Did Mary know she was sinless?

[GailMac]

Ummmmmmmmmm…I don’t know that any deep theology is needed to see God obeying His laws in having Himself presented in the Temple by His parents, Mary and Joseph to whom He had entrusted His life. But…their Obedience, that is Mary and Joseph’s, is what accomplished the Redeemer of mankind being redeemed! And of course, the acts of Simeon and Anna also being recorded for us, to me say that God from the very start had prepared certain individuals to assist in these events. God entrusted this to His people! What an awesome thing to meditate on! Imagine it! God a helpless Babe in arms needing to have people to help Him keep His laws! Kinda makes me wonder what awesome thoughts must go through some ordinand’s minds preceeding their assuming His tasks still! I love meditating on this Mystery in the Rosary! Imagine Him entrusting His Flesh and Blood to the trembling hands of a newly ordained Priest like a Babe in the arms of Joseph or Mary or Simeon!

Peace,

Gail

P.S. But I’m way off topic aren’t I? Did Mary know she was sinless? I think so.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi,
…
I’m not sure if I have completely understood what you mean… I don’t say this in disagreement with it, but rather your superior scholarly knowledge that the Lord has gifted you has left me in a position whereby I am unsure of your exact meaning…

I feel quite buttered up

And perhaps I ought to advertise that a true scholar is the one who has learned enough to finally realize what they really DON’T know …

And for those confused by the rambling style of inserted scholarship (mine or Paul’s) don’t be facile, dig to the rock!

KJV.
2Pete 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pete 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood

But, at least I can be asked what I meant, unlike Paul,…

Do you mean that the sin offering, is not necessarily for what we would understand to be a sin (but could be for an accident or simply a matter on sinless uncleanness)?

The typical translated word “sin” in the bible is"αμαρτια" “`amartia”. The word means NOT! “straight to the target”. eg: you missed, or got there by a crooked path! The word “sin” in English tends to be interpreted as “purposful and evil” whereas to miss the target may or may not be on purpose, and the evil is relative to what the target was.

When the Greeks want to prevent any doubt that the “sin” was also “purposeful” they typically use the word – παραβασις – (para-basis) – eg:“beside a reference line”. In English we might say “you crossed the line”.or simply “you trans-gressed”
There is also “iniquity” and “lawlessness” … but this is getting long for all that…

The English word “sin” fits sometimes, and other times it is overkill. So, yes, I mean that one might “sin” without ever knowing it. A re-read of Leviticus 5,14-26 – shows that the passage is referring to “sins” committed “accidentally”,“unknowingly”,“unwittingly”.

And the bird is not to be “divided” – eg:

Levit 5:8 And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and wring off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder:

If my memory isn’t failing at the moment – the word here translated “divide” is somehow related to Cain – as his reprimand, I believe, uses this form of the word.

Even if Cain did not realize what he did wrong in the sacrifice, these are still “sins” in the sense that damage has been done with regard to something, (eg: the purity of a holy vessel or rite of sacrifice) and so an atonement or indulgence of the injured party is expected in addition to repairing/replacing the damage/cleansing the impurity.
(I am being ambiguous on purpose regarding purity.)

It seems to state, at least in my bible, that these offerings were made when a person violated the commandments.
… do you mean that the sin offering for violating the commandments here, and the sin offering in other places were a different thing?

I think I answered this, but if I am not clear – please ask again in more detail. I am happy to show any Greek details as best I can in English as well as Greek – Hopefully others will benefit from the Greek in the future – and perhaps add details I had not thought of.

For Example, not only the passage about the catharsis of the woman, where we discuss the lamb and bird(s), has ambiguous comma issues, but as another arbitrary English example ---- where do the comma’s go if Ι were to translate one other passage as:

“Glory to God in the Highest and on Earth peace to his people.”

I had great difficulty in following precise English grammar when translating … perhaps you can see the obvious reason, if you read it slowly and open minded-ly…?
I would have been shocked if I were a Jewish shepherd!

when Luke refers to their purification, I’ve come to think that he must be referring to both Mary and Jesus because:
…

I’m afraid I don’t quite understand why you think it Must refer to Jesus, or to Mary,
I think “customs” may also refer to local traditions that have grown up around the laws – traditions of men –
which so long as they do not distort the law, are not violating it.

As far as I know, purification is usually achieved by washing or burning and quarantine time and (sometimes) with a payment to allow “legal” sanctions to be lifted.

Vis. Jesus cured lepers, and then (though they were clean) they were still to pay what Moses’ law required.

Luke 17:14 And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed.

Matth 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
Matth 8:3 And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
Matth 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Which also brings up the theme of Cain and Abel – gifts and sacrifices – hmmmm… which word for gift is used here…

BTW: An odd thought occurs to me:
If Jesus were born and Mary actually bled because his placenta RIPPED out her uterine wall like normal children’s do –
then the very fact that he could be considered Holy (by nature) would constitute grounds for Mary to be “guilty”.

But this would have the awkward effect of making the Holy Spirit & the angel of his mouth asking Mary “TO SIN” at least ritually – for there is no doubt that God knew whether or not she would bleed at birth…

More, later.

 

[D_M]

Hi,

…no, I wasn’t intending anything about the seventh-day-adventists…

Good your wife is getting better, we shall continue to pray…Lord, look after Theo’s wife, Theo, all the people who care for them, the other persons that Theo mentioned who had accidents on that road, the people who care for those people, as well as everyone else in such circumstance; that you may take care of them and bring them closer to you, Amen.

In terms of the sin offering being offered symbolically… the only thing I would ask for here is some example of where this occurs in scripture in which the levitical sin offering is offered symbolically.

We know that it can be offered on behalf of sins as is shown by what is written about the offering in leviticus, but if it can also be offered symbolically as well, which I could accept the possibility of, I think what we need then is to show an established precedent of such.

(When I say I think it ‘must’ be referring to them, I am not saying I have 100% certainty, I am simply using the word ‘must’ in the common usage whereby it doesn’t literally mean ‘must’, but is used rhetorically on a point… )

I do accept the possibility that it may not refer to them, but I think it does refer to them for the reasons I gave.

I question if ‘sins committed unwittingly’ indicates that the sins were therefore accidental… many sins that we commit, we generally are not even really aware of what we are doing at the time when we commit them, but once we examine ourselves our consciences will convict us of them.

There are many sins we have committed unwittingly, in that we have committed them and may not even be consciously aware of what we did, but it was not accidental because we know that doing these things are wrong even if we haven’t really grasped ourselves as we really are.

That is to say, in short, we are tempted and do things we know are wrong without immediately realizing it when we commit them. But they are still sins, and we still need to repent them, and they are not simply mistakes as we should have known better…

There are many sins we have done, which are not consciously known to us… there are likewise many good deeds we have done, which are not consciously known to us… these things will all be explained someday though when every action is recounted.

I accept the possibility it could be referring to accidents, but it seems doubtful for these reasons and also for the problem as to why it would be thought necessary to offer an atoning sacrifice on behalf of a mere mistake?

