Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/19/2005 7:53:03 AM EDT
2005, yeah......


But 2005 WHAT?

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:14:47 AM EDT
its also the year 5766 on the Jewish Calendar

its also the year Hisei 17 on the Japanese Calendar

its also 1426 of the Islamic calendar (estimate, using a thumbrule for conversion)

Did you have a point?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:22:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
its also the year 5766 on the Jewish Calendar

its also the year Hisei 17 on the Japanese Calendar

its also 1426 of the Islamic calendar (estimate, using a thumbrule for conversion)

Did you have a point?



Yes, and you made it for me.

Thanks!

-arowner (which one of those are we using, again?) again


Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:34:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 8:34:41 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Dino:
its also the year 5766 on the Jewish Calendar

its also the year Hisei 17 on the Japanese Calendar

its also 1426 of the Islamic calendar (estimate, using a thumbrule for conversion)

Did you have a point?



Yes, and you made it for me.

Thanks!

-arowner (which one of those are we using, again?) again





your point was that we use a calendar inherited from the Catholic Church?

Papal Bull mandated the Gregorian Calendar in 1582, but the Protestants took almost 200 years to implement God's will in England with the British Calendar Act of 1751. We just inherited the Gregorian Calendar, there is no statute that forces us to use it.

Glad to see we are finally following the dictates of the Vicar of Christ here in America.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:37:11 AM EDT
The point is this:

We use a calendar that starts when Jesus was born.

Yet many who use that calendar don't believe jesus even lived.

Does that not strike you as odd?

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:46:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
The point is this:

We use a calendar that starts when Jesus was born.

Yet many who use that calendar don't believe jesus even lived.

Does that not strike you as odd?




the Calendar wasn't based on when he was born. Its a modern update of the Julian calendar which was at attempt to align the calendar year with the tropical year. This was instituted in 45 bc by Julius Caesar. The epoch date was changed to the supposed birth year of Jesus after the fact. It was originaly 752 bc.

Since Christians changed the epoch to comply with the birthdate of Jesus (which most scholars admit they got wrong) how does it prove anything that our calendar is based on that date? Seems a bit circular in its logic to me.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:50:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
The point is this:

We use a calendar that starts when Jesus was born.

Yet many who use that calendar don't believe jesus even lived.

Does that not strike you as odd?




the Calendar wasn't based on when he was born. Its a modern update of the Julian calendar which was at attempt to align the calendar year with the tropical year. This was instituted in 45 bc by Julius Caesar. The epoch date was changed to the supposed birth year of Jesus after the fact. It was originaly 752 bc.

Since Christians changed the epoch to comply with the birthdate of Jesus (which most scholars admit they got wrong) how does it prove anything that our calendar is based on that date? Seems a bit circular in its logic to me.




Back to my original question:

2005 WHAT?



Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:51:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
The point is this:

We use a calendar that starts when Jesus was born.

Yet many who use that calendar don't believe jesus even lived.

Does that not strike you as odd?




the Calendar wasn't based on when he was born. Its a modern update of the Julian calendar which was at attempt to align the calendar year with the tropical year. This was instituted in 45 bc by Julius Caesar. The epoch date was changed to the supposed birth year of Jesus after the fact. It was originaly 752 bc.

Since Christians changed the epoch to comply with the birthdate of Jesus (which most scholars admit they got wrong) how does it prove anything that our calendar is based on that date? Seems a bit circular in its logic to me.




Back to my original question:

2005 WHAT?






2005 Common Era (CE) according to the naval observatory :)

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:52:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
The point is this:

We use a calendar that starts when Jesus was born.

Yet many who use that calendar don't believe jesus even lived.

Does that not strike you as odd?




the Calendar wasn't based on when he was born. Its a modern update of the Julian calendar which was at attempt to align the calendar year with the tropical year. This was instituted in 45 bc by Julius Caesar. The epoch date was changed to the supposed birth year of Jesus after the fact. It was originaly 752 bc.

Since Christians changed the epoch to comply with the birthdate of Jesus (which most scholars admit they got wrong) how does it prove anything that our calendar is based on that date? Seems a bit circular in its logic to me.




Back to my original question:

2005 WHAT?






2005 Common Era (CE) according to the naval observatory :)





Yes, but 2005 what?

You're dodging the question.


Anyway, who has time to observe their navel?

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:54:10 AM EDT
Here’s a few calendars that some of you all might recognize...

F&AM - Anno Lucis (A:L:) "in the year of light."
6005

A:A:S:R - Anno Mundi (A:M:) "in the year of the world."
5765

RAM - date from the year the second temple was commenced by Zerubbabel, Anno
Inventionis (A:I:) " in the year of the discovery."
2535

R&SM - date from the year in which the Temple of Solomon was completed, Anno Depositionis (A:Dep:) "in the year of the deposit."
3005

KT - the organization of their Order, Anno Ordinis (A:O:) "in the year of the Order."
3123

OHP - dates from the year of the Blessing of Abraham by the High Priest Melchizedek, Anno Benefacto (A:Beo:) "in the year of the Blessing."
3918
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:56:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cheaptrickfan:
Here’s a few calendars that some of you all might recognize...

F&AM - Anno Lucis (A:L:) "in the year of light."
6005

A:A:S:R - Anno Mundi (A:M:) "in the year of the world."
5765

RAM - date from the year the second temple was commenced by Zerubbabel, Anno
Inventionis (A:I:) " in the year of the discovery."
2535

R&SM - date from the year in which the Temple of Solomon was completed, Anno Depositionis (A:Dep:) "in the year of the deposit."
3005

KT - the organization of their Order, Anno Ordinis (A:O:) "in the year of the Order."
3123

OHP - dates from the year of the Blessing of Abraham by the High Priest Melchizedek, Anno Benefacto (A:Beo:) "in the year of the Blessing."
3918



None of which is relevant to this thread.

Sorry for starting this thread, guys.

I was hoping for a serious response, or even a nonserious response from someone who could be taken seriously, but I was disappointed.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:00:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
The point is this:

We use a calendar that starts when Jesus was born.

Yet many who use that calendar don't believe jesus even lived.

Does that not strike you as odd?




the Calendar wasn't based on when he was born. Its a modern update of the Julian calendar which was at attempt to align the calendar year with the tropical year. This was instituted in 45 bc by Julius Caesar. The epoch date was changed to the supposed birth year of Jesus after the fact. It was originaly 752 bc.

Since Christians changed the epoch to comply with the birthdate of Jesus (which most scholars admit they got wrong) how does it prove anything that our calendar is based on that date? Seems a bit circular in its logic to me.




Back to my original question:

2005 WHAT?






2005 Common Era (CE) according to the naval observatory :)





Yes, but 2005 what?

You're dodging the question.


Anyway, who has time to observe their navel?




apparently thailors at thea ;p

I'm not dodging the question, I answered it. Its 2005 CE or 5766 or Hisei 17 or 1426, dependin g on which calendar you use.

To claim we base our entire calendar on an incorrect birth date of Jesus is ludicrous and ahistorical. There is more to a calendar than an epoch date.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:07:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By cheaptrickfan:
Here’s a few calendars that some of you all might recognize...

F&AM - Anno Lucis (A:L:) "in the year of light."
6005

A:A:S:R - Anno Mundi (A:M:) "in the year of the world."
5765

RAM - date from the year the second temple was commenced by Zerubbabel, Anno
Inventionis (A:I:) " in the year of the discovery."
2535

R&SM - date from the year in which the Temple of Solomon was completed, Anno Depositionis (A:Dep:) "in the year of the deposit."
3005

KT - the organization of their Order, Anno Ordinis (A:O:) "in the year of the Order."
3123

OHP - dates from the year of the Blessing of Abraham by the High Priest Melchizedek, Anno Benefacto (A:Beo:) "in the year of the Blessing."
3918



None of which is relevant to this thread.

Sorry for starting this thread, guys.

I was hoping for a serious response, or even a nonserious response from someone who could be taken seriously, but I was disappointed.




I gave a serious response to your question, it just wasn't the response you wanted.

I even put in BC for you and you didn't jump on it. You're slipping man!


Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:10:56 AM EDT
Do you have an answer to your question?

