@JoeCienkowski’s BC/AD Dating System Filthy Lie

Posted: July 13, 2010 in Filthy Lies, Ridiculous Nonsense
Tags: , , , ,

Joe thinks he found himself a good old fashioned proof of Jesus’s existence and, moreover, everyone, everywhere pays homage to that fact every single day:


Are you fucking shitting me?!?!

Joe is seriously suggesting that the calendar era typically used in the western world is proof positive that Jesus existed. Let that marinate in your brain for a minute.

Ready? Let’s do some good old fashioned learnin’ about things, mkay? There are actually several different calendar eras used throughout the world. Of course, the most familiar one to most anyone reading this is the Western Christian calendar era that was based on the Incarnation of Christ. The Western Christian calendar era was introduced by the monk, I shit you not, Dennis the Short in 525CE in what is now Romania. The wee Dennis had no more proof of Jesus than any modern person, and in fact may have known LESS about Jesus than we do. The only significance of Dennis the Midget’s calendar era system is that Dennis (along with all the rest of the western world that wasn’t currently tied to sticks and being burned alive) believed that Jesus was born about 525 years earlier.

If Joe’s argument was that there is no way I could argue that someone somewhere believed that Jesus was born on or around the year 1CE because the Western Christian calendar era is denoted Anno Domini or Before Christ, then I wouldn’t have a reason to write a post about it. But that’s not Joe’s assertion. Joe is stating that one proof of Jesus’s existence is that some of us use AD or BC when we write dates. This is so stupid that I can’t even allow myself to believe Joe Cienkowski doesn’t get it, that’s why I’m categorizing it as a filthy lie.

What interests me more is the fact that there are other calendar eras that are in common use today. If one were tempted to use Joe’s own brain dead logic on the other calendar systems, what would we have to believe? Well, the Etos Kosmou of the Byzantine Calendar places Creation at the beginning of its year 1, namely 5509 BC. So using Joe’s logic, we have proof that that nobody can argue that the world started not in 4004 BC (as Joe insists it did) but in 5509 BC. Uh oh, Joe.

But wait, there’s more. Those feisty muslims have their very own calendar era that they denote AH for the number of lunar years after Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to Medina. In Saudi Arabia, if you ask them what year it is, they’ll tell you it is 1431 AH. Joe, I guess that means you can’t argue that Muhammed really did exist and really did migrate from Mecca to Medina.

We’re just getting warmed up here. In India they use a calendar era based on Kali Yuga. Kali Yuga is the last of the four stages that the world goes through as part of the cycle of yugas described in the Indian scriptures. Kali Yuga began on the Gregorian calendar year January 23, 3102 BCE. Well, Joe, I guess you’re stuck being unable to refute Hindu scriptures. Better get to reading those.

In reality, none of these calendar eras are at all indicative of the veracity on the event which they are based. The event may have happened or it may not have happened and we can’t know which is true just by looking at the calendar system in use today. It is profoundly stupid to suggest otherwise and I almost have difficulty labeling this strictly as a lie.

Many attempts were made to inform Joe about the truth on this issue and he stuck to his ridiculous assertion and decided to be an arrogant dick head about it. Given that, I have no other choice but to label this a filthy lie.

Joe Cienkowski is a filthy liar.

As a post script, I’m wondering why Joe spends every single Tuesday paying tribute to Tiu, the Germanic God of war, every Wednesday paying tribute to Woden the chief Anglo-Saxon/Teutonic god, every Thursday paying tribute to Thor the Norse god of thunder, every Friday paying tribute to Freya the Teutonic goddess of love, beauty, and fecundity, and every Saturday paying tribute to Saturn the Roman god of agriculture and the consort of Ops? Are you also paying tribute to the Sun god on Sunday and the Moon goddess on Monday? You really are a pagan monkey aren’t you, Joe?

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Annraoi O'Diothaigh. Annraoi O'Diothaigh said: RT @HarrisTweed: @JoeCienkowski's BC/AD Dating System Filthy Lie: http://wp.me/pZicp-G […]

  2. Though there’s little doubt about Jesus’ existence in mainstream historical scholarship, the general consensus is that the crucifixion happened around 30AD, putting his birth a few years before 0AD.. so the argument really doesn’t work at all.

    • Alex says:

      Andrew, the ONLY mention of Christ outside the Bible is in a passage in Josephus, a passage that just so happens to not be written in the style of the surrounding text, indicating that it may well have been a later addition.

      • AndrewFinden says:

        Alex, unfortunately that’s a rather tired (but oft used on the internet) argument.

        For starters, saying ‘outside of the bible’ is a case of fallacious goal-post shifting. Indeed, the single collected volume we call ‘the bible’ is irrelevant – there are numerous independent documents and their later collation into a single volume doesn’t change that. Even when you allow for some Markian priority, not all of Matthew or Luke is based on Mark, and Paul is certainly not relying on those texts. By normal historical criteria, within the canonical documents alone there is early, indepedant multiple attestation which would, in any other case be entirely sufficient to establish the existence of Jesus.
        Now you are partly correct – one of the two references in Josephus has almost certainly been tampered with, but the current scholarly consensus is that he almost certain said something about Jesus – it is not that the reference is wholesale later addition, but that it was tweaked by a later scribe. There’s still the earlier reference. Already that’s more than sufficient textual evidence to establish historicity – and even historians who reject the resurrection accept his existence and crucifixion. There’s also a handful of Greaco-Roman text that make reference, plus at least another Jewish one. There’s quite a lot of textual evidence that you are forced to discredit – so much so that the very attempt shows an agenda.
        But in fact, the big corroborator is the church itself. Historians recognise that there is simply no other way to explain the very unlikely and rapid existence of the Christian church without an historical figure of Jesus (even if a number of them don’t accept the supernatural stuff).

        There is a very good reason that the Jesus-myth theory is basically a dead theory in historical scholarship – there is a very good reason that even those scholars who reject the supernatural accept the existence of an historical Jesus: the evidence points to it. You’ve got a steep hill to climb to make a half-decent case that he never existed! arguments from silence simply won’t do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s