NationStates Jolt Archive

Untrue. It never makes that claim. It simply makes the claim that when they began the Gregorian calendar it was believed that Jesus' was born in AD 1. Which is not the same as claiming that he was.It makes precisely that claim. And because we know today that the date is off, we should drop the reference to Jesus and go on counting the years without it.

And in case you were wondering, "Thunor" was a link and yes, it did redirect me to article on Thor.

In other words, Thor is Jupiter, is Zeus, etc.

The era (year count) that was commonly used in Europe when the new calendar system was published in 1582.

so that would make 1582 AD = 1 CE for you then.

In other words, Thor is Jupiter, is Zeus, etc.

Rather, my point was that the phrase "Day of Thunor", was effectively "Day of Thor".

It makes precisely that claim. And because we know today that the date is off, we should drop the reference to Jesus and go on counting the years without it.

How does it make that claim? I'm fairly certain that it's 1 AD, not 1 We really really believe that Jesus was born this year and how dare you say he wasn't.

so that would make 1582 AD = 1 CE for you then.

CE/BCE is not relative.


That would defeat the purpose.

I propose a new system.

BNS and PNS.

It is now the year 5 PNS.

(of course, think of how that sounds....) :p

and every year it grows. :p

instead of changing BC/AD, why not just add on. make 2000 AD = 1 CE

so that would make 1582 AD = 1 CE for you then.
Not at all. It would make 1582 AD = 1582 CE, but not automatically 1 AD = 1 CE because of the known errors in the numbering of years prior to the Gregorian Calendar.

CE/BCE is not relative.


That would defeat the purpose.

it would or should be defined by what everyone would consider 'common' which, so far, seems to be the creation of the 'modern calendar'.

If we keep it the same a BC/AD, then what's defines it as 'common era'?

it would or should be defined by what everyone would consider 'common' which, so far, seems to be the creation of the 'modern calendar'.
No.
Common Era (also known as Christian Era and Current Era; abbreviated CE) is a designation for the period of time beginning with year 1 of the Gregorian calendar. An earlier date is then designated BCE, described as "Before the Common, Christian, or Current Era". The numbering of years is identical to the numbering in the Anno Domini system, neither system using a year zero. The only difference between Common Era, Christian Era, and Anno Domini notation is in the names themselves.

it would or should be defined by what everyone would consider 'common' which, so far, seems to be the creation of the 'modern calendar'.

If we keep it the same a BC/AD, then what's defines it as 'common era'?The common use. And you seem to have a problem with the word 'era'.

Meh.

I suppose you missed that the first two words of my quote were, "In English", and that the other poster said Thursday had nothing to do with Thor?

Not at all. It would make 1582 AD = 1582 CE, but not automatically 1 AD = 1 CE because of the known errors in the numbering of years prior to the Gregorian Calendar.

yet if 1582 CE = 1582 AD, then it would make 1 CE = 1 AD. however what would make 1208 CE 'common' with 2008 CE?

after all, with Anno Domini, 1208 AD and 2008 AD share that common bond of being after the creation of the Christian religion.

even if the actual date is off by 4 - 6 years.

now proposing a new era, one that shows a united world (or as united as it can get...) then making 2000 AD = 1 CE would probably be easier due to the internet and international relations being formed all over the globe.

The common use. And you seem to have a problem with the word 'era'.

"Prof UB, why was year 1 defined as the starting point of the CE? People back then were not like us now in both quantity as well as quality of life?"

how would you answer that question?

I suppose you missed that the first two words of my quote were, "In English", and that the other poster said Thursday had nothing to do with Thor?

Nope.

so that would make 1582 AD = 1 CE for you then.

no. it has to do with the commonly used count of years, not when we started counting them that way.

"Prof UB, why was year 1 defined as the starting point of the CE? People back then were not like us now in both quantity as well as quality of life?"

how would you answer that question?

That's not the point of the word common.

They mean common as in common use. The commonly used dating system today is the Gregorian calendar which begins in AD 1. The purpose of the CE/BCE labels is not to change the Gregorian calendar but only to secularize it and provide labels that do not include Christianity in them. Note that CE can also stand for Christian Era. Common as in we all use it, not common as in this era is the same as some other era.

