Recently, many textbooks, professors, and Non-Christians have been choosing to use the BCE (Before Common Era)/CE (Common Era) notation for numbering years, as opposed to the traditional BC (Before Christ)/AD (Anno Domini- Latin for "In the Year of Our Lord") system. Supporters argue that the term is more religiously neutral, while still allowing people to use the current year system for the sake of convenience.

Both have no year zero, and they are identical in terms of numerical scheme (I.E. it is 2009 CE and 2009 AD).

Personally, I think it doesn't really matter either way. Since they both trace themselves to the same year number, it seems pointless, but either works fine.

What's your take on this?

I don't think it really matters. BC and AD are so commonly used most people don't care about the religious significance of it.

BC and AD is fine but I use BCE and CE because it's more accurate. 1 AD is very much contested, 1 CE is not.

You can't care that much. It's been so useful for all these years...

I find writing BC/AD easier than BCE and CE but I don't mind. I'd at least like BCE to be reverted to "BC", though. Makes it easier to distinguish from CE.

What does Common Era even mean? Were things more common at one point?

Well for the sake of secularism, I won't mind having BCE and CE in my text books or reading material. But I still use Anno Domini for the sake of tradition and nostalgia.

I've had a textbook that had the common era system in it. My teacher just read it as "before Christ existed"

The common era system is silly in my opinion.. Even if you are atheist, that is still the point Christianity existed/did not exist.

Still use Bc/Ad just as im used to it, dont see the problem, either way both of them arent really based on anything.

You're about right here - even if it's "Common Era", you're still using Christ's birth as the turning point - sort of. The Gregorian calendar was accidentally off by three years, so Jesus was born in 3BC and died in 30AD. Whether you call it "In the year of our lord" or "the common era", it's all based on the event of Christ's birth. If we wanna really be secular, we'd have to pick another date and change the numbers on every history book.

No, common refers to common agreement that the year 1 was in one point, not a difference of several years. It uses the Gregorian calendar and Jesus' birth as landmarks, actually...but it has the landmarks right, unlike the Gregorian calendar.

Political Correctness sometimes goes too far IMO.

I think the "Common Era" is defined as when the three dominant religions in the world are Christianity, Islam, and Judiasm. I still don't like this though. It's not like at 1 AD the three dominant religions were automatically Christianity, Islam and Judiasm.

Actually me and my friend are using Darwin's birth-year as the turn of BCE->CE. Using the exact day of his birth means reshuffling the calender which we can't be arsed with doing.

So today is Monday 5th October, 200 CE.

edit: some more words

That's one of the more unecessary things I've heard in a while. First of all Darwin wasn't so significant that our dating system should rely upon him.

If he was, he'd have been supplanted by Einstein. Or Fermi. Or Edison. Etcetera.

Why can't we all agree on Kim Il Sung's birthday as the turning point for a new calendar? The years before our Eternal President's birthday can be called O.K. (Old Korea) whereas the years after his birthday can be called B.K. (BEST Korea). Why doesn't anybody support this?

Especially because two of them didn't exist. (moreover, it all depends on what you mean by "world" and "dominant". Where's Taoism? Shinto? Buddhism? Hinduism? )

It's just our way of giving Christianity two fingers up.

Because that's obviously the logical way and the appropriate way to respond to everything.

It's not as if giving two fingers up is meant to argue logic anyway.

The logical and appropriate way is assumably not to let a religion which you do not believe in govern your life.

But that's not what you said, now, was it?

It's my way of getting back at the idiots who pushed it on me for years in my life.
It doesn't even concern you whether I believe it's the 6th October 200 or 6th October 2009

Well, no actually - it isn't. It's merely an estimate -- a WILD GUESS to be exact -- based upon one 6th century Monk's calculation of when HE believed that the fictional character known as "Jesus" was supposedly incarnated ...

Oh...so thats what B.C.E and C.E. mean...it was in my history book and I had no idea what they were talking about.
I don't think it matters really. B.C. is more of a date convention(?) instead of a religious one

I'm not going to mention the 'secular' proof of Jesus' existance, but honestly, 1-4 years off isn't bad at all.

