6
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 266:
Line 266: + + + +
→AD/BC dates incorrect
I don't know whether or not this warrants inclusion in the article, but since the traditional AD and BC dates are known to be incorrect (with the actual birthdate for Jesus likely being some time BC), couldn't that be an argument for the use of CE and BCE by people who are Christian? I've used it before for that reason, and I know I'm in the minority in that respect, but I feel sort of awkward calling a date after Jesus' birth (or really any date, since Christ is eternal, but that's a different thing entirely) "Before Christ". [[User:CobaltFusion|CobaltFusion]] 08:05, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
I don't know whether or not this warrants inclusion in the article, but since the traditional AD and BC dates are known to be incorrect (with the actual birthdate for Jesus likely being some time BC), couldn't that be an argument for the use of CE and BCE by people who are Christian? I've used it before for that reason, and I know I'm in the minority in that respect, but I feel sort of awkward calling a date after Jesus' birth (or really any date, since Christ is eternal, but that's a different thing entirely) "Before Christ". [[User:CobaltFusion|CobaltFusion]] 08:05, 28 June 2010 (EDT)
== Ab Urbe Condita ==
Couldn't the science movement use the AUC notation, or since the founding of the city (of Rome). Classical antiquity is arguably the start of modern science, and if they use AUC they won't have to deny the Saviour of mankind in order to remain politically correct.[[User:PeterZ|PeterZ]] 23:51, 21 July 2010 (EDT)