Before Christ?? What's the point of the question?

The way I read your question, it was my understanding that you wanted to know "WHY" this was 2005.

There are many calendars, Mayan, Chines, Iranian, etc. I think the most widely used calendar is based upon the Gregeorian calendar - why? because, the European countries in control of this planet back in the day made everybody follow their rules.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:13:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By cheaptrickfan:
Here’s a few calendars that some of you all might recognize...

F&AM - Anno Lucis (A:L:) "in the year of light."
6005

A:A:S:R - Anno Mundi (A:M:) "in the year of the world."
5765

RAM - date from the year the second temple was commenced by Zerubbabel, Anno
Inventionis (A:I:) " in the year of the discovery."
2535

R&SM - date from the year in which the Temple of Solomon was completed, Anno Depositionis (A:Dep:) "in the year of the deposit."
3005

KT - the organization of their Order, Anno Ordinis (A:O:) "in the year of the Order."
3123

OHP - dates from the year of the Blessing of Abraham by the High Priest Melchizedek, Anno Benefacto (A:Beo:) "in the year of the Blessing."
3918



None of which is relevant to this thread.

Sorry for starting this thread, guys.

I was hoping for a serious response, or even a nonserious response from someone who could be taken seriously, but I was disappointed.




I gave a serious response to your question, it just wasn't the response you wanted.





yes, you did, but I long ago quit taking you seriously.

You're the classic example of the dishonest atheist - you believe, but claim not to out of a desire to be disobedient.

As such, I see no use in discussing any matters of faith with you. It's utterly useless.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:14:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cheaptrickfan:
Do you have an answer to your question?

Before Christ?? What's the point of the question?

The way I read your question, it was my understanding that you wanted to know "WHY" this was 2005.

There are many calendars, Mayan, Chines, Iranian, etc. I think the most widely used calendar is based upon the Gregeorian calendar - why? because, the European countries in control of this planet back in the day made everybody follow their rules.




The point was this:

Jesus was a real man.

You can deny that he was the Son of God if you choose, but it's foolish to deny that He lived.

C'mon, people - we based our calendar on His birth.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:41:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
yes, you did, but I long ago quit taking you seriously.

You're the classic example of the dishonest atheist - you believe, but claim not to out of a desire to be disobedient.

As such, I see no use in discussing any matters of faith with you. It's utterly useless.



A calendar is hardly a matter of faith. Its very questionable to sieze upon it as a matter of faith or to use it as a bludgeon to taunt others (which was my interpretation of what you were trying to do)

I view Jesus as a man, not a God. I believe he existed, I do not believe he was a God.
I try to live a moral life, it has nothing to do with my lack of belief a deity.

My religion has many rules which I adhere too, so lack of belief in God isn't getting me out of any requirements (other than the requirement to distort truth to convert people to my way of thinking, that I do not have to do)

I don't take you seriously either, but I do take the distortions you post on occasion to be worth rebutting. This was one such case.



Link Posted: 12/19/2005 9:45:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 9:46:29 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By cheaptrickfan:
Do you have an answer to your question?

Before Christ?? What's the point of the question?

The way I read your question, it was my understanding that you wanted to know "WHY" this was 2005.

There are many calendars, Mayan, Chines, Iranian, etc. I think the most widely used calendar is based upon the Gregeorian calendar - why? because, the European countries in control of this planet back in the day made everybody follow their rules.




The point was this:

Jesus was a real man.

You can deny that he was the Son of God if you choose, but it's foolish to deny that He lived.

C'mon, people - we based our calendar on His birth.



Seriously man, the mythicist position is an extremely small minority. Most scholars reject it and view Jesus as an historical person. I don't know anyone on these boards who holds the mythicist position (If there is, I'd love to discuss it with them its a fascinating subject).

And, once again, we did not base our calendar on his birth. The Roman Catholic Church changed the epoch year, the Julian calendar was the invention of pagans some 40 years before Christ.


Link Posted: 12/19/2005 10:16:52 AM EDT

Looks like USNO uses BC not CE. tycho.usno.navy.mil/mjd.html

Common Era is a secular PC response to the silly arguement that Jesus is real because the calendar says so. You want to argue the importance of Jesus to the men who devised the Julian calendar then go for it. Other then that its a silly arguement.


IMHO the Bible is good for doctrine and reproof not the calendar.

    2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


Shok
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 10:34:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 10:44:06 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By QShok:
Looks like USNO uses BC not CE. tycho.usno.navy.mil/mjd.html

Common Era is a secular PC response to the silly arguement that Jesus is real because the calendar says so. You want to argue the importance of Jesus to the men who devised the Julian calendar then go for it. Other then that its a silly arguement.


IMHO the Bible is good for doctrine and reproof not the calendar.


Shok



yup
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:41:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By QShok:
Looks like USNO uses BC not CE. tycho.usno.navy.mil/mjd.html

Common Era is a secular PC response to the silly arguement that Jesus is real because the calendar says so. You want to argue the importance of Jesus to the men who devised the Julian calendar then go for it. Other then that its a silly arguement.


IMHO the Bible is good for doctrine and reproof not the calendar.


Shok



yup



___

Fellow's, the term Common Era is older than you believe. The calendar practice prompting the coining of the term common era is the system of numbering and naming years using the traditional (but no longer accepted) year of birth of Jesus as a starting point. This system was devised by the monk Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525, and used the label anno Domini to identify the year. Two centuries later the monk Bede introduced a Latin term that is roughly equivalent to the English term before Christ to identify years in the era preceding anno Domini. Both Dionysius and Bede regarded anno Domini as beginning at the incarnation or conception of Jesus, not his birth nine months later. Anno Domini was in widespread use by the ninth century, but the Latin equivalent of before Christ did not become widespread until the late fifteenth century (neither was abbreviated in Latin). The term "common era" refers to the time period since the year 1 in either the Julian or Gregorian calendars. By convention, for most purposes except astronomical use, year zero is not used. Instead, 1 BCE (or 1 BC) immediately precedes 1 CE (or AD 1).



Ed
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:54:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By QShok:
Looks like USNO uses BC not CE. tycho.usno.navy.mil/mjd.html

Common Era is a secular PC response to the silly arguement that Jesus is real because the calendar says so. You want to argue the importance of Jesus to the men who devised the Julian calendar then go for it. Other then that its a silly arguement.


IMHO the Bible is good for doctrine and reproof not the calendar.


Shok



yup



___

Fellow's, the term Common Era is older than you believe. The calendar practice prompting the coining of the term common era is the system of numbering and naming years using the traditional (but no longer accepted) year of birth of Jesus as a starting point. This system was devised by the monk Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525, and used the label anno Domini to identify the year. Two centuries later the monk Bede introduced a Latin term that is roughly equivalent to the English term before Christ to identify years in the era preceding anno Domini. Both Dionysius and Bede regarded anno Domini as beginning at the incarnation or conception of Jesus, not his birth nine months later. Anno Domini was in widespread use by the ninth century, but the Latin equivalent of before Christ did not become widespread until the late fifteenth century (neither was abbreviated in Latin). The term "common era" refers to the time period since the year 1 in either the Julian or Gregorian calendars. By convention, for most purposes except astronomical use, year zero is not used. Instead, 1 BCE (or 1 BC) immediately precedes 1 CE (or AD 1).



Ed




not all that old Ed,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

I think its the same reference you used and the first example of the common era is from the 1700's the first documented use by a Jewish source is from 1825 from a tombstone.

Interestingly, they originally usedVE for Vulgar Era (vulgar as in common) instead of the modern CE

The ways in which we have dealt with time over the centuries is amazing.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:59:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 12:05:36 PM EDT by scuba_ed]

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By QShok:
Looks like USNO uses BC not CE. tycho.usno.navy.mil/mjd.html

Common Era is a secular PC response to the silly arguement that Jesus is real because the calendar says so. You want to argue the importance of Jesus to the men who devised the Julian calendar then go for it. Other then that its a silly arguement.


IMHO the Bible is good for doctrine and reproof not the calendar.


Shok



yup



___

Fellow's, the term Common Era is older than you believe. The calendar practice prompting the coining of the term common era is the system of numbering and naming years using the traditional (but no longer accepted) year of birth of Jesus as a starting point. This system was devised by the monk Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525, and used the label anno Domini to identify the year. Two centuries later the monk Bede introduced a Latin term that is roughly equivalent to the English term before Christ to identify years in the era preceding anno Domini. Both Dionysius and Bede regarded anno Domini as beginning at the incarnation or conception of Jesus, not his birth nine months later. Anno Domini was in widespread use by the ninth century, but the Latin equivalent of before Christ did not become widespread until the late fifteenth century (neither was abbreviated in Latin). The term "common era" refers to the time period since the year 1 in either the Julian or Gregorian calendars. By convention, for most purposes except astronomical use, year zero is not used. Instead, 1 BCE (or 1 BC) immediately precedes 1 CE (or AD 1).



Ed




not all that old Ed,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

I think its the same reference you used and the first example of the common era is from the 1700's the first documented use by a Jewish source is from 1825 from a tombstone.

Interestingly, they originally usedVE for Vulgar Era (vulgar as in common) instead of the modern CE

The ways in which we have dealt with time over the centuries is amazing.




___


First, A-whole, I'm not "old" You must be lumping me in, perhaps categorizing me with another "*Guy"...what, are you implying?

Yeah, right.

The history of the Hebrew calendar is:

The Jewish calendar is primarily lunar, with each month beginning on the new moon, when the first sliver of moon becomes visible after the dark of the moon. In ancient times, the new months used to be determined by observation. When people observed the new moon, they would notify the Sanhedrin. When the Sanhedrin heard testimony from two independent, reliable eyewitnesses that the new moon occurred on a certain date, they would declare the rosh chodesh (first of the month) and send out messengers to tell people when the month began.

The problem with strictly lunar calendars is that there are approximately 12.4 lunar months in every solar year, so a 12-month lunar calendar loses about 11 days every year and a 13-month lunar gains about 19 days every year. The months on such a calendar "drift" relative to the solar year. On a 12 month calendar, the month of Nissan, which is supposed to occur in the Spring, occurs 11 days earlier each year, eventually occurring in the Winter, the Fall, the Summer, and then the Spring again. To compensate for this drift, an extra month was occasionally added: a second month of Adar. The month of Nissan would occur 11 days earlier for two or three years, and then would jump forward 29 or 30 days, balancing out the drift.

Numbering of Jewish Years
The year number on the Jewish calendar represents the number of years since creation, as calculated by adding up the ages of people in the Bible back to the time of creation. However, it is important to note that this date is not necessarily supposed to represent a scientific fact. For example, many Orthodox Jews will readily acknowledge that the seven "days" of creation are not necessarily 24-hour days (indeed, a 24-hour day would be meaningless until the creation of the sun on the fourth "day").

Jews do not generally use the words "A.D." and "B.C." to refer to the years on the Gregorian calendar. "A.D." means "the year of our L-rd," and we do not believe Jesus is the L-rd. Instead, we use the abbreviations C.E. (Common or Christian Era) and B.C.E. (Before the Common Era).
.

It's not, nor ever was a "PC" thing...just a Jewish thing.


source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/calendar.html

! !

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 12:11:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
___

Fellow's, the term Common Era is older than you believe. The calendar practice prompting the coining of the term common era is the system of numbering and naming years using the traditional (but no longer accepted) year of birth of Jesus as a starting point. This system was devised by the monk Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525, and used the label anno Domini to identify the year. Two centuries later the monk Bede introduced a Latin term that is roughly equivalent to the English term before Christ to identify years in the era preceding anno Domini. Both Dionysius and Bede regarded anno Domini as beginning at the incarnation or conception of Jesus, not his birth nine months later. Anno Domini was in widespread use by the ninth century, but the Latin equivalent of before Christ did not become widespread until the late fifteenth century (neither was abbreviated in Latin). The term "common era" refers to the time period since the year 1 in either the Julian or Gregorian calendars. By convention, for most purposes except astronomical use, year zero is not used. Instead, 1 BCE (or 1 BC) immediately precedes 1 CE (or AD 1).



