Talk:March 25

Template:March 25 selected anniversaries view - talk - edit

---

Coxey's Army, the first significant American protest march - what about Shays' Rebellion? -- Zoe

---

Removed, as it doesn't sound like a major anniversary to me:

• 2003 - Breadmen's, a restaurant in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, receives a 95% cleanliness rating from the state inspector. Sjorford 14:53, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Annunciation

The date of the Annunciation of the BVM being on 25 March is ONLY EXCEPTED IN CATHOLICISM! Dionysus Exegius was not the first to say that 25 March was Christ's Conceptionday, Even if he was the first to choose the year. I think that the disclaimer should say "(traditional date in Catholicism)" since no other religion belives that Christ was concived that day, and it was not first suggested by Dionysus, but is part of Catholic tradition and was celebrated since Christmas was celebrated. StThomasMore 03:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Celebrated since Christmas was celebrated, eh? "The first authentic allusions to it [the Annunciation] are in a canon, of the council of Toledo (656), and another of the council of Constantinople "in Trullo" (692), forbidding the celebration of all festivals in Lent, excepting the Lord's day and the Feast of the Annunciation.". BTW, the Eastern Orthodox churches celebrate that date, too. •Jim62sch• 11:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, well, since it is a "traditonal date" I am moving it back to events. BTW, they may celebrate it on 25 March on the Julian calendar, but that is a different date on the Gregorian calendar. StThomasMore 17:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's a different date -- the whole purpose of the Gregorian Calendar was to fix the backward drift of the dates of the vernal equinox/winter solstice on the Julian Calendar (hence the proscription again 00 years being leap years unless divisible by 400). Nonetheless, Exiguus himself used the Julian calendar, the Gregorian not being devised for another 1000 years. Additionally, March 25 is an arbitrary, non-historical date anyway, so where it falls in relation to the vernal equinox is utterly irrelevant. Had we a lunar calendar like the Islamic Calender (the dates of which are retrogresive) these holidays would be celebrated in different seasons, occuring 4 days after the vernal equinox only once every 33 to 34 years.

In other words, who cares what calendar the Orthodox Church uses, it just doesn't matter. •Jim62sch• 21:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so even if this date isnt for sure, it is TRADITIONAL! How about the decision that happens on the 25 December page weather Christ's Birthday goes in HnA or Births will take affect on this page too. If Christ's birth is allowed to go in births, then Christ's Annunication can go under events and His death can go under deaths. Does that sound good? StThomasMore 18:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Christ's Death Date

The traditional date of Christ's death is 25 March. A tradition among the Jews during the time of Christ was that the great prophets died on the date of their conception. Proof of this belief is found at the following Catholic Encyclopedia articles:

From "Easter"

In Gaul a number of bishops, wishing to escape the difficulties of the paschal computation, seem to have assigned Easter to a fixed date of the Roman calendar, celebrating the death of Christ on 25 March, His Resurrection on 27 March (Marinus Dumiensis in P.L., LXXII, 47-51), since already in the third century 25 March was considered the day of the Crucifixion (Computus Pseudocyprianus, ed. Lersch, Chronologie, II, 61)

From "Christmas"

The astronomical theory. Duchesne (Les origines du culte chrétien, Paris, 1902, 262 sqq.) advances the "astronomical" theory that, given 25 March as Christ's death-day [...a tradition old as Tertullian (Adv. Jud., 8)], the popular instinct, demanding an exact number of years in a Divine life, would place His conception on the same date, His birth 25 December. This theory is best supported by the fact that certain Montanists (Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., VII, 18) kept Easter on 6 April; both 25 December and 6 January are thus simultaneously explained. The reckoning, moreover, is wholly in keeping with the arguments based on number and astronomy and "convenience", then so popular.

Thus, given that you have so aptly proven that it is a made up date, it needs not be in the "Deaths" sections, where historicity is key, but rather in "Holidays and observances". Therefore, I am moving the date to "Holidays and observances", using your citations as being supportive of such a move. •Jim62sch• 11:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I put the words (Traditional date) next to it. I think that justifies the fact that it is in deaths. StThomasMore 17:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are incorrect. Please read the policies I linked to from your talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This is crazy. I gave you evidence that His death-day has been traditionally rendered as being on 25 March. This is not going against the NPOV, etc. polocies.StThomasMore 18:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)