Talk:Dormition of the Mother of God

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dormition versus Assumption

This section does not make sense because there doesn't appear to any real distinction between the two feasts.JPSheridan 01:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two feasts are from two different religions. Roman Catholicism and Easter Orthodox are two different churches and their feast days are related but celebrated by different people. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism. Lakeroese (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section is not in any case about the feasts but the theological beliefs, which are, or can be, different, as is explained perfectly clearly. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge. Bad idea, no arguments for it produced. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am myself Eastern Orthodox and don't see the need for two different articles. It is one and the same feast, maybe with different emphases. Lakeroese, on the basis of your arguments, we should have two, or even more, articles for Christmas (and all other feasts).--theltalpha (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose For Roman Catholics, Assumption is an issue in itself. A merger will result in a new article (by me) called "Assumption (Roman Catholic)". History2007 (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose
(1) there doesn't appear to any real distinction between the two feasts For starters, one feast is about falling asleep" or death of the Theotokos Mary. The other feast is about Virgin Mary, "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."[1]
(2) Anybody who reads the two articles can easily see (as Johnbod rightly points out) that the main issue is theology and not feasts!
(3) This section does not make sense I do not know, what JPSheridan means by section. To which section is he referring to? Or does he confuse "section "with "article"?
(4) I have never before seen a Wikipedia merger request so poorly justified, lacking any foundation whatsoever! --Ambrosius007 (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: (Why not mergeRoman Catholic Church with Eastern Orthodox Church, since all they disageee is the papacy?) Why mix a well-written and adequately referenced article (Assumption) with a bunch of generalities (dormition). Only two statements are actually verified. See below. Note also, that this request was made in October 2006 and nobody responded until theltalpha flagged it in the Assumption of Mary article on August 16, 2008 --Thomaq (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have concensus here, so I'll remove the tags. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the article Dormition of the Theotokos the following sentence is stated: The Dormition and the Assumption are different names for the same event, Mary's departure from the earth, although the beliefs are not entirely the same. Why make a artificial split where actually no split is needed? Every Christian feast on Wikipedia is described in one article each, with the differences between the respective denominations described within the article. Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, every feast just one article. Even Epiphany is one article although this is really a completely different feast in Western and Eastern Church. If you really want to keep the split between Assumption and Dormition (although being the same feast) you definitely have to split the article Epiphany, which actually handles two different feasts. Even books about Orthodoxy written by Orthodox People mention that the feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos equals the Western feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (while not forgetting to mention the differences in the theological views of this event).--theltalpha (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no: Nativity of the Theotokos and Nativity of Mary are different articles, for the same reason - the Catholic & Orthodox views of the event celebrated are sufficiently different to justify this. I'm sure there are other examples, like Timkat (Ethiopian Epiphany), also Catholic/Protestant ones etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are normally not to quote from Wikipedia articles for verification. This would apply even more in contested cases to sentences which are not sourced in any way shape or form. --Thomaq (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Pope Pius XII: "Munificentissimus Deus - Defining the Dogma of the Assumption", par. 44. Vatican, November 1, 1950

Verification

This article requires much faith because it offers virtually no verification. In addition words like "often" and "some" are not acceptable by Wikipedia standards unless the texts are adequately verified. --Thomaq (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your problem. The article is undercited, but I can't see weasel words myself. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia defines Weasel words as "small phrases attached to the beginning of a statement, such as "some argue that..."" Several times the articles uses words: as Some, in some places, in some churches, often, fairly representative example, Admittedly, the problem is not quite as severe as with the absence of citations--Thomaq (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding the policy, which relates to views of experts etc, as evident throughout Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, though this could be made clearer there. It does not cover generalizations attempting to cover wide variations in the matter under discussion, as here. I'll remove the tag. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to prefer a narrow interpretation. In my view, the Wikipedia policy applies here in a broad sense, because at issue are repeated small phrases attached to the beginning of a statement and the artificial creation of facts through weasel words. Thus, there is no difference between "some experts", "some argue that" and: "some places" or, some "churches". But this is a minor issue, as I mentioned above. I am not going to waste our time over it. The main problem is the virtual absence of verification. --Thomaq (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death?

