Just a little note on something I left out of the video for time. The BC "Before Christ" part wasn't invented in 525. Bede may have been the first to use a similar phrase, but it wasn't until the 1700s that "before Christ" and "before the common era" were in regular use.
That just makes you a twit! There are approximately 2 billion Christians. If you are from the vUSA that drops to 1 billion (many American Protestants don’t think Roman Catholics or Orthodox are Christian). That means there are 5 billion people in the world that are telling you to “eff” off. 🤣
Yeah, this is kind of sneaky. I like it in some ways but the fact that many are now calling it 'before common era' (which is grammatically lazy to say the least) and 'common era' and will therefore teach this in schools, colleges, universities etc. Will remove the opportunity from children for them to ask who is Christ? Or what does 'BC' and 'AD' stand for? The world is becoming more and more Godless.
One common error repeated here on the calculation of Easter - the part about the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. No, it's the first Sunday after the first full moon (according to tables) after the fixed date of March 21. It was this fixed date that forced the Gregorian calendar change in 1582, and is the reason the Eastern churches, which use the old calendar in their Easter calculations, and hence the March 21 on that calendar (=April 3 I think on the new calendar) often celebrate Easter on a different date.
Thanks for the comment! I'll offer up a bit more context, the TL;DR is, yes for today, but in the 4th Century, the equinox was taken into account or assumed to be equal to 21st March. You are correct about Easter generally today. It was a little more complicated in the 4th century. By the late 4th century, it was assumed (incorrectly) that March 21 and Spring Equinox were equivalent. Dionysius correctly traced this tradition back to Theophilus of Alexandria. But he assumed (probably incorrectly) that the same tradition traced back to Nicaea. Nevertheless, that was the assumption. Regarding Nicaea, it's actually quite complex determining what they meant. They didn't actually write down the Easter formula at Nicaea (i.e., with the 20 canons). They said Easter should be celebrated on the same date - we have then reconstructed what they meant from letters of those who attended and the writings of subsequent bishops after Nicaea. What we can gather from these letters is that Equinox was a factor in determining an appropriate Easter celebration. For those curious about further reading, I'm basing this from: - Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea (2021) - The Council of Nicea,” in The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils (1996).
I use BC/AD and CE/BCE interchangeably. I usually reserve BC/AD for religious and pastoral reasons, and CE/BCE(era system) for nonreligious and academic reasons.
Yeah, they’re still dating everything from the Birth of Christ. They’re still admitting that event had a profound effect on history in the West and, since the West had a profound effect on the world for the last few hundred years, on the world itself. Christianity has had a indelible effect on our current history and it is logical to date history from the birth of Christ for the western world but also, for the last 500 years, on the rest of the world.
Is this a re-upload? Great video btw!!! I switch between both as I'm so used to the BC AD dating but I prefer the CE BCE dating more, also the whole jesus being born 6 BC (Before Christ) wouldn't make sense as Jesus can't be born before himself. Edit: From what I've seen most scholars place his birth between 6 and 4 BCE I could be mistaken on that tho
Thank you! And yes, there was a small mistake (about Holland, not CE) so given it only had 20 views when it was caught I reuploaded. The 6-4BCE being accepted by "most" scholars is a bit of a funny issue. Most of the critical scholars (and even some evangelicals) accept that both infancy narratives are probably literary inventions. If that's true then there's actually no need for the historical Jesus to have been born between 6-4 BCE. What IS generally accepted is that Jesus was crucified under Pilate. In that case, IF Luke is at all accurate about the age Jesus started his ministry then Jesus could have technically been born anywhere from 7BCE to 4CE, with a more likely window being 4 BCE - 1 CE ("around 30 in the 15th year of Tiberius").
To understand the issue is not too difficult. You use BCE (Before Common Era) if you're Jewish, or identify as secular or non-theistic-whether atheists, agnostics, or individuals from other religious traditions. Or you use BC (Before Christ) if you are a Christian and believe that some day Christ will return to rule the earth. Therefore, some prefer BCE and use the excuse that it’s a “more inclusive and culturally neutral” not realizing that it’s attempt to appropriate this establish timeline and offend all Christians.
Great video but yeah I agree with tom holland, he is absolutely right, BCE/CE is pretty pointless, everyone knows BC/AD dating is ingrained in the Christian context, and it's pointless to try to pretend that historical context didn't exist, this calendar had the explicit purpose to try to make a dating site that was more friendly to Christians I also don't see any problem in using names that originate from other belief systems, I mean, I am Cristian, and half of the name of the week comes from the names of pagan gods, and I still use them all the time
Yes, but I would stress BCE/CE isn't pretending not to be Christian, it was invented by Christian scribes after all. They wanted it to be clear it wasn't a monarch based dating system (hence the vulgar/common era). It just gained wider adoption in academia because it didn't require the implicit assumption that Jesus was divine. I don't think it's usage has so much to do with it coming from another belief system, more that the implicit acknowledgement of Jesus' divinity which is not possible for some members of other cultures.
@@TabletsAndTemples yeah I get that, I was trying to be a bit hyperbolic I'm my original comment for the impact of it, I don't really mind BCE/CE, but I do agree with Tom holland, everyone knows that BCE/CE and BC/AD are synonymous, I don't think it should be required by top journals or by any kind of editor to use BCE/CE, if someone wants to use BCE/CE, they should use BCE/CE, and if someone wants to use BC/AD, they should use BC/AD, I just don't think there is any need for one to take over the other ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
When it is said that "BCE and CE/VE are used to be more inclusive." It begs the question 'more inclusive to who?' Certainly not inclusive to Christians. It actually excludes Christians and therefore Christianity because when people use it they take away the foundational and historical dating system that marks our country, the UK, America and other countries that were once upon a time 'Christian countries'. People have used 'BC' and 'AD' commonly for centuries. Why change something that has worked for billions of people for so long?! Unless people don't actually want to be reminded of the one who came to seek and saved the lost, the sinner. The one who needs Christ more than anything is the one who rejects Him because He makes the one with a comfortable life in his sin feel uncomfortable! He is blinded to His need of Christ Jesus and he will never see his need of Him until he acknowledges his own sin. It is all too convenient for the atheist or non Christian to remove the use of 'BC' and 'AD' from our calendar, from school teaching systems, work places and registers etc. It is no wonder children are more confused about who they are than ever before, no wonder that men more than women on average are feeling like they do not have much of a place in society more than ever, no wonder that children are growing up to be more disobedient to their parents and less respectful as a whole, society as a whole has gone down hill compared to what it used to be and no wonder. It will continue to do so all the more in countries that utterly reject Jesus Christ! I will always use 'BC' and 'AD' till I die and I will pass that on to other children I know as I'm sure every true Christian will. God will not have His name blotted out of all existence no matter how hard sinful mankind tries to blot it out! We will all one day stand before Him and give an account of what we have done with His commandments, with the knowledge that creation declares His glory and that He, Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. Repent and believe/trust in Him for salvation from the wrath of God upon sinful mankind! 🙏🏻
I use BC/AD, though I'd prefer AC/AD, because it's nomenclature is superior to BCE/CE for clarity of communication. Whenever I read BCE/CE, it just says Before Christian Era, and Christian Era to me, anyway, so I'm not offended by them in principle. They're just an inferior nomenclature, which is why I avoid them.
For once, I'm happy to be Italian. The dating system here is and will continue yo be AC (Avanti Cristo) and DC (Dopo Cristo), referring to the birth of Jesus Christ. I personallt find it awful to say that the birth of Jesus, were it a real event or not, was not influeantial at all for people not of Christian Belief. Christianity in all its forms was the basis for many cultures of the west for ages, and a belief that led by itself to a lot of events. What is more, the current calendar is a Christian system. I can see why they would prefer not to, but as someone else said: English days are based on nordic ancient religion, and since it is dead and not followed, it should be changed. You see how that does not make sense?
The BCE and CE users need to come up with their own numbering system, then. They took an existing system based on Jesus's birth and mislabeled it. In a way, they have simply copied it. They are still using the B.C. and A.D. system, just changed the label. How disrespectful. What, they couldn't come up with their own numbering system? In addition, B.C. is not religious, it is historical because it is based on a historical event, not a religious event.
Except the Gregorian calendar was a modification of the Julian calendar. Yeah, a pagan calendar. Get your own. We don't know when Jesus was born so a huge FAIL! Next!
Isn't Tom Holland more of a popular author of history instead of an actually academic historian? He doesn't seem to have a PhD or teaching position, and his books appear to be through popular press. If I'm wrong on this, I'd love to be corrected though.
Good question. A doctorate is not required to be considered a professional historian. He's currently a senior research Fellow in Ancient History at Buckingham University, where they mention he has a literature degree with double honours. Perhaps by analogy, you don't need a PhD to be a scientist. You could get into the field with a degree, or even industry experience. Similarly, there is no barrier to being a professional historian by not having a doctorate.
@@yurineri2227 Really? Can you give some academic appearances. He seems to be pretty popular among conservatives and apologists, but are the lectures and presentations by him at major universities?
@@js1423 yes he has given lectures in oxford for example: th-cam.com/video/bcPj46PkFlo/w-d-xo.html of course, there have been things he said which many of his fellow scholars disagree, but that can be said about all most all historians, and overall his work seems to be very respected
First of all. It is offensive. To use modern rules, it is cultural appropriation. Make up your own calendar then. So its not 2024 for non Christians. The modern resurgence of CE is from a KGB operation with infiltrators in Western science journals, along with other operatives from the USSR. This was a big issue communists had, that they still were using a Christian calendar. Its making a resurgence now as part of cancel culture. As a former mathematician, and canceled ie fired for no reason other than race and faith. I will never use this annotation, and for that matter, any other antitheistic annotation.
"As a former mathematician" then shouldn't it bother you that the calendar isn't even accurate to the year Jesus would've been born? At that point is this really about accuracy or simply valuing tradition?
@@wannabe_scholar82Make your own calender, and follow that. Stop using ours. Why dont you use the Islamic one? ANd change things there? Cowards. You attack Christianity because for now, Christians are peaceful. But now fun times are coming. Enjoy
The Gregorian calendar was an adaptation of the Julian. So Xtians appropriated a pagan calendar. LMAO! We are taking it all back - later! And Johannes Kepler was one of the first to use CE bozo. You might try to understand that the KGB was not around then. LMAO!
If you would have created your own calendar you're free to name it whatever you want. But to take the Christian calendar and insist on still using the birth of Christ as the main event of history while refusing to acknowledge that this is exactly what you're talking about is dishonest at best and intolerant at worst. Religious tolerance isn't promoted by stealing a Christian calendar and refusing to acknowledge that it's Christian.
Just a little note on something I left out of the video for time. The BC "Before Christ" part wasn't invented in 525. Bede may have been the first to use a similar phrase, but it wasn't until the 1700s that "before Christ" and "before the common era" were in regular use.
This was reupload this to fix a mistake pointed out by a viewer. Thanks guys!
You're welcome
It's the Christian calendar so it will always be BC and AD for me. I'm not even Christian.
That just makes you a twit! There are approximately 2 billion Christians. If you are from the vUSA that drops to 1 billion (many American Protestants don’t think Roman Catholics or Orthodox are Christian). That means there are 5 billion people in the world that are telling you to “eff” off. 🤣
Then why use that dumb christian calendar?
@@Trickaz94 Because its the only real calendar
@@thechespiin no it's not, but a idiot christian isn't gonna understand that
@@thechespiin it is not, in the real world we don't base our calendars on fictional characters
That's just you delusional christians
BCE "before christ's era"
CE "christ's era"
Cope
@@Nahasapasanope -accept !
Yeah, this is kind of sneaky. I like it in some ways but the fact that many are now calling it 'before common era' (which is grammatically lazy to say the least) and 'common era' and will therefore teach this in schools, colleges, universities etc. Will remove the opportunity from children for them to ask who is Christ? Or what does 'BC' and 'AD' stand for? The world is becoming more and more Godless.
One other quirk about the BC/AD system (besides the weird mixing of English and Latin) is that the numeral is supposed to go before BC but after AD.
That is very odd! I did not know that.
One common error repeated here on the calculation of Easter - the part about the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. No, it's the first Sunday after the first full moon (according to tables) after the fixed date of March 21. It was this fixed date that forced the Gregorian calendar change in 1582, and is the reason the Eastern churches, which use the old calendar in their Easter calculations, and hence the March 21 on that calendar (=April 3 I think on the new calendar) often celebrate Easter on a different date.
Thanks for the comment! I'll offer up a bit more context, the TL;DR is, yes for today, but in the 4th Century, the equinox was taken into account or assumed to be equal to 21st March.
You are correct about Easter generally today. It was a little more complicated in the 4th century. By the late 4th century, it was assumed (incorrectly) that March 21 and Spring Equinox were equivalent. Dionysius correctly traced this tradition back to Theophilus of Alexandria. But he assumed (probably incorrectly) that the same tradition traced back to Nicaea. Nevertheless, that was the assumption.
Regarding Nicaea, it's actually quite complex determining what they meant. They didn't actually write down the Easter formula at Nicaea (i.e., with the 20 canons). They said Easter should be celebrated on the same date - we have then reconstructed what they meant from letters of those who attended and the writings of subsequent bishops after Nicaea. What we can gather from these letters is that Equinox was a factor in determining an appropriate Easter celebration.
For those curious about further reading, I'm basing this from:
- Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea (2021)
- The Council of Nicea,” in The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils (1996).
I use BC/AD and CE/BCE interchangeably. I usually reserve BC/AD for religious and pastoral reasons, and CE/BCE(era system) for nonreligious and academic reasons.
Yeah, they’re still dating everything from the Birth of Christ. They’re still admitting that event had a profound effect on history in the West and, since the West had a profound effect on the world for the last few hundred years, on the world itself.
Christianity has had a indelible effect on our current history and it is logical to date history from the birth of Christ for the western world but also, for the last 500 years, on the rest of the world.
Not to mention Jesus would have actually been born before 4 BC, so the calendar isn't even marking the birth of Jesus.
Yeah Christ existed even before the world began.... HE's eternal alpha and omega no cap😌
Before Christ/Anno Domini users:🗿✝️☦️
It’s not neutral it’s still Christian
Is this a re-upload?
Great video btw!!! I switch between both as I'm so used to the BC AD dating but I prefer the CE BCE dating more, also the whole jesus being born 6 BC (Before Christ) wouldn't make sense as Jesus can't be born before himself.
Edit: From what I've seen most scholars place his birth between 6 and 4 BCE I could be mistaken on that tho
Thank you! And yes, there was a small mistake (about Holland, not CE) so given it only had 20 views when it was caught I reuploaded.
The 6-4BCE being accepted by "most" scholars is a bit of a funny issue. Most of the critical scholars (and even some evangelicals) accept that both infancy narratives are probably literary inventions. If that's true then there's actually no need for the historical Jesus to have been born between 6-4 BCE.
What IS generally accepted is that Jesus was crucified under Pilate. In that case, IF Luke is at all accurate about the age Jesus started his ministry then Jesus could have technically been born anywhere from 7BCE to 4CE, with a more likely window being 4 BCE - 1 CE ("around 30 in the 15th year of Tiberius").
@@TabletsAndTemples Thanks for the correction, can't wait for more of your uploads!!!
Dionysius almost certainly used traditional Roman consul lists however he didn't know there were gaps that had been inaccurately filled in the past.
I like this video. Thanks.
Thanks Kipp, love your work
@Bible Unboxed aww, that is nice of you to say.
I learned a lot here!
