On what day of the week did the Crucifixion of Jesus take place?

[BamaNapper]

The question never occurred to me and I admit ignorance of most of the finer details surrounding the crucifixion. So I started looking at the question from the very basics. One answer leads to 3 more questions, which lead to a feast of information. Before long my head is filled with more information than it can sort out.

It seems much of the Roman Empire used an 8-day week (the nundinae) around the time of the crucifixion. The 7-day week wasn't really nailed down (no crucifixion pun intended) across the Roman empire until almost 300 years later. With the Romans controlling Jerusalem, did they impose an 8-day week on the land? Or were the Jews in charge of the calendar and observing a 7-day week? If both, would you state the day of the week as the officially recognized by the government, or use a religious calendar? To complicate things further, between the last century BC and maybe the 4th century AD, calendars everywhere were in a constant state of flux (no boolit casting pun intended). I'm not totally convinced there even was a Wednesday that year.

I don't envy scholars one little bit. The details are too intense. I agree with the sentiment that it's the events of the day, not the exact day of the week, that's important.

[1hole]

Bama, there was a "Wednesday" for sure, we just don't have any idea what it was called at the time and place of the crucifiction. You put your finger squarely on how and why our present conflicts on which day is "the sabbath" are foolish.

There were many calendars then - and now. That may be why God gives us the freedom to pick which day we choose as our sabbath. So far as we know, Adam had no calendar at all and a 6th or 7th day sabbath didn't matter to anyone until Moses came down the hill with those stone tablets! I'm quite sure what matters to God is the heart of those who sometimes bitterly squabble about what no man can know. (I wonder, do we have any 7th Day Adventists here?)

[Blackwater]

This is one of those questions that I personally, intentionally pass over, because to me, it doesn't really matter what day of the week it was. What matters is that He DID die, and that He WAS resurrected, providing me and millions of others with a way of atonement, simply by accepting Him and His sacrifice, and following in His ways. I am so grateful for that, I have no time to spend on such inconsequential questions. I need to focus on more relevant and consequential issues and questions. I do not want to lose what I've at long last found, and getting tangled up in these type discussions refocuses my attention on things that are not edifying nor enriching my knowledge of Him and all that He gave us to consider. Just my view, of course, but that's what it is.

[1hole]

Black, I understand you. I appreciate where you're coming from on this and that you are indeed marvelling at how much the Lord has done for us. But, on this question, - as you say - it's YOUR position. I will respectfully add to what you say - "... at this point in your life".

Discussions such as this don't take an inordinate amount of time or energy and hardly hampers our works, prayers or other studies. And, at least for some of us, it's interesting to study and meditate on the crucifiction day even tho no Christian doctrine hangs on the answer.

I'm sure if you (and those who agree with you on this issue) actually study, not just read, the scriptures you'll eventually find deep answers to many of your present larger questions. Then, as you too age and slow down a bit, even you may come to enjoy investigating some of the lighter Biblical topics you now consider meaningless. Bottom line, I believe if people are in the Book and not out in cultish/pagan space, it's all good. I think. ???


Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus!

[Der Gebirgsjager]

DG, ref. the Mosaic Law (it was God's Law really), every facet of the Ten Commandments save one is restated in the New Testament. The specific exception is Sabbath day so this is not a new question. Biblically, it seems the day we want to call holy is rightly our's to prayerfully choose.

Paul suggests in Rom 14:2-6 that one man may hold to one Sabbath day, others to another. In Col 2:8-18 Paul actually says for us to not to let others judge us about things like Sabbaths. Luke, in Acts 20:7, specifically tells us the first day of the week was when early Jewish Christians met for communion and Bible study.

So, from all that, my easily chosen Sabbath is Sunday. But I sure won't judge that anyone else is "wrong" about choosing Saturday or Tuesday, etc.

(May God forgive Armstrong for his many bad teachings.)

