Lets Restart the Calendar to a Year NOT Referencing the birth of Christ

[konradv]

I'm sorry , but what kind of dumb shit pussy do you have to be to be offended at the calender? I mean seriously?

Jesus was an important man in world history whether you are a Christian or not.

Oh,and the months are mostly named after Roman gods,you don't see Christians whining about that do you?

Jesus you people make me want to cry.

I'm sorry, but did you miss the title of this forum? What don't you get about a fun thread? I think an apology is in order. You violated the terms of the board.

An apology to who? THe author of the article the OP posted. No, I won't apologize to him.

I will apologize if my comment hit a little too close to home for anyone here.

You need to apologize for your post, considering the forum you posted it to. Do we need to get the mods involved? I'm not kidding. Put it up or you could be banned. Your choice. I'm not in the mood for your games. This forum is here for a reason, the main one being that we don't have to put up with posts like yours. There are plenty of other fora here for that kind of trash.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I'm sorry, but did you miss the title of this forum? What don't you get about a fun thread? I think an apology is in order. You violated the terms of the board.

An apology to who? THe author of the article the OP posted. No, I won't apologize to him.

I will apologize if my comment hit a little too close to home for anyone here.

You need to apologize for your post, considering the forum you posted it to. Do we need to get the mods involved? I'm not kidding. Put it up or you could be banned. Your choice. I'm not in the mood for your games. This forum is here for a reason, the main one being that we don't have to put up with posts like yours. There are plenty of other fora here for that kind of trash.

My question was an honest one, if you want an apology for the language, that I have no problem with. My language can be a little crude sometimes and for that I apologize.

I won't apologize for the sentiment though, go ahead and report what you will.

 

[Decus]

You are in the Clean Debate section. Different rules apply when posting here.

 

[JimBowie1958]

In the attempt to secularize the calendar, many, if not most academics use the appending 'CE' for 'Common Era' but they fail to acheive their goal because the zero date is the year of the birth of Christ as most traditionally calculated.

So here is a suggestion: change the zero year to the start of the modern era. But what year is that? And why the modern era?

The modern era is characterized by a change of mental attitudes about the knowlege and authority of writers long dead from the ancient world. The idea of learning in almot all of the pre-Modern world was to bring up some treatise from a learned ancient and glean knowlege from it. The modern era thought began with mathematical and scientific approaches and said 'What can we most certainly know about a subject' then built on that.

The cosmology of the modern era was almost completely reversed from the middle ages and the ancient world. This is what began to shape the world as we know it today.

But what event would be the best reference to date the modern era from?

The fall of Constantinople? That is more of a symbolic importance, and had little real impact on the modern world.

The discovery of the Americas by Columbus? That really didnt change ancient cosmolgy to modern, though it did establish the economic domination of the Western European nations till the end of the Twentieth century, but that affect is now almost completely passed as evidence of China India and the rise of the USA have demonstrated, all nonEuropean nations.

The heliocentric view of the universe? Another mistake in concept of the universe since there really is not ca enter of the universe, except perhaps where the Big Bang took place. This was more derivative than causal and was largely ignored by most astronomers till Gallileo, at least that is my impression.

The development of astronimical navigation? Well, the impact of that was limited to commerce mostly and is again more derivative of other major changes rather than being the root change to modern cosmology itself.

I think the production of the first printing press in 1468 is the best event to deliniate the beginning of the Modern Cosmology. This development led to an explosion of learning as books became far more affordable and easier to print. Books became the posession of anyone who wanted to read them enough to save up some paltry sum and buy them.

The development of the printing press allowed the mass production of astronomical tables that allowed for astronomical navigation. Ubiqitous tomes of knowlege made universal education possible, allowed for easier and more acurate record keeping, and unleashed the modern mind to think of new worlds, new ideas and new ways of life. The printing press gave us an explosion of learning, creativity and accuracy far surpassing the pre-modern times.

So, without further explanation, I present to you all the year 544 M.E., Modern Era.

I'm sorry , but what kind of dumb shit pussy do you have to be to be offended at the calender? I mean seriously?

Jesus was an important man in world history whether you are a Christian or not.

Oh,and the months are mostly named after Roman gods,you don't see Christians whining about that do you?

Jesus you people make me want to cry.

I'm sorry , but what kind of bleep bleep bleep do you have to be to be offended by a light-hearted post about something that no one thinks can ever really happen?