Semantics.

No.

think about it.
Common Era (also known as Christian Era and Current Era; [1][2][3] abbreviated CE)[4] is a designation for the period of time beginning with year 1 of the Gregorian calendar. An earlier date is then designated BCE, described as "Before the Common, Christian, or Current Era".
by this reasoning (and not touching upon religion) 1 CE is only 1 CE not due to any beliefs, no historical event, but only because the calendar system created 15 hundred years later determined it's starting point by working backwards. a form of self fulfilling prophecy if you will.

That's not the point of the word common.

They mean common as in common use. The commonly used dating system today is the Gregorian calendar which begins in AD 1. The purpose of the CE/BCE labels is not to change the Gregorian calendar but only to secularize it and provide labels that do not include Christianity in them. Note that CE can also stand for Christian Era. Common as in we all use it, not common as in this era is the same as some other era.

Semantics.

BCE= Before Christian Era
CE = Christian Era.
yep. it does a great job in Secularizing it. ;)

that's the point I'm making, it makes no difference in changing officially, so why spend the money and hassles to change something cosmetically? Color Colour. Humor Humour. it's the same thing yet the problem is one is trying to say "we wanna be the offical designation to be used world wide".

if you want to change it, then CHANGE it more than semantics. Create a new era if you want (like all those SF series do) that would be worth the effort, time and money.

I've never been against changing it, I just want the change to be more than just cosmetic.

J, are you confused by the definition of the metre as well? it has also changed over time, and its original definition is just incorrect.

think about it.

by this reasoning (and not touching upon religion) 1 CE is only 1 CE not due to any beliefs, no historical event, but only because the calendar system created 15 hundred years later determined it's starting point by working backwards. a form of self fulfilling prophecy if you will.

Yes. 1 CE is an arbitrary designation used only because we are already used to that year being year 1. However, a date must be set and agreed upon as being year 1 because otherwise dates have no meaning. I say X happened in 1678, you say X happened in 1687 because you date it differently, and no one really knows when it actually happened because ten thousand different numbers are associated with that event. Thus, year 1 is agreed upon in order to set a common system that everyone can use a reference, and that year 1 is set as the same as the Gregorian year 1 because that is what we are used to and no one cares enough to learn a new calendar.

BCE= Before Christian Era
CE = Christian Era.
yep. it does a great job in Secularizing it. ;)

better than the fucked up 'year of the lord' bullshit. at least it is somewhat more open and honest, even on the christian misreading of the term.

better than the fucked up 'year of the lord' bullshit. at least it is somewhat more open and honest, even on the christian misreading of the term.

it's not a mis-reading of the term.
Common Era (also known as Christian Era and Current Era; [1][2][3] abbreviated CE)[4] is a designation for the period of time beginning with year 1 of the Gregorian calendar. An earlier date is then designated BCE, described as "Before the Common, Christian, or Current Era".
Also Known As.

The problem is that it's STILL based on the Gregorian calendar, no matter what you call it.

The problem is that it's STILL based on the Gregorian calendar, no matter what you call it.

No one cares enough to learn a new one, nor is there a point.

I guess that, as an historian, it´ll be very hard for me to switch from BC/AD to BCE/CE. Dates don´t sound the same, they don´t have the same ring to them.

No one cares enough to learn a new one, nor is there a point.

Precisely -- so why all the yammering and carping?

try new Nesquik!
um... it's just Nestle's Quik, repackaged.
Shhh!

Precisely -- so why all the yammering and carping?

Don't look at me. I don't do history.

I guess that, as an historian, it´ll be very hard for me to switch from BC/AD to BCE/CE. Dates don´t sound the same, they don´t have the same ring to them.

Yeah, CE sounds very artificial too me-- not that AD isn't.

Precisely -- so why all the yammering and carping?

you know how its not considered cool to exclude women when talking about humanity? well, nobody should ever ever ever say anything that means "the year of our lord". not even christians, but especially not anyone else. and they certainly shouldn't be culturally compelled to in order to make their meanings clear.

No. AD 1 and 1 CE are the same year. The discrepancy is that back when they were determining the birth year of Christ, they were slightly off. The actual birth of Christ was somewhere between 4 BC and AD 6. But AD/BC and CE/BCE use the same year as year 1. AD 2008 is the same as 2008 CE.

What evidence led you to that conclusion? This would contradict both of the explicit stories regarding Jesus' birth, as well as 'John's' implicit suggestion as to Jesus' age at the time of his death. If we accept 'Luke' then the birth can only have taken place in 6AD, and if we accept 'Matthew' then it can only have taken place in or before 4BC; neither option lends itself to a date between 4BC and 6AD.

Yeah, CE sounds very artificial too me-- not that AD isn't.

Yeah, but AD you already know how to apply. It´s like, a known enemy instead of a new one, like CE would be.:D

by this reasoning (and not touching upon religion) 1 CE is only 1 CE not due to any beliefs, no historical event, but only because the calendar system created 15 hundred years later determined it's starting point by working backwards. a form of self fulfilling prophecy if you will.and? what's so hard to understand about that? if at one moment in time you decide to fix your calendar system and through this get an anchor point by calculating back, what's the big deal?

The problem is that it's STILL based on the Gregorian calendar, no matter what you call it.But the former AD numbering system was not based on the Gregorian Calendar and highly unreliable. That's exactly the reason why the Gregorian adjustment of calendar was necessary.

and? what's so hard to understand about that? if at one moment in time you decide to fix your calendar system and through this get an anchor point by calculating back, what's the big deal?

because the change is cosmetic. nothing is being fixed or corrected. thus it's just change for change's sake.

because the change is cosmetic. nothing is being fixed or corrected. thus it's just change for change's sake.Not at all. The Gregorian reform was a real adjustment of errors in the previously used (Julian) calendar system. Hence also the discrepancies in the count of years and the retro-calculation of "year 1".

Not at all. The Gregorian reform was a real adjustment of errors in the previously used (Julian) calendar system. Hence also the discrepancies in the count of years and the retro-calculation of "year 1".
so again, why the change from BC/AD to BCE/CE?

BCE and CE is also known as Before Christian Era and Christian Era, so it's not to remove religion from it.

it's not to make any recalculations or corrections.

it's a cosmetic change that doesn't correct anything.

so again, why the change from BC/AD to BCE/CE?

BCE and CE is also known as Before Christian Era and Christian Era, so it's not to remove religion from it.

it's not to make any recalculations or corrections.

it's a cosmetic change that doesn't correct anything.But "Christian Era" is not the same as "Anno Domini", is it? It's a different perspective that renders a different meaning.

But "Christian Era" is not the same as "Anno Domini", is it? It's a different perspective that renders a different meaning.

Anno Domini = "In the Year of the Lord" sometimes referred to as Anno Domini Nostri Iesu (Jesu) Christi or "In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ".

The problem is that it's STILL based on the Gregorian calendar, no matter what you call it.

Why is that a problem, we don't NEED to change it if this one works.

Anno Domini = "In the Year of the Lord" sometimes referred to as Anno Domini Nostri Iesu (Jesu) Christi or "In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ".I know what AD means. However 1 AD (used within the Gregorian Calendar) is in fact NOT "year 1 of the Lord" because of the errors in the calendar system before the Gregorian one was adopted. Which part of that don't you understand?

I know what AD means. However 1 AD (used within the Gregorian Calendar) is in fact NOT "year 1 of the Lord" because of the errors in the calendar system before the Gregorian one was adopted. Which part of that don't you understand?

wait, so are you claiming that after the reform, after the corrections, they never corrected year 1 AD as calculated by the current Gregorian calendar?

is that what you are now claiming that the reforms made to the Juilian calender was never corrected?

wait, so are you claiming that after the reform, after the corrections, they never corrected year 1 AD as calculated by the current Gregorian calendar?

is that what you are now claiming that the reforms made to the Juilian calender was never corrected?In 1582 they took that year number and counted on from there and also counted backwards from there. And they ignored all errors that led to the number 1582, they just took it as it was in order to not further confuse people (removing 10 days from that year was confusing enough).

