OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 31, 2014, 02:45:14 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Did Mary die from Love?  (Read 4663 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #45 on: December 22, 2010, 12:34:59 AM »

I find it strange that her tomb wasn't venerated, and there's no tradition concerning it's exact whereabouts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary's_Tomb

See attached photo. By clicking on it, the photo becomes larger.

Thanks. I missed the quoted post: I've been blessed to have visited the Tomb of the Holy Theotokos, and it is very much venerated, even by the Muslims. (btw, I've also visited the Virgin's house in Ephesus).

If the tomb was known and venerated by the early Church,  it's strange that Saint Epiphanius of Salamis (in 377 A.D.) would say that "no one knew whether Mary had died or not."

You can also find that on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary

The reference of St. Epiphanisu, Ad Hare. 78.10-11, 23 says
Quote
If any thing I am mistaken, moreover, let them search the scriptures and neither find Mary's death, nor whether or not she died, nor whether or not she was buried-even though John surely traveled through Asia.  And yet, nowhere does he say that he took the holy Virgin with him. Scripture kept silence because of the overwhelming wonder, not to throw men'sminds into consternation.
For I dare not say-though I have my suspicions. I keep silent......I cannot decide for certain, and am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither am I affirming that she died.
If the holy Virgin died and was buried, her falling-asleep was honorable and her end holy; her crown consisted in her virginity. Or if she was put to death Or if she was put to death, according to the Scripture, 'A sword shall pierce her soul,' her fame is among the martyrs and her holy body should be an object of our veneration, since through it light came into the world. Or else she remained alive; for it is not impossible for God to do whatever he wills. In fact, no one knows her end.  But we must not honor the saints to excess; we must honor their master.  It is time for the error of those who have gone astray to cease.  Mary is not God and does not have her body from heaven but by human conception, though, like Isaac, she was provided by promise. And no one should make offerings in her name, for he is destroying his own soul.  But neither, in turn, should he be insolent and offer insult to the holy Virgin. Heaven forbid, she had no sexual relations after or before the Saviour's conception..
he goes on, but he is arguing against the idea that the Holy Theotokos ever had relations with St. Joseph the Betrothed, and the issue of her death is incidental to his argument.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #46 on: December 22, 2010, 12:40:27 AM »

I always assumed that St Paul meant "we will not all die" as a general statement about Christians, not about anyone who was actually alive on earth at that time, who have indeed all died.

St John Chrysostom says of the verse: "The expression, 'we,' he uses not of himself, but of them that are then found alive." He does not literally mean that some of the people then alive would never die (which, if I understand correctly, was what Michael was having trouble with).

For more detail and context, see: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220142.htm
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #47 on: December 22, 2010, 12:50:05 AM »

Quote
Michael, the hymnography for the feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God is full of references to her death

I know it's taught that she died, I was asking if that teaching is dogma.
Yes, as teaching otherwise would contradict, for instance, the dogma of Ancestral sin.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Michael_Gerard
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 74


« Reply #48 on: December 22, 2010, 12:50:34 AM »

I always assumed that St Paul meant "we will not all die" as a general statement about Christians, not about anyone who was actually alive on earth at that time, who have indeed all died.

St John Chrysostom says of the verse: "The expression, 'we,' he uses not of himself, but of them that are then found alive." He does not literally mean that some of the people then alive would never die (which, if I understand correctly, was what Michael was having trouble with).

For more detail and context, see: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220142.htm

I understand Paul to be saying that not all Christians will die, but that some living at the time of Christ's return will be changed from mortal to immortal.

I believe that's what St. Chrysostom is saying Paul meant, right?

The problem is that Paul says that there's an order to the resurrection to immortality--First Christ, then those who are His at the second coming (when these living Christians are changed and caught up with those who are raised.)

If Mary died, and her bodily assumption was precceded by her resurrection (in the first century), where does that fit in here?
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 12:54:05 AM by Michael_Gerard » Logged
Michael_Gerard
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 74


« Reply #49 on: December 22, 2010, 12:51:57 AM »

It seems odd that the West also apparently believed Mary died well in to the Middle Ages

If Wikipedia's got it right, Saint Epiphanius of Salamis testified to a general lack of any information regarding her death in 377 A.D. (regardless of what his main point was.)

