Talk:Sabbath in Christianity
- 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)
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. :)
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)