Talk:Date of the birth of Jesus

Untitled

I have created this article because this material is replicated - and fought over - in multiple accounts. Hopefully this debate can be contained here, and the many many many Jesus articles can all just refer to this article on this subject in future. Wdford (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Creating a new article when others already cover it (notably Nativity of Jesus) is creating a fork, which is discouraged. This should be deleted.PiCo (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not a fork, its a spinout. This discussion is repeated in multiple Jesus articles, as you know. My intention is for this material to be dealt with thoroughly here, and then all other articles that address the same material can be summarized down with a link to this as the "Main" article on the topic. The Nativity of Jesus article is already well over 100,000k and needs a spinout. As soon as this article is stable, I intend to summarize the topic on that side. Wdford (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wdford. I have just read this page for the first time and have enjoyed it, and learned some new details. I never knew about the 1BC theory for Herod's death for example. However I am not persuaded that the Birth of Jesus of Nazareth is a stand-alone topic for a separate page, and I disapprove of your strategy of deleting large sections in other pages (Nativity, Chronology) in order to justify the existence of this page. I disagree also with your argument that pages should be split/spun off in order to avoid "fighting" or to avoid "replication" - that is not a valid reason. Splitting makes it harder for the reader to find all the information in a compact page. By all means continue developing this page if you wish and see if there is a particular demand for it, but please do not make major deletions in other pages, especially without considerable support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.171.81 (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

oky it is true 197.184.177.54 (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Verifiable

The sourcing of each Wikipedia article is independent. Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources; in particular, if another Wikipedia article says source X backs up claim Y, that assertion is not reliable. Before an editor may add Y to this article with a citation to X, the editor must actually read X and confirm that it really does back up claim Y.

In view of the wide variety of sources, some of which are paper, that was rapidly assembled for this article, I doubt that the editor(s) actually read all the sources to confirm they really say what they are purported say. Thus I request confirmation that all these sources were actually read by the editor(s) of this article. If such assurance is not put forth, I will nominate the article for deletion. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This article was created as a spinout of an existing article, and therefore was created by cutting and pasting existing material with existing references. The material was not "assembled" as such, rather just relocated. If we delete this article then all that material has to be moved back where it came from. If we are to question the appropriateness of the references here, then we should also the question the appropriateness of the references in the original article as well. That would imply a need to audit the entire encyclopedia again - which is hardly feasible. However, if we are to accept the appropriateness of the references in the original article, then there is no reason to question the appropriateness of the references in this spinout article. If any editor questions a particular reference then by all means let's address it, but to simply assume that the references have become suddenly inappropriate merely because a daughter article has been spun out, sounds a bit extreme. Don't you think? Wdford (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Since you acknowledge you did not read the citations to see if they are true, I will nominate this article for deletion. I will also refer to the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The WP:SPINOUT was done originally from Nativity of Jesus, but then I summarized and linked Anno Domini and Chronology of Jesus as well, because they were duplicating the same material almost verbatim. Over time some editors have added their tweaks to one or other article, and I attempted to preserve those tweaks which were valuable so as to not unnecessarily discard valuable material – which seemed like a good idea at the time.

I take your point re firewalls, but I dispute that these citations are “mistaken” – in the original articles they are all clearly addressing the exact same points. However, if you have concerns about any particular citation, please say so and let’s fix it.

Do you in fact have concerns about specific “mistaken” citations, or is your concern purely a matter of the red-tape? If I repeat the process using only material from Nativity of Jesus, and discard the valuable tweaks from other articles that currently duplicate this material, would that make you happy? Wdford (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course I don't know if the material in the article reflects what is in the source unless I have access to the source, and I don't have access to many of the sources. In some cases, only a short citation was copied and the new article does not contain the full citation, so the source cannot be found. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete - Incomplete

I have looked over the thinking of the author in this Talk section and I cannot comprehend why this severely incomplete page exists. For instance, one of the most well-known estimations of Jesus' birth year was by Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD) who recorded that Jesus of Nazareth was born in the 28th year of the reign of the Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus giving a birth year of approximately 3 BC yet this is not mentioned. Why was this left out? Why was this page "spun off"? Were the original articles complete? Did they mention Clement? Was this hasty cut'n'paste spin off made because of faulty reasoning?