To understand the issue is not too difficult. You use BCE (Before Common Era) if you're Jewish, or identify as secular or non-theistic-whether atheists, agnostics, or individuals from other religious traditions. Or you use BC (Before Christ) if you are a Christian and believe that some day Christ will return to rule the earth.
Therefore, some prefer BCE and use the excuse that it’s a “more inclusive and culturally neutral” not realizing that it’s attempt to appropriate this establish timeline and offend all Christians.
Thank you, this is interesting.
Great video
but yeah I agree with tom holland, he is absolutely right, BCE/CE is pretty pointless, everyone knows BC/AD dating is ingrained in the Christian context, and it's pointless to try to pretend that historical context didn't exist, this calendar had the explicit purpose to try to make a dating site that was more friendly to Christians
I also don't see any problem in using names that originate from other belief systems, I mean, I am Cristian, and half of the name of the week comes from the names of pagan gods, and I still use them all the time
Yes, but I would stress BCE/CE isn't pretending not to be Christian, it was invented by Christian scribes after all. They wanted it to be clear it wasn't a monarch based dating system (hence the vulgar/common era). It just gained wider adoption in academia because it didn't require the implicit assumption that Jesus was divine. I don't think it's usage has so much to do with it coming from another belief system, more that the implicit acknowledgement of Jesus' divinity which is not possible for some members of other cultures.
@@TabletsAndTemples yeah I get that, I was trying to be a bit hyperbolic I'm my original comment for the impact of it, I don't really mind BCE/CE, but I do agree with Tom holland, everyone knows that BCE/CE and BC/AD are synonymous, I don't think it should be required by top journals or by any kind of editor to use BCE/CE, if someone wants to use BCE/CE, they should use BCE/CE, and if someone wants to use BC/AD, they should use BC/AD, I just don't think there is any need for one to take over the other ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
except that Jesus was probably not born in AD 1
When it is said that "BCE and CE/VE are used to be more inclusive." It begs the question 'more inclusive to who?' Certainly not inclusive to Christians. It actually excludes Christians and therefore Christianity because when people use it they take away the foundational and historical dating system that marks our country, the UK, America and other countries that were once upon a time 'Christian countries'.
People have used 'BC' and 'AD' commonly for centuries. Why change something that has worked for billions of people for so long?! Unless people don't actually want to be reminded of the one who came to seek and saved the lost, the sinner. The one who needs Christ more than anything is the one who rejects Him because He makes the one with a comfortable life in his sin feel uncomfortable! He is blinded to His need of Christ Jesus and he will never see his need of Him until he acknowledges his own sin.
It is all too convenient for the atheist or non Christian to remove the use of 'BC' and 'AD' from our calendar, from school teaching systems, work places and registers etc. It is no wonder children are more confused about who they are than ever before, no wonder that men more than women on average are feeling like they do not have much of a place in society more than ever, no wonder that children are growing up to be more disobedient to their parents and less respectful as a whole, society as a whole has gone down hill compared to what it used to be and no wonder. It will continue to do so all the more in countries that utterly reject Jesus Christ!
I will always use 'BC' and 'AD' till I die and I will pass that on to other children I know as I'm sure every true Christian will. God will not have His name blotted out of all existence no matter how hard sinful mankind tries to blot it out!
We will all one day stand before Him and give an account of what we have done with His commandments, with the knowledge that creation declares His glory and that He, Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. Repent and believe/trust in Him for salvation from the wrath of God upon sinful mankind! 🙏🏻
I use BC/AD, though I'd prefer AC/AD, because it's nomenclature is superior to BCE/CE for clarity of communication. Whenever I read BCE/CE, it just says Before Christian Era, and Christian Era to me, anyway, so I'm not offended by them in principle. They're just an inferior nomenclature, which is why I avoid them.
To all the ‘Libs’ who you ‘You do you’….. I say AD/BC.
Any evidence of Jesus birth and death dates ??
We've got a whole video on what year Jesus was born
For once, I'm happy to be Italian. The dating system here is and will continue yo be AC (Avanti Cristo) and DC (Dopo Cristo), referring to the birth of Jesus Christ.
