbatarianism was not practised widely in Christianity until the middle ages. Lord's Day is Sunday, and is a day of worship but not necessarily of Sabbath-rest. Conflation of the two is inaccurate and confusing and it is right that there are two separate articles. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And yes, Orthodoxy is a huge Christian grouping, second only to Catholicism. Evensteven is correct. Tonicthebrown (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Quite right about Sabbatarianism. Christian Sunday worship started so early historically, it may well have preceded the founding of the church in Rome (though I'm not sure there is any direct evidence of that for sure). Christians were ejected from the synagogues in Judea quite early, and the direct differentiations were soon in play, Sunday worship among them. The importance of celebrating the resurrection was always primary for Christians, and its connection to the specific day of resurrection was a driving motivation. I'm not sure if or how much the large influxes of Gentiles might have influenced it, but that also occurred early enough that it gave rise to questions and disputes that were recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. So, it's not at all a question of modern "Eastern Orthodox" or "Catholic" as separate from any Christians at all. The church had hardly spread far enough at the time for there to be an east and a west.


 * Above, I touched on the whys that the day of worship was moved to Sunday, and why it was Saturday for the Jews. There may be some variations (?) in Sabbatarianism as to reasons for resetting worship to the Sabbath, but I think the commandment to "keep the Sabbath day holy" is mostly very high on the list, and that it is differences in the way that Christians interpret that commandment that influences the keeping of the Saturday Sabbath. Certainly, the Orthodox would agree that it should be kept holy. The Orthodox in fact believe that every day should be kept holy, and speak of the Christian life as "the sanctification of time". And it recognizes differences in how each day is kept holy, remembering or honoring specific persons and events (multiple ones) each day of the week, the "day of rest" among them, in a continuous seven-day cycle of observance. It has none of the western notion that Sunday is the day of worship, for every day is a day for worship. Sunday just happens to be the primary day that the observance of the resurrection is kept, the day of the Lord, who is also Lord of the Sabbath. But the Divine Liturgy may be (and is) celebrated on every day of the year except Holy Friday, where the crucifixion is the focus. And thus, there is far less dissonance between Orthodox and Sabbatarian practice on Saturday than there is between some Protestants and Sabbatarians. This is partially an example of western practices that have chosen "either/or", whereas Orthodoxy tends much more frequently to "both/and" (although, of course, that's not all there is to it).


 * There must be plenty of materials on both current and historical practices for all of this within all the major communions. It seems to me that the biggest current shortcoming of both the articles is that they don't cover the whole ground. If they did, this question of merging would never have arisen. I am going to remove the merge tag from Lord's Day at least for now. That was its old consensus (hence default), and I see consensus here developing in the same way. Evensteven (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In the east, however, the Sabbath remained on the seventh day, separate from the Lord's Day.
This line is wrong, and is supported by a poetic text that refers to the practice at the time of Jesus. It seems to be an interpretation, and so original research. If the Eastern Church ever refers to Saturday as Sabbath it is not as a technical term for anything on Saturday, but a poetical term or referring to a Biblical scene. I suggest it be removed. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to misunderstand. The Eastern Church never refers to the Sabbath as Sunday, only to Saturday. Technically speaking, its liturgical day always begins with sunset, so it's not Saturday by our civil calendar either, but it coincides with the seventh day of the Hebrew calendar, going Friday evening to Saturday evening. Vespers, the evening service, was created in the early church to be the beginning of the liturgical day, and the Vespers services always include prayers associated with the particular day. Those prayers reflect the same themes and observances as for the other services of the day, which generally take place on what is the following day in the civil calendar. Thus, Friday evening Vespers includes the prayers for "Saturday", and they sometimes mention it as the Sabbath. Sometimes a Vespers service is celebrated along with another service (or in combination with it), as is often the case with Holy Saturday. Where I come from, this prayer is said on Saturday morning at the Vesperal Divine Liturgy of Holy Saturday.


