Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The Lord preserve me from starting silly threads. The common misconception about our present dating system is that there was a year 0. The calendar was supposed to have started at the birth of JC but the monk that started the whole thing had an incorrect time for JC's birthday. His supposed birthday and the next year were the 1 AD, literally the "first year of our Lord" (i.e. year 1). The year before his supposed birth was 1 BC, the year before Christ. Reading the Bible carefully and examining Rome's records, the present thinking is that JC showed up around 4 BC; the millennium started 3 years ago!. So the whole thing gets a little silly but let us put aside historical inaccuracies and back to other technical silliness. Now though the new millennium has not started, as 2000 years have not completely passed yet, we have all changed the date that we write quite significantly and that is a good enough reason to party as far as I am concerned. Though I am saving the really good stuff for next year. John Collier Oops, I forgot to mention that JC's first birthday would have been in year 2 day 1. The whole Xmas thing was an adopted previously pagan festival. > > Tim Atherton wrote: > >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> Whyever are you wishing us this a year early? >>>> >>>> Marc >>>> >> >> Mind you, it is very unlikely that the historical Jesus was born in what is >> our year 0 or 1 anyway, probably some time before, so we are all out of >> whack anyway. Thanks to the early mis-calculators ;-) >> >> Tim A >> Mr. Schmidt wrote: > What about this scenario? When JC was celebrating his first birthday > (anniversary). The year was also called year one. We are right then to > celebrate Y2k now. > > Regards, Horst Schmidt >