More like 30-40, but hey, what's a few decades, right?

And there is NO "secular" proof of Jesus.

No but there are "historical" proofs of the existence of Jesus. Even Atheists agree on the existence of a similar man at around that time. Whether or not he is God or a Prophet is open to debate but as for now, there is consensus of the existance of the man.

I tried that, bro, but it seems that these folks will listen to anything the scholars they claim to admire say until it suddenly comes out that those scholars believe that there is at a minimum a very, very strong possibility that Jesus existed.

SOME atheists will concede that there are four (4) "historical" references that indicate that "Jesus" may have existed. I am not one of those atheists.

Like they say - post proof or it didn't happen.

The Roman Empire documented the existence of Jesus. I could care less if you do or don't believe in god. Whether or not Jesus was a holy being is up to your beliefs. But to deny the existence of him goes against histroical fact. There is a lot of evidence of many (not just one) people who were considered messiahs during the times that Jesus lived in. Is it not enough to say "Jesus was just an ordinary man"? Do you have to say "there never was an alleged 'messiah' in Israel"? I thought atheists followed facts.

Luke 2:2. "This was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria".

Problems:
1. The earliest known Roman census in Palestine was taken in 6-7 AD (assuming that Quirinus's first thing as Legate of Syria was ordering a census, without even stopping for a drink). Jesus, in Luke 2, is said to be born right after Joseph registered for the census.
2. Herod the Great died in 4 BC (ten-eleven years earlier). John the Baptist's conception was during his reign, Luke 1 says, and therefore Jesus (since Mary and Elizabeth met when they were both pregnant (Luke 1:41)) couldn't be born more than nine months later than John the Baptist. Stretching the dates as much as one can gives a date for Jesus' birth at most in 2 BC.

Quite the contrary - there were a plethora of alleged messiahs. I mean, Isaiah 7:14 is viewed as prophecy for the coming of the Messiah. Good. But Isaiah himself, no later than a chapter afterwards, tries to fulfill that prophecy (Isaiah 8:19-9:7). I mean, there's a good chance that there were literally hundreds of 'messiahs' throughout the centuries. Singling out one particular messiah and claiming it existed, though, is...rather impractical, just like it would be rather impractical to prove that there was an alleged messiah called, say, Shealtiel who was stoned to death around 725 BC. I mean, even Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 give conflicting genealogies of Jesus.

Besides that, atheist != following facts. Atheist means 'a-theon', 'no-god'. Everything else is speculation, like saying that every Shintoist has almond-shaped eyes.

*ahem*

Post PROOF or it didn't happen. Provide me with the historical data -- an ORIGINAL source -- and we will debate its authenticity.

If you cannot or will not provide it, then I am calling bull shizzle.

Plain enough?

Oh, hi there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I don't believe in any god myself, but I cannot deny the existence of alleged messiahs in Israel during that time period. Obviously, Jesus from a secular viewpoint is much different from the religious idea of him, but either way you put it, he was a man whose followers claimed he was the messiah.

Nope - sorry - "wiki" is NOT an "original" source. I said post an ORIGINAL historical reference - citing author, text, date and page.

Oh – and while you’re looking for it -- let’s take a stroll down history lane, shall we?

Judea was one of Rome’s conquests – it became a tributary kingdom and later a province of the Roman Empire. Judea was conquered by the Romans in the 1st century BCE. From that time forward, and this is well documented, it was a region of rebellion, riots, banditry, and violent resistance – a veritable nightmare for the Romans.

The Jews rebelled against Roman rule in 66 CE in a disastrous attempt to overthrow Roman Rule. The Romans reacted in the way Rome always reacted to rebellious provinces, and the city of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE, and much of the population of the city was either wiped out or enslaved.

Some 70 years later, the Jews rebelled again, and this time managed to established the “Kingdom of Israel” – which lasted roughly three years -- until the Romans had had enough. They recaptured Judea – renaming it Philistea – killed many of the Jews and sold even more of them into slavery.

Now, admist this backdrop, the story of this fellow called “Jesus” is made up.

Of course, it is convenient that there are, in fact, numerous historical “Jesuses” on which to base the story - Jesus ben Sirach, Jesus ben Ananias and Jesus ben Gamla, for example.

So, in the face of repressive Roman maintenance of its territory against nearly equal aggressive Judaism aimed at self-rule, someone cooks up the idea that it may be more palatable, to both the Romans and the Jews, if they start telling stories of a revised form of Judaism attempting to bridge the gap between the occupant empire and the insurgent local population.

These “word of mouth stories” about a [young] Jewish rabbi/teacher/heroic figure called Yeshu, who, inter alia, tells apocalyptic tales about how the kingdom of heaven awaits everyone, and god’s judgment awaits them at the end of days, and how he is preparing the way for them is, somehow, comforting to a displaced and generally devastated population (read: weak and vulnerable).

That said, not everyone buys into this garbage – and these stories can get somewhat TEDIOUS and BORING with the telling and re-telling – so these story tellers, in an effort to make the stories more interesting to their readers start integrating tales of "miracles" and other nonsense into these stories.

Eventually, these simple stories - told often enough and with enough conviction – start to sound like the truth ...

Honestly - in 2000 years, humanity will be worshiping Harry Potter ...

First of, just as a little irony; Wiki is not an original source.
Please don't get angry over that, just thought it was a little bit funny
I find wiki, being edited by anyone is not a reliable source but I usually use their references and such.

I was poking around, as your argument actually made some sense to me, and I found this:

The "Great Fire of Rome", happened around 64 AD. I'm not sure when this is CE, as some people in this topic say 1-4 years off, while others say 10-40 (unless I just read wrong). According to the Annals of Tacitus, the fire was blamed on the Christians by Nero (Whom some blame him for starting the fire).
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Tacitus/index.htm
Book 15, and and [15.44]
Of course, I also found that there are a few different accounts as to the historical details of the fire. According to Wiki, most modern scholars agree with Tacitus. I wouldn't know, as their reference is a book I don't have access to at this time.
Basically what I gather from this though, is that this "weak and vulnerable" population didn't take to the idea of Christianity all too well (although some obviously did).

I'm not trying to shoot down your argument, as it seems to make a lot of sense to me. Each of the three Abrahamic religions just piggy-backs off the other one, and just takes it a step further. I wouldn't be surprised if what you say is all true.

But I digress, the main topic is BC/AD or BCE/CE. Because all they do is replace the letters and the numbers remain the same, I could care less. Heck, I don't write the date as October 8, 2009 AD or October 8, 2009 CE. Do you? I don't think so. This seems to me more of a "Why can't we be friends" sort of thing than anything anyone should deeply care about. If you don't like how I distinguish the years, too bad. Don't go pushing your religion or non-religion on me and I won't give two sticks.

Everybody does unless they use Conservapedia because Wikipedia is run by muslim communist babykiller fascists. (No. I'm not making this up.)

One thing I didn't understand, Blyaunte: what does the history of Judaea around 70AD have to do with all of this?

<approve></approve>

WHY CAN'T EVERYONE JUST FOLLOW THE ATHEIST CALENDER?

I mean it saves time writing 8th October 200, than 8th October 2009.

Because Darwin didn't start atheism as most of the "amfggodshallsmitetheeheathen" people would make you believe, duh. Atheism, or conceptions akin to it, has been recorded to exist since Hellenic Greece (that's 2100 years before Darwin, folks!) (I mean, Epicurus, for one, died in 270 BC(E). The Carvaka doctrine of Hinduism exists since at least the fifth century BC(E).)

@post below: Lol.

I know but like, he gave so much proof and BC and AD work with his name! (BC = Before Charles, AD = After Darwin)

I'm sorry but I found that sheer bigotry. Whether you like Wiki as a source is an opinion. Whether the facts laid down is factual evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is a fact.

Let's break it down abit yes?