In 1582 they took that year number and counted on from there and also counted backwards from there. And they ignored all errors that led to the number 1582, they just took it as it was in order to not further confuse people (removing 10 days from that year was confusing enough).

so you just contradicted your previous post.

Not at all. The Gregorian reform was a real adjustment of errors in the previously used (Julian) calendar system. Hence also the discrepancies in the count of years and the retro-calculation of "year 1".

since you just said the errors were kept.

and if the change to the BC/AD to BCE/CE is only with the letters and not any recalculations (as people here say) then that doesn't change my stance that the changes are cosmetic (something you never countered btw), won't remove the intergration of Religion in it's usage and basically is only a waste of time and money (other points you haven't refuted.) infact, all you have done is show that the change from BC/AD to BCE/CE is not worth the effort to have done.

so you just contradicted your previous post.



since you just said the errors were kept.

and if the change to the BC/AD to BCE/CE is only with the letters and not any recalculations (as people here say) then that doesn't change my stance that the changes are cosmetic (something you never countered btw), won't remove the intergration of Religion in it's usage and basically is only a waste of time and money (other points you haven't refuted.) infact, all you have done is show that the change from BC/AD to BCE/CE is not worth the effort to have done.You just don't get it. The calendar reform was done to ensure that after 1582 the calendar will not again get out of sync with the actual solar year (and taking into account leap years and all that). Of course the reform did not fix errors of the past. But whatever way you look at it, AD 1 was never the year of Jesus' birth, so keeping on using the term just out of spite is simply idiotic. Anno Domini just does not in fact mean "year of the lord", it means "we started to count somewhere". And the BCE/CE system takes this into account.

You just don't get it. The calendar reform was done to ensure that after 1582 the calendar will not again get out of sync with the actual solar year (and taking into account leap years and all that). Of course the reform did not fix errors of the past. But whatever way you look at it, AD 1 was never the year of Jesus' birth, so keeping on using the term just out of spite is simply idiotic. Anno Domini just does not in fact mean "year of the lord", it means "we started to count somewhere". And the BCE/CE system takes this into account.actually, you don't get it.

you are arguing from a Religious viewpoint. An argument you were arguing with someone else. I asked why make a change that is only cosmetic. Something you have yet to answer.

No where does it state that BCE/CE is recalculating year one. More references state that all BCE/CE is doing is just replacing the coding BC/AD without recalculating anything. you keep saying it will at the same time saying it won't.

"Anno Domini" does mean "The Year Of Our Lord", more references confrim this than your claim that it doesn't. I can pull up latin to english translators that would confrim this more than your point.

So, can you answer my point about why a cosmetic change without trying to say that Jesus was NOT born in year 1?

Anno Domini just does not in fact mean "year of the lord", it means "we started to count somewhere".

Regardless of whether or not Yeshua was born in 1 AD, "year of our lord" is exactly what Anno Domini means.

Regardless of whether or not Yeshua was born in 1 AD, "year of our lord" is exactly what Anno Domini means.:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Nothing intelligent to add?

you are arguing from a Religious viewpoint.Not at all. If you were to start a calendar and claim to count from your birth but actually count from some other date, what sense does it make to name the numbering after your birth? Exactly none. And this does not include religious considerations.

Nothing intelligent to add?The numbering system named "Anno Domini" has nothing to do with being anno domini, and is thus in fact meaningless. That's the point.

Regardless of whether or not Yeshua was born in 1 AD, "year of our lord" is exactly what Anno Domini means.

People don't understand the meaning of the word semantics.

Not at all. If you were to start a calendar and claim to count from your birth but actually count from some other date, what sense does it make to name the numbering after your birth? Exactly none. And this does not include religious considerations.

Except *I* never argued here that AD 1 is the year Christ was born. nor does AD mean "After the Birth of Christ" BC does mean "Before Christ" and 1 BC is still before he was born. that's what YOU'RE arguing.

I asked why should we implement a change that is only cosmetic. IF the change from BC/AD to BCE/CE included a recalculating of year 1, then it's not just a cosmetic change.

But it's not, so it is.

your head is soo stuck on the Religion aspect that it's blinding you to what I am saying.

People don't understand the meaning of the word semantics.

and some don't know how to write.

UB said, and I quote
Anno Domini just does not in fact mean "year of the lord", it means "we started to count somewhere". And the BCE/CE system takes this into account.
now if he only meant that AD was not supposed to be a blessing of the years, but just a 'starting point' then he should've said.
Anno Domini is meant to be used as a "we started to count somewhere". And the BCE/CE system takes this into account.
In which case, UB would then have to back his claim with proof.

In which case, UB would then have to back his claim with proof.
Perhaps it's on his/her website ...

Except *I* never argued here that AD 1 is the year Christ was born. nor does AD mean "After the Birth of Christ" BC does mean "Before Christ" and 1 BC is still before he was born. that's what YOU'RE arguing.

I asked why should we implement a change that is only cosmetic. IF the change from BC/AD to BCE/CE included a recalculating of year 1, then it's not just a cosmetic change.

But it's not, so it is.

your head is soo stuck on the Religion aspect that it's blinding you to what I am saying.The change is not only cosmetic. It removes an invalid reference point from the calendar.

I prefer Anno Satanis myself. BTW it's year 42.

Ughm I hate using BCE/CE. It confuses me waaaayyy too much. I almost failed a APWH essay because I got the two switched around.

I'm good with BC/AD, not because what it stands for, I'm just used to it.

The change is not only cosmetic. It removes an invalid reference point from the calendar.

really, what invalid reference point?

Before Christ? according to some research, Christ was born about 4 - 6 years after AD 1. so BC is still valid.

the fact that Christ is in the notation?
CE is also commonly known as Christian Era,

and as for being more than a cosmetic change.
Wiki states.
Common Era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era)
Common Era (also known as Christian Era and Current Era; [1][2][3] abbreviated CE)[4] is a designation for the period of time beginning with year 1 of the Gregorian calendar. An earlier date is then designated BCE, described as "Before the Common, Christian, or Current Era".[5] The numbering of years is identical to the numbering in the Anno Domini system, neither system using a year zero.[6] The only difference between Common Era, Christian Era, and Anno Domini notation is in the names themselves.

Free Dictionary states (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Common+Era)
Common Era
The period beginning with the year traditionally thought to have been birth of Jesus.

So please provide alot of sources saying that the change is NOT going to be cosmetic and what Invalid point does it remove.

Anno domini sounds cooler - Changing that to CE is merely being too politically correct.


They should change BC to something cooler though. :p

Before Christ? according to research, Christ was born about 4 - 6 years after AD 1. so BC is still valid.

only if you completely discount one of the two accounts we have. of course, since neither is believable anyway, the whole thing is a bit silly.

only if you completely discount one of the two accounts we have. of course, since neither is believable anyway, the whole thing is a bit silly.

true, but so's making it only a cosmetic change.

EDITED the quoted passage to include the word Some before research... since I didn't read ALL the research done. :p

true, but so's making it only a cosmetic change.

we ought, as a general principle, abolish all references to fealty to lords in our public discourse, and secularize pretty much everything. the 'cosmetic' change has social implications.

we ought, as a general principle, abolish all references to fealty to lords in our public discourse, and secularize pretty much everything. the 'cosmetic' change has social implications.
err... you do know that
CE is also known as Christian Era... right?

err... you do know that
CE is also known as Christian Era... right?

Am I the only person who has never heard this before?

Am I the only person who has never heard this before?

post 309, Wiki link. ;)

CE is also known as Christian Era... right?Only among Christians who can't accept that their idol is taken out of the numbering system.

err... you do know that
CE is also known as Christian Era... right?

that is what certain christian groups have adopted as an misread alternate basis for the acronym. that is not what it really means. and considering the sheer number of christians who are convinced that AD means 'after death', the support of those christian groups for it under their alternate reading of what the acronym stands for makes sense.

that is what certain christian groups have adopted as an misread alternate basis for the acronym. that is not what it really means. and considering the sheer number of christians who are convinced that AD means 'after death', the support of those christian groups for it under their alternate reading of what the acronym stands for makes sense.

think of this. Anno Domini is latin, so what was the origial saying of BC? why use latin for one and not the other?

shouldn't it have been Ante Christum?

and Anno Domini does mean 'In the Year of the/our Lord".

common usage does change the item. the Seperation of Church and State was originally used to say that the Government cannot dictate policy to the church. now it's used to say that any elements of religion cannot be present on Government property/events.

