BC / AD or Liberal Logic?

Read on about the mess to conceal and confuse the reference to the birth of Christ!

This article is about the year numbering system.
**  {part from:}
https://www.wikipedia.org/
For the book, see Ab Urbe Condita Libri.

Following on Roman coins bear the following:

Antoninianus of Pacatianus, usurper of Roman emperor Philip in 248.

It bears the legend ROMAE  AETER[NAE] AN[NO] MIL[LESIMO] ET PRIMO,
"To eternal Rome, in its one thousand and first year". 
{The key word is 1001 years}

AUC, in either case, is a convention that was used in antiquity and by classical historians to refer to a given year in Ancient Rome. 


Ab urbe condita literally means "from the founding of the City," while anno urbis conditæ means "in the year since the City's founding." Therefore, the traditional year of the foundation of Rome, 753 BC, would be written AUC 1, while AD 1 would be AUC 754. The foundation of the Empire in 27 BC would be AUC 727.

Usage of the term was more common during the Renaissance, when editors sometimes added AUC to Roman manuscripts they published, giving the false impression that the convention was commonly used in antiquity.

{Which is a falsehood because -  In reality, the dominant method of identifying years in Roman times was to name the two consuls who held office that year. In late antiquity, regnal years were also in use, as was the Diocletian era in Roman Egypt after AD 293, and in the Byzantine Empire after AD 537, following a decree by Justinian.


**  Way back before many cared or had any real relevant reason to know or understand the calendar date system - folks just passed on a day at a time!

In modern western history the " Roman Empire " had become the key player and thus had set the date at the period of the life of Christ!

Eventually, the AD/BC way of marking history won the day and remained mostly unchallenged in the West until the late 21st century {When Liberal Socialist} started to play with the prevailing calendar of over 2000 years - In recent days it has become common practice to use the abbreviations CE (common era) and BCE (before common era) to mark history. The dates remain the same but the religious connotations are removed.

**

The Anno Domini (AD) year numbering was developed by a monk named Dionysius Exiguus in Rome in AD 525, as a result of his work on calculating the date of Easter. Dionysius did not use the AUC convention but instead based his calculations on the Diocletian era.
This convention had been in use since AD 293, the year of the tetrarchy, as it became impractical to use regnal years of the current emperor. Thus Easter was, the year AD 532 was equated with the 248th regnal year of Diocletian. The table counted the years starting from the presumed birth of Christ, rather than the accession of the emperor Diocletian on 20 November AD 284, or as stated by Dionysius: "sed magis elegimus ab incarnatione Domini nostri Jesu Christi annorum tempora praenotare… " ("but rather we choose to name the times of the years from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ …").

[2] Blackburn and Holford-Strevens review interpretations of Dionysius which place the Incarnation in 2 BC, 1 BC, or AD 1.[3]

It has later been calculated[by whom?] (from the historical record of the succession of Roman consuls) that the year AD 1 corresponds to AUC 754, based on the epoch of Varro. Thus,

    AUC 1 = 753 BC

    AUC 753 = 1 BC

    AUC 754 = AD 1

    AUC 1000 = AD 247

    AUC 2753 = AD 2000

    AUC 2770 = AD 2017

    AUC 2771 = AD 2018

  In 2011 the BBC fully adopted using BCE

 to mark history; their explanation gives a good representation of the reasons for the change:
As the BBC is committed to impartiality, it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians.

{1) Which by its very implication is just copy of the pre-Liberal - original dates: which just serves as a fresco to bring doubt and confession.

2) Then really after noting that several of the major world religions and nations (such as China and India) have their own systems of the calendar - which they use. So who are we fooling?}

In line with modern practice, BCD/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era) are used as a religiously neutral alternative to BC/AD. Yet it is not Christian Religiously neutral - because they still refer to the birth of Christ!

Otherwise using all of the other various calendars would just seem to bring confusion and doubt to the simple over well used over 2000-year-old calendar system! Not to count all the history books and other data that would have to correct?

You are free to believe whatever - we will stick with the original over 2000-year-old proven calendar system - with the original BC / AD {Christ Centered} calendar! 

But then there is Liberal Logic to contend with!