Enoch and the BVM[edit]

I have found this interesting claim that Saint-Germain/Enoch/Metatron was also Saint Joseph, the husband of Mary. If this was the case, Enoch could almost be considered to be a Co-Redemptor too. [1] ADM (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, although interesting, it is clearly original research and WP:OR disallows its use, even if it is 100% true. The missionsaintgermain site is not a reliable 3rd party type site either. But in any case, this is clearly a WP:OR situation. History2007 (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liturgical Christians?[edit]

Hello, the very first sentence refers to "liturgical Christians". I feel embarrassed to ask this, but what does that mean? Is there another way to word this to make it easier to understand for people who don't know much about Christianity... or people who do but have gaps in their knowledge? Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, no worries. It happens that Wikipedia had a definition burried within a page, so I just added a link and a redirect. Cheers History2007 (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have never heard of a formal category for this, thank you for finding it. LovesMacs (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are welcome. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a huge amount of information within Wikipedia that is not easily accessible or well categorized. And the situation within Wikimedia is even more desperate. And ironically, all the info needed to remedy the situation is also within Wikipedia: e.g. please see: my improvement list. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BVM vs Mary, Mother of Jesus[edit]

Why is this page separate from the Mary, Mother of Jesus page?? Lily20 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because there was a loooong debate 2 years ago about it. Decision was to separate. History2007 (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia: Index of Information, or Theological Authority?[edit]

As far as I was concerned, Wikipedia is a place for information, not a place to assert beliefs. "Maria is truly the Mother of God (De Fide). ...if Mary was not Mother of God, then Jesus was in fact not God." Really now! Is that a "fact?" Or is that the authoritive Roman Catholic view? Since it is, that is how it should be stated: "According to Roman Catholicism, Maria is thee mother of god," as opposed to presenting this as "fact." This is an encyclopedia, not a Roman Catholic mouthpiece. I don't adhere to Christianity or any religion for that matter, but I find this assertion absurd. Assuming for a moment, that there is actually a figure called "god" and there was a personage named "Mary/Maria," and the "Bible" is the ultimate authority, "if Mary was not Mother of God, then Jesus was in fact not God" is an theologically anachronistic statement. If "in the beginning, god created the heaven and earth," and Mary came a long time afterwards, then we have a big problem, because if Mary is THEE mother of god, then god couldn't have been around to create Adam, Even and all the people leading up to Mary. If god existed before Mary, and Jesus was supposed to be god, than this would make Mary basically a surrogate womb with no connection to god whatsoever. I'm no Christian, but please. Present the views and beliefs as they are, views and beliefs, and not as matter-of-fact, thank you.KogeJoe (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second paragraph in the article says: This ecumenical article is about general Christian views. Hence the article is already declared as being about the "Christan views". And I think you intended to say "as far as I am concerned" at the beginning... but we will not let grammar get in our way.... History2007 (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Links[edit]

I removed several dead links + two others :

which is about a heart-shaped hole discovered in the snow in Poland, which seems to me as failing requirements for notability or relevance ;

which, at least on the page linked to, has only limited reference to Mary, and no relation whatsoever to a "defense" of Mary.

It would be best if more informative, and preferably more NPOV, links were added.--Alþykkr (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

merging[edit]

this and Virgin Mary is the same thing roxy: JELLO says HELLO (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. I'm going to tag the article. I don't think there are two BVM's, one Catholic and one "Ecumenical." I think Christ just had the one mother. Reminds me of the "separate but equal" law. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is at the top of the article: "This ecumenical article is about general Christian views on and veneration of the Virgin Mary." Catholics are Christians. Anglicans are Christians. Lutherans are Christians. Don't see the need to "separate but equal" them out here.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion took place at length before. See the comments at the end of the Roman Catholic article. History2007 (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It needs to be taken again. This article is heavily Catholic as is. Both articles can easily be merged/purged.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is your opinion. We will wait for comments from other editors, but the discussion needs to be in one place, say: Talk:Blessed_Virgin_Mary_(Roman_Catholic)#Merge_Proposal which has a detailed response. History2007 (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge the two articles User:Lucifero4

Given that there have been no objections to the merger, and given the overlap of material, it should just be done to streamline the articles. The only logical way is:

  • Mary (mother of Jesus) has a general discussion and has short sections that refer to the specialized articles via Main directives.

This is the only way the merger will make sense, for we could not have articles on Islamic views, Protestant views, etc. and not one on Roman Catholic views, given that there is much more material, and a much higher emphasis on Marian issues within the Catholic tradition than the others.

And the merger is not hard, given the large overlap of the material here with the Mother of Jesus aticle (Lutheran sections are identical) and the RC article, where rosary, music, art, etc. are almost identical. The protestant section has very few references, so I will also find and add some of those later to keep the overll article in shape. There is also some material about "socialimpact" and chivalry that really belongs in the Mariology article, not an article about Mary, so I will transfer it. The Islamic section in Mary (mother of Jesus) is a subsection and should probably become a section, so I will do that. The Chriistian section in Mary (mother of Jesus) should also be alphabetically sorted, and I will order it. History2007 (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Virgin Mary and Blessed Virgin Mary[edit]

There was a discussion on Mary (mother of Jesus) about renaming that page to "Virgin Mary" and that was not accepted. So there are two pages that get redirected: "Virgin Mary" and "Blessed Virgin Mary". The page "Virgin Mary" redirects to Mary (mother of Jesus), but Blessed is mostly a Catholic title and this page should really redirect to the Catholic page, unlike the Virgin Mary itself. History2007 (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories