There are, however, several excellent reasons for Christians to leave behind the BC/AD dating system.
In fact, the use of BC and AD causes more problems for Christians than it solves.
However, Dionysius miscalculated, and this error has been retained in the BC/AD system.
While the Gregorian calendar accurately represents years of 365.25 days, Dionysius’ calculations skipped the year zero, jumping immediately from the year 1 BC to the year 1 AD.
For one, it perpetuates the stereotype that Christians are arrogant tyrants who insist on couching all of human history (including Jewish, Islamic, Indian, Chinese, etc.) as relative to the birth of Christ.
Rather than living the lives of humble servants that their Bible calls them to do, many Christians maintain that all history should be subject to their own religious claims.
The result is a calendar that claims to be based upon the birth of Jesus, but which skips the first year of his life.
But besides the absence of the first year CE from our present calendar, an even greater problem exists with the BC/AD system: Jesus was not born in year zero.
Every time Christians insist upon the BC/AD dating system, they open the door to claims by adherents to other faiths that wish to impose their own relative dating system upon society.
Jews will claim that the year 2009 is actually year 5770 (based on the supposed date of the creation of the earth in the Jewish tradition), while Muslims will insist that we are in year 1430 (AH = Anno Hajiri, or the year of the pilgrimage (“hajj”) of the Prophet Muhammad).
However, it is time for this battle to end; Christians should leave behind the BC/AD labels and adopt the BCE/CE dating system for all calendrical references.
Christians have offered many reasons for maintaining the BC/AD system.
If the Gospel of Matthew is historically accurate, this would mean that Jesus of Nazareth was born on or before 4 BCE—meaning Jesus was born 4 BC (4 years Before Christ)!