Hey everyone, Kathrine and I were talking about this some last night. We mainly stayed to the Immaculate Conception of Mary, for those of you who do not know it is the idea that Mary was conceived without original sin. That when her parents had sex she was somehow filled with divine grace and saved from original sin. Some go so far as to say that she never sinned, I think that most of us would agree that his is an overstatement. I do not have too much of a problem with the idea of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. She was saved from original; however, this does not mean that she was saved from the other types of sin the St. Augustine describes. Thus, I believe that she did sin in her life, she was still held captive by sin like the rest of us, and that she had some point broke Torah.
I do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Since, I believe that James was the actual brother of Jesus and that he had other brothers and sisters. Also to quote Kevin Smith "to believe a married couple never got down is just plain gullibility." I know the arguments that people make that the word used does not have to mean brother or sister but just relative. But that is letting your Theology shape the Text instead of the Text shape your Theology. So what are your thoughts.
Another issue that I would like to bring up is the idea of the Assumption of Mary. The idea that Mary was taken up to heaven, some believe before she died and some after. I could possibly be convinced that she might have been assumed after her death; but I do not thing I could believe she was taken before her death. The Catholic doctrine states that Mary is in heaven both body and soul. Seeing as how I do not believe that people go directly to heaven when they die, if they even go there at all, I have a hard time believing the doctrine. I can see that this is a special case like Elijah and Enoch, if Enoch was really taken. But, if Mary was assumed after she died then that would mean that once she got to heaven she was possibly given some sort of special resurrection. Since, I think everyone will be resurrected at one point, except Christ since he has already received it, being the first born among many brothers (and sisters), but the texts seem to say that this will be a one time event. However, if Mary was assumed before her death then I could see her being in heaven both body and soul. But that means that she was sinless with some people believe but I have already stated that I do believe this. Maybe you all know some stuff that I do not and could help me out here. I look forward to some discussion on this topic.
Peace
Jesse T. Alexander IV
The Authors
- Aaron Yates
- Andrew Skaggs
- Blake Hall
- Jesse Alexander
- Josh Neikirk
- Katherine Hale
- Lee McLeod
4 comments:
I believe a lot like you do. I have a problem swallowing the perpetual virginity of Mary. I also do not understand where the assumption of Mary comes from, other than a really late (19th C) belief of trying to encourage support for Mary. I fail to see the reasoning for this. Ironically it is only in these two cases that the pope has spoken ex cathedral (or as I say, when the pope goes into "Infallibility Mode").
Obviously I think there should be a difference in terminology. When most people speak about Maryology, they think of worshipping Mary. Well, that's not the case. I think there is a lot to be said for admiring Mary for her role in the Incarnation. Many Protestants can learn from their Catholic brothers on this. However going to the point of needless admiration or worship is wrong in any case, whether a great preacher or Mary.
According to W.H.C. Frend the earliest accounts of the Assumption of the Virgin appear to be Egyptian Gnostic legends. He states that the views of the Docetic Christians requires human intermediaries, such as Mary Magdalene or the Virgin Mary, to communicate his message and experiences to mankind. So this might be where the idea of the Assumption starts.
It might be where the idea begins, but can the Roman Catholic tradition as it is today be traced back to that? After all, a tradition of thought is slightly different from the historical development of a belief. :)
Yeah, I doubt that the Romans would say that is where they get it from but it is interesting nottheless.
Post a Comment