This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CDThieme (talk | contribs) at 23:52, 27 December 2005 (→Jesus Christ under the "Birth's"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:52, 27 December 2005 by CDThieme (talk | contribs) (→Jesus Christ under the "Birth's")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Days of the year | ||||
|
--mav 01:00, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Template:December 25 selected anniversaries view - talk - edit
The year associated with the traditional birth of Christ should be 1 BC, not 1 AD. For purposes of reckoning the calender, Dionysius Exiguus set the date of Jesus' birth on 25 December 753 AUC (ab urbe condita: that is, since the (traditional) founding of Rome), and started the era 8 days later on 1 January 754. The year 754 became 1 AD, and when BC dates began to be used, the year 753 was 1 BC, as there is no year 0. Odd as it may seem when you abbreviate it, the traditional birth of Christ was 25 December 1 BC, not AD! Someone else
Who is Dorothy Worsworth? -- Zoe
- I guess it's a typo for "Dorothy Wordsworth", sister of William, and herself a noted diarist. I'll fix it. --Camembert
Was Tony Martin born in 1912 or 1913? His profile says 1913, but this page says 1912.
Vandalized?
Someone vandalized Jesus.... I reverted it to an older state - 30 September 2005
POV and inaccurate information
There is no evidence that Jesus was actually born on December 25. December 25 is the time around the Winter Solstice, and also was the date of the celebration of the birth of Mithras. This is the origin of the Christmas holiday. The article reads "0 - (actual date should be 6 BC) Jesus, great religious teacher, one of the most influential figures of all time". "Great religious teacher" is POV, and "one of the most influential figures of all time" is POV, unless you add something like "considered to be one of the most influential figures in history" but that "of all time" nonsense is pathetic. There is no "year 0", and it would be better put just as "1" not "0". Revolución 23:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Being that there is no proof that Jesus was born on December 25 (and no serious scholar actually believes he was) I had parenthetically added "traditionally" to the date. Rt66lt, August 10, 2005
300 days from March 1
Why would anyone care how many days are between March 1 and December 25? This seems like a huge piece of non-information to have sitting at the top of the artice. I'm going to go ahead and delete it - if you wish you replace it please provide some rationale to help me understand why. Musser 04:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- Not to bother deleting it because that's completely wrong, which anybody should have realised immediately! --Oppolo 19:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Trudeaus
I have added the birth of the sons of the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Sasha and Justin Trudeau, who were both born on 25 December 1973, and 1971 respectivily.
newton
what about Newtonmas
Jesus Christ under the "Birth's"
The article currently only says "Jesus" as the name of the person born on December 25. "Jesus" was a fairly common name in that period. I had edited the name "Jesus" to "Jesus Christ" to be more specific. Moreover, earlier today (26 December 2005) I had edited the year from "1 BCE" to "1 BC". The BC/AD system is more frequently used in the world and on Wikipeida at this time and is the most common dating system used by the followers of Jesus Christ, whose birth is being dated. The "Births" section of this page would be much more correct and better understood by the masses if for the birth of Jesus Christ it said "Jesus Christ - 1 BC" rather than "Jesus - 1 BCE"
- Jesus links directly to the most widely known person with that name, and no one who clicks that link is going to be surprised by whose article it jumped to. "Christ" is not a name, it is a title which expresses a point of view which is not shared by everyone. Leave it at the simple nuetral link to the name, not at a redirect. CDThieme 23:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The R.C. of Saints should come before Roman Festivals
The Roman Caledar of Saints observance of "The Nativity of the Lord" should come before the Roman Rituas "(re)birth of Sol" since there are more persons on Earth at the time that consider themselves Roman Catholic than of the Ancient Roman Mytholicial Religion.
Category: