🚀 go-pugleaf

Noe Gutierrez, Jr. <no...@SPAMKILLERci.bryan.tx.us> wrote in article
<33AB63...@SPAMKILLERci.bryan.tx.us>...
> Bruce Tyler wrote:
> > 
> > The first year AD was Jan 1, 0001, not 0000 (excusing the fact that
> > 12/25 was Christs' supposed birthday) The new millenium starts on Jan
1,
> > 2001. Period. End of BS.
> > 
> 
> 	Boy, wait 'til somebody brings up the fact that no one really knows
> exactly when Christ was born. Best estimates are now something like
> springtime of about 6 B.C., aren't they?

Right, somewhere between 4 and 6 B.C. is the consensus, and, as you say, in
the springtime. "Christmas" is evidently the Christian adoption of a pagan
day celebrating the winter solstice.

Doesn't really matter, though. The calendar wouldn't change a bit even if
we knew the exact day of Christ's birth. Jan. 1, A.D. 1, would remain what
it is, and would still be the beginning of the first millennium. Much too
much trouble to correct it now. 

There was plenty of confusion when the Gregorian calendar replaced the
Julian, some countries switching to the more accurate one while others
continued to use the old one for hundreds of years. (Russia didn't change
to the Gregorian until 1918, I believe.) And that was a *necessary* change,
to keep the calendar year accurate. Moving the nominal years ahead now
wouldn't serve any useful purpose, and would sure make a mess. 

Neil