first of all people have opinions of christianity in other parts of the world then america.

non christian people cant look at jesus that way because some people DO NOT believe he was a historical figure, charismatic leader or religous leader or that he even existed at all. look at the rap sheet of the christian church through out time. not exactly a peaceful history by any ones standards.

the main thing to remember is some people go off of FAITH and some go off of FACT. i myself choose fact because science has continued to prove things like this be false for a long time now and they provide something you can read and understand straight away. never do they answer your questions with another question or dart around the subject because THERE IS NO PROOF! i also choose to believe that im the only person responsible for my life, not someone or something that created me and watchs over me. its strange when presented with questions like "why would god create evil then?" you always get an answer something like "to test your faith" IE. something to keep you questioning and keep you believing through scare tactics.

i could keep going on and on and on about the complete crap that has been spat by countless members of all religions though out the ages but thats just my opinion and i believe i got my point across

to me the bible is like a book in the harry potter series. full of magic and impossible situations that innevitably leave you wanting to know what the hell they are talking about.

oh yeah and american christians LOL! i lived in los angeles for 2 and half years and i know from experience MOST of the american christians do what the hell they want so long as they go to church on sunday there aloud to be as much as an arsehole as they like during the week. ive travelled to alot of places and america has hardly any devout christians. the ones who are devout are usually in it for the money with the famous "send your church this and you shall be granted an enternity in heaven" blah blah blah. it really makes me laugh to see brainwashed christians walking around with there eyes and ears closed and empty wallets because they love there church so much.

For stars sake just check out the calandrical history!! No A.D. isn't After Death!! The actual calander went through a evolution of its own.
In the year 46 BC, the Greek Sosigenes convinced Julius Caesar to reform the Roman calendar to a more manageable form. At this time, Julius also changed the number of days in the months to achieve a 365 day year. In order to "catch up" with the seasons, Julius Caesar also added 90 days to the year 46 BC between November and February (Vardi 1991, p. 238).

The Julian calendar consisted of cycles of three 365-day years followed by a 366-day leap year. Around 9 BC, it was found that the priests in charge of computing the calendar had been adding leap years every three years instead of the four decreed by Caesar (Vardi 1991, p. 239). As a result of this error, no more leap years were added until 8 AD. Leap years were therefore 45 BC, 42 BC, 39 BC, 36 BC, 33 BC, 30 BC, 27 BC, 24 BC, 21 BC, 18 BC, 15 BC, 12 BC, 9 BC, 8 AD, 12 AD, and every fourth year thereafter (Tøndering). The UNIX command cal incorrectly lists 4 AD as a leap year (Vardi 1991).

The Julian calendar was switched over to the Gregorian starting in 1582, at which point the 10 day difference between the actual time of year and traditional time of year on which calendrical events occurred became intolerable. The switchover was bitterly opposed by much of the populace, who feared it was attempt by landlords to cheat then out of a week and a half's rent. However, when Pope Gregory XIII decreed that the day after October 4, 1582 would be October 15, 1582, the Catholic countries of France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy complied. Various Catholic German countries (Germany was not yet unified), Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland followed suit within a year or two, and Hungary followed in 1587.

Because of the Pope's decree, the reform of the Julian calendar came to be known as the Gregorian calendar. However, the rest of Europe did not follow suit for more than a century.

The Protestant German countries adopted the Gregorian reform in 1700. By this time, the calendar trailed the seasons by 11 days. England (and the American colonies) finally followed suit in 1752, and Wednesday, September 2, 1752 was immediately followed by Thursday, September 14, 1752. This traumatic change resulted in widespread riots and the populace demanding "Give us the eleven days back!"

Sweden followed England's lead in 1753. Russia, however, did not follow suit until 1918, when January 31, 1918 was immediately followed by February 14th. In fact, however, the USSR is not on the Gregorian calendar, but on a more accurate one of their own devising. The USSR calendar is designed to more closely approximate the true length of the tropical year, thus has one additional rule for when a year is a leap year. It will remain in synchronization with the Gregorian calendar for thousands more years, by which time one or both will have probably fallen into disuse. Similarly, Iranian calendar is also a more accurate version of the Gregorian calendar (Ross).