I was mocking the use of CE and BCE, dude. Wake up.

 

[JustTheFacts]

You are in the Clean Debate section. Different rules apply when posting here.

I apologized for the language

 

[PaulS1950]

Saul of Tarsus was more important to the religious changes that took place than Jesus was. The term "Christian" comes from Saul (Paul) not anyone else. Before that the "movement" was called the "new Judism" and was very Jewish in nature and movement. Saul spread the religion to the gentiles and mostly to the wealthy Romans.
Other than that The emperor Constantine was the one who made it the state religion of Rome and formalized it by commissioning the assembly of the "standard" bible. After that the priniting press spread the religion throughout the world. Christianity was the first religion to be printed in a language that people could actually read.
Jesus was born a Jew, lived his life as a Jew, and died a Jew as an enemy of Rome for advocating a Jewish uprising against Roman rule. The essenic Jews (a group that included John the baptist, Jesus and about 1/4 of the Roman Jewish population at the time) believed that Yahweh wanted the Jews to rule themselves and stay an independent nation.

As it stands, the calendar that we use today, does not use the birth or death of Jesus as any reference to the BC or AD periods. The misunderstanding of those Latin terms led to the now more common BCE and CE that stand for Before Common Era and Common Era meaning that the calendar is in common use across most of the world.
The months of the year are mostly named for Roman Emperors - not their Gods. The ruling emperor whould often add days to make his month the longest and it caused a progression of the dates that muddied the seasonal changes until the calendar was standardized. What I want to know is why doesn't February have 30 days and then 31 on the leap year it would only take one day away from two other months to give February the same number of days as the rest of the months. Why did they leave it at 28 days?

 

[JustTheFacts]

Saul of Tarsus was more important to the religious changes that took place than Jesus was. The term "Christian" comes from Saul (Paul) not anyone else. Before that the "movement" was called the "new Judism" and was very Jewish in nature and movement. Saul spread the religion to the gentiles and mostly to the wealthy Romans.
Other than that The emperor Constantine was the one who made it the state religion of Rome and formalized it by commissioning the assembly of the "standard" bible. After that the priniting press spread the religion throughout the world. Christianity was the first religion to be printed in a language that people could actually read.
Jesus was born a Jew, lived his life as a Jew, and died a Jew as an enemy of Rome for advocating a Jewish uprising against Roman rule. The essenic Jews (a group that included John the baptist, Jesus and about 1/4 of the Roman Jewish population at the time) believed that Yahweh wanted the Jews to rule themselves and stay an independent nation.

As it stands, the calendar that we use today, does not use the birth or death of Jesus as any reference to the BC or AD periods. The misunderstanding of those Latin terms led to the now more common BCE and CE that stand for Before Common Era and Common Era meaning that the calendar is in common use across most of the world.
The months of the year are mostly named for Roman Emperors - not their Gods. The ruling emperor whould often add days to make his month the longest and it caused a progression of the dates that muddied the seasonal changes until the calendar was standardized. What I want to know is why doesn't February have 30 days and then 31 on the leap year it would only take one day away from two other months to give February the same number of days as the rest of the months. Why did they leave it at 28 days?

An interesting premise. Who's more important,the man who inspired Christianity or the man who did the most to spread the early Church.

CHicken/egg type deal there.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Saul of Tarsus was more important to the religious changes that took place than Jesus was. The term "Christian" comes from Saul (Paul) not anyone else. Before that the "movement" was called the "new Judism" and was very Jewish in nature and movement. Saul spread the religion to the gentiles and mostly to the wealthy Romans.
Other than that The emperor Constantine was the one who made it the state religion of Rome and formalized it by commissioning the assembly of the "standard" bible. After that the priniting press spread the religion throughout the world. Christianity was the first religion to be printed in a language that people could actually read.
Jesus was born a Jew, lived his life as a Jew, and died a Jew as an enemy of Rome for advocating a Jewish uprising against Roman rule. The essenic Jews (a group that included John the baptist, Jesus and about 1/4 of the Roman Jewish population at the time) believed that Yahweh wanted the Jews to rule themselves and stay an independent nation.

I agree with all but the bold. The Gospels give no evidence that Jesus advocated an uprising, quite the opposite in fact. The only thing you have to support you contention was some foggy notion about what some of the Essenes wrote which may or may not include Jesus.

