Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: Well, "Theotokos" pretty much means "bearer of God" or "Mother of God", so sure, I'd suggest it's a closer target. Wesley 04:35, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Hi. It would help if you would sign your posts, makes conversations a little smoother. From what I can tell, there are a number of indications that they are based on different texts. Our oldest Septuagint manuscript dates from the fourth century or so, the oldest Masoretic text dates from the ninth or tenth century. If I'm not mistaken, the Dead Sea Scrolls in many places support the Masoretic version of particular passages, but in other places support the Septuagint's. It used to be thought that most of the books found only in the Septuagint were originally written in Greek, but the trend seems to be towards thinking at least some of these originated in Hebrew. Wesley 11:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary, Mother of God 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mary in Art 

message: 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)
thread_title: Mary and Shakespeare

message: 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 -
*He shall see his Seed - Isaiah 53: 10 
*He shall sprinkle his Seed across many nations - Isaiah 52:15
*Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and His Maker, ask me of things to concerning MY SONS ... Isaiah 45: 11
...
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 ?
:All of these quotes are about "spiritual" children (simply believers or Christians), not literal sons and daughters.  There are many verses in the New Testament that say the disciples are the "sons of God," through adoption or "new birth."  If Isaiah 45:11 was talking about Jesus' sons, then it would have a capital "S" in "sons" because they would be demi-gods.  Besides, Jesus is called the only Son of God, and if Jesus had kids, then Jesus would not be the only one.
:*Hebrews 12:5-9 calls all Christians sons of God.
:*John 3:3-8 shows how a person becomes a son of God: a spirtiual birth, not a carnal birth from Jesus himself.  --Padishar 04:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Da Vinci Code & Mary's Descendants 

message: Is there any reason why her name is 'Bitter'?..... --Menchi 01:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is more (or also) helpful to ask why her name is Maryam/Mariam? Portress 12:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe she was named after Moses's big sister? -- 128.227.142.89 22:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 11:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of name - Bitter? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re: History, edit comparison, second edit of 13:36 12 July 2005 

message: "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)
thread_title: Mary, they point out, is not of herself divine

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Catholic cult" 

message: 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.
* Christian Beliefs about Mary
* 632 pictures of the Virgin
* Munificentissimus Deus
* Bernard Orchard, The Betrothal and Marriage of Mary to Joseph, Part 1;   Part 2
* Bernard Orchard, Summary of The Betrothal and Marriage of Mary to Joseph and chronological chart
*St Mary in Indian Orthodox tradition
* The Sense of Mary and Shakespeare in Sixteenth-Century England
*American Catholic - Blessed Virgin Mary - The First Disciple
*Criticism of the veneration of Mary by Josef, a non-denominational Christian
*The Unknown Lives of Jesus and Mary from the Apocrypha and other little known sources.
*A Celebration of Mary —An evangelical Christian reflects on the place of Mary in Scripture, and takes a critical yet sympathetic look at later Christian tradition.
Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Was the recent deletion of all external links uncritical or biased? 

message: : Check some of the external links. :-) Wesley 15:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links recommendation 

message: 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) .
:There are any number of books by scholars available.  One of the more readable from a Catholic perspective is Scott Hahn's "Hail, Holy Queen."DaveTroy 20:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for further information

message: 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)
thread_title:  Orthodox and the immaculate conception 

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually, what is being said is that both Christians and Muslims believe that Jesus was the result of a virgin birth, that God caused it to happen. The Qur'an describes that an angel appeared to Mary, to announce to her the "gift of a holy son" (19:19). She was astonished at the news, and asked: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" (19:20). When the angel explained to her that she had been chosen for the service of God, and that God had ordained the matter, she devoutly submitted herself to His will. However, the similarity stops there. Muslims do not believe that Jesus was God incarnate. --Phiddipus 04:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Bless sins is right in that that should be worded better, as it does seem to imply that Muslims also consider Jesus to be the Son of God, which of course they do not. Wesley 15:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. I think the clearest evidence that you're correct is that Muslims believe Jesus was born of a virgin, but not that Jesus is the Son of God. The Nicene Creed says that Jesus is "eternally begotten of the Father," meaning He has always been the Son of God, this did not just happen when He was born to Mary. Wesley 14:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this be better worded 

message: 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)
replies: text: * See Luke 2:35 Freder1ck 16:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Symbols

message: Is it appropriate to describe Santeria as a non-Abrahamic religion? john k 20:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santeria non-Abrahamic? 

message: 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)
replies: text: However this syncretism is not very successful to Christians who consider Mary to be an actual historical person in the flesh, therefore she can't be compared or linked to any deity or religious archetype.
Pictureuploader 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I was hoping other people would chime in, but I guess not many editors are watching this page) I think the bigger issue here is that we are not trying to write an argumentative paper, and we do not need to support the "mainstream view", or criticize the "alternative views". Go to the Resurrection of Jesus article and look at some of the editorial notes hiden within the page (especially next to the liberal view). We should present all relevent POVs. We do not need to spell out that muslims don't agree with christians, and that christians don't agree with pagans, and that Catholics don't agree with Baptists etc. If we present each POV, it should be clear where each group agrees and disagrees, without having to spell it out or give an emphasis on the fact that Christians don't agree with other POVs. It seems redundent and POV pushing. If this were an article about a philosophical argument, I could understand criticisms and rebuttles being included. But since this is about Mary, mother of Jesus, I think its good enough to just explain each POV in their own section, and leave it at that. I see no reason to have a Christian response or criticism in a section dealing with alternative POVs. Unless you want to put the alternative POV criticisms in the Christian section. (not that I would seriously advocate that).--Andrew c 15:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictureuploader's additions 

message: 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.
Yom 06:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christianity Template

message: 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)
replies: text: That sound like a great idea.--Striver 20:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure.  It should definitely be mentioned on the article for Virgin Birth (if there is one), but it has nothing to do with Mary, and the mention in the article that virgin births do not naturally occur in humans seems a little condescending.  --WikiMarshall 09:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the process begins with genetically modified mice... I think the picture about Kaguya is not relevant in this discussion. Rjgodoy 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-divine virgin birth 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: In depictions of Mary, the color blue is often used. What is its significance?—Wasabe3543 19:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you mean CE and not BCE. Owen 05:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Age? 

message: 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)
replies: text: The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception concerns the conception of Mary in the wonb of her mother, St. Anne (through otherwise normal procreative means via her father Joachim).  Luther had a deep personal veneration for St. Anna, whom he credited with saving his life in his youth from a seastorm (Luther did't like the ocean much).  Lostcaesar 11:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Meg, if you really have questions about this, I may satisfy your curiosity. However, I think it unhelpful that you stack your questions with assumptions and loaded terms. But feel free to ask. Right now I will only say that I do not see how this article is written from the Catholic viewpoint. This view is included, as it should be, but not pushed as the undisputed fact. But neither are/should  different views be pushed as such. Str1977 (smile back) 23:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lutheranian veneration 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge mother of god 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Etymology