That seems equally odd.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 12:55:22 AM by Michael_Gerard » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #50 on: December 22, 2010, 12:55:40 AM »

How do the Fathers of the Church interpret the Scriptural passage which Michael cites?

It seems odd that the West also apparently believed Mary died well in to the Middle Ages, yet now some think she didn't. I suppose someone will have written a study on this?
it is mixed up with the spread of the IC.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,472



« Reply #51 on: December 22, 2010, 12:56:24 AM »

It seems odd that the West also apparently believed Mary died well in to the Middle Ages

If Wikipedia's got it right, Saint Epiphanius of Salamis testified to a general lack of any information regarding her death in 377 A.D. (regardless of what his main point was.)

That seems equally odd.
Look at thte full quote I provided above.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 12:59:47 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,037


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #52 on: December 22, 2010, 01:01:52 AM »

It's one thing to debate whether the Theotokos died or not.  It's another to say that the Theotokos had a body that could not have died if she willed it.  The latter puts her equal to Christ.  I'm not sure about the former, but in my opinion, the former opinion actually would put her above Christ.  Why would Christ die, and not everyone else?  That makes no sense.  We must partake of everything Christ did.  That's part of our salvation.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Michael_Gerard
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 74


« Reply #53 on: December 22, 2010, 01:30:31 AM »

Quote
Why would Christ die, and not everyone else?

I don't know, but Paul specifically tells us that not all humans will die (in 1 Cor. 15.)

If there are Christians living in the last generation of human history, who wont die, why would Christ have to allow His mother to die?
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,037


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #54 on: December 22, 2010, 01:33:33 AM »

Quote
Why would Christ die, and not everyone else?

I don't know, but Paul specifically tells us that not all humans will die (in 1 Cor. 15.)

If there are Christians living in the last generation of human history, who wont die, why would Christ have to allow His mother to die?

It seems like St. John Chrysostom is interpreting this to be the end times, not necessarily those who are alive with him.  In other words, all bodies are naturally mortal and will die, unless Christ second coming occurs while someone are still alive.

But this is how St. John Chrysostom interpreted it.  I want to read what other Church fathers have to say.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 01:34:00 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Michael_Gerard
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 74


« Reply #55 on: December 22, 2010, 01:36:22 AM »

It seems odd that the West also apparently believed Mary died well in to the Middle Ages

If Wikipedia's got it right, Saint Epiphanius of Salamis testified to a general lack of any information regarding her death in 377 A.D. (regardless of what his main point was.)

That seems equally odd.
Look at thte full quote I provided above.

Thank you.

I almost overlooked this:

 "For I dare not say-though I have my suspicions. I keep silent......I cannot decide for certain, and am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither am I affirming that she died"

Very interesting.

How could he have said this if the location of her tomb were known and venerated in his day?
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 01:38:49 AM by Michael_Gerard » Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,860



« Reply #56 on: December 22, 2010, 03:45:09 AM »

How could he have said this if the location of her tomb were known and venerated in his day?

I believe Isa (ialmisry) has argued that the tomb was venerated locally in the Jerusalem church, but that generally it was kept a secret until it was no longer possible to do so. I believe that this had to do with an emperor at the Council of Chalcedon requesting that her relics be transferred to Constantinople, so they were obviously unaware that there were no relics remaining. I think it was this imperial pressure that finally let the cat out of the bag.

Why such a thing would be kept secret is probably speculation, but I believe Isa tied it in with the public preaching of the gospel. Or maybe it was someone else.  Anyway, basically the Mother of God has always been deeply revered in the Apostolic Church, but she has always been a part of the inner life of the Church, not for the outsiders. She was never included in the public proclamation of the gospel, as the death and resurrection of Christ is central in public preaching. This remains true to this day, and this is why our All-Holy Mother remains baffling and confusing to most Protestants: she is not their Mother. Anyway, perhaps this miraculous event was played-down in the life of the early Church so as not to distract from the resurrection of Christ himself, nor to offer unnecessary detours when trying to convey the core doctrines of salvation.

But if this was true, it would present an interesting new question. If you are dogmatically required to believe this to be an Orthodox catechumen in good standing with the Church, how can this be so if this event remained unknown throughout most of the Church for almost 500 years? Of course then you could apply that to formally explained concepts like the Trinity, which also were not clearly taught and defined in the earliest centuries. Perhaps that's a good parallel, perhaps not.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 03:45:32 AM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Michael_Gerard
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 74


« Reply #57 on: December 22, 2010, 11:04:22 AM »

Quote
I  believe Isa (ialmisry) has argued that the tomb was venerated locally in the Jerusalem church, but that generally it was kept a secret until it was no longer possible to do so...Anyway, basically the Mother of God has always been deeply revered in the Apostolic Church, but she has always been a part of the inner life of the Church, not for the outsiders.

But Saint Epiphanius of Salamis was an insider, and he didn't say he knew, and remained silent.

He said "I cannot decide for certain, and am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither am I affirming that she died...If the holy Virgin died and was buried...her holy body should be an object of our veneration, since through it light came into the world. Or else she remained alive; for it is not impossible for God to do whatever he wills. In fact, no one knows her end."

He's clearly saying that he didn't know if she died (not that he's keeping what he knows to himself), and that no one in his day knew (and that would have been around 377 A.D.)
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 11:06:00 AM by Michael_Gerard » Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #58 on: December 22, 2010, 12:23:24 PM »

Is it a dogma that Mary died?

I find it strange that her tomb wasn't venerated, and there's no tradition concerning it's exact whereabouts (and I believe "The Dormition of The Virgin Mary," which discribes her burial and resurrection, dates from the 6th century?)

I believe she's in heaven (body and soul) with her Son, but is the belief that she died before getting there a dogma?

AFAIK, even the RC's don't make it dogma that she didn't die, merely that she was assumed. They leave it up to the discretion of the believer.

 
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #59 on: December 22, 2010, 12:24:56 PM »

Quote
I  believe Isa (ialmisry) has argued that the tomb was venerated locally in the Jerusalem church, but that generally it was kept a secret until it was no longer possible to do so...Anyway, basically the Mother of God has always been deeply revered in the Apostolic Church, but she has always been a part of the inner life of the Church, not for the outsiders.

But Saint Epiphanius of Salamis was an insider, and he didn't say he knew, and remained silent.

He said "I cannot decide for certain, and am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither am I affirming that she died...If the holy Virgin died and was buried...her holy body should be an object of our veneration, since through it light came into the world. Or else she remained alive; for it is not impossible for God to do whatever he wills. In fact, no one knows her end."

He's clearly saying that he didn't know if she died (not that he's keeping what he knows to himself), and that no one in his day knew (and that would have been around 377 A.D.)

Strange indeed that the dormition/assumption story had not reached the ears of Saint Epiphanius.
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #60 on: December 22, 2010, 12:50:19 PM »

Quote
Why would Christ die, and not everyone else?

I don't know, but Paul specifically tells us that not all humans will die (in 1 Cor. 15.)

If there are Christians living in the last generation of human history, who wont die, why would Christ have to allow His mother to die?

Because his mother was not alive at the second coming. Christ provided a special service to His Mother by receiving her soul directly, which is depicted in the icon of the Dormition. She did not have to face whatever we face after death (be it tollhouses or whatever else), because Christ took her soul directly into heaven. But she still had to die, as is appointed for all men to do (Hebrews 9).

All men must die. The only people who will not die are the special case of those who happen to be alive at the Second Coming, and those people will be transfigured in "the twinkling of an eye". To apply St Paul's words to the Mother of God exclusively is a stretch and is not supported by the context of the verse or the Church's historical witness.

Even if the Virgin's death is not well-attested to in early sources (which we hold as the Apostles protecting her privacy), it is a huge stretch to therefore make the extraordinary claim that she never died. It is an argument from silence at best, which is not good enough quite frankly.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 12:55:11 PM by bogdan » Logged
Michael_Gerard
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 74


« Reply #61 on: December 22, 2010, 01:10:06 PM »

Quote
All men must die. The only people who will not die are the special case of those who happen to be alive at the Second Coming, and those people will be transfigured in "the twinkling of an eye".

If those who happen to be alive at the second coming are instantaneously changed in the twinking of an eye (as I believe, and as Saint Paul said) there are exceptions--not all men must die.

Quote
To apply St Paul's words to the Mother of God exclusively is a stretch and is not supported by the context of the verse or the Church's historical witness.

Who applied St. Paul's words to the Mother of God "exclusively"?

All I said is that if there are (any) exceptions to the rule that all men must die, God could have made an exception for Her.

Her assumption could "anticipate" the change "in the twinkling of an eye" as easily as her resurrection could anticipate our resurrection (and doesn't disrupt the order of "Christ the first fruits, then those who are Christ's at His coming.")
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #62 on: December 22, 2010, 06:25:24 PM »

Would Orthodoxy consider as acceptable (a theologumen, perhaps) the Catholic idea that Mary died from love, not because she had to die?
Quote
Mary's death was not necessarily the effect of violence; it was undergone neither as an expiation or penalty, nor as the effect of disease from which, like her Divine Son, she was exempt. Since the Middle Ages the view prevails that she died of love, her great desire to be united to her Son either dissolving the ties of body and soul, or prevailing on God to dissolve them. Her passing away is a sacrifice of love completing the dolorous sacrifice of her life. It is the death in the kiss of the Lord (in osculo Domini), of which the just die.
No.
Ialmisry's answer best sums up my own view of the matter.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Michael_Gerard
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 74


« Reply #63 on: December 22, 2010, 07:36:29 PM »

Quote
The problem is that Paul says that there's an order to the resurrection to immortality--First Christ, then those who are His at the second coming (when these living Christians are changed and caught up with those who are raised.)

If Mary died, and her bodily assumption was precceded by her resurrection (in the first century), where does that fit in here?

It might seem odd to reply to my own post, but I did think of a possible answer today (and I haven't seen anyone else even try to answer this question.)

Paul didn't actually say "at the second coming."

What he said was "those who are His at His coming."

The Dormition presupposes that Christ came for His Mother three days after Her blessed soul was seperated from Her body (even if it wasn't visible to everyone, as His future coming will be.)

Mary was certainly "His" when He came for Her, so maybe she is included in "those who are His at His coming" (even if He came for Her a little early.)

I think that might actually answer my question (and I apologize if I offended anyone.)
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 07:37:35 PM by Michael_Gerard » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,037


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #64 on: December 22, 2010, 07:44:56 PM »

Quote
The problem is that Paul says that there's an order to the resurrection to immortality--First Christ, then those who are His at the second coming (when these living Christians are changed and caught up with those who are raised.)

If Mary died, and her bodily assumption was precceded by her resurrection (in the first century), where does that fit in here?

It might seem odd to reply to my own post, but I did think of a possible answer today (and I haven't seen anyone else even try to answer this question.)

Paul didn't actually say "at the second coming."

What he said was "those who are His at His coming."

The Dormition presupposes that Christ came for His Mother three days after Her blessed soul was seperated from Her body (even if it wasn't visible to everyone, as His future coming will be.)

Mary was certainly "His" when He came for Her, so maybe she is included in "those who are His at His coming" (even if He came for Her a little early.)

I think that might actually answer my question (and I apologize if I offended anyone.)

What you quoted from was in the context of the second coming, when our bodies that are corruptible now will be raised incorruptible, "when the sound of the trumpet" occurs, i.e. the second coming.  To take this out of context and claim that it can't be the second coming is like taking verse 49 in that chapter and say that our flesh will rot away and will just rise up with only our spirits.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 07:46:00 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Michael_Gerard
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 74


« Reply #65 on: December 22, 2010, 10:33:35 PM »

Quote
What you quoted from was in the context of the second coming, when our bodies that are corruptible now will be raised incorruptible, "when the sound of the trumpet" occurs, i.e. the second coming.  To take this out of context and claim that it can't be the second coming...

I didn't say "it can't be the second coming."

I was thinking that maybe (if you're right about the Virgin dying, and being raised, before Her bodily assumption) it's that AND more.

If Christ came for Her (privately) before the second coming, He took His own to Himself (just as He will then.)

Christ the first fruits, then those who are His at His coming (whether for Mary 2,000 years ago, or the rest of the departed saints when the trumpet sounds.)

It's just a thought that helped me see how the Dormition might not contradict what Paul said here, and I'm suprissed you have a problem with it.

