Funny thing, we've known for ages now that the date was arbitrarily chosen, and that Jesus (if he existed) was probably born 4-10 years prior to the start of the Common Era. Better to just accept that and move on, right?
That's correct, although saying it was chosen "arbitrarily" is stretching it a bit far. I doubt they got it within 10 years by being "arbitrary." In any case, it is the commonly accepted "marker" of Jesus' birth, regardless of the exact date which, it must be said, really isn't that important. The point is that, either way, the entire system revolves around the birth of Jesus, be it exact or no.
See my comment above. To me it's the difference between saying, yes our dating system is based on the existence of Jesus and having to refer to it as Before or after Christ. Not everyone accepts Jesus as Christ, but most people accept Jesus as a historical figure.
You said After Christ - I was correcting, because it's a pet peeve, ever since I heard somebody honestly try to pass off AD as "after Death" (because his minstry was only a few days long, apparently....)
Ah yes, good point. I was lax in my comment. I meant that it's a historical marker, but it isn't even really one of after Jesus, more after the birth of Jesus... except not quite that, as it is after the best guess at the time of the birth of Jesus. I didn't mean to imply that the words meant that, and even the actual meaning of the calendar doesn't quite mean what I said.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-04-25 02:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-25 03:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-25 05:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-25 05:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-25 05:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-25 05:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-25 05:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-25 05:23 pm (UTC)