If Jesus didn't exist, than how come our ENTIRE time line revolves around him? Ever since he died we've been counting the years as they go on...so I think that it's proof enough Jesus Did exist.

Now answer me this, if he didnt exist, than why have we been counting the years ever since he died?

You don't actually believe that it's exactly 2004/5 years since his so called death do you?

Q: What do the terms B.C. and A.D. mean?
A: B.C. is an abbreviation for "before Christ." A.D. is an abbreviation for "anno Domini," which is Latin for "in the year of our Lord."

B.C. and A.D. are commonly used to count years in time. The birth of Jesus is used as a starting point to count years that existed before (B.C.) and after (A.D.) He was born. For example, the year 532 B.C. refers to the time 532 years before Christ's birth.

Dionysius Exiguus, a monk, invented the B.C./A.D. method during the Middle Ages, early in the sixth century. Directed by the pope, he did this to determine the correct date for Easter. His counting method determined Christ's birth to be the year A.D. 1. However, Christ was actually born a few years earlier, in the year 4 B.C.

According to Hebrew tradition, the sacred calendar began 3,760 years and three months before Christ's birth. It is based on 12 and 13-month years and 19-year time cycles. God uses this calendar to set His Holy Days.



EDIT:

And while that does lean in favour of christianity because the author puts faith in that the monk got the dates of these so called events correct, the whole point is it was done long after these events and the pope ordered it to be done. Our timeline doesn't revolve around christ so much as the catholic faith.

AD means after death. Your term is just the term liberals have made up within the past decade or two.

And you didn't give me any proof Jesus didn't exist.

Hahaha. The author of that Q and A was a christian.

Here's another link that says it doesn't mean after death.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/11890

Oh! And another!

http://www.radix.net/~dglenn/defs/ce.html

AND LOOK!

http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/2003/egypt-reborn/ancient-egypt/k4/timeline/timeline01


Our years do NOT revolve around the date of "Jesus Christ"

Im going to back david up on this one, our dates DO revolve around the date of jesus christ.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm

This explains it more clearly. And your opinion makes no sense david.

You maintain "b.c." means before christ. right?

Well a.d. cannot mean after death because the next time period would have to spring into action as soon as jesus was born.

a.d. refers to his death, not birth. so thus your opinion makes no sense

Even if Ad doesn't mean after death, our dates DO revolve around Jesus Christ. If it's not jesus christ the dates have been counting away from, than what even ARE they counting away from?

That link I just posted explains it pretty neatly.

Than I shall take a look.

BC means before christ Died to be EXACT
AD means after he died

davids right alll of history theyve considered AD to mean after death.

No it hasn't. Have you even bothered to research this?

A.D. got the name "after death" because it was easier to remember. It has nothing at all to do with "after death".

And to say it means before christ disrupts alot of things you guys are trying to say.

EDIT:

The abbreviation "C.E." is a standard way of denoting dates in scholarly literature. C. E. means "Common Era" and B.C.E. denotes "Before the Common Era." The year 1 C.E. is the same as the year 1 A.D.

Many people do not appreciate the fact that the abbreviations AD and BC profess the Christian faith: Anno Domini, meaning "in the year of Our Lord", states the belief that Jesus is the Lord, and BC states that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah). Religious scholars, many of whom are non-Christian, are keenly aware of this, so a neutral way of denoting the year was devised.

Just like AD, the CE system counts the birth of Jesus as year 1.

In fact, we do not know what year Jesus was born. The Gospels indicate he was born near the end of the reign of Herod the Great. The AD system thus takes the last year of Herod's rule as the birth year of Jesus. Because of a counting error, this year turns out to be, in the modern calendar, 4 BC/BCE, not 1 AD/CE.

Not even scholar's appreciate the fact that our calendar does not count from the first year of Jesus, which is unknown, but from the last year of Herod, which is known. Thus the entire AD/BC system is based on the reign of the last great Jewish king!