I personallt find it awful to say that the birth of Jesus, were it a real event or not, was not influeantial at all for people not of Christian Belief.
Christianity in all its forms was the basis for many cultures of the west for ages, and a belief that led by itself to a lot of events.
What is more, the current calendar is a Christian system.
I can see why they would prefer not to, but as someone else said: English days are based on nordic ancient religion, and since it is dead and not followed, it should be changed.
You see how that does not make sense?
The BCE and CE users need to come up with their own numbering system, then. They took an existing system based on Jesus's birth and mislabeled it. In a way, they have simply copied it. They are still using the B.C. and A.D. system, just changed the label. How disrespectful. What, they couldn't come up with their own numbering system? In addition, B.C. is not religious, it is historical because it is based on a historical event, not a religious event.
No, you're being dishonest. Jesus wasn't born in 1 AD. All credible Bible scholars and theologians agree with this.
Except the Gregorian calendar was a modification of the Julian calendar. Yeah, a pagan calendar. Get your own. We don't know when Jesus was born so a huge FAIL! Next!
Isn't Tom Holland more of a popular author of history instead of an actually academic historian? He doesn't seem to have a PhD or teaching position, and his books appear to be through popular press. If I'm wrong on this, I'd love to be corrected though.
Good question. A doctorate is not required to be considered a professional historian. He's currently a senior research Fellow in Ancient History at Buckingham University, where they mention he has a literature degree with double honours.
Perhaps by analogy, you don't need a PhD to be a scientist. You could get into the field with a degree, or even industry experience. Similarly, there is no barrier to being a professional historian by not having a doctorate.
he is an actually respected historian in his field by most of his academic contemporaries
@@yurineri2227 Really? Can you give some academic appearances. He seems to be pretty popular among conservatives and apologists, but are the lectures and presentations by him at major universities?
@@js1423 yes he has given lectures in oxford for example: th-cam.com/video/bcPj46PkFlo/w-d-xo.html
of course, there have been things he said which many of his fellow scholars disagree, but that can be said about all most all historians, and overall his work seems to be very respected
First of all. It is offensive. To use modern rules, it is cultural appropriation. Make up your own calendar then. So its not 2024 for non Christians. The modern resurgence of CE is from a KGB operation with infiltrators in Western science journals, along with other operatives from the USSR. This was a big issue communists had, that they still were using a Christian calendar.
Its making a resurgence now as part of cancel culture. As a former mathematician, and canceled ie fired for no reason other than race and faith. I will never use this annotation, and for that matter, any other antitheistic annotation.
You're a brainwashed idi0t
"As a former mathematician" then shouldn't it bother you that the calendar isn't even accurate to the year Jesus would've been born? At that point is this really about accuracy or simply valuing tradition?
@@wannabe_scholar82Make your own calender, and follow that. Stop using ours. Why dont you use the Islamic one? ANd change things there?
Cowards. You attack Christianity because for now, Christians are peaceful. But now fun times are coming. Enjoy
The Gregorian calendar was an adaptation of the Julian. So Xtians appropriated a pagan calendar. LMAO! We are taking it all back - later! And Johannes Kepler was one of the first to use CE bozo. You might try to understand that the KGB was not around then. LMAO!
I’m not going to watch you anymore because I believe in BC and A.D.
So you favor religious ideology over historical accuracy and a religiously neutral view of history. Got it.
If you would have created your own calendar you're free to name it whatever you want. But to take the Christian calendar and insist on still using the birth of Christ as the main event of history while refusing to acknowledge that this is exactly what you're talking about is dishonest at best and intolerant at worst. Religious tolerance isn't promoted by stealing a Christian calendar and refusing to acknowledge that it's Christian.
Martin Cynthia Gonzalez Mary Lewis Christopher
Don’t say that you’re a Christian and then you don’t use AD
I see we're gatekeeping Jesus now
Yeah, that's gonna matter on judgment day. LMAO!
C.E. christ exists
Wilson Anthony Moore Deborah Hall Angela