The Dormition of our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America ^

[Kolokotronis]

Synaxarion:

Concerning the Dormition of the Theotokos, this is what the Church has received from ancient times from the tradition of the Fathers. When the time drew nigh that our Savior was well-pleased to take His Mother to Himself, He declared unto her through an Angel that three days hence, He would translate her from this temporal life to eternity and bliss. On hearing this, she went up with haste to the Mount of Olives, where she prayed continuously. Giving thanks to God, she returned to her house and prepared whatever was necessary for her burial. While these things were taking place, clouds caught up the Apostles from the ends of the earth, where each one happened to be preaching, and brought them at once to the house of the Mother of God, who informed them of the cause of their sudden gathering. As a mother, she consoled them in their affliction as was meet, and then raised her hands to Heaven and prayed for the peace of the world. She blessed the Apostles, and, reclining upon her bed with seemliness, gave up her all-holy spirit into the hands of her Son and God. With reverence and many lights, and chanting burial hymns, the Apostles took up that God-receiving body and brought it to the sepulchre, while the Angels from Heaven chanted with them, and sent forth her who is higher than the Cherubim. But one Jew, moved by malice, audaciously stretched forth his hand upon the bed and immediately received from divine judgment the wages of his audacity. Those daring hands were severed by an invisible blow. But when he repented and asked forgiveness, his hands were restored. When they had reached the place called Gethsemane, they buried there with honor the all-immaculate body of the Theotokos, which was the source of Life. But on the third day after the burial, when they were eating together, and raised up the artos (bread) in Jesus' Name, as was their custom, the Theotokos appeared in the air, saying "Rejoice" to them. From this they learned concerning the bodily translation of the Theotokos into the Heavens.

These things has the Church received from the traditions of the Fathers, who have composed many hymns out of reverence, to the glory of the Mother of our God.

Apolytikion in the First Tone

In birth, you preserved your virginity; in death, you did not abandon the world, O Theotokos. As mother of life, you departed to the source of life, delivering our souls from death by your intercessions.

Kontakion in the Second Tone

Neither the grave nor death could contain the Theotokos, the unshakable hope, ever vigilant in intercession and protection. As Mother of life, He who dwelt in the ever-virginal womb transposed her to life.

[wagglebee]

can somebody please tell me at what point the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church and made it obsolete so men could go off and form 30,000 churches on their own?

Exactly! If sola scriptura was legitimate, Christianity would be entirely composed of Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans and a few Coptics and Nestorians (though on this thread I've discovered that Nestorianism might be making a comeback in America).

[kosta50]

The Canon recognized what the Church was already using...notice 2 Peter mentions the writings of Paul as Scripture, while Paul quotes Luke as Scripture

You don't know what the the original said. The oldest copy of 2 Peter is P72 (or Bodmer VIII), placed at around AD 300 (beginning of the 4th century).

Modern biblical scholars (Haines-Eitzen , Gamble, Ehrman, Gregory, etc.) have shown that "free dissemination" of Christianiy by non-professional scribes has resulted not only in errors, but in deliberate alterations of the manuscripts to fit the evolving doctrine of the Church. This type of "harmonizing" of the scriptures makes any reference to NT books as "true" copies utterly unreliable.

Besides, there is every reason to believe that 2 Peter was written long after Peter was dead.

[Yudan]

This is perhaps the best quote on the subject I have ever read, and your profile page has tears streaming down my cheeks with laughter.

Bravo.

[getoffmylawn]

Thank you very much, but “God’s tractor beam” is a term I lifted from some of kost50’s past arguments. As for my profile page, don’t blame kosta50 for that. I lifted most of that stuff from other folks. :)

[wagglebee]

“God’s tractor beam” is right up there with “YOPIOS”!

[Mr Rogers]

First, I’m largely going to ignore kosta50. Why? His argument devolves into ‘You don’t know what was written in Scripture’. I say we do, and posted a link to a 150 page book discussing the reliability of scripture here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2316798/posts

Suffice it to say that if we don’t know what scripture says, then we don’t know what anyone says, and we have NO standard for belief. I don’t know if any of y’all are ‘Roman Catholic’, but try finding a list of infallible pronouncements by the Pope...

kosta50 disagrees with me, and he is welcome to do so - but if we have no standard for comparison, then we have no basis for discussion that moves us forward - it becomes all ‘he said/she said/we feel’.

This was the dilemma I sometimes faced with Mormon friends when I lived in Utah - if they insisted on using their additional 3 books of ‘scripture’ and denied the accuracy of translation in the Bible, then we had no way to make progress in a discussion.

As for sola scriptura, it helps to define what it is or is not. Here is how I understand it:

“...the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the rule of faith, for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition. The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks to the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word and is constantly reformed thereby.”

Kolokotronis wrote: “The best story revolving around the canon concerns the widespread adoption of Hebrews and Revelation. The East accepted Hebrews early on. The West soundly rejected it. Similarly, the East rejected Revelation. There was a deal of sorts whereby the East promised to accept Revelation if the West accepted Hebrews. The West accepted Hebrews and we waited until the 8th century to accept Revelation and even at that we never use it.”

If we want to make progress in discussing ideas, we need some common ground. I think Hebrews is a fantastic part of scripture. Martin Luther was not so impressed, although he granted it was part of the canon. But if you don’t accept it (or Revelations), then it does no good for me to quote it, other than as an explanation of what I believe that is not in any way binding on you to believe.

In like manner, the church eventually - after hundreds of years, settled sort of on ‘canon’. For Catholics, there was no binding resolution until the Council of Trent, which is why Catholics were allowed to have doubts about individual books before the CoT.

If I understood Calvin’s argument correctly, then I agree with him in that each individual is responsible for what he believes, and therefor is responsible for deciding what he accepts as canon. Why? Because if I quote a passage from 2 Peter, and kosta50 replies, ‘Maybe that was added later, I don’t trust it’, then kosta50 is free to ignore my conclusion from that ‘scripture’.

As a Baptist, it won’t surprise any of you that I believe in sola scriptura, at least by the definition I quoted.

One reason I do is because Jesus treated scripture this way.

Matt 15: “ 1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” 3He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’”

Jesus quoted scripture to the Pharisees to show their traditions were wrong.

Again, we read (Luke 4):

“1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness 2for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry. 3The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” 4And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”

5 And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, 6and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. 7If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.” 8And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’”

9 And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, 10for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,’ 11 and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”

12 And Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” 13And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time.”

If Jesus quotes scripture to rebuke Satan, that is pretty authoritative! And note, Satan tries to twist scripture to his evil purposes - which I fully grant men do to this day. But Jesus then responds with scripture, so I’m happy to follow his example.

In Luke 24 we read:

“13 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus...15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17And he said to them, “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?”...25And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.”

Jesus, just resurrected from the dead, used SCRIPTURE as his authority when teaching the men.

If Paul was right, and “16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”, then it obviously is qualified as a rule of faith for the church.

If you want to add tradition, and that tradition doesn’t conflict with scripture, then as I said in a previous post concerning the topic of this thread - where scripture is silent, I will be. I may disagree with your practice, but I have no desire to tell you how to worship God in any detail that isn’t found in scripture.

I believe man is so tiny compared to God that we can know nothing about God apart from revelation - some of which we can see in his handiwork, but primarily from his revelation to us in scripture and the life of Jesus Christ.

Earlier, I quoted from Romans 14:

“4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.”

Something I appreciate about the Orthodox Church is that, as I understand it, the Orthodox are willing for us to disagree on a wide variety of practices, provided we have a basic agreement on who God is. Even Catholics have moved a bit towards the idea that we Protestants don’t have to fully agree with their teaching to be saved.

I quoted a number of scriptures to show WHY I don’t give special attention to Mary - but there is only one verse indicating that someone else should not, and it hardly constitutes a binding restriction on it. So we can disagree and still call each other brother - I think.

Gotta go - may try to write more later.

[Campion]

You want to show us where Mary was present as the mother of God before the world was created???

We don't believe that, so you're shooting blanks. Mary is as much a creature as you or I are. She was created in time, and in fact created in much the same way as any other human, but without the stain of Adam's sin.

Perhaps if you stopped hating (what you think is) Catholic belief and actually tried to understand it, we might make some progress.

But if you deny that Mary is the Mother of God, then you have to believe one of:

1. Mary is not Jesus' mother
2. Jesus is not God
3. Jesus (the Second Person of the Trinity) and Jesus (the Galilean carpenter born of the Virgin Mary in a stable) are two distinct persons

Nestorius voted for option #3. Which error do you choose to embrace?

[Campion]

That's why they remained Nestorian...And that's why your side tried to kill them off..

BTW, we never "tried to kill them off". Nestorius himself died in his bed.

[getoffmylawn]

My goodness. You sure did type a whole lotta words while managing to completely avoid answering my question. Now please focus. I'm asking a very specific question here...

Please tell me - at what point did the Holy Spirit abandon the Church and make it obsolete so men could go off and form 30,000 churches on their own?

[kosta50]

First, I’m largely going to ignore kosta50. Why? His argument devolves into ‘You don’t know what was written in Scripture’. I say we do, and posted a link to a 150 page book discussing the reliability of scripture here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2316798/posts

So, instead of seeking an objective truth as much as possible, you suggest we make an a priori assumption,  basically a conscious pretense, that, contrary to reason, and plentiful of evidence, the Bible is a pristine, unadulterated copy of inspired originals. Talk about sticking one's head in the sand and pretending the sun doesn't shine...

Fine with me. I'm game. Let's play ball!

Suffice it to say that if we don’t know what scripture says, then we don’t know what anyone says, and we have NO standard for belief

Without going (again) into "knowledge" (a loaded term when it comes to subjective beliefs), "no standard for belief" pretty much describes the Protestant community and is at the crux (no pun intended) of geoffmylawn's question you didn't answer: Who (or maybe what) decides which one of the 30,000-plus Protestant denominations' interpretations of the Bible is the "standard for belief."

Protestantism is not just pure heterodoxy,  a spectrum of beliefs, but a narcissistic heterodoxy. The only "standard" is one's own personal interpretation of the "scriptures" (a man-made heterogeneous collection of books deemed inpsired). This might even make some sense were it not for the fact that there is nothing "standard" about Christian scriptures, Mr. Rogers! The Bible you use is not the Bible used by a vast majority of Christians.

In other words, if Christians don't even agree which books constitute Christian canon, how can there be a "standard for belief" based on Christian "scripture"?!? Which Christian scripture, Mr. Rogers? The one you personally choose, isn't it?

So, am I to understand that you are suggesting  you are the "standard for belief?"

Given the complete absurdity of the sola scriputra argument (an argument based on a non-existent entity!), do you honestly expect reasonable people to take the sola scriptura (which scriptura; whose scriptura?) seriously?!

When you say "I won't agree unless it is in the scripture" basically what you are saying "it's not true unless I find it in my collection, which I deem to be true scripture, and it agrees with my interpretation of what it means! That, in short, Mr. Rogers, is the Protestant "standard for belief." Which is, of course, no standard at all.

Getoffmylawn was actually polite. He should have asked about millions of "churches" because in the Protestant world each man/woman is his/her own church (a church of one, the "church of me"). It is the Me-Myself-and-I "standard" for belief.

[Mr Rogers]

“Please tell me - at what point did the Holy Spirit abandon the Church and make it obsolete so men could go off and form 30,000 churches on their own?”

First, your question is false - no man has authority to form a Christian church, for the one foundation is Jesus Christ. Jesus is both foundation and head, and he doesn’t answer to men.

The Holy Spirit NEVER left believers, nor Jesus the Church - but the Church is not the Roman Catholic Church, nor the Orthodox Church, nor the Baptist Church.

The 30,000 church figure is completely bogus - it comes from David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000. His figures includes 8,196 for Protestants, and 2,942 for Roman Catholics, so MAYBE he isn’t using terms in quite the way your are thinking.

Lumping Protestants together might not be the most accurate either, since a number of Protestant denominations are heretical. That number included some Pentecostal groups who deny the Trinity, and a great many who deny that scripture has any meaning for their church.

You can’t complain sola scriptura leads to confusion, and cite people who deny it as proof.

Your entire concept of a church is as a visible organization with a hierarchy of men. If the church is composed of believers, then believers in Greece can answer to Jesus without the approval of believers in Arizona.

But the question arises, how are we to know which churches follow Christ, and which ones are made by men? And the answer is scripture. If they seek to conform to the word of God, then God in His time will bring them to Him. If they seek to conform to the word of man, then they are not - for Jesus is also the Word, and He is both foundation and Head.

You can appeal to a Pope if you wish, but the Pope doesn’t breath the word of God. And you would also, in many cases, need to define which Pope, and which words of his are infallible. Is there a list?

For the Orthodox, if they appeal to tradition, and their traditions do not conflict with Scripture - have at it. Who am I to judge?

If their traditions defy scripture, then we have a problem - for scripture is God-breathed, not tradition. If they find a conflict between scripture and their traditions, they can follow tradition if they wish - but they mark themselves as denying the word of God if they do.

Your question is bogus. It incorporates false assumptions.

[kosta50]

"Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.” Mat 15:4

Are you suggesting we kill (stone) our children for disobeying us because it's in the Bible? Or do we now have more reasonable laws than those of God?

[kosta50]

Lumping Protestants together might not be the most accurate either, since a number of Protestant denominations are heretical.  That number included some Pentecostal groups who deny the Trinity.

They actually use scriptures to form and defend their beliefs. By what authority do you call them heretical? Your interpretation of your scriptures?

