The priests were right; the scientists were not.
When Catholic priests opened the Holy Door of St. Peter’s Basilica around Christmas 1999 to celebrate the Great Jubilee (2000 years since the birth of Christ), scientists were poking fun at these priests because the new Millennium was not going to get started until January 2001.
Of course they did not poke fun in any direct manner. It was all indirect.
- It turned out that the scientists were wrong.
- The priests were right all along.
- Jesus was born in the Year Zero. His birthday in 1999 would have been the start of his 2000th living year (if indeed alive), and the completion of that year, turning 2,000 so to speak, occurred then at the Christmas event of the year 2000.
The year Christ turned 2,000, so to speak, was in the year 2000.
When historians used the information that the Catholic priests had gathered, and this is indeed a long time ago, they dated the years prior to the Year Zero as well. Yet instead of including that Year Zero, they jumped right into the year -1 (1 BCE).
- All the historical dates prior to 1 CE are off by one year.
This translates into saying that Jesus was born in the year -1.
When we look at every interval between consecutive years ending in a 5 (such as the interval between January 2005 and January 2015) we count ten years.
This is then always the same. The years from January 1925 to January 1935, in another example, sum up to being ten years in total.
- Except for the time span between 5 BCE and 5 CE.
There are only NINE years between January 1, 5 BCE and January 1, 5 CE.
The missing year?
Now we know. The Year Zero is indeed truly there.
If we want to say that the scientists are correct, then we need to say that we have a system in which a year is left out. Though that is then not a scientific system.
- So, either way, the scientists cannot embrace our calendar and be scientists while doing that. The calendar as it is in use today, is…