What is this comon era stuff any way?
So when and why did this happen?
Read on about the mess to conceal and confuse the reference to the birth of Christ!
Ab urbe condita (Latin pronunciation: [ab ˈʊrbɛ ˈkɔndɪtaː]), or Anno urbis conditæ (Latin pronunciation: [ˈannoː ˈʊrbɪs ˈkɔndɪtae̯]), often abbreviated as
AUC in either case, is a convention that was used in antiquity and by
classical historians to refer to a given year in Ancient Rome.
Ab urbe condita literally means "from the founding of the City," while anno urbis conditæ means "in the year since the City's founding." Therefore, the traditional year of the foundation of Rome, 753 BC, would be written AUC 1, while AD 1 would be AUC 754. The foundation of the Empire in 27 BC would be AUC 727.
Usage of the term was more common during the Renaissance, when editors sometimes added AUC to Roman manuscripts they published, giving the false impression that the convention was commonly used in antiquity.
{Which is a falsehood because - In reality, the dominant method of identifying years in Roman times was to name the two consuls who held office that year. In late antiquity, regnal years were also in use, as was the Diocletian era in Roman Egypt after AD 293, and in the Byzantine Empire after AD 537, following a decree by Justinian.
** Way back before many cared or had any real relevant reason to know or understand the calendar date system - folks just passed on a day at a time!
The empire keepers and kings had to make their passage seem important so there were various dates.
In modern western history the " Roman Empire " had become the key player and thus had set the date at the period of the life of Christ!
Eventually, the AD/BC way of marking history won the day and remained mostly unchallenged in the West until the late 21st century {When Liberal Socialist} started to play with the prevailing calendar of over 2000 years - In recent days
it has become common practice to use the abbreviations CE (common era) and BCE (before common era) to mark history. The dates remain the same but the religious connotations are removed.
**
The Anno Domini (AD) year numbering was developed by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus in Rome in AD 525, as a result of his work on calculating the date of Easter. Dionysius did not use the AUC convention, but instead based his calculations on the Diocletian era. This convention had been in use since AD 293, the year of the tetrarchy, as it became impractical to use regnal years of the current emperor.[1] In his Easter table, the year AD 532 was equated with the 248th regnal year of Diocletian. The table counted the years starting from the presumed birth of Christ, rather than the accession of the emperor Diocletian on 20 November AD 284, or as stated by Dionysius: "sed magis elegimus ab incarnatione Domini nostri Jesu Christi annorum tempora praenotare… " ("but rather we choose to name the times of the years from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ …").
[2] Blackburn and Holford-Strevens review interpretations of Dionysius which place the Incarnation in 2 BC, 1 BC, or AD 1.[3]
It has later been calculated[by whom?] (from the historical record of the succession of Roman consuls) that the year AD 1 corresponds to AUC 754, based on the epoch of Varro. Thus,
to mark history; their explanation gives a good representation of the reasons for the change:
As the BBC is committed to impartiality, it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians.
{1) Which by it's very implication is just copy of the pre-Liberial - original dates: which just serves as a fresco to bring doubt and confession.
2) Then really after noting that several of the major world religions and nations (such as China and India) have their own systems of the calendar - which they use. So who are we fooling?}
In line with modern practice, BCD/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era) are used as a religiously neutral alternative to BC/AD. Yet it is not Christian Religiously neutral - because they still reference to the birth of Christ!
Otherwise using all of the other various calendars would just seem to bring confusion and doubt to the simple over well used over 2000 year old calendar system! Not to counting all the history books and other data that would have to corrected?
You are free to believe whatever - as me and my family we stick with the original BC / AD over 2000 year Christ based calendar system; yet allow whomever to count their dates as they wish! Because we do have many more important things which need our attention more than the present calendar!
But then there is always liberal Logic.
Read on about the mess to conceal and confuse the reference to the birth of Christ!
Antoninianus of Pacatianus, usurper of Roman emperor Philip
in 248.
It bears the legend ROMAE AETER[NAE] AN[NO] MIL[LESIMO] ET
PRIMO, "To eternal Rome, in its one thousand and first year".
{The key word is 1001 years}
{The key word is 1001 years}
AUC in either case, is a convention that was used in antiquity and by
classical historians to refer to a given year in Ancient Rome.
Ab urbe condita literally means "from the founding of the City," while anno urbis conditæ means "in the year since the City's founding." Therefore, the traditional year of the foundation of Rome, 753 BC, would be written AUC 1, while AD 1 would be AUC 754. The foundation of the Empire in 27 BC would be AUC 727.
Usage of the term was more common during the Renaissance, when editors sometimes added AUC to Roman manuscripts they published, giving the false impression that the convention was commonly used in antiquity.
{Which is a falsehood because - In reality, the dominant method of identifying years in Roman times was to name the two consuls who held office that year. In late antiquity, regnal years were also in use, as was the Diocletian era in Roman Egypt after AD 293, and in the Byzantine Empire after AD 537, following a decree by Justinian.
** Way back before many cared or had any real relevant reason to know or understand the calendar date system - folks just passed on a day at a time!
The empire keepers and kings had to make their passage seem important so there were various dates.
In modern western history the " Roman Empire " had become the key player and thus had set the date at the period of the life of Christ!
Eventually, the AD/BC way of marking history won the day and remained mostly unchallenged in the West until the late 21st century {When Liberal Socialist} started to play with the prevailing calendar of over 2000 years - In recent days
it has become common practice to use the abbreviations CE (common era) and BCE (before common era) to mark history. The dates remain the same but the religious connotations are removed.
**
The Anno Domini (AD) year numbering was developed by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus in Rome in AD 525, as a result of his work on calculating the date of Easter. Dionysius did not use the AUC convention, but instead based his calculations on the Diocletian era. This convention had been in use since AD 293, the year of the tetrarchy, as it became impractical to use regnal years of the current emperor.[1] In his Easter table, the year AD 532 was equated with the 248th regnal year of Diocletian. The table counted the years starting from the presumed birth of Christ, rather than the accession of the emperor Diocletian on 20 November AD 284, or as stated by Dionysius: "sed magis elegimus ab incarnatione Domini nostri Jesu Christi annorum tempora praenotare… " ("but rather we choose to name the times of the years from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ …").
[2] Blackburn and Holford-Strevens review interpretations of Dionysius which place the Incarnation in 2 BC, 1 BC, or AD 1.[3]
It has later been calculated[by whom?] (from the historical record of the succession of Roman consuls) that the year AD 1 corresponds to AUC 754, based on the epoch of Varro. Thus,
- AUC 1 = 753 BC
- AUC 753 = 1 BC
- AUC 754 = AD 1
- AUC 1000 = AD 247
- AUC 2753 = AD 2000
- AUC 2770 = AD 2017
- AUC 2771 = AD 2018
to mark history; their explanation gives a good representation of the reasons for the change:
As the BBC is committed to impartiality, it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians.
{1) Which by it's very implication is just copy of the pre-Liberial - original dates: which just serves as a fresco to bring doubt and confession.
2) Then really after noting that several of the major world religions and nations (such as China and India) have their own systems of the calendar - which they use. So who are we fooling?}
In line with modern practice, BCD/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era) are used as a religiously neutral alternative to BC/AD. Yet it is not Christian Religiously neutral - because they still reference to the birth of Christ!
Otherwise using all of the other various calendars would just seem to bring confusion and doubt to the simple over well used over 2000 year old calendar system! Not to counting all the history books and other data that would have to corrected?
You are free to believe whatever - as me and my family we stick with the original BC / AD over 2000 year Christ based calendar system; yet allow whomever to count their dates as they wish! Because we do have many more important things which need our attention more than the present calendar!
But then there is always liberal Logic.
posted by Kerminator at 22:32
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home