A.D. The Bible Continued on NBC

[sealybobo]

There is No AD it's CE (common era) and BCE (before the common era)

Common to what?

What ever happened to BC and ad?

They are still in use. Scholarship usually prefers to use CE (common era) and BCE (before common era) because that way they are not referring to the Christian AD and BC. They don't want to base the calendar around Jesus. It's silly, of course, because they still are regardless of whether they use CE or AD. It's just one of those things that left-wing college professors came up with to distance themselves from Jesus. I don't find it that big of a deal, really. You know....whatever. Sometimes I use AD and sometimes I use CE. I have much bigger concerns in my life than whether people use CE or AD.

I'm an athiest and its ad and BC for me.

 

[BluePhantom]

There is No AD it's CE (common era) and BCE (before the common era)

Common to what?

What ever happened to BC and ad?

They are still in use. Scholarship usually prefers to use CE (common era) and BCE (before common era) because that way they are not referring to the Christian AD and BC. They don't want to base the calendar around Jesus. It's silly, of course, because they still are regardless of whether they use CE or AD. It's just one of those things that left-wing college professors came up with to distance themselves from Jesus. I don't find it that big of a deal, really. You know....whatever. Sometimes I use AD and sometimes I use CE. I have much bigger concerns in my life than whether people use CE or AD.

I'm an athiest and its ad and BC for me.

Well there you go, so you can see how effective it is. If I am writing a scholarly paper or an article or something and I am approaching the content from the perspective of scholarship I will usually use CE. If I am just in a conversation about religion or theology I will use AD. Like I said. I really don't care either way . Whether one wants to specifically refer to it or not both are counted from the life of Jesus, so it's just a question of whether one wishes to admit it or pretend it means something else. Like I said, it's silly. The only people who really care are people like Guno who gets his tampon in a twist whenever someone even mentions that religions exist.

 

[sealybobo]

Other than Jesus who was the last Arab death you cried over.

Do you even know how many Iraqis have died since bush invaded?

I think obama has passed him up with drone strikes.

I just said since bush invaded. Why do you think Obama has killed more terrorists? Cool.

Bush killed more collateral damage. He killed more civilians. Obama bombs them in their training camps on the battle field. Bush blew up lots of innocence.

And I wonder how many soldiers died on bush vs Obamas watch.

Dont forget 9-11 happened on Bush's watch and we haven't got hit once on Obamas. Benghazi haha.

 

[hortysir]

Other than Jesus who was the last Arab death you cried over.

Do you even know how many Iraqis have died since bush invaded?

I think obama has passed him up with drone strikes.

I just said since bush invaded. Why do you think Obama has killed more terrorists? Cool.

Bush killed more collateral damage. He killed more civilians. Obama bombs them in their training camps on the battle field. Bush blew up lots of innocence.

And I wonder how many soldiers died on bush vs Obamas watch.

Dont forget 9-11 happened on Bush's watch and we haven't got hit once on Obamas. Benghazi haha.

Care to compare American military deaths in Afghanistan between the two?

 

[Iceweasel]

There is No AD it's CE (common era) and BCE (before the common era)

Common to what?

What ever happened to BC and ad?

They are still in use. Scholarship usually prefers to use CE (common era) and BCE (before common era) because that way they are not referring to the Christian AD and BC. They don't want to base the calendar around Jesus. It's silly, of course, because they still are regardless of whether they use CE or AD. It's just one of those things that left-wing college professors came up with to distance themselves from Jesus. I don't find it that big of a deal, really. You know....whatever. Sometimes I use AD and sometimes I use CE. I have much bigger concerns in my life than whether people use CE or AD.

Scholars can be full of shit too. The years are the same for the exact same reason. Labelling it differently only makes the "scholar" look like he's in some form of denial. I'm not a Christian but only a fool ignores the Gregorian calender and pretends it was common to something else.

 

[sealybobo]

There is No AD it's CE (common era) and BCE (before the common era)

Common to what?

What ever happened to BC and ad?

They are still in use. Scholarship usually prefers to use CE (common era) and BCE (before common era) because that way they are not referring to the Christian AD and BC. They don't want to base the calendar around Jesus. It's silly, of course, because they still are regardless of whether they use CE or AD. It's just one of those things that left-wing college professors came up with to distance themselves from Jesus. I don't find it that big of a deal, really. You know....whatever. Sometimes I use AD and sometimes I use CE. I have much bigger concerns in my life than whether people use CE or AD.

Scholars can be full of shit too. The years are the same for the exact same reason. Labelling it differently only makes the "scholar" look like he's in some form of denial. I'm not a Christian but only a fool ignores the Gregorian calender and pretends it was common to something else.

And I dont remember the announcement that they were switching. I dont like that. They make something new up and talk about it like people understand. Reminds me of twitter and the cloud. How many of us admitted we didn't know what the cloud was when they first started talking about it?

 

[BluePhantom]

There is No AD it's CE (common era) and BCE (before the common era)

Common to what?

What ever happened to BC and ad?

They are still in use. Scholarship usually prefers to use CE (common era) and BCE (before common era) because that way they are not referring to the Christian AD and BC. They don't want to base the calendar around Jesus. It's silly, of course, because they still are regardless of whether they use CE or AD. It's just one of those things that left-wing college professors came up with to distance themselves from Jesus. I don't find it that big of a deal, really. You know....whatever. Sometimes I use AD and sometimes I use CE. I have much bigger concerns in my life than whether people use CE or AD.

Scholars can be full of shit too. The years are the same for the exact same reason. Labelling it differently only makes the "scholar" look like he's in some form of denial. I'm not a Christian but only a fool ignores the Gregorian calender and pretends it was common to something else.

And I dont remember the announcement that they were switching. I dont like that. They make something new up and talk about it like people understand. Reminds me of twitter and the cloud. How many of us admitted we didn't know what the cloud was when they first started talking about it?

Well I did I little more research on this...just briefly. Apparently the CE system and the AD system were both designed by a Christian monk named Dionysus Exiguus in 525. He created them because the previous numbering system had to do with Diocletian somehow, who was pretty brutal to early Christians, and he did not want a system that was related to him. So he came up with both AD/BC and CE/BCE for that purpose and AD/BC simply caught on more. Both are designed to count years from Jesus. So I guess the joke is on Guno and other atheists that demand we use CE/BCE since they both refer to Jesus and were both designed by a Christian

 

[sealybobo]

Tonight Peter is standing up to the jews that had Jesus crucified. Can't wait to see what happens next. I've always been curious about this time in history.

 

[sealybobo]

Didn't Jesus' disciples high tail it out of there and spread the word to non Jews in Europe?

 

[tyroneweaver]

I like the background stuff...intriguing
Scripture accuracy seems a like off
A black John..but where's James

 

[sealybobo]

I like the background stuff...intriguing
Scripture accuracy seems a like off
A black John..but where's James

Did you see black John's eyes light up when he found a believer with money?

 

[longknife]

Having two people die with blood coming out of their noses, mouths, and eyes seemed more of a slam at Christianity than anything,

Was there ever one instance where Jesus used his powers to punish anyone for anything similar?

Grandstanding and I believe totally inaccurate and untrue.

 

[peach174]

Having two people die with blood coming out of their noses, mouths, and eyes seemed more of a slam at Christianity than anything,

Was there ever one instance where Jesus used his powers to punish anyone for anything similar?

Grandstanding and I believe totally inaccurate and untrue.

It was punishment for deceiving and lying, and not being true full believers, not about slamming Christianity.

 

[BluePhantom]

Didn't Jesus' disciples high tail it out of there and spread the word to non Jews in Europe?

No not exactly. I guess it depends on which source you use. Some sources say they all went to different parts of the known world at the time. Other sources say they stayed in Judea. Tradition says this, the apocrypha says that. Acts says one thing, Paul says another. The truth is we really don't know what happened to them for certain, but at least some of them, Peter most notably, apparently continued to minister to Jews. It was Paul that ministered to Gentiles.

 

[BluePhantom]

I like the background stuff...intriguing
Scripture accuracy seems a like off
A black John..but where's James

Which James? James the greater, James the lesser, James the brother of Jesus? As far as the accuracy, the series isn't following scripture. That's fine so long as they are clear about that. There are obviously things that happened that are not recorded and it's fair to speculate about what happened, but the "danger" (if you want to call it that) is that people who don't know the Bible watch the show and think that's what the Bible says when it doesn't. I don't mind speculation, but they should make it clear that the show is "historical fiction", I suppose

 

[longknife]

I honestly wonder why the writers made some of the apostles African. To stir controversy or see what kind of reactions they would get.

 

[BluePhantom]

I honestly wonder why the writers made some of the apostles African. To stir controversy or see what kind of reactions they would get.

Maybe. Or perhaps to attempt to break people from their pre-conceived notions. I will do this occasionally. Sometimes I will be talking to a person and I want to break them out of a set way of thinking...to color outside the lines, so to speak, and open their minds to other possibilities. Sometimes I do this by referring to God as 'She' when I am talking to them. Sometimes it works, sometimes it just pisses them off, but it rarely goes unnoticed.

 

[LittleNipper]

I honestly wonder why the writers made some of the apostles African. To stir controversy or see what kind of reactions they would get.

Maybe. Or perhaps to attempt to break people from their pre-conceived notions. I will do this occasionally. Sometimes I will be talking to a person and I want to break them out of a set way of thinking...to color outside the lines, so to speak, and open their minds to other possibilities. Sometimes I do this by referring to God as 'She' when I am talking to them. Sometimes it works, sometimes it just pisses them off, but it rarely goes unnoticed.

The problem is that the Bible does provide specific pieces of information that some simply wish to distort, seemingly to make the Bible appear corrupted and questionable ------ when in fact it is rather precise and explicit. An example includes the resent version of Noah (no walking trees).
Of course there are plausible details; however, such should never contradict what the Bible clearly reveals.

 

[BluePhantom]

I honestly wonder why the writers made some of the apostles African. To stir controversy or see what kind of reactions they would get.

Maybe. Or perhaps to attempt to break people from their pre-conceived notions. I will do this occasionally. Sometimes I will be talking to a person and I want to break them out of a set way of thinking...to color outside the lines, so to speak, and open their minds to other possibilities. Sometimes I do this by referring to God as 'She' when I am talking to them. Sometimes it works, sometimes it just pisses them off, but it rarely goes unnoticed.

The problem is that the Bible does provide specific pieces of information that some simply wish to distort, seemingly to make the Bible appear corrupted and questionable ------ when in fact it is rather precise and explicit. An example includes the resent version of Noah (no walking trees).
Of course there are plausible details; however, such should never contradict what the Bible clearly reveals.

I would generally agree that where the Bible is specific it should be depicted in that manner. Problems arise when the Bible is vague, doesn't address a topic, or stands in contradiction to itself. For example, if we were to make a TV show about Jesus and wanted to show his birth, do we follow the Luke account or the Matthew account, or do we try to jam both of them together and, in effect, create our own account?

 

[longknife]

How much art depicts Jesus as a blond, blue-eyed Caucasian when there is no doubt he was a Semite with typically black hair and dark complexion.