mukhang tama ka nga kay Boy Silat Tol. Bakit daw di sinama ang time nung nasa LANGIT pa si jesus? Applicable ba yun sa historians na nagsasaliksik dito sa KALUPAAN ?
Aliwin mo na kc para SUMIKAT naman, malay mo humingi cya ng FS mo hehe...
Ngek.bakit sinabi ko bang aplikable?hahaha.ang tinatanung ko yung rason nga nila kung bakit di nila isinasama ang time na nasa langit si jesus ,kasi sabi mo may time si jesus ,bibigyan kita example,si eyeshield ay nabuhay nung 1990 at mamamatay sa 2018 .may time ba si eyeshield?meron,ngaun gagamitin ko ang time ni eyeshield dahil may time sya e,at part siya ng range of sequence of events,yung alam natin e sure tayo na umiral si eyeshield sa time bilang tao na may time,ngayon kung gnagamit mu ang BC AT AD at sabi mo may time si Jesus,anu ang time nya,saan ang umpisa ng time nya ,kung 1 A.D. sya nagoccupy ng time,e bakit mo pinapaniwalaan na meron si Jesus bago pa man nagumpisa ang umpisa ng BC sa kalupaan e hindi nasukat ng historians .unless Iglesia ni Cristo ka
in short,kung papanu nagooccupy si EYeshield ng time,e hindi ganun kaconcrete ang paggamit kay jesus bilang reference ng time,kaya ang tanung ko bakit hindi sinasali ang time ni jesus sa langit at kung anu ang umpisa ng BC .sinagot mo.sabi mo hindi aplikable ang time na un para sa historian na nagsasaliksik sa kalupaan ,haha,pugot yung sagot mu dahil un sagot mu ay distinction ng kalupaan at langit.hahaha.kasi kung ako sasagot sa tanung ko,ang sagot ay kukunin ko mismu sa BC AT AD,at ang sagot ko kaya hindi matukoy ang umpisa ng BC at hindi isinasali ang time ni jesus sa langit kasi yung kalendaryo mo e palpak na panukat ng time ,bias ito sa isang point of reference kaya sa dami ng gagamitim mung pangprove kay jesus e dating system pa na imbento mga kristiyano ,ano ang katunayan. eto :
[6] In some cases, Creation dating was also used. In the 6th century, the Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus devised the Anno Domini system, dating from the Incarnation of Jesus.[6] In the 8th century, the Anglo-Saxon historian Bede the Venerable used another Latin term, "ante uero incarnationis
dominicae tempus" ("the time before
the Lord's true incarnation", equivalent
to the English "before Christ"), to identify years before the first year of this era.[8]
ayan,bias talaga,dahil ung nag imbento naniniwala na nag incarnate si jesus sa lupa.
For chronological purposes, the flaw of
the Annon Domini system was that
dates have to be reckoned backwards
or forwards according as they are BC or AD.[citation needed] According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "in an ideally perfect system all events would be
reckoned in one sequence. The difficulty
was to find a starting point whence to
reckon, for the beginnings of history in
which this should naturally be placed
are those of which chronologically we know least."[citation needed] For both Christians and Jews, the prime historical date was the Year of Creation, or Annus Mundi.[13] The Byzantine Church fixed the date of Creation at 5509 BC.[13] This remained the basis of the ecclesiastical
calendar in the Greek and Russian Orthodox world until modern times. [13] The Coptic Church fixed on 5500 BC. Later, the Church of England, under Archbishop Ussher in 1650, would pick 4004 BC.[13] Jewish scholars preferred 3761 BC as the date of creation,[citation needed] which forms the basis of the modern Jewish calendar.[13] However, "any attempt thus to determine the age
of the world has been long since abandoned."
o ayan,ang hirap pala tukuyin ang starting point,hahaha,kaya hindi lahat e gumagamit ng BC at AD ,kaya nga may alternative diyan e BCE at CE ,:
Why Use BCE & CE Instead of BC & AD? AD is almost certainly inaccurate —
if Jesus existed, he wasn't born in the
year suggested. BC & AD privilege the role of Christianity in a society where it is no longer the defining belief system. BC & AD imply the validity or truth
of Christian theology — specifically, that Jesus is Lord. BC & AD force non-Christians to
imply or acknowledge the supremacy of Christianity AD is awkward to use with centuries
as opposed to specific dates — "12th
century CE" while "12th century AD"
means "12th century in the year of
our Lord," which makes little sense. Opposition to BCE & CE tends to be
on religious rather than academic
grounds, thus demonstrating that
using them involves submitting to a
religious agenda
The idea of a Common Era instead of
Anno Domini has been around for
centuries, .
O ayan common era at before common era,kung yan ang gamit ng historians,saan mo ngayun ilulugar si Jesus diyan,wala,hahaha, nganga, kaya bias ka,bias din yun gamit,kung gusto mo iprove na nagexist si jesus gamit ka nalang ng ibang di bias na bagay.hahaha
silat! Haha
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_calendars