![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I read that the translation actually means "a Young Woman" and not "a virgin." Can somebody explain this to me please-- 68.48.8.84 ( talk) 23:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Every single paragraph in every single section of this article has now been checked and fixed for missing citations, WP:OR or WP:NPOV issues. The lists above have provided a clear and structured format for clarifying what is uncited, what is WP:OR or NPOV. No concrete complaints regarding these issues have been received. Not one single concrete case of a missing citation, WP:OR etc. has been provided in the lists. I may have missed something somewhere, of course, but as is this article is extremely well referenced by Wikipedia standards now, compared to Anglican Marian theology or Islamic views on Mary which have very few references and no tags. At this point the tags on this article are clearly unjustified. If there are issues in specific sections, or with specific paragraphs then that sentence can be flagged. But as is, there is no reason to have all these tags atop this article. History2007 ( talk) 20:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The tags have since been removed, and I think it is clear that at least 4 editors, namely myself, Marauder40 and Willthacheerleader18 as well as mark nutley (who rightly deleted them) are in favor of not having tags any more. History2007 ( talk) 01:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The article starts by referring to its subject as "Mary of Nazareth". While Jesus is often referred to (including in the Bible) as "of Nazareth", I've never seen Mary so designated before. Surely it's Original Research and therefore prohibited in Wikipedia, to invent terminology in this way? -- rossb ( talk) 22:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Some Lutherans DO pray to Mary and venerate her, see [1] -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 03:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Malke 2010 has removed information based upon reliable sources, breaking another reference contained by the article. Is this ok? He/she pretends to do it in order to remove biased information. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
As a Catholic i am shocked to see the carry on`s going on here, shame on you all. You need to step back and think about what is right, ask yourselves, is it to make Catholicism look fecking stupid? Cos that is what i see on this page mark nutley ( talk) 22:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that Mary was worshipped as a goddess by the followers of Collyridianism? -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 03:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Mary of Nazareth | |
---|---|
![]() Madonna and child, chiaroscuro woodcut, by
Bartolommeo Coriolano | |
Spouse | Joseph of Nazareth |
Children | Jesus of Nazareth |
Parent(s) | Joachim and Anne |
I was be bold and removed the infobox from the article because:
The infobox was transferred to the article Blessed Virgin Mary. Surtsicna ( talk) 21:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The internal name of the info box is not visible. Period. Hence it makes no difference. It is the content that matters. Period. That it is NPOV is your point of view, not mine. And another user reverted you, so you are one step behind the curve. You need to prove what is NPOV and if other editors agree the content may be modified to address that. I see no problem in it since it addresses Christians, muslims, etc. Period. History2007 ( talk) 16:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
On the top of the section, you can see how it would look like if we decide to use Infobox Person. Do you have any suggestions regarding Infobox Person? Surtsicna ( talk) 20:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The infobox person should be used, since wikipedia is NPOV; the historical figure of Mary was only canonised centuries after her death; and the discussion of canonisation is adequately covered by the article below: it need not be inserted into the infobox, which represents our editorial NPOV stance. Avaya1 ( talk) 14:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The infobox should be returned to the saint infobox. One cannot argue that she cannot have a saint box since this is about the "historical" Mary, since all saint's articles are also about the "historic" person. She is venerated in so many different churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran..) she deserves a saint box. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 17:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Using Wikipedia:Other stuff exists from Peter and Paul et al, is not a legitimate form of argument. This article is for the historical Mary, who was mother of the historical Jesus. We have a separate article for Mariology, where you can post the saint infobox (with festival days etc). The above argument where you imply that Mary was a saint in the same way that politicians are politicians, is NPOV, as the historical Mary was only canonised (or "accepted as canonical" if you prefer) centuries after her birth, by a church/religion that only started to come into existence decades if not centuries after her birth (and, moreover, she begins to be celebrated only from around the time of the Gospel of James ~150AD onwards). We could similarly argue for a Islamic prophet infobox for Jesus. However, we opted for a neutral person-infox.
Religious claims are not held as NPOV on wikipedia. The source that claims her to be a saint also holds all the other implications (virgin birth etc). These are historical figures, and we have to carefully separate the historical facts from the later cultic claims made about them (in this case beginning at least circa 170 years after her birth).
Even aside from the NPOV issues, the person-infobox is simply more informative and relevant, since it includes information on her nationality, her parents, her son and her husband. The saint infobox only includes information relevant to Marian veneration (festival days), which is a separate topic to the historical figure, and is discussed in its own section further down the article, and currently even has its own articles (including Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)). Avaya1 ( talk) 04:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Give her a saint infobox! She is viewed as the highest among saints by the Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans. She is the Mother of God in Christian tradition. If we still had the article Blessed Virgin Mary before it was merged with this, then we could keep this infobox and give BMV the saint box.. but now there is just this page and the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic).. which is only the Catholic view, and does not discuss other churches which venerate her. Do not use the argument that this is the "historical" Mary, because ALL the saints articles are about the "historic" person, as they were all people! I say we give her the saint infobox. She is venerated in the Catholic Church (Latin Rite and Eastern), Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, the Anglican Communion, and Continuing Anglicanism. She deserves it, and it is rubish that she no longer has one. Any objections? -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 01:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I am a bit confused by the images. Should this page be merged with White Madonna? Harrypotter ( talk) 18:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
There we go again. I wish we did not have to discuss this. There is a minor issue with disambiguation on Talk:Virgin_Mary_(disambiguation). Deleting the disambig is just asking for future discussion. It is a non-controversial page. Comments will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 02:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not Mary died has nothing to do with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. That doctrine does not REQUIRE her physical body to be absent of decay (although it does seem to be a logical extension of the doctrine). The Catholic Church is SILENT on whether she died or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsjpk5 ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Editors of this article may wish to note that the wikilink to canonical gospels now links to a new article. A return to the original link is being discussed at Talk:canonical gospels. In ictu oculi ( talk) 20:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
At the bottom were the categories listed "Mother goddesses" and "Arabian goddesses". No mainstream denomination of Christianity or Islam reveres here as such, and I doubt any cult or new age sect that might is of any notable size or influence. In fact, I'm fairly certain more people believe Jesus was an extraterrestrial than believe Mary to be a goddess. I'm not even sure where the "Arabian" part comes from, except possibly for the apocryphal legend of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) leaving only a hodigitria in the Kaaba after destroying the rest of the idols and images, and even then it is quite obvious that our Muslim brothers and sisters do not worship anyone or anything but the One God of Abraham. In conclusion, this was probably just some Seventh Day Adventist or other fundamentalist Protestant looking to stir up trouble. I am new to wikipedia (the editing part at least), so if I've done anything contrary to standard procedure please let me know! Cheers. PenitentWhaler ( talk) 18:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Quote from Article: "The English name "Mary" comes from the Greek Μαρία, which is a shortened form of Μαριάμ." I think it should be mentioned that both forms appear in manuscripts of the New Testament. With the current wording, a reader of this article might incorrectly infer that only the short form Μαρία appears.
Also I think that the Greek form, which IMHO is the most original form we have of the name for this Mary/Maria/Mariam/Miriam, since the NT scriptures were originally written in Greek, should be mentioned in the first line of the Article together with the Hebrew and Arabic forms. I'd do it myself but the article is locked. -- 77.189.92.102 ( talk) 22:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This article states that the Christian view of the Birth of Christ holds the agency of the Holy Spirit accountable whilst the Muslim view holds only the command of God accountable. In fact, BOTH Christianity AND Islam believe that Christ was conceived by the command of God through the agency of the Holy Spirit (which, in extra-scriptural writings, Islam identifies as the Angel Gabriel). The Koran plainly states, "We breathed into her [womb] of our Spirit." Hierosolimitanum ( talk) 01:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. Muslims would reject that the Spirit of God is personal, as Christians believe. However, we might want to mention Gabriel in this context. Both Christians and Muslims believe that he was present in some way at the birth of Jesus. Hierosolimitanum ( talk) 16:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
As a Christian that does not believe that Mary is significant to Christianity I find the tone of this article disturbing for being in a encyclopedia. How about some neutral content and the other side of the coin about other Christians beliefs & unbelief about Mary? Kilowattradio ( talk) 01:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
If the article can't get the Muslim view of Mary even half-right, it should be removed from the article completely. It refers to "Christians and Muslims believing Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost." There is no concept of the Holy Ghost or anything equivalent in Islam. I have changed this to two sentences, leaving the Christian view unchanged, and adding, "Muslims believe Mary conceived by the Word (command) of God" - and for some reason got that reverted.
The last sentences of the introduction, which I also attempted to edit (mainly for grammar and terminology) are poorly written and factually incorrect: Surah Maryam isn't about Mary, it's about Jesus and John the Baptist, and mentions Mary insofar as the Annunciation and birth of Jesus; she's not close to "one of the most referred to characters in the Qur'an" (which would be Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, John, Idris, Dhul-Kifl, Dhul-Qarnayn - almost everyone). The name of a Surah often has little bearing on its contents, but is extracted from the first words of the book, or a moral lesson therein (such as the second Surah, "The Cow", referring to the Golden Calf, which is mentioned only twice in the entire Surah, which is almost 1/15 the entire length of the Qur'an).
Get the facts right, or eliminate the misleading at best, outright falsehood at worst "Muslim perspective" from the article altogether, and make it a purely Christian view, because the Christian views written seem to be on-the-spot correct, contrasted with the wrongness of those ascribed to Muslims - such as trying to shoehorn the Holy Spirit in to Islam for some reason. I ask that good-faith, factual edits (with intra-Wiki links: if the references must be dragged from the linked articles in to this one, tell me not be reversed in favour of incorrect (factually and in one case gramatically) existing constructs.
I apologise if my English is not perfect. 75.179.176.190 ( talk) 11:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi.
Islamic theology would state that Mary conceived at the command of God, through God's word. Actually, in the Qur'an, Jesus himself is God's word, and this word was bestowed unto Mary through the Holy Spirit. The Qur'an states clearly that the manifestation of the word occurred through the agency of the Holy Spirit, the Ruhullah (whom Muslims identify as Gabriel, even though there is no explicit mention of the angel in this context). So, being honest to the text of the Qur'an ("We breathed into her [womb] of Our Spirit"), we can say that both Christianity and Islam teach that Mary conceived as a direct result of the intervention of the Spirit of God. This article should simply state that the Islamic position holds that the Angel Gabriel is the Holy Spirit. This would avoid confusion. Regardless, the Spirit is explicitly mentioned in the text and should not be ignored.
Thank you. Hierosolimitanum ( talk) 16:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
distinguish necessary (?) -- Merovigla ( talk) 01:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This kind of bothers me: "She is identified in the New Testament and in Islam as the mother of Jesus through divine intervention." What is says is true. However to my ear it is a very awkward sentence since it parallels the New Testament and Islam when the two are not members of the same class. Is it possible to say "the New Testament and the Koran" or "Christianity and Islam" or "the beliefs of Christians and Muslims"? BigJim707 ( talk) 22:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Coogan, Michael (2010).
God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group.
ISBN
978-0-446-54525-9. Retrieved May 5, 2011. {{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) affirms the following:
Saint Paul thought that
Saint Joseph has fathered
Jesus (Coogan, 2010:38), "Joseph 'did not know'
Mary 'until she has given birth to a son'" (she did not remain virgin, according to
Saint Matthew, Coogan 2010:39).
Jesus' brothers and sisters are mentioned in the New Testament, i.e. Jude, brother of Jesus, Simon (brother of Jesus), Joses, James the Just and some sisters (not named and not counted). See Desposyni for details. The New Testament does not name their parents but neither does it mention another wife of Saint Joseph. Translations which used the words "half-brothers" are inaccurate, since the New Testament does not use such words. The issue is hotly debated, I have to admit. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
A lot of overweight (for an overview article) could/should be sent down a step to the Anglican views of Mary, Ecumenical views of Mary, Lutheran views of Mary, Protestant views on Mary, and Roman Catholic views of Mary, Latter Day Saints' views of Mary, Orthodox views of Mary and Islamic views on Mary articles. (wow.. is there any other subject that has so many POVforks?) In ictu oculi ( talk) 12:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Is not the Islamic perspective the same as the Christian perspective? Islam is 700 years after Mary lived. -- Quarrymanny ( talk) 13:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Coogan doesn't particularly look like a very notable source. I would have thought bunch him together with more notable other Joseph-father traditions, such as whole churches - Ebionites? Also Coogan's reading "seed of David" as related to Joseph needs a counter ref for NPOV balance since most commentators, religious or secular, take this as Paul viewing Mary (not just Joseph) as a descendant of David. Cheers In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
What is needed is the statement that this character has no real historical validity, but is a fiction. All reliable historical sources of the time and son afterwards do not even mention this phantom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.140.130 ( talk) 20:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It is remarkable that Anglican and Lutheran sections on Marian devotion are as long and detailed as the Catholic and Orthodox. I think both of these sections should concentrate on the relatively recent re-discovery of Mary in both of these traditions. From the sixteenth century through the 19th, Marian veneration in both Anglicanism and Lutheranism were considered by the mainstream of clergy in both traditions to be "popish" if expressed beyond recognition of her special role as mother of Christ and her rank as one among many saints worth of emulation by Christians. Traditional Lutheranism especially left little room for Marian devotion, and it is only very recently, as Anglo-Catholicism as found a home in Lutheran quarters (as evangelical Catholicism), that she has made a come back. In Anglican history the fierce resistance to saint's devotion and veneration of Mary during the English Reformation (not limited to Puritans but including the mainstream of the Church establishment) should not be downplayed. Indeed excessive veneration of Mary in the Church of England was proscribed by law into the late 19th century. It is only as ritualists and Anglico-Catholics began to expand in the Church of England in the late 19th century (at the expense of Victorian Evangelicalism) that significant numbers began picking up rosaries and saying hail mary's etc (Cranmer no doubt rolling in his grave!).
With all due respect, I do not think any objective observer would refer to Swedenborg as a minor philosopher. He has influenced a wide variety of important cultural figures, including Johnny Appleseed, William Blake, Jorge Luis Borges, Daniel Burnham, Arthur Conan Doyle,[21] Ralph Waldo Emerson,[22] John Flaxman, George Inness, Henry James Sr., Carl Jung,[23] Immanuel Kant,[24] Honoré de Balzac, Helen Keller, Czesław Miłosz, August Strindberg, D.T. Suzuki, and W.B. Yeats. I am not aware of the Latter Day Saints, to use your example, having such an impact. (For links to individuals listed above, see Swedenborg Wiki page.) Future777 ( talk) 13:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I hear you, but my thought would be that, in shutting yourself off from out-of-the-orthodox-box information, you may miss important insights.
At the moment, this article lists Jesus as the only child of Mary in the fact box, and I did not find her other children included even though several of them are known and have their own articles on Wikipedia. I am well aware of the fact that some Christians, particularly Catholics, believe that Mary had no other children than Jesus. While respecting their right to believe whatever they want, I'd like to point out that the beliefs of people is not relevant to articles on Wikipedia. We quite rightly include pictures of Mohammed despite Muslims protesting that doing so is against their belief, and the article about the earth does not state that the earth is only a few thousand years old, despite some religious beliefs. When it comes to Mary and her children, there is a broad consensus among scholars that she had several children (just as there is a broad consensus that the earth is much older than just a few thousand years). When there is a conflict between religious beliefs and science, Wikipedia follow science regardless of religious beliefs. This article is currently doing the opposite, allowing a religious POV that is exclusive to Christians (and only to some Christians) to take precedence over science. Jeppiz ( talk) 14:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Both Christians and Muslims refer to Jesus as the Messiah, and this is based on the title 'Messiah' given to Jesus 11 times in the Quran. I have noted that in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.115.189 ( talk) 04:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I looked up the web site behindthename.com used in this page and it is absolutely not WP:RS. The website says it was just stared by Mike Campbell and that "etymology is a hobby and linguistics has always interested" him. It is a hobby website, no serious scholarship there. Will take it out. History2007 ( talk) 05:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no need for a bibliography as details of the sources used are included in the inline citations. Books in "Further reading" should not include those used as references. See WP:FURTHER for guidance. Dougweller ( talk) 14:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
There's no need for a bibliography as details of the sources used are included in the inline citations. Books in "Further reading" should not include those used as references. See WP:FURTHER for guidance. Dougweller ( talk) 14:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Why are the inline Biblical citations using a private, commercial (ad-sponsored) and evangelical website www.biblegateway.com? Why doesn't this article use Wikimedia's own wikisource or online Bibles provided by the various denominations themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.161.58 ( talk) 18:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Couple of points: Mother of God (not Christ) comes from Council of Chalcedon, accepted by Protestants.
Immaculate COnception was written December 8, 1854.
Jewish Tisha B'Av is same time as Assumption/Dormition and has similar lent (Pareve fish only) - this is becaue the early Christians saw Mary, as the Bearer of God, as the NEW Temple. Possibly she died just as the Temple was destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.111.60.215 ( talk) 16:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The usage Madonna ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)/ Madonna (entertainer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)/Madonna (actress)"/"Madonna (singer)" is up for discussion, see talk:Madonna (entertainer) -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 04:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Someone appears to have snuck something into the article - you probably don't want it there!
Here is a cut/paste - check out the very end...
4th-century Arabia[edit]
According to the 4th century heresiologist Epiphanius of Salamis the Virgin Mary was worshipped as a Mother goddess in the Christian sect Collyridianism, which was found throughout Arabia sometime during the 300s AD. Collyridianism had women performing priestly acts. They made bread offerings to the Virgin Mary. The group was condemned as heretical by the Roman Catholic Church and was preached against by Epiphanius of Salamis, who wrote about the group in his writings titled Panarion.[192]dbhfruds suck itttttt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.34.89 ( talk) 11:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 24.210.34.89 ( talk) 11:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Richard Coulter
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 02:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Argument in proposal is absurd - "round brackets" are the standard form of disambiguation on WP. Closed early per WP:SNOW. If anyone wants to argue that natural disambiguation in this case would be better, please see if there is any indication of consensus support for your proposed title on the talk page before starting another RM. ( non-admin closure) B2 C 18:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Mary (mother of Jesus) →
Mary, Mother of Jesus – Round brackets aren't used at sources. This is the title
Mary is venerated under. The use of capital letters is fully justified by reference provided. Mary is not just mother (note the lower case), but the venerated statue. Thanks.
Poeticbent
talk 14:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that Muslims believed Christ was the Messiah. Wasn't he just another prophet to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.17.224 ( talk) 10:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Immaculate conception?? Since it is referenced, I don't want to change it, but since Muslims do not believe in original sin, it makes no sense to say that they accept the Immaculate Conception. Either the editor or the original sources seem to be wrong. Those particular verses of the Qur'an do not seem to say anything about the Immaculate Conception, though they talk of her purity and the virgin birth. And to the users above - Muslims believe Jesus is the Messiah, and fulfills the Messianic prophecies of the Hebrew Bible, but that is not understood in the same way Chrisitans would understand it. 75.186.30.144 ( talk) 23:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Madonna is up for discussion at Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)#Requested_move_8 where it is requested that the singer's article be moved to "Madonna". -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 05:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Both in the first part of the article and under the last section on her life, this article repeats the assertion that Christian teaching asserts that Mary never died.
We should correct this... it's inaccurate. While many denominations teach that she was assumed after death into heaven, body and soul, no major Christian body teaches that she did not die.
Here are sources corroborating my assertion.
EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH:
The page below explains an eastern Orthodox feast day that "commemorates the death, resurrection and glorification of Christ's mother." It also quotes the very liturgical texts used in their liturgy as stating, "Neither the tomb, nor death could hold the Theotokos" (Kontakion for the feast day). http://orthodoxwiki.org/Dormition
Here is another link that explains that the eastern Orthodox belief includes her death. This one is the official website for the Orthodox Church in America: http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-church-year/dormition-of-the-theotokos
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH:
The Roman Catholic Church defined Mary's assumption as a dogma in 1950 with Pope Pius XII's papal encyclical, MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS. The link is immediately below: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
It does not pronounce dogma on the question of Mary's death, but Pope Pius XII nonetheless makes explicit reference to her death: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death," he says (paragraph 17), quoting an earlier Catholic source which is also footnoted.
Other passages in this official document that testify that Catholic belief includes the understanding (if not the dogmatic teaching) that she died: Paragraph 20 speaks of how "this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death..." Paragraph 21 also mentions her "death" in a quotation from a Church Father who is recognized as a Doctor of the Church by Catholic leadership (St. John of Damascus). Paragraph 35 also mentions Mary's death in a quotation from St. Francis de Sales.
