I was on another non religious form and every now and then you here somebody saying Jesus as a form of expression. I asked them nicely to refrain from saying this out of respect for the Christians on the forum. One of the answers was this:

You're being blinded by your intricate dogmas. In fact, Jesus is just a name...there were hundreds of people named Jesus on the Earth all at the same time as the one you deify. "Christ" is the label which differentiates yours from others (it being greek for messiah). Using it in a phrase like "sweet jesus" is absolutely harmless...no different than "great scott!" is completely harmless to all the people named Scott. You have to get used to the idea that people don't respect your god just because you do. It is completely unreasonable to demand someone treat your belief as fact if they don't believe it themselves. It is your problem, not theirs.

I'm not buying that answer. I'm pretty confident that when people use His name they have the Christian Jesus on their mind. Perhaps not all, just the majority. It is only popular because of Christianity. The actual Blashpemeous wording the original poster said was..."Sweet Jesus".

Should i have complained to begin with? Thoughts anyone?

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 02, 2005

Answers

bump

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 02, 2005.

To be honest, if the other poster is an athiest, then I'm sure they could have chosen a different word to express what they felt that didn't hold the name of any religions "diety" (to quote them)

And if they were of a different faith, then they could have said 'sweet (insert the name of the god/dess they believe in).

I know what the person said, but not the context of the conversation. So I can't really say if I think you ought to have said anything.

If the person said "Sweet Jesus" and it was in response to "My Brother In Law recovered from his heart surgery without any complications." I'd probably think that it was more of a "Praise my sweet lord" sort of ejaculation.

If you're 100% certain that it was intended to be blasphemous, and it's from someone in the forum that you know is a regular poster, then I'd politely inform them that you realize in this day and age that people are irritated with being politically correct. But that you'd have been just as offended if someone used the name of Allah, Jehovah or Krishna in a blasphemous fashion and would have asked them to please refrain from using those terms.

Not belonging to a certain religion (or whatever), doesn't mean one can't decide to be respectful in general by not purposefully aggrivating a reader/poster that's made a polite request.

I get bent out of sorts when I see people saying the 'gd' curse word. And have been known to politely ask them not to say that. But then again, I have the convinence of posting on most sites that have a PG- 13 rating. And one place has a filter. The other just has (usually) curteous people. Hope that helped some. Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian

Abundant Kwanzaa & Prosperous, Healthy & Peace Filled New Year!!!

-- BlasphemyIsBad Mkay (RespectDiversity@yahoo.com), January 03, 2005.

First, even though there have been other men named Jesus since the time of Christ, and are a good number of them alive today, the use of the name in an expression leaves no doubt as to which Jesus is being referred to. The expression "sweet robert" or "sweet henry" would mean nothing, since no specific individual comes immediately to mind. In contrast, the expression "sweet Jesus" leaves no doubt as to the specific individual being referenced. "Sweet Jesus" as an expression of surprise isn't as objectionable as some expressions using the Holy Name of the Savior; but it is still His Holy Name that is being trivialized.

There is no reason to think that "Jesus" was simply a common masculine name of the time. God spoke to Joseph and specifically instructed him, "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21) This divine command reveals not only God's choice of a name for His Son, but also the meaninf of that name. Why would other men of the time have this name? Which of them would save people from their sins? Therefore why would any of them have a name with that meaning?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 03, 2005.

1: First, to Paul. Joshua is the name of our saviour. or rather, yeshua. yeshua in english is Joshua. It was and remaisn a common Jewish name, as Joshua ( in the Old testament) was the saviour of Israel and provided them the promised lanf throuh his Military exploits.

jesus is the Greek form of Yeshua.

2: Yes, they whwre refering to our Jesus and that much is Obvious. I had the same issue on another board where htey said I was forcing my reliious beelifs. teh funny ting is that the NeoPagans had fre reign. you cant say anyhtign to upset them, even u intentipoanlly, withut being labled an intolerent Bigot. same with the Buddhists. ( Or rather silly american 20 somethings who claim t be Buddhists...)

Chrisaisn are another matter. te christain faiht was somethign you coudl demean. why?> because you ar eonly beign intoelrnet of intoelrnece and besides, w all Know chrisaisn eserve it after its hisotry of conwieats and bloodshed.

The short anser to this is that they should respect your beleifs. It doesnt matter than they don share them. said poster asked this spacificlaly. " why shoudl I care if I dotn beelive?". yet I bet he's one for diversity and tolerence, as most ar ethese days.

simpley ask him why tlerence cannot be extende din this instance?

I don dliberatley go out of my way to attack other rleigions, and I try to not say things that are knwoingly offensive, yet its Om for them to do the same with me?

remind him that askign for respect for your sensabilities is not equel to demainging disporportionate tribute to it, nor is it acknowledgeing anythign as fact or truth to simpley accomodate the sensabilities of fellow posters.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 03, 2005.

