![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Regarding these sentences:
The first sentence is based on the Eastern Orthodox feast the Dormition of the Theotokos. The second suggests that the Roman Catholic tradition is different, but I think they are the same. The Eastern Orthodox also teaches her bodily assumption, but that the assumption happened shortly after she died a normal human death. Is the Catholic teaching that she was assumed bodily before death, like Elijah, or that she died and was then assumed bodily into Heaven? If the latter, this could probably be reworded slightly, possibly by introducing both sentences with "According to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition", since the tradition arose long before the schism and is still shared by both branches. May as well make the most of what the two have in common. -- Wesley
Should we mention the term Magnificat as in "my soul magnifies the Lord" which either Mary or Elizabeth said to the other upon their first meeting (regarding the impending miraculous birth)? -- Ed Poor
I don't mean to step on any toes, but I question the propriety of the title, which seems to me to reflect a Roman Catholic bias. (And I mean that in the nicest possible way, you understand.) There are a lot of Christians who do not believe in the virgin birth, before you get to the Moslems who venerate Jesus, before you get to the people of all the other faiths. Would it not be better to call this article, "Mary, the mother of Jesus" to stick to what is factual and not a matter of faith? -- isis
Most commonly known in what circles, please? I can't speak for the millions of other folks in the world who never refer to her that way (BTW the Bible doesn't, either), but I'd still find it offensive in what is supposed to be a secular reference book. -- isis
Sorry, I meant "secular" in the sense of "non-religious," not "anti-religious." (The subject is touchy enough without my being more offensive by using pejorative terms.) Many Protestants, even those who believe in the virgin birth because the Bible says so, believe Mary stopped being a virgin by about nine months before her second child was born. That's why "BVM" has always been a Catholic (or high church) term. -- isis
Before the Reformation, all Christians were Catholics -- that's why it's called the "Protestant Reformation." Yes, of course there need to be redirects from "Virgin Mary," because some people will want to look up that term. I don't see how anyone who believes Jesus was an actual person can quibble if we say his mother's name was Mary, because she had to have a name, and they can't prove it wasn't that. I don't see why anyone who thinks Jesus never existed can quibble, because then it's the same as if we say Hera was the mother of Ares, isn't it? -- isis
May I suggest that the page be clearly organized to begin with what everyone (at least, all Christians, but preferably everyone else who accepts the historical existance of this woman) agrees is true about Mary -- even if it is a short paragraph saying that she married Joseph and had a son; then a section on what all Christians believe; then sections on what different groups of Christians, or Churches, believe, including how they refer to Mary? Just an idea, Slrubenstein
Wesley: You say tomato, I say potato -- or something like that. What you call "Orthodox" I call "Eastern Catholic," and those folks that call themselves "Anglicans" I call "English Catholics." Anyhow, did your message mean you want me to change it? I was sort of hoping somebody else would, because I haven't learned to do a redirect yet. (I needed to do one earlier today and couldn't.) So if you want me to do it, please tell me how (or, please tell me how anyhow, because I need to learn). -- isis
I think anyone who makes a really good suggestion like that should do it, and the rest of us should thank them. Why, what do you think about it? -- isis
What "evidence" is there that the Septuagint was translated from a missing text, and what serious biblical scholars actually believe this?
Question about "The establishment of this dogma as "necessary to salvation" is widely taken to be an example of the Pope invoking papal infallibility." Is the establishment of something as "dogma" make it "necessary to salvation" in Catholic theology? Or was this established as "necessary to salvation" at a later date that we have not yet mentioned in the text? Either we need to define "dogma" as used by the Catholic Church or add some other fact to the text. Rmhermen 09:46 Aug 19, 2002 (PDT)
If the Pope announces it ex cathedra as a matter of dogma, Catholics have to believe it or go to hell. -- isis
Just copied the Talk discussion here from the old the Virgin Mary page. Wesley
Attempted to reorder the different sections and add headings, as Slrubenstein suggested. I tried not to change much of the actual text and maintain NPOV, but I'm sure it will need a bit of help. I just hope the overall layout is helpful. The main reason I divided it up into different beliefs, is that each belief is a very specific claim, and generally has different historic groups affirming and denying it for different reasons. So, it seemed clearest and most accurate to deal with each belief or claim separately. Wesley
Wesley: Nice job so far. Now, one of the versions you need to deal with is the (old Roman? current Jewish?) story that Jesus's father was a soldier named Panderos or Pantheras or something. -- isis
See that you do -- there'll be a pop quiz at the end of the week. ;-) -- isis
All you've done is prove you haven't read Talmud; I and thousands of others who have read it know this isn't true -- no such story in Talmud, it's a canard.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.249.198.17 ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 June 2007.
Great -- that's way more details than I remembered about it. Didn't the story come up in I, Claudius? Anyhow, in the nastier versions of the story, Mary was a temple prostitute instead of a temple weaver. -- isis
Given the removal of the painting of Jesus at the Jesus Christ article, I wonder whether this picture should be removed as well? For starters, it seems highly unlikely that Mary had blonde hair, and this is an article about Mary, not about paintings of Mary. Wesley 17:14 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)
The most prominent leaders of the Reformation, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin also stoutly defended the perpetual virginity of Mary against those who questioned it.
In the opening we state that 'it is generally accepted that Mary died ...' while later we state that the doctrine of the Catholic church (tens of millions of people) is that she was assumed into heaven. I don't know enough to make a more accurate statement though. DJ Clayworth 13:33, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Yes yes, I know I am going straight to hell, but I felt that just a paragraph or two from the secular historian's perspective might provide a fig-leaf of objectivity for this vast edifice of Christian propaganda you have all so diligently constructed. Pax vobiscum, Adam 11:51, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Adam, do not make silly jokes, please. If you want to edit an article, feel free, and as long as you do it properly and your edit is reasonable, nobody will blame you for anything. Maybe you meant agnostic historian instead of secular? Nobody knows wether you are going to hell or not, and saying it won't help anybody, just make your comment be seen as little serious. Pfortuny 21:03, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I have rephrased your paragraphs, Adam, but if you feel they have been damaged, please do revert. On the other hand, as those aspects are (supposedly, but I'm not sure) treated elsewhere (or they should, at least), I think a shorter explanation could suffice. For example:
But first, I need to find the link and then get an acceptation. Pfortuny 21:16, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
A historian who critically considers a source which describes miracles may be a secular historian. A historian who believes in the miracles described in a source is not -- he will assume that there is some simpler explanation ( Ockham's Razor) for what is described in the source, including, of course, the possibility that miraculous claims were invented entirely. The more religious a text is, the less reliable it generally is as a historical source, also because such texts tend to become highly politicized and change over time more than other texts.
Adam's summary of the state of historical knowledge on the matter is accurate. It is however unlikely that the Christians working on this article will miraculously convert to become atheists or agnostics. A preemptive attack is unnecessary; as long as the principal authors of this page accept the additional secular perspective, everything is fine.
I'm increasingly considering the possibility that it might be desirable to keep the secular and religious spheres on Wikipedia separate, as they obviously are totally incompatible. —Eloquence
Some comments in reply: If the article was called The figure of Mary in Christian tradition and devotion or something like that, I would not have touched it. That is a perfectly legitimate article to write, and I would read it with interest and respect for the scholarship displayed. But an article with the present title must contain at least some consideration of the question of whether any such person as Mary ever existed, and whether any of her actions and qualities as set out in Christian tradition can be historically verified.
(This question does not arise with Agamemnon, whom nobody today supposes to be a historical figure. See my comments at Troy and Trojan War, where I inserted a similar paragraph.)
In reply to Pfortuny - all historians are agnostics, at least while engaged in history-writing, otherwise they cannot to their job. A historian approaches all sources with scepticism. S/he asks: where did this document come from? who wrote it? with what intention?
In reply to Wesley - As I said in the long discussion at Jesus Christ, I accept that the narrative of the life of Jesus in the Christian Gospels is historical in broad outline. For reasons suggested by Eloquence, I do not accept the supernatural parts of that narrative (such as the Resurrection) as historical fact, because a higher standard of proof is required before I can believe something which modern scientific knowledge holds to be impossible. No ancient document, and certainly not one written by members of the religious group which is propagating that belief, can persuade me that such an event took place.
I point out, however, that many Christians believe these things while at the same time acknowledging that they are unverifiable by modern science or history - their belief is based on faith. It always puzzles me that some Christians feel the need to bolster their faith by pseudo-science and pseudo-history. I respect religious faith. I do not respect the distortion of historical method to prove the unprovable.
What applies to Jesus also applied to Mary, only more so. As I said, I have no difficulty believing that Jesus had a mother called Mary. But how can the Gospels be a historically valid source for events such as the Immaculate Conception or the Virgin Birth? Can the authors of the Gospels, writing some time in the mid 1st Century, claim to have had first-hand knowledge of the sex-life of Mary and Joseph and of Mary's mother? It is patently obvious to the secular historian that these are pious inventions of the early Christians.
As to Pfortuny's changes to my text, I have no real problem with them, but I have tinkered a bit further. He has changed "theory" to "theology." Does the study of Mary come under theology? I thought theology was the study of God and his Word. I have suggested "tradition" as an alternative. I have acknowledged Wesley's point that there are some other early Christian sources. Pfortuny has changed "supposition" to "tradition," which makes us say that "tradition is based on tradition," which isn't very helpful. I have suggested an alternative.
Adam 02:57, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
There is such a thing as "mariology", the study of Mary within Christian theology. Who Mary is and what we call her is important theologically because that affects what we think about God. See the Theotokos article.
Wesley 17:54, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Wesley writes: "your approach to history is certainly the approach most widely adopted by post-Enlightenment Western historians, but it is not the only approach; to pretend it is is POV."
Wesley is entitled to take a "pre-Enlightenment" view of knowledge if he likes, but he can't pretend it is history. Nor can it really belong in an encyclopaedia, which is by definition a rationalist project, unless it is clearly labelled as theology rather than history. I don't claim to be a theologian, so I am grateful for Wesley's clarification of the Immaculate Conception. I just point out that there isn't a scrap of historical evidence for any of the things he describes. During the debates at Jesus Christ and Mother Theresa, however, I learned the futility of arguing with Christians about these matters, so I won't be saying any more about this. Adam 02:51, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I will believe in virgin births and resurrections when I see one, or at least read an account of one in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, not when I read about them in religious tracts (even very old religious tracts). Both Homer and the Bhagavad Gita are much older than the Gospels, by the way - do you believe everything you read there? No, you believe the Gospels, not because they are old but because you want to believe them. But there's really no point in arguing about this, since we are talking out of different sides of our brains. I'm happy that the article makes a small gesture in the direction of historical materialism before plunging into the realms of mythology. Adam 00:50, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
PS, Wesley, since you take an interest in Christian history, perhaps you could have a look at the work I did on History of Greek and Roman Egypt and do an edit if you think it necessary on the paragraphs on Arianism and Monophysitism, subjects which are a bit outside my field but which were politically very important at that time. I'm sure there are improvements to be made. Adam 00:57, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'm more surprised that you didn't have any changes to make to my explanation of the nature Monophysitism. This was the bit I was sure was in need of correction. Merry Xmas, Adam 15:22, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
"Christian theology holds that Jesus was a virgin birth." - Possibly a typo ?
I just noticed that Mary, Mother of God redirects here. Would Blessed Virgin Mary or Theotokos be a more appropriate target? Smerdis of Tlön 17:52, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
No way. Even Protestants (well, those who think carefully about what it means : p) accept that Mary was the Mother of God, so it's reasonable to redirect to a fairly friendly article rather than the (I've got to be careful here) ... interesting views of the Catholic Church on such matters. Wooster 16:40, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Someone should edit out the lines about the Septuagent being based off a different Hebrew text, because there is no support for it that I can find and it goes against the common knowledge about the Hebrew texts
Mary was and is a common subject of painting and other artwork in the West. I wonder if more images of her might be added, here or elsewhere? It would be interesting to see a historical comparison of depictions of Mary in art. I don't know enough about the subject to write such an article. -- jacobolus (t) 15:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have seen it claimed that the depictions of Mary in Western art derive from the idol in the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus: the city where an Ecumenical Council proclaimed her Mother of God. The Roman Diana and Greek Artemis were perpetual virgins, but Cybele, whom the goddess of Ephesus resembled, had the title of Mother of Gods. I have no reference for this hypothesis, which I saw on television some time ago. NRPanikker 22:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Do we have any references for this? While the general writings about the place of Mary seem reasonable, the specific connections between Shakespeare and Mary seem a little far-fetched. Have we anything to indicate that this is mroe than just someone's idea? DJ Clayworth 17:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why does this article claim that Luke 3 gives a genealogy of Mary (rather than Joseph)? People used to claim that, in an attempt to be rid of the contradiction between this and the genealogy of Joseph in Matthew, but few hold this view these days. The same goes for Luke 1:32. And what's with the claim Mary was cousin by marriage to Elisabeth? Luke 1:36 just says something like "kinswoman". Josh Cherry 04:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As the Da Vinci Code fictional story, Many disbelieve, that Mary had descendants through Jesus having children, as inconsistent with their core beliefs in Christianity imputing that if Jesus had children he didnt die on the cross and go to heaven. But Jesus having children was prophecied serveral times in Isaiah See -
... and so, then the subject cannot be blythly ignored with off point attacks about timing as Jesus having had children before he died on the cross and went to heaven, is not inconsistent with any Christian belief.
The only source for a rational discussion of this is the book, The Jesus Presidents laying it all out vs the off point rants about this or that and attempting to bad mouth Da Vinci Code's accurate facts in regard to the descendants of Jesus.
See Jesus Descendants to Today to Many Readers and ? You ?
Is there any reason why her name is 'Bitter'?..... -- Menchi 01:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This edit is NOT mine (as can be verified from the summary history page). I have no time to pick over the history to establish who contributed this section and in what form. If someone is concerned that I may have been trying to play around with their contribution in this respect, let me assure him/her that I have not. (I have to admit, I have not even read it yet.) Portress 12:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I removed the sentence that said 'A few scholars argue that the Greek term parthenos in Luke 1:27 does not necessarily have to mean "virgin [intacta]" but that there is also evidence for it signifying any "young woman."'
This is not relevant for the issue of whether Mary was a virgin. Even if you assume that almah and parthenos have nothing to do with virginity, the virginity of Mary is clearly attested in Matt 1:18, Matt 1:20, Matt 1:25, Luke 1:34, Luke 1:35. None of these verses use these words or any related words.
So you can believe these stories to be fact or fiction, but their meaning doesn't depend on this word. The words almah and parthenos are very important for understanding Isaiah 7:14, and they are therefore very important to the dispute about whether Isaiah's prophecy referred to Mary (most Christians say it did; most Jews and atheists say it did not). Therefore these words are mentioned later on in the article in the discussion of Isaiah 7:14. But they add nothing to the discussion of the historicity of the virgin birth. Lawrence King 16:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
You are missing my point entirely. Suppose you are right, and Luke didn't say that "Mary, a virgin, had no relations with anyone before the birth of her child". Suppose that instead he wrote that "Mary, a young woman, had no relations with anyone before the birth of her child." In either case he is saying the same thing. The meaning of parthenos is totally irrelevant to whether Matthew and Luke were asserting Mary's virginity.
This has nothing to do with Catholic scholarship, Protestant scholarship, atheist scholarship, or anything else. It is just opening the text and reading it. It would violate NPOV for us to claim that Luke's story is true or to claim it was false. I am not doing that at all; I am just pointing out what Luke's story says. Lawrence King 07:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
One other point: There are a number of scholars, Christian and non-Christian, who do not accept that Jesus was born of a virgin. I do not believe that a single one of these scholars says that "I believe the gospels to be literally true in every word -- but the word parthenos doesn't mean virgin." Rather, the vast majority of those scholars (Christian or otherwise) who disbelieve in the virgin birth are not Biblical literalists. Your statement implies that the main contention is the meaning of this word. Lawrence King 07:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I think understand what you mean now: the question of historicity is connected to the question of whether Mary was still alive decades after the birth of her son; this is related to the question of Mary's age at Jesus' birth; this is related to the question of "young woman" and thus to the meaning of parthenos. Is this right?
The vast majority of historians are more willing to accept the historicity of (much of) the Gospels' stories of Jesus' adulthood and the early church -- including Mary's presence there -- than they are to accept the historicity of the infancy narratives. So I didn't expect that the section called "Historicity" would include a discussion of Mary's age.
If you think others might have similar confusion, you might want to rearrange this text so that the age issue comes earlier in the paragraph and is thus more clear. Lawrence King 05:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
what is the traditional date for Mary's birthday? I have a medieval text here saying "die post festum nativitatis marie virginis". What date would that be?
But: Mary was only human. The reason that Jesus was divine, is because He came down from the Father's presence in Heaven; and Mariam became pregnant by the "over-shadowing of the Holy Spirit". Mariam didn't come down from Heaven. She was born to human parents, in the natural way; and was thus included in the curse of the Fall of Mankind in the Garden of Eden. Mary's nature was human, and therefore, contained "original sin", which had been inherited by humanity from our ancestor, Adam.
Most of her shrines were torn down by the Protestants in England (but the Protestants didn't burn the Catholics at the stake for practicing idolatry.) - 129.24.93.219 Correct 129.24.93.219, the English Protestants didn't burn Catholics at the stake. Instead they ruthlessly persecuted Irish Catholics from the time of the Reformation until 1829 for simply practising thier religion. True they didn't burn them at the stake, but they did shoot them, hang them, torture them, cover their heads in hot tar and set fire to them, send them to enslavement in the Caribbean............ I am most certainly not defending any persecution of Protestants. I absolutely abhor religious persecution, being myself of descent from Irish Protestants and Irish Catholics and living in Ireland (a nation still scarred (but thankfully cured) from religious persecution), but I don't want people to have a biased opinion of hitory either. 86.43.67.204 23:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
"not of herself divine" implies some sort of imputed or deputed divinity. Who teaches this? I have changed the text to the simpler and more accurate "Mary is not divine". Also the antecedent for "they" in "they point out" is unclear: Does it refer to theologians, or to the Catholic and Orthodox belief which is the main subject of the previous sentence. patsw 20:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I object to the description of veneration to the BVM as a "Catholic Cult". On the basis of Cult: "However, in common usage, "cult" has a negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group by its opponents, for a variety of possible reasons."
As such, I have rephrased the opening line to read "Catholic practice of veneration". Oliver Keenan 16:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the edit 02:44, 28 December 2005 Codex Sinaiticus m (→Perpetual virginity - This doesn't make sense, you can't use a negative to 'prove' a negative. But do replace it if you can find a source for such an argument) that removed the line They find no scriptural mention of Mary not having other children, and consequently find no scriptural basis for the doctrine of perpetual virginity.
I ask you: How does no mention prove it to be true? The line removed does make sense because the idea of perpetual virginity as a dogma that you must accept or be a heretic has no scriptural basis. No where is it mentioned that she never had other children, however, there is evidence (though others disagree) to the contrary, that she did have other children. It seems like a conclusion in search of evidence. But no one is going to write that, so the contrary view is that it has no scriptural basis, especially in light of evidence otherwise (in the view of those who disagree). Deut 4:2 (KJV) "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Revelation 22:18 (KJV) "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book..."
Regarding the recently inserted "implied" evidence...the wording now with "explicit" and the immediately following sentence about the implied reference is really not allowing an opposing view to stand by itself. Let's not force the idea that the people being discussed that disagree have found no "explicit" mention, but have found an "implicit" one, that's not so.
If this is an argument for "brothers" meaning only in a spiritual sense, I submit John 2:12 where Jesus, his mother, his "brothers" and his disciples are mentioned separately as implicit evidence against that argument, as well as the references to the same people being Jesus' brothers and the mention of his sisters, and so on.
Additionally, Mark 3:31-35, where Jesus is informed "thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee" (KJV) outside the house. Then Jesus says: "Who is my mother, or my brethren?" He looks around the room and answers "Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." This is used by proponents of the idea that all mentions of brothers/brethren are spiritual in meaning, but the problem with that is: what sense would the analogy make if Jesus was linking spiritual brothers to spiritual brothers? Put yourself in the room. If the people outside *with his real mother* were just spiritual brothers, then how effective was his point? Is he saying *they* are not doers of God's will, or would it only make sense if the people with his real mother were his real brothers? Replace "brethren" with "spiritual brothers" and re-read it. Only if they were his familial brothers would the point he made be clear.
My point is, in regards to the recent edit, why cannot an opposing view with evidence stand on it's own? What one group feels is explicit or implicit evidence the other disagrees with, and vice versa. I hardly think the way it's worded now is fair to the opposing view. Should we be adding implicit evidence to the contrary of implicit evidence, ad nauseum? Perhaps that part could be re-worded, then? Oscillate 16:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your information, Oscillate. Even though I should only have given facts and not opinions, my comment was looking like Wikinfo! (My comment is fixed a bit, but feel free to put it in a format more usable for Wikipedia users.) Should we try the table idea I mentioned? One thing I forgot to mention in my fallible comment was Luke 1:34: "Then said Mary unto the angel, 'How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?'(KJV)" In the related text, it does not mention where the angel says Mary was going to have a virgin birth before Mary asks this question (although Matthew 1:22-23 does settle the aspect that it was a virgin birth). But why would Mary ask THAT?!? I do not know. Do you have any ideas? All these verses in the Bible fit together somehow (Christ started a full-Gospel Church, not a "selective Gospel verses Church"), so all full-Gospel Christian churches should arrive at the same non-Wikinfo conclusion. JBogdan 19:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Oscillate, where are you? I guess I get to do the table by myself. Please fix it if it needs it. JBogdan 00:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and Joseph. Kinda mean to expect him to stay a virgin forever too. He needs to get him some as well. It's necessary for a good healthy marriage and proper non-fighting-each-other parents for Jesus.
There are many more external links here than my reading of WP:EL would support. I was going to remove a number which appear to be either homepages or monographs, but on checking and none of these really seemed to add much to what is a nicely-crafted and informative article.
Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The recent editor of the external links deemed it appropriate to delete them all. His above stated reasons for doing so show that he is not qualified in New Testament studies, nor does he claim to be so on his own page. He also does not seem to perceive a need to exercise the kind of tolerance that has made it possible for this article to attain this shape (although even its present state is nothing to boast about, as is shown by e.g. the problem of Mary's "other sons" and "daughters" that has recently been introduced into the article and still requires cleaning up). The rule about the number of desirable links tends to be applied in the English Wikipedia with discretion, and it is all the better for it, especially regarding difficult subjects like a religious one. If this article is supposed to be treated merely as a subject of piety, by all means leave the links to scholarly research out, but retain those to pious sites. If however this article is meant – in the first instance at least – to summarise any known facts, or their absence, and the relevant assertions in the authoritative writings and the scholarly deductions, then why delete also the links to scholarly sites and New Testament authorities that enable the Wikipedia visitors to learn about the subject, or certain related problems, in greater detail? In view of the fact that said editor also removed external links elsewhere, the present writer got the prima facie impression that the editor deleted the external links to serve his own bias, rather than to improve Wikipedia and the service it aims to render its visitors. 14:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi guys. Jesus rocks. The information on 'Article' is well good! im doing homework on her right now. does anyone know about anywhere else i can get information on the fascinating life of that amazing woman? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.45.112 ( talk • contribs) .
The following passage is misleading.
While it is technically true to say that Orthodox believe Mary was conceived immaculate, Orthodox do not believe in the same idea of original sin as the West, and they believe all babies are born immaculate. Sin is not considered ontological in Orthodoxy, only the tendency toward it. (This tendency is referenced by the phrase, "ancestral curse," which sometimes leads to confusion on the Orthodox view of the fall.) Mary is considered sinless in the Orthodox Church because it is believed that the grace of God allowed her not to sin, thereby remaining immaculate. So in the Orthodox view, it seems Mary was conceived immaculately but her conception was not out of the ordinary in any way.
This is more correct:
The Orthodox do not believe in the immaculate conception. Mary was born with the same identical characteristics as every human (i.e. Original Sin). It is in the moment of Christ’s incarnation within her that she is cleansed of this fallen human nature. While it is true that the Orthodox believe that by God’s grace she never committed any sins, to describe her conception as something special very nearly removes her from the human race, which would likewise remove Christ from the human race. Also the idea that she had to be a pure vessel before Christ’s conception is not an Orthodox concept as it leads to questions of how Joachim and Anna, Mary’s parents could have managed to have conceived immaculately, themselves not being immaculate. -- Phiddipus 21:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The follwoing appears before the table of contents: "Most Christians and Muslims understand the Gospel accounts in this respect to mean that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, the Son of God, through a miracle of God."
I think this sentence tries to say that Christians consider Jesus the son of God. However, it puts the word "Muslims" beside "Christians", therefore implying that Muslims belive that Jesus is Son of God, which is incorrect. This should be better worded. Bless sins 04:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Jesus isn't the Son of God because he is born by a virgin? He is the Son of God because he has always been the Son of God and is/will be. Correct me if I'm wrong. Logically: Jesus is the son of God, so he HAD to be born by a virgin (with God being the real father) and not: he is a born by a virgin, so he is the son of God. I think this is a big difference.
Blubberbrein2
08:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I found out that "The Son of God" is explicitly mentioned in (the apocryphal) 2 Esdras, for example chapter 13, also the term "Son of men" who will receive an eternal kingship and who will be served by all nations and people, is coined, among them Daniel 7:13,14 and Psalm 2
Shouldn't there be a section in this article explaining the most likely (non-divine) explanitions for the virgin birth? Kernow 16:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
There is such a thing as a non-divine virgin birth actually. See Parthenogenesis. Clinkophonist 19:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The following piece of text doesn't really appear to add anything of significance to an article on the Virgin Mary and should therefore be removed. The main reason it should be removed is that an almost identical explanation of the non-Christian view of the Virgin Birth is already included earlier in the article (See section "Ancient non-Christian Sources"). Although I recognize Kernow's very poignant two points, it needs to me more throroughly fleshed out in a way that respects dogma and contributes to a better understanding of Mary the Virgin if dicussion of rape is to be included in the article (although such a discussion probably belongs in a different article). Furthermore, is it really necessary to state that non-Christians and non-Muslims doubt the Virgin Birth? That seems a moot point; one of the reasons why people are non-Christian or non-Muslim is because they don't believe in the Virgin Birth or other Christian/Muslim beliefs. I recommend deletion of the following text, unless otherwise discussed here promptly.
What is the signifigance of the winged heart with a sword pierced through it, i have heard that it is related to the virgin mary but how and why
-- voodoom 05:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to describe Santeria as a non-Abrahamic religion? john k 20:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
If the proper section on the Christian and Muslim view do not already make it clear that they view Mary as a non-divine, historical figure, you can add that information there. There is no reason for this information to be included in the non-Abrahamic section. Why is it not good enough for this information to be included on the Christian and Muslim POV sections? It seems like POV pushing to preface or otherwise qualify the non-Abrahamic view. Please consider not adding your information to this section.-- Andrew c 16:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Pictureuploader 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering where the cite is for Calvin's alleged support of Mary's perpetual virginity. I've combed a number of internet sources for it, and the most I've come up with is a quote attributed to him by Lemming,
"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ." Bernard Leeming, "Protestants and Our Lady", Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.
However, I've been unable to verify the original quote in Calvin's writings. Anyone? -- jrcagle 15:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I thought Moses was under a Judaism template, but it's not. Still, I think given the importance of Madonna in Christianity (much more than in Islam), the Christianity template should be included. That doesn't mean that Islamic categories can't be included, but a Christianity template would override an Islam one. Jesus is important in Islam as a prophet (but not the Son of God), but given its greater importance in Christianity, it includes the Christianity template.
exists, in a number of animals, including mammals. It has nothing to do with artificial cloning, happens naturally, and can be induced scientifically. Its scientific name is Parthenogenesis and should be discussed, even if only a little, in the article. Clinkophonist 19:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is supposed to be the main article, but it is totaly dominated by the Christian view. This is pov.
This needs to be changed accordingly:
Article can be named "Mary, mother of Jesu" or "Virgin mary", for the example, i picked "Virgin Mary".
I know this will not be popular among my Christian brothers, but it is the only NPOV thing to do. Peace. -- Striver 20:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it neccesary to either restrict editing on this page for the time being or to block, temporarily or otherwise, 203.221.23.225? Repeated vandalism on this page by this user has occured repeatedly, and contributions of 203.221.23.225 indicate that such vandalism is systematic. I am unsure of how to respond - please inform. -- Gregorof 04:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and ask for "semi-protection", which will prevent anonymous and "new" users from editing the article. Clinkophonist 15:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
In depictions of Mary, the color blue is often used. What is its significance?— Wasabe3543 19:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The color blue is the color of empresses, the sky and sapphires. Red is the color of suffering. Mary was shown wearing blue from about 500 BCE- 1000 BCE, then it shifted to red. Here's a reference for you if you would like to add this information to the article. -- Iriseyes 14:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Should we work in anything about her age? Most estimates I've seen said she was in the range of 12-14 years of age when Jesus was born. I think it'd be an interesting piece of information for a number of readers. Owen 02:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Five things to remember when determining Mary's age. 1. The Bible gives on age. 2. Her 'tapeinosis' 3. She is very articulate. (Luke 1:46-55) 4. She owned her own house. (Luke 1:56) 5. She traveled hundreds of miles by herself. rem486—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.255.57.114 ( talk • contribs) 08:02, 3 August 2007.