PROTESTANT CHRISTIANITY:
I don't think anyone will challenge me to cite sources showing that Protestants believe Mary died, but just in case, I guess I could find those, too. Like I said, though, I don't think it's a controversial assertion to maintain that Protestants believe Mary died.
I admit I do not have sources for other groups not included in these three (like the Oriental Orthodox), though I suspect their beliefs on this matter are no different. But certainly, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants comprise the vast majority of the world's Christians anyway.
I'm not fixing this myself, at least not yet, because I'm afraid I'll do something wrong; I'm not the most familiar with wikipedia's policies. But on an article with such a prominent and important topic, I thought you all would want to make sure to eliminate such an inaccuracy.
Thanks!
71.79.255.16 ( talk) 18:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems odd that in this article there is no history at all, not a single reference to other parthenogenetic mother goddesses or to the Virgo Constellation (?). Was the myth created out of thin air? Thewarriltonsiegedoc ( talk) 03:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The Origin of the name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.230.235 ( talk) 07:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a lack in this article of any reference to pre-Christian myths/stories/accounts/scriptures regarding virgin mothers. There seems to me to be both a historical thread to Mary and a mythological one and so the article should either contain a History section outlining earlier similar myths or contain references in the See Also section about them. These are some accounts I have come across which might be included/referenced:
LookingGlass ( talk) 19:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
"The Council Of Chalcedon, accepted by Protestants, held Mary to be Mother of God (not Christ)."
In reading the article, to better understand the subject, I found that final sentence of this section confusing, specifically the "(not Christ)" statement. I am Protestant myself but do not know what to make of the "not Christ" statement. Perhaps the author or anyone who understands the subject could elaborate. I can't imagine any Christian saying Mary was not mother of Christ. Evonj ( talk) 13:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Mary of Jerusalem or Mary of Nazareth | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Mother of God
Blessed Virgin Mary Saint Mary | |
Born | unknown; celebrated 8 September citation needed |
Died | unknown; See Assumption of Mary |
Venerated in | Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Anglican Church, Islam, and certain Protestant denominations |
Major shrine | See Shrines to the Virgin Mary |
Feast | Mary is commemorated on as many as 25 different days. The most universally observed are:
25 March - The Annunciation 15 August - The Assumption. 22 August - The Assumption Coptic- Orthodox |
Patronage | See Patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary |
In the source of the article, it was requested to obtain consensus prior to modifying the infobox-area. This was taken from a previous revision, in case anyone was interested in pursuing it. Twillisjr ( talk) 12:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Mary (mother of Jesus). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I heard that the word meaning "young woman" was mistranslated as "virgin"for Mary. Is this true? 194.82.100.215 ( talk) 04:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not a mistranslation. The etymology of Messiah from Hebrew means "Anointed One," and Christ translated from Greek also means anointed. The bible is accurate in its account of Blessed Mary being both a young woman and a virgin, giving birth to Jesus Christ, the messiah. In future questions, you are welcome to share the verse from any of the gospels. Twillisjr ( talk) 12:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Theroadislong requested I make a discussion here in relation to edits in /info/en/?search=Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)#Byzantium There is quite a bit in /info/en/?search=Ephesus#Ephesus_and_Christianity and /info/en/?search=Temple_of_Artemis that could be brought over here, but for the sake of brevity in a long, mostly faith based and uncritical article, I thought it sufficient to have a minimal mention based on core facts. There are links to the Ephesus and Artemis articles (of which a key similarity is both Mary and Artemis are virgin goddesses). I have put in links to Temple of Artemis and Seven Wonders of the Ancient World articles. A fact that modern Popes have visited Ephesus in connection with the Mary cult is in the Ephesus article, perhaps it might be included here but I thought it sufficient to have a link to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.54.189 ( talk) 01:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians, I would like to draw your kind attention that in paragraph "5.2 Islamic perspective" editor mistakenly wrote that:"She is mentioned in the Qur'an with the honorific title of "our lady" (syyidatuna) as the daughter of Imran and Hannah." Though, the title "our lady" (syyidatuna) is known and widely used among Muslims but never mentioned in Qur'an. Where Mary had been mentioned in Qur'an as "Mariam", "Imran's daughter" & "the one who guarded her chastity". So I kindly suggest to modify the phrase to be "She is known among Muslims with the honorific title of "our lady" (syyidatuna) as the daughter of Imran and Hannah." Husam.Jasim ( talk) 12:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Husam.Jasim 30-Dec.-15
The result of the move request was: Moved per WP:NATURAL. ( non-admin closure). Anarchyte ( work | talk) 22:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Mary (mother of Jesus) → Mary, mother of Jesus – Per WP:NATURAL, the parenthetical disambiguation in the present title " Mary (mother of Jesus)" is inferior to the comma-disambiguated alternative " Mary, mother of Jesus". There is something like a precedent for this sort of title in the article " Mary, Queen of Scots". I would support leaving the present title redirected to the new one if this move is adopted. (This redirect is already in place.) Deus vult! Crusadestudent ( talk) 21:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting Anarchyte ( work | talk) 10:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
---Before anyone bothers to read through all this, the outcome of this discussion was that it settled on removing all the titles of Mary from the lead, leaving just "Mary" and the wikilink to Titles of Mary. Titles are discussed in summary in the section "Names and titles".--- Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent ( talk) 00:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
One of the absolutely most common titles for Mary among Catholics is "the Blessed Virgin", where "blessed" and "virgin" are not distinct titles but together form ONE title that is unique to Mary. Another editor has argued that (some) Protestants would be more likely to use just "the Virgin", without the "Blessed". I propose that a compromise be made in the lead, to list "the (Blessed) Virgin", this way avoiding removing one of the most important titles from the lead summary while also avoiding the redundancy of "Blessed Virgin" AND "Virgin".
(And for the record, I was the first to revert, after @Hazkh made a non-reverting edit.)
