Inscription indicates Kingdom of Israel existed in the 10th century BCE

[Cobbfmly]

The reasons why anything changes are complicated and particular to each situation. Lots of terms are accepted for long periods of time only to have a group take offense to them at a later date.
However the fact remains that we would never refer to anyone else’s god as “our lord” or “messiah” so to expect other faiths to refer to Jesus in such terms is rather illogical.

So we are to deny that the calendar is based on the birth of Jesus, as best as it could be p(name removed by moderator)ointed in the 16th century, in difference to people who have reject Jesus’ divinity (Muslims), who believe if false gods (Hindus, Buddhists), who reject God altogether (athiests) and people who worship the devil (Wiccans, Satanists) ? Or to put it another way, why are you (members of other religions) asking me to deny that the calendar is based on the birth of Jesus, my Lord? If I was in an area that used your religion’s calendar would you change the terms in difference to my religion?

I leave the Jews out of this, because of all the religions, they believe in the True God, but just have not come to understand the Trinity as fore told in the Old Testament and revealed in the New Testament. Of all the religions, I would be willing to make exceptions to using BC and AD for Jews.

 

[Cobbfmly]

Is the bc ad v bce ce thing still going on? I thought it was just a fad. I remember seeing it around a bit then it dissapeared. Even non Christian news websites that was using bce and ce. Have changed back to bc and ad. (Australian news sites) I think the whole bid to change to bce and ce is a bit of a fail… Because its the year 2010. What happen 2010 years ago? Ya that right. And what are all the bce years counting down to, before they start going up in ce years? Ya that right too.

It is still going strong in the US, esp in science programs on cable TV (Discovery Channel, Science Channel, TLC, etc)

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

This is a hypothetical question that really has nothing to with rebutting my earlier post.

No its actually the heart of the issue. BC and AD are abbreviations that call Jesus the title of Christ (anointed/messiah) and our Lord. I was asking if you were in another culture if you would refer to their god as the messiah or as our lord.

What I resent is being told that the dominant culture of the country that I live in has to change its dating system because some people might feel offended at seeing “Ano Domine” spelled out, or just AD. If you are genuinely offended at the sight of AD, In the year of our Lord, Ano Domine, etc. despite it’s being in use since before the inception of the U.S. as it’s own independent nation, then you either need to man up and grow a thick skin, see a shrink, or get out.

Once again, would you call someone else’s god “our Lord”???

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

So we are to deny that the calendar is based on the birth of Jesus, as best as it could be p(name removed by moderator)ointed in the 16th century, in difference to people who have reject Jesus’ divinity (Muslims), who believe if false gods (Hindus, Buddhists), who reject God altogether (athiests) and people who worship the devil (Wiccans, Satanists) ? Or to put it another way, why are you (members of other religions) asking me to deny that the calendar is based on the birth of Jesus, my Lord? If I was in an area that used your religion’s calendar would you change the terms in difference to my religion?

This has nothing to do with rejecting that the calendar is based on the estimated birth of Jesus. Its that the designations use the religious terms “Christ” and “our Lord.” Thus anyone who is not Christian might not want to write that this is 2010 “in the year of OUR Lord” since their conscience does not recognize Jesus as their Lord. Nor do they consider Jesus to be “the Christ.”

 

[joeflow]

Regardless of what abbreviations you use, you’re still using a calendar that is based around the Messiah of Christianity.

You’d think the people who are offended by AD and BC would also be offended by this as well.

 

[Contarini]

So if society decided it wanted to call this “in the year of our Goddess x” you would freely use that? I highly doubt it. You’d be screaming that you don’t care what the rest of the world does you refuse to refer to anything as “our Goddess.”

Today is Woden’s day. And I am not offended at all by saying so.

That being said, I have no problem with BCE and CE. They are not my own preferred usage, and I think it’s silly of people to be offended at me for using the more traditional terms. But other folks can use them, and in certain contexts I will do so as well.

But can’t we actually discuss the OP? This is a really intriguing find with huge implications. If authentic, it could destroy the currently fashionable “minimalist” view of the historicity of the Hebrew Bible.

And please let’s not have another digression on Hebrew Bible vs. Old Testament!

Edwin

 

[Andrew1983]

No its actually the heart of the issue. BC and AD are abbreviations that call Jesus the title of Christ (anointed/messiah) and our Lord. I was asking if you were in another culture if you would refer to their god as the messiah or as our lord.

Once again, would you call someone else’s god “our Lord”???

It really isn’t. What you are attempting to do is orchestrate a kind of “got-ya” setup in that if I say I would not use another culture’s dating convention, I would somehow be guilty of hypocrisy because I’m interested in preserving my own culture at the expense of doing away with theirs.

On the other hand, if I say that I would conform to a different culture’s standard calendar with no problem, you would then attempt to make the argument that the whole BC, AD-BCE, CE debate is nonsense and that it should not matter which suffix is used.

The fact of the matter is that CE and BCE is used by moral relativists who equate all religions as the same and then have the arrogance to tell the dominant culture (historically, the United States has roots in Protestant Christianity) to change the suffixes to their calendar because it might come across as “offensive” to non-Christians. If the BC AD dating convention is so offensive, people might as well stop using the Gregorian calendar entirely seeing how it is rooted in the Birth of Christ as its starting point. I’m not going to use the Gregorian calendar while at the same time denying the culture and reason for its existence that is associated with it. It sure doesn’t have anything to do with a “common era”.

I for one don’t get it. A Pakistani immigrant who is Muslim works alongside me has no problem with the Christian Gregorian Calendar, yet I’m told (most likely by an American born citizen who’s grown up in America and has been or should have been taught our cultural-religious roots) seems to not be able to get over the fact that his countrymen have no intention of bending over backwards and are interested in preserving our culture.

If you believe that all religions and creeds and philosophies are of equal value, then you might be a cultural marxist.

 

[Andrew1983]

Today is Woden’s day. And I am not offended at all by saying so.

That being said, I have no problem with BCE and CE. They are not my own preferred usage, and I think it’s silly of people to be offended at me for using the more traditional terms. But other folks can use them, and in certain contexts I will do so as well.

But can’t we actually discuss the OP? This is a really intriguing find with huge implications. If authentic, it could destroy the currently fashionable “minimalist” view of the historicity of the Hebrew Bible.

And please let’s not have another digression on Hebrew Bible vs. Old Testament!

Edwin

Forgive me Edwin, this thread really should be about the discovery of the ancient Hebrew text. I’ve read the article and it sounds like what they discovered may be a fragment of the Torah, based on the translations of the script.

I could be incorrect, but it does seem to me that it’s at least in reference to passages in either Exodus or Leviticus in terms of the treatment of widows, the poor, etc., though I don’t recall hearing about rehabilitation mentioned in those books.

Either way, very interesting find.