Could the usage of abbreviations A.D and B.C in historical events mean that INDEED THERE WAS A CHRIS

These abbreviations have to do with the Christ.

The logic is "a day or year can never be labelled or marked unless there was something that happened on that day."

Most history books use these abbreviations to pin-point a period or a year.

It is also amazing that an ordinary bible does use these abbreviations in their verses YET historians used them in their records of events.

It is also amazing that some of the historians who used these abbreviations did not even believe in the Christ.This sounds like they knew He was there yet they did not believe in Him.

I also hear that this year 2006 is actually 2006 A.D....

If Christ once existed, He must have been powerful person to make the whole world use His death or whatever as a marker for the counting of years.

So these abbreviations, it seems, settle the arguements about Christ's existence...

ARE THEY ACTUALLY SAYING THERE WAS ONCE A CHRIST?

What do you think guys?

Could the usage of abbreviations A.D and B.C in historical events mean that INDEED THERE WAS A CHRIST?regal theater

Yes there was. The calender over the centuries has changed.

Currently we are on the Gregorian system which was preceded by the Julian system and then the roman one.

This 0 calender date was in reference to the birth of Christ but to pinpoint it directly is tough.

0 is not presumably correct as you are actually in the 1st year.

The event that happened was a historical happening.

Even in the heavens the Romans noticed the stellar changes.

Quite a fascinating subject.

The ad and BC was changed to mean before common era and after common era to appease people who do not believe in Christ.

Any how, yes there once was A Christ and he is alive and well in many people.

Could the usage of abbreviations A.D and B.C in historical events mean that INDEED THERE WAS A CHRIST?performing art center opera theater

We all know what those abbreviations mean. They are not evidence of anything other than Christianity's impact on society.
Roman Invention.....................
I think he should be here soon.
I can't quite tell if you're serious. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and laugh.
By your logic the fact that we use "Thursday" to indicate the day between Wednesday and Friday means that there was a Thor, the Norse god of thunder.

I'm glad that's settled too.
You're wrong.

These terms weren't used until after the Council of Nicea in "AD" 325.

Emperor Constantine had two brothers, Judas Kristos and Rabbi Jesus amalgamated into one person and then "deified" by a show of hands.

Your god is nothing more than a fictional character based on two people who led a revolt against the romans...
After Domination of racism there was Big Colonization going on in the world.
Jesus Christ is a historical figure. I believe in his divinity, some do not, but his existence is historical

Many history books are no longer using BC and AD

They are using BCE and ACE that directly equivilate to BC and AD

(Before/After Common Era)
NO. Since the calender came about only after Christianity was well established.

Oh and we don't use BC and AD any more. We use BCE and CE.
So Jesus was actually born December 25, right?

And he was born in year 0, right?

It's commonly used, yes, but does not constitute proof.
I think that no modern scholar with any credibility would claim that there was never a man by the name of Jesus of Nazareth that walked the earth.

However, the moment you give him the name Christ you are instilling a title that not all of mankind agrees on......
This is almost silly. Even the jews and Muslims acknowledge the existence of Christ. Since B.C. stands for Before Christ and A.D. stands for Anno Domini which is Latin for the year of our Lord.
there is a lot of stuff like that, and a lot of thing in the bible that have come true (with evidince).... yet people still argue that he didnt exist....
History has proof that he existed...

No other man in history had such an effect on the World as Jesus Christ has...

That's pretty amazing!

Grace to you and God Bless
There is very little dispute that Jesus was an actual person. He's a historic figure, whether you believe he was the son of God or not.

Wikipedia sums it up nicely: Anno Domini(Latin: "In the Year of the Lord"), abbreviated as AD or A.D., defines an epoch based on the traditionally-reckoned year of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Similarly, Before Christ, (From Ancient Greek "Christos" or Saviour) abbreviated as BC or B.C., is used in the English language to denote years before the start of this epoch. Some Non-Christians use the term, AD as a figure of speech but do not imply that Jesus is a Lord or Savior. Non-Christians sometimes similarly use the term, BC without implying that Jesus is Christ or Saviour. Others prefer the term, “CE” meaning ”Common Era” or “Christian Era” in place of AD and “BCE”, meaning “Before Christian Era” in place of BC. See, Support and Opposition.
The christian church started these abbrevitations a couple hundred years after christ thats why they were off a little and scholars actually think Jesus was born in 3 A.D. not 1 A.D.

It could be interpreted as the power of Christ or it could be interpreted as the power of Christianity. it is the most popular religion in the world.
yes, there was indeed a Jesus of Nazareth who was a revolutionary thinker. He was even crucified for some of his radical teachings... but wether or not he walked on water, healed the sick or rose from the dead... that's another issue entirely... like someone else said, it only shows Christianity's influence on the Gregorian calendar makers.
Please tell me this is a joke question and you REALLY don't think this way....
I think you're making a mistake in assuming that the abbreviations "A.D. (anno domini), B.C. (before Christ)" prove that Jesus is God. All it proves is that people who use those abbreviations generally agree Jesus probably lived around the year 0. There are other cultures who do not acknowledge Jesus at all, but number their years differently. The Chinese calendar, Muslim Calendar, and the Jewish Calendar come to mind.

Keep in mind that from 325 A.D. on, Christianity has totally dominated Western culture.
They're not evidence that Jesus existed, just evidence that certain people, who were influential enough to change the way dates were reckoned, believed He did.

The fact that this year is called "Anno Domini 2006" doesn't prove Christ's existence any more than your question does. ("Hey, they both mention Christ!") Anyone can use the word "Christ" in a sentence, and if that person is influential enough, others will follow his example, sometimes without choice.
Now we use BCE and CE.
The modern calender that we use today was created by the Christiant church. A.D. (Anno domini-the year or out lord) and B.C. (before christ) were both labels MADE up and randomly assigned by Christian scholars. Jesus Christ, if he existed, had absolutely nothing to do with the naming of those years, it was his followers who made up and enforced those years.

Obviously historians are NOT saying there was a Christ. They are simply using the accepted way of measuring time. Many history books are changing those abbreviations anyways to B.C.E. or before common era, and C.E.,-common era.
The important thing to remember is who wrote down (recorded) the history. Much of the history that is written in the western culture is derived from prodominantly Catholic or Protestant scribes, all of whom hold a belief in Christ.

Current history book no longer use BC and AD, but rather, BCE and ACE, meaning "Before the Common Era" and "At the Common Era" with the common era being Julius Cearasr's rule of the Roman empire. The "At portion is usually left off for brevity and is currently being used as C.E. for Common Era.

In terms of the existance of Christ, ther is very, very little doubt in the historical and scientific community that Jesus of Nazareth (referred to as Jesus Christ) existed. In fact, there are several written records NOT affiliated with the predominant Catholic or Portestant histories that reference Jesus the Nazarene in detail. Books like that from Jewish historian Josephus go into exceptional detail about Jesus (even though Josephus does not infact proclaim Jesus to be the "Messiah"). Egyptian and Roman cenus and court documents also confirm that Jesus was a real person.

The central question then should not be "Is Jesus Real", but rather "Who was Jesus".
Certainly! A lot of these historians deny the obvious but it changes nothing! An important happening such as the coming of the Lord Jesus or the Christ can not be hidden. The entire details are available for those who truely wish to know.
This is just awesome. God Bless u! I'm a believer and you even got me thinking and wanting to do more research. You are exactly right about Christ's existence and the abbreviations.

Shalom
Who says he did not exist? That's like saying Socrates or Tutankhamen didn't exist. We have proof. Dinosaurs existed too. We have proof. But A.D. and B.C. is just an invention for calendars and not evidence.