 * If the quote from the Holy Saturday service, which provides a source for the article, seems poetical, that is because it is. Orthodox prayers do often have that quality; some are even written originally in verse. You are also right that it is an interpretation, but it is the Orthodox Church's interpretation, not an individual's. The primary prayers used in services were written hundreds of years ago (over one thousand, actually), and are still used today (in direct translation, where needed) without change from that time. The prayers are not just written by the Orthodox, they are prayed by the Orthodox. That is, they are a key expression of its faith, and a statement of its teaching. In addition to being vehicles of worship, they also provide worshippers with important teachings and interpretations about the observance that is being kept at the time. In times when literacy was not widespread, the prayers often served to support the understanding of the participants regarding the observance. So, the quote provided is not original research, but a direct presentation of church teaching. Evensteven (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Sabbath remained on Saturday in the west also. The connection with the Hebrew Sabbath on Saturday remains everywhere. The idea of a "Christian Sabbath" on Sunday was a much later development, and is distinct from "Sabbath" alone. Recognition of "Sabbath" as belonging to Saturday does not preclude the practice of Christian corporate worship or of rest on Sunday in the east or the west. I hope recent editing of the article makes the distinctions clearer for you. Evensteven (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Reformation section
Now that I have completed a copy edit of this section (it needed much less attention than prior portions of the article), I would like to appeal for eyes, especially those Reformed (or other Calvinistic) editors, to be sure that none of my changes affected representations of those doctrines adversely. Many thanks! Evensteven (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Catholic "transference" of Sabbath observances to Sunday
In my recent editing here and in other Sabbath-related articles, I've had to explore terminology and doctrine of other church branches and denominations much less familiar to me than Orthodoxy. The topic of this section is another of those matters that I want to be sure ends up correct in the articles. I've seen a number of Catholic catechisms used as sources, many or all of which describe the Catholic position as one of "transference" or "substitution" of observances, or even "changing" the Sabbath to Sunday (which is more than observances, and contradicts the Catholic Encyclopedia). There's even the Augsberg Confession, taking Catholics to task for making the "change". Here's the list:


 * the convert's catechism,
 * the doctrinal catechism,
 * an "abridgment" of doctrine:
 * Catholic instruction,
 * catechism of the Council of Trent,


 * Lutheran view: Augsburg,

But it doesn't add up. The only bishop in the list says Sunday "instead of" Sabbath, no transference or anything else. The other catechisms are by priests, perhaps speaking more colloquially than language in doctrinal messages of the whole Church. All except the Trent catechism, which uses "transferred" again, which makes me ask if it was translated properly, or loosely (informally). The stuff that seems closest to real doctrinal expression just doesn't seem to me to head in the direction of "Christian Sabbath".

Now, that is what I would expect as an Orthodox Christian. The Orthodox position is quite clearly "instead of", Sabbath is not Lord's Day, especially, Sunday worship is not what Hebrew Sabbath worship was, not just "assembly for worship and praise and teaching", for the Hebrews did not have the Eucharist, which changed everything for Christians. And the Orthodox and Catholics were one church when all the basics were formed, way back before the fifth century. And the best of what I see from the list above is consonant with the idea that all this remains to the present day. That's not enormously surprising either, for it's very fundamental stuff. Doctrines regarding the resurrection are among the foundations of the Church. Hence the hue and cry about "Judaizing" in the early Church, seen as failure to embrace the resurrection and its celebration as central and above all Hebrew Sabbath observance. Perhaps I simplify too much, but I focus on the key.

I can quite understand the war of words exchanged during the Reformation: "no you can't 'transfer' Sabbath in contradiction of the commandments" vs "yes the Church can establish observances by the powers vested in it", until both are using the word 'transfer' or something like it in some of the exchanges. Don't present-day politicians use the same technique today, of characterizing their issues using certain carefully chosen words to make their point, repeating them until all parties must talk about the issues in those words? The pressure is there in any debate.