Do the Orthodox churches believe that Mary actually died - as is implied in the article's introduction? Anglicanus (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is clearly stated later on. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Κοίμησις Θεοτόκου

I have added the Greek terminus from Proseychetarion.--Sergius-eu (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dormition of the Mother of God. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion of calendars? Old Style and New Style

I am working on articles that link to Old Style and New Style dates because that article is now primarily about the changes in Great Britain and its colonies, to update them to use Adoption of the Gregorian calendar, which takes a worldwide view and is more appropriate for Greek Orthodox articles. However I am confused by this article because it says 'August 15 (August 28 New Style for those following the Julian Calendar)'. The problem is that the Julian Calendar is generally regarded as 'Old Style' and the Gregorian Calendar as 'New Style'. Have I misunderstood? or has this article been vandalised? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means August 28 on the Gregorian Calendar currently falls on August 15 of the Julian Calendar. Those reckoning time by the Julian Calendar and celebrating on their "August 15" will be doing this on August 28 Gregorian. Elizium23 (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was exactly my logic. I shall correct the text accordingly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone celebrates this feast on August 15. Those celebrating on the Gregorian calendar celebrate on August 15 NS and those on the Julian calendar celebrate on August 15 OS. Elizium23 (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dormition of the Mother of God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dormition of the Mother of God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dormition of the Mother of God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illogical basic statements, useless article

This article simply doesn't make sense. If I try to sum up what it says, I cannot, because I'm left with a nonsensical core statement. Since most of it is unsourced, I don't get the benefit of checking whether there might be some fine nuances left out here that may explain the obvious lack of logic.

  • "The Dormition and the Assumption are different names for the same event, Mary's departure from the earth, although the beliefs are not necessarily identical.": How is 'death' the same as 'rising to heaven', especially if they're set three days apart? Aren't these two separate and consecutive events? If yes, they can't be identical. Or are the 3 days not part of the Orthodox dogma?
  • "While some Roman Catholics agree with the Orthodox that this happened after Mary's death, others hold that she did not experience death and she was "assumed" into heaven in bodily form, just as her son Jesus ascended.": Outright wrong. Jesus did indeed die. Regular death. Nonsensical statement. Contradicted by John Paul II in the next paragraph.
  • The Assumption of Mary is defined in that article's lead as an event, not a denominational feast. Johnbod's main argument from this talk page falls apart.
  • Also in that article's lead, the Dormition is put in brackets as the equivalent of the Catholic "Falling Asleep of the Blessed Virgin Mary", itself given as a perfect synonym of the Assumption of Mary. So Assumption = Dormition. Arminden (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was my point (from 10 years ago). I'm puzzled. I've rewritten the passage anyway. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO it is safe to say that the RCC Assumption and the "Orthodox" Dormition refer to essentially the same thing, that is, the ending of the earthly life of Mary. If there is a variance on exactly what happened, I think that is a minor point in describing a supposed historical event broad brush. I think it safe to say that both POV involve supernatural happenings. Forgive me for thinking that the objection above is a quibble. (One man's life & death, may be for another man a quibble). And I believe that the article is certainly useful as a description of the various supernatural endings of Mary's life on earth are concerned. Why not keep them together for comparison?(PeacePeace (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Noticed redundancy

In the first sentence of the section Dormition fast, I found the following redundancy:

Orthodox and Eastern Catholics fast from red meat, poultry, meat products, dairy products (eggs and milk products), fish, oil, and wine.

Since "red meat" is a subcategory of "meat products", I don't think it should be here. Could anyone please tell me if I'm wrong? (Edit: I realized I missed "poultry" in that category as well. Sorry about that. Anyway, Elizium23 corrected me below.)--Thylacine24 (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thylacine24, red meat would be a hamburger or a steak. Meat products would be beef broth, gelatin, etc. I would say that theey are two different categories, and they are often specified this way in the guidelines. Elizium23 (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: Really? Well, thanks for letting me know. (Edit: Forgot signature at first, tried to fix it due to slow-loading page change, which led to editing conflict, fixed it now. Sorry about that.)--Thylacine24 (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: I didn't even notice the presence of "poultry" as well. Of course, your response to me makes it a moot point.--Thylacine24 (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible extraneous sentence

The "[l]iturgy" section begins with the following sentence, which I fixed up a bit (sorry to boast):

The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, which is an Oriental Orthodox Church, celebrates the Feast of Dormition on August 15 with great importance, as that day is the national independence day of India.

It doesn't have a subsection, and feels somewhat out of place to me. Could anyone please tell me if I'm wrong?--Thylacine24 (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the date for the Greek text of the Dormition of Mary ed. by Tischendorf is likely wrong

The article says, "The events of the Dormition of the Virgin and her burial are dealt with in several known apocrypha: "Tale of the Dormition of the Virgin" by Pseudo-John the Theologian (emerged in the mid-5th century or later),[10]. . . ." The footnote goes to the Greek edition by Tischendorf, but I have that book and I have found no such date as mid-5th century given by Tischendorf. This work is in the standard set, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, translated into English. Here is what that standard edition says on date:

"V., VI., VII. The Assumption of Mary. — . . . the Greek text of this book, which has been translated into several languages both of the East and the West, is edited by Tischendorf for the first time. He assigns it to a date not later than the fourth century. A book under this title is condemned in the decree of Gelasius."


in volume 8 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, "The Account of St. John the Theologian OF THE FALLING ASLEEP OF THE HOLY MOTHER OF GOD," in "The Translator's Introductory Notice." I am consulting the Accordance Bible Software edition of the Ante-Nicene Fathers & unfortunately, it does not seem to provide page numbers.

