Talk:1st century

message: "foundered by Augustus" should be "founded by Augustus".  To found something is to establish it.  To founder something is to sink it.--Friendly Person 20:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can edit a Wikipedia article. Although I could easily make the correction myself, why don't you change it yourself for the experience? — Joe Kress 05:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: foundered v. founded

message: A century begins with the 1, and ends in the next 00.  So, the 19th was 1801 through 1900.  How it looks now, there are only 99 years in a century.  --JamesR1701E 20:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the standard decimal system, shouldn't each century begin with "0" and end with "99"? (e.g., 1st cent. would be 0-99, 2nd cent. would be 100-199, etc.) JeremyMcCracken 17:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Views differ, so I included both in the article. See also Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#year_zero. DirkvdM 09:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: quite frankly, there is no room for differing views.  there is no year 0.  therefore, centruies begin on the 1 and end on the hundred.  so the year 100 is part of the first century.  again, no real room for different opinions here.
HIIIII jojo!!!!!
i love the Jonas Bros  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.84.226 (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Decimal notation and year 0

message: Someone wrote at Talk:1 that year articles 50 and under should have A.D. in their article title. Has there been enough discussion as of this moment?? 66.245.106.46 22:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year article problem 

message: Anyone else find it hard to believe that lions became extinct in Western Europe in exactly year 1?  The Wikipedia article on lions says only that this extinction happened "around the beginning of the current era".  The article should reflect this uncertainty. Ckerr 09:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lions 

message: Someone put the following text into the article:
"*Various inventions by Hero of Alexandria, including the steam turbine (aeolipile), vending machine, machine gun, water organ, Nintendo Wii and various other water-powered machines.
*Drew Zimmerman Begins the hobby of ruining wikipedia pages."
The Nintendo Wii and machine gun is the real vandalism, obviously, although I wouldn't be surprised if at least some form of machine gun had been invented by that time although, judging by the machine gun article, there wasn't.
The machine gun was placed in an edit earlier to the most recent, and thus may be by a different person from this Drew Zimmerman.
What's interesting is the edit date: 7th December. One day before the Wii's launch. XD
Perhaps he's a Nintendo fan? If he is then he has good taste.
I shall delete it, though I felt it was quite funny. Oh well. I still don't get the water-powered part, I hope...
If it's a joke against Nintendo then I suggest that we tear him limb from limb...
Lord Akria 19:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism or perhaps just youthful high spirits? 

message: Jesus Christ is not real, so why is his death listed in the events —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.17.190.86 (talk • contribs) 0:38, June 4, 2007 (UTC)
:Interesting point.  Perhaps it should be "in fiction"? — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is real to some, and not real to others. P
He actually lived, the debate is whether he was the Son of God or not. 76.77.225.169 (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Evidence? Zwart (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Josephus? 75.168.78.126 (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Josephus is evidence of Christians, not "Jesus". 192.55.54.36 (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's generally acknowledged by scholars that somebody called Jesus of Nazareth existed, and that he founded a religious movement in First-Century Palestine.  It's nevertheless clear that the "chronology" given in the article for Jesus (and the founding of the Christian Church, and the conversion of the Apostle Paul)  is a matter of religious testimony, not of historical evidence (even after somebody quite properly removed the reference to "His Resurrection").  It presumes that Jesus was born in A.D. 1, and takes the biblical estimates as to his age for precise and accurate declarations, none of which is justified by the evidence—or even by the Biblical text.  I don't have reliable sources handy or I'd revise the article myself.  Would somebody with the requisite time and sources kindly make the chronology fit the historical evidence in this respect?  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm removing the reference to his resurrection as non-historical. It's probably also debatable that the crucifiction happend but at least it's not a supernatural event. There is a lot of Christian bias in this article but I also don't have the reliable sources or knowledge to fix this properly. I imagine that every source will be contested and has been contested for say 2000 years. Opalraava (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus's crucifixion is actually one of the few events of which historians can be reasonably certain.  Crucifixion was a scandalous punishment in the Roman world, and was particularly abhorrent to Jews of the First Century C. E.  It is highly unlikely that his followers would have invented such a shameful fate for their teacher/leader/prophet/Messiah/god (depending on which believers you asked, and when).  It's far more likely that the fact of Jesus's crucifixion was so well known in Judæa during the early days of the Jesus Community/Church that believers were unable to deny it, and had instead to embrace and apotheosize it.  See Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant and The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus.  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 00:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I improved the crucifixion and start of ministry in the significant events to (traditional date) which is an improvement to the previous (according to christian sources only) so it's in there. I'm pretty happy with what we have now except for the section on Christianity at the bottom of the article. First of all it mentions events in the 4th century, which I'd like to remove. It also cites a lot of New Testament, so I'm not sure if we can see that as a RS. Cutting all that out doesn't leave much. It does, however, contain the very useful and relevant link to a main article about Christianity in the first century. What I'd like to do is to remove that section entirely and move the relevant link to the existing lines on Christianity in the beginning. That way we can move all these tings out of this article and into more relevant articles. Are you OK with that? Opalraava (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.  The Bible is not a Reliable Source.  It is a primary source for what its writers wrote, and for what people in their religious, ethnic, or political communities may have believed at some point, as well as for what those who regard it as holy scripture (e.g., Christians and Jews) may have believed at various times.  Those things may be clues to, or evidence for historical events, but Wikipedia must be based on secondary works that subject them to critical analysis in conjunction with information from other sources.  We can't simply accept them as historical accounts, even with reservations like, "According to the New Testament . . . ."  (Opalraava clearly understands this already.  I'm just lecturing for the benefit of others who might object to her or his proposed revisions.) J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it's done. I think we can be very pleased with the result we have so far, the article really has improved a lot. Opalraava (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus Christ 

message: This article lists an inordinate number of Christian events in the timeline. That is unbalanced, and should be repaired. More seriously, the historicity of some of these events is disputed, and I'm pretty sure that the dating of others is in doubt. I think the reliability of the article would benefit if these events were all removed from the timeline. I would remove them, if I didn't think it would set off an edit-war. Therefore, reluctantly, I've introduced the diacritic † for 'historicity disputed' (I didn't check whether there already was a symbol for that, sorry). I've marked the events for which I know the diacritic applies. I invite others to consider whether the symbol needs to be applied elsewhere, too, or whether we need to add a question mark here and there. Zwart (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See my recent remarks on this subject under "Jesus Christ", above.  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian bias 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :First Century's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ChronosPaul":
From Anno Domini: Paul L. Maier "The Date of the Nativity and Chronology of Jesus" in Chronos, kairos, Christos: nativity and chronological studies by Jerry Vardaman, Edwin M. Yamauchi, 1989, , pp. 113–129
From Jesus in Christianity: Maier, Paul L. "The Date of the Nativity and Chronology of Jesus" in Vardaman, Jerry and Edwin M. Yamauchi.Chronos, kairos, Christos: nativity and chronological studies, 1989. . pp. 113-129
From Chronology of Jesus: Paul L. Maier "The Date of the Nativity and Chronology of Jesus" in Chronos, kairos, Christos: nativity and chronological studies by Jerry Vardaman, Edwin M. Yamauchi 1989  pages 113-129
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:First Century]] 

message: I have undone an anonymous editor's good-faith attempt to make the dates for Jesus and the Apostle Paul more reflective of the historical evidence, so I felt obliged to make my own effort.  Since I don't have better sources at hand, I have used dates and references from the Wikipedia articles Chronology of Jesus and Conversion of Paul the Apostle, which appear reliable to me.  
I removed altogether the entry for the beginning of the Christian church, because it's highly debatable what event that even refers to (start of Jesus's ministry? Pentecost? separation of Christian Jews from Jewish synagogues?), and Wikipedia's existing articles don't offer a satisfactory discussion of the issue.
The same IP editor made some other changes, concerning lions in Europe and Caligula's designs on Britain, which were reverted along with the ones concerning Jesus and Paul.  I have not restored those, but would not object to their restoration if the sources support it.  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  30 April 2015 Revisions Concerning Jesus and Paul 

message: The three events from c.29 up to and including c.33-36 (concerning Jesus and Paul) contain *all* the references in the entire article.
I'm pretty sure these three events have been placed there by the same author because they all used 'About' instead of 'c.' (which I fixed several edits ago). Because we know that the first two events on Jesus have no independent reliable sources, yet they have many references, and the conversion of Paul has the same kind of references, judging by their titles, I'm a bit suspicious about it all. I'm suspecting that the author just tried to 'legitimate' these events with an avalanche or references.
Because of this, I removed the conversion of Paul as an historical event. However I was wrong to do so, because there are actually independent sources on the life of Paul and to this event. 
Now I'm kinda lost on how to proceed, I still doubt all the given sources in these three lines, but you can't judge a book by it's cover and I don't have access to any of these sources. Perhaps somebody with better information or sources could pick this up? Opalraava (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The events concerning Jesus and Paul and their references 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1st millennium which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: 1st century 2603:6080:7D02:2348:E44C:AC34:E4AD:8B44 (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st century