I'm inclined to let this go.......and have for a couple of days now. But, it's eating on me. Not the error of my ways, but yours. Acts 20:7 is what most of Sunday-keeping Christendom hang their hats on to justify Sunday observance. It says absolutely nothing about bible study or communion, just that they met to take up a collection for the saints. It could probably be equated to a Methodist Church having a business meeting on Tuesday to discuss the building fund. There is no indication that worship was held at all. Further, that is the only scripture that mentions the first day of the week in any aspect at all. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, that refer to the Sabbath as the 7th day. A couple of them refer to it as an ordinance to be kept forever. Much more persuasive than your one thin verse. Perhaps (well, obviously) you have prayerfully chosen to observe Sunday. Your choice. But if you're basing your choice on that lone scripture you're hanging over the cliff and holding on by your fingernails. Most Sunday-keeping Christians freely admit that they observe Sunday because it's traditional. And, of course, we know that God admonishes against placing one's faith in the traditions of men. Do as you please, we're all creatures of free will and choice. But, like the old crusader said in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade", "Choose wisely." Your statement, "(it was God's law really)" is correct, and something to ponder. If the Sabbath was not restated in the New Testament, perhaps it was because its keeping is obvious it was felt to be unnecessary since it had already been in effect for thousands of years. But, it does not say, "Hey--listen up! The new Sabbath is now Sunday!"

Next, the admonition of Paul to not let others judge you concerning your keeping of the Sabbath or what you eat, etc. This was written by Paul during his lifetime following the death of Christ. To whom was he talking? Not to you, but to the very early Christians. What day did they observe as the Sabbath, and what meats did they eat? Perhaps the Romans were trying to get them to observe the Day of the Sun, and the Romans were great pig eaters, but whomever it was, if it was at that time and not a caution against the future, then it was actually an admonition not to feel pressured to change the ways that they had already been keeping, and not an invitation to observe a different Sabbath and eat foods that were taboo. This wasn't given in 500 A.D., but rather perhaps 15 or 20 A.D. There were no Sunday-keeping Christians at that time. As stated in a previous post, the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday. Hundreds of years after the fact, and being a scion of generations of Sunday-keepers, it is no wonder that you have chosen to follow that path. Again, your choice, and not criticism here, but an attempt at clarification. Like you said, I'm not wanting to condemn anyone for their choice of what day they observe. There is someone who cares, but it's above my pay grade. Peter said that the writings of Paul were often difficult to understand, so examine this closely.

Then, there is the Armstrong thing. He used to offer $1,000 (a lot of money way back then) to anyone who could disprove the Sabbath. No one ever collected. Yes, he did have some errors in his teachings, most of which were later corrected, mostly technical that didn't effect the basic teachings. My objection was to the authoritarianism of the clergy, so I never put myself under their heel. This is no longer the case among the 2nd and 3rd generation offspring of his ministry. Yes, he was a bit of a tyrant, and his son a bit of a scoundrel. But, one doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Whatever church you belong to, or if you're a freethinker of some sort, I'll bet you wouldn't like for us to go over your doctrines with a microscope. Nobody, and no church, is perfect. May God forgive the Inquisitors of the Catholic Church, etc. Again--that's not my call.

Lastly, Mr. Blackwater, whom I consider to be a friend, was just trying to restore a little peace through his ecumenical opinion. Having known, followed, communicated with him over the years I would not want to confront him with an "I'm never wrong" ego and "less adroit than his" command of the language. He and I are not on the same page religiously, but I respect him. Nothing is worse or more bitter than religious arguments, and I won't be back to help turn this thread into one. Peace. Please. We've stated our opinions.

[.429&H110]

About a decade ago on a sub-zero night in No. Pole, my Pastor popped this very question at Wednesday night prayers. I had never given it a thought. When the shouting died down and the room paused for breath, Pastor reminded us that Major Robert saw the need for Robert's Rules of Order at a Baptist prayer meeting in 1876, wrote the book.
Motion to adjourn?