Posted on 06/01/2008 3:22:52 PM PDT by kellynla
Then abuse it until it breaks or is rendered totally unusable, then they steal something else to replace it.
Yes.
He's a dark horse candidate...
1.5 billion muslims - the peaceful muslims = 1.5 billion muslims
Thank You. My point exactly. :)
Or both.
Which brings me to one of my hobby horses:
We already agree that our calendar is wrong, off by anywhere from 2 to 16 years, depending on who’s doing the reckoning, and further in error because of the absence of a year zero.
The more fundamental point is that God did not intend us to mark His years by the birth of Jesus.
If He had intended this we would have a Biblical fixing of the date.
Further, the day of Jesus’ birth is unremarkable as all men are born.
However, very few return from the dead, that event is remarkable, and it is the defining moment of Christianity, the very moment of proof that his sacrifice was not in vain. And the Bible gives a precise reference for when this happened!
Clearly this was the date the calendar was supposed to start!
For extra points, this makes our calendar off by anywhere from 17 to 30 years. That makes this something like Holy Year 1978 to Holy Year 1991, giving us anywhere from 9 to 22 years to get our affairs in order before the real end of the millennium...
Just wondering.....without seeing a birth certificate, one has to wonder which spelling his father actually used, thus the meaning uncertain at this point, correct?
I’ve been bothered by all this wrangling for about 60 years—and its boiling over into my personal life now. I’m sick of it.
Let’s tell all the residents of that hell-hole in the middle east to get the hell out and nuke the area into a radioactive wasteland for a thousand years.
Give it a rest.
gnip
Perhaps an Act of God could sort things out there on the Holy Mount......
Oh there will be, and HE will.................... Zechariah 14:3-5
Someone mentioned awhile back that he has the name of Muhammed’s horse?
See post #64.
The more fundamental point is that God did not intend us to mark His years by the birth of Jesus.
If He had intended this we would have a Biblical fixing of the date.
Clearly this was the date the calendar was supposed to start!
I'll let the above statements speak for themselves.
Further, the day of Jesus’ birth is unremarkable as all men are born.
True all men are born, but not to virgins through immaculate conception and are the Son of God.
However, very few return from the dead, that event is remarkable, and it is the defining moment of Christianity, the very moment of proof that his sacrifice was not in vain. And the Bible gives a precise reference for when this happened!
Christ resurrected Lazarus from the dead and indeed Christ's assention is the defining moment in Christianity. Another defining moment is when Christ said that "No one come to the Father but through me" Probably the most definitive as well as divisive words ever spoken. I realize that has nothing to do with the date but thought I'd mention it.
The Bible references the Ascension based on the day of his death (3 days later) therefore dates are based on his death, A.D.
For extra points, this makes our calendar off by anywhere from 17 to 30 years. That makes this something like Holy Year 1978 to Holy Year 1991, giving us anywhere from 9 to 22 years to get our affairs in order before the real end of the millennium...
Mere speculation. No one knows the time and date, not even Christ himself. Only the Father knows.
Ummmmmmm, A.D. is not After Death. Else what would we call the years he was alive? A.D. is Anno Domini = Year [of our] Lord.
Perhaps you should heed your on advice and not be so easily led.
Pick up any archaeological review or book.
You mean one who is most likely written by an Agnostic or an Atheist? Now that's funny
In your world, if "CE" is used you assume the person is a "false teacher"? Now that is funny.
Since those terms have been in use for a relatively short time and the designation A.D and B.C. have been around for a couple of thousand years, I think I'll pass on the revisionist history
Of course the would be totally un PC of me now, wouldn't it?
I’ve honestly never heard it referred to as “Christian Era” before... It wasn’t just about the year being off - it was more a response to the whole B.C = Before CHRIST and A.D. = Anno Domini being “offensive” to non-Christians and Atheists (plenty of which are in the academic professions).”
Thanks, you wouldn't believe some of the posts I got on this.
As an aside, I'm pretty sure C.E. refers to “common era” and not “Christian”
I was disputing your opinion as to when the dating system should have started., i.e. using his death as a time line to the Ascension as to when you think the calender should start vs. his birth, A.D.
When I goof, I do it well. LOL
Good thing that’s never happened to me.......
And the current fighting could be over the wrong location. I am not scholar on this, and know the topic has people supporting both sides, but here is a link stating the current temple mount may actually be the remains of Fort Antonia.
http://israel.cephasministry.com/who_moved_the_temple.html
The fact that it is much larger than the foundation required for the temple, and in line with the foundation of a Roman fort housing 3000 soldiers is a compelling argument. Not to mention reports from Josephus that the temple was completely destroyed. I believe Josephus also records a rebel that later died at Mosada as stating nothing but a grassy hill was left where the temple once stood. Hard to image that if the complete and massive foundation was still there. However, even after the temple was destroyed, Roman soldiers remained and would have needed Fort Antonia.
Just a thought.
Here is a link to a rebuttal, to be “fair and honest”: http://www.askelm.com/temple/t010513.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.