Jesus is the Greek form of Yeshua.

Hi Zarove. It seems your right in that Yeshua is the the Hebrew name for Jesus. But i've been checking the internet out and there are so many different views about how the name Jesus came to be.

I hear It's a transliteration. I hear Jesus is a mis-transliteration of the Greek mis-transliteration, Yeysu. I hear It has pagan origin of the greek god "zeus" or "isus".

One answer goes like this: "The Bible was not written in English. What we read in English today are translations from other languages. The "New Testament" was written in Greek. Hence, the name "Jesus" is found nowhere in the Scriptures—it is a translation of the Greek name "Iesous" (pronounced "[ee]yeh-sooce"). "Iesous" came over into the Latin "Jesu" (pronounced "yehsoo") and finally into English as "Jesus." So in the most technical sense, saying "Jesus" is saying a twice-removed translation of the name we find in the "New Testament" Scriptures"

And a repsonse to the above explanation from another source goes like this: "English translation of the New Testament did NOT come from the Hebrew or the Latin! The New Testament was translated directly from the Greek and the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew and Aramaic. Hence, our English NT translation is not a twice- removed translation of the name or anything else."

How does one find a reliable source with so much misinformation going around?

Another question. What does Yeshua mean? Does it mean "God Saves"?

What ever happened to the name Immanuel? Was It an actual name meant for Jesus, or was it Matthew's purpose of drawing attention to the activities of Jesus in which he saw characteristics in the meaning of the name "Immanuel" which had prior significance to Isaiah (Is. 7:14). in a symbolic form?

So was Immanual or was Yeshua the actual name for Jesus in those days?

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 03, 2005.

Jesus is the Greek form of Yeshua.

Hi Zarove. It seems your right in that Yeshua is the the Hebrew name for Jesus.

{oF COURSE, ITS COMMON KNOWLEDGE...}-Zarove

But i've been checking the internet out and there are so many different views about how the name Jesus came to be.

{Those different ewis are wrong. not all internet sites are redible, and thouh th Internet is improving, most of it at th time of this writing needs otbe taken with a grain of salt.

All scholars, all poeple who spend thre lives in study, even the athiests, agree on this point.}-Zarove

I hear It's a transliteration. I hear Jesus is a mis-transliteration of the Greek mis-transliteration, Yeysu. I hear It has pagan origin of the greek god "zeus" or "isus".

{Uhm, this is utter and total nonsence...

In the irts place, why woidl a Jew in palastine be named after a Pagan god? Isn't Zeius the same god Antiochus epiphanus erected an Idol to in the tmeple? and sacrifised pugs to? You know th Idol Judas Maccabee destoryes.

Sorry, its not even remotely true to say the name Jesus is relaly the Name zeus and a msitranslation of a mistranslation. The Greek name for Yeshua is Jesus. Just like the english is joshua. we leave Jesus in the Greek to dist nguish him form the former Joshua int he Old testament. However, if you had a Hebrew New testament an a Hebrew Od Testament, you woidl swuftly see that Joshua is als Yeshua.

The Greek spelling is Iesous.Not Ieus. incedentlaly, the Greek spellign for Zeus is Zeus. Zeus is a GREEK god, and the name is Greek.

It bares no relationhsip tot he Name Iesous.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to derive eus formt he old Testament Pophet who uscceeded Moses, since a the itme Zeus wasnt worshipped, elast of all in the Miuddle east.}-Zarove

One answer goes like this: "The Bible was not written in English. What we read in English today are translations from other languages. The "New Testament" was written in Greek. Hence, the name "Jesus" is found nowhere in the Scriptures—

{Yechniclaly innaccurate. some of us HAVE the origional lanugages. im goign t Learn greek after I finish learnign latun...

that aside, i have inteliners and knwo peopel wo read the Greek. sem fluently.

all tha aisded, Jesus is NOT an english tranlation, we did NOT translat the name, precicely becase we DO translate " Yahweh is salvartion" or Yechua as joshua already and we want to be fistinvt.}- Zarove

it is a translation of the Greek name "Iesous" (pronounced "[ee]yeh- sooce"). "Iesous" came over into the Latin "Jesu" (pronounced "yehsoo") and finally into English as "Jesus." So in the most technical sense, saying "Jesus" is saying a twice-removed translation of the name we find in the "New Testament" Scriptures"

{That is a contrived argument though... the name is spelled in Greek with an I becaus the Greek language ( and english for a ling, long time) lacked the charecter J. heck, even looking at my reprodiciton Bishops Bible, they spell EVERYTHING that begins with aJ with an I. They also use the letter F for S...those letters wherent invented will aroudn the 1500's...}-Zarove

And a repsonse to the above explanation from another source goes like this: "English translation of the New Testament did NOT come from the Hebrew or the Latin! The New Testament was translated directly from the Greek and the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew and Aramaic. Hence, our English NT translation is not a twice- removed translation of the name or anything else."

