Originally posted by Jin

---

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

---

Is it not possible that there was time after the end of B.C. and before the start of A.D. that is not labeled, or do you think past your nose?

Did you not read the entire thread?

Even with the B.C. and A.D. timeline there's is ONE year not labeled.

I'm going to have to support Jin once again on this. The BC/AD is obviously a system created by someone, like the number systems, and it wouldn't have a large area of error, namely a time between BC and AD, unless it was intended, which it wasn't. *Takes a deep breath*

That disproves my brother's statement. And as far as I know, nobody has ever tried to use BC and AD to disprove the birth of Jesus. It is known as an historical event, even in History texts, even if it isn't the same as in the Bible. Jesus was born, that's a fact and you can't disprove it with a system used to categorize time.

I can't believe this is even an issue....

BC - before Christ
AD - the greek or latin phrase...

there is no missing year.... BC 1 then AD 1.... no 0 year.... nothing missing...

we wouldn't use the system anymore if it was actually missing years.... we would have accounted for that

Of course there's a missing year, there was no year 0.

Jin is right but it doesn't throw anything off so the system is in no need of being recreated at this point.

.... no year 0 doesn't mean there is a year "missing"

it's not like a year happened that wasn't accounted for....

there was no year 0.... it never happened.... it went from BC 1 to AD 1.... consecutively....

It's didn't just "jump" to that. the B.C. and A.D. system was developed way after the death of jesus.

And it's still flawed in many ways, The year "0" stuff still throws things off due to the count down theory.

there is no year 0.... don't you get that?

the way the system works is that it goes from BC 1 to AD 1

of course the system was developed after Jesus' time...

Before Christ and After Christ wouldnt work. For what dave was trying to point out, it wouldnt. It would skip all the years form when he was born to when he died...dave you should look this up before you start debating on it

Originally posted by Mike

---

Before Christ and After Christ wouldnt work. For what dave was trying to point out, it wouldnt. It would skip all the years form when he was born to when he died...dave you should look this up before you start debating on it

---

I was just goin by what I learned in school.

They didn't start to keep track of the years until after Jesus died...right?

well.... the terminology I have heard quite often is

in the year of our lord 1345....

which has meant 1345 years since the birth of Jesus....

Originally posted by Jin

---

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

---

his 'so-called death'? you yourself say that he was born in the year 4 AD....don't you think he's dead by now? can't you bring yourself to believe that Jesus, whatever his place was in history, has died, already?!?!?!

and another thing....AD totally means 'anno domini' not 'after death'. that's something little kids think before they grow up and actually absorb knowledge.

by the way, how can you even say that that was a 'term liberals came up with'????? i think it's pretty obvious romans (or traditional latin-speakers, aka not americans) came up with it. and even if they didn't, how can the phrase 'in the year of our lord' take on a political agenda. this argument is bogus, and the thread is pointless.

I totally agree... it is bogus.... I don't see why there is any confusion....

I also don't see why anyone would actually think there is a 30 year difference between BC and AD.... we're not that stupid

What about other dates then?
Christmas?
Easter?
Good Friday?, what was so good about it?

I belive that we are in 2005 A.D, and every one knows it.

what?.... what do you mean....

are you asking when they came about.... the celebration of these days?

I think Jesus was actually born around 6-4 B.C. Those holidays were actually brought up after Jesus' death. They were Pagan holidays that happened to be around the time of Jesus' birth and death. Constatine simply converted Easter and Christmas, think about the Easter Bunny. What do we often see with rabbits in cartoons? Two parents and a lot of babies. The Easter Bunny and Easter Eggs are a celebration of fertility. I do think that these are actually when he was born and died though, but not all of the symbols we associate with them are true to them.

Good Friday is when Jesus died, On the third day (Easter) is when he was resurrected. The date these fall on is based on moon phases I think. We do know that it was actually around this time because I think they mention some sort of Jewish holiday when Jesus is on the cross.

Just a shot in the dark here, but I think it is called Good Friday because on that day we were able to recieve forgiveness of our sins because He died on the cross.

Vash: it's the first friday after the spring solstice, or equinox... or whatever.... (Mar 22)... therefore Good Friday, or the passover in Jewish terms) is Mar 25....

here's a good question for you all

if Jesus was crucified on Friday, and rose on Sunday.... where is the third day?

I am guessing they count Friday.

Yeah I thought it was Passover.

how can they? he was supposed to be in the tomb for 3 days....

or 3 nights... I don't remember... either way.... the number doesn't add up if he is crucified on Friday