No AD really wasn't used as a historic reference until much later on in history. After the reformation. Created, who cares what they called a millennial change, I mean 6 centuries later. It wasn't the beginning of an era which makes no other sense to the rest of the globe. Ah that's what Romans are calling it. It wasn't Julius Caesar's birthday. He didn't mark it as AD or BC. What the fuck. Christ speculative. No evidence of him exists. So nobody then would've suggested history dated back 5000 years. Because it didn't, from that one point, you dumb retarded cunt, later historians have made a fictitious timeline. Dating civilization. That happened when it was reformed.
Carthage perhaps was partially destroyed. No, it wasn't to the extents of Jerusalem or Alexandria, Libya no. It retained influence for centuries after the Punic wars. And it was that Roman Empire's final downfall according to most, look up that usurper. Your argument is moronic where Rome was burnt, sacked, and also supposedly completely invaded and put to sword. Nero, Goths, and another invasion force. Then there was later Arabs 846, and then much later Islam.
Dionysius Exiguus (Latin for "Dionysius the Humble",[a] Greek: Διονύσιος; c. 470 – c. 544) was a 6th-century Eastern Roman monk born in Scythia Minor. He was a member of a community of Scythian monks concentrated in Tomis (present day Constanța, Romania), the major city of Scythia Minor. Dionysius is best known as the inventor of Anno Domini (AD) dating, which is used to number the years of both the Gregorian calendar and the (Christianised) Julian calendar. Almost all churches adopted his computus for the dates of Easter.
Who cares when he later, centuries, inserted Christ's assumed birth year. It happened to fall on a millennium. So it is wrong. It wasn't historically adopted globally until what point you freaking retarded sack of human excrement.
Why was it? It has nothing to do with Christ either. Nothing at all. It is a much larger conspiracy on claiming that period of record, being those record holders and therefore writing history, and faster destroying all other records.
Nobody on the planet, globally, referred to that millennium as AD, until much later. Everybody living then would've called it what they did. It wasn't the start or end of anything else. Today it is. It means everything before it has a use by date of a few thousand years. Because they were monkeys and civilization didn't exist despite the records.
You freaking dumb cunt, quoting me Google. You're literally autistic. Cannot add things up. Just want to tell me I'm wrong. No I am not. It wasn't adopted until much later on. Despite some monk inserting it into the timeline. And it is wrong. Christ wasn't born on the millennium. Neither was Caesar.
If the obvious conspiracy on the timeline is wrong. What is correct topically?
No AD really wasn't used as a historic reference until much later on in history. After the reformation. Created, who cares what they called a millennial change, I mean 6 centuries later. It wasn't the beginning of an era which makes no other sense to the rest of the globe. Ah that's what Romans are calling it. It wasn't Julius Caesar's birthday. He didn't mark it as AD or BC. What the fuck. Christ speculative. No evidence of him exists. So nobody then would've suggested history dated back 5000 years. Because it didn't, from that one point, you dumb retarded cunt, later historians have made a fictitious timeline. Dating civilization. That happened when it was reformed.
Carthage perhaps was partially destroyed. No, it wasn't to the extents of Jerusalem or Alexandria, Libya no. It retained influence for centuries after the Punic wars. And it was that Roman Empire's final downfall according to most, look up that usurper. Your argument is moronic where Rome was burnt, sacked, and also supposedly completely invaded and put to sword. Nero, Goths, and another invasion force. Then there was later Arabs 846, and then much later Islam.
You're a retard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_Exiguus
Fucking idiot.
Yawn you are so fucking retarded.
Who cares when he later, centuries, inserted Christ's assumed birth year. It happened to fall on a millennium. So it is wrong. It wasn't historically adopted globally until what point you freaking retarded sack of human excrement.
Why was it? It has nothing to do with Christ either. Nothing at all. It is a much larger conspiracy on claiming that period of record, being those record holders and therefore writing history, and faster destroying all other records.
Nobody on the planet, globally, referred to that millennium as AD, until much later. Everybody living then would've called it what they did. It wasn't the start or end of anything else. Today it is. It means everything before it has a use by date of a few thousand years. Because they were monkeys and civilization didn't exist despite the records.
You freaking dumb cunt, quoting me Google. You're literally autistic. Cannot add things up. Just want to tell me I'm wrong. No I am not. It wasn't adopted until much later on. Despite some monk inserting it into the timeline. And it is wrong. Christ wasn't born on the millennium. Neither was Caesar.
If the obvious conspiracy on the timeline is wrong. What is correct topically?