I dont see the Romans either using a religon established by someone who hated them, nor I do I think it credible to suppose the Romans changed all the copies of the Gospels in the world as the Nestorians, Ethiopian and Thomist churches were not under Roman rule and greatly over shadowed Christians in the Empire.

As it stands, the calendar that we use today, does not use the birth or death of Jesus as any reference to the BC or AD periods. The misunderstanding of those Latin terms led to the now more common BCE and CE that stand for Before Common Era and Common Era meaning that the calendar is in common use across most of the world.

Yeah, the dates only just so happen to coincide with the traditional dates for the Christian calendar that starts year 0 with what was thought to be the birth of JEsus. Uh huh, sure, I'll buy that, /s

The months of the year are mostly named for Roman Emperors - not their Gods. The ruling emperor whould often add days to make his month the longest and it caused a progression of the dates that muddied the seasonal changes until the calendar was standardized.

No, the only months named after Roman emporers was July and August, the most of the rest are based on Roman number names or gods.

Encyclopedia Mythica: Origin of the names of the months

January
Named after the Roman god of beginnings and endings Janus (the month Januarius).

February
The name comes either from the old-Italian god Februus or else from februa, signifying the festivals of purification celebrated in Rome during this month.

March
This is the first month of the Roman year. It is named after the Roman god of war, Mars.

April
Called Aprilis, from aperire, "to open". Possible because it is the month in which the buds begin to open.

May
The third month of the Roman calendar. The name probably comes from Maiesta, the Roman goddess of honor and reverence.

June
The fourth month was named in honor of Juno. However, the name might also come from iuniores (young men; juniors) as opposed to maiores (grown men; majors) for May, the two months being dedicated to young and old men.

July
It was the month in which Julius Caesar was born, and named Julius in his honor in 44 BCE, the year of his assassination. Also called Quintilis (fifth month).

August
Originally this month was called Sextilis (from sextus, "six"), but the name was later changed in honor of the first of the Roman emperors, Augustus (because several fortunate events of his life occurred during this month).

September
The name comes from septem, "seven".

October
The name comes from octo, "eight"

November
The name comes from novem, "nine".

December
The name comes from decem, "ten".

Julius and Augustus were considered to have become gods by the pagan Romans.

What I want to know is why doesn't February have 30 days and then 31 on the leap year it would only take one day away from two other months to give February the same number of days as the rest of the months. Why did they leave it at 28 days?

February - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February was named after the Latin term februum, which means purification, via the purification ritual Februa held on February 15 (full moon) in the old lunar Roman calendar. January and February were the last two months to be added to the Roman calendar, since the Romans originally considered winter a monthless period. They were added by Numa Pompilius about 713 BC. February remained the last month of the calendar year until the time of the decemvirs (c. 450 BC), when it became the second month. At certain intervals February was truncated to 23 or 24 days; and a 27-day intercalary month, Intercalaris, was inserted immediately after February to realign the year with the seasons.

Under the reforms that instituted the Julian calendar, Intercalaris was abolished, leap years occurred regularly every fourth year, and in leap years February gained a 29th day. Thereafter, it remained the second month of the calendar year, meaning the order that months are displayed (January, February, March, ..., December) within a year-at-a-glance calendar. Even during the Middle Ages, when the numbered Anno Domini year began on March 25 or December 25, the second month was February whenever all twelve months were displayed in order. The Gregorian calendar reforms made slight changes to the system for determining which years were leap years and thus contained a 29-day February.

Augustus 'stole' a day to make August 31 days and one of the larger months, and February lost it because it got what was left of their calendar system.

 

[Pogo]

Saul of Tarsus was more important to the religious changes that took place than Jesus was. The term "Christian" comes from Saul (Paul) not anyone else. Before that the "movement" was called the "new Judism" and was very Jewish in nature and movement. Saul spread the religion to the gentiles and mostly to the wealthy Romans.
Other than that The emperor Constantine was the one who made it the state religion of Rome and formalized it by commissioning the assembly of the "standard" bible. After that the priniting press spread the religion throughout the world. Christianity was the first religion to be printed in a language that people could actually read.
Jesus was born a Jew, lived his life as a Jew, and died a Jew as an enemy of Rome for advocating a Jewish uprising against Roman rule. The essenic Jews (a group that included John the baptist, Jesus and about 1/4 of the Roman Jewish population at the time) believed that Yahweh wanted the Jews to rule themselves and stay an independent nation.

