First comment, millennium started in AD0. so this is the millennium, not 2001, like some of you believe.
-Sherman

I would LOVE to hear why you think there is a year A.D. 0. Please explain.

I always believed that it is not until 2001 but the above explanation says A.D. 30 is when "Jesus began to be about 30 years of age." So that means when he was about 31 it would be A.D. 31. When he was 15 it was A.D. 15. When he was 32 it was A.D. 32. I know no one ever counted an A.D. 0, but what year was it when he was 6 months old? 1 B.C.??

If someone has an extremely logical answer to this, then tell me.

Nick Chaves

Good question. But Jesus' age was counted on the Roman system, too, meaning that when they say 30, we should think of 29. So 29 years after his birth, he turned 29. I hope you understand what I mean.

here's a logical answer:
the date is inaccurate anyway.....
many historians say he was born in 4 BC anyway, so your theory doesn't matter...

This is not an opinion question, it's a fact. I've been using BlueCalx's explaination when dealing with morons (aka my family) who keep insisting that this is the millennium. You count from 1 to 100, not 0 to 99. 2000 is just a nice round number, also known as Y2K or the Millenium (note the misspelling) - but it is not the next group of 1000 years. Gotta wait another year for that one.

I would recommend those who do not accept the fact that we are still 1 year from the change of the millennium to go visit a site like http://greenwich2000.co.uk/2001/. There are many others out there, I just thought I should point one of them out :-)

yeah the millennium starts on 1/1/2001- in a year

btw look on pg. 414 of the paperback version of contact, written by carl sagan, i just finished reading it. in there it says by sagan himself that it's 2001 not 2000. you can't argue with someone like carl sagan

didn't carl sagan die?
that would kinda make it hard to argue with him...

People had other calendar systems back then, so there is no exact way to tell now what and when the year was. But get real, there was no A.D. 0. That would mean that there was a B.C. 0.

no it wouldn't

Yes it would. 0AD and 0BC would be the same year. That's a paradox. It can't be both before and after at the same time....

just so you know (which you probably already do) the a in ad does not stand for 'after' and the b in bc does not stand for 'before'. but you already knew that. peace out everybody happy 2000 (or whatever year it ACTUALLY is:)

you bring up and interesting point in that for many people around the world, this is /not/ the year 2000. actually, to me, it's year number 18. whoever sees this as their year 2000 must be reported to the white lab coat people immediatly, or, if in the immediate family, beaten roundly with a big carboard thing wide paper comes on. well, that lost it's punch. but still.

2K is /not/ important. obviously. it's no more important than 9<D*2>. or 49<*2>. or any other year i remember. in fact, 2K is going to suck in my opinion in that it /is/ the year 2K, and 2K has always sucked. <i don't like it, it doesn't work out well in hex>

so enough. it is late or early. see? no difference, no matter. so i will cease this pointless <clickity clickity> and go off to some place of more interest.

`nacht

-KAKE
IP "human life concluded on a single rainy afternoon..."

You right on one count but not on the other...

BC = Before Christ
AD = Anno Domini (sp?) That is latin for "In the years of our Lord"

--Robin Kay--

I second that, just for reinforcement's sake. I think you even got the spelling right.

Actually, if you translate it correctly, the noun 'anno' is singular, meaning ONE, and the -i ending of the noun 'dominus' is a masculine genitive suffix. Simply put, 'anno domini' is best translated as "The Lord's Year" or "Year of the Lord."

~ferich

Isn't "anno" dative though? If it's in the second declension and it's not irregular then doesn't that mean it's "For the year of the Lord" or "To the year of the lord?"

Bryan
bryan_kam@usa.net
members.tripod.com/bryan.kam

You're right that the A doesn't stand for after (Anno Domini), but the B does stand for before (Before Christ)

-chris

unfortunately for you when the Monk Bede set up our calendar in the 5th century AD he set it up based on a fixed date. The year after this date was numbered 1. There was no year zero. It is illogical to think there was a year zero.

I prefer to think that that's the way things are, if that helps :)

You're a dumbass.

First off, In the year 1AD(the start of the AD era), no one had a number zero. If no zero existed, how could the AD timeline start on 0 AD?
Second off, 0 is not a positive number, you little crack-smoking fudge packer. 0 is in the middle, neither positive or negative(except in C++ where it is a positive number but that was a glitch). So AD started with 1 and 0 was zero zero.
Third, THIS IS THE STORY OF HOW EVERYONE GOT F*CKED UP IN THE HEAD:
One day, some dumbass with a major popularity desire decided to announce a Y2K bug.
The next day, panic ensues as members of a corrupt capitalist society profit by devising computer "patches" to make some cash.
One day somewhere within a few weeks, someone calls the "glitch" the Millenium Bug, and this causes millions upon millions to follow their half-assed idiot reasoning.
Thus, everyone believed the millenium started yesterday.

Fourth off, in the massive nation of China, you are age 1 when you are born. Now I know this will screw up your heads, but it's absolutely true.
Fifth off, he doesn't give a damn about you (points at Bad Ass Billy Gunn), he doesn't give a damn about you(points at Road Dogg Jesse James), and I don't think anybody gives a damn about you(points at Binky!
Sixth off, I have a message from the Godfather. he wants you in the back room with the other hoes.

I think that about sums it up ;0
Until I get pissed off again,
-TI-Prime High-Level Infiltration Unit Number 187