Skwim
Veteran Member
.
Last month, early March, a woman and an old fart in the theater where I volunteer were discussing the time abbreviations BCE, Before Common Era, and CE, Common Era, and where one left off and the other began. They both agreed the terms were tied to the Christian BC and AD.
The guy said that the Christian "BC" stood for "Before (the) Crucifixion" and "AD" stood for "After (Jesus's) Death," And this meaning for AD came into being because it was the most significant event on Earth ever. And that the birth of Jesus, which the woman was arguing for as the turning point, paled in comparison. So, as he claimed, it was at the crucifixion, when Jesus was about 35 years old, that BC ended and AD began, and likewise what BCE and CE referred to.
The woman argued that "BC" stood for "Before Christ," which lasted up until his birth and then changed to AD. He disagreed because the anointing of Jesus, making him Christ, meaning "the anointed one," didn't take place until Jesus was an adult. So it hardly stands to reason that the "C" in "BC" stood for "Christ." If anything, "BC" couldn't apply until Jesus's first anointment, which, he said, was when Jesus was about 31.
He also went on to say that while "AD" could stand for anno domini, "in the year of the lord,” Jesus didn't become anyone's lord until he died on the cross. If anything, while Jesus was alive he was a teacher, preacher, and religious leader, but not lord. Although some people did call Jesus "lord," Jesus recognized that the true lord is the god of Abraham, not himself.
Some of this comes from a one-sheet tract the old guy gave me to look at, which, I'm sure, is what sparked his discussion with the woman.
So, what do you think? Think he has a reasonable case?
.
Last month, early March, a woman and an old fart in the theater where I volunteer were discussing the time abbreviations BCE, Before Common Era, and CE, Common Era, and where one left off and the other began. They both agreed the terms were tied to the Christian BC and AD.
The guy said that the Christian "BC" stood for "Before (the) Crucifixion" and "AD" stood for "After (Jesus's) Death," And this meaning for AD came into being because it was the most significant event on Earth ever. And that the birth of Jesus, which the woman was arguing for as the turning point, paled in comparison. So, as he claimed, it was at the crucifixion, when Jesus was about 35 years old, that BC ended and AD began, and likewise what BCE and CE referred to.
The woman argued that "BC" stood for "Before Christ," which lasted up until his birth and then changed to AD. He disagreed because the anointing of Jesus, making him Christ, meaning "the anointed one," didn't take place until Jesus was an adult. So it hardly stands to reason that the "C" in "BC" stood for "Christ." If anything, "BC" couldn't apply until Jesus's first anointment, which, he said, was when Jesus was about 31.
He also went on to say that while "AD" could stand for anno domini, "in the year of the lord,” Jesus didn't become anyone's lord until he died on the cross. If anything, while Jesus was alive he was a teacher, preacher, and religious leader, but not lord. Although some people did call Jesus "lord," Jesus recognized that the true lord is the god of Abraham, not himself.
Matthew 4:7
Jesus answered, “The Scriptures also say, ‘You must not test the Lord your God.’”
Matthew 4:10
Jesus said to him, “Get away from me, Satan! The Scriptures say, ‘You must worship the Lord your God. Serve only him!’”
Mark 12:29
Jesus answered, “The most important command is this: ‘People of Israel, listen! The Lord our God is the only Lord.
Jesus answered, “The Scriptures also say, ‘You must not test the Lord your God.’”
Matthew 4:10
Jesus said to him, “Get away from me, Satan! The Scriptures say, ‘You must worship the Lord your God. Serve only him!’”
Mark 12:29
Jesus answered, “The most important command is this: ‘People of Israel, listen! The Lord our God is the only Lord.
Some of this comes from a one-sheet tract the old guy gave me to look at, which, I'm sure, is what sparked his discussion with the woman.
So, what do you think? Think he has a reasonable case?
.
Last edited: