Talk:Mark 6

AD vs CE
Here, it seems very clear to me. For dates it says:

The formats for references to years are

474

474

474 BC (note no periods) or 474 BCE

474 BC or 474 BCE

18th century or eighteenth century (Note: century is not capitalized, and "1700s" is not

a century, but a decade)

18th century or eighteenth century

10th century BC or 10th century BCE (or "tenth")

10th century BC or 10th century BCE

1830s (Not 1830's)

1830s

December 1983 (note that December is not linked)

December 1983

320s BC or 320s BCE

320s BC or 320s BCE

Thus I'll agree in general for an AD date just write the number. Note that one must always use BC or BCE.

Then for eras it clearly says

Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article.

Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era, but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–1|AD 1 or 1 BCE–1|1 CE.

In articles about prehistory, if you use BP (before present) or MYA (million years ago), expand these abbreviations when you first use them, as most readers will be unfamiliar with them.

When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk.

So with events spanning both eras, such as the lives of Jesus, Herod and perhaps John the Baptist, you have to use one or the other and as AD was originally used "Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable". Roy Brumback 09:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Feeding only miracle in all 4 canonical Gospels
75.0.11.48 you seem to dispute that that miracle is the only miracle, minus the resurrection, in all 4 gospels. I have read that several other places, though I can't cite them at the moment. I'll get back to you on that. But can you point out another miracle that is in all 4 or another scholarly analysis that says different? For instance on the wiki Miracles of Jesus page the only other miracles listed among all gospels are the baptism, which might be considered miraculous, but there was no miracle done by Jesus, exorcisms, but no specific exorcism seems to be in all four, and the turning of bread and wine into body and blood, which occurs at the last supper in the synoptics but is discussed at a different time in John. Roy Brumback 07:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, the sentence in the article should be reworked a bit, so that it states that this is the only miracle recorded by all four gospels, and some sort of reference should be found. The way the sentence currently reads it implies that it is the only miracle accepted by some group of scholars, and the given www reference is probably not a Reliable sources. 68.123.73.29 20:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark 6. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070115180134/http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=11 to http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)