Hi Filiope, I apologize for not responding to you sooner, I was called out of town. Let’s say Mary was guilty of touching something as you say, she would then have to be purified by offering two pigeons for her SIN for doing so. Am I not correct? How could that be if she was born sinless? Mary, at the temple in Lk 2:24 did what the Law required her to do after birth, Lev 12:6-8,offer two pigeons for SIN otherwise she would consider herself not being purified. Am I not correct ? If not so, why was she at the temple then? But in addition consider these: Mary sings in Lk 1:47 “and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” Why a Savior? Only sinners need a savior. Mat 1:25 Joseph had no relations with Mary, “until” Jesus was born. Doesn’t “until” imply that she later did? Mat 13:55 the people in the synagogue name James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas as Jesus’ brothers. If these are not Mary’s children and by allowing Joseph to marry her, wouldn’t she have committed treachery upon the holy covenant of marriage? There’s much being said about Mary. But doesn’t all of this have to be taken under consideration too?
Well now I have to apologize, as I unsubscribed to this thread, so I did not see your reply.
The first problem I see is that you are using an English translation of Torah. I’ll have to re-read my posting and see if I either mistyped or if you have misrepresented it. The ritual impurity of someone who touched an issue of blood from a woman after her period, or birth, or something contaminated by the blood, is again Ritual Impurity, and not Sin, as you described it, unless it was done willfully. While the word in Hebrew you use for the offering at the temple could be improperly translated Sin Offering by someone ignorant of the Jewish Law (Halkalah), it would more proper be a purification for ritual impurity, as I think I went over in my previous posting. So I do have to disagree with you.
As a Catholic, I would have to agree 100% that Mary did need a Savior, and that that Savior was and is Jesus her Son. However I also believe that as a singular Grace offered to her for the work she agreed to accomplish, God preserved her from Original Sin, and
by cooperation with God’s grace she remained free from actual sin. All of this was done by God, in anticipation of Jesus Sacrifice on the Cross, just as all the graces from the offerings of the doves, or any sacrifice at the Temple was given by God in anticipation of the Cross. So I see no contradiction.
Mat 1:25, well you may think you have me there, but once again you are thinking in the mindset of a 21st Century, english speaking, protestant. The Greek context is the same as the context for First Born Son, I was the first born son of my mother. If my brother and sister had not been born I would still have been the first born son. If she had never had other children, I would be the first male to open her womb, since I was not born by Cesarian Section. The same goes, and has been hashed out any number of times regarding the brothers and sisters. The names given are also mentioned in other passages, which give the names of other women as their mothers, and the Aramaic word used includes brother, cousin or close relation. Even if we allow for the custom among the Orthodox that Joseph had children from a previous marriage, it does not prove that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.
Another issue that you miss is that at different times during the history of Judaism, chastity was encouraged. That includes at the time of our Lord. While much is made of the chastity of the Jewish community of Qumran, the influence was strong at the time in Israel.
Just as the Ethiopian needed someone to show him the meaning of the Scriptures, we too need someone who is both learned in the history and meaning of the Scriptures. I do find your arguments, lifted from the usual suspects among Anti-Catholic writers to be sadly lacking. You will remain in my prayers.