My own proposal is that non-Christian scholars can indeed use AD and BC in good conscious, as long as they interpret AD to mean "After the Death of Herod" and BC to mean "Before Caesar", i.e., before the Jewish state was partitioned by Augustus Caesar upon the death of Herod.

- G. J. Goldberg

Originally posted by Arllue

---

Im going to back david up on this one, our dates DO revolve around the date of jesus christ.

---

Not necessarily. Our days of the week come from Pagan names, along with our planets.

The names of the days of the week are based on Pagan names. In olden times, Quakers "did not use names for days of the week or months of the year since most of these names were derived from the names of pagan gods. A date such as August 19, 1748 will never be found. Rather it would be written as '19th da 6th mo 1748.' Sometimes this will be written as '6mo 19da 1748.' " 7,8

It would also be consistent to modify the names of the months, many of which are based on ancient Roman Paganism: Janus, a two-headed Roman God,
Februa, a Roman Pagan festival
Mars, a Roman God of war and fertility
Aprilis, the Roman Goddess of love
Maia, the Roman Goddess of the springtime
Juno, the Roman Great Mother Goddess
Julius Caesar, a Roman emperor
Augustus Caesar, another Roman emperor

September to December are based on the Roman numbers seven to ten.

Fortunately, very few people are aware of the etymology of the days of the week and months of the year. Thus, it does not create much offense. However, "Before Christ" and "In the year of the [Christian] Lord" is obviously based on a single religion.

But guys, we all know that Jesus exsisted. That isn't the issue at hand. Christianity is a commonly accepted religion, and that is why it has stuck for so long.

*points to Belial's post*

All of that is true, I've learned it in the lovely anthropology class (taught by an Episcoplelian (sp?) and from one of my English professors who went to a pristeigeous Catholic school). And if I rememember correctly, the days of the week are named after Norse/Germanic gods. I forget them all, but I know Wednesday is after Wodensday, and Woden was another name for Odin. Thursday is after Thor... and I forget the rest.

A.D. means anno Domini and David, I am honestly shocked that you would think otherwise and say such a thing just because you didn't want to accept it. I mean, come on, you call yourself Christian and you didn't know what it ment? The Pagan knew for crying out loud! No offense of course.

I prefer to use C.E. and B.C.E. myself.

Also, Jesus died in 30 A.D. and that is a recognized thing, so explain how that made sense to you.

Originally posted by Davideo7

---

If Jesus didn't exist, than how come our ENTIRE time line revolves around him? Ever since he died we've been counting the years as they go on...so I think that it's proof enough Jesus Did exist.

Now answer me this, if he didnt exist, than why have we been counting the years ever since he died?

---

Guys, is anyone here arguing that Jesus DIDN'T exist? I think we can be fairly positive there was a man named Jesus, and that he was a religious leader.

However, I don't think he was anything more than that... A religious leader. You know what the problem with Christianity is? All of its followers think it's so damn unique, when it's really not. There are plenty of other religions with tales just as magnificient as those in the Bible, and messiahs that are just as powerful as Jesus Christ. Researching other religions is a good way to lose faith in your own.

Yea David, they all know Jesus was real, they're just always questioning is God real..the answer to which no one knows, its something you can only believe in..therfore no one can be right or wrong on the situation.

Yeah I guess that was the only point of this thread, someone to prove to me Jesus didn't exist. But if they all believe that he did, than nothing left to be said I guess. BUt the way Jin was acting sorta seemed like he was gonna convince me Jesus didn't exist.

If he wanted too Jin would probably try to prove to us oxygen wasn't real.

Originally posted by Skyline

---

If he wanted too Jin would probably try to prove to us oxygen wasn't real.

---

He probably could!

As I said, he could try but being in Advanced Earth Science i'd just have to shut him down.

I've said in the past I believed in Jesus' existance and such, but not the son of god stuff.