Can you offer some other way of fitting Mary's premature death and resurrection into what Paul says (regarding "each in his own order--Christ the first fruit, then those who are His at His coming")?
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,037


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #66 on: December 23, 2010, 12:50:29 AM »

Can you offer some other way of fitting Mary's premature death and resurrection into what Paul says (regarding "each in his own order--Christ the first fruit, then those who are His at His coming")?

I'm not sure if I agree to this particular tradition because I haven't fully researched it on my own, but I see the wisdom in this tradition.  The Coptic Church has a tradition where her body is assumed and is still reposed, but not on earth.  Therefore, the Coptic Church seems to maintain an idea that her body is assumed, but she is not risen from the dead, which will occur in the second coming.  This seems to be consistent with the consensus of the Church fathers, as I will show, and compatible to the verse in question you're asking.

I've been doing a bit of digging in CCEL to see interpretations of 1 Cor. 15:51.  What comes first to mind is the fact that the Greek says one thing, and the Aramaic and Latin translations say another thing, and this goes as far back as Tertullian, so far in my superficial searching:

Quote from: Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh
It is the transformation these shall undergo which he explains to the Corinthians, when he writes: “We shall all indeed rise again (though we shall not all undergo the transformation) in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump”—for none shall experience this change but those only who shall be found in the flesh. “And the dead,” he says, “shall be raised, and we shall be changed.”

St. Aphrahat (Demonstrations (Of Monks), Demonstrations (of the Resurrection of the Dead)), St. Jerome (A Commentary on the Apostles Creed, Letter to Minervious and Alexander), and St. Augustine (numerous places he repeats this, but to name a few, Confessions, City of God, Exposition on the Psalms) agree pretty much with Tertullian's "We shall all sleep, but not all will be changed."

Origen (Contra Celsus), St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Making of Man) and St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Philippians and someone else provided for us his homily on 1 Corinthians) read it as "We shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed."

Generally those who take the Latin/Aramaic translation will say that all are due to die, and all will rise from the dead, but not all will be part of the glory of the Kingdom of Heaven (this is what the Coptic Church believes presently).  Those who take the Greek will say that most of us will die except until at the moment of the second coming of the Lord, those that are still alive then.  It's understood that therefore everyone is due to die unless the second coming of the Lord occurs and you're still alive.  At that moment, those who are dead will rise from the dead.  And then those who will partake of the glory of the Kingdom of Heaven will change, both those who have risen and those who did not get a chance to die.

Either way, it looks like at least there's a consensus that unless the second coming of the Lord is happening, you will die.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2010, 12:50:56 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,539


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #67 on: December 23, 2010, 04:40:00 AM »

Icons of the dormitions of other saints, such as Ephraim the Syrian, Anna the mother of the Mother of God, Irene Chrysovalantou, and others, show the saint's soul being taken to heaven by an angel.

The iconography of the Dormition of the Mother of God, as well as the hymnography I quoted in an earlier post, features Christ taking the soul of His mother as a babe in swaddling-clothes Himself to heaven, not even entrusting it to angels. This is all fitting and proper for the woman who is "more honorable and more glorious than the hosts on high". Nothing less would do.

This motif, therefore, proclaims the bodily death of the Mother of God. The soul is separated from the body at death, is it not? This destroys any notion of her being bodily assumed into heaven without dying first. As for Apostle Thomas arriving three days later than the others at her tomb, and finding it empty, this simply says that her body was assumed into heaven, something that is also expressed in the hymnography. The dead body of the woman who was spared bodily corruption and destruction while conceiving, bearing, and giving birth to God Incarnate, was again spared corruption - the corruption of the grave.

Was she physically resurrected before ascending, as Christ was? I don't believe Orthodox Tradition has ever taught this. Was her body and soul reunited in heaven? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's a mystery, and we must be content to leave it at that. What we do know is that she stands closest to the throne of God, alive in Christ as are all the saints, and she, with a mother's boldness, unceasingly intercedes on our behalf to her Son and God.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #68 on: December 24, 2010, 01:09:31 AM »

I was in the Cloisters museum in NY the weekend before last, and noted a Western carving of the Dormition from the Middle Ages. The idea that the Theotokos was Assumed into Heaven before bodily death (an idea that many Roman Catholics hold now) seems to be a late notion then.
Of course the RC dogma of the Assumption says nothing about whether or not the Blessed Virgin Mary died before being assumed body and soul into heaven. As far as what individual RCs believe I cannot say, but the dogma certainly doesn't specify whether or not she experienced death before being assumed.
Logged
Michael_Gerard
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 74


« Reply #69 on: December 26, 2010, 12:34:56 AM »

Quote
The idea that the Theotokos was Assumed into Heaven before bodily death (an idea that many Roman Catholics hold now) seems to be a late notion then.