So, I rather think it would take some doing to convince me that the Catholic Church, officially and as a whole, is really seriously behind the word "transfer" of anything regarding Sabbath to Sunday. But maybe my inkling is wrong. I'm not sure I have the competence to search out and report the true Catholic position about this matter. So I'll stick with the sources we have (mostly) and try to tailor my wording to the understanding I have as stated here. I'd be delighted for anyone to verify me by sticking in a relevant source, but well satisfied in any source that has serious gravitas to establish the accurate picture. I just can't help feeling the sourcing could be stronger, and that some sources exist that meet the standard I'm suggesting. (But I'm not suggesting we need a tag on the article: overkill.) Evensteven (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just so there isn't misunderstanding, let me say that I don't think there is any particular Orthodox (or Catholic) objection to Protestant views that Sunday takes precedence over Saturday. I just think Orthodox wouldn't use a term like "Christian Sabbath" because it doesn't have a ring of accuracy or clarity and might confuse issues. It's taken me a while to sort them. And while you might get a nod for the idea that the Orthodox view of the meaning of Sunday could represent an application in Christianity of general Sabbath principles and God's commandments (such as "remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy"), Orthodoxy would also say that applies to every day now, so it shies away from anything inclined to a more limited view. It's just not a doctrinal thing so much as a "praxis" (practice) thing, a focus on what something is rather than what it is not. And doctrinally I can't see that the Catholics are different, only maybe they speak of things in a different way sometimes. Much happened in the west that Orthodoxy never needed to address, and I think that is the substance of any Orthodox/Catholic differences of language. Likewise, I'm not convinced that what most Protestants mean by "Christian Sabbath" is significantly different either, doctrinally. There are differences of practice again, which may account for the choice of terminology. It gives potential for divergence maybe, but the potential seems to be largely unrealized currently, among most groups. The subtleties of language usage are what make it difficult to achieve clarity, here on WP, and generally. Evensteven (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe I have found an authoritative catechismic statement that meets the standards I have referred to above at the website of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops. Interestingly, as I read it, it struck me as identical to Orthodox teaching on the subject, so far as I understand either. It covers the territory regarding Sabbath and Lord's Day, Sunday as first day and eighth day, and related topics of worship and rest. Nowhere is Sunday treated as a transferred Sabbath day, nor Sunday observance as transferred observance. Instead, Sunday as the Lord's Day is itself the fulfillment of the Sabbath, accomplished by Christ on a Sunday in His Resurrection, celebrated that day each week. "Fulfilled", not "transferred". A "little Easter", exactly as the Orthodox say. It would seem quite clear that this understanding of Sunday came about quite early in church history, and it was one thing the east and west had a fully common understanding about. It would also seem clear that that very understanding has remained firm to the present day in both east and west. It is a fine example of the "mind of the church", formed when one church, and retained even now after centuries of division as two. I think there is going to have to be some further revision throughout Lord's Day and Sabbath topics that make these things clear, for the varieties of understanding seem to be all within Protestantism, and many originated in Sabbatarianism. Evensteven (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of "transferred"
Your edit comment was terse: "The previous edit did identify". Identify what exactly? I have filled a section directly above with my findings, and my edit was supported by the Catholic encyclopedia, the Catholic Catechism, and the US Council of Bishops' interpretations of the Lord's Day celebration. None of those sources use the word "transferred". Is that the core of your objection to my edit? If so, I do not find general support for use of that word in Catholic doctrine. I do see that the Lord's Day observance "replaced" the Sabbath observance. That is an entirely different thing. Do you not see the difference? But I don't want to argue pointlessly if there is some other objection you have. Please throw some light on what the problem is here. Evensteven (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * With nothing forthcoming in the short term, I will assume "transferred" is the cause of the reversion. Now, this word has indeed been used by challengers of the Catholics, either to object to what they say about the Sabbath commandment (by way of interpretation of the law or its application to Christians), or to the Catholic position that the Church has authority to set observances and declare feasts. The challengers' claims are all directed at expressing an objection to Catholic establishment or practice of Sunday worship or and/or Sunday rest, declaring that those things are tantamount to "transference" of Sabbath observations to Sunday. Catholics have steadfastly denied the objections. My point is that it is a challenger's terminology. Catholics have been aware of that term for centuries, but have not used it themselves in official declarations of doctrine. Why not? Because if it described their doctrine accurately, there would be no reason for avoidance, but it is avoided because it does not describe the doctrine accurately. "Transference" implies that an observance once belonging to the Sabbath became an observance now belonging to the Lord's Day. Not so: neither in Catholic doctrine, nor in Orthodox. One "observance" in question is not simply "corporate worship"; Sunday worship always has been "celebration of the resurrection", not Hebrew Sabbath worship. Both are corporate worship, but one is a Christian observance and the other is not. That is why the Catholic use of "replace" instead of "transfer" is significant. One type of observance replaced the other; there was no transfer. And that is a point of Catholic doctrine that has been around for over 16 centuries. As for the observance of rest, a similar thing applies. Catholics (and Orthodox) view Christian rest in the light of Christ's resting in the tomb on Saturday (the Sabbath), resting after his ministry on Earth was complete, and being fulfilled in his resurrection on Sunday. This view is also all over Catholic doctrine, as ancient as it gets. Christian rest, Saturday or Sunday, is essentially eighth-day rest, rest according to Christ's fulfillment of the law, and is observed as such. That is a Christian observance, while Hebrew Sabbath rest was not. Again, no observance was "transferred", but the Christian observance "replaced" the other one.


