JC was born years before what is commonly thought

[b2r]

    You're welcome.

[mmhmm]

[roxanne]

Jewish Christianity is where Christianity started, some absolutely believed he was the Messiah,

Trevor,

In my opinion none of the original Jewish followers of Yeshua ( saviour) believed he was the Messiah after he was executed, there is simply no theological basis for this belief, a Messiah is unequivocally a physical being who carries out physical acts. It is far more likely his apocalyptic followers believed Yeshua would be spiritually resurrected as the son of man to usher in the apocalypse and in doing so free the Jews from slavery.

Jewish Christianity began with Paul, and Luke was the first to record this in Acts 11:26 ( The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch"), it took twenty years for Christianity to emerge from Jewish apocalypticism. The term " Christus " simply means " anointed one " and to a Jew the title Christian would  identify no one in particular, but to Pauline pagans it can only mean Yeshua.

[Reckless Roselia]

The initial time of creation is the year 0 logically. 

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

There is no year 0. From the first microscopic living organism or cell, time began. And the (Julian) year/calendar (365.25 days) has only been in use since it was introduced by Julius Caesar - in the year 45 BCE (Before Common Era). It replaced the Roman Calendar.

The Julian calendar introduced an error of one day every 128 years, which meant that every 128 years the tropical year shifts one day backwards with respect to the calendar. This made the method for calculating the dates for Easter inaccurate. The solution to this error was to replace the Julian calendar with the Gregorian calendar in 1582 in nearly all countries.

[mmhmm]

When a child is born, his/her first year is year one, is it not?  Why, then, would it be otherwise with the birth of humanity as a whole, or the universe as a whole?  I don't think I've ever heard anyone say:  "My child is zero this Friday."

[Reckless Roselia]

Now we don't have negative time but you know that there's an initial time phase. Hence t = 0 or in this sense year 0. 

[roxanne]

There is no year 0. From the first microscopic living organism or cell, time began.

Incorrect, both space and time began with the big bang, time exists independent of life.

I think I will release you now, I became aware of the Julian and Gregorian calenders when I was 14, its 101 in Classic studies.

I believe few secular historians reject the historical evidence for Jesus existing, as I said earlier, if you are going to invent a character and a religion then there would be no unanswered questions and no need for 40,000 interpretations.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

A child's first breath is the first second of their life. It's not a child's first year until the yearly cycle of their life (365.25 days) is complete. At the end of that first yearly cycle of their life, their year (age) is 1.

Then again, I'm not about to get into a theological or scientific debate with Tosh - because in his own mind, only he has the correct answers.

[roxanne]

When a child is born, his/her first year is year one, is it not?  Why, then, would it be otherwise with the birth of humanity as a whole, or the universe as a whole?  I don't think I've ever heard anyone say:  "My child is zero this Friday."

Unfortunately for your excellent futuristic analogy, the universe began in zero time.

[mmhmm]

I disagree, Rox, ol' chap.  There can be no such thing as "year 0".  If you want to speak of "zero time", that might be a different point.

[roxanne]

Then again, I'm not about to get into a theological or scientific debate with Tosh - because in his own mind, only he has the correct answers.

Don't shoot the messenger of knowledge, its not my fault you are wrong.

[roxanne]

I disagree, Rox, ol' chap.  There can be no such thing as "year 0".  If you want to speak of "zero time", that might be a different point.

Since a year is a measurement of time,  zero time is year zero, its called logic.

[mmhmm]

No, it's not.  It's called wrong.

[roxanne]

No, it's not.  It's called wrong.

Then you should have no problem demonstrating this with science or logic.

I will wait, thanks.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

I'm still waiting for your science. You've yet to prove anything yourself.

[roxanne]

I'm still waiting for your science. You've yet to prove anything yourself.

Proof is a term of maths and logic, Starlight supplied the math and I supplied the logic, your turn.

The instant time begins is called zero time, t= 0 + future time.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

I've already said I'm not going to get into a scientific or theological debate with you, Tosh - it's not worth the effort to discuss a topic with a closed mind or brick wall. Both usually result in headaches.

[roxanne]

I've already said I'm not going to get into a scientific or theological debate with you, Tosh - it's not worth the effort to discuss a topic with a closed mind or brick wall. Both usually result in headaches.

I accept your surrender, I am not one to gloat.

[mmhmm]

As I said, the term "zero point" is acceptable.  The term "year zero" is not.  The reason is simple.  We're using language to communicate our reality.  A "year" consists of 365 days.  You can have year 0.01, or year 0.5. You cannot have year zero (0).  At zero point, there is no year.  Anything beyond zero point is a portion of year one (1).

I'm done.  Teaching a rock to knit has never been my favorite way to waste time.

[roxanne]

As I said, the term "zero point" is acceptable.  The term "year zero" is not.  The reason is simple.  We're using language to communicate our reality.  A "year" consists of 365 days.  You can have year 0.01, or year 0.5. You cannot have year zero (0).  At zero point, there is no year.  Anything beyond zero point is a portion of year one (1).

Repeating your fallacy is not proof, the beginning of time is zero, therefore the beginning of time in the first year was year zero, this is an incontrovertible fact.

Time starts with zero is a  mathematical proof, if zero is not a point in time then 0.01 is meaningless, there is no datum or starting point.

Back to your knitting.

[roxanne]

At zero point, there is no year.

I agree, no year = zero year = YEAR ZERO in logic.

I BELIEVE THAT IS CHECKMATE, NOT BAD FOR A ROCK...EH ?

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

I accept your surrender, I am not one to gloat

I'm not surrendering - I'm just not discussing further with you. And yes, you are one to gloat, dear - you've been known to do just that quite often in your 'past life'.

[mmhmm]

Mar 25, 2013 18:27:17 GMT -5 roxanne said:

At zero point, there is no year.

I agree, no year = zero year = YEAR ZERO in logic.

I BELIEVE THAT IS CHECKMATE, NOT BAD FOR A ROCK...EH ?

'fraid not, fran.  It don't work that way.  That's why we have fractions, eh?  No matter how you try to twist it, you're dead-arsed wrong.

Next?

[roxanne]

'fraid not, fran.

'fraid so dear.

 It don't work that way.

It do work that way.

 That's why we have fractions, eh?

Yep, units added onto zero, fractions are in maths and maths has instant time at t=0.

 No matter how you try to twist it, you're dead-arsed wrong.

So you keep claiming, I will await the proof, it seems to consist of your bare-arsed assertion.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

<tick..tick..tick...>

[mmhmm]

You've got the proof, laddie.  You just don't happen to like it.  Even astronomers don't use the term "year 0".  They use 0000.0, or BC/0/AD.  Why?  Because the concept of "year 0" is ludicrous and anyone with two communicating brain cells knows it.  Now, you go right ahead and be right.  It'll make you feel better and I don't give a flip.  I just have an aversion to insistent ignorance.

[roxanne]

You've got the proof, laddie.  You just don't happen to like it.

There is nothing to dislike, you have demonstrated nothing.

  Even astronomers don't use the term "year 0".  They use 0000.0, or BC/0/AD.  Why?  Because the concept of "year 0" is ludicrous and anyone with two communicating brain cells knows it.

Why you continue to believe your bare assertion constitutes proof is beyond me, if you ask an astronomer, physicist or mathematician IN WHAT YEAR did the universe begin, their answer would be year zero, the Big Bang theory states time came into existences at the moment of the singularity of the cosmos (t = 0).

 At zero point, there is no year.  Anything beyond zero point is a portion of year one

We are discussing the condition at zero point, we are not discussing anything beyond that point, I am tired of repeating this fact, at zero point time measurement whether it be seconds, minutes or years, are all at zero.

 Now, you go right ahead and be right.  It'll make you feel better and I don't give a flip.  I just have an aversion to insistent ignorance.

I have proven my case using maths and logic that year zero exists, and no amount of ad hominem attacks alter this fact, your opinion is worthless if you are unable to support it.

Please keep the debate civil, there is really no need for personal insults, it does not prove your weak case.

[mmhmm]

Mar 26, 2013 3:07:27 GMT -5 roxanne said:

You've got the proof, laddie.  You just don't happen to like it.

There is nothing to dislike, you have demonstrated nothing.

  Even astronomers don't use the term "year 0".  They use 0000.0, or BC/0/AD.  Why?  Because the concept of "year 0" is ludicrous and anyone with two communicating brain cells knows it.

Why you continue to believe your bare assertion constitutes proof is beyond me, if you ask an astronomer, physicist or mathematician IN WHAT YEAR did the universe begin, their answer would be year zero, the Big Bang theory states time came into existences at the moment of the singularity of the cosmos (t = 0).

 At zero point, there is no year.  Anything beyond zero point is a portion of year one

We are discussing the condition at zero point, we are not discussing anything beyond that point, I am tired of repeating this fact, at zero point time measurement whether it be seconds, minutes or years, are all at zero.

 Now, you go right ahead and be right.  It'll make you feel better and I don't give a flip.  I just have an aversion to insistent ignorance.

I have proven my case using maths and logic that year zero exists, and no amount of ad hominem attacks alter this fact, your opinion is worthless if you are unable to support it.

Please keep the debate civil, there is really no need for personal insults, it does not prove your weak case.

There is no personal insult involved, Tosh.  We're all ignorant in some areas, while we may be quite the opposite in other areas.  Ignorance is a burden that can be relieved, if the person in possession of said ignorance is willing to seek and retain information.  I stand on what I've said.  You may remain buried under what you've said.  I really don't care enough to bother further.

[Reckless Roselia]

Well, as a mathematician I won't discredit Tosh. He does have a point. If t = 0 then that time can be in seconds, minutes or in years etc.

However from another angle.

Year zero does not exist in the Anno Domini system usually used to number years in the Gregorian calendar and in its predecessor, the Julian calendar. In this system, the year 1 BC is followed by AD 1. However, there is a year zero in astronomical year numbering (where it coincides with the Julian year 1 BC) and in ISO 8601:2004 (where it coincides with the Gregorian year 1 BC) as well as in all Buddhist and Hindu calendars.

To simplify calculations, astronomers have used a defined leap year zero equal to 1 BC of the traditional Christian era since the 17th century. Modern astronomers do not use years for intervals because years do not distinguish between common years and leap years, causing the resulting interval to be inaccurate.

In astronomy, the numbering of all years labeled Anno Domini remain unchanged. However, the numerical value of years labeled Before Christ are reduced by one by the insertion of a year 0 before 1 AD. Thus, astronomical BC years and historical BC years are not equivalent. To avoid this confusion, modern astronomers label years as positive or negative, instead of BC or AD.

The current method was created by Jacques Cassini, who explained:

The year 0 is that in which one supposes that Jesus Christ was born, which several chronologists mark 1 before the birth of Jesus Christ and which we marked 0, so that the sum of the years before and after Jesus Christ gives the interval which is between these years, and where numbers divisible by 4 mark the leap years as so many before or after Jesus Christ.

—Jacques Cassini, <cite style="font-size: 11px;">Tables astronomiques, 5, translated from French</cite>

In this quote, Cassini used "year" as both a calendar year and as an instant before a year. He identified the calendar year 0 as the year during which Jesus Christ was born (on the traditional date of December 25), and as calendar leap years divisible by 4 (having an extra day in February). But "the sum of years before and after Jesus Christ" referred to the years between a number of instants at the beginning of those years, including the beginning of year 0, identified by Cassini as "Jesus Christ", virtually identical to Kepler's "Christi". Consider the three instants ('years') labeled 1 avant Jesus-Christ, 0, 1 après Jesus-Christ by Cassini, which modern astronomers would label −1.0, 0.0, +1.0. Cassini specified that his end years must be added, so the interval between the instants (noon 1 January) 1 avant Jesus-Christ and 1 après Jesus-Christ is 1 + 1 = 2, but modern astronomers would subtract their 'years', +1.0 − (−1.0) = 2.0, which agrees with Cassini. The calendar years between these two instants would be 2 BC and 1 BC, leaving the calendar year 1 AD beginning at +1.0 outside the interval.

link