Here's a dumb question:
If our western year odometer is calibrated by the birth of Jesus Christ,
why does it start seven days later?
We all know that the actual birth date of Jesus is a guess, later
calculated from historical evidence as probaby 4 years later, but why
doesn't the year start on
The Western Calander has very little to do with the birth of Jesus of
Nazareth. The western calandender dates back to the reign of Julius Caesar,
and was created to resolve differences between the calander year and the time
of the seasons. The aim was to keep the equinoxes on March 21st and S
Concerning [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] comments on christmas
and the start of the Year my information is as follows:
When Julius Caesar reformed the calendar in 46 BC the traditional dates for
tthe Vernal equinox was infact March 25th and the Winter Solstice December
25th. In his refo
Here's a good site I dug up about the roman calander. Many of our holidays
are roman holidays in disguise. Enjoy!
http://www.clubs.psu.edu/aegsa/rome/romec.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Contrary to what you hear, Christmas wasn't meant to be the birth of
> christ, rather if you look at the obvious etymology of the word, it is the
> mass of Christ.
This is not to go against what you say in your illuminating message. Just
an additional information:
Jack Aubert wrote:
> If so wouldn't that make the year of his birth year 0? If Jesus was born
> in 1 B.C. then wouldn't that make 2000 be the "true" millenium?
>
What a mess just to prove the marketers right!
- fernando
--
Fernando Cabral Padrao iX Sistemas Abertos
ma