The 30,000 church figure is completely bogus - it comes from David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000. His figures includes 8,196 for Protestants, and 2,942 for Roman Catholics, so MAYBE he isn’t using terms in quite the way your are thinking

Calling 2,942 Roman Catholic rites "denominations" is bogus because they all profess the same faith and the same dogma. The same cannot be said of the 8,196 Protestant "churches," most of which differ in some form or another theologically.

[getoffmylawn]

Your timeline is completely wrong. The Church came before the Bible. The Church was founded by Christ and he handed it over to his Apostles for safe keeping. These Apostles then kept the Church safe by passing it along to the next generation of Bishops for safe keeping. That generation of Bishops passed the safe keeping of the Church onto the next generation of Bishops. This succession of Bishops continues to this very day.

Eventually there was a whole bunch of Bishops spread out over a whole bunch of land. Things got so spread out that they decided to all get together and make sure they were on the same page. They all brought the various pieces of scripture they were using during their worship services to this big meeting. Not all had the same pieces of scripture they considered to be inspired, so they had to hammer out their differences and toss out what they figured didn't belong, and pull together what they figured did belong.

We in the Church like to believe the Holy Spirit helped guide these Bishops make the correct decisions as to which of these writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and which were not. These Bishops chose which of these writings expressed best what they believed and what they were taught by the proceeding generations of Bishops. Eventually when they were done, they came up with THE BIBLE. The Bible was compiled by The Church. The Church was not compiled by the Bible.

I think it's really great that you love the book The Church compiled, and you're completely welcome to join us in the Church, but it's not your book, and to think you can just grab the Bible from the hands of the Bishops and run off to do your own interpretation of it in your own way is nothing short of pure egotism and frankly, obnoxious.

Now again I ask you - At what point did the Holy Spirit abandon the Church and make it obsolete so men could go off and form 30,000 churches on their own?”

[Mr Rogers]

“Are you suggesting we kill (stone) our children for disobeying us because it’s in the Bible? Or do we now have more reasonable laws than those of God?”

I’m not going to try to teach someone who denies the accuracy of scripture how to properly interpret it.

“They actually use scriptures to form and defend their beliefs. By what authority do you call them heretical? Your interpretation of your scriptures?”

Yes. I think those who deny the Trinity, and claim the scriptures are unreliable to back up their twisted ideas, are heretics. Feel free to disagree - the Mormons claim I’m a heretic. But it isn’t like I’m trying to burn anyone at the stake...

“Calling 2,942 Roman Catholic rites “denominations” is bogus because they all profess the same faith and the same dogma. The same cannot be said of the 8,196 Protestant “churches,” most of which differ in some form or another theologically.”

The source for the 8196 figure uses the 2942 figure - yet you deny the one and trust the other. Why am I not surprised?

“I think it’s really great that you love the book The Church compiled...”

The church accepted scripture long before a formal canon was ratified. If you don’t understand that, then you need to do some reading...

[Mr Rogers]

All - this thread is straying from the original subject (The Dormition of our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary) and turning into a debate on the validity of scripture and authority.

A little while ago, I started a thread on the validity of scripture - might I suggest such a thread, or one started by one of y’all on the authority of scripture, might be a better place for this debate?

Kolokotronis started the thread in respect to Mary. I’ve explained why I wouldn’t join in his practice, but also explained that, per sola scriptura, I have no reason to tell him to do otherwise.

I’m a fairly argumentative person, but it seems that in respect to Kolokotronis and his worship that we shouldn’t pull down this thread further. I’m glad to debate folks, but doing it here seems disrespectful to me. Just IMHO.

[getoffmylawn]

The church accepted scripture long before a formal canon was ratified. If you don’t understand that, then you need to do some reading...

The Chuch accepted WHICH scriptures long before a formal canon was ratified, and by WHAT criteria? How did they decide what the inspired scriptures were? On what did they base these decisions?

[Mr Rogers]

This is my final post on this thread. I’ll debate y’all on other threads, but I don’t believe this is the best thread for debating these issues.

[Yudan]

“If you don’t understand that, then you need to do some reading...”

Fred, that is by far and away the most arrogant, and frankly ignorant, thing I’ve heard today. People who say things like that are the same people who feel the need to journey to Russia to “save” the Russian Orthodox.

“The church accepted scripture long before a formal canon was ratified.”

Yes, they did. Just not in a unified standard. You have the Ancient Church to thank for that. If you don’t know that, well let’s just say it’s not WE who need to do a little reading.

[kosta50]

Kosta: “Are you suggesting we kill (stone) our children for disobeying us because it’s in the Bible? Or do we now have more reasonable laws than those of God?”

Mr. Rogers: I’m not going to try to teach someone who denies the accuracy of scripture how to properly interpret it.

You posted a verse and I am asking you what it means. Please answer the question.