The BC/AD vs BCE/CE debate demonstrates the NPOV of the editors and the debate does not consider as relevant the expectations of the audience. (Whatever happened to writing for your audience. )  The article on Common Era in wikipedia itself suggests that BCE/CE "is most often used by academics, especially in the fields of non-Western history, theology, archaeology, and anthropology." And the referenced Chicago Manual of Style provides what I consider to be a NPOV approach: 
 Q. Do you recommend the use of BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era) instead of BC and AD? Has the debate about these been settled or is it still in flux? 

 A. We are not aware of any intense debate. The choice between one or the other is up to the writer and should be flagged only if the customs of a specific field or community seem to be in danger of being (unwittingly) violated. Many authors use BC and AD because they are familiar and conventionally understood. Those who want to avoid reference to Christianity are free to do so.   
 As this is an article about Jesus it seems appropriate to use the BC/AD designation since the designation was created to coincide with his birth. That BC/BCE just apply a new label to the same convention in order to provide a religious neutral reference to the years seems out of place in an article about the person on whom the starting refernce point is based.