Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

If we ever pinpoint Jesus' birth year, should we change

Page 2 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

18 Apr 2012, 9:34 pm

Delphiki wrote:
Joker wrote:
Gravechylde wrote:
I thought that it was originally called BC/AD when they first decided to split it, but now that such a large portion of people in the academic world are atheist they changed it to BCE/CE.


Not entirely true some people in the acadmic field are religious.


It does not have to do with if you are religious or not, BCE/CE is the new more accurate way to describe it. The reason it is more accurate- before christ and after death, what about the time when he was alive


AD does NOT mean "after descent"(he ascended rather than descended anyway).
And it does NOT mean "after death".( they start the dates with his birth and not his death anyway).
I cant be kind about this: be ignorant OR be illogical. But please dont be both!
Not only are both of those pieces of folk entomology factually wrong, they are both illogical.
It means what the anno domini (the year of our lord).
Enough with folk entymology already!

The current thing of calling it "the common era" is for the very thing the OP is asking about.
We dont know when exactly he was born - and we know it was probably a few years off- but its too late to change the calender and all of the history books now so- we got no choice but to continue following in the common tradition- so lets just call it "the common era". Because thats what it is - just a common convention.



Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 182
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

18 Apr 2012, 9:45 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Delphiki wrote:
Joker wrote:
Gravechylde wrote:
I thought that it was originally called BC/AD when they first decided to split it, but now that such a large portion of people in the academic world are atheist they changed it to BCE/CE.


Not entirely true some people in the acadmic field are religious.


It does not have to do with if you are religious or not, BCE/CE is the new more accurate way to describe it. The reason it is more accurate- before christ and after death, what about the time when he was alive


AD does NOT mean "after descent"(he ascended rather than descended anyway).
And it does NOT mean "after death".( they start the dates with his birth and not his death anyway).
I cant be kind about this: be ignorant OR be illogical. But please dont be both!
Not only are both of those pieces of folk entomology factually wrong, they are both illogical.
It means what the anno domini (the year of our lord).
Enough with folk entymology already!

The current thing of calling it "the common era" is for the very thing the OP is asking about.
We dont know when exactly he was born - and we know it was probably a few years off- but its too late to change the calender and all of the history books now so- we got no choice but to continue following in the common tradition- so lets just call it "the common era". Because thats what it is - just a common convention.


Wow, you seem upset. I don't even understand why this matters at all. Do you need an anti anxiety pill or something? I mean this rant would have made a little bit of sense to put if 1. you had gone off of my post where I clarified 2. crazy catlord had not said the same in a way that explained the meaning of it.

And for any laymen on this topic (BC/AD) the true meaning is not known to them.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

18 Apr 2012, 10:04 pm

Delphiki wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Delphiki wrote:
Joker wrote:
Gravechylde wrote:
I thought that it was originally called BC/AD when they first decided to split it, but now that such a large portion of people in the academic world are atheist they changed it to BCE/CE.


Not entirely true some people in the acadmic field are religious.


It does not have to do with if you are religious or not, BCE/CE is the new more accurate way to describe it. The reason it is more accurate- before christ and after death, what about the time when he was alive


AD does NOT mean "after descent"(he ascended rather than descended anyway).
And it does NOT mean "after death".( they start the dates with his birth and not his death anyway).

Not only are both of those pieces of folk entomology factually wrong, they are both illogical.
It means what the anno domini (the year of our lord).
Enough with folk entymology already!

The current thing of calling it "the common era" is for the very thing the OP is asking about.
We dont know when exactly he was born - and we know it was probably a few years off- but its too late to change the calender and all of the history books now so- we got no choice but to continue following in the common tradition- so lets just call it "the common era". Because thats what it is - just a common convention.


Wow, you seem upset. I don't even understand why this matters at all. Do you need an anti anxiety pill or something? I mean this rant would have made a little bit of sense to put if 1. you had gone off of my post where I clarified 2. crazy catlord had not said the same in a way that explained the meaning of it.

And for any laymen on this topic (BC/AD) the true meaning is not known to them.


I go over the top on purpose for humor sometimes and to cut through the confusion, and folks sometimes take it the wrong way.