I would have understood that Cain had committed a sin in the sacrifice as per what is written:

Genesis 4:7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.

-God relates not doing well, or what Cain did, in reference to sin

their purification was not simply a custom, but rather was according to the law of Moses

Luke 2:22 And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord

(I found the reference for the firstborn male being called holy too:

Exodus 13:2 “Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine.”)

Exodus 13 and Lev 12 are the passages that seem to be the most likely places being quoted with regard to the purification in Luke (one is word-for-word, and the other is also word-for-word but, even moreso, it fits contextually) which is why I think it refers to Jesus and Mary when it says ‘their purification according to the law’.

I wouldn’t have understood that the ripping of the placenta or the flow of blood, even if it made her unclean also made her ‘sinful’… what I need is some example wherein such a thing which is not sinful (implying guilt) is called sinful in scripture (as though the word was not referring to guilt)… I’m not sure if you’ve shown this already, I have a feeling that if you did it was one of the things I missed…

God Bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi,
In terms of the sin offering being offered symbolically… the only thing I would ask for here is some example of where this occurs in scripture in which the levitical sin offering is offered symbolically.

I don’t recall using the word “symbolically” – but that sort of blows my mind, anyway – for:

A symbol (eg: of faith) CCC 188

The Greek word symbolon meant half a broken object, for example, a seal presented as a token of recognition. The broken parts were put together to verify the the bearer’s identity…symbolon also means a gathering, collection, or summary.

eg:

2Samu 15:12 και απεστειλεν αβεσσαλωμ και εκαλεσεν τον αχιτοφελ τον γελμωναιον —>τον συμβουλον δαυιδ<-- εκ της πολεως αυτου εκ γωλα εν τω θυσιαζειν αυτον και εγενετο συστρεμμα ισχυρον και ο λαος πορευομενος και πολυς μετα αβεσσαλωμ

2Samu 15:12 And Absalom sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, —> David’s counsellor ← , from his city, even from Giloh, while he offered sacrifices. And the conspiracy was strong; for the people increased continually with Absalom.

Here Absalom is trying to take the literal “symbol of David” as proof of his kingship to the people – eg: the symbol, David – is translated David’s counselor.
By having the symbol – Absolom hoped to be granted recognition of Kingship!

Symbols are a signs agreed upon by people to communicate information – eg: even non-verbally. Eg: Notes of a melody are graphic symbols of music, etc.

I would say the whole of animal sacrifice in the Law is “symbolic” — especially the Lambs – for these things were a mere language about the sacrifice to come in God’s true house (tabernacle).

eg: The earthly sacrifices were a “Copy” using physical things in lieu of what went on in heaven:

Exodu 24:9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
Exodu 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
Exodu 24:11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.
Exodu 24:12 And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.
…
Exodu 25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.
Exodu 25:9 According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

The only place one can argue the sacrifices aren’t symbols of both the “Law” and “covenant” is before the law existed – eg: the time of Cain and Abel. (And even there, I suspect the symbolic nature is far deeper than we recognize at this time!)

 

[Huiou_Theou]

We know that it can be offered on behalf of sins as is shown by what is written about the offering in leviticus, but if it can also be offered symbolically as well, which I could accept the possibility of, I think what we need then is to show an established precedent of such.

I would say a symbolic “offering” is on behalf of actual sins.
If a sacrifice can be offered on behalf of another – as Jesus did – then I do not see why this “symbol” broken for us (eg: Jesus did not actually sin but bore the penalty of the contract he represented) is any different. Perhaps you meant something else/more particularly detailed?

(When I say I think it ‘must’ be referring to them
…
I question if ‘sins committed unwittingly’ indicates that the sins were therefore accidental… many sins that we commit, we generally are not even really aware of what we are doing at the time when we commit them, but once we examine ourselves our consciences will convict us of them.

There are many sins we have committed unwittingly, in that we have committed them and may not even be consciously aware of what we did, but it was not accidental because we know that doing these things are wrong even if we haven’t really grasped ourselves as we really are.

In the sense that someone may “will” a sin that they do not realize is a sin by momentary amnesia or permanent ignorance, I agree – however, Some of those sins listed in Leviticus look to me to be ones a person could KNOW the law and still ACCIDENTALLY commit. Moses himself did not realize the ground next to the burning bush was “holy” ground – so he accidentally left his shoes on. There was NO law previous to this time with which to convict Moses on that particular accident…

I accept the possibility it could be referring to accidents, but it seems doubtful for these reasons and also for the problem as to why it would be thought necessary to offer an atoning sacrifice on behalf of a mere mistake?

Why does one have to pay a fine to the water company if the check is delivered late because the postman dropped it?
There was damage done in the accident – and it is “your” responsibility, even if not “your” fault. One can beg them not to stick it to you – but that only works occasionally…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I would have understood that Cain had committed a sin in the sacrifice as per what is written:

Genesis 4:7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.

-God relates not doing well, or what Cain did, in reference to sin

…

I think that there are alternate ways of reading the reprimand given by God (Not to discount the traditional English translation). Click the above quote’s link, if interested…

their purification was not simply a custom, but rather was according to the law of Moses

I didn’t say “merely”! “according” is a combat oriented word, designating a comparison point by point. The passage in Luke disagrees on the subjects who must offer … so that in all honesty it can not refer to only one part of the Law, unless the version of the Law we have today is corrupt there…

KATA 'OLOS (catholic) is “according to the whole”
and KATAS-TROPHE (catastrophe) means essentially “according to the turning…” eg: turning it upside down!

(I found the reference for the firstborn male being called holy too:

That fits, perfectly, with the nature of the debt incurred in Egypt. They willingly sold themselves into slavery, although they were “already” God’s child as a nation.

Exodu 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn

Vague Sidenote: Egypt is older than Israel, as Cain is older than Abel.

…
which is why I think it refers to Jesus and Mary when it says ‘their purification according to the law’.

It’s a reasonable speculation – but “them” is not in the law to be “accorded” with – even in English translations I am aware of, nor is it in the Septuagint Greek.

But, then, there are there multiple sacrifices in both in Luke and the Law – is this just “arbitrary” in your mind?

I wouldn’t have understood that the ripping of the placenta or the flow of blood, even if it made her unclean also made her ‘sinful’…

Definitely a woman exuding blood from the vaginal cavity – who touches something holy – is breaking the Mosaic law. A child consecrated in the womb, would appear to be sufficient to call the child “Holy” as the Nazorite Sampson, or even John the Baptist would have been. …

But, returning to the “unclean” and “sin” issues – regarding St. Paul & Mary & women, etc.

what I need is some example wherein such a thing which is not sinful (implying guilt) is called sinful in scripture (as though the word was not referring to guilt)… I’m not sure if you’ve shown this already, I have a feeling that if you did it was one of the things I missed…

A woman is considered unclean at any time she issues blood from the vaginal cavity according to the Mosaic Law.
(eg: common sense, – Maxi pads didn’t exist to keep her fresh… ewww…bacteria-caffee`
Thank God for progress, eh? That sin is gone…)

Levit 15:19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
…
Levit 15:30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Anything she touched at this time is also called “unclean” – the bedsheets, the chairs, etc. All of these had to be purified before being returned to service.