Ughm I hate using BCE/CE. It confuses me waaaayyy too much. I almost failed a APWH essay because I got the two switched around.

I'm good with BC/AD, not because what it stands for, I'm just used to it.

Then you confuse very, very easily...

Before Christ? according to some research, Christ was born about 4 - 6 years after AD 1.

Source? Evidence? This would explicitly contradict the Gospel of Matthew's account.

Source? Evidence? This would explicitly contradict the Gospel of Matthew's account.

But accepting Matthew would explicitly contradict Luke, there is no way of saving both. Of the two, Matthew appears to be the one that is just made up out of nothing (the author thumbs through the Old Testament, finds quotes that he speciously thinks must be Messianic, and gives stories to fit, although the fit demands on torturous misreadings of the OT passages).

Luke has some sources, which tell him that John the Baptist started his ministry in "15th Tiberius" (29 AD), and that Jesus was turning thirty "about" at the time of his baptism (Luke does not pretend to know with exactitude, which is a good sign), and that Joseph's family was from Nazareth originally (again a contradiction with Matthew, who thinks Joseph didn't move there until later)-- so, although Luke wants to salvage the virgin birth and the Bethlehem site from Matthew's nativity story, he knows that the date has to be later. Luke puts it in 6-7 AD, at the time when the quasi-independence of the Judean kingdom was suppressed and the area made subject to central taxation from Rome (which provoked a famous rebellion, doomed of course).

The numbering system we have now is not quite what was invented by Dionysus Exiguus in the 6th century, who is usually blamed for it. He was commissioned by the Church to create tables of when the full moons occur (in order to peg Easter at the Sunday following the first full moon of spring), and naturally he investigated the question of which years during Pilate's governorship had the full moon of spring (Passover) on the weekend: that would be the years "33 AD" and "36 AD". Jesus must have been crucified in one of those years: Dionysus picked the wrong one (it now appears that John the Baptist was executed in 34 or 35 AD, so Jesus must have been crucified in 36). Dionysus number that year as 1 AP "Anno Passionis" (year of the Passion). His AP numbering was thus 32 off from our "AD" numbering, which was derived from it by assuming Jesus was baptized in 30 AD when he was turning exactly 30 (more likely, he was baptized approx. 33 AD, after John had been in the baptizing business for a few years). Also, the AP year technically starts at Easter each year, though usually by convention it was started April 1; much as the AD year, technically, starts at Christmas but conventionally is started January 1.

Both AP and AD numberings were officially in use, depending on whether it was more convenient to break the administrative/fiscal year at April 1 or January 1; some also found October 1 a good place to break the year, in which case the AM "Anno Mundi" numbering would be used (the Jewish year-numbering, theoretically from the creation of the world). When France officially abolished AP numbering, some continued to celebrate the old New Year's Day on April 1, and were mocked as "April fish"; the same thing happened in Scotland when the AP-to-AD shift was made in 1752 (at the same time that the Gregorian correction was finally adopted in Great Britain), except there the people who celebrated April 1 were called "April gawks". Exactly how the phrase finally settled down to be "April fools", I do not know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junii
think of this. Anno Domini is latin, so what was the origial saying of BC? why use latin for one and not the other?

The BC numbering, and the stupidity of having the year before 1 AD be called 1 BC without any intervening Year Zero, was due to Archbishop Ussher in the 17th century, who calculated the exact year of the creation as being actually 4004 BC (contradicting the old AM count). His chronology was widely accepted among fundamentalists, almost to the present day. (Thus, BC "Before Christ" was always in English, and has no Latin source.)

Source? Evidence? This would explicitly contradict the Gospel of Matthew's account. sorry, me not bible literalist.

Anno domini sounds cooler - Changing that to CE is merely being too politically correct.Irony being, of course, the significant lengths "christian" mentalities have undergone to infiltrate and corrupt the current political scheme as much as they possibly can.
Oh, and how again is CE being specifically "politically correct"? Should you stay with "WFI", for "Woefully Factually Inaccurate"?