{I woidl go woth that explanation. The Zeus argument falls flat linuisticlaly sin the name Iesous means " Yahweh is salvation".}- Zarove

How does one find a reliable source with so much misinformation going around?

{Try getting a standard LBiblical Lexicon prodiced by actual scholars. or else greek Dictionares. Try offline soruces to confirm. I can reccomend a few if you like.}-Zarove

Another question. What does Yeshua mean? Does it mean "God Saves"?

{Yes. Or rather " yahweh is salvation".}-Zarove

What ever happened to the name Immanuel?

{Immanuel means "God with us." Jesus was called Immanuel, and is to this day, whenever we affirm that he is God. He is called " Immanuel" in this sence.}-Zarove

Was It an actual name meant for Jesus, or was it Matthew's purpose of drawing attention to the activities of Jesus in which he saw characteristics in the meaning of the name "Immanuel" which had prior significance to Isaiah (Is. 7:14). in a symbolic form?

{Jesus as God Incarnate is called " God with us", and so is seen asImmanuel...}-Zarove

So was Immanual or was Yeshua the actual name for Jesus in those days?

{His Birthname was Yeshua Ben Nazareth, of Gallilee. He was caleld in larer Life immanuel in a symbolic way, for he was god incarnate.}- Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 03, 2005.

The Holy Name of Jesus

Let us speak a word on the name given to Our Divine Lord on the Feast of the Circumcision. The gospel from the Feast of the Circumcision would have us understand that the shedding of Jesus’ blood is related to His name. It is appropriate that He be given this name on the day of His circumcision, for He could not be Saviour without pouring out blood, nor give blood without being Saviour. He could, of course, have saved the world without shedding His blood, but that would not have been enough to satisfy the love He bears us. He could certainly have satisfied divine justice for all of our sins by a single sigh from His Sacred Heart, but this would not have satisfied His love , which desired that by taking the name of Saviour He should give His blood as a deposit of that which He willed to pour out for our redemption. The name of Saviour was rightly given Him on this day, for there is no redemption without shedding of blood [Heb. 9:22] and no salvation without redemption, since no one can enter Heaven except by this gate. Also, by making Himself Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, Our Lord begins, in taking this name, to pay our debts with no other money than that of His Precious Blood. He was, then, called Jesus, which means Saviour [Matt. 1:21].

All the ancient Fathers agree that, notwithstanding His many names and titles, Our Lord has only three which belong to Him essentially. The first is that of Supreme Being, reserved only to Him and applicable to no other [Ex. 3:14-15; Is. 42:8] In this name He knows Himself through Himself. The second is that of Creator, which also can be given only to Him, since no one else but Him is Creator. In this name He knows Himself through Himself, but He also knows Himself through His creatures. The third name is Jesus, which likewise belongs only to Him alone, since no one else can be Saviour [Cf. Acts 4:12]. Beyond this there is the title of Christ [Matt. 1:16], which means High Priest, Anointed One of God. We Christians participate in these last two names [1Ptr. 2:9; Acts 4:12]. In this life we bear the name of Christ, namely Christians, and we are anointed by the Sacraments which we receive. When we are in Heaven, we will bear the name of the Saviour inasmuch as there we will all enjoy complete salvation and be among those saved. Thus in heaven we will be called by Our Lord’s other name. Jesus or Saviour, since we will be saved.

Now, how are we to pronounce the sacred name of Jesus so that it may be beneficial and profitable to us? This I am going to tell you by a story, with which I will conclude. This name certainly ought not be pronounced carelessly or thoughtlessly. It is not enough to be aware that it is a two syllable word, nor even less to speak it merely with the mouth. Parrots can do that! Infidels and Mohammedans name Him perfectly well, as far as that goes, but they are not saved thereby. Our Lord showed us how we are to say it. He shed His blood in receiving His name. In fact, He indicated His willingness to do what this holy name signifies: to save.

It is not enough to say it with your lips; it must be engraved upon your heart. Oh, how happy we would be to have alive in us all that our title signifies! For instance, it is not enough to simply call ourselves Christian. Our actual lives must be congruent with these title. We must take care of the charge we exercise and of the vocation in which we live. In short, we must assess how well our passions and affections are controlled and how submissive our judgement is, and whether our actions are congruent with our state in life?

It is recounted in the Book of Judges [Jgs. 11,12] that the great captain Jephte was victorious against the Ammonites by a vow which he made to the Lord. After his daughter’s tragic death and all his other troubles, Jepthe hoped that he would finally have peace and rest. But this was not to be, for sedition was stirred up. The sons of Ephraim reproached him for not having invited them to war, although they were brave soldiers. They believed he had acted thus to slight them. Astonished to hear of this new trouble, good Jephte said to them: “Oh my dear friends, you know very well that I invited you, but you excused yourselves; this is why when the moment came for me to attack, I did.” Unwilling to listen to his arguments, they declared war on him. God, however, took Jephte’s part because it was just, and so favored him that he slaughtered forty-two thousand and routed astonished Ephraim completely. Then Jephte placed a guard and sentinels on the banks of the Jordan with watchword: “Ask anyone who wants passage who they are. If they answer that they are from Ephraim, kill them; and if they deny it, make them give the password, `Scibboleth’ if they say “Sibboleth” put them to death, but if they say “Scibboleth” give them free passage.” “Scibboleth” and Sibboleth” are almost the same word (“Scibboleth” means “ear of corn” and Sibboleth” means “charge”), but “Scibboleth” is uttered gutterally and “Sibboleth” is said more lightly.

How happy we will be if, at the hour of our death, as well as during the whole of our lives, we pronounce the sacred name of the Saviour with due respect. It will be like a password by which we will freely enter Heaven, for it is the name of our redemption. In our last hour, if God gives us the grace not to die suddenly, we will have a priest near us who will hold a blessed candle in his hands and will call out to us: “Remember our Redeemer; say ‘Jesus,’ say ‘Jesus.” Blessed will they be who pronounce it reverently and with profound appreciation of our Saviour having ransomed us with His blood and by His passion. Those who call upon the name well at the time of death will be saved. The opposite will be the fate of those who do not speak it well and who pronounce it tepidly and without fervor. We ought most certainly to repeat it often during our lifetime, for it was given to His Son by the Eternal Father, It is a name which is above every other name, wholly divine, gentle and full of goodness. It is an oil poured out [Cant. 1:2(3)] to heal all the wounds of our souls. At this sacred name every knee bends. [Phil. 2:9-10]. It is the name which gives joy to the angels, saves men, and causes demons to tremble. This is why it should be deeply engraved upon our hearts and our spirits so that, blessing it and honoring it in this life, we may be worthy of singing with the blessed: Live Jesus! Live Jesus!

From a Sermon of St. Francis de Sales

on the Feast of the Circumcision, Jan. 1, 1622

-- jake (j@k.e), January 03, 2005.

{Try getting a standard LBiblical Lexicon prodiced

And where can i find this?

Ok, i just have to put one more response to my original post in the other non religious forum to show the kind of loonies out there and why they think they can use the Lord's name in disrespect. It goes like this:

The way I see it, is that whatever insult or offense you might take from me using your God's name as a colloquialism isn't anywhere near the level of offense and insult I endure from having to watch as the entire world is slowly forced to accept an entire calendar and timeline of human history, based on your God's death. I can think of no bigger slap in the face to the whole of the non- Christian world. So, seeing that I have to live in the Year of your Lord 2005, I believe that it's almost nessessary to reference him in our speach, as a small reminder of what religious zealots can do to the world if allowed to dominate it, reguardless of whether the majority of Earthlings believe it or not. I would hope you might be compassionate enough to consider that Christianity had ruled for ages with an iron fist, and that there might be a backlash towards it, by the rest of the world....Just ask some modern black folks if they feel any resentment towards people who live south of the Mason- Dixon line

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 03, 2005.

lETS BREAK THIS DOWN...

The way I see it, is that whatever insult or offense you might take from me using your God's name as a colloquialism isn't anywhere near the level of offense and insult I endure from having to watch as the entire world is slowly forced to accept an entire calendar and timeline of human history, based on your God's death.

{Uhm... he does relaise most of eurpe was Christyain at the time this was implemented. The origioanl calender was pagan, the roman calender. Christaisn began commemoratign the Advent and crucifiction of the Lord, for Churc use. when more and more peopel became Christain in europe, the trend became to use the Churhc cslender, rather than the secular one based ont he now defunct roman empire.

Later, because of economic and tehcnological innovations, europe took contorle of most fo the orlds market, and, sicn eht emarket is tied tot he calender, the rleigiosu calender was dopted or convneence.

Harldy forced...}-Zarove

I can think of no bigger slap in the face to the whole of the non- Christian world.

{Byt the Non-Christaisn world accepted the new calender unlaterlaly withotu complaint... only idiots who come along later tend to make stupid omems about it.}-Zarove

So, seeing that I have to live in the Year of your Lord 2005, I believe that it's almost nessessary to reference him in our speach, as a small reminder of what religious zealots can do to the world if allowed to dominate it, reguardless of whether the majority of Earthlings believe it or not.

{S basiclaly, he;s saying " I can offned you all i want. and its OK because you got to make the Calender that everyone statrted to use." this is Bil gates syndrme ... He invengted the best Operatign system for computers, so everyone started usign windows, this makes him evil and dmeneiring...

really thouhg, hes just graspign for straws here.

he wants to justufy his unjust, intoelrent, Bogoted attetude by cheap slanders... No one forced anyoen to acpt he Cslender. russia even had itx own until relativley recently. ( The october rvolution took place in november, by our calnders...)