Ed




Good info but the origin is kind of irrelevant in this discussion. What is important is that Common Era is being reintroduced solely for debunking Christianity.

Shok
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 12:17:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
___

Fellow's, the term Common Era is older than you believe. The calendar practice prompting the coining of the term common era is the system of numbering and naming years using the traditional (but no longer accepted) year of birth of Jesus as a starting point. This system was devised by the monk Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525, and used the label anno Domini to identify the year. Two centuries later the monk Bede introduced a Latin term that is roughly equivalent to the English term before Christ to identify years in the era preceding anno Domini. Both Dionysius and Bede regarded anno Domini as beginning at the incarnation or conception of Jesus, not his birth nine months later. Anno Domini was in widespread use by the ninth century, but the Latin equivalent of before Christ did not become widespread until the late fifteenth century (neither was abbreviated in Latin). The term "common era" refers to the time period since the year 1 in either the Julian or Gregorian calendars. By convention, for most purposes except astronomical use, year zero is not used. Instead, 1 BCE (or 1 BC) immediately precedes 1 CE (or AD 1).



Ed




Good info but the origin is kind of irrelevant in this discussion. What is important is that Common Era is being reintroduced solely for debunking Christianity.

Shok



___

I don't believe that I have ever, ever, attempted to de-bunk Christianity. The term "CE" is used often in many texts I've seen, and not with the attempt to de-bunk.

What's my heritage is mine, and what's yours is yours.

Please provide an example so I may understand.



Ed
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 12:30:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 12:34:30 PM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:


First, A-whole, I'm not "old" You must be lumping me in, perhaps categorizing me with another "*Guy"...what, are you implying?

Yeah, right.

The history of the Hebrew calendar is:

The Jewish calendar is primarily lunar, with each month beginning on the new moon, when the first sliver of moon becomes visible after the dark of the moon. In ancient times, the new months used to be determined by observation. When people observed the new moon, they would notify the Sanhedrin. When the Sanhedrin heard testimony from two independent, reliable eyewitnesses that the new moon occurred on a certain date, they would declare the rosh chodesh (first of the month) and send out messengers to tell people when the month began.

The problem with strictly lunar calendars is that there are approximately 12.4 lunar months in every solar year, so a 12-month lunar calendar loses about 11 days every year and a 13-month lunar gains about 19 days every year. The months on such a calendar "drift" relative to the solar year. On a 12 month calendar, the month of Nissan, which is supposed to occur in the Spring, occurs 11 days earlier each year, eventually occurring in the Winter, the Fall, the Summer, and then the Spring again. To compensate for this drift, an extra month was occasionally added: a second month of Adar. The month of Nissan would occur 11 days earlier for two or three years, and then would jump forward 29 or 30 days, balancing out the drift.

Numbering of Jewish Years
The year number on the Jewish calendar represents the number of years since creation, as calculated by adding up the ages of people in the Bible back to the time of creation. However, it is important to note that this date is not necessarily supposed to represent a scientific fact. For example, many Orthodox Jews will readily acknowledge that the seven "days" of creation are not necessarily 24-hour days (indeed, a 24-hour day would be meaningless until the creation of the sun on the fourth "day").

Jews do not generally use the words "A.D." and "B.C." to refer to the years on the Gregorian calendar. "A.D." means "the year of our L-rd," and we do not believe Jesus is the L-rd. Instead, we use the abbreviations C.E. (Common or Christian Era) and B.C.E. (Before the Common Era).
.

It's not, nor ever was a "PC" thing...just a Jewish thing.


source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/calendar.html

! !




Wasn't arguing the reason for it ( I think the primary reason is interfaith dialogue) just the idea that its somehow a very old tradition. I did not mean to imply you were old it was in fact a reply to your post "Fellow's, the term Common Era is older than you believe."