Major non-Christian writers of the 1st and 2nd century recorded the existence of a form of wise man living in modern day Israel. We have sceptical and critical writing taking place within these texts such as "he was thought to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ", are clear indications of this being work of non believers. Shlomo Pines, a Jewish and Islamic Philosiher of the 20th century cited Josephus, a Jewish Roman citizen and apologist and claimed that his works are indeed proof of Jesus and that he mentioned about a wise man killed by Pilate.
The several Greek and Aramaic texts of the New Testament recorded a man called Jesus of Nazareth. We have early Church Fathers as early as the second century writing about this man too including Saint Clament of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch.
We have texts from Babylonian Jew, enemies of the Christians at the time talking about him in the The Talmud.
We have Pagan philosopher Mara bar Sarapion writing about a King of the Jews.
Roman satirist Lucian was quoted into mocking a man who he claimed was crucified at the Christian's worship of him.
2nd century Greek Philosopher, Celsus was quoted into saying Jesus was nothing more than a mere man.

All this evidence pulling towards one man. Jesus of Nazareth. Even those scholars and Atheists who dispute a couple of these sources acknowledge the existence of the man. Charles Guignebert who wrote the Gospels as being propaganda admits his existence.

Let's not forget of course the 2,000 years of Christian history. The apostles wrote books and letters regarding a man from Israel who preached and taught a new philosophy. That back then could have had you killed. We see this with the deaths of Paul, Peter, Stephan, James and many more. What have they to profit from being an enemy of Rome? How could they hold up such trickery under the suppression of an Empire if there was no factual basis of their central figure's existence! They faced death via crucifixion. Either they all went mad or theirs some truth in what they are saying. We must recognized this as valid testimony to the existence of Jesus.

And on a closing tone, ur quote stated Jesus as a mere propaganda tool "invented" by early Christians and Jews against the Romans. Problems occur when we get into the historical fact the the Jews and Romans both persecuted early Christians as traitors and heretics. Why would I ask you would the Jews suddenly do a 180 degrees turn and accept Christianity in a short period of time? Such a shift surely could have not have been created by a simply word of mouth.

Propaganda by the Jews you say. The same thing they said about The Davidic Dynasty 30 years ago! Then they found the Mesha Stele which was proven as an accurate archaeological fund dating back to 800-850 BC! The time when David was estimated to exits. It talked about David's House and confirmed the existence of David, especially because what is said about them in the narrative of the stele agrees well with the narrative in the biblical books of Kings and Chronicles.

Our philosophy is not false. It's just the truth is not yet fully found. God willing the same thing will happen soon. So bigots like you who trash other people's beliefs by calling them "garbage" will once again get a good egg in ur face! I can't wait!

Jesus existed. Fact. I doubt he was a messiah though, more a town loony. He started off sarcastically telling stories about feeding a fish to 200 guys and walking across water (puddles). However as he went along he began believing these stories and wrote his autobiography which he never finished, under the working title 'The Bible'. A bunch of friends finished it off and even wrote a handy prelude!

The prelude was already written way before 0 AD. Come on, now you're just making yourself look ridiculous.

Wikipedia is a third-tier source. (First-tier sources being actual witnesses, second-tier sources reporting first-tier sources' information.) Ever wondered why Wikipedia has a "no original research" rule? Wikipedia bases itself by definition on other sources. And, like a telephone game, I'd rather hear from the first- or second-tier sources, especially when those must be provided!

Isn't it like saying that all Superman comic books pull towards the existence of Lois Lane?

Shinto lore is at least 2,900 years old. Does Amaterasu Omikami exist more than Jesus? (And, lest we forget, "exist more" is a pure example of metaphysics, which makes my head hurt!)

Just because there are people willing to die for an idea, that does not make it true. Unless you're saying that People's Temple was right or that the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, because most of them died for their (or their leader's) idea. (Look! I didn't even bring the Twin Towers, Atocha or London bombings into question!)

"Sayeth the fool in his heart: there is no god". Book of Proverbs. This is really "I am rubber, you are glue" territory.

Oh come on Dani, light up, that was a joke

I've always used BC/AD. Just what I'm used to.

P.S. Can we please not turn this into a topic about the reliability of the Bible pls?

Agreed.




LOL - ah drat! You stole my thunder -- I was going to use Conservapedia as a source for Finway when he asked how I thought religion and science were incompatible.





Ummmmmmm - I saw a sign saying "tangent" and I followed it?

Oh wait! No, my point was that, inasmuch as there was no actual person ever called "Jesus Christ", we should not be using references to "before christ" or "anno domini" ...

That's like dating everything "B.H.P" or "anno voldemort" ...




Jesus of "Nazareth", eh? Curious. Very curious.

Tell me, how is it that Jesus happened to live in "Nazareth" when there is NO archeological evidence, whatsoever, that ANY civilization resided in the region of Nazareth during the time period in which this Jesus character is purported to have lived there?

Yes - indeed - most curious, hmmm ....



Yeppers -- these are the written variations of those "romantic" [sic] word-of-mouth Yeshu stories that I mentioned and you so casually overlooked.



Again - and this is a pity, really - but you're talking, what, DECADES (a century even?) AFTER the supposed "life" of this "Christ" character.



Do you have any idea how MANY people were crucified by the Romans? Seriously ...



Um -- you DO realize that all of that crap is insufficient right? There's a plethora of junk written about Harry Potter -- and none of it adds up to him being "real" either.

None of the material you're referring to is a real historical reference to Jesus. We have tonnes of documents referring to, say, Plato, including material that Plato himself actually contributed -- but we've nothing actually ever written by Jesus?

As I said - provide a genuine historical reference to the existence of Christ, from his own time period, and we can debate it.

A birth record - a written reference "I saw Jesus on the street the other day and he just got a nice haircut" - anything ...

I've honestly never heard of Jesus' birth being in 30-40 A.D./B.C. I heard it was more like 0-4 B.C.

But, to each man/woman his/her own.


You are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Since the oldest surviving copy of Antiquities of the Jews is from the eleventh century, we can easily conclude that it was not edited by the Christian scholars that were accused of editting it in the seventeenth century.

Unless, of course, you don't count a relatively famous and cited historian as adequate proof of Jesus' existance.

Wrong.

Tacitus (a Roman historian of the 7th century AD) states in The Annals, Book XV that "Christus, from whom the name ['Christian'] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus..."

There is a controversial passage referring to Jesus by Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived from 37 AD to 100 AD. He records in Antiquities, Book XVIII that "...He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him..."
Many scholars believe this to be an alteration of the original text, but Josephus also refers to Jesus in Book XX, Chapter 9 in this passage:


The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars, as Wikipedia notes.

So yeah, there is secular proof of Jesus's existence, as well as his family, and your assertion that there ought to be more records is frankly ridiculous. Do you know how many records we have ever found from 1st century Palestine? Very, very few. The idea that having no preserved document written by Jesus (or one of his close friends) is a strike against His alleged existence is laughable.

Tacitus died around 117 AD. And regarding his writing: if he didn't take the information from second-hand sources but from official documents now lost, why would he have labelled Pontius Pilate as a procurator? Pontius Pilate was a prefect. And Tacitus was an accuracy Nazi ante litteram by all accounts.

The point is that, while an actual Jesus may have existed (and, quite frankly, it isn't even that important, as the acts of his followers matter the most rather than something done two millennia ago), most of his life's accounts are...oddly similar to many other cults of the Middle Eastern region. Ezekiel 8:14. Tammuz. Also called "the Shepherd" (hmm). Died and resurrected (like the other oodles of Sun gods around the world). Yearly ritual mourning for his death and subsequent resurrections (like...Easter?). Isn't that a bit too similar?

And yet, most believers refute the notation of Christ having 'earthly' brothers (disciples, followers, etc. wouldn't be called 'brothers' by a non-Christian source). Why is that? Can something be right and wrong at the same exact time and in the same exact part?


@below: NONONONONONONO SUPPRESS PUNS

No, because Voldemort came before Harry Potter.

Josephus' reference to Jesus has been deemed a forgery since the 17th century ...