 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:26:22 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> 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. :-(
You have a hunger to learn things. Stupid people don't do that. Stupid
people are content with what they know and aren't curious about anything.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/27/2011 12:45, Alain wrote:
> 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.
... at which time christians started hunting down and executing everyone
else. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
