Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
The man you are thinking of is Mithras, and he was Persian.
Use of BC(E) and AD/CE
- Thread starter Commodore Nate
- Start date
Wow, that really makes me want to use CE just to spite you.
Mithras was not a "man", he was a god. And he was not born on 25 December. As far as we know, he did not have a birthday at all. 25 December was the festival of Sol Invictus, an official cult quite distinct from Mithraism (although Mithraists did refer to Mithras by the same title, since he too was a sun god).
25 December was also not the solstice, which as everyone knows occurs on 21 December (usually). Although under the Julian calendar, which was in use at this time, it occurred on 24 December.
No-one knows why 25 December became fixed as Jesus' birthday, or indeed when (it had certainly happened by the end of the fourth century). John Chrysostom thought that the date had been chosen because it comes in between Saturnalia and the New Year, giving Christians something to celebrate while everyone else was recovering from their hangovers.
No-one knows what time of year Jesus was born. There's certainly no good reason for thinking it was in the spring.
25 December was also not the solstice, which as everyone knows occurs on 21 December (usually). Although under the Julian calendar, which was in use at this time, it occurred on 24 December.
No-one knows why 25 December became fixed as Jesus' birthday, or indeed when (it had certainly happened by the end of the fourth century). John Chrysostom thought that the date had been chosen because it comes in between Saturnalia and the New Year, giving Christians something to celebrate while everyone else was recovering from their hangovers.
No-one knows what time of year Jesus was born. There's certainly no good reason for thinking it was in the spring.
Felix Luce
Warlord
This is really interesting...yeah, my history teacher insists we use it. She said it's because that's the currently universally-accepted term in scholarship and universities. I mean, she's not Christian, so perhaps that has something to do with it. Personally, I think it's the exact same thing; a rose by any other name would smell as sweet!
EDIT: Plotinus, I was taught that 25 December had always been a pagan holiday, and the Christians, in order to more easily convert pagans, designated that day as Jesus' birthday but allowed it to pretty much to be celebrated as usual. Of course, no-one knows for sure, but that theory seems most likely for me.
EDIT: Plotinus, I was taught that 25 December had always been a pagan holiday, and the Christians, in order to more easily convert pagans, designated that day as Jesus' birthday but allowed it to pretty much to be celebrated as usual. Of course, no-one knows for sure, but that theory seems most likely for me.
silver 2039
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 16,208
We use CE and BCE in universities and such. Any papers I write on history such have that type of dating. Most academia uses that now I believe.
There's really no evidence for that. Certainly Christians did try to "Christianise" many pre-existing festivals and other activities as part of their missionary activities. But this general approach was more typical of the missionary efforts that took place in new areas, where missionaries preached to areas that were mostly non-Christian and quickly converted large numbers of people. This was the case in, for example, Armena, Bulgaria, and much of northern Europe. But it wasn't the case in most of the Roman empire after the first century. 25 December, incidentally, probably only became the festival of Sol Invictus in AD 228, not very long before the first references to this date as Jesus' birthday. Remember that Christians don't seem to have been very interested in converting pagans within the Roman empire in the third century (with the odd exception, such as the work of Gregory Thaumaturgos in Cappadocia). So really there is no good evidence to suppose that the date was chosen for this reason.
~Corsair#01~
Deity
I think change for it's own sake like this is pointless. I think it presupposes a ridiculous level of ignorance on the part of the non-Cristian world as well. Do these people really get offended by BC/AD? Do they suddenly feel better when they see the exact same dating system with slight cosmetic changes?
When you've had a system for over a thousand years it becomes a tradition and respect for it has a value all of its own. It's depressing to say historians of all people destroying this tradition, a link to our past, for the most pedantic and arbitrary reasons imaginable.
I think it's ridiculous also that they can simply decree these things and expect everyone to follow them. I don't respect their authority on this, I don't even know who they are and if they don't like the dating system I use, they'll bloody well have to deal with it.