 * It's clear that some disagree with the Catholic viewpoint, and that some of those wish to continue to use the word "transfer" to describe their own viewpoint. My point is that this section is about describing the Catholic viewpoint, and that does not include "transfer". Yes, I have seen the word supposedly in the catechism of the Council of Trent. That document surely was written in Latin. Who did the translation? How good is it? What is the Latin text? Even if "transfer" or its equivalent appears there, where else does it appear in Catholic doctrine? If nowhere, why is that? The better question might be, why in the one catechism if not elsewhere? I think we need to go with best evidence. The Catholic Catechism was revised by (then-future) Pope Benedict XVI at the request of Pope John Paul II, who also contributed directly to the segment I referred to in my edit. Surely the Catholic Encyclopedia had papal blessing as well, yes? The article I used in my edit is not the only pertinent one, either. The one on Sabbatarianism makes a definite point of how Catholic doctrine distinguishes and separates the Sabbath and Lord's Day. And again, there is the whole conference of US bishops, jointly. I would argue that together, that is considerable gravitas.


 * I will now undo the reversion of my edit, on the basis that the community has seen much about my points before now and not objected. If someone does now, discussions are still open. Evensteven (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Orthodox Tewahedo
Literally the only non-Protestant church that observes the Sabbath is the Ethiopian-style branch of Oriental Orthodoxy, the Orthodox Tewahedo churches of Eritrea and Ethiopia, and it's traditional; do you seriously not think leaving only Protestantism and the early Judaizers in the intro is appropriate? Ogress 16:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with what you've done now, thanks. Tonicthebrown (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Shabbat(7 letters)/Shabbos(7)/Sabbath(7) on seventh(7) day
I added... The Hebrew term was transliterated into English keeping the symbolism of Shabbat(7 letters)/Shabbos(7)/Sabbath(7) on seventh(7) day. 2601:580:100:5D52:D0BA:A3F8:2B1B:61D3 (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Latter-Day Saints should not be classified as a "Church" in same section as historical chalcedonian christian churches
The LDS reject the Trinity and reject the Incarnation, as well as most other integral Christian doctrines. And they have added "scripture" to their canon, based on so-called relevations of Joseph Smith in the mid 1800s. The LDS should not be included in the same section as historic, chalcedonian, trinitarian organizations. --Sp3lly (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Objectivity
I came to this page looking for an explanation for how the Christian observance of the sabbath on Sunday originated. Instead I found weird text like this: " To this day, the Sabbath continues to coincide with the Hebrew Sabbath timing in the church calendars in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy." Aside from this being obviously not true (remember the blue laws in the US that kept shops closed on Saturday when everybody went to church?), the linked source directly contradicts it, saying: "The gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2) and with the disappearance of the Jewish Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord's Day." There is something deeply strange going on here. Has the page been hijacked by some obscure Protestant sect that wants to pretend the Christian sabbath is on Saturday or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.220.112 (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I did the rewriting you are finding strange, and I am Orthodox. Not that that matters. It is a fact that RC and Orthodox churches regard the Sabbath as Saturday, not Sunday, as they have since apostolic times. (See more of the article references.) The Church never moved the Sabbath. What it did do is to establish its principal festal celebration on Sunday, since Easter was set on Sunday, and each Sunday was (and is) considered to be a little Easter, repeating weekly. It's not the Sabbath itself that moved, it's the observance of regular weekly worship and of rest that was reset on Sunday. The Hebrew Sabbath (Mosaic) law was deemed even by the earliest church to be fulfilled by Christ. (Matthew 5:17-18) Instead of the rules (letter) of the law, the Church follows the spirit of the law on Sunday, but also on all days (see the early Christian writers sourced here), not being bound by earlier restrictions, but actually keeping a fuller observance not entirely restricted to specific times. This view made its way from the ancient Church through to RC and Orthodoxy even after the East-West schism in 1054, and from RC into Protestantism during the Reformation, with almost all Protestants accepting Sunday as the principal day of worship. It was only some of the Sabbatarians (not even all of those) who wished to re-establish the Hebrew time of principal worship on Saturday, and that specifically because that is the Sabbath. The idea that Sunday is the new Sabbath is not factually true in RC and Orthodox churches, and is not really established in any formal way in most of Protestantism, but is simply a common misperception among some Protestants who confuse Sunday with the Sabbath. This is not to say that Sunday worship or rest is not observance of the fourth commandment, and even RC and Orthodox agree that it is. But it is observance in the freedom from the letter of the Mosaic law (as almost all of Christianity agrees), and Sunday is not necessarily the sole observance of the fulfilled commandment. Hope this clarifies the matter. Evensteven (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