Like a lot of articles on wikipedia, this one has a weak lead section. See WP:LEAD. I added Protestant viewpoints to the lead and it was deleted because it's "alreay covered." (FTR, I'm not trying to promote the Protestant viewpoint.) But a lead section is supposed to summarize material that's already covered. If not, what's it supposed to summarize, material that's not on the page? One should be able to get the gist of the topic from the lead section alone. Without the Protestant information, the lead gives that impression that Mary's role in Christianity is noncontroversial. Jonathan Tweet 04:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Common knowledge is not original research. If you think "criticize" is strong enough and "condemn" is too strong, try this [3]. For that matter, you can google "Mary queen of heaven idolatry satan" as easily as I, If you're surprised by what you find, that would explain your resistance to the verb "condemn." Jonathan Tweet 18:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
F, "If you leave in condemn, then I will add embrace." We have a deal. My point is that we should portray the array of beliefs about Mary, not any particular angle. Lots of my opponents want to prevent information from being added to religious pages, but not me. The fact that some Protestants embrace Mary is a fine addition to the lead. Jonathan Tweet 19:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Did Isaiah prophecy that a virgin would give birth, and did Mary and Jesus fulfill that prophecy? According to Matthew, yes. To divorce Mary's virginity from this prophecy is. . . I don't know what it is. Matthew clearly states that the prophecy was about a virgin (even if Isaiah doesn't). Or is the Greek text ambiguous just like the Hebrew? Jonathan Tweet 16:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I answered my own question, with this article
[4] by Geza Verme, who is a Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford. His latest book is The Nativity: History and Legend. He explains how Mary was probably not a virgin in the modern sense of the word. I'll add this link to the article, but should there not be some section about this issue?
Giovanni33
22:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
LC, it's two to one, virgin over maiden. Isaiah is maiden. LXX is virgin. Matthew is virgin. The Holy Spirit made sure that Matthew wrote correctly. If the Holy Spirit says Isaiah meant virgin, he meant virgin. Plus, this is a NT topic, and the NT presentation should prevail. You deleted information about Matthew citing "virgin" for no reason other than that it worked against your preferred reading of the text. Jonathan Tweet 05:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's important to point out the following:
Giovanni33, what evidence would you present that Mary was not a virgin? The fact that she gave birth is not decisive, since everyone agrees that she was pregnant -- the question is how it happened. The article to which you linked was rather speculative. jrcagle 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the anglicans and lutherans in other places, but in the modern view of german lutheran theologists, veneration of Mary is against the first Commandment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.64.122.11 ( talk) 21:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
I am a little confused reading this article. It seems to be written mainly from a Catholic viewpoint/teachings. Being raised Protestant all of my life, I disagree with what is being written. Most Protestants DO believe in the Immaculate Conception of Jesus Christ, but we do not believe in perpetual virginity. Most Protestants believe that Jesus had earthly brothers and sisters AFTER He was born, in fact the N.T. specifically names some of Jesus' siblings...literally and figuratively, as in siblings and brothers and sisters in Christ...fellow believers. I do tend to believe that Catholics idolize Mary. I have never been taught, nor have I read that Mary was completely without sin. In fact, it does specifically say in the Bible that only Jesus was without sin, being the Son of God and also God Himself. I have never read in the Bible where it says it's okay to pray through the Virgin Mary (Protestants also refer to Mary as this). Clearly, Protestants believe the only way to the Father is through the Son...not Mary. Protestants do not believe in praying to the Virgin Mary, because no where is it scripturally correct...at least not in any version of the Bible I have ever read (KJ, NKJ, NIV, NLT). Mary was definitely blessed by God and "favored" by God and she was certainly the "chosen" to be the earthly mother of the Son of God, but that doesn't mean she is to be idolized by being prayed to or having shrines built in her honor. It would be okay to have shrines in honor of Jesus because Protestants believe in the Trinity...Jesus is God and; therefore, we are able to honor and praise God by building shrines. I have never been taught anything about Mary's death. Protestants probably do not believe it is relevant (maybe that is wrong term) in the teaching of Christ. I do believe that if Mary did descend into Heaven it would be specifically listed as it with Jesus and Elijah. Certainly Mary should be praised for who and what she was...the chosen one by God...Mary, Mother of Jesus, but really that is as far as it should go. I don't mean to offend anyone. I just think that if you are going to be writing from a mainly Catholic viewpoint, you need to also write from a Protestant viewpoint. Neither viewpoint is correct and neither viewpoint is wrong. (Can't you tell I'm just an ordinary Christian and not a "scholar" or theologian?)...Meg4Christ
This article is listed as A-class for both the Saints and Catholicism WikiProjects. Has it been nominated as a good article any time recently? If not, should it be? -- Pastordavid 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ooops...I wrote this under the wrong section. If someone can move it for me I would greatly appreciate it...Thanks...Meg4Christ
I was wondering if anyone could comment at Talk:Mother of God on merging that article (which was only recently created, and doesn't contain much original content) here and to Theotokos. Any comments would be appreciated- Andrew c 02:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The article at present gives the etymology of Maryām as Bitter. Other possibilities, however, are "sea", "strong waters", etc. Given that this was a personal name, the others seem more probable. Whatever the case, we may wish to include a better presentation of the matter. Lostcaesar 22:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Lima, thanks for the clarification, but there's a slight difference in perception here. Those churches are dedicated to the Conception of the Theotokos by St Anna, celebrated 9th December, and for convenience and easier familiarity to the rest of the Catholic world, they've decided to use the term 'immaculate conception'. Eastern Catholics do not use the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin and hence don't understand the term 'immaculate conception' in the same way. InfernoXV 15:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The Eastern Orthodox Point of View is: Original sin represents a change in human nature caused by Adams disobedience. This change in human nature applies to all humans including the Virgin Mary, i.e. the Virgin Mary had Original Sin. When Christ was incarnate he changed human nature again, uniting it with the divine. He had no Original sin, and because he took flesh from the Virgin Mary, he cleansed her of original sin the moment he was conceived. Other than her participation in human nature, she was sinless. From this point of view, the Immaculate Conception of Mary is completely unnecessary.-- Phiddipus 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I should point out that Kyr John's view represents a majority of Eastern Catholic bishops but is not universally held. There is a minority of Eastern Catholic bishops who take issue with specific dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception -- see Archbishop Elias Zoghby as an example.
While the Eastern Catholic Churches I am familiar with formally subscribe to Catholic dogmatic views such as the Immaculate Conception, Inferno's original assertion that "Eastern Catholics do not use the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin and hence don't understand the term 'Immaculate Conception' in the same way" is a valid observation. Certainly many Eastern Catholics use different terms and concepts to describe the spotless nature of the Theotokos. This is natural, given their different traditions and practices.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the similarity of faith and beliefs between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. While differences exist in some matters of faith, it's not outrageous for a Catholic bishop or theologian to explore the merits of the Orthodox position.
I am impressed by the gentle, thoughtful tone Kyr John uses in describing this complex issue. We would all do well to be considerate of other editors when we advocate positions. Majoreditor 16:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Will Andrew c, Goldfritha, A.J.A., or anybody else please explain to me on what grounds they claim that two verifiable facts may not be mentioned:
These facts seem to be decidedly pertinent in the context of the advocating of the view that:
Rather than joining in their edit war, I look forward to reading the explanation tomorrow, at least if it is a reasoned explanation. Lima 19:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Lima, but I think his (her?) original edit summary ( show weakness of argument) was misleading. If I, with no prior interest in an article and no prior knowledge of the subject, saw that edit summary, I'd immediately think "original research". However, looking at the actual addition, separated from the edit summary, I don't see it as original research. It doesn't seem reasonable for the article to assert, as a fact, that "brother" means "brother" in a particular context, and to remove any attempt to show the other side. This is also a useful link. Oh, and Lima, while I agree with your edit, I think it has to be worded more simply. It's so complicated that you have to read it three times before it makes sense! ElinorD (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Before addressing the text, I would like to ask you to please discuss civilly and stop misrepresenting the issue. The text currently asserts that "Protestants believe Y", not "Y". You're asking it to say "Protestants believe Y. However, not Y."
The text you've inserted makes two claims.
Which is irrelevant. It's sloppy polemic, not encyclopedic.
Which would be acceptable in the form "So and so, citing the LXX translation of 1 Chronicles 23:22, says..." But not in the current form. A.J.A. 16:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I've remained quiet and mostly ignored this discussion because I respect both of you as established editors in good standing. However, I apologize for not speaking up earlier. I hate it when I am in a content dispute with another editor and no one else chimes in. First of all, it seems like things are getting a heated, and you could both do well with taking it a little bit easier. There is no need to make personal quips about the other party that doesn't have to do with article content. Reviewing the dispute, I can see why it is so heated. This is a significant point of theological contention. It seems like both parties believe that their interpretation of the situation is The Truth, and therefore this has come through in the back and forth editing and the debate/rebuttal aspects being introduced into the article. Also, there is a lot of source piling going on.