Also, I think the title of this article, Date of birth of Jesus is wrong. I think the best we can do is make estimates of the YEAR of his birth from ancient writings. December 25th gets way too much play here. The two arguments advanced for the 25th are ludicrous: (1) Hippolytus of Rome thought Jesus was conceived on the Spring Equinox and (2) the offering of incense occurred on Yom Kippur (early October) so you count 15 months forward. What?? Those arguments get you an exact day in December??

This article needs to hit the trash can. Dangnad (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Made up stuff

About the information removed at [1], it is covered by WP:1DAY. Why should we listen to those two preachers, are they scholars (historians)? If they don't abide by publish or perish, their self-published source is not a reliable source and the same goes for the other sources quoted therein. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The Quirinius timeline

As the original author of the subthread, may I please complain that someone have erased the punchline. If Jesus ben-Joseph celebrated his bar-Mitzvah in 6CE per Quirinius, then he was born in 6BCE, or shortly thereafter, as a Jewish boy's bar-Mitzvah is aged 12. I also supplied a chronology to the comet which has been deleted, which establishes that there was indeed a new star in the sky for a while at that time. Please reinstate it as the unsubstantiated reference to "astronomical events" is too general to be acceptable at this level, I was precise about the comet: as a factual explanation it deserves to be preserved. You should at the very least repeat the reference from the Halley's Comet meme, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Astronomy-Cosmology/S&CB%2010-93Humphreys.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.67.181 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Quirinius had little to do with Jesus' bar-Mitzvah, anyway, the most accepted birth-year for Jesus is 4 BCE, which would make him about 10 years old in 6 CE. However, there is no way to know for sure, scholars generally think that Jesus was born between 7 BCE and 2 BCE. Also, saying that there was a comet does not say that it was noticed there, since meteorological conditions could have prevented that. As Bart Ehrman explained: go to a town, choose a star from the night sky and try to say at which house is the star pointing to. Same applies for a comet. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Magi were astrologers, they were following astrological signs, not a physical star. The three magi in the story are fictional.PiCo (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding 9 Month to conception date

The earliest source stating 25 December as the date of birth of Jesus is likely by Hippolytus of Rome, written very early in the 3rd century, based on the assumption that the conception of Jesus took place at the Spring equinox which he placed on 25 March, and then added nine months. A pregnancy is 10 months or 40 weeks to be exact not 9 only. Most women realise they are pregnant after 1month is over already, because their is no menstruation. Mcrious (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

40 weeks is actually closer to 9 months than 10 months in the Julian and Gregorian calendars although assuming a birth is exactly 9 months after conception is flawed. (But 40 weeks isn't much better.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Reference and range of birth years?

First issue: The opening sentence in this article states "...but most theologians assume a year of birth..." and gives a reference of "Dunn, James DG (2003). "Jesus Remembered". Eerdmans Publishing: 324" (http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/dunn01.pdf). The proposed date range is not mentioned on page 324, but page 325 does include the text (in a chart) of "Birth 6-4 BCE". The reference does not support the assertion of "most theologians".

Second issue: later in the WP article, it is reported that Luke gives the birth to be during the Census of Quirinius which is known to have happened in (or after) 6 CE, but the text then reads "most scholars generally accept a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC". That "6" is misleading (is it 6 BCE or 6 CE?) because according to the supporting text just given in the article, it should say "a date of earlier than 4 BCE or after 6 CE". The confusion extends to the article's lead which reads "a year of birth between 6 BC and 4 BC". Where did the "6 BC" come from in the lead? Why does the article present (in a number of places) the concept of a range when there is only referenced evidence to support two distinct years? 120.17.140.25 (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Could someone please address the fact that in this article, Wikipedia is presenting "facts" to its readers that are not based on the underlying sources. Thanks.220.233.199.255 (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Astrological/Astronomical Alignment of Jesus' birth on April 17, 6 BC - Michael Molnar's 'The Star of Bethlehem: The Legacy of the Magi'

I added this to the introduction... (C) astrological/astronomical alignments<ref]Molnar, Michael, The Star of Bethlehem: The Legacy of the Magi, 1999, Rutgers Univ. Press</ref]. 2601:580:4:8AB7:61AA:6D8F:B2E9:5D60 (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this source is particularly good, but the astronomical approach has been used in the past so I agree that it should be mentioned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The source is very good. The Knights Templar discovered that Rabbi Jesus son of Joseph was born on Saturday/Sabbath April 17, 6 BC / 17.4.748 AUC / 29 Nisan 3755 HC. This info was passed on to Freemasonry and encoded many places, e.g. [[July 4, 1776] (17 Tammus - 4th month Hebrew Calendar). 96.71.56.173 (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the quality of the source by Molnar, but I did repair the short footnote so it now links to the source in the "Bibliography" section. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Dionysius Exiguus

An obvious omission from the article as it stands is any material about Dionysius Exiguus who devised the Anno Domini system. Specifically, what were the calculations that led him to a date that is about four years later than the modern date? Can anyone rectify? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I have resolved this by copying the text of Anno Domini#History. So formally,

--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Unreferenced addition

@Cactus Ronin: I see you've added some content here which seems to depend on a reference by someone named Voorst. But the reference named "voorst" isn't defined, and there doesn't seem to be anything in the article that ties the name to something that's verifiable. Do you have a reference to add to the article to support this addition? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mikeblas Robert E. Van Voorst. Jesus outside the New Testament. 2000 ISBN 978-0-8028-4368-5. p. 124. "This is likely an inference from the Talmud and other Jewish usage, where Jesus is called Yeshu, and other Jews with the same name are called by the fuller name Yehoshua, "Joshua" Cactus Ronin (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Great! Will you be fixing the referencing errors caused by your edits using that title? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mikeblas I am now on mobile and can not able to do a full fix, I added my respons ein the references, I hope I didnt cause a trouble. I addedthe info in there because someone (that i wont disclose his identity) i debated told me that in Babylonian Talmud, Jesus is lived during time of Alexander Jannaeus. I dont mean misinfo or directing, I thought that this info is needed on an encyclopedic record. Cactus Ronin (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

When reworking, please change the word 'claim' per WP:CLAIM. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

0 AD

No historian maintains that Jesus was born in the year zero, unless they are strongly inebriated. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

There was no year zero, actually, but there was a year one. I believe that Jesus was born on this year, because "BC" literally stands for "Before Christ", so, logically, Jesus would have to have been born on the year 1 AD. 98.115.49.65 (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Logic has nothing to do with it. The date of Jesus' birth is a historical question. As discussed in the article, the Anno Domini system was created by Dionysius Exiguus over 500 years after Jesus' birth, and his idea of the year of the Nativity was not based on any rigorous scholarship or historical investigation (in other words, it was probably wrong). Very few modern scholars believe that Jesus was born as late as AD 1. CodeTalker (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Logic has to do with almost everything, including historical questions. Also, how have historians concluded exactly that Jesus was born in 4-6 BC? 98.115.49.65 (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born about the time Herod the Great died. Historians assume Herod the Great died in 4 BC (even this is contested, there are more views hereupon). So, basically, it means trusting the Gospel of Matthew over the Gospel of Luke, which puts his birth around the Census of Quirinius (6 AD). Why Matthew rather than Luke is a complicated debate (e.g. Jesus was in his thirties and counting backwards, but when Jesus died is another complicated discussion).

Above all, there is no Church dogma about the year Jesus got born. The Church does not pretend that Dionysius Exiguus was infallible. And he decided when AD in the Gregorian/Julian calendar started. Hint: it is more or less a conventional year of beginning. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is all about when Jesus was born. Please read the entire article. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The AD/BC notation (or CE/BCE notation, which assigns the same numerals to every year) does not provide for a year zero. Astronomical year numbering and the current version of ISO 8601 do provide a year 0, which is in between −1 and 1. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Adam C. English and Jesus's date of birth

