What I have learned about Mary.
Mary was, of course, Jesus' mom. One of the worst things that can happen to someone is to lose
their kids and in her case, she didn't just lose him, she saw him
crucified. That's a horrible way to die. She really went through a lot in her walk with God and in her obedience to God's call to be Jesus' mom.
Therefore, I can believe the doctrine that Mary was assumed
into heaven like Elijah and Enoch. Having him grow
inside her would have created quite a bond, plus going through seeing
the crucifixion. Neither Elijah
nor Enoch could have suffered quite like her, or had opportunity to
be that close to the Lord and develop so unique a relationship with the Lord as
Mary. Therefore, once I think about it, I would actually find it harder to believe that she
wasn't Assumed into heaven than that she was. There is no grave, anymore than there is a
record of her rapture. Its something one has to just pray about
and decide what they believe. Either way, its taken on
faith. Once I considered it, it takes more faith for me to continue to believe
she wasn't. The only thing challenging about it for me is
that it is a totally new concept to me.
As to the perpetual virginity, I didn't
accept that for a long time because for a Jewish woman, that
would have been like God giving somebody some radical "special grace" never to
pray again! Sex in marriage is a Miztvah, in Judaism. Its like a
sacrament is to Catholics and Lutherans and Orthodox and all the
other liturgical churches... Its connected to holiness and is a part of participating in the life of faith - if one is married. Then my
friend Mike who is an ordained Protestant minister and was studying the Orthodox
church told me about a book called the Evangelion. Its written by James,
the (step) Brother of Jesus. The book had used to be bound with it, and the Orthodox church still holds it sacred, although its not canonized as actual scripture as far as I know. Its Sacred in that it gives important historical insights and context and eyewitness testimony of things like the virgin birth and such. "Sola Scriptura" - scripture alone, was a Luther thing. The older churches all have something called sacred tradition and other things that they use to interpret the bible, and count them as Sacred along with the Bible, since it's kind of hard to understand scripture correctly without it. James wrote that Mary was indeed a virgin when
Jesus was conceived and born, and also for the rest of her life.
James' mom had died. His dad was very old, and did not feel he should remarry since he was so old,
especially not someone as young as Mary. He married her because it became very clear that God wanted him to, long story short.
The reason Jesus had to get somebody else, specifically John, to look after his mom after he went to the cross was because she had no other kids. He was her only son, her only child. He had step-siblings though. “Thy mother and thy brethren are looking for you” it was Mary and His step siblings. James probably wrote all that to give eyewitness testimony that Jesus was indeed born of a virgin and such like. None of the gospels are eye-witness accounts of that particular part. James said that Jesus was virgin-born, and that Mary stayed a virgin all her life. Mike says James hinted that his dad couldn't actually do anything to change that... Joseph was extremely uncomfortable with the idea of sleeping with her because God himself had lived inside her. That plus he was very old.
James' writings about family life with Jesus were typically bound with the Bible, I guess. In his research, Mike says he learned that Catholicism tossed James' accounts of Jesus upbringing and his family stuff when the King James Bible was made. There was a compromise between Catholics and Protestants on the KJV Bible since King James wanted to make a Bible everyone would accept in order to unify his country. Protestants wanted the Evangelion of James removed because it supported doctrine that they did not maintain. Mike never found anything challenging its authorship, just “We don't want it in there because it supports doctrine that we don't have.” Mike didn't believe in the perpetual virginity either, until he read that book. So now I do actually believe in it too.
Mike has since started a ministry that includes Orthodox, Messianic Jews, Catholics, and Protestant Christians and gets everybody working together to reach out. He says some pentecostal ministers he knows try and explain their discomfort saying, “The perpetual virginity isn't in the Bible.” Mike's like, “They basically used to be. They were removed in order to prevent anything support those doctrines. Its not that the doctrines were made-up with no support or apostolic testimony. People changed the doctrines, then removed the texts that supported the beliefs that they didn't accept.” I'm annoyed actually, because for example, atheists on facebook made an anti-Christian cartoon, showing a fundamentalist tearing into aspects of Darwin's theory that aren't rock-solid-proven, then they are asked if Jesus was born of a virgin and if so how do they know. They said, smiling, "Yes, absolutely, because somebody is said to have written something to confirm it, that we don't have." The truth is, we did have it and some people (Orthodox churches) still do. it was thrown out of the Catholic church because of denominationalism, basically. The Vatican and King James and the Protestant leaders were trying to stop rioting and war between Christians. Its totally embarrassing and shameful, but that's basically how it unfolded as far as I can so far tell. :( Now, without the apostolic account that the doctrine is based on, catholic teaching on the subject has Joseph, of an unknown age, living in celibacy with his wife in order to support God's call on her life to stay pure forever in honor of Jesus having been carried in her body.
I can see bits of the truth in there, like Joseph was wigged out because God had lived in her womb, and he felt he might be defiling, possibly, if he consummated the marriage. But in the absence of the foundation, the story has gotten a bit warped. They removed it to compromise with Protestants though. Of course you'll not likely hear that from catholic catechists, but that's what happened as far as I know now.