So here is what I think. One good source is better than 5 semi-ok sources. It isn't a matter of who has the most sources wins. We just need to make the information verifiable to the reader; we don't need to present a web directory on the topic. Part of NPOV is presenting arguments with due weight. So saying that one position is a majority view is ok, but phrasing it in a way such as "thus an absolute majority of Christians" is just introducing unencyclopedic commentary. Also, I do not believe adding all the information about Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek is helpful to understanding the topic Mary (mother of Jesus). We have Desposyni and Perpetual virginity of Mary where that information seems more relevant. We don't need to re-invent the wheel by writing a whole new write up that exists already on two different articles. I'm concerned that we will either create a discrepancy on wikipedia, or a subsection grows to contain more information that the spinout article. So, I believe this section has definitely gotten bloated in the past few days. Reading through the May 6th version, I find the older version better constructed, more concise, and more encyclopedic. We simply need to say "The majority believes Y because of reason A, B, and C. These historical people/groups also believed Y. Some protestants believe X because of these other reasons." We can't take sides. We can say who has the majority view, and we can explain their reasons. - Andrew c 15:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Regarding these sentences:
The first sentence is based on the Eastern Orthodox feast the Dormition of the Theotokos. The second suggests that the Roman Catholic tradition is different, but I think they are the same. The Eastern Orthodox also teaches her bodily assumption, but that the assumption happened shortly after she died a normal human death. Is the Catholic teaching that she was assumed bodily before death, like Elijah, or that she died and was then assumed bodily into Heaven? If the latter, this could probably be reworded slightly, possibly by introducing both sentences with "According to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition", since the tradition arose long before the schism and is still shared by both branches. May as well make the most of what the two have in common. -- Wesley
Should we mention the term Magnificat as in "my soul magnifies the Lord" which either Mary or Elizabeth said to the other upon their first meeting (regarding the impending miraculous birth)? -- Ed Poor
I don't mean to step on any toes, but I question the propriety of the title, which seems to me to reflect a Roman Catholic bias. (And I mean that in the nicest possible way, you understand.) There are a lot of Christians who do not believe in the virgin birth, before you get to the Moslems who venerate Jesus, before you get to the people of all the other faiths. Would it not be better to call this article, "Mary, the mother of Jesus" to stick to what is factual and not a matter of faith? -- isis
Most commonly known in what circles, please? I can't speak for the millions of other folks in the world who never refer to her that way (BTW the Bible doesn't, either), but I'd still find it offensive in what is supposed to be a secular reference book. -- isis
Sorry, I meant "secular" in the sense of "non-religious," not "anti-religious." (The subject is touchy enough without my being more offensive by using pejorative terms.) Many Protestants, even those who believe in the virgin birth because the Bible says so, believe Mary stopped being a virgin by about nine months before her second child was born. That's why "BVM" has always been a Catholic (or high church) term. -- isis
Before the Reformation, all Christians were Catholics -- that's why it's called the "Protestant Reformation." Yes, of course there need to be redirects from "Virgin Mary," because some people will want to look up that term. I don't see how anyone who believes Jesus was an actual person can quibble if we say his mother's name was Mary, because she had to have a name, and they can't prove it wasn't that. I don't see why anyone who thinks Jesus never existed can quibble, because then it's the same as if we say Hera was the mother of Ares, isn't it? -- isis
May I suggest that the page be clearly organized to begin with what everyone (at least, all Christians, but preferably everyone else who accepts the historical existance of this woman) agrees is true about Mary -- even if it is a short paragraph saying that she married Joseph and had a son; then a section on what all Christians believe; then sections on what different groups of Christians, or Churches, believe, including how they refer to Mary? Just an idea, Slrubenstein
Wesley: You say tomato, I say potato -- or something like that. What you call "Orthodox" I call "Eastern Catholic," and those folks that call themselves "Anglicans" I call "English Catholics." Anyhow, did your message mean you want me to change it? I was sort of hoping somebody else would, because I haven't learned to do a redirect yet. (I needed to do one earlier today and couldn't.) So if you want me to do it, please tell me how (or, please tell me how anyhow, because I need to learn). -- isis
I think anyone who makes a really good suggestion like that should do it, and the rest of us should thank them. Why, what do you think about it? -- isis
What "evidence" is there that the Septuagint was translated from a missing text, and what serious biblical scholars actually believe this?
Question about "The establishment of this dogma as "necessary to salvation" is widely taken to be an example of the Pope invoking papal infallibility." Is the establishment of something as "dogma" make it "necessary to salvation" in Catholic theology? Or was this established as "necessary to salvation" at a later date that we have not yet mentioned in the text? Either we need to define "dogma" as used by the Catholic Church or add some other fact to the text. Rmhermen 09:46 Aug 19, 2002 (PDT)
If the Pope announces it ex cathedra as a matter of dogma, Catholics have to believe it or go to hell. -- isis
Just copied the Talk discussion here from the old the Virgin Mary page. Wesley
Attempted to reorder the different sections and add headings, as Slrubenstein suggested. I tried not to change much of the actual text and maintain NPOV, but I'm sure it will need a bit of help. I just hope the overall layout is helpful. The main reason I divided it up into different beliefs, is that each belief is a very specific claim, and generally has different historic groups affirming and denying it for different reasons. So, it seemed clearest and most accurate to deal with each belief or claim separately. Wesley
Wesley: Nice job so far. Now, one of the versions you need to deal with is the (old Roman? current Jewish?) story that Jesus's father was a soldier named Panderos or Pantheras or something. -- isis
See that you do -- there'll be a pop quiz at the end of the week. ;-) -- isis
All you've done is prove you haven't read Talmud; I and thousands of others who have read it know this isn't true -- no such story in Talmud, it's a canard.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.249.198.17 ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 June 2007.
Great -- that's way more details than I remembered about it. Didn't the story come up in I, Claudius? Anyhow, in the nastier versions of the story, Mary was a temple prostitute instead of a temple weaver. -- isis
Given the removal of the painting of Jesus at the Jesus Christ article, I wonder whether this picture should be removed as well? For starters, it seems highly unlikely that Mary had blonde hair, and this is an article about Mary, not about paintings of Mary. Wesley 17:14 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)
The most prominent leaders of the Reformation, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin also stoutly defended the perpetual virginity of Mary against those who questioned it.
In the opening we state that 'it is generally accepted that Mary died ...' while later we state that the doctrine of the Catholic church (tens of millions of people) is that she was assumed into heaven. I don't know enough to make a more accurate statement though. DJ Clayworth 13:33, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Yes yes, I know I am going straight to hell, but I felt that just a paragraph or two from the secular historian's perspective might provide a fig-leaf of objectivity for this vast edifice of Christian propaganda you have all so diligently constructed. Pax vobiscum, Adam 11:51, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Adam, do not make silly jokes, please. If you want to edit an article, feel free, and as long as you do it properly and your edit is reasonable, nobody will blame you for anything. Maybe you meant agnostic historian instead of secular? Nobody knows wether you are going to hell or not, and saying it won't help anybody, just make your comment be seen as little serious. Pfortuny 21:03, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I have rephrased your paragraphs, Adam, but if you feel they have been damaged, please do revert. On the other hand, as those aspects are (supposedly, but I'm not sure) treated elsewhere (or they should, at least), I think a shorter explanation could suffice. For example:
But first, I need to find the link and then get an acceptation. Pfortuny 21:16, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
A historian who critically considers a source which describes miracles may be a secular historian. A historian who believes in the miracles described in a source is not -- he will assume that there is some simpler explanation ( Ockham's Razor) for what is described in the source, including, of course, the possibility that miraculous claims were invented entirely. The more religious a text is, the less reliable it generally is as a historical source, also because such texts tend to become highly politicized and change over time more than other texts.
Adam's summary of the state of historical knowledge on the matter is accurate. It is however unlikely that the Christians working on this article will miraculously convert to become atheists or agnostics. A preemptive attack is unnecessary; as long as the principal authors of this page accept the additional secular perspective, everything is fine.
I'm increasingly considering the possibility that it might be desirable to keep the secular and religious spheres on Wikipedia separate, as they obviously are totally incompatible. —Eloquence
Some comments in reply: If the article was called The figure of Mary in Christian tradition and devotion or something like that, I would not have touched it. That is a perfectly legitimate article to write, and I would read it with interest and respect for the scholarship displayed. But an article with the present title must contain at least some consideration of the question of whether any such person as Mary ever existed, and whether any of her actions and qualities as set out in Christian tradition can be historically verified.
(This question does not arise with Agamemnon, whom nobody today supposes to be a historical figure. See my comments at Troy and Trojan War, where I inserted a similar paragraph.)
In reply to Pfortuny - all historians are agnostics, at least while engaged in history-writing, otherwise they cannot to their job. A historian approaches all sources with scepticism. S/he asks: where did this document come from? who wrote it? with what intention?
In reply to Wesley - As I said in the long discussion at Jesus Christ, I accept that the narrative of the life of Jesus in the Christian Gospels is historical in broad outline. For reasons suggested by Eloquence, I do not accept the supernatural parts of that narrative (such as the Resurrection) as historical fact, because a higher standard of proof is required before I can believe something which modern scientific knowledge holds to be impossible. No ancient document, and certainly not one written by members of the religious group which is propagating that belief, can persuade me that such an event took place.
I point out, however, that many Christians believe these things while at the same time acknowledging that they are unverifiable by modern science or history - their belief is based on faith. It always puzzles me that some Christians feel the need to bolster their faith by pseudo-science and pseudo-history. I respect religious faith. I do not respect the distortion of historical method to prove the unprovable.
What applies to Jesus also applied to Mary, only more so. As I said, I have no difficulty believing that Jesus had a mother called Mary. But how can the Gospels be a historically valid source for events such as the Immaculate Conception or the Virgin Birth? Can the authors of the Gospels, writing some time in the mid 1st Century, claim to have had first-hand knowledge of the sex-life of Mary and Joseph and of Mary's mother? It is patently obvious to the secular historian that these are pious inventions of the early Christians.
As to Pfortuny's changes to my text, I have no real problem with them, but I have tinkered a bit further. He has changed "theory" to "theology." Does the study of Mary come under theology? I thought theology was the study of God and his Word. I have suggested "tradition" as an alternative. I have acknowledged Wesley's point that there are some other early Christian sources. Pfortuny has changed "supposition" to "tradition," which makes us say that "tradition is based on tradition," which isn't very helpful. I have suggested an alternative.
Adam 02:57, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
There is such a thing as "mariology", the study of Mary within Christian theology. Who Mary is and what we call her is important theologically because that affects what we think about God. See the Theotokos article.
Wesley 17:54, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Wesley writes: "your approach to history is certainly the approach most widely adopted by post-Enlightenment Western historians, but it is not the only approach; to pretend it is is POV."
Wesley is entitled to take a "pre-Enlightenment" view of knowledge if he likes, but he can't pretend it is history. Nor can it really belong in an encyclopaedia, which is by definition a rationalist project, unless it is clearly labelled as theology rather than history. I don't claim to be a theologian, so I am grateful for Wesley's clarification of the Immaculate Conception. I just point out that there isn't a scrap of historical evidence for any of the things he describes. During the debates at Jesus Christ and Mother Theresa, however, I learned the futility of arguing with Christians about these matters, so I won't be saying any more about this. Adam 02:51, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I will believe in virgin births and resurrections when I see one, or at least read an account of one in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, not when I read about them in religious tracts (even very old religious tracts). Both Homer and the Bhagavad Gita are much older than the Gospels, by the way - do you believe everything you read there? No, you believe the Gospels, not because they are old but because you want to believe them. But there's really no point in arguing about this, since we are talking out of different sides of our brains. I'm happy that the article makes a small gesture in the direction of historical materialism before plunging into the realms of mythology. Adam 00:50, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
PS, Wesley, since you take an interest in Christian history, perhaps you could have a look at the work I did on History of Greek and Roman Egypt and do an edit if you think it necessary on the paragraphs on Arianism and Monophysitism, subjects which are a bit outside my field but which were politically very important at that time. I'm sure there are improvements to be made. Adam 00:57, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'm more surprised that you didn't have any changes to make to my explanation of the nature Monophysitism. This was the bit I was sure was in need of correction. Merry Xmas, Adam 15:22, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
"Christian theology holds that Jesus was a virgin birth." - Possibly a typo ?
I just noticed that Mary, Mother of God redirects here. Would Blessed Virgin Mary or Theotokos be a more appropriate target? Smerdis of Tlön 17:52, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
No way. Even Protestants (well, those who think carefully about what it means : p) accept that Mary was the Mother of God, so it's reasonable to redirect to a fairly friendly article rather than the (I've got to be careful here) ... interesting views of the Catholic Church on such matters. Wooster 16:40, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Someone should edit out the lines about the Septuagent being based off a different Hebrew text, because there is no support for it that I can find and it goes against the common knowledge about the Hebrew texts
Mary was and is a common subject of painting and other artwork in the West. I wonder if more images of her might be added, here or elsewhere? It would be interesting to see a historical comparison of depictions of Mary in art. I don't know enough about the subject to write such an article. -- jacobolus (t) 15:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have seen it claimed that the depictions of Mary in Western art derive from the idol in the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus: the city where an Ecumenical Council proclaimed her Mother of God. The Roman Diana and Greek Artemis were perpetual virgins, but Cybele, whom the goddess of Ephesus resembled, had the title of Mother of Gods. I have no reference for this hypothesis, which I saw on television some time ago. NRPanikker 22:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Do we have any references for this? While the general writings about the place of Mary seem reasonable, the specific connections between Shakespeare and Mary seem a little far-fetched. Have we anything to indicate that this is mroe than just someone's idea? DJ Clayworth 17:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why does this article claim that Luke 3 gives a genealogy of Mary (rather than Joseph)? People used to claim that, in an attempt to be rid of the contradiction between this and the genealogy of Joseph in Matthew, but few hold this view these days. The same goes for Luke 1:32. And what's with the claim Mary was cousin by marriage to Elisabeth? Luke 1:36 just says something like "kinswoman". Josh Cherry 04:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As the Da Vinci Code fictional story, Many disbelieve, that Mary had descendants through Jesus having children, as inconsistent with their core beliefs in Christianity imputing that if Jesus had children he didnt die on the cross and go to heaven. But Jesus having children was prophecied serveral times in Isaiah See -
... and so, then the subject cannot be blythly ignored with off point attacks about timing as Jesus having had children before he died on the cross and went to heaven, is not inconsistent with any Christian belief.
The only source for a rational discussion of this is the book, The Jesus Presidents laying it all out vs the off point rants about this or that and attempting to bad mouth Da Vinci Code's accurate facts in regard to the descendants of Jesus.
See Jesus Descendants to Today to Many Readers and ? You ?
Is there any reason why her name is 'Bitter'?..... -- Menchi 01:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This edit is NOT mine (as can be verified from the summary history page). I have no time to pick over the history to establish who contributed this section and in what form. If someone is concerned that I may have been trying to play around with their contribution in this respect, let me assure him/her that I have not. (I have to admit, I have not even read it yet.) Portress 12:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I removed the sentence that said 'A few scholars argue that the Greek term parthenos in Luke 1:27 does not necessarily have to mean "virgin [intacta]" but that there is also evidence for it signifying any "young woman."'
This is not relevant for the issue of whether Mary was a virgin. Even if you assume that almah and parthenos have nothing to do with virginity, the virginity of Mary is clearly attested in Matt 1:18, Matt 1:20, Matt 1:25, Luke 1:34, Luke 1:35. None of these verses use these words or any related words.
So you can believe these stories to be fact or fiction, but their meaning doesn't depend on this word. The words almah and parthenos are very important for understanding Isaiah 7:14, and they are therefore very important to the dispute about whether Isaiah's prophecy referred to Mary (most Christians say it did; most Jews and atheists say it did not). Therefore these words are mentioned later on in the article in the discussion of Isaiah 7:14. But they add nothing to the discussion of the historicity of the virgin birth. Lawrence King 16:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
You are missing my point entirely. Suppose you are right, and Luke didn't say that "Mary, a virgin, had no relations with anyone before the birth of her child". Suppose that instead he wrote that "Mary, a young woman, had no relations with anyone before the birth of her child." In either case he is saying the same thing. The meaning of parthenos is totally irrelevant to whether Matthew and Luke were asserting Mary's virginity.
This has nothing to do with Catholic scholarship, Protestant scholarship, atheist scholarship, or anything else. It is just opening the text and reading it. It would violate NPOV for us to claim that Luke's story is true or to claim it was false. I am not doing that at all; I am just pointing out what Luke's story says. Lawrence King 07:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
One other point: There are a number of scholars, Christian and non-Christian, who do not accept that Jesus was born of a virgin. I do not believe that a single one of these scholars says that "I believe the gospels to be literally true in every word -- but the word parthenos doesn't mean virgin." Rather, the vast majority of those scholars (Christian or otherwise) who disbelieve in the virgin birth are not Biblical literalists. Your statement implies that the main contention is the meaning of this word. Lawrence King 07:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I think understand what you mean now: the question of historicity is connected to the question of whether Mary was still alive decades after the birth of her son; this is related to the question of Mary's age at Jesus' birth; this is related to the question of "young woman" and thus to the meaning of parthenos. Is this right?
The vast majority of historians are more willing to accept the historicity of (much of) the Gospels' stories of Jesus' adulthood and the early church -- including Mary's presence there -- than they are to accept the historicity of the infancy narratives. So I didn't expect that the section called "Historicity" would include a discussion of Mary's age.
If you think others might have similar confusion, you might want to rearrange this text so that the age issue comes earlier in the paragraph and is thus more clear. Lawrence King 05:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
what is the traditional date for Mary's birthday? I have a medieval text here saying "die post festum nativitatis marie virginis". What date would that be?
But: Mary was only human. The reason that Jesus was divine, is because He came down from the Father's presence in Heaven; and Mariam became pregnant by the "over-shadowing of the Holy Spirit". Mariam didn't come down from Heaven. She was born to human parents, in the natural way; and was thus included in the curse of the Fall of Mankind in the Garden of Eden. Mary's nature was human, and therefore, contained "original sin", which had been inherited by humanity from our ancestor, Adam.
Most of her shrines were torn down by the Protestants in England (but the Protestants didn't burn the Catholics at the stake for practicing idolatry.) - 129.24.93.219 Correct 129.24.93.219, the English Protestants didn't burn Catholics at the stake. Instead they ruthlessly persecuted Irish Catholics from the time of the Reformation until 1829 for simply practising thier religion. True they didn't burn them at the stake, but they did shoot them, hang them, torture them, cover their heads in hot tar and set fire to them, send them to enslavement in the Caribbean............ I am most certainly not defending any persecution of Protestants. I absolutely abhor religious persecution, being myself of descent from Irish Protestants and Irish Catholics and living in Ireland (a nation still scarred (but thankfully cured) from religious persecution), but I don't want people to have a biased opinion of hitory either. 86.43.67.204 23:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
"not of herself divine" implies some sort of imputed or deputed divinity. Who teaches this? I have changed the text to the simpler and more accurate "Mary is not divine". Also the antecedent for "they" in "they point out" is unclear: Does it refer to theologians, or to the Catholic and Orthodox belief which is the main subject of the previous sentence. patsw 20:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I object to the description of veneration to the BVM as a "Catholic Cult". On the basis of Cult: "However, in common usage, "cult" has a negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group by its opponents, for a variety of possible reasons."
As such, I have rephrased the opening line to read "Catholic practice of veneration". Oliver Keenan 16:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the edit 02:44, 28 December 2005 Codex Sinaiticus m (→Perpetual virginity - This doesn't make sense, you can't use a negative to 'prove' a negative. But do replace it if you can find a source for such an argument) that removed the line They find no scriptural mention of Mary not having other children, and consequently find no scriptural basis for the doctrine of perpetual virginity.
I ask you: How does no mention prove it to be true? The line removed does make sense because the idea of perpetual virginity as a dogma that you must accept or be a heretic has no scriptural basis. No where is it mentioned that she never had other children, however, there is evidence (though others disagree) to the contrary, that she did have other children. It seems like a conclusion in search of evidence. But no one is going to write that, so the contrary view is that it has no scriptural basis, especially in light of evidence otherwise (in the view of those who disagree). Deut 4:2 (KJV) "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Revelation 22:18 (KJV) "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book..."
Regarding the recently inserted "implied" evidence...the wording now with "explicit" and the immediately following sentence about the implied reference is really not allowing an opposing view to stand by itself. Let's not force the idea that the people being discussed that disagree have found no "explicit" mention, but have found an "implicit" one, that's not so.
If this is an argument for "brothers" meaning only in a spiritual sense, I submit John 2:12 where Jesus, his mother, his "brothers" and his disciples are mentioned separately as implicit evidence against that argument, as well as the references to the same people being Jesus' brothers and the mention of his sisters, and so on.
