Why use "Anno Domini" (AD)?

[JEBofChristTheLord]

Our Lord has no beginning and no ending, on Heaven or Earth. Where is the good in saying "in the year of the Lord"?

 

[Lost4words]

Because we are human...

 

[Clare73]

Our Lord has no beginning and no ending, on Heaven or Earth. Where is the good in saying "in the year of the Lord"?

The Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, had a beginning.
It is simply the marker of time between the OT and the NT, between time before Christ and time after Christ.

Our Lord refers to Jesus of Nazareth, who was both human and divine, and whose humanity had a beginning.
The Messiah from heaven is the center of creation.
BC and AD locates the time of the Messiah's birth, either before or after it.

The human/divine Messiah, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, had a beginning in the womb of Mary.
Time is measured in terms of before Christ (BC) and after Christ/Lord (AD).

In "the year of the Lord" refers to the birth of Christ. . .BC being the years before Christ, and AD being the years after Christ.

For example, the Babylonian empire existed from 626-539 BC (before Christ).

The Roman empire existed from 63 BC (before Christ) to 476 AD (after Christ).

 

[jas3]

Our Lord has no beginning and no ending, on Heaven or Earth.

In a sense He does have a beginning on Earth; the Incarnation took place in time, and it had a definite beginning and ending.

"In the year of our Lord" refers to time in a way similar to the regnal year, which is how time was recorded prior to the spread of anno Domini. Regnal years use the monarch's accession to the throne as their starting point: "in the third year of the reign of emperor so-and-so." Since Christ is Lord of all, a more universal and pious modification of the regnal year recognizes Him as our monarch. Thus, "in the two-thousand-twenty-fourth year of our Lord."

 

[Tinker Grey]

@JEBofChristTheLord , why did you pick this sub-forum?

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

Seemed a good one for it.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

In a sense He does have a beginning on Earth; the Incarnation took place in time, and it had a definite beginning and ending.

"In the year of our Lord" refers to time in a way similar to the regnal year, which is how time was recorded prior to the spread of anno Domini. Regnal years use the monarch's accession to the throne as their starting point: "in the third year of the reign of emperor so-and-so." Since Christ is Lord of all, a more universal and pious modification of the regnal year recognizes Him as our monarch. Thus, "in the two-thousand-twenty-fourth year of our Lord."

If Christ the Lord were the king of this world, I'd tend to agree...but He refused this. And the Lord has all of the years that there are, were, or ever have been. Anything less is a strange form of disrespect.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Seemed a good one for it.

And yet, it has nothing to do with ethics or morality.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

And yet, it has nothing to do with ethics or morality.

The name of this age, has nothing to do with right and wrong? I'll disagree.

 

[jas3]

If Christ the Lord were the king of this world, I'd tend to agree...but He refused this.

On the contrary, He is "Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth" (Rev. 1:5) and "the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords" (1 Tim. 6:15).

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

Best not try to quote Paul against Christ the Lord, who said that He is not the king of this world.

 

[jas3]

Best not try to quote Paul against Christ the Lord, who said that He is not the king of this world.

If you deny the divine inspiration of Sacred Scripture, we don't have enough common ground to discuss this. Christians believe the writings of St. Paul and St. John are in full accordance with the teachings of Christ.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

If you deny the divine inspiration of Sacred Scripture, we don't have enough common ground to discuss this. Christians believe the writings of St. Paul and St. John are in full accordance with the teachings of Christ.

So, Christ the Lord says His kingdom is not of this world, and you claim that other words should be considered more important?

 

[jas3]

So, Christ the Lord says His kingdom is not of this world, and you claim that other words should be considered more important?

I'm saying your interpretation of His words is wrong. There is no contradiction between Jesus and Paul and John.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

I'm saying your interpretation of His words is wrong. There is no contradiction between Jesus and Paul and John.

I am not concerned with apparent contradictions, or attempts to quote Paul against the Lord. I am concerned, with that which Christ the Lord has said, stating that His kingdom is not of this world.

 

[jas3]

I am not concerned with apparent contradictions, or attempts to quote Paul against the Lord. I am concerned, with that which Christ the Lord has said, stating that His kingdom is not of this world.

There is no "quoting Paul against the Lord" if there's no contradiction.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Our Lord has no beginning and no ending, on Heaven or Earth. Where is the good in saying "in the year of the Lord"?

I don't use the terms AD / BC - it unnecessarily offends people. The Bible doesn't compel us to use those terms.

Rather I use the terms BCE / CE (Before Christian Era / Christian Era). Problem solved

 

[jas3]

I don't use the terms AD / BC - it unnecessarily offends people. The Bible doesn't compel us to use those terms.

Rather I use the terms BCE / CE (Before Christian Era / Christian Era). Problem solved

You say that as though the Common Era terms aren't offensive to Christians. And when you say BCE/CE, those are what people understand you to be using, even if you have an idiosyncratic definition of those acronyms.

AD/BC were uncontroversial until a couple of decades ago. I don't think the vanishingly small minority of people who have decided to be offended by those terms warrant abandoning them, in the same way that people deciding to be offended by the definition of marriage, man, and woman don't warrant us abandoning those definitions.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

You say that as though the Common Era terms aren't offensive to Christians. And when you say BCE/CE, those are what people understand you to be using, even if you have an idiosyncratic definition of those acronyms.

AD/BC were uncontroversial until a couple of decades ago. I don't think the vanishingly small minority of people who have decided to be offended by those terms warrant abandoning them, in the same way that people deciding to be offended by the definition of marriage, man, and woman don't warrant us abandoning those definitions.

Apparently the terms BCE/CE are kind-of in use since Johannes Kepler (1615), but as the Wikipedia article explains the BCE/CE have become mainly popular in academic/science circles because of their neutrality - so that's a bonus for me:

Common Era - Wikipedia

I'm not ashamed of the Gospel, but we live in world where committed Christians are a very small minority in society these days - I'm happy to not offend others when there is no reason to. Interestingly in Israel a numbering system since Creation is used ...

 

[jas3]

Apparently the terms BCE/CE are kind-of in use since Johannes Kepler (1615)

That reference is a stretch. The term as it's used today has its origin among Jews who specifically wanted to deny that Jesus is the Christ, and that was overwhelmingly the predominant usage of the term prior to the 21st century.

as the Wikipedia article explains the BCE/CE have become mainly popular in academic/science circles because of their neutrality

They aren't neutral, they're a denial of Christ.