Thus in the absence of any scholarly conflicting opinion presented here, I think we should state not later than 4th century. We note that it is in the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection (not Post-Nicene. (PeacePeace (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Probably negative unprovable statements should be deleted

I think it is probably correct to say that a feast was not celebrated before the 5th century, but that cannot be proven. So it is best deleted; also similar negatives. We have only a tiny sample of recordings of what happened in early times. Suppose someone says, "The yo-yo did not exist before the 7th century." How could you know that? Do you have video recordings of all places on earth in all former centuries, inside & outside of stuctures? How would you know that an ancient Chinese boy named Sum Sing Wing Wong didn't have a yo-yo in Lower Slobovia? How could anybody know that some feast was not celebrated in the 2nd century? Do we have video tapes of all cities, towns & villages in the Roman empire & among the Parthians? How would we know what feast St Thomas celebrated in India in the first century? Sweeping denials, negative statements should not be used when they are impossible to prove or find reliable sources. The very nature of their unprovability means that a modern source that says it is not reliable. (PeacePeace (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Wrong. You can not invalidate sources because they do not fit your chosen narrative. Dimadick (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No need to delete. This holiday really wasn't celebrated until the 5th century, according to scientific research. This is a complete agreement between scientists. This may be frustrating for some people, but scientific facts and scientific research cannot be ignored. Wlbw68 (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should read Tischendorf's apocryphal edition before writing on this topic

Although Tischendorf's edition is primary source, it should be read in Greek & English before editing this article on matters which come out of Tischendorf. That way the secondary source used can be checked for reliability. For example, if a 2ndary source entitles something as "The tale of," yet Tischedorf never used such a word, neither is the Latin title thus translatable, neither is there a Greek manuscript using a word that means "tale," the 2ndary source is unreliable. Tischendorf titles the chapter of his book: "V. IOANNIS: Liber de Dormitoine Mariae": "Liber" = book, not tale. Tischendorf's Greek edition is available via Amazon cheap (I own it), & it is also accessable via Archive.org at https://archive.org/details/apocalypsesapocr02tiscuoft/page/94/mode/2up The English is translated also & on line at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm. (PeacePeace (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Entering Heaven alive

Greetings!

I should like to challenge your reversion of my edit.

You restored Category:Entering heaven alive. I had removed this because, as the article states, "Mary had been buried in Gethsemane ... Christ had taken her body to heaven after three days". Since there is a separate article for the Assumption of Mary, this article (redundant to the latter, IMHO) is about the Eastern feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God, and since that the burial narrative is enshrined in the propers of the feast in, at least, the Byzantine Rite, and also that this article's section on the Maronite Church suggests that they (who all are in communion with Rome) likewise enshrine it liturgically, and since I believe that the narrative is believed by all Eastern Churches, methinks that I appropriately removed that category. I also note that Roman Catholics of the Byzantine Rite use the same propers as do Eastern Orthodox, for which I am providing this link to a Byzantine Catholic English language text of the propers for 15 August. I further note that this article states "The Catholic doctrine of the Assumption covers Mary's bodily movement to heaven, but the dogmatic definition avoids saying whether she was dead or alive at that point", so the belief in Mary's death is quite acceptable for Roman Catholics to hold. Unfortunately, I cannot document, at least without considerable effort, that other Eastern Churches share the death followed by resurrection story, although, for what little it is worth, by personal conversations I've learned that the Coptic Orthodox do.

So please revert, or allow me to revert without perception of an editing war, your reversion.

I thank you.