Additionally, Mark 3:31-35, where Jesus is informed "thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee" (KJV) outside the house. Then Jesus says: "Who is my mother, or my brethren?" He looks around the room and answers "Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." This is used by proponents of the idea that all mentions of brothers/brethren are spiritual in meaning, but the problem with that is: what sense would the analogy make if Jesus was linking spiritual brothers to spiritual brothers? Put yourself in the room. If the people outside *with his real mother* were just spiritual brothers, then how effective was his point? Is he saying *they* are not doers of God's will, or would it only make sense if the people with his real mother were his real brothers? Replace "brethren" with "spiritual brothers" and re-read it. Only if they were his familial brothers would the point he made be clear.
My point is, in regards to the recent edit, why cannot an opposing view with evidence stand on it's own? What one group feels is explicit or implicit evidence the other disagrees with, and vice versa. I hardly think the way it's worded now is fair to the opposing view. Should we be adding implicit evidence to the contrary of implicit evidence, ad nauseum? Perhaps that part could be re-worded, then? Oscillate 16:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your information, Oscillate. Even though I should only have given facts and not opinions, my comment was looking like Wikinfo! (My comment is fixed a bit, but feel free to put it in a format more usable for Wikipedia users.) Should we try the table idea I mentioned? One thing I forgot to mention in my fallible comment was Luke 1:34: "Then said Mary unto the angel, 'How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?'(KJV)" In the related text, it does not mention where the angel says Mary was going to have a virgin birth before Mary asks this question (although Matthew 1:22-23 does settle the aspect that it was a virgin birth). But why would Mary ask THAT?!? I do not know. Do you have any ideas? All these verses in the Bible fit together somehow (Christ started a full-Gospel Church, not a "selective Gospel verses Church"), so all full-Gospel Christian churches should arrive at the same non-Wikinfo conclusion. JBogdan 19:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Oscillate, where are you? I guess I get to do the table by myself. Please fix it if it needs it. JBogdan 00:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and Joseph. Kinda mean to expect him to stay a virgin forever too. He needs to get him some as well. It's necessary for a good healthy marriage and proper non-fighting-each-other parents for Jesus.
There are many more external links here than my reading of WP:EL would support. I was going to remove a number which appear to be either homepages or monographs, but on checking and none of these really seemed to add much to what is a nicely-crafted and informative article.
Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/ [C] AfD? 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The recent editor of the external links deemed it appropriate to delete them all. His above stated reasons for doing so show that he is not qualified in New Testament studies, nor does he claim to be so on his own page. He also does not seem to perceive a need to exercise the kind of tolerance that has made it possible for this article to attain this shape (although even its present state is nothing to boast about, as is shown by e.g. the problem of Mary's "other sons" and "daughters" that has recently been introduced into the article and still requires cleaning up). The rule about the number of desirable links tends to be applied in the English Wikipedia with discretion, and it is all the better for it, especially regarding difficult subjects like a religious one. If this article is supposed to be treated merely as a subject of piety, by all means leave the links to scholarly research out, but retain those to pious sites. If however this article is meant – in the first instance at least – to summarise any known facts, or their absence, and the relevant assertions in the authoritative writings and the scholarly deductions, then why delete also the links to scholarly sites and New Testament authorities that enable the Wikipedia visitors to learn about the subject, or certain related problems, in greater detail? In view of the fact that said editor also removed external links elsewhere, the present writer got the prima facie impression that the editor deleted the external links to serve his own bias, rather than to improve Wikipedia and the service it aims to render its visitors. 14:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi guys. Jesus rocks. The information on 'Article' is well good! im doing homework on her right now. does anyone know about anywhere else i can get information on the fascinating life of that amazing woman? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.45.112 ( talk • contribs) .
The following passage is misleading.
While it is technically true to say that Orthodox believe Mary was conceived immaculate, Orthodox do not believe in the same idea of original sin as the West, and they believe all babies are born immaculate. Sin is not considered ontological in Orthodoxy, only the tendency toward it. (This tendency is referenced by the phrase, "ancestral curse," which sometimes leads to confusion on the Orthodox view of the fall.) Mary is considered sinless in the Orthodox Church because it is believed that the grace of God allowed her not to sin, thereby remaining immaculate. So in the Orthodox view, it seems Mary was conceived immaculately but her conception was not out of the ordinary in any way.
This is more correct:
The Orthodox do not believe in the immaculate conception. Mary was born with the same identical characteristics as every human (i.e. Original Sin). It is in the moment of Christ’s incarnation within her that she is cleansed of this fallen human nature. While it is true that the Orthodox believe that by God’s grace she never committed any sins, to describe her conception as something special very nearly removes her from the human race, which would likewise remove Christ from the human race. Also the idea that she had to be a pure vessel before Christ’s conception is not an Orthodox concept as it leads to questions of how Joachim and Anna, Mary’s parents could have managed to have conceived immaculately, themselves not being immaculate. -- Phiddipus 21:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The follwoing appears before the table of contents: "Most Christians and Muslims understand the Gospel accounts in this respect to mean that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, the Son of God, through a miracle of God."
I think this sentence tries to say that Christians consider Jesus the son of God. However, it puts the word "Muslims" beside "Christians", therefore implying that Muslims belive that Jesus is Son of God, which is incorrect. This should be better worded. Bless sins 04:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Jesus isn't the Son of God because he is born by a virgin? He is the Son of God because he has always been the Son of God and is/will be. Correct me if I'm wrong. Logically: Jesus is the son of God, so he HAD to be born by a virgin (with God being the real father) and not: he is a born by a virgin, so he is the son of God. I think this is a big difference.
Blubberbrein2
08:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I found out that "The Son of God" is explicitly mentioned in (the apocryphal) 2 Esdras, for example chapter 13, also the term "Son of men" who will receive an eternal kingship and who will be served by all nations and people, is coined, among them Daniel 7:13,14 and Psalm 2
Shouldn't there be a section in this article explaining the most likely (non-divine) explanitions for the virgin birth? Kernow 16:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
There is such a thing as a non-divine virgin birth actually. See Parthenogenesis. Clinkophonist 19:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The following piece of text doesn't really appear to add anything of significance to an article on the Virgin Mary and should therefore be removed. The main reason it should be removed is that an almost identical explanation of the non-Christian view of the Virgin Birth is already included earlier in the article (See section "Ancient non-Christian Sources"). Although I recognize Kernow's very poignant two points, it needs to me more throroughly fleshed out in a way that respects dogma and contributes to a better understanding of Mary the Virgin if dicussion of rape is to be included in the article (although such a discussion probably belongs in a different article). Furthermore, is it really necessary to state that non-Christians and non-Muslims doubt the Virgin Birth? That seems a moot point; one of the reasons why people are non-Christian or non-Muslim is because they don't believe in the Virgin Birth or other Christian/Muslim beliefs. I recommend deletion of the following text, unless otherwise discussed here promptly.
What is the signifigance of the winged heart with a sword pierced through it, i have heard that it is related to the virgin mary but how and why
-- voodoom 05:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to describe Santeria as a non-Abrahamic religion? john k 20:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
If the proper section on the Christian and Muslim view do not already make it clear that they view Mary as a non-divine, historical figure, you can add that information there. There is no reason for this information to be included in the non-Abrahamic section. Why is it not good enough for this information to be included on the Christian and Muslim POV sections? It seems like POV pushing to preface or otherwise qualify the non-Abrahamic view. Please consider not adding your information to this section.-- Andrew c 16:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Pictureuploader 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering where the cite is for Calvin's alleged support of Mary's perpetual virginity. I've combed a number of internet sources for it, and the most I've come up with is a quote attributed to him by Lemming,
"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ." Bernard Leeming, "Protestants and Our Lady", Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.
However, I've been unable to verify the original quote in Calvin's writings. Anyone? -- jrcagle 15:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I thought Moses was under a Judaism template, but it's not. Still, I think given the importance of Madonna in Christianity (much more than in Islam), the Christianity template should be included. That doesn't mean that Islamic categories can't be included, but a Christianity template would override an Islam one. Jesus is important in Islam as a prophet (but not the Son of God), but given its greater importance in Christianity, it includes the Christianity template.
exists, in a number of animals, including mammals. It has nothing to do with artificial cloning, happens naturally, and can be induced scientifically. Its scientific name is Parthenogenesis and should be discussed, even if only a little, in the article. Clinkophonist 19:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is supposed to be the main article, but it is totaly dominated by the Christian view. This is pov.
This needs to be changed accordingly:
Article can be named "Mary, mother of Jesu" or "Virgin mary", for the example, i picked "Virgin Mary".
I know this will not be popular among my Christian brothers, but it is the only NPOV thing to do. Peace. -- Striver 20:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it neccesary to either restrict editing on this page for the time being or to block, temporarily or otherwise, 203.221.23.225? Repeated vandalism on this page by this user has occured repeatedly, and contributions of 203.221.23.225 indicate that such vandalism is systematic. I am unsure of how to respond - please inform. -- Gregorof 04:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and ask for "semi-protection", which will prevent anonymous and "new" users from editing the article. Clinkophonist 15:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
In depictions of Mary, the color blue is often used. What is its significance?— Wasabe3543 19:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The color blue is the color of empresses, the sky and sapphires. Red is the color of suffering. Mary was shown wearing blue from about 500 BCE- 1000 BCE, then it shifted to red. Here's a reference for you if you would like to add this information to the article. -- Iriseyes 14:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Should we work in anything about her age? Most estimates I've seen said she was in the range of 12-14 years of age when Jesus was born. I think it'd be an interesting piece of information for a number of readers. Owen 02:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Five things to remember when determining Mary's age. 1. The Bible gives on age. 2. Her 'tapeinosis' 3. She is very articulate. (Luke 1:46-55) 4. She owned her own house. (Luke 1:56) 5. She traveled hundreds of miles by herself. rem486—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.255.57.114 ( talk • contribs) 08:02, 3 August 2007.