the objectivity and scholarly balance of the article is clearly skewed by seventh day Adventist editors imposing their views upon the article and over-inflating them and thus skewing the article, or skewering. Sp3lly (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Willfults
I don't have a lot of time to analyze disputes in depth, so, recalling our prior discussions, I'm going to trust that you and Tonicthebrown can continue harmonious editing and discussion. While some of your new edits look fine, I see at least two problems. First (though it did not have a secondary source) the apologetic stating that the rest day should agree with the first-day worship, and the supporting primary-source verses, should be represented as a wide view of the mainstream (Jonathan Edwards and G.I. Williamson come to mind). Second, the graf of Ellen White on Constantine is a clear WP:UNDUEWEIGHT; based on Tonic's and my outline above, that is a section for historical discussion, not modern analysis, and modern analysis should always be balanced by the other POV(s), and this being the majority article it should be pretty well limited to the 7th-day section. We all know EGW has a POV on Constantine, but it is quite a bit prejudicial to the issue to discuss it early in the narrative without representing all POVs on him. I see these safeguards as a reasonable method of forestalling WP disputes by keeping discussion neatly categorized. It would be appropriate for you to demonstrate your response to these concerns by making responsive "rebold" edits, or to discuss at talk. Thanks! JJB 18:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wilfullts, you may not have read my note, because you added another EGW quote to the history section, attributing it to "another scholar", which, frankly, could be interpreted by other editors as disingenuous. You also comment out the Didache and delete a paragraph on nonsabbatarianism. If I have time I will interact with these issues, but the edits appear to have a tendency to enlarge one POV over others in a majority article, which is a big difficulty. I take the approach that, since I am secure in my own view, it is appropriate to give well-weighted space to each view so that they can all be considered and the obviousness of the faulty views can be judged fairly. If you believe these edits are not misweighted, that will become manifest by a consideration of sources; but it is inappropriate to delete sources that bear on one or another POV, especially when they are easy to come by. Again, I'd appreciate you commenting on the undue mention of EGW in the historical sections and the other deletions, and what you would like to do to enfold the concerns, also voiced by Tonicthebrown at my talk > JJB 20:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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


 * Since shortly after the church's founding, the majority of Christians have observed the first day for weekly corporate worship (Sunday, now also known as the Lord's Day). From the fourth century onwards, Sunday worship (now "first-day Sabbatarianism") has largely also taken on the observance of Sunday rest. Thus, in early Christianity "Sabbath" still meant the seventh day (observed with diverse practices), while formative first-day Sabbatarianism focused on the communal assembly day.


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


 * Bauckham argues that Sunday worship must have originated in Palestine in the mid-1st century, in the period of the Acts of the Apostles, no later than the Gentile mission. This is because the practice had become universal by the early 2nd century with no hint of controversy in the writings that have survived from the early church. It would have been virtually impossible for a novel practice such as Sunday worship to be agreed upon universally, with no debate, had it been introduced after the Christian church had spread throughout the known world.


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


 * The reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin repudiated the idea that Christians are bound to obey the Mosaic law, including the fourth commandment of the Decalogue concerning Sabbath, although they followed Aquinas' concept of natural law. They viewed Sunday rest as a civic institution established by human authority, which provided an occasion for bodily rest and public worship.

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

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


 * "In the first centuries the true (seventh day) Sabbath had been kept by all Christians. They were jealous for the honor of God, and, believing that His law is immutable, they zealously guarded the sacredness of its precepts". "That the attention of the people might be called to the Sunday, it was made a festival in honor of the resurrection of Christ. Religious services were held upon it; yet it was regarded as a day of recreation, the Sabbath being still sacredly observed."


 * Ellen White states "The archdeceiver had not completed his work. He was resolved to gather the Christian world under his banner and to exercise his power through his vicegerent, the proud pontiff who claimed to be the representative of Christ. Through half-converted pagans, ambitious prelates, and world-loving churchmen he accomplished his purpose. Vast councils were held from time to time, in which the dignitaries of the church were convened from all the world. In nearly every council the Sabbath which God had instituted was pressed down a little lower, while the Sunday was correspondingly exalted. Thus the pagan festival came finally to be honoured as a divine institution, while the Bible Sabbath was pronounced a relic of Judaism, and its observers were declared to be accursed."


