It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by Kapyong
No-one in history ever met Jesus, no-one knows when he was born, the Gospels stories are from long afterwards and give different dates.
That's not true. You can pinpoint a general time frame using material in the Gospels to see when Jesus lived. That's how the "line" between AD and BC was placed. It wasn't random.
The latest Gospel written was John, which was written between AD 90 and 95.
Originally posted by Udo Hohnekamp Lux.
Every day you all are looking on a thermometer. Where is the problem ?
The new millennium did not start as of the first of January 2001, but on
first of January 2000. The celebrations were correctly timed.
Originally posted by Grandma
The truth is the Bible does not contradictscientific evidence, and science does not disprove the biblical record. The point most people on both sides of the argument miss is that the bible does not say when the universe was created.
According to the Bible, Adam was the first man (I Corinthians15:45;I Chronicles 1-1,) and adding the figures in the biblical genealogies does yield a date of about 6,000 years ago for Adam's creation.
The truth is that the Bible does not state that the creation of mankind and the creation of the universe happened at the same time. The age of the universe is simply not stated in the Bible. It well have been 10 or 20 billion years ago.
I know this is kind of off the point, but others brought the argument about creation of man and I just wanted to put my two cents in.
Peace to all,
(from the KJV)
"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion of the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
"...I have given you every herb bearing seed... and every tree in which is the fruit... "
Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
reply to post by brooklyn87
BECAUSE AD DOESNT STAND FOR AFTER DEATH. you answered that for yourself...read your quote you put in....come on dude...
Originally posted by iamsupermanv2 reply to post by brooklyn87 BECAUSE AD DOESNT STAND FOR AFTER DEATH. you answered that for yourself...read your quote you put in....come on dude... Thats funny! We wonder why we're in the state we're in! I feel your pain. Its already been put in several spots and they still cant get it! signature In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine. -------------- Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success.
In about C.E. 523, the papal chancellor, Bonifatius, asked a monk by the name of Dionysius Exiguus to devise a way to implement the rules from the Nicean council (the so-called "Alexandrine Rules") for general use.
Dionysius Exiguus (in English known as Denis the Little) was a monk from Scythia, he was a canon in the Roman curia, and his assignment was to prepare calculations of the dates of Easter. At that time it was customary to count years since the reign of emperor Diocletian; but in his calculations Dionysius chose to number the years since the birth of Christ, rather than honour the persecutor Diocletian.
Dionysius (wrongly) fixed Jesus' birth with respect to Diocletian's reign in such a manner that it falls on 25 December 753 AUC (ab urbe condita, i.e. since the founding of Rome), thus making the current era start with C.E. 1 on 1 January 754 AUC.
How Dionysius established the year of Christ's birth is not known (see section 2.10.1 for a couple of theories). Jesus was born under the reign of king Herod the Great, who died in 750 AUC, which means that Jesus could have been born no later than that year. Dionysius' calculations were disputed at a very early stage.
When people started dating years before 754 AUC using the term "Before Christ," they let the year 1 B.C.E. immediately precede C.E. 1 with no intervening year zero.
Note, however, that astronomers frequently use another way of numbering the years B.C.E. Instead of 1 B.C.E. they use 0, instead of 2 B.C.E. they use -1, instead of 3 B.C.E. they use -2, etc.
It is frequently claimed that it was the venerable Bede (673-735) who introduced B.C. dating. Although Bede seems to have used the term on at least one occasion, it is generally believed that B.C. dates were not used until the middle of the 17th century.
Originally posted by Alethea
Originally posted by brooklyn87
so was he over one thousand years old before he started performing these miracles that eventually got him crucified at 34 A.d.???
I don't think it was the miracles that got him crucified.
When he overturned the money changers at the temple it was because of the practice of blood sacrifices. Jesus spoke out about the nonsense of some of the religious rituals of the time.
Jesus was crucified because he was upsetting the pocketbooks of those in power. He was crucified for telling the truth about the deceptions. He was set up by a secret brotherhood that had infiltrated the Sanhedrin as well as the Roman government.
Originally posted by brooklyn87
It still makes me wonder why is the Jewish calendar so different, if Jesus was the "king of the Jews"? wouldn't there calendar be correct and not ours and we really are in the 5773?