What sin of the Woman do you see in those passages?
That she should offer a “sin” offering?

My thought, again, is that:
Jesus was holy, Mary touched him (even if she bled) ergo, Mary broke the Law of Moses if she conceived in blood for – as it is written:

Levit 12:4 … she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

I want to emphasize that these laws were written to teach about the sin people had engaged in and to look forward to the messiah – eg: – the sin inciting famine which made them call themselves “Pharaoh’s servants”. Even the free Egyptians didn’t use that title until the famine bankrupted them as well.

As to a specific law, again, if a man touch an unclean thing (the woman is called “unclean” above) this law would appear to apply to him!

Levit 5:2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.

Random thoughts…

Rachel died in childbirth … not Jacob’s first and true wife, eg: Leah, (whom I believe bore the tribe of Levi) survived the bloody death at child-birth.

And the birth name Rachel gave to her son was “Joseph” – a name associated with the phrase “God will add to me another man child” – and Joseph married the pagan Egyptian priest’s daughter. Clearly in a line of forbidden (taboo) practice for the Israelites – if Israel is God’s firstborn, then Egypt was offered second place – only, it sinned in it’s sacrifices.
Yet through this sexual sin – and the tribes of Joseph + Benjamin children of Rachel are NOTORIOUS for them – ultimately salvation is offered. The just are hidden under sin. St. Paul, reflecting, is also from the tribe of Benjamin.

Ahhh, Perhaps the “original sin” psalm would help clarify my position – along with Israel’s sheep?

 

[D_M]

Hi,

I understood that you used the description that the sin offering could be on behalf of sins that were committed in Egypt (ie. by their ancestors and not by the nation of Israel after the first generation of the exodus)… which I would call symbolic (since it is not a true atonement for the person offering the sacrifice but is simply a rememberance of long-ago sins), except now I’m thinking that perhaps what you meant was the sacrifice was being offered on behalf of those ancestors who sinned (?)

I agree that the sacrifices were symbolic… God did not really need all those dead rams because He was hungry or something… they were instrumental in teaching the people of Israel that their covenant with God was greater than their earthly goods which they could give up on His behalf.

The levitical altar of sacrifice was replaced by the altar of our hearts, and we give our lives as a sacrifice to God. St Augustine had a wonderful explanation of this…

The problem with offering the sacrifice on behalf of other’s sins, is that again it would be useful here to show some clear example in which this actually happened in the levitical practice. And I question if this could work.

If I did penance and fasted all day on behalf of someone, will this cause another person’s unrepented sins to be removed?

Of course it wouldn’t… I could pray and fast on behalf of that person to bring them to repent, but there is nothing I myself could do that would actually remove their sins from them, they need repent that themselves.

And the levitical offering described by Moses says that the sins are forgiven.

I don’t think that a person could know the law and accidentally violate it… that is to say, the responsibility for following the law is not removed from them in any circumstance, even when they are not realizing they are breaking it (because the fact is that they should have recognized it)… if they didn’t know that what they were doing was wrong (eg. Moses with his shoes at the burning bush) than in that case it is an accident and sin cannot be attributed to them… if, however, they knew the law and therefore were charged with the responsibility of following it, even if they violated it unwittingly they were still guilty of having broken the covenant (as are we for that matter)

I could not excuse myself for violating the Lord’s commands when I knew what they were if I had simply declined to recognize what I was doing when I violated them… I had the responsibility to recognize it, which is where I failed.

I think the water bill analogy isn’t correct, because God does not require us to do what is outside our power… in the earthly world we can be charged with mistakes that were made by others or we could be charged with things outside our power to fix, but God would never charge for another person’s sins (unless of course we, ourselves, committed some sin in relation to it like tempting them, encouraging their sin, etc.) or for that which we had no power to do.

You’re right that there are other places in the Mosaic law that have the two young pigeons, but I think it is Lev 12 on the basis of the context (ie. a woman after childbirth was required to give such a sacrifice).

I note the wording in Luke

Luke 2:22-24 And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”

The two things are separated in St Luke’s narrative
i) - they went to the temple to present Jesus to the Lord
ii) - and they went there to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord

the first is a direct quotation from Exodus, and the second I think is a reference to Lev 12 on the basis of the context… all women in Israel were required to do this after a pregnancy.

I suppose the sacrifice could refer to some other place in the law, but I think St Luke as a jew who would have been familiar with this practice in his own day is referring to what is written in Lev 12 because it is what all women had to do… he doesn’t write that they offered the sacrifice for another reason, but he simply says it was offered according to the law, and jews at the period would have known what it was he was referring to and if they had read this gospel I think that may be the conclusion they would have made unless otherwise stated.

 

[D_M]

The sin offering in Lev 15 could be a penitential rite that was required when the woman went through this, but which was account of sins she had really committed and not as forgiveness for her bloody discharge.

She was unclean on account of her discharge, but it doesn’t say that she was sinful on account of her discharge. In Lev 5, it does say that the man sinned for which the sin offering is given. That would be a difference I could point to…

The Jews related diseases to be sometimes punishment for sins.

All people are sinners, and need to do penance… we are required to go to confession at least once a year (but we are encouraged to go more often), but this doesn’t mean that simply living for a year is a sin even if we are required to do this penance at least once for every year that passes. We are required to do the penitential rite every time we go to mass, but that didn’t mean going to mass was a sin, it simply meant that we were required to do this penance every time this event happened. I think it could be likewise in some sense true for the sin offerings offered here.

I suppose and accept the possibility that the sin offering could have been made here on account of her discharge and not because she was necessarily a sinner (by doing real sins in her life), but I then relate this back to the other examples in the Mosaic law wherein the sacrifice is offered for real sins and also I look again at the word ‘sin offering’, wondering how it could relate to something which was not a sin, but only rather if it was offered in relation to that on account of real sins.

I thank you for offering your knowledge of the septuagint… but what I think would be really crucial here perhaps, would be if we knew what it said in the original hebrew which was translated into the Greek and into our English.

I wonder if there is a detectable difference in the original language?

The septuagint can tell us that the word in Greek doesn’t necessarily imply a sin in its translation, but that doesn’t mean that the word in Hebrew had the same ambiguity. (and a similar argument could be made for the Cain-Abel narrative)

I like the symbolism you bring up… that Cain was older than Abel, just as Egypt was older than Israel… does Esau and Jacob work too?
God Bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi,

I understood that you used the description that the sin offering could be on behalf of sins that were committed in Egypt (ie. by their ancestors and not by the nation of Israel after the first generation of the exodus)… which I would call symbolic (since it is not a true atonement for the person offering the sacrifice but is simply a rememberance of long-ago sins), except now I’m thinking that perhaps what you meant was the sacrifice was being offered on behalf of those ancestors who sinned (?)

