Talk:Sabbatarianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. | |
Contents |
[edit] Revelation and the Sabbath
Isn't the part of this article that speaks of Revelations only one possible interpretation of the text? To my knowledge the word "Sabbath" does not appear in the Book of Revelation. I think the author is speaking of the verse:
"Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." -Revelation 14:12
I realize Jesus earlier called himself "Lord also of the Sabbath" but this was more him expressing his superiority over the Sabbath rather than the wholehearted endorsement the article suggests. I recommend that bullet be altered as to not represent a single school of opinion or removed entirely. VincentValentine 13:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
DJL: It appears to me, that if you want to know what Sabbatarians believe, then you should investigate their websites. Apparently, a great many do NOT believe in The Roman JESUS (IHS), they do NOT believe in The Virgin Birth NOR do they believe in The Trinity or in pre-existence, AND they reject "The Nicene Creed". This make them very much NON-christian, which they apparently equate to hellenization (christopaganism). Funny, how NON-sabbatarians think they can define Sabbatarianism. Reference: "The Sabbatarian Network; http://www.sabbatarian.com or http://www.sabbatariannetwork.com or http://www.passoverlamb.com or http://www.marriagesupper.com or http://www.sabbatariangreetings.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.7.214 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
- Yes Vincent, this verse is just one of over 200 in which the Law, or keeping the commandments are mentioned in the Christian New Testament. The commandments are generally agreed to be understood as the Ten Commandments, by most scholars. The Law is commonly agreed upon to be the complete ordinances written in the first five books of the bible, or the Torah in Hebrew. All of these ordinances are understood to be amplification of the basic ten commandments given at Sinai. To include the fourth or Sabbath commandment as a requirement of the ten commandments is not a single school of thought. One may hold an opinion of the timing of the Sabbath commandment, but the common and primary understanding is still the seventh day of the week from dusk to dusk. Timing may be worthy of discussion, but removal would be a withholding of common understanding in order to appease a POV. --Kevin 03:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Reference your claims. Plus the arguments is about whether or not this page should be a straight disambig, which it isn't currently. Vincent Valentine 04:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- A disambiguation could be done to separate the two articles. This could be an improvement. As for references to what law and commandments refer to in the NT, I would suggest The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the commandments, and Adam Clarke's Commentary on the New Testament, in his references to Matthew 5:17-19 in which he begins with the understanding of the law, and Revelation 12:14, where he notes the absence of commandment keeping by the largest churches of the time. --Kevin 00:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
A significant fact that is often overlooked is the evidence that the early apostolic church was Sabbatarian. Jesus Christ kept the weekly Sabbath as well as the annual high Sabbaths. The apostles were all Nomian Christians. Even Paul, the one apostle sent out to the Gentile world, observed the Sabbaths. The first council of Jerusalem made no requirement other than the abstaining from things offered to idols, strangled, blood, and fornication. Yet the passage in Acts 15:19-21 also relates that Moses (the lawgiver) had been taught in many generations, and in every city, in the synagogue each Sabbath.
The requirements were simple to enter into the assembly of Christians (in contrast the desire of the Circumcision), yet the new believers were also to learn what the Torah taught about the Law, and most importantly the Ten Commandments including the fourth which was taught on the Sabbath at the gathering of His people.
- No wonder. After all, Christianity was originally an offshoot of Judaism. Part of its process of becoming a religion of its own was to move its holy day to Sunday. Likewise Islam chose Friday and the Baha'is chose Thursday. --Jdemarcos 22:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
As a sect of Judaism, Christianity began as a fulfillment of many prophecies from the Torah and the Prophets. Some of those prophecies, and more from the New Testament include a future false religion that would name Jesus as the Messiah, but also teach the mystery of lawlessness. The book of Revelation speaks of those who do, and do not keep the Messiah's Sabbaths; those who hold to the testimony of Jesus the Christ and keep His commandments, and those who do not.
Mainstream Christianity has chosen Sunday, and yet the Word of God they profess as their Christ, rested on the Sabbath. There are some who believe this to be the false Christianity prophecied in the New Testament. Sabbatarians often consider themselves as the remnant that hold to the testimony of Christ, and keep God's Commandments, spoken of in the book of Revelation.
The day we choose may be arbitrary as far as mankind is concerned, but for Sabbatarians the study of the Torah, the Prophets, and the New Testament reveal something quite different as far as Law abiding children of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are concerned. For these Christians, the Sabbaths are sanctified and designed to remind believers of the Creator, who is the Christ, the Messiah, and Savior. Grace is an important part of the great news, but can be used to corrupt the Gospel of the Kingdom of God if it is not balanced with obedience. Kevin--Kevin 16:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- What you say is nice for some kind of preaching but irrelevant for an encyclopaedia that should be concerned only about facts and not about subjective interpretation(s) from believers about what their religion says. We are not concerned about whether Sabbatarians follow God's mandate or not, but simply how they differentiate in their behaviour from other Christian groups. --Jdemarcos 22:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The reasons behind a particular belief, or sect of any religion can make for a fascinating study. Why something is different is just as important as what differentiates it from something else. Some may consider why irrelevant, but many consider the why question very relevant. Kevin--Kevin 16:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reform Jews
I have never seen a Reform Jew who claims to keep the sabbath on Sunday. Can this be verified in any way? --Bachrach44 16:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- You may be correct. I have never experienced a Reform who keeps the Sabbath on Sunday, although the liberal view might allow for variance, even though the Torah is explicit on the seventh day Sabbath.
-
- I've done some more searching and found two sources on this: [1] and [2]. They both seem to indicate that it was one of the many ideas that was proposed when reform judaism first formed, but that it is no longer the case. (I can also tell you from personal experience that I've never seen a reform temple that has sabbath services on Sunday). Unless you can find another source that shows that at least some part of Reform Judaism celebrates shabbat on Sunday, I think we should change the verbiage a little to reflect that it was only a consideration of Reform, and not a common practice. --Bachrach44 04:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, that would be a useful addition, although the author does specify "some" and "liberal" as the uncommon. Kevin 04:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What is this page?
I added the clean-up tag to this article. I clicked on a wikilink to Sabbatarian, which is redirect here, on the page Colonial colleges. What is this page? I cannot tell if it is a disambiguation page or if it needs to be split into two (or more) articles, each discussing a specific subject. It does not seem to comply with the Wikipedia manual of style.
- I believe the intent of this page is to be a disambiguation page. There is no value to having this page be separate from the Sabbath/Shabbat articles in my opinion as they both contain virtually the same information. I am also not at all pleased with the "Basis for Seventh-Day Sabbatarianism" section which has recently been inserted as I feel it adds no value to a disambiguation page but to obfuscate the meaning of the page -- which is exactly what you ran into and why it is marked for cleanup. As I said before all the argumentation in this page can be found in the Sabbath article. My suggestion is to remove the "Basis for Seventh Day Sabbatarianism" and leave the rest of the article as I believe that the remainder constitutes a valid disambiguation page. What are your thoughts? Vincent Valentine 12:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Latest Edits
Kevin, your latest edits have decimated whatever shreds of neutrality this article had left. The article asserts many statements as facts, cites NO sources, and is generally biased to a Sabbatarian POV. I also see no need to keep this page at all -- it should be a disambiguation page leading to the Sabbath article which covers all this ground anyway.
I will be putting up a neutrality tag soon. Vincent Valentine 12:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Your view of neutrality is for all intents and purposes POV, Vincent. If you are a voice for neutrality then you would understand the purpose of the article to present the reasoning behind a particular belief. You have added to the article the alternative view and this was welcomed with some revision, yet your tagging the article is due to POV. What I would suggest is an article referenced in this one, stating the basis of belief for Sunday worship.--Kevin 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Talk is cheap. You bring no evidence, cite no sources, and falsely accuse me of various atrocities without ever citing anything. Please read the tutorials on how to contribute to Wikipedia, they are quite thorough. Vincent Valentine 04:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Regardless of whether Vincent's assertions here are POV or whether your assertions in the article are POV, self-made statements are clearly not allowed. This article neither cites any primary sources nor can it be verified in any manner. Therefore, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that the facts given are assertions made by the author. Please observe WP:NOR & WP:V. JaKaL! 13:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Evidence has been offered, and is not a matter of dispute even among prominent mainstream sources (see above references in the section titled Revelation and the Sabbath). Your latest comments are more accurately pointed to your own statements. We have had a similar discussion previously concerning the Sabbath article. My suggestion would be to review these discussions, reread the tutorials, and offer suggestions to improve this article. The sources that support your POV are necessary for a profitable discussion. You are correct in stating that talk is cheap. I would welcome a serious discussion, and I have not accused you of anything approaching an atrocity. My hope is that some acknowledgement of what has been previously understood could become part of a reasonable discussion. I know you are capable of reason, Vincent. Let's return to a discussion of real understanding rather than common misunderstanding of what is truth.--Kevin 03:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Umm...check the article and tell me where you see a citation. Hint: interpreting the Bible in your owns words is not a citation. Also don't remove tags unless you have the approval of the other editors. Vincent Valentine 22:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Kevin: This article is excellently written, highly informative, and factual beyond disputation. Facts which are obscure, unpopular, politically inkorrekt or intentionally overlooked are no less truthful. --63.25.0.247 03:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- When it digs up that old chestnut about Mithraism? When, in fact, Roman authorities on at least one occasion conclusively identified people as Christian on no further evidence than that they gathered for worship on Sunday? I'll be digging up the precise martyrs, but the reference is in Scott Hahn's Swear to God -- if you're interested. Goldfritha 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Subbotniki
[edit] Cleanup
I think this page has the potential to be more than a disambiguation page, but as such some of the information appearing in the first section needs to be shifted down, a "criticism" section (which I have added) needs to be filled in to alleviate the valid NPOV concerns, and all of it is in painful need of sourcing. I've started the process, and I notice that this page hasn't received any serious attention in quite a while. ◄Zahakiel► 20:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- On second thought, a reading of the Sabbath article suggests that any new information placed here could probably be better served in a main article from which this is a redirect. I am removing the proposed "split" tag and replacing it with a suggested "merge" tag. Everything here is, or should be, redundant with the information provided in that article. ◄Zahakiel► 21:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