On the article "Christmas" there is a rather lengthy quote in the "History" section from Adam C. English, professor of religion at Campbell University, from his book Christmas: Theological Anticipations, where he discusses his view that, at least according to Luke's gospel, December 25th is likely (approximately) the real date of birth of Jesus. I believe his argument is important enough to be mentioned on this page, especially considering that it appears on other pages less directly concerned with the exact date of birth of Jesus. I more or less copy-pasted that quote and some context into this page under "Date and season", but this was removed soon after by User:Drmies, who said "i don't really see why this scholar should get this much space". Fair enough. I want to see if there is any consensus or opinion on if this viewpoint belongs in the article, and whether it could be condensed to a few sentences rather than the entire quote. Thoughts? SwensonJ (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing me that way, SwensonJ. I just removed that huge quote from that article as well. IMO it is completely undue. A sentence is fine; that quote is not. But also this: English is a professor at a minor university in the US: his position is as humble as mine, and the book, not published by a main player in the business, I can't find a single review for it. If his position has importance, it can only be derived from the status of the book, and right now that book's status comes only from the fact that it was published and presumably was peer-reviewed. So those are my thoughts. I wouldn't fight over a sentence and a half--but if you look at your version of that article again, and you compare the size of that quote with what truly established scholars get, I think you'll see it's undue. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I do feel that the perspective should be mentioned, even if it is one or two sentences. User:SwensonJ, would you care to do this at this article and at the main article? Thanks, Anupam^Talk 02:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand your concern for the size and weight of the quote. I realize that English's position is not one of high standing, but I don't really think this should inhibit his viewpoint from being discussed at all on an article which contains references to many less well-known authors who may nevertheless be knowledgeable in this field. Many of the books and articles in topics such as this one are not widely reviewed online, as English's article is presumably peer-reviewed this should give him at least some credibility. Elsewhere in this article works and opinions by obscure authors are used as a catalyst to more thoroughly discuss the topic. Admittedly, I personally do not have any other sources saying the same thing as English is.

For now I would like to get some editorial consensus on the matter and go from there. SwensonJ (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

User:SwensonJ, both User:Drmies and I are in agreement that English's view should be mentioned in the article. Though I would have preferred the whole quote, I am amenable to a few sentences to summarize the quote. Once again, would you care to summarize English's view in a couple sentences? Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I was writing a response to User:Drmies and failed to see your response. I meant my first response to be directed to Drmies's original comment. Thanks for your input. SwensonJ (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, I would prefer the whole quote as it provides valuable context for English's position. (I also had hoped it wouldn't have been removed from Christmas but that's an unrelated discussion.) But of course I would rather a short summary than nothing at all. SwensonJ (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to.

Adam C. English, professor of religion at Campbell University, argues for the veracity of December 25 as Jesus's date of birth. English assumes that Zechariah's ministry in the Temple, as described in Luke 1:5–23, took place on Yom Kippur the year before Jesus's birth; he then traces Luke's narrative through the Annunciation and the birth of John the Baptist to conclude that the Nativity occurred on December 25.

SwensonJ (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Eh, Anupam, "a sentence is fine" is what I said. I suppose I can live with two sentences. User:SwensonJ, I feel like you're getting things mixed up. You said that "his viewpoint [should be] discussed at all on an article": viewpoints aren't "discussed" in an article, they are represented. We're not discussing anything--the moment you put it in an article, you give it authority and a stamp of approval. But my bigger problem is with the first part of that sentence, "I realize that English's position is not one of high standing, but I don't really think this should inhibit his viewpoint from being discussed..."--but that is precisely why his opinion matters less than that of others. No authority, no representation--I just removed a fringey sentence giving the opinion of someone who is clearly NOT an expert in the field. This is how we choose what goes in. Drmies (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the revision put forth by User:SwensonJ, which has truncated he quote into just a few sentences (I edited it slightly). User:SwensonJ, feel free to add your sentences to this article and to the Christmas#History. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 18:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Anupam for your feedback and edits to my original text. I will insert it promptly. SwensonJ (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

By "discussed" what I meant was "represent" or "mention" or however else you'd like to phrase it. Placing the sentence into an article simply acknowledges that it is a position which an individual or group of people with at least some credibility on the topic have taken and doesn't give it "a stamp of approval" or imply that it is objectively correct.

My point about English's credibility is to say that the prestige of the university he works at shouldn't be given as much weight as you imply it should. The fact that he doesn't teach at an Ivy League school is no reason to discredit his argument; he's a professor of religion with a PhD; again, just about as well known as some other authors cited on this page. SwensonJ (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

User:SwensonJ, don't forget to add it to Christmas#History, where the original quote was also deleted by User:Drmies. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 21:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the reminder. I am looking at the page history to find where the quote was originally placed; the new, shorter paragraph may better fit in another spot on that page. SwensonJ (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Adam C. English, professor of religion at Campbell University, argues for the veracity of December 25 as Jesus's date of birth

That's pretty silly. There's a strong consensus that Jesus, if they even existed, was not born on December 25. I doubt that such a claim asserting the opposite should even be included. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Section on the point of view of The Church of Jesus Christ.