I agree with all but the bold. The Gospels give no evidence that Jesus advocated an uprising, quite the opposite in fact. The only thing you have to support you contention was some foggy notion about what some of the Essenes wrote which may or may not include Jesus.

Nah, the bold part is correct; Jesus was executed as a political prisoner, not a religious one -- most directly, inciting a riot with the moneychangers episode. Rome didn't care about one more unknown spouting religious philosophies any more than they cared about the practice of Judaism already extant. What Rome cared about was power. And what they dealt with severely was any threat to that power.

All that religious song and dance was appended to the story much later, the aforementioned Saul being a major catalyst (and that guy was batshit crazy, or demented, or both). But make no mistake; if Jesus' notoriety had been limited to the spiritual, Rome's response would have been a gaping yawn. They were interested in the things of this earth: Empire. Period. A religious philosopher was no threat to Rome, nor would it require public humiliation and savage execution. Challenging the power of the Empire, however, would and did bring exactly that response.

(/offtopic)

 

[JimBowie1958]

Saul of Tarsus was more important to the religious changes that took place than Jesus was. The term "Christian" comes from Saul (Paul) not anyone else. Before that the "movement" was called the "new Judism" and was very Jewish in nature and movement. Saul spread the religion to the gentiles and mostly to the wealthy Romans.
Other than that The emperor Constantine was the one who made it the state religion of Rome and formalized it by commissioning the assembly of the "standard" bible. After that the priniting press spread the religion throughout the world. Christianity was the first religion to be printed in a language that people could actually read.
Jesus was born a Jew, lived his life as a Jew, and died a Jew as an enemy of Rome for advocating a Jewish uprising against Roman rule. The essenic Jews (a group that included John the baptist, Jesus and about 1/4 of the Roman Jewish population at the time) believed that Yahweh wanted the Jews to rule themselves and stay an independent nation.

I agree with all but the bold. The Gospels give no evidence that Jesus advocated an uprising, quite the opposite in fact. The only thing you have to support you contention was some foggy notion about what some of the Essenes wrote which may or may not include Jesus.

Nah, the bold part is correct; Jesus was executed as a political prisoner, not a religious one -- most directly, inciting a riot with the moneychangers episode. Rome didn't care about one more unknown spouting religious philosophies any more than they cared about the practice of Judaism already extant. What Rome cared about was power. And what they dealt with severely was any threat to that power.

All that religious song and dance was appended to the story much later, the aforementioned Saul being a major catalyst (and that guy was batshit crazy, or demented, or both). But make no mistake; if Jesus' notoriety had been limited to the spiritual, Rome's response would have been a gaping yawn. They were interested in the things of this earth: Empire. Period. A religious philosopher was no threat to Rome, nor would it require public humiliation and savage execution. Challenging the power of the Empire, however, would and did bring exactly that response.

(/offtopic)

Meh, that is supposition that ignores the written history closest to the time period in question, which is a form of modern hubris.

Rome executed Jesus because the govenor feared the Jewish leaders going to Rome and getting him fired like they did to a predecessor.

Hence the Pilate washing his hands, symbolizing that he did womthing that he felt he had no choice but to do. Had Jesus been a rebel there would have been little basis for the hesitation or felt need for disavowing guilt in executing an innocent man.

It amuses me how so many modern minded people simply start from the proposition that there is no written history for the early church when Christianity probably had better documentation to its origin in the NT books/letters and the writings of the Early Church Fathers than any other establishment of any other institution prior to the printing press.

Show me a flaw in the Gospel of Mark that you wouldnt find similarly in Ceasar's conquest of Gaul, and yet modernists ignore the gospel and accept the CoG right out of the gate. This is just another manifestation of modern hubris and bias against religious thought and expression.

 

[Pogo]

I agree with all but the bold. The Gospels give no evidence that Jesus advocated an uprising, quite the opposite in fact. The only thing you have to support you contention was some foggy notion about what some of the Essenes wrote which may or may not include Jesus.

Nah, the bold part is correct; Jesus was executed as a political prisoner, not a religious one -- most directly, inciting a riot with the moneychangers episode. Rome didn't care about one more unknown spouting religious philosophies any more than they cared about the practice of Judaism already extant. What Rome cared about was power. And what they dealt with severely was any threat to that power.

