2017 CE counting from?
2017 Common to Chinese , Jews ...?
2017 AD is both humble and precise.
CE , As an ' Esperanto calendar' is fine ; it is as using American English in computers
2017 CE counting from?
No big deal, but Morgan edited the Mirror, not the Mail, but hasn't done so for years. The point holds, though.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:15 pm Piers Morgan is the editor of this paper and a Trumpite. They're always trying to stir up the old people.
Yup. Should not be an issue either way, but the OUTRAGE! button is just too easy to press sometimes.Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:15 pm This is the perfect kind of issue for getting people riled up. There's no practical argument one way or another. It's just a couple letters that have interchangeable meanings. Choosing one or another can only be done on the basis of whom you want to please or displease.
I find that using AD / BC helps to keep some people from tuning out and shoving what they're reading in the "irredeemable liberal" bin.
I'd recommend that Christian apologists use CE / BCE for the same reason.
It does not matter when the exact date of the birth of Jesus is. The beginning of a new era is dated when the change has been consolidated. The year one AD is taken as the beginning of the Christian era 2017 years ago, precisely .FransJVermeiren wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:44 am Regardless of any religious or other preference for or aversion against BC/AD or BCE/CE, I believe there is an important chronological argument in favor of the BCE/CE option.
Jesus’ date of birth is not mentioned in the oldest gospel (Mark). Matthew places it in the last days of Herod (4 BCE) and Luke in the time of the census under Quirinius (6 CE). These 4 BCE / 6 CE events have nothing to do with the birth of Jesus but are significant landmarks of the beginning period of the revolutionary Zealot movement that devised Christianity. My research has shown that Jesus was not active around 30 CE but during the war against the Romans four decades later. The only significant allusion to his age is to be found in the gospel of John 8:57: ‘The Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham?” ’ If Jesus was almost 50 years old in het late 60’s of the first century CE, he must have been born around 20 CE.
With a 20 year gap between the beginning of the AD era and the birth of Jesus son of Saphat (who is the Jesus of the gospels), which is the effect of major chronological fraud committed by the gospel writers, the BC/AD designation should be abandoned. BCE/BE is a neutral and therefore much more appropriate designation of the Western calendar system.