Talk:Assumption of Mary

Evidence
After some contemplation I removed/commented out the statement According to the Irish historian Eamon Duffy there is no historical evidence whatever for the assumption - this seems be just ridiculous, what evidence could one expect to find here? The passage "history" does just as well without this claim and namedropping.--Medusahead (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone writing "Hey, what happened to Jesus' mother? She just vanished." Editor2020 (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The evidence would be either (a) mentions in the text of the New Testament, or (b) tradition. Epiphanius made an investigation in the 4th century and found neither. Achar Sva (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Achar Sva, I remember you that you delete the following:


 * However Epiphanius highlights that "If I should say anything more in her praise, [she is] like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up and has not seen death".


 * You are very good at eliminating what does not suit you. The article must be neutral.Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Let you see the WP article Rapture. It affirms something of similari of the Assumption of Mary body and soul into Heaven, without death, but for the whole Church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.18.245.162 (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Closer to sources?
The book says the following: "he can find no authorized tradition about how the Virgin’s life ended" (page 11) and you say that it is closer to sources the following: "wrote of his search for reliable traditions concerning the fate of Mary and his inability to discover any."

Do you think you can make the article and modify it to your liking by altering the sources without anyone noticing? --Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rafaelosornio, you changed the source of the statement from page 18 to page 11, and then complain you can't find it mentioned there? Your edits are disruptive and apparently dishonest, please stop or I will report you. Achar Sva (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It depends if it is hardcover version or not, or if it is an epub version. Finally, I can find it on the hardcover page 11. You always accommodate what the sources say to your liking, placing something that the sources themselves do not say. Stop altering or tampering with the sources or I will report you.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Rafael, I think I've mentioned to you that your grasp of English is poor. Take what you've written just now: "Finally, I can find it on the hardcover..." That's incorrect - I can guess that you mean something like "after looking I have found it in the hardcover (edition)," but what you wrote is bad English. Or this: "You always accommodate what the sources say to your liking, placing something that the sources themselves do not say." Again I can guess what you mean, but it's bad English. My point is, I often have to correct your edits so that can be used in English Wiki. You don't realise this and seem to think that I'm somehow altering the article. Please be a little more humble about your abilities in English. Achar Sva (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not the first time, that you have criticized Rafaelosornio's English when you don't like what he says. Stop with the ad personam attacks. His English is just fine; it's your editing that is the persistent problem. Manannan67 (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Oversight in Assumption of Mary
In the Wikipedia article "Assumption of Mary", there appears to me a undoubtedly involuntary misstatement of Catholic doctrine. It says: "Traditions relating to the Assumption: The Catholic Church has two different traditions concerning the assumption/dormition of Mary: in the first, she rose from the dead after a brief period and then ascended into heaven; in the second, she was 'assumed' bodily into heaven before she died." Now it is certainly not true that any tradition exists that Mary ASCENDED into Heaven. Only Jesus has done that. And the second tradition (of her Assumption) does not exclusively refer to having occurred BEFORE she died, as the same article makes clear later on. Please investigate and correct if appropriate. Considero (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You're right, she did not ascend but was assumed. Thank you.Rafaelosornio (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Cathedral (Parma) - Assumption by Correggio.jpg

Assumption of Our Lady
The Assumption of the Virgin Mary occurred on the Gregorian astronomic 15 August 44 CE (its Julian 17 AD). Its probable time is 9:00 IST (7:00 GMT). She was 60 years old.

200.155.120.37 (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * How do you know what you pretend to know? WP:CITE your WP:SOURCES. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Scriptural sources issue

 * The pope did not advance any specific text as proof of the doctrine, but one senior advisor, Father Jugie, expressed the view that Revelation 12:1–2 was the chief scriptural witness to the assumption.

but later in the same section we have:
 * Among the many other passages noted by Pope Pius were the following …

I'm assuming the latter mention of Pius XII was meant to refer to Father Jugie? -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As I read the source, it refers to Pope Pius.--Medusahead (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)