I created a section that was deleted by User:ජපස. He did not review. I know because I simply quoted more faithfully the sources that had been already used. And he undid and tagged as "unrealiable". I call for a general discussion here if he insists on reverting... George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The source has been removed as unreliable. Thanks for pointing out its use elsewhere in the article. jps (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Are all works from BYU University unreliable? Unbelievable!! Shame on you! This is discriminatory. You are the reason Wikipedia cannot present itself as an unbiased source of information. You must let everyone present their opinions and religious ideas. It's is easier to find on the streets LDS missionaries than priests from any other faith. In a lot of countries there are more LDS buildings than those of faiths that are a 1000 years older. Your accusation is serious. That is why lots of people here do not use their names. I don't need to hide behind a nickname. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

He's not hiding behind his name, so stop making assumptions. The point is that not all claims are equal and we should not create a false balance. For example, in the section up above, it is argued that a English professor of religion believes Jesus was born on December 25. There is a strong consensus against such a silly idea, so it should not even be entertained in the article. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Understandable as his claim is not accepted by a considerable amount of people. But, the ideas I am introducing are shared by thousands of people around the world. How is that silly? There are people who believe the Earth is flat. They are not as many as the members of this Church, yet, their ideas are here in Wikipedia. You are being discriminatory. I say let us write to all the contributors of this article and let them read my edition. The accusation of User:ජපස must be proved or removed. Should you not spend a similar effort to make sure he proves his claim, too? George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I recommend our articles on argumentum ad populum and the burden of proof for you to review. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Then remove all articles about religion. Religions cannot be proved via the scientific method. But, it that makes you happy, be my guest. Prepare for a whole year of the same thing. I won't stop. I will defend my right to let the ideas of a large religious group be considered. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Not my point. You argued that the popularity of a position demands its acceptance, and you said it was up to others to disprove your position. It's the other way around. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm arguing that the popularity of a position demands its "VISIBILITY", i. e., a few lines in this article. Who is demanding acceptance? Your argument makes no sense. Why other faiths must believe the same so the ideas of these persons be . No one cannot scientifically prove religious statements such as those in this article. You and I know that even the existence of Jesus of Nazareth has little scientific support. This is not an article on Archeology. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Slow down and take a breather. "Prove" is not being used in the way you are interpreting it. It is being used in the context of supporting a claim that you make. I think if we all agree to use words the way they are intended, there will be no dispute. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

There are two issues here:

• theological belief: we can state that the LDS Church believes Jesus was born on ...;
• historical fact: historical facts aren't theological dogmas, they are amenable to being examined and criticized according to the historical method, i.e. they have to rely on objective evidence instead of getting established by fiat. Saying that the LDS Church has the right to its own opinions, but not to its own facts, is not discrimination. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

CALL FOR VOTING

To all contributors of this article:

I would like you to vote on my edition of this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Date_of_birth_of_Jesus&oldid=1191857682

I basically did two things: 1. I created a separated paragraph for the opinion of Ian Paul, an Evangelical Christian author, that was on the same paragraph containing information about the perspective of a BYU University scholar on the date of birth of Jesus Christ. I cannot tell how relevant the opinion of Ian Paul is. But, I don't mind those two lines that offer information about it. 2. I quoted more faithfully the sources that were used for the LDS perspective. As it was previously composed, the source and the words of the article did not match. For example, the date suggested by the author of the paper was not even on the article.

It has been claimed by User:ජපස (who also likes to appear as "jps") and User: Viriditas that BYU scholars are not reliable because they are "contractually obligated to tout the line of the LDS church". Now, I need them to either prove it or remove the accusation.

I will wait for three months so discussion can go on. After that, I will read the comments in favor and against and consider presented evidence. If it cannot be proved that these scholars are "contractually obligated", I see no reason why the religious ideas of this Church cannot have their own sub-section here. There is a section on the Islamic view. Are the sources non-reliable because they are Muslim? George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

We don't vote, we discuss. There is a difference. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