Formulas for computing the Julian date from the Gregorian dates are given in Danby (1988) and Sinnott (1991). Let denote the integer part (sometimes known in mathematical circles as the floor function ), let Y be the Gregorian year, M the month number (1=January, 2=February, etc.), D the day of the month, and UT the universal time. For all AD dates in the Gregorian calendar,

For the unable to see Source here is the direct link. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/ topics/CalendricalSystems.html

I get what you're saying. The point I'm trying to make is that we don't even know if he made such claims. He was a social activist, lobbying for the poor, widowed, diseased... but there is no proof that he actually went around saying "I'm the son of God!" Which leads me to believe that he was a great guy, but had nothing to do with God, or saving people...

Are you saying that his existence is of no importance?

If I based my entire philosophy around some person I would want to be as true to myself as I could be. I would want to know if he existed.

ugh....no...that's not what i'm saying at all....i'm talking about objective fact versus subjective belief....if he existed he existed........whether you believe he was the son of god is another matter entirely....forget it.

but the bible makes such quotes over and over again and thats pretty much the main text of christianity isnt it? its easy enough to say theres no proof he said anything but theres not any real proof of anything to do with jesus. people in those days needed something to believe in and jesus was it. like countless saviors before him all born around december 25, that had 12 disciples or people who came with whilst performing miracles, alot of storys have the 3 kings following the east star as well. jesus was just the savior for that time period and that grew into what it is today. a world of zombies with their money in the churchs donation plate.

Yeah, but Jesus didn't write the Bible. The New Testament was written after he died, and for all we know the whole 'Son of God' thing comes from a grieving fanboy.

im not doubting that for a second lol.

This thread is about if Jesus the man existed. His divinity is another matter entirely, something I don't think I would touch with a ten foot pole.

Why is that delineation so difficult for so many?

It's not a subjective opinion if he existed at all-he either did or didn't.

bingo.keep on pedaling

anno domini also means, in latin, "year of the lord"





HA.... B.C. DOES mean "Before Christ".... Even if AD doesn't stand for After Death, it does mean year of the lord.



And I am just wasting my breath and time here because noone gets what I am trying to say. I believe he exists, you don't.... end of story. Why sit here and argue on why you don't believe it and why you do? Opinions won't change. I showed proof that Jesus did exist, whether you choose to believe it is your deal. I get it that non believers won't take anything believers have to say into consideration. Yes, textbooks...... big deal..... Saying they shouldn't be used as proof doesn't mean it is totally out of the question. Why should we consider what you all provide as proof as a credible source?

Give me a true, fact, without a doubt, can't be disputed, no matter what source that noone can argue about Jesus NOT existing. You can't.

All that proves is that the people who determined the Gregorian calendar were Christians. The BC/AD switch was not, in fact, made by Jesus himself. He was a baby at the time. He couldn't talk.

Oh please! If that's the case, then the whole concept of date B.C. shouldn't be credible..... in the eyes of the non believers

Where do you think it came from, then?

We use B.C. because it's been that way for years and it's just more convenient at this point. I could determine a new calendar with year 0 as the year Simon Pegg was born, but nobody would go for it because it would take for-freaking-ever to change all the dates and we'd have to have the '70s again.

The Catholic Church, the dominant Western religion at the time, made everyone do it that way. Christianity used to be very adamant that everything was done its way, you know.

On the subject of dates, scientists and most historians have moved to using BCE and CE. They "start" the same year the AD and BC calendar started, but are a new naming system. They literally mean Before Common Era and Common Era. Just one more way the world is releasing itself from the grip of christianity.

But if he did exsist,, and most of agree he did. and he was a good man, and most of us agree he was.. Then did he lie? Was everything he said a lie?

we didnt know him

so how can we trust him? do you just go around trusting strangers? heck no

i wouldnt either
and jesus no matter what or who he was is a stranger

But he must have done something he said or wouldn't he go down in the books as a bad guy like other people did?

nope
not if the author of the books were fans of him

which obviously they were