English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

There doesnt seem to be any reliable documentation of what occured during this time period.

2006-10-11 06:29:01 · 12 answers · asked by creskin 4 in Science & Mathematics Earth Sciences & Geology

Nobody got this question.

None of the answers are evenn close.
I know that Christ was in his mid 30's before he died, and therefore the answer was somewhere around 35 years.

I was hoping that someone could give me a more exact answer.

No credit for anyone.

2006-10-12 06:49:42 · update #1

12 answers

A year zero does not exist in the Christian Era and its Gregorian calendar or its anterior Julian calendar.



(A year zero does exist in ISO 8601:2004 and in the astronomical year numbering with a defined year zero equal to 1 BC, as well as in some Buddhist and Hindu lunar calendars.ISO 8601:2004 (and previously ISO 8601:2000, but not ISO 8601:1988) explicitly uses astronomical year numbering in its date reference systems. Because it also specifies the use of the proleptic Gregorian calendar for all years before 1582, some readers incorrectly assume that a year zero is also included in that proleptic calendar, whereas that is unusual. The "basic" format for year 0 is the four-digit form 0000, which equals the historical year 1 BC. Several "expanded" formats are possible: -0000 and +0000, as well as five- and six-digit versions. Earlier years are also negative four-, five- or six-digit years, which have an absolute value one less than the equivalent BC year, hence -0001 = 2 BC. Because only ISO 646 (7-bit ASCII) characters are allowed by ISO 8601, the minus signs are hyphens.)

was: .........2BC,1BC,1AD,2AD........

2006-10-11 06:32:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Actually, I think it's 0 years. I had this argument before at the university. Most people tend to think not as mathematicians do, and so start counting at 1. Therefore there is no year 0. We tend to say for example 0 hours: 0 minutes: 35 seconds, after counting those 35 secs. We think that there is no minute before 60 seconds have passed. But in this case Jesus was born in the first year AD, or if you want to go further, on the 25th of year 1 BC, because when 1BC ended, 1AD began. Those years are consecutive.

2006-10-11 06:40:50 · answer #2 · answered by weaponspervert 2 · 0 1

2 years

2006-10-11 06:31:34 · answer #3 · answered by god knows and sees else Yahoo 6 · 0 2

No non secular reason, in simple terms lack of expertise. See, the detrimental ignorant monk Denis who got here up with the belief to initiate numbering the years while he thought magic jesus were born became very constrained in his education. unlike many different societies around on the time, his hadn't found out that 0 became an exact (and sensible) selection yet. He did not even understand the thought. So not purely did he get his assumed commencing year incorrect in accordance to the bible thoughts (extremely forgivable, by way of fact the bible contradicts itself on the thoughts), he did not positioned a year 0 -- by way of fact he did not have a 0 in his selection gadget. It wasn't till Europeans threw off the shackles of non secular political and academic management many centuries later that they ultimately began utilising a 0 of their selection structures and math -- which they have been given from India and Persia and Arabs. Peace.

2016-11-27 21:53:03 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

No time passed between 1 BC and AD 1. In one moment it was 1 BC, then 0.00000000000000001 seconds later it was AD 1. Not that anyone at the time was counting.

2006-10-11 06:34:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Looking backwards, 1AD was the year immediately after 1BC in our calendar. However, the question about what they were doing at the time is moot. Back then they were using different calendars.

2006-10-11 07:28:19 · answer #6 · answered by Monso Orda 2 · 0 1

1 year. If we say that 1AD starts at the birth of Christ, then 1BC would be the year leading up to his birth, because there really is no zero year.

2006-10-11 06:33:08 · answer #7 · answered by ohmneo 3 · 2 1

Two years?

2006-10-11 06:30:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Lets see maybe the imaculate conception

2006-10-11 07:09:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

OK I'M GOING TO TAKE A HUGE GUESS AND SAY 200 YEARS BUT I'M NOT VERY SURE

2006-10-12 14:11:55 · answer #10 · answered by devilgirl121472 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers