Talk:Church of the Holy Sepulchre (Jerusalem)

Is it best to have the complete description of the layout of the Church of the Resurrection? Perhaps moving subsection titles out of the table of contents would make the this section seem less cumbersome. —magda (talk) 09:06, March 21, 2008 (PDT)

It does seem a bit over-detailed. Some summarizing would help, methinks. —Fr. Andrew ^talk contribs (THINK!) 20:51, March 21, 2008 (PDT)

It looks cumbersome because it doesnt have pictures to accompany the description ...however, this is the HEART of ORTHODOXY - how can you NOT spend time to build up the article into the depth that is deserved! If you can not details the walk around the larger church into smaller sub-articles then you have missed the point about this church ... anyone who has visited (I have) knows that the smaller chapels and the detail is warranted ...maybe the layout of this tool just doesnt do justice to large articles. Rather than suggest to "delete" things ... how about suggest ways we can improve ...I spent an entire day pulling that information together. Vasiliki 21:12, March 24, 2008 (PDT)

The section looks so much better now! I was thinking that there seemed to be so much material that it might merit its own article, not that it should be deleted. I don't understand this phrase in the "Chapel of St. Helen" part, though: "Inside the chapel is her throne and the pilgrim of the good thief..." How should that read?—magda (talk) 10:40, March 31, 2008 (PDT)

little faith

I have an objection to the phrase "during excavations she is said to have discovered the True Cross." Isn't this a site created by believers for (mainly) other Orthodox believers? Why do we doubt our own Holy Tradition and say 'Well, some people believe it was the real thing but...' Tradition tells us of the miracles that were related to this discovery. Why do we want to say here that it is all mythology? Why not let the other sites do that? Alexeykh