• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

BC-AD, BCE-CE, What Do They Stand For?

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.

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.


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:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Exactly 1,341,212,581 angels dance on the head of that pin.

In other words, the theological considerations are not interesting to me because the odds that the common use will change are somewhere between zero and zilch.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
All of this results from humans ignoring God and using their own ideas about dates and times. Gos says a new day begins at sunset. We can easily see when the sun sets. Human say a day begins at midnight. No one can see anything change at midnight. It is an artificial, manmade time. God gave us a calendar with months based on the moon. We can see whrn the moon is ful or new. Humans made a calendar with months that are not based on anything they can observe. It is artificial. If humans had stayed with God's calendar there would be no need for BC and AD and other artificial meaningless letters.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Gos says a new day begins at sunset.
That's curious. Where does he say this?


We can easily see when the sun sets.
If at sea level, yes. Not at sea level? Not so much. In fact, if one is behind a rise of any kind it's darn near impossible to tell.


God gave us a calendar with months based on the moon.
And how did that work out?

"The length of each lunar cycle varies slightly from the average value. In addition, observations are subject to uncertainty and weather conditions. Thus to avoid uncertainty about the calendar, there have been attempts to create fixed arithmetical rules to determine the start of each calendar month.

The average length of the synodic month is 29.530587981 days. Thus it is convenient if months generally alternate between 29 and 30 days (sometimes termed respectively “hollow” and “full”). The distribution of hollow and full months can be determined using continued fractions, and examining successive approximations for the length of the month in terms of fractions of a day."


Fraction.... Approximate deviation
29/1........ 1 day after about 2 months
30/1........ 1 day after about 2 months
59/2........ 1 day after about 2.6 years
443/15.... 1 day after about 30 years
source: Wikipedia

Obviously, not all that well


We can see whrn the moon is ful or new. Humans made a calendar with months that are not based on anything they can observe.
Really? Then consider this.




It is artificial. If humans had stayed with God's calendar there would be no need for BC and AD and other artificial meaningless letters.

Has it not occurred to you that the only reason BC and AD were made designates is because they marked a historical event, and had nothing whatsoever to do with how months and years were conceived?

No need to answer.

.
 
Last edited:

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium 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 where BCE ended and and CE came into play.

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.


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?

.

Catholics, who made AD a thing, don't agree with this guy's reasoning. AD stands for Anno Domini. Anno Domini - Wikipedia
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Catholics, who made AD a thing, don't agree with this guy's reasoning. AD stands for Anno Domini. Anno Domini - Wikipedia
And as I said he said: "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."

And as I remember what the tract said, "Anno Domini" was concocted to elevate the status of Jesus, when in fact it really it didn't reflect the facts at all..

.
 
Last edited:

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
the recorded dates of these calendric systems being invented and implemented is said to be:
In 1582, when Pope Gregory XIII introduced his Gregorian calendar,
Europe adhered to the Julian calendar, first implemented by Julius Caesar in 46 B.C.
the old calendars were no longer used after that, so what do people know about them
...they don't even really have a clue how money is created, let alone the calendar...so confusion is pretty much inevitable in 'lay-people'.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
And as I said he said: "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."

And as I remember what the tract said, "Anno Domini" was concocted to elevate the status of Jesus, when in fact it really it didn't reflect the facts at all...

I don't have a dog in the fight of when Jesus became "Lord" in the New Testament. It's just the historical reality that the abbreviation AD stands for Anno Domini. So the guy is just incorrect on the history of the term, even if we agreed with his interesting interpretation of the Gospels.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I don't have a dog in the fight of when Jesus became "Lord" in the New Testament. It's just the historical reality that the abbreviation AD stands for Anno Domini. So the guy is just incorrect on the history of the term, even if we agreed with his interesting interpretation of the Gospels.
Maybe yes maybe no. Considering some of the Catholic Church's history it wouldn't surprise me if "Anno Domini" was concocted solely to elevate the historical status of Jesus while he was alive. The question of course is, is there any evidence to support the claim? I don't know. All I can say is that the explanation does sound reasonable:

Jesus denied he was Lord, so Anno Domini, "year of the lord," can only refer to those years after the crucifixion and none of the years before. Hence AD better applies to After Death, even though that's not what Anno Domini means. .
'Tis a puzzlement.