It wa a matter of convneine and coincedence that cuase our current calender.

His owrds, hwoever, are bogoted and hurtful, and hes just tyrugnto raitoalise his insults by pretendign to tbe the victim.

If he makes himself the victim, he can justify "Defnedign himself", when inr elaity he was th wone perpetratign the wrongful acts.}-Zarove

I would hope you might be compassionate enough to consider that Christianity had ruled for ages with an iron fist, and that there might be a backlash towards it, by the rest of the world....

{An old Canard safley debunked time and again. Christainity never ruled with an iron fist,a s anyone who bothers to pick u a real hisotry book wl attest. The truht is christajjity spread slowly thohg eurpe an won out ove he Pagans by mass converion because of ther infirior sytem, and dyign out of peopels for poor lifestyles.

after christendom took over, peopels lives where safeguarded aGINT THE FALL OF ORME, AND KNWOELDGE PRESERVED. HECK, WHO OPEEND THE uNIVERSITY SYSTEM? The chruch.

The iron fist claim falls flat, and doesnt justufy his remarks, which are woefully intolerent. he just wants to, again, make christaisn the bad guys to rationalise his abiltiy to demean it.}- Zarove

Just ask some modern black folks if they feel any resentment towards people who live south of the Mason- Dixon line

{Oddly enough, most black folks are christains, more so than the white folks... and indeed, many chruches oppsoed slavery. The baptist chruch broke over the Issue, when the baptsts when abolitionisst ( Aotu 90%), the southern bapsis ( Abotu 10%) still endorsed slavery.

Other Hcurhces, formt he anglicans run by the chruch of england, tot he meahtodists, where firm Abolitionsists.

Indeed, the first peooel to speak out ainthte eivls of Slaery where the abolitionisst ministers int eh US.

Strange that nowadays christaisn are made to feel ashamed becaus htye endorsed slavery,a nd only the noble nonreligious fought it, when indeed most ahtiests of the day supported instetutional slavery and most chruches foutght it. another example of a lie being tahgt as turht to justufy dlander.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUO.COM), January 03, 2005.

Hey Zarove. You picked that apart nicely. Well done.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 03, 2005.

Thanks, Ill chekc amazon tonight or an affordable lexicon. Dont have tme at the Moment.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 03, 2005.

Zarove, i forgot to mention. Isnt the Calender we have today mostly the Romans. I thought it was later adjusted with the leapyears and such. Any good solid links to show the genesis of the Christian Calender? Thanks.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 03, 2005.

There are several very old calendar systems still in use. Three of the most prominent are the Jewish (New Year "Rosh Hashanah, usually in September), Muslim (Hijra), and Chinese(New Year is between the 10th of January and the 19th of February) not to mention the Indian (Vedic).

The Sumerians of Babylonia were probably the first people to make a calendar. They used the phases of the moon, counting 12 lunar months as a year. The Pre Columbians (particularily the Mayans had a calendar that was even more accurate than our current Georgian Calendar). THE CHRISTIAN CALENDAR: The ``Christian calendar'' is the term traditionally used to designate the calendar commonly in use, although its connection with Christianity is highly debatable.

The Christian calendar has years of 365 or 366 days. It is divided into 12 months that have no relationship to the motion of the moon. In parallel with this system, the concept of weeks groups the days in sets of 7.

Two main versions of the Christian calendar have existed in recent times: The Julian calendar and the Gregorian calendar. The difference between them lies in the way they approximate the length of the tropical year and their rules for calculating Easter.

JULIAN CALENDAR (New Year Day 25 March) It was in 46 B.C. that Julius Caesar ordered adoption of the Egyptian Solar Calendar of 365 days and taking cognizance of the additional fraction. The former Roman Calendars were very spotty, and not terribly accurate. It was in common use until the 1500s, when countries started changing to the Gregorian calendar. However, some countries (for example, Greece and Russia) used it into the 1900s, and the Orthodox church in Russia still uses it, as do some other Orthodox churches.

In the Julian calendar, the tropical year is approximated as 365 1/4 days = 365.25 days. This gives an error of 1 day in approximately 128 years.

The approximation 365 1/4 is achieved by having 1 leap year every 4 years.

The Julian calendar introduces an error of 1 day every 128 years. So every 128 years the tropical year shifts one day backwards with respect to the calendar. Furthermore, the method for calculating the dates for Easter was inaccurate and needed to be refined.

In order to remedy this, two steps were necessary: 1) The Julian calendar had to be replaced by something more adequate. 2) The extra days that the Julian calendar had inserted had to be dropped.

The solution to problem 1) was the Gregorian calendar.

The solution to problem 2) depended on the fact that it was felt that 21 March was the proper day for vernal equinox (because 21 March was the date for vernal equinox during the Council of Nicaea in AD 325). The Gregorian calendar was therefore calibrated to make that day vernal equinox.

By 1582 vernal equinox had moved (1582-325)/128 days = approximately 10 days backwards. So 10 days had to be dropped.

The Julian calendar was introduced in 45 BC, but when historians date events prior to that year, they normally extend the Julian calendar backward in time. This extended calendar is known as the ``Julian Proleptic Calendar''.

GEORGIAN CALENDAR (New Year 1 January) The Gregorian calendar is the one commonly used today. Fr. Diego DeLanda was with the Spanish conquistadors and was especially interested in the extreamly accurate Mayan Calendar System of 360 days plus 5 or 6 extra days. Some scholars believe he returned to Rome with all of his research and that it influenced (and helped correct many of the errors of the former Julian Calendar). It was proposed by Aloysius Lilius, a physician from Naples, and adopted by Pope Gregory XIII in accordance with instructions from the Council of Trent (1545-1563) to correct for errors in the older Julian Calendar. It was decreed by Pope Gregory XIII in a papal bull on 24 February 1582. This bull is named ``Inter Gravissimas'' after its first two words.

The so-called Georgian reform omited 10 days of that year (the day following October 4 was declared October 15) to put the calendar and sun into correspondence again.

The Georgian reform also prescribed that in future the additional day may be omitted from all years divisible by 100 expect those by 400. Thus 1700, 1800 and 1900 were 365-day years while 1600 was a leap year and 2000 will also be a leap year.

The tropical year is approximated as 365 97/400 days = 365.2425 days. Thus it takes approximately 3300 years for the tropical year to shift one day with respect to the Gregorian calendar. The approximation 365 97/400 is achieved by having 97 leap years every 400 years.

This adjustment also is not free from error. It covers intercalary or accumulation of days up to 3rd decimal while the error in the 4th decimal will amount to a full day in about 3,300 years.

In short the Solar Calendar needs adjustment after every four years and still it will accumulate one-day difference in 3,300 years.

FYI: A Lunar month is not less than 29 days or more than 30 days. But in solar calendar the days of months vary from 28 to 31.

A Lunar year is not less than 354 days or more than 355 days. In fact, a Lunar year is equal to 354 days 8 hours and 34 seconds but for general calculation 34 seconds are omitted.

Similarly, it is possible to extend the Gregorian calendar backward in time before 1582. However, this ``Gregorian Proleptic Calendar'' is rarely used.

WHEN DID X CHANGE TO THE GREGORIAN CALENDER?

LWhen did country X change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar? The papal bull of February 1582 decreed that 10 days should be dropped from October 1582 so that 15 October should follow immediately after 4 October, and from then on the reformed calendar should be used.

This was observed in Italy, Poland, Portugal, and Spain. Other Catholic countries followed shortly after, but Protestant countries were reluctant to change, and the Greek orthodox countries didn't change until the start of the 1900s.

Changes in the 1500s required 10 days to be dropped. Changes in the 1600s required 10 days to be dropped. Changes in the 1700s required 11 days to be dropped. Changes in the 1800s required 12 days to be dropped. Changes in the 1900s required 13 days to be dropped.

(Exercise for the reader: Why is the error in the 1600s the same as in the 1500s.)

The following list contains the dates for changes in a number of countries. It is very strange that in many cases there seems to be some doubt among authorities about what the correct days are. Different sources give very different dates in some cases. The list below does not include all the different opinions about when the change took place.

Albania: December 1912

Austria: Different regions on different dates Brixen, Salzburg and Tyrol: 5 Oct 1583 was followed by 16 Oct 1583 Carinthia and Styria: 14 Dec 1583 was followed by 25 Dec 1583 See also Czechoslovakia and Hungary

Belgium: See the Netherlands

Bulgaria: 31 Mar 1916 was followed by 14 Apr 1916

Canada: Different areas changed at different times. Newfoundland and Hudson Bay coast: 2 Sep 1752 was followed by 14 Sep 1752 Mainland Nova Scotia: Gregorian 1605 - 13 Oct 1710 Julian 2 Oct 1710 - 2 Sep 1752 Gregorian since 14 Sep 1752 Rest of Canada: Gregorian from first European settlement

China: The Gregorian calendar replaced the Chinese calendar in 1912, but the Gregorian calendar was not used throughout the country until the communist revolution of 1949.

Czechoslovakia (i.e. Bohemia and Moravia):

6 Jan 1584 was followed by 17 Jan 1584

Denmark (including Norway):

18 Feb 1700 was followed by 1 Mar 1700

Egypt: 1875

Estonia: 31 Jan 1918 was followed by 14 Feb 1918

Finland: Then part of Sweden. (Note, however, that Finland later became part of Russia, which then still used the Julian calendar. The Gregorian calendar remained official in Finland, but some use of the Julian calendar was made.)

