Daily Spurgeon

A.D. does NOT mean “After Death” as many have been misled to think. It actually is the Latin abbreviation for Anno Domini, a phrase adopted into English that means “Year of our Lord”. It is used together with B.C. Before Christ to divide and accurately describe all time before and after the birth of Jesus Christ.

What’s the difference?

https://www.antidote.info/en/blog/reports/bc-and-ad-bce-and-ce-whats-difference

(copy and paste)

B.C.E may not be defined as a synonym for B.C. (Before Christ) It does not mean the same thing. Not even close. B.C.E. is the abbreviation for Before COMMON Era, or Before CURRENT Era and may even be taken to mean, or misunderstood to mean Before CHRISTIAN Era. The use of these misnomers are an attempt by non-Christians to remove all reference to Jesus Christ, His birth or Life.

The net change of the alternate terminology, however, does not change the fact that the identical purpose to separate and graduate all recorded history before and after the birth of Christ remains precisely and exactly the same.

Further, the argument used to support the new terms postulates merit from the use of a phantom “neutral” point of view. A point of view by definition is NOT neutral. Herein the logic of the argument go awry. They believe that the elimination of references to Jesus Christ, his birth and Lordship would achieve “neutrality”. They argue that by replacing A.D and B.C. with B.C.E and C.E. they establish a neutral point of view. This argument sets up a troublesome conundrum. Even without any consideration of a person’s religious views, an analysis of the use, were it possible, of such a neutral point of view (NPOV) must be considered and explained.

A NEUTRAL point of view? Such a term would portend that a point of view can be properly set forth as valid, genuine, authentic and defensible but also remain neutral. A neutral point of view, were it possible, is no point of view at all. That would be both illogical and impossible. Anytime a point of view is combined, confused or blended with another so that its properties or constructs are clouded, weakened, confused or to any degree neutralized the POV is compromised or lost and any argument for it becomes moot. A neutral point of view exists only in the imagination of those who prefer confusion or obfuscation to authentic, defensible points of view.

A neutral point of view, were it possible, would therefore be illogical, unattainable, indefensible and certainly irresponsible.

Therefore to argue for an imagined, impossible and unattainable neutral point of view (NPOV) is plainly ludicrous. A point of view is inherently and by definition NOT NEUTRAL in its VIEW. Rather it patently displays a defensible point. Its lack of neutrality is hence, self-evident. If it has a neutral, and therefore no preferred or singular point of view, it represents no point of view at all. It cannot be both. Hence a neutral point of view is a cruel conundrum; a phantom POV, a forgery, pretending legitimacy. Such a phantom phrase taken in its normal meaning and common sense is ipso facto [by that very fact], an oxymoron [a contradiction in terms] per se [in itself] .

So, the illusive and unobtainable (NPOV) sought by atheist, agnostics or other non-believers is here found to be without convincing or logical argument and is hereby exposed as a futile point of view that attempts to negate the most well documented historical fact of recorded history; the birth and life of Jesus Christ. Their so called (NPOV) props-up an imagined, neutral point of view, a false conundrum embraced and existing only in a fanciful notion but indefensible as a matter of logic.

Hence, this conspiracy to rewrite history and to redefine the method for defining and measuring time can be considered both disingenuous and egregious. Disingenuous in that it stubbornly disregards the demonstrable historical fact of Christ’s birth and life. Egregious in that it attempts to replace factual chronological truth with invented, imprecise and ambiguous terms that attempt to redefine how time is defined and to rewrite historical fact so that the not-so-neutral point of view of an unbeliever is better served disguised as “neutral” rather than the anti-Christian point of view from which it attempts to disavow.