OK, I see how I messed the communication up a bit.
I am not restricting my thoughts to a single theory of what/why the sacrifices are offered – as I have to incorporate speculation of the “other side” whenever I speculate. This is why I said “at least symbolic” because it may have a “real” value of some kind. I understood your comment strangely …

Symbols being “partial” are not the same as the goods themselves – eg: a loan document (promissary note) is a symbol of real goods. (A promise).

The loan document suffices to to mitigate the payment of a debt over time to a bank, etc. In order for the contract not to be in default, a minimum payment is expected – and this “token” (symbolic) payment keeps the contract out of default. eg: St. Pauls speaks of how the sacrifices of the old testament had value (carnally), and the sacrifice (singular) of the new testament is of far more value.
Eg: I am not sure this is the best example, but perhaps tokens vs. currency…

I agree that the sacrifices were symbolic…
…
their covenant with God was greater than their earthly goods which they could give up on His behalf.

OK. Though I have a feeling (unsubstantiated) that there is something missing in your analysis here – and it touches on the idea of priesthood – for the sacrifices are often bidirectional in their effect – eg: the priest receives a portion by right of some victims, and those offering do as well…

The levitical altar of sacrifice was replaced by the altar of our hearts, and we give our lives as a sacrifice to God. St Augustine had a wonderful explanation of this…

Yes, lift up your hearts! – but it also references the law in the heart – the tablet being of stone or flesh – which God writes upon, either carving into hardness , or perhaps “breathing” into flesh as the spirit travels with the blood.

more…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The problem with offering the sacrifice on behalf of other’s sins, is that again it would be useful here to show some clear example in which this actually happened in the levitical practice. And I question if this could work.

The entire sacrificial system culminated in three mandatory sacrifices a year, two of them being the passover and Pentecost (the harvest thanksgiving/field cleansing/burning, etc.) the burning on the 50th day.

As a shadow, the passover is where the blood (not of your own) saves you from death. The blood is a “sign” or “symbol” placed over the door-posts in Egypt for the very purpose of recognition by the angel of death (whom – might be evil? or just? ).

Perhaps I misunderstand what you are asking, but the lamb is a sacrifice on behalf of others by definition, as is the scapegoat sent into the desert… So, this “someone” sharing at least the animal properties of man (symbolically at least) is paying for someone else’s sins … not their own.

To focus on offerings made for another in Levitical history is indisputable as an idea. There are historical accounts outside of the first cannon which show that (rightly or wrongly executed) such practice was understood by the Levitical priests – even of the house of AAron.
Judas, of the Maccabees was not of the line of Zadok, which King David had promised the high priesthood – but in the time of the Maccabees – shortly before Christ, the Maccabees ( AAronites ) took the high priesthood to be their own by force and war. This situation was never remedied even to the day of Christ.

Regardless of what one thinks of the history, glorification of the Maccabees by historians …
The fact is that Levitical priests (high priests / and perhaps “underpriests”) performed these sacrifices on behalf of others:

2Maccabees 39 – As the week was ending, they purified themselves according to custom and kept the sabbath there. On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his men went to gather up the bodies of the slain and bury them with their kinsmen in their ancestral tombs. But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear so it was clear to all why these men had been slain … the noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand ??? which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. …
Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

The sacrifice was quite large, and regardless of what one thinks of the “right” of Judas to do this … I would comment on a few things here:

No matter whether or not one makes the mistake of Judging the dead as worthy of hellfire (which I do not Judge out of fear for myself), understand that the Priest was Levitical (Aaronitic) and chose to have the army pay for a sacrifice on behalf of someone long gone.

That isn’t to say, that Judas offered the sacrifice (sin offering) for an actual sin of those who were still alive – for then his WHOLE army would be guilty, but then Some of the army certainly were STILL guilty but haden’t died in battle just yet.

One can recognize that Judas was being shrewd.

Those who actually sinned offered for themselves the prayer which could BRING about their own repentance, and those who had no such sin offered on behalf of those who god MIGHT have mercy on in their eyes.

The guilty and the innocent were both being subjected to the same “sin offering”, and the offering itself – although certainly for an actual sin – is not necessarily for the sin of those offering. They were praying for their brothers in Hope which is part of the definition of Faith. Faith is the Hope of things unseen – not just hidden, but not even certain to the faculties of human reason.

The rest of your post deserves thoughtful comment, but I have some duties to perform – so until later tonight… adieu…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi,

If I did penance and fasted all day on behalf of someone, will this cause another person’s unrepented sins to be removed?

I want to say “No” in order to satisfy my internal sense of justice – but God is also merciful … When he says,“the first shall be last – and the last shall be first” the point is that we will be surprised at who ranks ahead of us in his judgment (not ours).

A priest, trying to "get my goat, asked me sarcastically – if a man commits mortal sin – say murder or adultery, and never repents, he just walks up to the pearly gate and at this judgment what do YOU know, Jesus just says “come on in” – how does full consent, grave matter, and …

Sorry about the ellipses, but as it was then – memorizing formal definitions is not my strongest point. He was actually ridiculing me for not having memorized it … And so, I said to him – “If Jesus lets him in, who am I to keep him out?!, but father, mortal sin means… etc.etc.etc”

Now it turns out he didn’t like that answer, and later breaking the “laws” of the church he did me more damage than I still know what to do with in my family.

Of course it wouldn’t… I could pray and fast on behalf of that person to bring them to repent, but there is nothing I myself could do that would actually remove their sins from them, they need repent that themselves.

I don’t know. I want to agree to the general idea, here, don’t get me wrong. It’s just that if my kid breaks the window of a neighbors house, and never repents – I can STILL pay for the window and atone for the damage. Does that mean my son “is not Guilty” – No, not at all – but surely “sin” in the form of the broken window, I can remove from him so that my neighbor at least is comfortable again. Not everyone will repent, and Jesus says he will “wipe away our tears” in heaven. Has he taken the sin away? In one sense --yes-- for that sin of this third party which may have hurt me, caused me to be less than God wanted, has both a mental (culpability) aspect, and also a result. At least part of this can be atoned for, and will be atoned for by Jesus in heaven.

And the levitical offering described by Moses says that the sins are forgiven.

Yes, and this is where a distinction needs to be made.
Because the sin is “forgiven” doesn’t mean the results of the sin are erased. Eg: in the prodigal son parable, the father is forced to say (in the end to the ELDER son) – “EVERYTHING I have is yours.” What then of the ring on the younger brother’s finger which gave him limited authority over the slaves? What relationship does this ring – which the older brother owns – have to do with the younger brother?
It’s not a very happy ending although “forgiveness” has been given to the younger son.

more…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi,

I don’t think that a person could know the law and accidentally violate it… that is to say, the responsibility for following the law is not removed from them in any circumstance, even when they are not realizing they are breaking it (because the fact is that they should have recognized it)… if they didn’t know that what they were doing was wrong (eg. Moses with his shoes at the burning bush) than in that case it is an accident and sin cannot be attributed to them…

OK, now were at a philosophical point. I have tried to show that in Greek, the original language of the Gospel of Luke – the same Luke who is coworker with St. Paul, the apostle to the Greek speaking Gentiles –
that the word for sin is broader than the TENDENCY of interpreting “sin” in English. Now, in light of that, what I see above is that you appear to choose to interpret sin according to the English Elizabethan and American tendencies. Is this because you do not believe the American word “Sin” can mean a defect without guilt?
Eg: would you say my comment about the maxi pads was un-intelligable in English?