.
..
 
Last edited:

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
BC is English, in Latin it's written as either ante Christum natum or ante incarnationis dominicae tempus. Before the birth/incarnation of Christ/our Lord. So if anything we should be using AD and a.C.n.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I don't have a dog in the fight of when Jesus became "Lord" in the New Testament. It's just the historical reality that the abbreviation AD stands for Anno Domini. So the guy is just incorrect on the history of the term, even if we agreed with his interesting interpretation of the Gospels.
Quite.

AD means Anno Domini, a term adopted because the writers of history in Europe for most of the last 2,000 years have been Christian. "Our Lord" has been a universally used term for Christ for centuries.

Personally I find the drive to replace AD by a more religiously neutral term rather silly, considering all the other terminology we all happily use as a result of some accident of naming*. But perhaps if I were a Jew or a Muslim I would feel differently.

*The term "oxygen" is due to a mistaken idea about the origin of acidity, for instance.;)
 

Jedster

Well-Known Member
Stuck inside and left twiddling my thumbs more than usual.

.
you could try doing a thumb stand with this

images
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
So, what do you think? Think he has a reasonable case?
Not at all.

His personal view don't match up with the views of those who created the terms.

It doesn't take much digging to see dates supposedly during the life of Jesus referred to as "AD."
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Not at all.

His personal view don't match up with the views of those who created the terms.

It doesn't take much digging to see dates supposedly during the life of Jesus referred to as "AD."
I'm not sure, but I think he might argue that this was the attempt by the Catholic Church to create the idea that Jesus was Lord during his lifetime, when, in fact, Jesus even said he wasn't.

Mark 12:29
Jesus answered, “The most important command is this: ‘People of Israel, listen! The Lord our God is the only Lord.

.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I'm not sure, but I think he might argue that this was the attempt by the Catholic Church to create the idea that Jesus was Lord during his lifetime, when, in fact, Jesus even said he wasn't.

Mark 12:29
Jesus answered, “The most important command is this: ‘People of Israel, listen! The Lord our God is the only Lord.

.
Whatever he thinks the motives behind the term are, hopefully he can realize that it's been used in a consistent way for more than a thousand years.

It's fine for him to have theological disagreements with the people who created the term, but he should realize it was them who created the term based on their understanding. Him using the term in a different way doesn't correct anything; it just confuses things.
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
Whatever he thinks the motives behind the term are, hopefully he can realize that it's been used in a consistent way for more than a thousand years.

It's fine for him to have theological disagreements with the people who created the term, but he should realize it was them who created the term based on their understanding. Him using the term in a different way doesn't correct anything; it just confuses things.

could be rewritten as " the master [baal], our supreme ruler is the only master [baal]..it still means the same thing
hmm..language seems to behave like algebra, curiouso_O no wonder, people have different formats
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
Maybe yes maybe no. Considering some of the Catholic Church's history it wouldn't surprise me if "Anno Domini" was concocted solely to elevate the historical status of Jesus while he was alive. The question of course is, is there any evidence to support the claim? I don't know. All I can say is that the explanation does sound reasonable:

Jesus denied he was Lord, so Anno Domini, "year of the lord," can only refer to those years after the crucifixion and none of the years before. Hence AD better applies to After Death, even though that's not what Anno Domini means. .
'Tis a puzzlement.

.
..
Sorry Skwim, but I have to interject here. He didn't deny he was Lord. Most of Christianity has made such a mess of the Godhead.

Ephesians 4:5 says there is only one Lord.

When Paul asked who the Lord was in Acts 9:4-5 , what was the answer given?

No man can say he is the Lord, unless the Holy Spirit lets them know. 1 Corinthians 12:3

Every tongue is going to confess that he is Lord. Philippians 2:11

The problem is they took God's name out of the scriptures and replaced it with a title (Lord) and it has caused so much confusion. If they had just left God's name in the scriptures, it would be so much easier to see that people are going to confess that he is YHWH.
 
Top