When you've had a system for over a thousand years it becomes a tradition and respect for it has a value all of its own. It's depressing to say historians of all people destroying this tradition, a link to our past, for the most pedantic and arbitrary reasons imaginable.
I think it's ridiculous also that they can simply decree these things and expect everyone to follow them. I don't respect their authority on this, I don't even know who they are and if they don't like the dating system I use, they'll bloody well have to deal with it.
The Christmas tree (a northern tree variety definitely not evident in Israel) seems a fairly certain indication of pagan origin. However, I seem to recall the use of Christmas trees isn't that old of a tradition.
As for BC/AD/BCE/CE: I'm surprised to see such controversy evoked by a dating system. I've studied history myself and frankly I don't have any real opinion on the matter. I only use BC/AD, because I'm used to it. (BCE/CE wasn't being used yet when I was in university.) Although, I've sometimes wondered where the year O has gone. (You know: -1 BC, 0 AD, 1 AD.)
@Plotinus: I was unaware of the details of 1 AD's relation to the circumcison. Most enlightening.
There's no year 0 because the date is not "x years since the circumcision" - it is "the xth year of the circumcision". That is, assuming the calendar is correct and Jesus was really born when Dionysius Exiguus thought, it is currently 2007 years, nine months, and a few days since Jesus was circumcised. We are therefore currently "in" the 2008th year, but that year has not yet finished - just as we are currently in the 21st century, which means it's 20 centuries and some years since the start. So as soon as Jesus was circumcised it was the first year, and after one year, it started being the second year. That is why the 21st century began when the year 2001 began, because during the year 2000, it was 1999 years and a bit since the circumcision. When 2000 years had passed, we entered the 2001st year, which is called the year 2001.
As for Christmas trees, yes, elements such as that and many others no doubt come from paganism (although Martin Luther is supposed to have invented the Christmas tree). But it doesn't follow from that that these elements were incorporated with a consciously evangelistic purpose. More importantly for this discussion, it doesn't follow that the original date of Christmas was decided for consciously evangelistic purposes.
[Corsair] I don't believe that doing things a certain way just because they always have been done that way is very rational. Times change. Back in the day, most people thought Jesus was Lord, so it was natural to reflect this in the date. Today they don't. What's the point of using an old form of language that doesn't reflect how we are today? What's the harm in changing it? It surprises me that people get so het up about such things. Also I'm not sure why you charge those who support what is now the scholarly status quo with "ignorance". What facts do you think they are ignorant of?
As for Christmas trees, yes, elements such as that and many others no doubt come from paganism (although Martin Luther is supposed to have invented the Christmas tree). But it doesn't follow from that that these elements were incorporated with a consciously evangelistic purpose. More importantly for this discussion, it doesn't follow that the original date of Christmas was decided for consciously evangelistic purposes.
[Corsair] I don't believe that doing things a certain way just because they always have been done that way is very rational. Times change. Back in the day, most people thought Jesus was Lord, so it was natural to reflect this in the date. Today they don't. What's the point of using an old form of language that doesn't reflect how we are today? What's the harm in changing it? It surprises me that people get so het up about such things. Also I'm not sure why you charge those who support what is now the scholarly status quo with "ignorance". What facts do you think they are ignorant of?
(But I appreciate your always detailed explanation.)Interesting discussion. As a German I use v.Chr./n.Chr. (before/after Christ), which of course is basically the same as BC/AD. I'm not Christian, but that doesn't mean I have a problem with BC/AD - after all, it's not like Jesus wasn't born around that time, so what gives. They had to choose a year 1, and if the reason they chose this one is Jesus, than it should be somehow reflected in the therm. But that's just what I think (I wouldn't mind counting from 'ad urbe condita" either...it's just adding a few years or not.)
Anyway, I think there's another reason for "no year 0". The Roman numbers don't have a zero, so how should Exiguus express the "year zero"? Although the explanation above makes sense as well
Anyway, I think there's another reason for "no year 0". The Roman numbers don't have a zero, so how should Exiguus express the "year zero"? Although the explanation above makes sense as well
~Corsair#01~
Deity
What's the point in changing it? I think doing things as they've always been done is perfectly rational when there is no reason to change, which is what I see in this case. Why fix what isn't broken?
The real cause of my annoyance is not the fact that people use the CE system, but that they insist that everyone else does so as well. The two systems are essentially exactly the same, yet the one I've always used has suddenly become wrong to use for no serious reason that I can see. Everyone knows fine well what I mean when I say 200BC so as far I'm concerned it's a perfectly valid system to use, yet they insist it isn't.
What I meant was that the new system seems to assume that non-Christians are ignorant, because I find it diffcult to imagine anybody who could simultaneously be offended by AD/BC and yet not offended by a system which is still based on the (supposed) birth of christ simply because it claims to be a "common era". It's a cosmetic change which has been thrust upon everybody to pander to a demographic I'm not sure exists.
Well, as has been pointed out, the thing that some people object to about "AD" is not the fact that it counts from Jesus, but the fact that the nomenclature contains a statement of faith. So it is perfectly understandable why people might be offended by the term "anno Domini" but not be offended by a more neutral term which nevertheless uses the same counting system. It is not the counting system which is considered objectionable, but the faith declaration.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Have you bothered reading the posts at all?
If it wasn't Jesus that we used as a starting point for a calendar, it would be someone or something else - whether Muhammad or Darwin or the first man on the moon. How would any of these be better? Darwin would be objectionable to non-evolutionists, Muhamad...hell, no.
Jesus is, if anything, the least objectionable figure of them all to base a calendar on. Atheists and Agnostics, for the most part, are perfectly willing to admit he was a key figure in the history of our world, and that some of what he taught was relatively good. Christians, of course, consider him the most important figure bar none. Muslims treat him as an important prophet. Most people of most other religions are at least willing to recognize how much Jesus and his follower impacted the world. Plus, it's already the calendar most commonly used among the powerful governments.
So no one's saying "People don't realize it's based on Jesus' birth, dur dur dur!". They're saying, "People don't particularly mind using Jesus' birthday for a calendar. They do mind calling him "Lord"".
And if you can't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you.
Felix Luce
Warlord
Oda, that makes a lot of sense to me now. I didn't have a problem with the calendar starting on Jesus' birth, but now I see why specifically "Before Christ" and "Year of the Lord" could cause issues even with people who accept Jesus' existence as a good man. Thanks for that.
~Corsair#01~
Deity
While I can certainly understand why others take offence to the system (though I feel no sympathy for them since I think they are just being pedantic), I personally do not and am quite happy to continue using it. My problem is when other people aren't, and decide therefore to dictate to me what I can and can't write.
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
My main problem was for University. CE/BCE was right and AD/BC was wrong.
silver 2039
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 16,208
Thats what academia uses now.
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
In point of fact, not true. The Chinese have used the Western system since 1949 (thanks to the Communists). And Arabs have been using the Western system for generations, perhaps even before European colonization: The Islamic calendar is lunar, so while Muslims use it for religious festivals, it's useless for civil administration and business (the lunar year is about 11 days shorter, which has several ramifications for business and government). For the purposes of civil administration, Arabs have generally used the Julian and Gregorian calendars, applying to them the names of the equivalent Levantine months (mostly cognate to the Jewish months).
As a Christian I have no problem whatsoever with the use of BCE/CE - at least in both cases it is put after the year, whereas it's inconsistent with BC/AD. But I think it makes more sense - and is less un-PC - to have the C stand for "Christian", rather than "Common", because it doesn't claim to be the only common calendar system out there - it may be the most widely used but it isn't therefore the best. May as well put the reason for it in the name.
Also: 2184. That is when the earth will finally be depopulated of humans, and the survivors will mark years based on the beginning of their habitation of another planet.
Or something.
Also: 2184. That is when the earth will finally be depopulated of humans, and the survivors will mark years based on the beginning of their habitation of another planet.
Or something.
Similar threads