My thought is, Joseph married Mary out of submission to the will of God, not on his own will. He was old and extremely nervous about being with her after she carried God in her body. He submitted to God to be Mary and Jesus' protector and provider, and thus supported Mary's calling to be Jesus' mother. If God wished for her to stay a virgin forever, He picked the right guy for that, too. The East and West remain divided partly because of those minute differences in their doctrines, but I don't think they're incompatible. Joseph submitted to God to marry Mary, it was God's will not his. The call of God on Mary's life plus possibly Joseph's great age, brought it about that she was a virgin all her life, like the Lord intended. Mike says she was in a religious vocation at the temple, much like what we call a nun, but for some reason it was decided that she should marry, and when the will of God was sought as to who it should be, it became obvious that God wanted Joseph for the job. If there were vows involved in that vocation she had previously been in, she never had to break them... Long story short, I see the two doctrines as very compatible. The Orthodox church has a document of apostolic authorship to back its story, the Catholic church doesn't. So I am inclined to side with the East if an argument arises but really, I don't see them as being incompatible.
It was James' testimony, relayed to me through my friend, that made me believe in the perpetual virginity.
The reason Jesus had to get somebody else, specifically John, to look after his mom after he went to the cross was because she had no other kids. He was her only son, her only child. He had step-siblings though. “Thy mother and thy brethren are looking for you” it was Mary and His step siblings. James probably wrote all that to give eyewitness testimony that Jesus was indeed born of a virgin and such like. None of the gospels are eye-witness accounts of that particular part. James said that Jesus was virgin-born, and that Mary stayed a virgin all her life. Mike says James hinted that his dad couldn't actually do anything to change that... Joseph was extremely uncomfortable with the idea of sleeping with her because God himself had lived inside her. That plus he was very old.
James' writings about family life with Jesus were typically bound with the Bible, I guess. In his research, Mike says he learned that Catholicism tossed James' accounts of Jesus upbringing and his family stuff when the King James Bible was made. There was a compromise between Catholics and Protestants on the KJV Bible since King James wanted to make a Bible everyone would accept in order to unify his country. Protestants wanted the Evangelion of James removed because it supported doctrine that they did not maintain. Mike never found anything challenging its authorship, just “We don't want it in there because it supports doctrine that we don't have.” Mike didn't believe in the perpetual virginity either, until he read that book. So now I do actually believe in it too.
Mike has since started a ministry that includes Orthodox, Messianic Jews, Catholics, and Protestant Christians and gets everybody working together to reach out. He says some pentecostal ministers he knows try and explain their discomfort saying, “The perpetual virginity isn't in the Bible.” Mike's like, “They basically used to be. They were removed in order to prevent anything support those doctrines. Its not that the doctrines were made-up with no support or apostolic testimony. People changed the doctrines, then removed the texts that supported the beliefs that they didn't accept.” I'm annoyed actually, because for example, atheists on facebook made an anti-Christian cartoon, showing a fundamentalist tearing into aspects of Darwin's theory that aren't rock-solid-proven, then they are asked if Jesus was born of a virgin and if so how do they know. They said, smiling, "Yes, absolutely, because somebody is said to have written something to confirm it, that we don't have." The truth is, we did have it and some people (Orthodox churches) still do. it was thrown out of the Catholic church because of denominationalism, basically. The Vatican and King James and the Protestant leaders were trying to stop rioting and war between Christians. Its totally embarrassing and shameful, but that's basically how it unfolded as far as I can so far tell. :( Now, without the apostolic account that the doctrine is based on, catholic teaching on the subject has Joseph, of an unknown age, living in celibacy with his wife in order to support God's call on her life to stay pure forever in honor of Jesus having been carried in her body.
I can see bits of the truth in there, like Joseph was wigged out because God had lived in her womb, and he felt he might be defiling, possibly, if he consummated the marriage. But in the absence of the foundation, the story has gotten a bit warped. They removed it to compromise with Protestants though. Of course you'll not likely hear that from catholic catechists, but that's what happened as far as I know now.
My thought is, Joseph married Mary out of submission to the will of God, not on his own will. He was old and extremely nervous about being with her after she carried God in her body. He submitted to God to be Mary and Jesus' protector and provider, and thus supported Mary's calling to be Jesus' mother. If God wished for her to stay a virgin forever, He picked the right guy for that, too. The East and West remain divided partly because of those minute differences in their doctrines, but I don't think they're incompatible. Joseph submitted to God to marry Mary, it was God's will not his. The call of God on Mary's life plus possibly Joseph's great age, brought it about that she was a virgin all her life, like the Lord intended. Mike says she was in a religious vocation at the temple, much like what we call a nun, but for some reason it was decided that she should marry, and when the will of God was sought as to who it should be, it became obvious that God wanted Joseph for the job. If there were vows involved in that vocation she had previously been in, she never had to break them... Long story short, I see the two doctrines as very compatible. The Orthodox church has a document of apostolic authorship to back its story, the Catholic church doesn't. So I am inclined to side with the East if an argument arises but really, I don't see them as being incompatible.
It was James' testimony, relayed to me through my friend, that made me believe in the perpetual virginity.
So, I have still come a long way from my previous position on the Marian dogmas, and for awhile I embraced all four, and at the moment I won't rule the fourth out, but I am not really on board with it that much.
~Mother Star
No comments:
Post a Comment