Saint Eppiphanius of Salamis not only said that no one knew what became of her, but mentioned the possibility that she never died (in 377 A.D.)

His exact words were "I cannot decide for certain, and am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither am I affirming that she died...If the holy Virgin died and was buried...her holy body should be an object of our veneration, since through it light came into the world. Or else she remained alive; for it is not impossible for God to do whatever he wills. In fact, no one knows."

(So mybe the idea that the Theotokos was assumed into heaven before bodily death isn't such a late notion?)


As to whether Orthodox are free to believe this, I found this online (at a web site called "Orthodox Answers.")

Quote
ANSWER:
The first thing to say is that belief in the traditions surrounding the Dormition (and assumption) of the Theotokos are not dogma in Orthodoxy - they are not binding on the conscience of Orthodox Christians. One may privately - until the Spirit convicts otherwise - have doubts in regards to these traditions. However, they reflect the pious conviction of the ancient churches and are worthy of veneration and consideration. An excellent scholarly source, which shows that these are ancient traditions, is "Shoemaker: Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition" by Oxford University Press. There are also Biblical hints that point to this understanding of the Dormition of the Theotokos, and it is worth noting that all the ancient churches, including the Coptic which separated after 451, share the same belief. Note also that there are no traditions anywhere regarding relics of the Theotokos, which is consistent with the account that her body was transfered into the Kingdom...
Answered on 1/05/2010
http://orthodox-church.info/answer/479/
« Last Edit: December 26, 2010, 12:58:54 AM by Michael_Gerard » Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,843


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #70 on: December 26, 2010, 05:00:08 PM »

Michael, it seems you are reading St. Paul in a very Protestant way. As if the resurrection of the deceased Theotokos would somehow "nullify" the "infallible scriptures" were it to superficially contradict one tradition's interpretation of Paul's statement.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2010, 05:01:06 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Michael_Gerard
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 74


« Reply #71 on: December 26, 2010, 05:12:02 PM »

Michael, it seems you are reading St. Paul in a very Protestant way. As if the resurrection of the deceased Theotokos would somehow "nullify" the "infallible scriptures" were it to superficially contradict one tradition's interpretation of Paul's statement.

Maybe, but that's why I tried to look at "then those who are His, at His coming" in a broader way.

The only way I can see Paul not excluding a resurrection between "Christ, the first fruit" and the quickening of the faithful at the parousia, is if Christ's early coming (for His Mother, who is one of His own) is somehow included in "those who are His at His coming" (or parousia.)

Since I'm sure you're not suggesting that scripture is uninspired, or that there is some real contradiction here--how do you see it?

BTW: I do believe She's with Her Son in Heaven (body and soul), and I don't think many Protestants agree with that.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2010, 05:21:51 PM by Michael_Gerard » Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,843


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #72 on: December 26, 2010, 05:25:23 PM »

I'm saying that if Paul says "Christ is the firstfruits of the resurrection" and left out that the Theotokos (Christ's tabernacle) was raised before "those who are his at his coming" it would not seem to me to nullify the authority of scripture. (As Thomas Hopko said in one of his podcasts, Paul may have not even known the Theotokos's name during the writing of some of his epistles.) This is because I do not believe that scripture is logically infallible or subject to complete internal coherency, which is what enlightenment and post-enlightenment protestants believe.

If the scriptures were completely internally coherent in a scientific/logical fashion without the need of a Holy interpretation grid, there would not be 40,000 denominations.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2010, 05:27:27 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #73 on: December 26, 2010, 06:07:20 PM »

It's not to say that she wouldn't have died from natural causes eventually, but if she died of love, and that strengthens a person's faith to believe so, where is the harm?
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,037


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #74 on: December 26, 2010, 06:27:49 PM »

It's not to say that she wouldn't have died from natural causes eventually, but if she died of love, and that strengthens a person's faith to believe so, where is the harm?