All that religious song and dance was appended to the story much later, the aforementioned Saul being a major catalyst (and that guy was batshit crazy, or demented, or both). But make no mistake; if Jesus' notoriety had been limited to the spiritual, Rome's response would have been a gaping yawn. They were interested in the things of this earth: Empire. Period. A religious philosopher was no threat to Rome, nor would it require public humiliation and savage execution. Challenging the power of the Empire, however, would and did bring exactly that response.

(/offtopic)

Meh, that is supposition that ignores the written history closest to the time period in question, which is a form of modern hubris.

Rome executed Jesus because the govenor feared the Jewish leaders going to Rome and getting him fired like they did to a predecessor.

Hence the Pilate washing his hands, symbolizing that he did womthing that he felt he had no choice but to do. Had Jesus been a rebel there would have been little basis for the hesitation or felt need for disavowing guilt in executing an innocent man.

It amuses me how so many modern minded people simply start from the proposition that there is no written history for the early church when Christianity probably had better documentation to its origin in the NT books/letters and the writings of the Early Church Fathers than any other establishment of any other institution prior to the printing press.

Show me a flaw in the Gospel of Mark that you wouldnt find similarly in Ceasar's conquest of Gaul, and yet modernists ignore the gospel and accept the CoG right out of the gate. This is just another manifestation of modern hubris and bias against religious thought and expression.

I don't know what the "CoG" is so I can't respond, but this doesn't ignores written history at all -- on the contrary it depends on it. The fact still is, Rome didn't care about religious activity. It stood out of the way when for example Jewish gathering times approached. What Rome was interested in was power, and its Empire, and sending the riches thereof back to Rome. Not religion. And crucifixion was its most devastating and dramatic form of execution.

Rome didn't exactly lack for alternate forms of execution, yet it chose for Jesus the method reserved for treason against the State. People who were simply making religious noises were dismissed with no more than a flogging, and even then only if they were a nuisance (Josephus recounts such a case). Rome targeted Jesus for his title: "King of the Jews" -- which to them meant not in a wispy ethereal quasireligious way but a real, living, breathing king who had, or stood to have, a standing among a population that was supposed to be a colony sitting two thousand miles from the seat of the Empire, and could then rebel against that Empire given a leader/liberator.

Rome didn't suffer self-styled "kings", at all. They put kings down with a quickness, regardless what part of the Empire it was and regardless what religious activity that king may or may not have engaged in. That's history.

It's not at all "hubristic" to see a historical figure in the context of his own times, especially politically. Once we discard the image of some vague philosopher who apparently did nothing but generally walk around all day in sandals uttering lofty platitudes, once we throw that off and see him within the very real political dynamics that surrounded him, and take into account what those dynamics really meant in his real world, the fuzzy focus becomes sharp. See Jesus in his real time for what he was: a political revolutionary who failed.

(/offtopic) (we're not in the Religion section)

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nah, the bold part is correct; Jesus was executed as a political prisoner, not a religious one -- most directly, inciting a riot with the moneychangers episode. Rome didn't care about one more unknown spouting religious philosophies any more than they cared about the practice of Judaism already extant. What Rome cared about was power. And what they dealt with severely was any threat to that power.

All that religious song and dance was appended to the story much later, the aforementioned Saul being a major catalyst (and that guy was batshit crazy, or demented, or both). But make no mistake; if Jesus' notoriety had been limited to the spiritual, Rome's response would have been a gaping yawn. They were interested in the things of this earth: Empire. Period. A religious philosopher was no threat to Rome, nor would it require public humiliation and savage execution. Challenging the power of the Empire, however, would and did bring exactly that response.

(/offtopic)

Meh, that is supposition that ignores the written history closest to the time period in question, which is a form of modern hubris.

Rome executed Jesus because the govenor feared the Jewish leaders going to Rome and getting him fired like they did to a predecessor.

Hence the Pilate washing his hands, symbolizing that he did womthing that he felt he had no choice but to do. Had Jesus been a rebel there would have been little basis for the hesitation or felt need for disavowing guilt in executing an innocent man.