Hmmm…
The law, eg: the Books Of Moses … I think, contain information Moses was familiar with before he wrote about it,

if, however, they knew the law and therefore were charged with the responsibility of following it, even if they violated it unwittingly they were still guilty of having broken the covenant (as are we for that matter)

Yes, I agree to their breaking it – although, I was never in the Covenant of Abraham under the terms of his contract.
Jesus, Joseph, and Mary were under the terms and penalties of that contract. And, yes, I break the Mosaic law without sin.

I could not excuse myself for violating the Lord’s commands when I knew what they were if I had simply declined to recognize what I was doing when I violated them… I had the responsibility to recognize it, which is where I failed.

Abraham knew to bow down to the Lord.
Jacob knew the holiness of the place where sight a of less impact than the Holy fire of a non-burning bush.
Moses is credited with the History of Abraham, Jacob, Adam, and Eve.

The covenant was already in effect and being broken when Moses treated God as a scientific curiosity on the mountain.
I think Moses must have been ignorant, why did God let him live? And again, when Moses learned of his mistake – he doesn’t just Go – Oh well! Rather, he takes his shoes off and sacrifices to God for the rest of his life. His (sin) was not knowing what he Ought to have known instinctively.

I think the water bill analogy isn’t correct, because God does not require us to do what is outside our power… in the earthly world we can be charged with mistakes that were made by others or we could be charged with things outside our power to fix, but God would never charge for another person’s sins (unless of course we, ourselves, committed some sin in relation to it like tempting them, encouraging their sin, etc.) or for that which we had no power to do.

Well, what you are proposing falls outside the doctrine of Original Sin, and outside even the theory of “total depravity”.
which I didn’t know were in dispute.

Now, I hear an emotional plea, but I am not convinced scripturally, or based on Catholic teaching that what you are proposing is correct. Could you clarify a bit how you hold this position? I must be reading this wrong somehow.

I note the wording in Luke
Luke 2:22-24 …
…
The two things are separated in St Luke’s narrative
i) - they went to the temple to present Jesus to the Lord
ii) - and they went there to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord

What does “present” Jesus to the Lord mean that is separate from the sacrifice? eg: Why is Jesus presented to his own house in your opinion? I can see that Luke says they are doing this “for” Jesus – which can mean either “on behalf of” or “because of”. Are you making the distinction based on the probable source(s) of these two actions?

the first is a direct quotation from Exodus, and the second I think is a reference to Lev 12 on the basis of the context… all women in Israel were required to do this after a pregnancy.

I have been taking, for the sake of this argument, that Luke IS Paraphrasing Leviticus, 12. So I have never been disputing this point – and rereading my past posts, I apologize if I gave that impression.

I suppose the sacrifice could refer to some other place in the law, but I think St Luke as a jew who would have been familiar with this practice in his own day is referring to what is written in Lev 12 because it is what all women had to do… he doesn’t write that they offered the sacrifice for another reason …

Um, as far as I know, Luke is a convert of St. Paul as a Gentile who became a co-worker with Paul to the Gentiles, perhaps I am wrong. My memory does play tricks sometimes. But, His writing in Greek is the least Hebrew of all the Gospels, eg: Luke was the easiest for me to understand when I was learning Greek.

If Luke supposed that Mary had to obey the law in a particular way and he was wrong – eg: he was ignorant of what really happened, then the in-errancy of scripture holds that God would have prevented him from writing it in such a way as to convey a lie. Luke cooperated with God, and God made up for Luke’s defects where the Devil had damaged Luke. So, when I see Luke writing “them” instead of “her” as the Gentile version of the old testament says – I go, huh?
Now if the Hebrew version of that same old testament passage says “them” , I’d love to know. I haven’t learned Hebrew yet…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The sin offering in Lev 15 could be a penitential rite that was required when the woman went through this, but which was account of sins she had really committed and not as forgiveness for her bloody discharge.

I don’t dispute one CAN read it that way – but it isn’t a proof of any kind.

She was unclean on account of her discharge, but it doesn’t say that she was sinful on account of her discharge. In Lev 5, it does say that the man sinned for which the sin offering is given. That would be a difference I could point to…

If she had a discharge, I would be inclined to say she Broke The Law by touching Jesus even with her breasts. So, then, she would have “sin” in the sense of a broken law – and she would KNOW she is a sinner.

The Jews related diseases to be sometimes punishment for sins. …

Beautiful! yes, I agree that a penitential rite does not guarantee sin. But “all” people are sinners does not mean “every single person is a sinner” if that is what you mean – by a culpable act.

I suppose and accept the possibility that the sin offering could have been made here on account of her discharge and not …

Great, I didn’t know you accepted that.

I thank you for offering your knowledge of the septuagint… but what I think would be really crucial here perhaps, would be if we knew what it said in the original hebrew which was translated into the Greek and into our English.

I wonder if there is a detectable difference in the original language?

So do I. I would love to know Hebrew – I would also love to have all the various conflicting manuscripts that St. Jerome argued with the Jewish Rabbi’s over – as is in his notes.
But ALAS, they are all gone. except one – and that is not in care of Christians today … a bit of a fox/hen problem.

The septuagint can tell us that the word in Greek doesn’t
necessarily imply a sin in its translation, …

Yes, and to be kind – the etymology of a word doesn’t guarantee it was taken to mean the exact same thing it came from. Just similar…

I like the symbolism you bring up… that Cain was older than Abel, just as Egypt was older than Israel… does Esau and Jacob work too?
God Bless,

Yes, When Esau became aware of the necessity to sacrifice, he did so to false Gods. The elder brother, who is a priest by birthright, was greedy for the pot of food.

Cain, Esau, and the sons of Eli, and even the sons of Samuel share the same sin apparently. It it a sin priests find hard to avoid – greed over what belongs to God. In terms of Cain’s ignorance of any example at all, though, his position in ignorance is arguably unique. But, perhaps he had an example, I’ll have to think about that a bit more…

God bless you, I have to sleep, and work will take the next few days. I have really enjoyed stretching out the mind, and look forward to meditating deeply on a few points you brought up.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The sin offering in Lev 15 could be a penitential rite that was required when the woman went through this, but which was account of sins she had really committed and not as forgiveness for her bloody discharge.

I don’t dispute one CAN read it that way – but it isn’t a proof of any kind.

She was unclean on account of her discharge, but it doesn’t say that she was sinful on account of her discharge. In Lev 5, it does say that the man sinned for which the sin offering is given. That would be a difference I could point to…

If she had a discharge, I would be inclined to say she Broke The Law by touching Jesus even with her breasts. So, then, she would have “sin” in the sense of a broken law – and she would KNOW she is a sinner.

The Jews related diseases to be sometimes punishment for sins. …

Beautiful! yes, I agree that a penitential rite does not guarantee sin. But “all” people are sinners does not mean “every single person is a sinner” if that is what you mean – by a culpable act.

I suppose and accept the possibility that the sin offering could have been made here on account of her discharge and not …

Great, I didn’t know you accepted that.

I thank you for offering your knowledge of the septuagint… but what I think would be really crucial here perhaps, would be if we knew what it said in the original hebrew which was translated into the Greek and into our English.

I wonder if there is a detectable difference in the original language?

So do I. I would love to know Hebrew – I would also love to have all the various conflicting manuscripts that St. Jerome argued with the Jewish Rabbi’s over – as is in his notes.
But ALAS, they are all gone. except one – and that is not in care of Christians today … a bit of a fox/hen problem.

The septuagint can tell us that the word in Greek doesn’t
necessarily imply a sin in its translation, …

Yes, and to be kind – the etymology of a word doesn’t guarantee it was taken to mean the exact same thing it came from. Just similar…

I like the symbolism you bring up… that Cain was older than Abel, just as Egypt was older than Israel… does Esau and Jacob work too?
God Bless,

Yes, When Esau became aware of the necessity to sacrifice, he did so to false Gods. The elder brother, who is a priest by birthright, was greedy for the pot of food.

Cain, Esau, and the sons of Eli, and even the sons of Samuel share the same sin apparently. It it a sin priests find hard to avoid – greed over what belongs to God. In terms of Cain’s ignorance of any example at all, though, his position in ignorance is arguably unique. But, perhaps he had an example, I’ll have to think about that a bit more…

God bless you, I have to sleep, and work will take the next few days. I have really enjoyed stretching out the mind, and look forward to meditating deeply on a few points you brought up.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The sin offering in Lev 15 could be a penitential rite that was required when the woman went through this, but which was account of sins she had really committed and not as forgiveness for her bloody discharge.

I don’t dispute one CAN read it that way – but it isn’t a proof of any kind.

She was unclean on account of her discharge, but it doesn’t say that she was sinful on account of her discharge. In Lev 5, it does say that the man sinned for which the sin offering is given. That would be a difference I could point to…

If she had a discharge, I would be inclined to say she Broke The Law by touching Jesus even with her breasts. So, then, she would have “sin” in the sense of a broken law – and she would KNOW she is a sinner.

The Jews related diseases to be sometimes punishment for sins. …

Beautiful! yes, I agree that a penitential rite does not guarantee sin. But “all” people are sinners does not mean “every single person is a sinner” if that is what you mean – by a culpable act.

I suppose and accept the possibility that the sin offering could have been made here on account of her discharge and not …

Great, I didn’t know you accepted that.

I thank you for offering your knowledge of the septuagint… but what I think would be really crucial here perhaps, would be if we knew what it said in the original hebrew which was translated into the Greek and into our English.

I wonder if there is a detectable difference in the original language?

So do I. I would love to know Hebrew – I would also love to have all the various conflicting manuscripts that St. Jerome argued with the Jewish Rabbi’s over – as is in his notes.
But ALAS, they are all gone. except one – and that is not in care of Christians today … a bit of a fox/hen problem.

The septuagint can tell us that the word in Greek doesn’t
necessarily imply a sin in its translation, …

Yes, and to be kind – the etymology of a word doesn’t guarantee it was taken to mean the exact same thing it came from. Just similar…

I like the symbolism you bring up… that Cain was older than Abel, just as Egypt was older than Israel… does Esau and Jacob work too?
God Bless,

Yes, When Esau became aware of the necessity to sacrifice, he did so to false Gods. The elder brother, who is a priest by birthright, was greedy for the pot of food.

Cain, Esau, and the sons of Eli, and even the sons of Samuel share the same sin apparently. It it a sin priests find hard to avoid – greed over what belongs to God. In terms of Cain’s ignorance of any example at all, though, his position in ignorance is arguably unique. But, perhaps he had an example, I’ll have to think about that a bit more…

God bless you, I have to sleep, and work will take the next few days. I have really enjoyed stretching out the mind, and look forward to meditating deeply on a few points you brought up.

 

[D_M]

Hi,

In terms of the meaning of the levitical sacrifices my interpretation is mostly derived from what St Augustine of Hippo wrote, who I would refer you to if you haven’t seen his take on it… my recollection of what he wrote was that the sacrifices were done for the purpose of teaching Israel through means of temporal goods, the deeper meaning and importance of the covenant… he does expand to some degree further from this

The male goat, and the passover lamb, are both offerings being made by the congregation of people who require mercy. I think it is not an offering that is done by others, but is an offering done for a collective group who all likewise need such mercy.

I’m not convinced that Judas’ offering is the same “sin offering” as described in the books of Moses. Moses talks about a specific law regarding a “sin offering” (and other specific laws regarding the “cereal offering”, the “guilt offering”, the “burnt offering”, etc.), and if a sacrifice is offered on behalf of sins here, that does not mean it is quite the same thing… I agree that this is being offered on behalf of other people, but it does not actually give those people forgiveness in itself… it can help them so as to help bring them to repent, but the sinner herself is the one who needs to repent in order to truly find mercy.

I can offer up as many prayers as I choose (ie. a sacrifice) in order for a person to find mercy in God’s eyes and come to peace with Him, but unless that person actually responds to this grace and stops sinning than it is not going to achieve anything.

The difference here is that the sin offering in Leviticus actually does end with the priest declaring that their sins are forgiven… which these offerings for the dead could not have necessarily achieved in themselves (but they could have helped achieve it), since the only way for the sins to be forgiven is if the party for whom the sacrifices are being made for have repented them.

A person who refuses to repent cannot find mercy… it’s not that God’s mercy is not infinite… rather, what happiness could we possibly find if we rejected God for eternity?

If heaven was filled with murderers, rapists, adulterers and idolaters, it would not be much of a paradise.

Your child breaking the windows of your neighbours and you paying for it is not really the same thing as sins against God. If God was your neighbour, He would not be angry with the fact that the window was broken, but rather He would be angry with the evil intention in the child’s heart (assuming there was an intention) to break the window, and it would not matter how much you gave Him, because what it was that your neighbour (God) really wanted fixed was not the window but what was in the child’s heart in his choice to break it to begin with. You could try to plead with your neighbour (God) and pray that He give the child time to think things over so that He may change His heart (ie. offer up sacrifice for his sins), but you yourself could not actually fix this problem on your own without the child’s own choice.

Its not that Jesus does not offer His forgiveness for all sins, but it is just that in order to have forgiveness it is also necessary that a person is sincerely contrite.

I’m not sure if I have fully understood what you mean about the prodigal son… are you suggesting that somehow the evil remained?

I would have understood that it was a happy ending.

In common english usage, there is a way to employ the word ‘sin’ or other such words (‘fault’, ‘wrong’, etc.) in a manner which does not truly imply guilt… the gospel of Luke doesn’t employ the word ‘sin’ or other such words within the passage we are examining. The word sin is only seen for our purposes here within the levitical law which is being partly quoted in Luke, but the part quoted doesn’t actually use the word ‘sin’.