I'm not going to dispute whether or not the Theotokos died, even though I strongly disagree with any notion that she didn't die.  However, to say that she died out of love is probably borderline blasphemy because only Christ had that power to die out of love.  We die out of the weakness of our nature.  Christ died naturally, but His human nature was not weak, and He willfully died on the Cross.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #75 on: December 26, 2010, 06:50:19 PM »

It's not to say that she wouldn't have died from natural causes eventually, but if she died of love, and that strengthens a person's faith to believe so, where is the harm?

I'm not going to dispute whether or not the Theotokos died, even though I strongly disagree with any notion that she didn't die.  However, to say that she died out of love is probably borderline blasphemy because only Christ had that power to die out of love.  We die out of the weakness of our nature.  Christ died naturally, but His human nature was not weak, and He willfully died on the Cross.

Hmm interesting perspective. I guess I didn't see it that way; I was just thinking that Christ died out of love (voluntary self-sacrifice) for all of mankind, and I assumed the point of view being expressed here is that Mary died from love; that is missing and longing to be with her Son and Savior. I have heard similar stories of elderly people 'dying out of love' wanting to be with their lost love ones who perhaps have gone before them, and I didn't think of this case to be much different than that I suppose.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2010, 06:50:40 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,037


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #76 on: December 26, 2010, 07:16:48 PM »

It's not to say that she wouldn't have died from natural causes eventually, but if she died of love, and that strengthens a person's faith to believe so, where is the harm?

I'm not going to dispute whether or not the Theotokos died, even though I strongly disagree with any notion that she didn't die.  However, to say that she died out of love is probably borderline blasphemy because only Christ had that power to die out of love.  We die out of the weakness of our nature.  Christ died naturally, but His human nature was not weak, and He willfully died on the Cross.

Hmm interesting perspective. I guess I didn't see it that way; I was just thinking that Christ died out of love (voluntary self-sacrifice) for all of mankind, and I assumed the point of view being expressed here is that Mary died from love; that is missing and longing to be with her Son and Savior. I have heard similar stories of elderly people 'dying out of love' wanting to be with their lost love ones who perhaps have gone before them, and I didn't think of this case to be much different than that I suppose.

If it's interpreted that way, then that implies the necessity for her to actually die.  In which case, the argument that the Theotokos did not die is irrelevant.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #77 on: December 26, 2010, 07:28:31 PM »

It's not to say that she wouldn't have died from natural causes eventually, but if she died of love, and that strengthens a person's faith to believe so, where is the harm?

I'm not going to dispute whether or not the Theotokos died, even though I strongly disagree with any notion that she didn't die.  However, to say that she died out of love is probably borderline blasphemy because only Christ had that power to die out of love.  We die out of the weakness of our nature.  Christ died naturally, but His human nature was not weak, and He willfully died on the Cross.

Hmm interesting perspective. I guess I didn't see it that way; I was just thinking that Christ died out of love (voluntary self-sacrifice) for all of mankind, and I assumed the point of view being expressed here is that Mary died from love; that is missing and longing to be with her Son and Savior. I have heard similar stories of elderly people 'dying out of love' wanting to be with their lost love ones who perhaps have gone before them, and I didn't think of this case to be much different than that I suppose.

If it's interpreted that way, then that implies the necessity for her to actually die.  In which case, the argument that the Theotokos did not die is irrelevant.

Yes, of course. I suppose I didn't read far enough back into this thread to realize that the subject of her dying or not was actually relevant here... Embarrassed
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #78 on: December 27, 2010, 12:21:24 PM »

It's not to say that she wouldn't have died from natural causes eventually, but if she died of love, and that strengthens a person's faith to believe so, where is the harm?

I'm not going to dispute whether or not the Theotokos died, even though I strongly disagree with any notion that she didn't die.  However, to say that she died out of love is probably borderline blasphemy because only Christ had that power to die out of love.  We die out of the weakness of our nature.  Christ died naturally, but His human nature was not weak, and He willfully died on the Cross.

Are you suggesting here that Jesus's body could not die? 

That he had no need for a glorified human body? 

That he forced an already perfected human body to die for no other reason, but show or display?

Is that what you are saying?
Logged

Tags: Theotokos 
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.129 seconds with 62 queries.