Some scholars want another way to fix the date of the birth of Jesus, i.e. through the Census mentioned by Lucas, who performed Quirino and which motivated the journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem (2,1). But that route is already ruled out, due to the fragmentary nature of the historical information about Quirino, and especially by the fact that no historical source mentions any census carried out in the time of King Herod. In In conclusion, by the data of the Gospels and other historical sources, we must affirm that Christ was born, paradoxically, in the year 7 b.c.! By a Christian era.-this phrase in itself contradictory, has awakened in many the idea of reforming our current calendar and adjust it more accurately to the birth of the Savior. For this they propose to add 7 years Dionisio forgot in the calculations of their roles.
In this way, instead of finding us in the year 1993 we would be in 2000. The proposal, although appealing in its intention, is impractical. In fact, all the historical events have them already dated with those 7 years of gap. Change them one by one would be, in addition to a colossal work, a real headache of heads. How to propose him to scholars of history that Julio Cesar did not die in the 44 but in 37 BC, and that the first world war did not begin in 1914, but in 1921 as do change to millions of students, who have so many dates, that mentally fixed again? Cristobal Colon not arrived in America in 1492, but in 1499, and that Argentine independence was not in 1816, but in 1823? But above all is an initiative without sense, because as it is the calendar, with the difference of 7 years, also meets the intention of Dionisio: perpetually remember that with the coming of Christ into the world history has been split in two; that the world is not the same before him after him; It is the hub of the time around which revolves around human event.