Sincerely,

Vincent J. Lipsio (talk)

This article speaks of "the falling asleep, burial, resurrection, and translation of the Theotokos into heaven in the body." Those would be in chronological order. See also, OCA. Elizium23 (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I have bigger fish to drown, as the idiom doesn't quite go, including an ever-growing list of Wikipedia edits to be made, and whether or not this category is appropriate is too trivial in the scheme of things to put much effort into. However, I'm certain that the wording "resurrection, and translation" is not intended to be interpreted as two separate chronologically sequential events, and I do have formal theological education, for what little that may matter. Some day when I come across a reliable source, e.g., catechism, in the English language, about the existence of which I'll inquire from clergy or others actively involved with teaching, I'll challenge your conclusion.
For now, I wish you a happy new year, tomorrow night and Monday being 1 September on the Julian calendar (and in matters of my personal life, the anniversary of my being tonsured a reader, aka, lector, in 1978). Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elizium23 (talk), Please accept my humble apology! Having solicited the opinions of a goodly number of educated theologians, including three bishops, I ascertained that, although a few had no opinion, all the others agreed with you, and none agreed with me. Certainly I am glad that I started this discussion and did not revert your reversion! Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption

Arminden, you can't entirely remove all references to the Catholic part-"alternative", much as you would like to. Some appropriate wording & links are needed to help the reader. If you don['t do it, I will have to. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that the reader must get all the info they can find useful, and that's exactly why I didn't remove anything, quite the contrary, I added the (until now missing) wikilinks to the Assumption in art (article as well as section of Assumption article). My only beef here is structure based on logic. I couldn't care less who or how many believe in the one or the other concept, and why not. When 1) this article is on Orthodox Dormition, and 2) there is an entire article dedicated to the art inspired by the Catholic Assumption, I see little gain in having here as well a whole SECTION, as opposed to just a mention, about that topic. What I know is that when I arrived here for the first time, it was in order to learn about the feast, nothing more, and all I got was – very confused. Now that we're slowly getting somewhere, I went through the sections checking if they are written in harmony with the essential part of the article, which is the definition as stated in the lead. That's all. Arminden (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've added some necessary stuff to the lead (still too short). You should remember that the "Dormition" remains compatible with RC doctrine, which should be said. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What good is a list of the feast's name in an arbitrary selection of languages?

I found this:

"The comparative forms of the term for "Dormition of the Mother of God" appears in virtually all Catholic and Orthodox nations and languages including:..."

I have lots of problems with this intro and with the listed 13 languages.

  • Nothing is sourced.
  • Why "comparative forms"? Term probably misunderstood and misused (what quality or degree is under comparison here?), I have thrown it out. Did I miss a deeper meaning? None of the terms is translated, so not even a semantic comparison is possible.
  • Very few nations are "Catholic or Orthodox", certainly not all the 13 listed here.
  • Languages: do all these languages use the same term for the Catholic Assumption AND the Orthodox Dormition?
  • Why these 13, all of them, and none other? Because some local patriots added them to the list? What criteria were used? Are these cultural domains in which the concept has flourished in a specific or significant manner?
  • This list would be of some mild interest to the user if there were at least a translation, to see if some deviate from the meaning of "falling asleep/dormition" and/or "assumption". As of now, we have a medley of pretentious useless arabesques and/or "Nick was here" graffitis.
  • There is an even more comprehensive "Languages" button on the left.

The article seems to suggest that Greek was the language in which this concept was first conceived of and circulated, and that fragments in two Aramaic dialects or languages are the oldest ones which have survived. So,

  • Greek, Syriac, and Christian Palestinian Aramaic are justified. Why all the rest?
  • Why, out of these 3 useful ones, Christian Palestinian Aramaic is listed as "no title"? Btw, this seems to me as a wrong wording. meaning close to nothing:
  • Do the extant Christian Palestinian Aramaic fragments: contain no term for the "dormition"? Or is there no term as such to be gained from the text, just a narrative with a very general choice of words? Or is it rather that the Wiki editor couldn't find it? If there is none: then why is it listed here? If this were an academic paper, the extant vs the missing parts of the surviving MSS would be of interest, but it's not. So? A source, like always, would help a lot.
  • Coptic: also "no title", so the same questions from the perplexed reader. I can imagine Coptic MSS being of interest, but there's nothing on it in the article, just a mention of '"Coptic" narratives', w/o any elaboration. But 'narratives' suggests there might be some MSS somewhere, not just oral traditions, so - again, "no title" (i.e. 'no Coptic term for Dormition of the Holy Virgin')?!
  • Georgian: beautiful script, but is this a porcelain teacup in need for decoration, or an article in an encyclopaedia?

Honestly, is there a need for this section, as it is now, arbitrary and unsourced? Arminden (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apostles Transported

They are all supposed, in Orthodoxy, to have suddenly, miraculously appeared at the empty tomb of Mary? I never heard this one. Who is teaching it, why, and how long? Room for more info here. 24.4.136.172 (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Year of Mary's dormition inconsistent with text.

The text states Mary died 11 years after Jesus, in AD 41. If Jesus died at age 33 (AD 33), shouldn't Mary's death have been in AD 44? 98.116.163.246 (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Dormition_of_the_Mother_of_God"