Like a lot of articles on wikipedia, this one has a weak lead section. See WP:LEAD. I added Protestant viewpoints to the lead and it was deleted because it's "alreay covered." (FTR, I'm not trying to promote the Protestant viewpoint.) But a lead section is supposed to summarize material that's already covered. If not, what's it supposed to summarize, material that's not on the page? One should be able to get the gist of the topic from the lead section alone. Without the Protestant information, the lead gives that impression that Mary's role in Christianity is noncontroversial. Jonathan Tweet 04:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Common knowledge is not original research. If you think "criticize" is strong enough and "condemn" is too strong, try this [3]. For that matter, you can google "Mary queen of heaven idolatry satan" as easily as I, If you're surprised by what you find, that would explain your resistance to the verb "condemn." Jonathan Tweet 18:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
F, "If you leave in condemn, then I will add embrace." We have a deal. My point is that we should portray the array of beliefs about Mary, not any particular angle. Lots of my opponents want to prevent information from being added to religious pages, but not me. The fact that some Protestants embrace Mary is a fine addition to the lead. Jonathan Tweet 19:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Did Isaiah prophecy that a virgin would give birth, and did Mary and Jesus fulfill that prophecy? According to Matthew, yes. To divorce Mary's virginity from this prophecy is. . . I don't know what it is. Matthew clearly states that the prophecy was about a virgin (even if Isaiah doesn't). Or is the Greek text ambiguous just like the Hebrew? Jonathan Tweet 16:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I answered my own question, with this article
[4] by Geza Verme, who is a Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford. His latest book is The Nativity: History and Legend. He explains how Mary was probably not a virgin in the modern sense of the word. I'll add this link to the article, but should there not be some section about this issue?
Giovanni33
22:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
LC, it's two to one, virgin over maiden. Isaiah is maiden. LXX is virgin. Matthew is virgin. The Holy Spirit made sure that Matthew wrote correctly. If the Holy Spirit says Isaiah meant virgin, he meant virgin. Plus, this is a NT topic, and the NT presentation should prevail. You deleted information about Matthew citing "virgin" for no reason other than that it worked against your preferred reading of the text. Jonathan Tweet 05:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's important to point out the following:
Giovanni33, what evidence would you present that Mary was not a virgin? The fact that she gave birth is not decisive, since everyone agrees that she was pregnant -- the question is how it happened. The article to which you linked was rather speculative. jrcagle 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the anglicans and lutherans in other places, but in the modern view of german lutheran theologists, veneration of Mary is against the first Commandment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.64.122.11 ( talk) 21:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
I am a little confused reading this article. It seems to be written mainly from a Catholic viewpoint/teachings. Being raised Protestant all of my life, I disagree with what is being written. Most Protestants DO believe in the Immaculate Conception of Jesus Christ, but we do not believe in perpetual virginity. Most Protestants believe that Jesus had earthly brothers and sisters AFTER He was born, in fact the N.T. specifically names some of Jesus' siblings...literally and figuratively, as in siblings and brothers and sisters in Christ...fellow believers. I do tend to believe that Catholics idolize Mary. I have never been taught, nor have I read that Mary was completely without sin. In fact, it does specifically say in the Bible that only Jesus was without sin, being the Son of God and also God Himself. I have never read in the Bible where it says it's okay to pray through the Virgin Mary (Protestants also refer to Mary as this). Clearly, Protestants believe the only way to the Father is through the Son...not Mary. Protestants do not believe in praying to the Virgin Mary, because no where is it scripturally correct...at least not in any version of the Bible I have ever read (KJ, NKJ, NIV, NLT). Mary was definitely blessed by God and "favored" by God and she was certainly the "chosen" to be the earthly mother of the Son of God, but that doesn't mean she is to be idolized by being prayed to or having shrines built in her honor. It would be okay to have shrines in honor of Jesus because Protestants believe in the Trinity...Jesus is God and; therefore, we are able to honor and praise God by building shrines. I have never been taught anything about Mary's death. Protestants probably do not believe it is relevant (maybe that is wrong term) in the teaching of Christ. I do believe that if Mary did descend into Heaven it would be specifically listed as it with Jesus and Elijah. Certainly Mary should be praised for who and what she was...the chosen one by God...Mary, Mother of Jesus, but really that is as far as it should go. I don't mean to offend anyone. I just think that if you are going to be writing from a mainly Catholic viewpoint, you need to also write from a Protestant viewpoint. Neither viewpoint is correct and neither viewpoint is wrong. (Can't you tell I'm just an ordinary Christian and not a "scholar" or theologian?)...Meg4Christ
This article is listed as A-class for both the Saints and Catholicism WikiProjects. Has it been nominated as a good article any time recently? If not, should it be? -- Pastordavid 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ooops...I wrote this under the wrong section. If someone can move it for me I would greatly appreciate it...Thanks...Meg4Christ
I was wondering if anyone could comment at Talk:Mother of God on merging that article (which was only recently created, and doesn't contain much original content) here and to Theotokos. Any comments would be appreciated- Andrew c 02:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The article at present gives the etymology of Maryām as Bitter. Other possibilities, however, are "sea", "strong waters", etc. Given that this was a personal name, the others seem more probable. Whatever the case, we may wish to include a better presentation of the matter. Lostcaesar 22:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Lima, thanks for the clarification, but there's a slight difference in perception here. Those churches are dedicated to the Conception of the Theotokos by St Anna, celebrated 9th December, and for convenience and easier familiarity to the rest of the Catholic world, they've decided to use the term 'immaculate conception'. Eastern Catholics do not use the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin and hence don't understand the term 'immaculate conception' in the same way. InfernoXV 15:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The Eastern Orthodox Point of View is: Original sin represents a change in human nature caused by Adams disobedience. This change in human nature applies to all humans including the Virgin Mary, i.e. the Virgin Mary had Original Sin. When Christ was incarnate he changed human nature again, uniting it with the divine. He had no Original sin, and because he took flesh from the Virgin Mary, he cleansed her of original sin the moment he was conceived. Other than her participation in human nature, she was sinless. From this point of view, the Immaculate Conception of Mary is completely unnecessary.-- Phiddipus 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I should point out that Kyr John's view represents a majority of Eastern Catholic bishops but is not universally held. There is a minority of Eastern Catholic bishops who take issue with specific dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception -- see Archbishop Elias Zoghby as an example.
While the Eastern Catholic Churches I am familiar with formally subscribe to Catholic dogmatic views such as the Immaculate Conception, Inferno's original assertion that "Eastern Catholics do not use the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin and hence don't understand the term 'Immaculate Conception' in the same way" is a valid observation. Certainly many Eastern Catholics use different terms and concepts to describe the spotless nature of the Theotokos. This is natural, given their different traditions and practices.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the similarity of faith and beliefs between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. While differences exist in some matters of faith, it's not outrageous for a Catholic bishop or theologian to explore the merits of the Orthodox position.
I am impressed by the gentle, thoughtful tone Kyr John uses in describing this complex issue. We would all do well to be considerate of other editors when we advocate positions. Majoreditor 16:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Will Andrew c, Goldfritha, A.J.A., or anybody else please explain to me on what grounds they claim that two verifiable facts may not be mentioned:
These facts seem to be decidedly pertinent in the context of the advocating of the view that:
Rather than joining in their edit war, I look forward to reading the explanation tomorrow, at least if it is a reasoned explanation. Lima 19:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Lima, but I think his (her?) original edit summary ( show weakness of argument) was misleading. If I, with no prior interest in an article and no prior knowledge of the subject, saw that edit summary, I'd immediately think "original research". However, looking at the actual addition, separated from the edit summary, I don't see it as original research. It doesn't seem reasonable for the article to assert, as a fact, that "brother" means "brother" in a particular context, and to remove any attempt to show the other side. This is also a useful link. Oh, and Lima, while I agree with your edit, I think it has to be worded more simply. It's so complicated that you have to read it three times before it makes sense! ElinorD (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Before addressing the text, I would like to ask you to please discuss civilly and stop misrepresenting the issue. The text currently asserts that "Protestants believe Y", not "Y". You're asking it to say "Protestants believe Y. However, not Y."
The text you've inserted makes two claims.
Which is irrelevant. It's sloppy polemic, not encyclopedic.
Which would be acceptable in the form "So and so, citing the LXX translation of 1 Chronicles 23:22, says..." But not in the current form. A.J.A. 16:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I've remained quiet and mostly ignored this discussion because I respect both of you as established editors in good standing. However, I apologize for not speaking up earlier. I hate it when I am in a content dispute with another editor and no one else chimes in. First of all, it seems like things are getting a heated, and you could both do well with taking it a little bit easier. There is no need to make personal quips about the other party that doesn't have to do with article content. Reviewing the dispute, I can see why it is so heated. This is a significant point of theological contention. It seems like both parties believe that their interpretation of the situation is The Truth, and therefore this has come through in the back and forth editing and the debate/rebuttal aspects being introduced into the article. Also, there is a lot of source piling going on.
So here is what I think. One good source is better than 5 semi-ok sources. It isn't a matter of who has the most sources wins. We just need to make the information verifiable to the reader; we don't need to present a web directory on the topic. Part of NPOV is presenting arguments with due weight. So saying that one position is a majority view is ok, but phrasing it in a way such as "thus an absolute majority of Christians" is just introducing unencyclopedic commentary. Also, I do not believe adding all the information about Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek is helpful to understanding the topic Mary (mother of Jesus). We have Desposyni and Perpetual virginity of Mary where that information seems more relevant. We don't need to re-invent the wheel by writing a whole new write up that exists already on two different articles. I'm concerned that we will either create a discrepancy on wikipedia, or a subsection grows to contain more information that the spinout article. So, I believe this section has definitely gotten bloated in the past few days. Reading through the May 6th version, I find the older version better constructed, more concise, and more encyclopedic. We simply need to say "The majority believes Y because of reason A, B, and C. These historical people/groups also believed Y. Some protestants believe X because of these other reasons." We can't take sides. We can say who has the majority view, and we can explain their reasons. - Andrew c 15:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)