![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
Get it through your heads! There is no year 0!
We can sit here and banter logical arguments both for and against the existence of a zeroth year until we get sick and die, but the fact is that in our calendar, it simply doesn't exist, and logic (or not) be damned. Why? Because the people who invented our calendar, the early Christians, didn't have the concept of the number zero to begin with, so they surely weren't going to use it in their reckoning of time! Arabic numerals, remember? Invented by... well, by people who weren't Arab, if I recall correctly, but regardless, not imported into our part of the world until years, years, YEARS after the start of the Christian calendar.
When it comes to us, we reckon our own ages the same way. Before I was born, we were in the era BC (before Connie!). After I was born, we entered into the first year of my life. The anniversary of that blessed event was my first birthday, whereupon I began my second year of life.
Oh, and the common era? It kinda begins with the presumed birth of Jesus. Yeah, I know, the odds of him actually having been born when old tradition apparently held is beyond tiny, but all the same, the guy didn't die when we started our calendar. That'd be rather inauspicious, wouldn't it? (Except not, because his death was a good thing, even though the people historically* considered responsible for that deed (yes, I mean you!) were considered *bad* for helping this *good* thing to occur, which Jesus had already said would happen, implying a predestination... Theology's clearly not my strong suit.)
*I've never understood *that* part either. Even if I accepted that you could be blamed for something you, personally, hadn't done (and I suppose that once you accept the concept of original sin, it's not that big a stretch to accept that every last Jewish person alive at any point in history was to be personally blamed for Jesus dying), wouldn't the blame go on the Romans or something instead? In this case, it's not, I think, theology that's not my strong suit, but prejudice. Which suits me just fine.
We can sit here and banter logical arguments both for and against the existence of a zeroth year until we get sick and die, but the fact is that in our calendar, it simply doesn't exist, and logic (or not) be damned. Why? Because the people who invented our calendar, the early Christians, didn't have the concept of the number zero to begin with, so they surely weren't going to use it in their reckoning of time! Arabic numerals, remember? Invented by... well, by people who weren't Arab, if I recall correctly, but regardless, not imported into our part of the world until years, years, YEARS after the start of the Christian calendar.
When it comes to us, we reckon our own ages the same way. Before I was born, we were in the era BC (before Connie!). After I was born, we entered into the first year of my life. The anniversary of that blessed event was my first birthday, whereupon I began my second year of life.
Oh, and the common era? It kinda begins with the presumed birth of Jesus. Yeah, I know, the odds of him actually having been born when old tradition apparently held is beyond tiny, but all the same, the guy didn't die when we started our calendar. That'd be rather inauspicious, wouldn't it? (Except not, because his death was a good thing, even though the people historically* considered responsible for that deed (yes, I mean you!) were considered *bad* for helping this *good* thing to occur, which Jesus had already said would happen, implying a predestination... Theology's clearly not my strong suit.)
*I've never understood *that* part either. Even if I accepted that you could be blamed for something you, personally, hadn't done (and I suppose that once you accept the concept of original sin, it's not that big a stretch to accept that every last Jewish person alive at any point in history was to be personally blamed for Jesus dying), wouldn't the blame go on the Romans or something instead? In this case, it's not, I think, theology that's not my strong suit, but prejudice. Which suits me just fine.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-11 07:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-11 07:27 am (UTC)We know what the friggin' Legionnaires ate for breakfast for cryin' out loud.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-11 09:50 am (UTC)also, it was not the choice of every jew. at best it was the decision of the majority/all those present on the day.
the real reason christians came to blame the other jews is because they're a breakaway sect, and breakaways always have problems with the group they broke away from. otherwise, why would you break away?
a few hundred, and thousand, years of this, and it just becomes an irrational hatred for which there has to be a 'reasonable' explaination. other than "we disagreed with them" ...
the j man, like luther, was trying to reform the practices and administration of the religion, not change it. later he was held up to be the long awaited messiah - something which was at least equally controversial and divisive. those who began to promulgate this new variant of judaism were not popular initially. it was both a stroke of genius and a necessity to focus on the poor ...