It amuses me how so many modern minded people simply start from the proposition that there is no written history for the early church when Christianity probably had better documentation to its origin in the NT books/letters and the writings of the Early Church Fathers than any other establishment of any other institution prior to the printing press.

Show me a flaw in the Gospel of Mark that you wouldnt find similarly in Ceasar's conquest of Gaul, and yet modernists ignore the gospel and accept the CoG right out of the gate. This is just another manifestation of modern hubris and bias against religious thought and expression.

I don't know what the "CoG" is so I can't respond,

Conquest of Gaul.

but this doesn't ignores written history at all -- on the contrary it depends on it.

Depends on some of it, but ignores the most prominent and complete biographies known as the Gospels.

The fact still is, Rome didn't care about religious activity. It stood out of the way when for example Jewish gathering times approached. What Rome was interested in was power, and its Empire, and sending the riches thereof back to Rome. Not religion. And crucifixion was its most devastating and dramatic form of execution.

Rome did so care about religious activity if it impacted the stability of the empire. In fact, taking local 'gods' hostage and placing them on the avenue of the gods was a power mechanism they used often. Sorry I cant find a link but it has been thirty years since I studied the subject in college and cant find anything on the internet yet.

Rome didn't exactly lack for alternate forms of execution, yet it chose for Jesus the method reserved for treason against the State. People who were simply making religious noises were dismissed with no more than a flogging, and even then only if they were a nuisance (Josephus recounts such a case). Rome targeted Jesus for his title: "King of the Jews" -- which to them meant not in a wispy ethereal quasireligious way but a real, living, breathing king who had, or stood to have, a standing among a population that was supposed to be a colony sitting two thousand miles from the seat of the Empire, and could then rebel against that Empire given a leader/liberator.

Yes, Jesus' enemies acused Him of claiming to displace Ceasar as ruler of Palestine, but they new it was a lie as did Pilate, in all likelihood. So He was executed as a rebel would be.

Rome didn't suffer self-styled "kings", at all. They put kings down with a quickness, regardless what part of the Empire it was and regardless what religious activity that king may or may not have engaged in. That's history.

There were autonomous areas that had their own kings within the Roman Empire, and the German tribes are an example of that.

They were obligated to provide troops for Rome and was a critical part in driving off the Huns at Chalons.

It's not at all "hubristic" to see a historical figure in the context of his own times, especially politically.

But ignoring the written histories of the early church is not doing that, especially when you replace it with erroneous speculation.

Once we discard the image of some vague philosopher who apparently did nothing but generally walk around all day in sandals uttering lofty platitudes, once we throw that off and see him within the very real political dynamics that surrounded him, and take into account what those dynamics really meant in his real world, the fuzzy focus becomes sharp. See Jesus in his real time for what he was: a political revolutionary who failed.

(/offtopic) (we're not in the Religion section)

Lol, true, but if the ducks are flying, shoot.

 

[Dante]

In the attempt to secularize the calendar, many, if not most academics use the appending 'CE' for 'Common Era' but they fail to acheive their goal because the zero date is the year of the birth of Christ as most traditionally calculated.

So here is a suggestion:..

Here is a suggestion: try looking up your assumptions in Wikipedia first.

"""""Common Era (also Current Era[1] or Christian Era[2]), abbreviated as CE, is an alternative naming of the traditional calendar era, Anno Domini (abbreviated AD).[3] BCE is the abbreviation for Before the Common/Current/Christian Era (an alternative to Before Christ, abbreviated BC). The CE/BCE designation uses the year-numbering system introduced by the 6th-century Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus, who started the Anno Domini designation, intending the beginning of the life of Jesus to be the reference date.[4][5] Neither notation includes a year zero,[6] and the two notations (CE/BCE and AD/BC) are numerically equivalent; thus "2013 CE" corresponds to "AD 2013" and "399 BCE" corresponds to "399 BC"."""""""

"The expression "Common Era" can be found as early as 1708 in English..."

Common Era - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dante]

...

Depends on some of it, but ignores the most prominent and complete biographies known as the Gospels.
...

The gospels ain't biographies, they are stories ask most any New Testament Scholar

 

[Pogo]

...

Depends on some of it, but ignores the most prominent and complete biographies known as the Gospels.
...

The gospels ain't biographies, they are stories ask most any New Testament Scholar

And not just stories but stories of what was already the past, and then not only translated/mistranslated, but later edited with an obvious slant for PR. A shaky rack to hang one's hat on.
Me I'd rather have a more solid and neutral basis.

 

[JimBowie1958]

...

Depends on some of it, but ignores the most prominent and complete biographies known as the Gospels.
...

The gospels ain't biographies, they are stories ask most any New Testament Scholar

The 'consensus' among these so called scholars is reverting to traditional dates, authors and reliability.

These are biographies, ask the majority of New Testament scholars.

Besides all that, if you are going to make an argument, WHY DONT YOU MAKE IT instead of appealing to a minority of authorities that most of Christendom thinks to be a bunch of radical heathen?

 

[JimBowie1958]

...

Depends on some of it, but ignores the most prominent and complete biographies known as the Gospels.
...

The gospels ain't biographies, they are stories ask most any New Testament Scholar

And not just stories but stories of what was already the past, and then not only translated/mistranslated, but later edited with an obvious slant for PR. A shaky rack to hang one's hat on.
Me I'd rather have a more solid and neutral basis.

World changing events are most often written into history by those enthusiasts who witnessed and recorded the events. So of course it was believers that wrote the histories, and Josephus contributed as well, with texts external to the Roman empire having ancient references to Jesus Christ and His ministry.

The church history was apparently in written form prior to the sack of Jerusalem in 66 AD as the notion that ancient Jews would simply ignore the fall of the Temple is ridiculous.

 

[JimBowie1958]

In the attempt to secularize the calendar, many, if not most academics use the appending 'CE' for 'Common Era' but they fail to acheive their goal because the zero date is the year of the birth of Christ as most traditionally calculated.

So here is a suggestion:..

Here is a suggestion: try looking up your assumptions in Wikipedia first.

"""""Common Era (also Current Era[1] or Christian Era[2]), abbreviated as CE, is an alternative naming of the traditional calendar era, Anno Domini (abbreviated AD).[3] BCE is the abbreviation for Before the Common/Current/Christian Era (an alternative to Before Christ, abbreviated BC). The CE/BCE designation uses the year-numbering system introduced by the 6th-century Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus, who started the Anno Domini designation, intending the beginning of the life of Jesus to be the reference date.[4][5] Neither notation includes a year zero,[6] and the two notations (CE/BCE and AD/BC) are numerically equivalent; thus "2013 CE" corresponds to "AD 2013" and "399 BCE" corresponds to "399 BC"."""""""

"The expression "Common Era" can be found as early as 1708 in English..."

Common Era - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude, the zero date is not a year, it is the start of year one. Anybody reading on the topic should know that.

 

[JustTheFacts]

In the attempt to secularize the calendar, many, if not most academics use the appending 'CE' for 'Common Era' but they fail to acheive their goal because the zero date is the year of the birth of Christ as most traditionally calculated.

So here is a suggestion:..

Here is a suggestion: try looking up your assumptions in Wikipedia first.

"""""Common Era (also Current Era[1] or Christian Era[2]), abbreviated as CE, is an alternative naming of the traditional calendar era, Anno Domini (abbreviated AD).[3] BCE is the abbreviation for Before the Common/Current/Christian Era (an alternative to Before Christ, abbreviated BC). The CE/BCE designation uses the year-numbering system introduced by the 6th-century Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus, who started the Anno Domini designation, intending the beginning of the life of Jesus to be the reference date.[4][5] Neither notation includes a year zero,[6] and the two notations (CE/BCE and AD/BC) are numerically equivalent; thus "2013 CE" corresponds to "AD 2013" and "399 BCE" corresponds to "399 BC"."""""""

"The expression "Common Era" can be found as early as 1708 in English..."

Common Era - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude, the zero date is not a year, it is the start of year one. Anybody reading on the topic should know that.

You would think that would be common sense as in no one has a zeroist birthday, it is your first birthday lol

 

[Charles_Main]

Let's start it in YO. Year of obama.

Oh, no doubt the leftards would love that idea, but it might not be popular enough in ten more years to displace the current start year.

man you Jesusphobes are funny. Whether you believe in Christ as a god or not. There is no arguing Christ the man lived, and his life did indeed mark a watershed moment that changed the World for ever. It's also a Time that falls almost exactly in the Middle of the Roman era when Rome changed from a Republic to an Empire. There are many good reasons to use that time as your start date to modern times.

I see no need to change, and I am not a Christian.