I agree that the common usage in English allows for a meaning other than true guilt, although in the context with which Moses writes, I admit this is possible, but I have difficulty seeing this for reasons already given, and for other reasons like why we would Moses have avoided saying that the woman in Lev 15 was sinful on account of her discharge (since he only wrote she was unclean on account of her discharge), or the woman in Lev 12 he says is impure… but not sinful… on account of her pregnancy, if he wasn’t rather writing about sins with a specific meaning in mind that should cause him to differentiate as such?

 

[D_M]

I don’t know if Moses sinned or not in that instance… you might be right, and if so he was responsible to know that he should have taken off his shoes. No one can be charged with having committed sin which they did not know to be sin though… this is a church teaching I think. When a person sins unwittingly, it is no that they are committing sins because they don’t know the law and are therefore exempt, but rather they are committing sins while knowing the law but simply not recognizing what they are doing (which they are responsible for) when they do it.

We commit sins like this all the time.

We can only be punished for sins we committed, I don’t believe this puts catholic teaching into dispute. The Original sin is not we having inherited the punishment of someone else’s sin, rather in the original sin, as the fathers of the church wrote: ‘we sinned in Adam’ and therefore are punished for it.

The whole human race was present inside Adam and Eve when they trespassed and we were all likewise conceived in this sin and have continued in this sin from our conception until we find redemption through grace.

It is not their sin we are punished for, it is our own sin which we committed in them when they sinned into which we were conceived.

God does not allow us to be tempted beyond our capacity to resist, this is both scriptural and taught by the church:

1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Therefore I say correctly, the God does not require us to do thing which we are not able to do. He does not require us to resist temptations which He will not give us the means to resist. Total depravity is the doctrine that says, that without God’s grace a person is unable to resist sin, but the point here is that God’s grace is never lacking and always available to anyone, anywhere who will cooperate with it and therefore it remains true that He does not ask from us that which we are unable to do (since He always will give us the means to be able).

Good question about what Luke means when he writes that Jesus is to be presented to the Lord… I’m going to say it must be referring to the Father.

Luke 2:9 And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them and they were filled with fear.

In the gospel Jesus refers to the angels as the angels of His Father, and an ‘angel of the Lord’ then is perhaps ‘an angel of the Father’.

I see a distinction in the two actions in Luke because Luke takes two different quotations according to what is said in the law of the Lord, and those two quotations do not appear in the same place anywhere in the scripture.

You’re right about St Luke being a greek… I just went and checked that, and I was under the mistaken impression that all the evangelists were jews…Luke is traditionally thought to have been a greek convert. He nevertheless though is able to recite the jewish law here and quote from it which would imply some familiarity.

I don’t think Mary would be committing a sin by touching Jesus if she was impure… I likewise don’t think that Jesus was committing a sin by touching lepers or the sick.

If it was a sin to come to the temple when one was impure, that doesn’t necessarily mean it was also a sin to come near Jesus when one was impure.

Every single person has sinned by culpable act(s) which began at our conception (with the exceptions of only Mary, John the baptist and Our Lord)…this is why there are no exceptions for anyone when we do the penitential rites at mass… do you understand differently?

I’m happy you are finding this discussion fruitful and I hope that if I’m testing your limits that I’m only doing so gently… may God correct me if needed. Amen.

Thank you for blessing me, that is very kind of you,

God Bless,

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi,

In terms of the meaning of the levitical sacrifices my interpretation is mostly derived from what St Augustine of Hippo wrote, who I would refer you to …

Yes, I have read Augustine’s works. He is quite brilliant, although – even he notes his logic is limited in places.

The male goat, and the passover lamb, are both offerings being made by the congregation of people who require mercy. I think it is not an offering that is done by others, but is an offering done for a collective group who all likewise need such mercy.

The passover lamb is actually offered by individual families. I suppose one could call that “collective” upon reflection – so yes.

I’m not convinced that Judas’ offering is the same “sin offering” as described in the books of Moses. Moses talks about a specific law regarding a “sin offering” …
… it can help them so as to help bring them to repent, but the sinner herself is the one who needs to repent in order to truly find mercy.

How do you come to the conclusion that there is no forgiveness? You have already mentioned a statement from the OT to the effect that the OT sacrifices forgive sins. I would note the angel of death came to Egypt to punish man for his sin – and on account of physical blood – he forgave a physical death at that time. In other words, the sin was forgiven temporally (in time) but the eternal aspect of the sin was not yet taken care of.

St. Paul remarks that the new sacrifice in the new covenant is more efficacious than those of the old testament. He does not state that the old testament sacrifices had no value in and of themselves.

Again, the animal is a “token” of the sacrifice to come.
Jesus’ body, was a physical human fleshly body, just as that of the carnal animal – the Lamb. Man, in his body, shares characteristics of Animals and so an aspect of sacrifice is shared by man and animal.

If one argues God does not need to eat the animal sacrifices, then he does not need to “eat” the sacrifice of Jesus’ physical body. But I think it self evident that in a likeness to “eating” flesh where that which is flesh becomes part of one’s body – that God in fact does “eat” without teeth the actual flesh of human bodies. ibid. The Eucharist.

The body, too, is involved in the forgiveness of sins.

On Judas – he sends the money to the temple in Jerusalem to offer the sacrifice. The temple is “only” used for Mosaic sacrifices – and not mere “traditions” as we have already noted. I would hold, then, by your reasoning – that Judas sent money to buy the sacrificial animals to be used in a Levitical sacrifice in accord with the law of Moses.

– what else could he be doing?

eg: if you admit that one may do at the temple what the temple was not designed for – then the original question with regard to Mary’s purification becomes moot. Their activity at the temple may have nothing to do with the law of Moses.

more …

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I can offer up as many prayers as I choose (ie. a sacrifice) in order for a person to find mercy in God’s eyes and come to peace with Him, but unless that person actually responds to this grace and stops sinning than it is not going to achieve anything.

I would note that the sacrifice itself is responding to grace – and that the sacrifice is a gift to the person it is being offered for. That they may be ultimately damned does not mean the grace achieved nothing! God forbid!
Those who are baptized and then damned are different from those not baptized and damned.
So, when you say it achieves nothing – what exactly do you mean?

The difference here is that the sin offering in Leviticus actually does end with the priest declaring that their sins are forgiven… which these offerings for the dead could not have necessarily achieved in themselves (but they could have helped achieve it), since the only way for the sins to be forgiven is if the party for whom the sacrifices are being made for have repented them.

Judas apparently hoped that the sacrifices could achieve this end – and I do not know for certain that it could not.
God knew before they died that the sacrifice would be offered. AKA. Jesus descends to the dead. Because one does not see repentance, does not mean the sacrifice did not provide the “help” as you call it, in the last moments of a person’s earthly life. The flood waters rose slowly – rather than instant annihilation.

A person who refuses to repent cannot find mercy… it’s not that God’s mercy is not infinite… rather, what happiness could we possibly find if we rejected God for eternity?

Then, I take it, you would have a problem with the divine mercy devotion wherein some say that those for whom the devotion is completed will be saved. See my previous comment.

I too, have almost the same difficulty as you regarding this issue, logically, – but I am not my own Judge nor another’s. I merely Judge what is right and wrong for myself in hope.

If heaven was filled with murderers, rapists, adulterers and idolaters, it would not be much of a paradise.

They entered before the pharisees!

Your child breaking the windows of your neighbours and you paying for it is not really the same thing as sins against God.
If God was your neighbour, He would not be angry with the fact that the window was broken,

really, how do you know?

but rather He would be angry with the evil intention in the child’s heart (assuming there was an intention) to break the window, …

which is exactly why I have not specified the child’s internal disposition. But God made the child, and you are arguing he is not upset with the corruption of the child’s body and spirit, but only the “will” which aimed the body and spirit? Why ,then , bother to resurrect the body of the damned?

… but you yourself could not actually fix this problem on your own without the child’s own choice.

Its not that Jesus does not offer His forgiveness for all sins, but it is just that in order to have forgiveness it is also necessary that a person is sincerely contrite.

Eventually, yes, but forgiveness is given before contriteness – as is shown by the passover.

I’m not sure if I have fully understood what you mean about the prodigal son… are you suggesting that somehow the evil remained?

Pope John Paul II, wrote an encyclical on that parable. The theme of the encyclical is the fact that the son was being opportunistic out of desperation – there is no real evidence of a moral repentance before the father embraces him. I refer you to the encyclical to get the perspective first hand rather than from me.

In common english usage, there is a way to employ the word ‘sin’ or other such words (‘fault’, ‘wrong’, etc.) in a manner which does not truly imply guilt… the gospel of Luke doesn’t employ the word ‘sin’ or other such words within the passage we are examining. The word sin is only seen for our purposes here within the levitical law which is being partly quoted in Luke, but the part quoted doesn’t actually use the word ‘sin’.

I agree. And since original “sin” was called “sin” from the moment St. Augustine meditated on the issue – I would think it plain that “sin” shares the same ambiguity in St. Augustine’s writings.

… and for other reasons like why we would Moses have avoided saying that the woman in Lev 15 was sinful on account of her discharge (since he only wrote she was unclean on account of her discharge), or the woman in Lev 12 he says is impure…

The answer to that, I believe, lies in the fact that the ancients understood the blood of sacrifice in terms of purification from the damage of sin. eg: the blood of the animal is rubbed on the altar in the “sin” offering for the purpose of the “holy altar” purifying the blood. Ergo: Jesus enters heaven with blood. One condition “sin” implies impurity, but impurity does not imply “sin” of one’s own. Jesus purifies the blood on the altar – also the martyrs, who bled for Jesus, are found in revelation “under” the altar. It’s the same idea.

I would think that Moses did not need to state what the people already understood. People forget history and the reasons things happen – but history is more than just a collection of events, there is meaning to each action. It isn’t just “superstition”.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I don’t know if Moses sinned or not in that instance… No one can be charged with having committed sin which they did not know to be sin though… this is a church teaching I think.

Original sin is an analogy to “sin”. In what way, then, is it equivalent to “sin”? Because one may go to hell with no other sin committed – as the Church teaches.
eg: when Jesus is not with them, they are in hell.

ergo: Augustine’s dilemma about baptism for infants – but he correctly trusted the churches traditional baptism more than “logic”.

When a person sins unwittingly, it is no that they are committing sins because they don’t know … but rather they are committing sins while … not recognizing what they are doing (which they are responsible for) when they do it.

Exactly. And that is why, from the cross, Jesus can say “forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.”
There is no need for forgiveness where there is no sin!

We can only be punished for sins we committed, I don’t believe this puts catholic teaching into dispute. The Original sin is not we having inherited the punishment of someone else’s sin, rather in the original sin, as the fathers of the church wrote: ‘we sinned in Adam’ and therefore are punished for it.

We can also be punished for what we fail to do.
eg:If one doesn’t feed a child, and it dies …

The whole human race was present inside Adam and Eve when they trespassed and we were all likewise conceived in this sin …

God creates each child’s spirit fresh. How then, does the damnation (lack of God & sanctifying Grace) come to be in a child?

1Cori 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

It is not their sin we are punished for, it is our own sin…

Are you then, saying, that an infant’s “will” and “spirit” is inherited from Adam?!

God does not allow us to be tempted beyond our capacity to resist, this is both scriptural and taught by the church:

Umm … the people St. Paul was speaking to are a baptized community. On what basis do you apply it to the unbaptized?

Therefore I say correctly, the God does not require us to do thing which we are not able to do. … , but the point here is that God’s grace is never lacking and always available to anyone

ibid.

because, otherwise, Church teaching is nonsense. It is exactly the kind of thinking you write of that causes parents to put off baptizing their child. They presume on God’s mercy and grace which is itself a sin. Who knows, one unbaptized child may be in hell so God could prove the point.

… In the gospel Jesus refers to the angels as the angels of His Father, and an ‘angel of the Lord’ then is perhaps ‘an angel of the Father’.

Yes,
Undoubtedly all that belongs to the father belongs to the Son, and the Son summs up creation as a Gift to the Father.
Father and son are “Lord”.

I see a distinction in the two actions in Luke because Luke takes two different quotations …

Your idea is reasonable, but also Luke uses imagery of Mary as sacrifice – which calls to mind the female Lamb. eg: we both have reasonable ways of looking at this,
Again, what Luke thought when he was writing, and what God allowed to be written can be two different things.

He nevertheless though is able to recite the jewish law here and quote from it which would imply some familiarity.

Sure, but Luke is not even an eyewitness to the events he records! He’s a historian under fire from adversaries (Pharisees) and he needs to write carefully so as not to supply ammunition where he is uncertain of details.

I don’t think Mary would be committing a sin by touching Jesus if she was impure… I likewise don’t think that Jesus was committing a sin by touching lepers or the sick.

The Mosaic law is for a woman bleeding down below…
Jesus was not a woman and I don’t recall a law specifically forbidding a man from touching a leper or a bleeding Woman … only vice versa.

Also, I think, there is a woman who is bleeding who comes to Jesus to touch him – the point being that she sinned, and is therefore afraid to admit her fault.

Jesus goes to Great lengths to find her. He shows his glory as the forgiver of sin precisely because she broke the law – and was healed.

Just as the Lamb takes the impurity from the sinner to the Altar, so does Jesus. That is what he came to do

So also goes the Logic of the Bronze serpent in the desert.

Every single person has sinned by culpable act(s) which began at our conception … do you understand differently?

I don’t think mentally deprived people are capable of culpably sinning – but they are punished. The Devil married this world – it has become his impure flesh – that is why this creation will be burned in fire, and a new one will replace it.

I’m happy you are finding this discussion fruitful and I hope that if I’m testing your limits that I’m only doing so gently… may God correct me if needed. Amen.

Thank you for your prayers on my behalf as well, may God repay you the sacrifice of your time, and wipe away all your tears in the life to come.