France: 9 Dec 1582 was followed by 20 Dec 1582 Alsace: 5 Feb 1682 was followed by 16 Feb 1682 Lorraine: 16 Feb 1760 was followed by 28 Feb 1760 Strasbourg: February 1682

Germany: Different states on different dates: Catholic states on various dates in 1583-1585 Prussia: 22 Aug 1610 was followed by 2 Sep 1610 Protestant states: 18 Feb 1700 was followed by 1 Mar 1700 (Many local variations)

Great Britain and Dominions:

2 Sep 1752 was followed by 14 Sep 1752

Greece: [9 Mar 1924 was followed by 23 Mar 1924 (Some sources say 1916 and 1920)]

Hungary: 21 Oct 1587 was followed by 1 Nov 1587

Ireland: See Great Britain

Italy: 4 Oct 1582 was followed by 15 Oct 1582

Japan: The Gregorian calendar was introduced to supplement the traditional Japanese calendar on 1 Jan 1873.

Latvia: During German occupation 1915 to 1918

Lithuania: 1915

Luxemburg: 14 Dec 1582 was followed by 25 Dec 1582

Netherlands (including Belgium):

Zeeland, Brabrant, and the ``Staten Generaal'': 14 Dec 1582 was followed by 25 Dec 1582 Holland: 1 Jan 1583 was followed by 12 Jan 1583 Limburg and the southern provinces (currently Belgium): 20 Dec 1582 was followed by 31 Dec 1582 or 21 Dec 1582 was followed by 1 Jan 1583 Groningen: 10 Feb 1583 was followed by 21 Feb 1583 Went back to Julian in the summer of 1594 31 Dec 1700 was followed by 12 Jan 1701 Gelderland: 30 Jun 1700 was followed by 12 Jul 1700 Utrecht and Overijssel: 30 Nov 1700 was followed by 12 Dec 1700 Friesland: 31 Dec 1700 was followed by 12 Jan 1701 Drenthe: 30 Apr 1701 was followed by 12 May 1701

Norway: Then part of Denmark.

Poland: 4 Oct 1582 was followed by 15 Oct 1582

Portugal: 4 Oct 1582 was followed by 15 Oct 1582

Romania: 31 Mar 1919 was followed by 14 Apr 1919 [The Greek Orthodox parts of the country may have changed later.]

Russia: 31 Jan 1918 was followed by 14 Feb 1918 [In the eastern parts of the country the change may not have occurred until 1920.]

Scotland: Much confusion exists regarding Scotland's change. Different authorities disagree about whether Scotland changed together with the rest of Great Britain, or if they had changed earlier.

Spain: 4 Oct 1582 was followed by 15 Oct 1582

Sweden (including Finland):

17 Feb 1753 was followed by 1 Mar 1753 (see note below)

Switzerland:

Catholic cantons: 1583, 1584 or 1597 Protestant cantons: 31 Dec 1700 was followed by 12 Jan 1701 (Many local variations)

Turkey: Gregorian calendar introduced 1 Jan 1927

USA: Different areas changed at different times. Along the Eastern seaboard: With Great Britain in 1752. Mississippi valley: With France in 1582. Texas, Florida, California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico: With Spain in 1582 Washington, Oregon: With Britain in 1752. Alaska: October 1867 when Alaska became part of the USA.

Wales: See Great Britain

Yugoslavia: 1919 Sweden has a curious history. Sweden decided to make a gradual change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar. By dropping every leap year from 1700 through 1740 the eleven superfluous days would be omitted and from 1 Mar 1740 they would be in sync with the Gregorian calendar. (But in the meantime they would be in sync with nobody!)

So 1700 (which should have been a leap year in the Julian calendar) was not a leap year in Sweden. However, by mistake 1704 and 1708 became leap years. This left Sweden out of synchronisation with both the Julian and the Gregorian world, so they decided to go back to the Julian calendar. In order to do this, they inserted an extra day in 1712, making that year a double leap year! So in 1712, February had 30 days in Sweden.

Later, in 1753, Sweden changed to the Gregorian calendar by dropping 11 days like everyone else.

ORIGIN OF MONTH NAMES: A lot of languages, including English, use month names based on Latin. Their meaning is listed below. However, some languages (Czech and Polish, for example) use quite different names.