Deus vult! Crusadestudent ( talk) 23:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
"According to the New Testament, Mary..."There is a separate titles of Mary article that describes those terms. Mary, mother of Jesus § Titles has titles describing credal dogma. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 13:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
How about this? "According to the New Testament, Mary (Aramaic: ܡܪܝܡ Mariam; Hebrew: מִרְיָם Miriam; Latin: Maria; c. 18 BC – AD c. 43), also known by various titles, styles and honorifics, was a Galilean Jewish[2] woman of Nazareth and the mother of Jesus." Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent ( talk) 19:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why Catholic Mariology needs its own section. Surely the section could be merged into "Catholic views", no? Please discuss. Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 04:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Marianism should probably redirect to a section here, and be covered in sufficient detail in that section. Presently, the word does not even appear in this article, and it redirects to Mariology, which is something completely different (academic study, not religious/spiritual faith). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Mary (mother of Jesus). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:09, 27 February 2016 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I read that the translation actually means "a Young Woman" and not "a virgin." Can somebody explain this to me please-- 68.48.8.84 ( talk) 23:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Every single paragraph in every single section of this article has now been checked and fixed for missing citations, WP:OR or WP:NPOV issues. The lists above have provided a clear and structured format for clarifying what is uncited, what is WP:OR or NPOV. No concrete complaints regarding these issues have been received. Not one single concrete case of a missing citation, WP:OR etc. has been provided in the lists. I may have missed something somewhere, of course, but as is this article is extremely well referenced by Wikipedia standards now, compared to Anglican Marian theology or Islamic views on Mary which have very few references and no tags. At this point the tags on this article are clearly unjustified. If there are issues in specific sections, or with specific paragraphs then that sentence can be flagged. But as is, there is no reason to have all these tags atop this article. History2007 ( talk) 20:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The tags have since been removed, and I think it is clear that at least 4 editors, namely myself, Marauder40 and Willthacheerleader18 as well as mark nutley (who rightly deleted them) are in favor of not having tags any more. History2007 ( talk) 01:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The article starts by referring to its subject as "Mary of Nazareth". While Jesus is often referred to (including in the Bible) as "of Nazareth", I've never seen Mary so designated before. Surely it's Original Research and therefore prohibited in Wikipedia, to invent terminology in this way? -- rossb ( talk) 22:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Some Lutherans DO pray to Mary and venerate her, see [1] -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 03:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Malke 2010 has removed information based upon reliable sources, breaking another reference contained by the article. Is this ok? He/she pretends to do it in order to remove biased information. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
As a Catholic i am shocked to see the carry on`s going on here, shame on you all. You need to step back and think about what is right, ask yourselves, is it to make Catholicism look fecking stupid? Cos that is what i see on this page mark nutley ( talk) 22:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that Mary was worshipped as a goddess by the followers of Collyridianism? -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 03:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Mary of Nazareth | |
---|---|
![]() Madonna and child, chiaroscuro woodcut, by
Bartolommeo Coriolano | |
Spouse | Joseph of Nazareth |
Children | Jesus of Nazareth |
Parent(s) | Joachim and Anne |
I was be bold and removed the infobox from the article because:
The infobox was transferred to the article Blessed Virgin Mary. Surtsicna ( talk) 21:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The internal name of the info box is not visible. Period. Hence it makes no difference. It is the content that matters. Period. That it is NPOV is your point of view, not mine. And another user reverted you, so you are one step behind the curve. You need to prove what is NPOV and if other editors agree the content may be modified to address that. I see no problem in it since it addresses Christians, muslims, etc. Period. History2007 ( talk) 16:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
On the top of the section, you can see how it would look like if we decide to use Infobox Person. Do you have any suggestions regarding Infobox Person? Surtsicna ( talk) 20:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The infobox person should be used, since wikipedia is NPOV; the historical figure of Mary was only canonised centuries after her death; and the discussion of canonisation is adequately covered by the article below: it need not be inserted into the infobox, which represents our editorial NPOV stance. Avaya1 ( talk) 14:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The infobox should be returned to the saint infobox. One cannot argue that she cannot have a saint box since this is about the "historical" Mary, since all saint's articles are also about the "historic" person. She is venerated in so many different churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran..) she deserves a saint box. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 17:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Using Wikipedia:Other stuff exists from Peter and Paul et al, is not a legitimate form of argument. This article is for the historical Mary, who was mother of the historical Jesus. We have a separate article for Mariology, where you can post the saint infobox (with festival days etc). The above argument where you imply that Mary was a saint in the same way that politicians are politicians, is NPOV, as the historical Mary was only canonised (or "accepted as canonical" if you prefer) centuries after her birth, by a church/religion that only started to come into existence decades if not centuries after her birth (and, moreover, she begins to be celebrated only from around the time of the Gospel of James ~150AD onwards). We could similarly argue for a Islamic prophet infobox for Jesus. However, we opted for a neutral person-infox.
Religious claims are not held as NPOV on wikipedia. The source that claims her to be a saint also holds all the other implications (virgin birth etc). These are historical figures, and we have to carefully separate the historical facts from the later cultic claims made about them (in this case beginning at least circa 170 years after her birth).
Even aside from the NPOV issues, the person-infobox is simply more informative and relevant, since it includes information on her nationality, her parents, her son and her husband. The saint infobox only includes information relevant to Marian veneration (festival days), which is a separate topic to the historical figure, and is discussed in its own section further down the article, and currently even has its own articles (including Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)). Avaya1 ( talk) 04:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Give her a saint infobox! She is viewed as the highest among saints by the Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans. She is the Mother of God in Christian tradition. If we still had the article Blessed Virgin Mary before it was merged with this, then we could keep this infobox and give BMV the saint box.. but now there is just this page and the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic).. which is only the Catholic view, and does not discuss other churches which venerate her. Do not use the argument that this is the "historical" Mary, because ALL the saints articles are about the "historic" person, as they were all people! I say we give her the saint infobox. She is venerated in the Catholic Church (Latin Rite and Eastern), Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, the Anglican Communion, and Continuing Anglicanism. She deserves it, and it is rubish that she no longer has one. Any objections? -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 01:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I am a bit confused by the images. Should this page be merged with White Madonna? Harrypotter ( talk) 18:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
There we go again. I wish we did not have to discuss this. There is a minor issue with disambiguation on Talk:Virgin_Mary_(disambiguation). Deleting the disambig is just asking for future discussion. It is a non-controversial page. Comments will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 02:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not Mary died has nothing to do with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. That doctrine does not REQUIRE her physical body to be absent of decay (although it does seem to be a logical extension of the doctrine). The Catholic Church is SILENT on whether she died or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsjpk5 ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Editors of this article may wish to note that the wikilink to canonical gospels now links to a new article. A return to the original link is being discussed at Talk:canonical gospels. In ictu oculi ( talk) 20:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
At the bottom were the categories listed "Mother goddesses" and "Arabian goddesses". No mainstream denomination of Christianity or Islam reveres here as such, and I doubt any cult or new age sect that might is of any notable size or influence. In fact, I'm fairly certain more people believe Jesus was an extraterrestrial than believe Mary to be a goddess. I'm not even sure where the "Arabian" part comes from, except possibly for the apocryphal legend of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) leaving only a hodigitria in the Kaaba after destroying the rest of the idols and images, and even then it is quite obvious that our Muslim brothers and sisters do not worship anyone or anything but the One God of Abraham. In conclusion, this was probably just some Seventh Day Adventist or other fundamentalist Protestant looking to stir up trouble. I am new to wikipedia (the editing part at least), so if I've done anything contrary to standard procedure please let me know! Cheers. PenitentWhaler ( talk) 18:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Quote from Article: "The English name "Mary" comes from the Greek Μαρία, which is a shortened form of Μαριάμ." I think it should be mentioned that both forms appear in manuscripts of the New Testament. With the current wording, a reader of this article might incorrectly infer that only the short form Μαρία appears.