Sorry if I offended.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Apr 2012, 8:27 pm

Vigilans wrote:
No, because not everyone uses BC and AD for their idea of the timeline. 0 is the divisor between the Common Era (CE) and Before Common Era (BCE). Jesus need not have anything to do with it


Actually, the number zero hadn't been invented yet. Hence, there is no Year Zero. The calendar goes from 1 BC to 1 AD.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

19 Apr 2012, 10:09 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
No, because not everyone uses BC and AD for their idea of the timeline. 0 is the divisor between the Common Era (CE) and Before Common Era (BCE). Jesus need not have anything to do with it


Actually, the number zero hadn't been invented yet. Hence, there is no Year Zero. The calendar goes from 1 BC to 1 AD.


In astronomical calendars the year 0 does actually exist. Though you are correct about zero not having been 'invented' (it is almost inconceivable to me not having the zero concept)


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,682
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Apr 2012, 10:42 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Delphiki wrote:
Joker wrote:
Gravechylde wrote:
I thought that it was originally called BC/AD when they first decided to split it, but now that such a large portion of people in the academic world are atheist they changed it to BCE/CE.


Not entirely true some people in the acadmic field are religious.


It does not have to do with if you are religious or not, BCE/CE is the new more accurate way to describe it. The reason it is more accurate- before christ and after death, what about the time when he was alive


AD does NOT mean "after descent"(he ascended rather than descended anyway).
And it does NOT mean "after death".( they start the dates with his birth and not his death anyway).
I cant be kind about this: be ignorant OR be illogical. But please dont be both!
Not only are both of those pieces of folk entomology factually wrong, they are both illogical.
It means what the anno domini (the year of our lord).
Enough with folk entymology already!

The current thing of calling it "the common era" is for the very thing the OP is asking about.
We dont know when exactly he was born - and we know it was probably a few years off- but its too late to change the calender and all of the history books now so- we got no choice but to continue following in the common tradition- so lets just call it "the common era". Because thats what it is - just a common convention.


Growing up, I knew another kid in my church who had gotten thrown out of his class in school, because he had argued with her that A.D. didn't mean after death. :lol:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

19 Apr 2012, 11:37 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Delphiki wrote:
Joker wrote:
Gravechylde wrote:
I thought that it was originally called BC/AD when they first decided to split it, but now that such a large portion of people in the academic world are atheist they changed it to BCE/CE.


Not entirely true some people in the acadmic field are religious.


It does not have to do with if you are religious or not, BCE/CE is the new more accurate way to describe it. The reason it is more accurate- before christ and after death, what about the time when he was alive


AD does NOT mean "after descent"(he ascended rather than descended anyway).
And it does NOT mean "after death".( they start the dates with his birth and not his death anyway).
I cant be kind about this: be ignorant OR be illogical. But please dont be both!
Not only are both of those pieces of folk entomology factually wrong, they are both illogical.
It means what the anno domini (the year of our lord).
Enough with folk entymology already!

The current thing of calling it "the common era" is for the very thing the OP is asking about.
We dont know when exactly he was born - and we know it was probably a few years off- but its too late to change the calender and all of the history books now so- we got no choice but to continue following in the common tradition- so lets just call it "the common era". Because thats what it is - just a common convention.


Growing up, I knew another kid in my church who had gotten thrown out of his class in school, because he had argued with her that A.D. didn't mean after death. :lol:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


One of my eighth grade teachers decided "it must mean 'after death' "while thinking aloud in front of class. Like that other teacher we had in Highschool who 'knew' that the Mississippi river 'started in Montana'. She even did a double take when looking at a map- and exclaimed "why is the mississippi ending in Minnesota when I KNOW it ends in Montana!"

{ to head off the nit pickers: its the Missouri that sources in Montana. The Missouri meets the Mississippi at St. Louis. Together the Missouri and the Mississippi can be thought of as one river sysem that starts in Montana, but actual mississippi starts in Minnesota.)



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,682
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Apr 2012, 12:43 am

The people who go into education. :roll:
No, I shouldn't be that hard on teachers. Funny how we tend to usually remember just the bad ones.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

20 Apr 2012, 1:34 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
The people who go into education. :roll:
No, I shouldn't be that hard on teachers. Funny how we tend to usually remember just the bad ones.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Yes, people in general talk about bad teachers they had. I tend to remember the good teachers more except when Im reminded of some specific issue like this.