JANUARY: Latin- Januarius. Named after the god Janus. FEBRUARY: Latin- Februarius. Named after Februa, the purification festival. MARCH: Latin-Martius. Named after the god Mars. APRIL: Latin- Aprilis. Named either after the goddess Aphrodite or the Latin word aperire, to open. MAY: Latin- Maius. Probably named after the goddess Maia. JUNE: Latin- Junius. Probably named after the goddess Juno. JULY: Latin- Julius. Named after Julius Caesar in 44 BC. Prior to that time its name was Quintilis from the word quintus, fifth, because it was the 5th month in the old Roman calendar. AUGUST: Latin- Augustus. Named after emperor Augustus in 8 BC. Prior to that time the name was Sextilis from the word sextus, sixth, because it was the 6th month in the old Roman calendar. SEPTEMBER: Latin- September. From the word septem, seven, because it was the 7th month in the old Roman calendar. OCTOBER: Latin- October. From the word octo, eight, because it was the 8th month in the old Roman calendar. NOVEMBER: Latin- November. From the word novem, nine, because it was the 9th month in the old Roman calendar. DECEMBER: Latin- December. From the word decem, ten, because it was the 10th month in the old Roman calendar. HOW DOES ONE COUNT YEARS? In about AD 523, the papal chancellor, Bonifatius, asked a monk by the name of Dionysius Exiguus to devise a way to implement the rules from the Nicean council (the so-called ``Alexandrine Rules'') for general use.

Dionysius Exiguus (in English known as Denis the Little) was a monk from Scythia, he was a canon in the Roman curia, and his assignment was to prepare calculations of the dates of Easter. At that time it was customary to count years since the reign of emperor Diocletian; but in his calculations Dionysius chose to number the years since the birth of Christ, rather than honour the persecutor Diocletian.

Dionysius (wrongly) fixed Jesus' birth with respect to Diocletian's reign in such a manner that it falls on 25 December 753 AUC (ab urbe condita, i.e. since the founding of Rome), thus making the current era start with AD 1 on 1 January 754 AUC.

How Dionysius established the year of Christ's birth is not known. Jesus was born under the reign of king Herod the Great, who died in 750 AUC, which means that Jesus could have been born no later than that year. Dionysius' calculations were disputed at a very early stage.

When people started dating years before 754 AUC using the term ``Before Christ'', they let the year 1 BC immediately precede AD 1 with no intervening year zero.

Note, however, that astronomers frequently use another way of numbering the years BC. Instead of 1 BC they use 0, instead of 2 BC they use -1, instead of 3 BC they use -2, etc.

There are quite a few theories about how Dionysius Exiguus decided Jesus' birth date: (though many theories are presented as if they were indisputable historical fact.)

1. According to the Gospel of Luke (3:1 & 3:23) Jesus was ``about thirty years old'' shortly after ``the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar''. Tiberius became emperor in AD 14. If you combine these numbers you reach a birthyear for Jesus that is strikingly close to the beginning of our year reckoning. This may have been the basis for Dionysius' calculations.

2. Dionysius' original task was to calculate an Easter table. In the Julian calendar, the dates for Easter repeat every 532 years. The first year in Dionysius' Easter tables is AD 532. Is it a coincidence that the number 532 appears twice here? Or did Dionysius perhaps fix Jesus' birthyear so that his own Easter tables would start exactly at the beginning of the second Easter cycle after Jesus' birth? It is frequently claimed that it was the venerable Bede (673-735) who introduced BC dating. Although Bede seems to have used the term on at least one occasion, it is generally believed that BC dates were not used until the middle of the 17th century.

In this section AD 1 = 754 AUC is used. This is the most likely equivalence between the two systems. However, some authorities state that AD 1 = 753 AUC or 755 AUC. This confusion is not a modern one, it appears that even the Romans were in some doubt about how to count the years since the founding of Rome.

HAS 1 JANUARY ALWAYS BEEN THE START OF THE NEW YEAR?

For the man in the street, yes. When Julius Caesar introduced his calendar in 45 BC, he made 1 January the start of the year, and it was always the date on which the Solar Number and the Golden Number were incremented.

However, the church didn't like the wild parties that took place at the start of the new year, and in AD 567 the council of Tours declared that having the year start on 1 January was an ancient mistake that should be abolished.

Through the middle ages various New Year dates were used. If an ancient document refers to year X, it may mean any of 7 different periods in our present system:

1 Mar X to 28/29 Feb X+1 1 Jan X to 31 Dec X 1 Jan X-1 to 31 Dec X-1 25 Mar X-1 to 24 Mar X 25 Mar X to 24 Mar X+1 Saturday before Easter X to Friday before Easter X+1 25 Dec X-1 to 24 Dec X Choosing the right interpretation of a year number is difficult, so much more as one country might use different systems for religious and civil needs.

The Byzantine Empire used a year starting on 1 Sep, but they didn't count years since the birth of Christ, instead they counted years since the creation of the world which they dated to 1 September 5509 BC.

Since about 1600 most countries have used 1 January as the first day of the year. Italy and England, however, did not make 1 January official until around 1750.

In England (but not Scotland) three different years were used:

The historical year, which started on 1 January. The liturgical year, which started on the first Sunday in advent. The civil year, which from the 7th to the 12th century started on 25 December, from the 12th century until 1751 started on 25 March, from 1752 started on 1 January.

Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian Abundant Kwanzaa & Prosperous, Healthy & Peace Filled New Year!!!

-- UseYour Library (SomeCalendarInfo@yahoo.com), January 04, 2005.