 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/09/27 05:57, Invisible a écrit :
>>> oh god...
>>
>> You wouldn't credit it. ^^
>
> According to my Latin dictionary:
>
> "credo" "I believe"
>
> Does anybody /else/ think it's weird that the Romans are the people who
> hunted down and murdered Jesus Christ, and yet all the most official
> Christian stuff is written in Latin?
For about 3 centuries, it was a prety common pastime to hunt down and
execute christians just about everywhere. Things started to change
around the 4th century when the first Roman Emperor actualy converted to
christianity. It's about during that time frame that the new testament
was finaly put down in writing...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Does anybody /else/ think it's weird that the Romans are the people who
>> hunted down and murdered Jesus Christ, and yet all the most official
>> Christian stuff is written in Latin?
>
> For about 3 centuries, it was a prety common pastime to hunt down and
> execute christians just about everywhere. Things started to change
> around the 4th century when the first Roman Emperor actualy converted to
> christianity. It's about during that time frame that the new testament
> was finaly put down in writing...
OK, and now I'm wondering what the hell Christianity was called before
Jesus Christ was born. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 28/09/2011 10:08, Invisible a écrit :
> now I'm wondering what the hell Christianity was called before Jesus
> Christ was born.
It's even worst, only the last three years or so did he preach.
And Jesus Christ was not born. Jesus was born.
(Christ is a literal translation of Messiah in hebrew and it is usually
related to an onction)
At best, Jesus Christ starts with John the Baptiste in a river...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/09/28 04:24, Le_Forgeron a écrit :
> Le 28/09/2011 10:08, Invisible a écrit :
>> now I'm wondering what the hell Christianity was called before Jesus
>> Christ was born.
>
> It's even worst, only the last three years or so did he preach.
> And Jesus Christ was not born. Jesus was born.
> (Christ is a literal translation of Messiah in hebrew and it is usually
> related to an onction)
> At best, Jesus Christ starts with John the Baptiste in a river...
>
>
Now, in the nativity, it's stated that it was during a Roman census.
There was NO census around year 1.
There was one about 30 years earlier, and another 15 years later...
And, there have never been a year zero... Try to write 0 in the Roman
numbers that where used when our calendar was established. That's why a
century start on year xx01 and not xx00.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/09/2011 07:14 PM, Alain wrote:
> And, there have never been a year zero... Try to write 0 in the Roman
> numbers that where used when our calendar was established. That's why a
> century start on year xx01 and not xx00.
Oh, that's nothing. I just found a piece of paper containing a story
which I apparently wrote in "MXCIXIV AD".
Anybody wanna take a stab at what frigging year that is??
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 21:35:09 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 28/09/2011 07:14 PM, Alain wrote:
>
>> And, there have never been a year zero... Try to write 0 in the Roman
>> numbers that where used when our calendar was established. That's why a
>> century start on year xx01 and not xx00.
>
> Oh, that's nothing. I just found a piece of paper containing a story
> which I apparently wrote in "MXCIXIV AD".
>
> Anybody wanna take a stab at what frigging year that is??
1994 is what you meant, but that's not what you wrote. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:59:07 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Anybody wanna take a stab at what frigging year that is??
>
> 1994 is what you meant, but that's not what you wrote. ;)
But 1103 is what you wrote, at least according to one converter I found.
I'm guessing "IX" and "IV" were added together to give "XIII" or "XIIV"
by the converter).
MCMXCIV is what you were trying for. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/09/2011 01:31 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:59:07 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>>> Anybody wanna take a stab at what frigging year that is??
>>
>> 1994 is what you meant, but that's not what you wrote. ;)
>
> But 1103 is what you wrote, at least according to one converter I found.
I think you'll find that what I wrote is invalid, and hence has no
defined value.
> MCMXCIV is what you were trying for. ;)
Hmm... 1994... So I was 14? Yeah, that would explain why I was stupid. >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:17:59 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> On 29/09/2011 01:31 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:59:07 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>>> Anybody wanna take a stab at what frigging year that is??
>>>
>>> 1994 is what you meant, but that's not what you wrote. ;)
>>
>> But 1103 is what you wrote, at least according to one converter I
>> found.
>
> I think you'll find that what I wrote is invalid, and hence has no
> defined value.
Well, yes, that's what I found - but the converter I found actually came
back with a value.
>> MCMXCIV is what you were trying for. ;)
>
> Hmm... 1994... So I was 14? Yeah, that would explain why I was stupid.
> >_<
I would say "young and inexperienced". Unless you still think that's a
valid value? ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hmm... 1994... So I was 14? Yeah, that would explain why I was stupid.
>>> _<
>
> I would say "young and inexperienced". Unless you still think that's a
> valid value? ;)
I was a very stupid child.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that much has improved. :-(
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