I would respond that its exactly as old as I believe

Obviously there was no need for the Jews to use that method until it became the defacto standard for most of the world. If you know of an earlier reference to CE or VE that predates 1700 please share it.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 12:37:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
___

Fellow's, the term Common Era is older than you believe. The calendar practice prompting the coining of the term common era is the system of numbering and naming years using the traditional (but no longer accepted) year of birth of Jesus as a starting point. This system was devised by the monk Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525, and used the label anno Domini to identify the year. Two centuries later the monk Bede introduced a Latin term that is roughly equivalent to the English term before Christ to identify years in the era preceding anno Domini. Both Dionysius and Bede regarded anno Domini as beginning at the incarnation or conception of Jesus, not his birth nine months later. Anno Domini was in widespread use by the ninth century, but the Latin equivalent of before Christ did not become widespread until the late fifteenth century (neither was abbreviated in Latin). The term "common era" refers to the time period since the year 1 in either the Julian or Gregorian calendars. By convention, for most purposes except astronomical use, year zero is not used. Instead, 1 BCE (or 1 BC) immediately precedes 1 CE (or AD 1).



Ed




Good info but the origin is kind of irrelevant in this discussion. What is important is that Common Era is being reintroduced solely for debunking Christianity.

Shok



I'm confused, you said the calendar was a bad argument for proving Jesus existed (and it is for several reasons). How does using CE debunk Christianity? If its a bad argument one way, it would appear to be even a worse argument the other way.


Link Posted: 12/19/2005 12:53:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:


First, A-whole, I'm not "old" You must be lumping me in, perhaps categorizing me with another "*Guy"...what, are you implying?

Yeah, right.

The history of the Hebrew calendar is:

The Jewish calendar is primarily lunar, with each month beginning on the new moon, when the first sliver of moon becomes visible after the dark of the moon. In ancient times, the new months used to be determined by observation. When people observed the new moon, they would notify the Sanhedrin. When the Sanhedrin heard testimony from two independent, reliable eyewitnesses that the new moon occurred on a certain date, they would declare the rosh chodesh (first of the month) and send out messengers to tell people when the month began.

The problem with strictly lunar calendars is that there are approximately 12.4 lunar months in every solar year, so a 12-month lunar calendar loses about 11 days every year and a 13-month lunar gains about 19 days every year. The months on such a calendar "drift" relative to the solar year. On a 12 month calendar, the month of Nissan, which is supposed to occur in the Spring, occurs 11 days earlier each year, eventually occurring in the Winter, the Fall, the Summer, and then the Spring again. To compensate for this drift, an extra month was occasionally added: a second month of Adar. The month of Nissan would occur 11 days earlier for two or three years, and then would jump forward 29 or 30 days, balancing out the drift.

Numbering of Jewish Years
The year number on the Jewish calendar represents the number of years since creation, as calculated by adding up the ages of people in the Bible back to the time of creation. However, it is important to note that this date is not necessarily supposed to represent a scientific fact. For example, many Orthodox Jews will readily acknowledge that the seven "days" of creation are not necessarily 24-hour days (indeed, a 24-hour day would be meaningless until the creation of the sun on the fourth "day").

Jews do not generally use the words "A.D." and "B.C." to refer to the years on the Gregorian calendar. "A.D." means "the year of our L-rd," and we do not believe Jesus is the L-rd. Instead, we use the abbreviations C.E. (Common or Christian Era) and B.C.E. (Before the Common Era).
.

It's not, nor ever was a "PC" thing...just a Jewish thing.


source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/calendar.html

! !




Wasn't arguing the reason for it ( I think the primary reason is intra-faith dialogue) just the idea that its somehow a very old tradition. I did not mean to imply you were old it was in fact a reply to your post "Fellow's, the term Common Era is older than you believe."

I would respond that its exactly as old as I believe

Obviously there was no need for the Jews to use that method until it became the defacto standard for most of the world. If you know of an earlier reference to CE or VE that predates 1700 please share it.



__

Fixed it for you.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 2:30:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scuba_ed:
Fixed it for you.



thanks! I get in a hurry sometimes :P
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 3:13:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Seriously man, the mythicist position is an extremely small minority. Most scholars reject it and view Jesus as an historical person. I don't know anyone on these boards who holds the mythicist position (If there is, I'd love to discuss it with them its a fascinating subject).

And, once again, we did not base our calendar on his birth. The Roman Catholic Church changed the epoch year, the Julian calendar was the invention of pagans some 40 years before Christ.





+1

Great sig line too.
Top Top