We do both. I don't want people to simply vote. I want to know their reasons to either support this edition or not. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions for an WP:RFC. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I will leave those intricacies to you. I'm a contributor here and an engineer at other places, not a bureaucrat. That would be a nice Christmas gift (assuming you believe in Jesus Christ). If not, it's alright. Someone else might show some charity. I think I did my part so far. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You’re kind of doing it again. If you want to file an RFC, which is the process you have expressed interest in, then follow the instructions at the link I gave you. It’s not up to others to do it, it’s up to you. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the author I am quoting has a Wikipedia article dedicated to him, Jeffrey_R._Chadwick. I guess you will have to remove all BYU scholars from Wikipedia, too. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

See WP:IDHT. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you can also apply that principle to yourself. You are not understanding or making an effort to understand. My goal is not to show that the point of view of this author is the right and that the ideas of the rest of authors quoted here are wrong. I understand you are telling me that consensus is necessary to make the edition. If this point of view were AGAINST the official position of The Church, then you might say the edition is not "FINE" (as there is no adherence to the "consensus" in The Church) and even so, if it was explicitly expressed in the edition that what is written represents his ideas; and, if the author is very well known in his field, I see no reason not to mention them.

I think I will have to be more specific with you because I really don't understand you.

My edition is wrong because (choose one or more, please):

1. The credibility of the author is non-existent. (If you choose this, please, explain why does he have a Wiki-article). If you can prove that Jeffrey R. Chadwick is in no way to be trusted, all the other options below would make no sense and we should modify his article on Wikipedia so the world may know no one must trust him. For example, all articles related to pseudoscience explicitly state they constitute pseudo-science.

2. His point of view does not represent the "official" position of The Church. (Assuming that Jeffrey R. Chadwick is a reliable researcher. If not, then, even I would oppose to the addition.) I can specify that his research does not possess a canon level right now. Many things stated via revelation by The Church long time ago have been confirmed by science years later. For example, The Church received a revelation in 1833 about many health issues. One of them was the consumption of alcohol. Many scientists through decades have advocated for its moderate consumption. But, at the beginning of 2023 the WHO published its new official position that corroborates what the members of The Church already new (https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-alcohol-consumption-is-safe-for-our-health). So, as in time science might corroborate his research, I think it might be useful to consider his ideas now / "in advance". It would be a case of going in the opposite direction. It was revelation confirmed by science for my example. And here, it might become science confirmed by revelation in the future.

3. Other churches do not believe the same. Is this the consensus you are talking about?

4. Other reasons. Please, explain. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

In answer to your choices. Articles should exist because the subject is notable. This is independent of whether the subject, if human, is credible (see articles about crooks or even respected scholars who made major errors in their scholarship). The standard for references is whether they have been accepted by other people in the field (e.g., published in a peer reviewed journal) not whether the author is credible (author being credible is just the first hurdle). Or at least accepted by a significant number if there is a dispute (in which case all sides with significant backing should be presented). In your case you want to present the LDS theological view(s) of the date (both year and season/day of year) of Jesus's birth into an article which is already a bit of a mess. Given that the LDS is a relatively minor religious group within Christianity, views of some individuals within it are probably not significant enough to include in this article unless the view is significantly different from traditional Christianity and has significant denominational backing; it should also be short. A better place might be the article on Beliefs and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If nothing else, the editors there are more likely to be able to judge significance of various views within the denomination. Erp (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm ok with this, but you need to make it much clearer that this is largely based on LDS-only scriptures. Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Explicitly religious texts used for historical claims

I have removed a number of sources from the lede of the article which were published in the context of religious belief or theology. Such publications are not reliable for claims as to historical plausibility, determination of precise dates, or contentions as to what "most biblical scholars" believe. We would want to make sure not to include, for example, those biblical scholars who take on faith their claims. The pastor at the local US megachurch does not count towards the countenance of what we can say about such ideas in the assertive voice of Wikipedia. The rather remarkable paucity of good sources being used in the first paragraph or so gives me great pause. I think this entire article may be suffering from poor sourcing, but it will take quite a bit to go through and determine that fully.

To be sure, religious and theological publication can be used to identify the beliefs of those who are writing such treatises. Those may be relevant to an article such as this, but they absolutely must be couched as religious beliefs or theological conceits. They cannot be used as sources for statements of fact.

jps (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Jesus birthday

Suggest that Jesus was born on the first day of Tishri the Hebrew new year only makes perfect sense as all of God’s word is perfect.date can be documented by Zachariah’s service in the temple in the known course of Abiah.Also the shepherds would not have been in the field tending sheep in the winter months of December 108.147.2.64 (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Pseudohistory. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)