Talk:Lord's Day

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Holidays

	Holidays portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

(Origins of Sunday / Universality of Practice in Early Church)[edit]

The first Paragraph has blatant errors. According to the Apostolic Constitutions, Seventh Day Sabbath keeping was still being observed by nearly the entire Christian world as late as the mid 3rd century AD. It is pretty clear that the authors of this article have no interest in the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deusestiudex (talk • contribs) 05:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first Paragraph under the subject line "Origins of Sunday worship" is incorrect... "It says "evidence demonstrates that Sunday was widely observed as a day of worship throughout the Christian church by the early 2nd century"

But Socrates the pagan philosopher, who is unbiased in the whole debate over Saturday vs. Sunday since he looking in from outside the groups, declared in 439 A.D.: “Almost all the churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some tradition, have ceased to do this.” -Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, ch. 22.

So even well after the Second Century, Socrates declares that most of the churches in the world celebrate and keep the Seventh Day Sabbath, Except in Two Cities, Alexandria and Rome and he claims on account of some tradition not law....

So any discussion? Can we change this paragraph to reflect the evidence? -Mikhael, June 27, 2011 64.57.194.150 (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Sunday worship was a widespread practice by the 2nd century is acknowledged by modern scholars (including SDA scholar Samuele Bacchiochi). This does not preclude observation of the 7th day Sabbath alongside it -- in other words, both the 7th and 1st days were celebrated.

If there is a credible secondary source which argues against widespread Sunday observance in the 2nd century, it needs to be provided; relying just on a primary source may constitute original research. Tonicthebrown (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here are a few more sources,

Josephus declared: "There is not any city of the Grecians, nor any of the Barbarians, nor any nation whatsoever, whither our custom of resting on the seventh day hath not come!" M'Clatchie, "Notes and Queries on China and Japan" (edited by Dennys), Vol 4, Nos 7, 8, p.100.

The Constitution of the Holy Apostles declared in 413 "Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands." "The Anti-Nicene Fathers," Vol 7,p. 413. From "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles," a document of the 3rd and 4th Centuries.

And for a Orthodox scholarly source from the 1600s, English Clergyman and Puritan Divine John Ley declared "From the apostles' time until the council of Laodicea, which was about the year 364, the holy observance of the Jews' Sabbath continued, as may be proved out of many authors: yea, notwithstanding the decree of the council against it." "Sunday a Sabbath." John Ley, p.163. London: 1640.

I have a few more quotes, but two of them, one from Philo and the other from Ambrose are not verified as of yet.. The Ambrose quote is interesting because he said that when he went to Rome he had to worship on the Roman Day which is Sunday instead of the day he worshiped on and all he parts where he lived worshiped on which was the Seventh Day Sabbath. I also have an interesting quote from Origen..

So does this help any.. -Mikhael, July 1, 2011 64.57.194.150 (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These quotes still do not disprove sunday worship in the 2nd century. And they are primary sources, which are open to interpretation -- secondary sources need to be supplied. Tonicthebrown (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Bacchiochi points out [from Vatican documents] that Sunday observance began in the city of Rome during the 2nd century as a celebration of the resurrection and not to replace Saturday observance [that came about centuries later] but observed along with. Thus at one point in time, most of the Christian church did worship on Saturday. Worship on Sunday spread out from Rome over time, especially after the church in Rome became influential over the others. RVscholar (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(random heading)[edit]

(inserted for readability Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

This article reads like a defense of first-day worship against seventh-day worshipers. It surely does not read like an encyclopedia article about the history of first-day worship. Most of it needs to be re-written in an unbiased, professional manner. Any volunteers? EthanL (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to fix the spelling and punctuation of this sentence, even though I vigorously disagree with the assertion made in it:
"It can aslo be called the lord's day because, in the creation story, god rested on the seventh day, hence the sabbath."
I don't have time now to rewrite the sentence or the article it in an unbiased, professional manner. The controversy about sabbatarianism (whether the 7th day or the 1st day is the Lord's Day) begins with the recognition that in the Decalogue, the day that is to be held in honor is the 7th day of the week. That day is clearly Saturday, not Sunday. Martin X. Moleski, SJ (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The controversy about sabbatarianism has two components:

saturday vs. sunday as "sabbath"

whether sabbath is binding or not

"Professional" I know nothing about, only "do the thing". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was confused. I meant: saturday vs. sunday as "holy day". The underlying conflicts are between "sabbatarianism (saturday)" – which is a subset of sabbatarianism – "lord's-day:ism" – "sabbatarianism (sunday)" and nonsabbatarianism. Personally I belong to the group: "do-as-you-wish-but-if-you-condemn-the-other-one-all-hell-will-break-lose-ism". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lord's Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060507051610/http://www.apuritansmind.com/FrancisTurretin/francisturretinLordsDay.htm to http://www.apuritansmind.com/FrancisTurretin/francisturretinLordsDay.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will delete context-bereft sentence[edit]

I don’t understand why the sentence

The adjective kyriake ("Lord's") often elided its noun, as in the neuter kyriakon for "Lord's [assembly]", the predecessor of the word "church"; the noun was to be supplied by context.

is in the article. FYI, the words “noun, as in the neuter” first appeared in the article in the revision as of 06:39, 23 September 2010 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lord%27s_Day&diff=386538276&oldid=386534317 ). At that time, the subject sentence was in the “Ambiguous references” section. But now, it’s in the “Biblical use” section. It seems that, at some point in the sequence of edits, the subject sentence lost its context.

Therefore, I’ve decided to delete the subject sentence. I shall proceed to do so in the next day or so. Mksword (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected content[edit]

This page should be made a protected one. There are lots of religions and many edit this topic to be like their belief (even now is wrong, being made not by Biblical texts, but by personal belief) Alven192 (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]