 * Another scholar has noted that seventh day observance has occurred throughout every age of Christianity.

I'm sorry, but this is simply inappropriate; it breaks Wikipedia policy left, right and centre. If you think there are problems with this article such as OR, the onus is on you to bring it up here on the talk page and initiate a discussion, rather than forging ahead and making extremely POV revisions. Thanks. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I may have been a bit quick reverting wholesale. But I noted a couple of really bad pieces of OR so reverted to what looked like the best version. After a quick scan through this is the current worst offender, so I cut it. Content like that must be avoided at all costs. Find a secondary source and work from there. Policy overrules everything; and it was such obvious OR I have cut it. No other opinion on the rest of the content; I am not religious and this area of religious history is one I happen to be unfamiliar with --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 20:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, reading through this needs serious work. I see a number of other clear OR sections. always work from sources. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 20:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I see it was aded back. Poor show, please find sources then add it back. A "helpful summary of primary source verses" is 100% something you need to avoid like the plague. Seriously. Even with a RS drawing the conclusion made in that section it is inappropriate :) you need to source and sumarise the conclusion. Does that make sense? --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is quite a bit of OR and poor organization still. I restored the graf to WP:PRESERVE the prior consensus and because it is easily sourced (a bit later, if you don't mind). Since I am sympathetic to all POVs on this I have a natural interest in peace and I think this is a good time for the involved editors to get through any current stated issues. I proposed a baseline of this diff for discussion on the disagreements shown there, and your questioned graf is listed. JJB 20:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but OR is something of a bright line. Anything that fails WP:OR should be cut fairly strongly. Then the onus is on the person adding it back to find a source. I won't revert, but I will pop back in a week when I have more time and source/cut anything that is still at issue --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

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

This quote was removed because the same statement was made in the EG White quote...
 * Nevertheless, widespread Sabbath observance by Gentile Christians prevailed in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Church authorities continued to oppose this as a Judaizing tendency.

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

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

Willfults (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did see one or two EGW sentences that seemed neutral enough for mention, but the idea that this article (rather than many other WP articles that already do) needs lots of her grafs is a mistake of a type that is often handled by (first) cold revert and (then) warm revert. I don't mind your pressing it in again after those two phases, in that my first baseline is still in edit history, but please don't assume it will stay as is. I personally find EGW a little too poetic and wanting in backup sources, and so on virtually all points she makes there are better sources by WP's standards, especially considering that EGW does invite strong feelings all around. Tertullian's period POV is appropriate; Smith's extended section is (like White) unaddressed undue weight, as noted previously. I would agree that Bauckham and Carson are probably overrelied on as well. You also claim an OR sentence, but that's actually a sourced WP:IMPERFECT sentence that doesn't fully meet V standards and invites completion and verification, not an OR sentence (such as the two unsourced sentences about first-day would be if they remained unsourced for long). Anyway, normal harmonious editing club is still working well, so I can contribute to building out when I have time to review sources. JJB 22:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen,
 * A couple of points. Firstly, I agree that the "Biblical Sabbath" section is full of primary sources, and I can understand the charge that it is OR. However, please note that this applies to both the Sunday texts (3rd paragraph) and the 7th day texts (1st and 2nd paragraph), so it is not appropriate to discriminate as you guys (Willfults, Tmorton) have done. To retain the 7th day texts while removing the Sunday texts, when both are currently unsupported by 2ndary sources, reveals a POV. Either the whole section gets ditched as OR, or, it is retained until adequate 2ndary sources can be provided. JJB has said that he will get to it for the Sunday texts.


 * Secondly, Bauckham (who may be unknown to you) is in fact a contributor to a well recognised, authoritative book on the Sabbath and Lord's Day edited by D. A. Carson. Carson is one of the best known NT scholars in the world. Their opinions are therefore hardly marginal. Ellen White is significant for Adventists, so it may be appropriate to have some input from her on the 7-th day Sabbatarian position (which does not breach WP:UNDUE), but this must be done with appropriate restraint as she is not a scholarly source and the majority of the Christian world would consider her an opinion on this subject, not a WP:RS.Tonicthebrown (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I wholeheartedly agree that the objectivity and scholarly value of this article is severely damaged by SDA editors. In sum, the article is a joke and provides highly skewed misinformation. Sp3lly (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)