Also I think that the Greek form, which IMHO is the most original form we have of the name for this Mary/Maria/Mariam/Miriam, since the NT scriptures were originally written in Greek, should be mentioned in the first line of the Article together with the Hebrew and Arabic forms. I'd do it myself but the article is locked. -- 77.189.92.102 ( talk) 22:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This article states that the Christian view of the Birth of Christ holds the agency of the Holy Spirit accountable whilst the Muslim view holds only the command of God accountable. In fact, BOTH Christianity AND Islam believe that Christ was conceived by the command of God through the agency of the Holy Spirit (which, in extra-scriptural writings, Islam identifies as the Angel Gabriel). The Koran plainly states, "We breathed into her [womb] of our Spirit." Hierosolimitanum ( talk) 01:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. Muslims would reject that the Spirit of God is personal, as Christians believe. However, we might want to mention Gabriel in this context. Both Christians and Muslims believe that he was present in some way at the birth of Jesus. Hierosolimitanum ( talk) 16:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
As a Christian that does not believe that Mary is significant to Christianity I find the tone of this article disturbing for being in a encyclopedia. How about some neutral content and the other side of the coin about other Christians beliefs & unbelief about Mary? Kilowattradio ( talk) 01:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
If the article can't get the Muslim view of Mary even half-right, it should be removed from the article completely. It refers to "Christians and Muslims believing Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost." There is no concept of the Holy Ghost or anything equivalent in Islam. I have changed this to two sentences, leaving the Christian view unchanged, and adding, "Muslims believe Mary conceived by the Word (command) of God" - and for some reason got that reverted.
The last sentences of the introduction, which I also attempted to edit (mainly for grammar and terminology) are poorly written and factually incorrect: Surah Maryam isn't about Mary, it's about Jesus and John the Baptist, and mentions Mary insofar as the Annunciation and birth of Jesus; she's not close to "one of the most referred to characters in the Qur'an" (which would be Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, John, Idris, Dhul-Kifl, Dhul-Qarnayn - almost everyone). The name of a Surah often has little bearing on its contents, but is extracted from the first words of the book, or a moral lesson therein (such as the second Surah, "The Cow", referring to the Golden Calf, which is mentioned only twice in the entire Surah, which is almost 1/15 the entire length of the Qur'an).
Get the facts right, or eliminate the misleading at best, outright falsehood at worst "Muslim perspective" from the article altogether, and make it a purely Christian view, because the Christian views written seem to be on-the-spot correct, contrasted with the wrongness of those ascribed to Muslims - such as trying to shoehorn the Holy Spirit in to Islam for some reason. I ask that good-faith, factual edits (with intra-Wiki links: if the references must be dragged from the linked articles in to this one, tell me not be reversed in favour of incorrect (factually and in one case gramatically) existing constructs.
I apologise if my English is not perfect. 75.179.176.190 ( talk) 11:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi.
Islamic theology would state that Mary conceived at the command of God, through God's word. Actually, in the Qur'an, Jesus himself is God's word, and this word was bestowed unto Mary through the Holy Spirit. The Qur'an states clearly that the manifestation of the word occurred through the agency of the Holy Spirit, the Ruhullah (whom Muslims identify as Gabriel, even though there is no explicit mention of the angel in this context). So, being honest to the text of the Qur'an ("We breathed into her [womb] of Our Spirit"), we can say that both Christianity and Islam teach that Mary conceived as a direct result of the intervention of the Spirit of God. This article should simply state that the Islamic position holds that the Angel Gabriel is the Holy Spirit. This would avoid confusion. Regardless, the Spirit is explicitly mentioned in the text and should not be ignored.
Thank you. Hierosolimitanum ( talk) 16:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
distinguish necessary (?) -- Merovigla ( talk) 01:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This kind of bothers me: "She is identified in the New Testament and in Islam as the mother of Jesus through divine intervention." What is says is true. However to my ear it is a very awkward sentence since it parallels the New Testament and Islam when the two are not members of the same class. Is it possible to say "the New Testament and the Koran" or "Christianity and Islam" or "the beliefs of Christians and Muslims"? BigJim707 ( talk) 22:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Coogan, Michael (2010).
God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group.
ISBN
978-0-446-54525-9. Retrieved May 5, 2011. {{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) affirms the following:
Saint Paul thought that
Saint Joseph has fathered
Jesus (Coogan, 2010:38), "Joseph 'did not know'
Mary 'until she has given birth to a son'" (she did not remain virgin, according to
Saint Matthew, Coogan 2010:39).
Jesus' brothers and sisters are mentioned in the New Testament, i.e. Jude, brother of Jesus, Simon (brother of Jesus), Joses, James the Just and some sisters (not named and not counted). See Desposyni for details. The New Testament does not name their parents but neither does it mention another wife of Saint Joseph. Translations which used the words "half-brothers" are inaccurate, since the New Testament does not use such words. The issue is hotly debated, I have to admit. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
A lot of overweight (for an overview article) could/should be sent down a step to the Anglican views of Mary, Ecumenical views of Mary, Lutheran views of Mary, Protestant views on Mary, and Roman Catholic views of Mary, Latter Day Saints' views of Mary, Orthodox views of Mary and Islamic views on Mary articles. (wow.. is there any other subject that has so many POVforks?) In ictu oculi ( talk) 12:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Is not the Islamic perspective the same as the Christian perspective? Islam is 700 years after Mary lived. -- Quarrymanny ( talk) 13:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Coogan doesn't particularly look like a very notable source. I would have thought bunch him together with more notable other Joseph-father traditions, such as whole churches - Ebionites? Also Coogan's reading "seed of David" as related to Joseph needs a counter ref for NPOV balance since most commentators, religious or secular, take this as Paul viewing Mary (not just Joseph) as a descendant of David. Cheers In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
What is needed is the statement that this character has no real historical validity, but is a fiction. All reliable historical sources of the time and son afterwards do not even mention this phantom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.140.130 ( talk) 20:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It is remarkable that Anglican and Lutheran sections on Marian devotion are as long and detailed as the Catholic and Orthodox. I think both of these sections should concentrate on the relatively recent re-discovery of Mary in both of these traditions. From the sixteenth century through the 19th, Marian veneration in both Anglicanism and Lutheranism were considered by the mainstream of clergy in both traditions to be "popish" if expressed beyond recognition of her special role as mother of Christ and her rank as one among many saints worth of emulation by Christians. Traditional Lutheranism especially left little room for Marian devotion, and it is only very recently, as Anglo-Catholicism as found a home in Lutheran quarters (as evangelical Catholicism), that she has made a come back. In Anglican history the fierce resistance to saint's devotion and veneration of Mary during the English Reformation (not limited to Puritans but including the mainstream of the Church establishment) should not be downplayed. Indeed excessive veneration of Mary in the Church of England was proscribed by law into the late 19th century. It is only as ritualists and Anglico-Catholics began to expand in the Church of England in the late 19th century (at the expense of Victorian Evangelicalism) that significant numbers began picking up rosaries and saying hail mary's etc (Cranmer no doubt rolling in his grave!).
With all due respect, I do not think any objective observer would refer to Swedenborg as a minor philosopher. He has influenced a wide variety of important cultural figures, including Johnny Appleseed, William Blake, Jorge Luis Borges, Daniel Burnham, Arthur Conan Doyle,[21] Ralph Waldo Emerson,[22] John Flaxman, George Inness, Henry James Sr., Carl Jung,[23] Immanuel Kant,[24] Honoré de Balzac, Helen Keller, Czesław Miłosz, August Strindberg, D.T. Suzuki, and W.B. Yeats. I am not aware of the Latter Day Saints, to use your example, having such an impact. (For links to individuals listed above, see Swedenborg Wiki page.) Future777 ( talk) 13:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I hear you, but my thought would be that, in shutting yourself off from out-of-the-orthodox-box information, you may miss important insights.
At the moment, this article lists Jesus as the only child of Mary in the fact box, and I did not find her other children included even though several of them are known and have their own articles on Wikipedia. I am well aware of the fact that some Christians, particularly Catholics, believe that Mary had no other children than Jesus. While respecting their right to believe whatever they want, I'd like to point out that the beliefs of people is not relevant to articles on Wikipedia. We quite rightly include pictures of Mohammed despite Muslims protesting that doing so is against their belief, and the article about the earth does not state that the earth is only a few thousand years old, despite some religious beliefs. When it comes to Mary and her children, there is a broad consensus among scholars that she had several children (just as there is a broad consensus that the earth is much older than just a few thousand years). When there is a conflict between religious beliefs and science, Wikipedia follow science regardless of religious beliefs. This article is currently doing the opposite, allowing a religious POV that is exclusive to Christians (and only to some Christians) to take precedence over science. Jeppiz ( talk) 14:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Both Christians and Muslims refer to Jesus as the Messiah, and this is based on the title 'Messiah' given to Jesus 11 times in the Quran. I have noted that in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.115.189 ( talk) 04:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I looked up the web site behindthename.com used in this page and it is absolutely not WP:RS. The website says it was just stared by Mike Campbell and that "etymology is a hobby and linguistics has always interested" him. It is a hobby website, no serious scholarship there. Will take it out. History2007 ( talk) 05:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no need for a bibliography as details of the sources used are included in the inline citations. Books in "Further reading" should not include those used as references. See WP:FURTHER for guidance. Dougweller ( talk) 14:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
There's no need for a bibliography as details of the sources used are included in the inline citations. Books in "Further reading" should not include those used as references. See WP:FURTHER for guidance. Dougweller ( talk) 14:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Why are the inline Biblical citations using a private, commercial (ad-sponsored) and evangelical website www.biblegateway.com? Why doesn't this article use Wikimedia's own wikisource or online Bibles provided by the various denominations themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.161.58 ( talk) 18:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Couple of points: Mother of God (not Christ) comes from Council of Chalcedon, accepted by Protestants.
Immaculate COnception was written December 8, 1854.
Jewish Tisha B'Av is same time as Assumption/Dormition and has similar lent (Pareve fish only) - this is becaue the early Christians saw Mary, as the Bearer of God, as the NEW Temple. Possibly she died just as the Temple was destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.111.60.215 ( talk) 16:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The usage Madonna ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)/ Madonna (entertainer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)/Madonna (actress)"/"Madonna (singer)" is up for discussion, see talk:Madonna (entertainer) -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 04:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Someone appears to have snuck something into the article - you probably don't want it there!
Here is a cut/paste - check out the very end...
4th-century Arabia[edit]
According to the 4th century heresiologist Epiphanius of Salamis the Virgin Mary was worshipped as a Mother goddess in the Christian sect Collyridianism, which was found throughout Arabia sometime during the 300s AD. Collyridianism had women performing priestly acts. They made bread offerings to the Virgin Mary. The group was condemned as heretical by the Roman Catholic Church and was preached against by Epiphanius of Salamis, who wrote about the group in his writings titled Panarion.[192]dbhfruds suck itttttt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.34.89 ( talk) 11:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 24.210.34.89 ( talk) 11:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Richard Coulter
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 02:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Argument in proposal is absurd - "round brackets" are the standard form of disambiguation on WP. Closed early per WP:SNOW. If anyone wants to argue that natural disambiguation in this case would be better, please see if there is any indication of consensus support for your proposed title on the talk page before starting another RM. ( non-admin closure) B2 C 18:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Mary (mother of Jesus) →
Mary, Mother of Jesus – Round brackets aren't used at sources. This is the title
Mary is venerated under. The use of capital letters is fully justified by reference provided. Mary is not just mother (note the lower case), but the venerated statue. Thanks.
Poeticbent
talk 14:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that Muslims believed Christ was the Messiah. Wasn't he just another prophet to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.17.224 ( talk) 10:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Immaculate conception?? Since it is referenced, I don't want to change it, but since Muslims do not believe in original sin, it makes no sense to say that they accept the Immaculate Conception. Either the editor or the original sources seem to be wrong. Those particular verses of the Qur'an do not seem to say anything about the Immaculate Conception, though they talk of her purity and the virgin birth. And to the users above - Muslims believe Jesus is the Messiah, and fulfills the Messianic prophecies of the Hebrew Bible, but that is not understood in the same way Chrisitans would understand it. 75.186.30.144 ( talk) 23:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Madonna is up for discussion at Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)#Requested_move_8 where it is requested that the singer's article be moved to "Madonna". -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 05:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Both in the first part of the article and under the last section on her life, this article repeats the assertion that Christian teaching asserts that Mary never died.
We should correct this... it's inaccurate. While many denominations teach that she was assumed after death into heaven, body and soul, no major Christian body teaches that she did not die.
Here are sources corroborating my assertion.
EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH:
The page below explains an eastern Orthodox feast day that "commemorates the death, resurrection and glorification of Christ's mother." It also quotes the very liturgical texts used in their liturgy as stating, "Neither the tomb, nor death could hold the Theotokos" (Kontakion for the feast day). http://orthodoxwiki.org/Dormition
Here is another link that explains that the eastern Orthodox belief includes her death. This one is the official website for the Orthodox Church in America: http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-church-year/dormition-of-the-theotokos
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH:
The Roman Catholic Church defined Mary's assumption as a dogma in 1950 with Pope Pius XII's papal encyclical, MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS. The link is immediately below: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
It does not pronounce dogma on the question of Mary's death, but Pope Pius XII nonetheless makes explicit reference to her death: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death," he says (paragraph 17), quoting an earlier Catholic source which is also footnoted.
Other passages in this official document that testify that Catholic belief includes the understanding (if not the dogmatic teaching) that she died: Paragraph 20 speaks of how "this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death..." Paragraph 21 also mentions her "death" in a quotation from a Church Father who is recognized as a Doctor of the Church by Catholic leadership (St. John of Damascus). Paragraph 35 also mentions Mary's death in a quotation from St. Francis de Sales.
