Because nobody knows the exact year, even though you can count backwards from now. Our current calendar was not in effect back then so date keeping in ancient time has to be synched up with our current calendar and it doesn't quite mesh perfectly. So the 3 B.C. figure is relative to our current calendar.
2006-09-26 06:56:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by Cybeq 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because God may be perfect, but MAN IS NOT. We changed calendars from Julian to Gregorian, yes? At that time we lost quite a few years because the Julian calendar did not have enough days in the year to make an accurate year. The Gregorian Calendar does, it has 365.25 while the Julian Calender had only 365.0 days.
Leap years (from the Gregorian Calendar) are all years divisible by 4, with the exception that those divisible by 100, but not by 400, are common years. These 365.25-day years add a 29th day to February, which normally has 28 days. Thus, the essential ongoing differential feature of the Gregorian calendar, as opposed to the Julian calendar, is that the Gregorian omits 3 leap days every 400 years. This difference would have been more noticeable in modern memory, were it not for the fact that the year 2000 was a leap year in both the Julian and Gregorian calendar systems.
So, over 1,582 years until the Gregorian Calendar was used, we lost a few years, placing many events in the B.C. instead of A.D. when we would have thought they would have happened. Also, no one "thought" to include a "zero" year for the infant Jesus, i.e., from his age of "birth to 1 year of age." This too led to the loss of one year in history.
2006-09-26 07:03:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by AdamKadmon 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Long story!
Monk give order to arrive at date of birth of Christ!
There is at that time no number 0
So Christ was born year 1 AD by the monk!
(AD does not mean after death)
If you look at a time lie you see 0 BC 1 AD.
Historians have kept the time line, but have notice history says Christ was born about 4 AD about September!
2006-09-26 07:29:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by Grandreal 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
People don't know for sure because he evidently wasn't important enough for anyone to remember the specific year & date. It might've been in the Temple records which were destroyed in 70 C.E. To my knowledge, the calendar was originally changed because of Agustus Caesar - as was the month of August (month of July being for Julius Caesar).
That said, some of the early Christians perhaps did know but to my knowledge did not record this anywhere. The ones who say 3 or 4 B.C.E. are basing that on a conjunction of stars and the likelihood Herod died around then - but those type of stars don't move over a manger (if that ever happened and wasn't borrowed from eastern traditions). Some of the evidence actually does support Autumn of the year 1 B.C.E. (on our calendar) - I cam across a good link explaining that if I can find it. Note that is right around the Jewish New Year. That would mean he died 33 C.E.
2006-09-26 07:02:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Joseph 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
B.C.E means before common era
B.C means before Christ
and jesus was born then and not 0 A.D because the bible says that jesus was born when King Herod (at that time he was king) was ruling over jerusalem. and good old Herod died around 4 B.C. instead of 0 A.D. it was really a historians mistake the guy had calculated wrong (must not have brought the 2 over).
2006-09-26 07:01:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by crl_hein 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yeah, actualy he was born in something like 6 AD. Part of the reason is the change from the Julian to the Gregorian (present day) calendar. The years on the two calendars didn't line up, so that's why there is a discrepancy.
.
2006-09-26 06:55:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Echelon Right 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
you're assuming that conventional Roman records and historic expenditures are finished and finished, which isn't the case. So it ought to nicely be that Luke is a extra ideal historian. different information that atheists mocked at were shown to be the case, so i think this often is the case. The connection with Troy in Acts changed into instrumental in it being discovered. yet a at the same time as earlier 4 BC is often considered the time for the beginning of the Lord Jesus.
2016-11-24 20:31:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because of calender discrepencies. The BC/AD system wasn't used until the middle ages, so many religious dates can be interpreted years apart.
Its not that hard people, we havn't used the same calender for 3000 years..
Besides, havn't you heard the new terms? The new universal terms are P.C.E/ C.E, or Pre-Common Era, and Common Era
2006-09-26 06:54:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by thomas p 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because the historical calender doesn't mark Christ's birth specifically as the beginning of AD.
The true dating system is CE and BCE
CE: Common Era.. ie AD (Latin for the year or our lord)
BCE: Before Common Era.
2006-09-26 06:56:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by Sara 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Conflicts with historians. Josephus is recognized as the able scholar who decyphered the roman census of the day to pinpoint the birth of Christ with more modern calendars.
2006-09-26 06:55:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by Jay Z 6
·
0⤊
0⤋