PROTESTANT CHRISTIANITY:
I don't think anyone will challenge me to cite sources showing that Protestants believe Mary died, but just in case, I guess I could find those, too. Like I said, though, I don't think it's a controversial assertion to maintain that Protestants believe Mary died.
I admit I do not have sources for other groups not included in these three (like the Oriental Orthodox), though I suspect their beliefs on this matter are no different. But certainly, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants comprise the vast majority of the world's Christians anyway.
I'm not fixing this myself, at least not yet, because I'm afraid I'll do something wrong; I'm not the most familiar with wikipedia's policies. But on an article with such a prominent and important topic, I thought you all would want to make sure to eliminate such an inaccuracy.
Thanks!
71.79.255.16 ( talk) 18:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems odd that in this article there is no history at all, not a single reference to other parthenogenetic mother goddesses or to the Virgo Constellation (?). Was the myth created out of thin air? Thewarriltonsiegedoc ( talk) 03:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The Origin of the name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.230.235 ( talk) 07:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a lack in this article of any reference to pre-Christian myths/stories/accounts/scriptures regarding virgin mothers. There seems to me to be both a historical thread to Mary and a mythological one and so the article should either contain a History section outlining earlier similar myths or contain references in the See Also section about them. These are some accounts I have come across which might be included/referenced:
LookingGlass ( talk) 19:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
"The Council Of Chalcedon, accepted by Protestants, held Mary to be Mother of God (not Christ)."
In reading the article, to better understand the subject, I found that final sentence of this section confusing, specifically the "(not Christ)" statement. I am Protestant myself but do not know what to make of the "not Christ" statement. Perhaps the author or anyone who understands the subject could elaborate. I can't imagine any Christian saying Mary was not mother of Christ. Evonj ( talk) 13:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Mary of Jerusalem or Mary of Nazareth | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Mother of God
Blessed Virgin Mary Saint Mary | |
Born | unknown; celebrated 8 September citation needed |
Died | unknown; See Assumption of Mary |
Venerated in | Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Anglican Church, Islam, and certain Protestant denominations |
Major shrine | See Shrines to the Virgin Mary |
Feast | Mary is commemorated on as many as 25 different days. The most universally observed are:
25 March - The Annunciation 15 August - The Assumption. 22 August - The Assumption Coptic- Orthodox |
Patronage | See Patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary |
In the source of the article, it was requested to obtain consensus prior to modifying the infobox-area. This was taken from a previous revision, in case anyone was interested in pursuing it. Twillisjr ( talk) 12:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Mary (mother of Jesus). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I heard that the word meaning "young woman" was mistranslated as "virgin"for Mary. Is this true? 194.82.100.215 ( talk) 04:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not a mistranslation. The etymology of Messiah from Hebrew means "Anointed One," and Christ translated from Greek also means anointed. The bible is accurate in its account of Blessed Mary being both a young woman and a virgin, giving birth to Jesus Christ, the messiah. In future questions, you are welcome to share the verse from any of the gospels. Twillisjr ( talk) 12:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Theroadislong requested I make a discussion here in relation to edits in /info/en/?search=Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)#Byzantium There is quite a bit in /info/en/?search=Ephesus#Ephesus_and_Christianity and /info/en/?search=Temple_of_Artemis that could be brought over here, but for the sake of brevity in a long, mostly faith based and uncritical article, I thought it sufficient to have a minimal mention based on core facts. There are links to the Ephesus and Artemis articles (of which a key similarity is both Mary and Artemis are virgin goddesses). I have put in links to Temple of Artemis and Seven Wonders of the Ancient World articles. A fact that modern Popes have visited Ephesus in connection with the Mary cult is in the Ephesus article, perhaps it might be included here but I thought it sufficient to have a link to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.54.189 ( talk) 01:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians, I would like to draw your kind attention that in paragraph "5.2 Islamic perspective" editor mistakenly wrote that:"She is mentioned in the Qur'an with the honorific title of "our lady" (syyidatuna) as the daughter of Imran and Hannah." Though, the title "our lady" (syyidatuna) is known and widely used among Muslims but never mentioned in Qur'an. Where Mary had been mentioned in Qur'an as "Mariam", "Imran's daughter" & "the one who guarded her chastity". So I kindly suggest to modify the phrase to be "She is known among Muslims with the honorific title of "our lady" (syyidatuna) as the daughter of Imran and Hannah." Husam.Jasim ( talk) 12:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Husam.Jasim 30-Dec.-15
The result of the move request was: Moved per WP:NATURAL. ( non-admin closure). Anarchyte ( work | talk) 22:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Mary (mother of Jesus) → Mary, mother of Jesus – Per WP:NATURAL, the parenthetical disambiguation in the present title " Mary (mother of Jesus)" is inferior to the comma-disambiguated alternative " Mary, mother of Jesus". There is something like a precedent for this sort of title in the article " Mary, Queen of Scots". I would support leaving the present title redirected to the new one if this move is adopted. (This redirect is already in place.) Deus vult! Crusadestudent ( talk) 21:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting Anarchyte ( work | talk) 10:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
---Before anyone bothers to read through all this, the outcome of this discussion was that it settled on removing all the titles of Mary from the lead, leaving just "Mary" and the wikilink to Titles of Mary. Titles are discussed in summary in the section "Names and titles".--- Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent ( talk) 00:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
One of the absolutely most common titles for Mary among Catholics is "the Blessed Virgin", where "blessed" and "virgin" are not distinct titles but together form ONE title that is unique to Mary. Another editor has argued that (some) Protestants would be more likely to use just "the Virgin", without the "Blessed". I propose that a compromise be made in the lead, to list "the (Blessed) Virgin", this way avoiding removing one of the most important titles from the lead summary while also avoiding the redundancy of "Blessed Virgin" AND "Virgin".
(And for the record, I was the first to revert, after @Hazkh made a non-reverting edit.)
Deus vult! Crusadestudent ( talk) 23:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
"According to the New Testament, Mary..."There is a separate titles of Mary article that describes those terms. Mary, mother of Jesus § Titles has titles describing credal dogma. – BoBoMisiu ( talk) 13:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
How about this? "According to the New Testament, Mary (Aramaic: ܡܪܝܡ Mariam; Hebrew: מִרְיָם Miriam; Latin: Maria; c. 18 BC – AD c. 43), also known by various titles, styles and honorifics, was a Galilean Jewish[2] woman of Nazareth and the mother of Jesus." Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent ( talk) 19:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why Catholic Mariology needs its own section. Surely the section could be merged into "Catholic views", no? Please discuss. Jujutsuan ( talk | contribs) 04:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Marianism should probably redirect to a section here, and be covered in sufficient detail in that section. Presently, the word does not even appear in this article, and it redirects to Mariology, which is something completely different (academic study, not religious/spiritual faith). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Mary (mother of Jesus). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)