Did Mary make an offering for sin?

[Huiou_Theou]

***Hi, Huiou Theou!

…perhaps I misunderstood your comparison… the point I inteded to make is that Jacob used the knowledge provided by Yahweh to mend the wrong to which he was being subjected by Laban. And that at this particular junction, it was God’s assistence that aided Jacob in fulfilling his contract with Laban (though Laban was clearly exploitative).

---

Yes, you seem far on a tangent. My point was quite narrow. The primary objections used by non-catholics against the purity of Mary as a requirement for the sacrifice of Jesus is typically three-fold:

First they see in the Law a condemnation of sin, and hence the offering Mary made is taken to be evidence of that sin. But they ignore what the law requires concerning the sacrifice with regard to its ever contracting a defect (sin).

Second, they try to be very logical that contagious “corruption” can only beget contagious corruption.
So they automatically think that if Mary had to be pure, so did Mary’s parents, and so did their parents – all the way back to Adam and Eve. (Not a totally unreasonable supposition, but it goes way too far.)

That’s why I brought up the sheep in connection with Laban – as the sheep are an example of how something impure could be made pure – which destroys the standard objection to Mary’s purity.

Since others are bringing up the ark and mixing analogies mid stride, consider:

Take the purity of the Golden Ark of the old testament — (same point) – it came from Gold obtained in Egypt:

Exodu 11:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Yet will I bring one plague more upon Pharaoh … [and] Egypt … he shall surely thrust you out hence altogether.
Exodu 11:2 Speak now in the ears of the people, and let every man borrow of his neighbour, and every woman of her neighbour, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold. … … … Luke 10:29

God spoke to the people Before the vessel of the Ark was made – indeed he came upon Moses and made him glorious. Note: he even ate with Abraham before destroying Sodom – are not the three angels representing God holy? Was not the dirt under the burning bush holy?

Try to understand it isn’t what a man eats which makes him unclean. ( Nor the serpent for that matter ).

[/QUOTE]

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The offering Our Blessed Mom made was required by Mosaic law. She was obedient to it and for her not to offer the sin offering would be a sin. Her offering doesn’t prove she was a sinner, it proves her obedience and humility, and demonstrates her sinlessness, the fact that she obeyed the law.

That’s interesting, but it is difficult to buy. I am not certain scripturally that she did offer a sin offering – and I am not sure if she didn’t that it would be a sin. Can you prove she was required to under the law? (eg: that the birth was not miraculous). What I have tried to point out in the past on this thread is that there is something suspicious about Joseph not buying a lamb for sacrifice — And epostle, I almost think you’re a genius – not for what you underlined, but for what you didn’t. Luke, remember, is far more Greek (Alexandrian Egypt like) than Matthew – and if you have read Maccabees and know what a Zadokite is – the temple conversation could get even MORE interesting.

If I accept your supposition, that sacrifice was required under the law, then I agree it proves nothing about sin – only obedience. Catholics do have a tradition which accepts both the sacrifice and the sinlessness – but is it infallibly defined?

 

[PC_Master]

Yes, it does – and for the group of individuals specified – there certainly isn’t a just person. Even Catholics agree to that!

How does this affect your thinking though?

As Paul was speaking of all (Jews and Gentiles alike), it would seem Mary falls into this group, would it not?

Otherwise, we’re left to conclude that “all” actually means “every single person…except Mary”. That seems a bit of a stretch.

…I take it that you did not mean “abnormal” as a genetic flaw… but rather as extraordinary…

Right – simply “different than normal”.

Jesus is God so cleansing Him of the original sin is obviously superfluous…

I would agree, however the proposition here seems to be that if Jesus inherited a fallen flesh/soul from Mary, then Jesus’ spirit would be corrupted, and thus ruin his perfection. It’s this argument that I’m trying to grasp. More importantly, I’m trying to grasp how it necessitates that Mary be created differently, rather than strictly Jesus being created differently.

Though “all” are sinners, these men were separated, sometimes from birth or even the womb for the service of God–in essence, Yahweh removed them from sin and made them holy. The Holy Scriptures tell us that at Jesus’ death holy men of God were resurrected and came into the city after Christ’s resurrection and were seen by many–clearly God is not limited by Scripture!

Limited by? No. But he doesn’t contradict it either, lest it become meaningless.

There’s a difference from being holy (literally “set apart for God’s service”) and being (completely) righteous (that is, sinless). Moses was holy. Noah was holy. Abraham was holy (and had a measure of righteousness). Yet all were sinners.

Mary, as the vessel of the Word Incarnate, was granted this Grace. This is attested to by Gabriel as he addresses Mary as full of Grace and being protected by God (the Lord is with you).

I think you’re using a poor translation. Every bit of info I can gather on “charitoo” (the word represented as “full of grace” in Douay-Rheims) seems to imply that it’s an active verb – to honor with blessings – to give high favor to.

This “grace” is not a special attribute Mary possessed, but rather a favor – a fortunate situation – bestowed by God. In context, the role as mother of Christ is that situation.

But the Bible states that she is the vessel of God because she was not only in God’s Grace but she was full of Grace

Unfortunately this interpretation is due to error in the Vulgate, and later in translations such as the DRB. In fact, the phrase really means that God is bestowing grace (favor) on Mary, not that Mary already has it.

Could Yahweh God, make holy men who will proclaim the Word, or symbolic vessels as the Ark, and parcels of land, but would not prepare a special vessel where the Living Word were to lay?

Was the manger special too? Were the blankets he was wrapped in? Where does the need for a special vessel/surroundings/whatever end?

…except that there are moments in Scripture where holy men separated to serve God would be called righteous or where, due to their relationship with Yahweh, they would be called righteous.

That doesn’t mean they are completely righteous. To have righteousness is to be somewhat (partially) righteous.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

1. In ancient languages but also in the modern language “all” is often a way to reffer to great multitudes while emphasizing the greatness of the majority. “All people are stupid” “Nobody likes goes to church anymore” etc. Don’t you agree?

Agreed – it can be that way. However “there is none righteous, no not one” is pretty explicit. If there is none righteous, then all (every person; the opposite of “no, not one”) must have sinned.

1. The twist is that the NT in that passage is actually quoting OT. Specifically Psalm 14. There there are actually two groups - “all”, who do not do good and the generation of the rightious.

I’m not always an expert on what the Psalmists have written, though I am familiar with many commentators connecting the passages. Yet Psalm 14:2-3 describe as being unrighteous “the children of men” (those descended from Adam, I would assume).

1. Do you think that an infant has sinned? That an infant has a personal sin?

This is a good point. I guess my answer to that must be that infants do not qualify because they are not capable of making free-willed decisions up to a certain point. They have no understanding of sin (any act of rebellion against God’s established morality, and thus against God himself), and thus have not sinned.

Yet, can an infant be called righteous?

1. Jesus was obviously an exception to this “rule”. Some protestant will say that that’s because he was God. Sure, but has was also a man. Fully man. So in the end, however look at it, “all” is really not all.

If “all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God” is the case, how can this possibly apply to Jesus. God cannot fall short of his own glory. That’s an obvious conclusion.

1. Job 1:1: There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.

Storytelling – that doesn’t mean he was completely without sin. It means that no one held him to blame for anything currently.

Regardless, even if we were to say that all didn’t mean every individual, that does not necessarily include Mary. If I said Paul were in this group, you might argue against it – but how would you disprove my claim? You might cite that Paul did sin (he said so). But even if no such text existed, proving the sinfulness of Paul, that doesn’t mean we can assume that Paul was sinless. Likewise, we can’t establish that Mary was sinless from the mere possibility that all does not absolutely require that every single person is a sinner.

It seems best, then, to focus on evidence that supports that Mary was without sin, rather than trying to prove that every human being has sinned. The best I can do is to say that every human being I know of, that I have sufficient information about, has sinned.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

PC Master,

The below links are earlier posts of mine on another thread which brings up some linguistic issues about Luke 2-22 (KJV) and the sin offering – rather than repeat it:

The word for her is plural.

It does not refer to a single woman, Mary, regardless of Greek twisting.

Continuing to argue Josephs ‘possible’ inclusion against objections.

Also note, the first link points out that the Levitical ceremonial law for a man unknowingly touching uncleanliness is a Female lamb from the flock.
Interesting coincidence that lambs are slain by having a knife (sword) stabbed into the heart. Notice what Simeon says a few lines later in Luke.

The female lamb is only a ritual cleansing – it is not meant to take away a positive purposeful sin, but only accidental uncleanliness.

As Paul was speaking of all (Jews and Gentiles alike), it would seem Mary falls into this group, would it not?

Otherwise, we’re left to conclude that “all” actually means “every single person…except Mary”. That seems a bit of a stretch.

I agree it does “seem” like a stretch based on what we have discussed so far, and if the law and God’s mercy are excluded from the analysis. Someone who has never shown mercy (that is gift without any form of payment) is not merciful. Christ’s sacrifice was a payment – so God who receives the sacrifice is payed back – he is not merciful. The FATHER needs to show mercy to at least ONE person without payment to be considered merciful. To whom is this true?
That is not the only consideration though, the Law does have requirements about the passover Lamb.

I would agree, however the proposition here seems to be that if Jesus inherited a fallen flesh/soul from Mary, then Jesus’ spirit would be corrupted, and thus ruin his perfection. It’s this argument that I’m trying to grasp. More importantly, I’m trying to grasp how it necessitates that Mary be created differently, rather than strictly Jesus being created differently.

Slight modification – Jesus doesn’t have just a spirit, he has a human soul too. Eg: To be truly man Jesus has a human will as well as a divine will. God is not schizophrenic – but man IS composite and can be.
In the case of Jesus, this isn’t a sickness – but a single united person with TWO wills human and divine.
That is why Jesus can say:

Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

There’s a difference from being holy (literally “set apart for God’s service”) and being (completely) righteous (that is, sinless). Moses was holy. Noah was holy. Abraham was holy (and had a measure of righteousness). Yet all were sinners.

Yes, the difference is heaven itself – sanctifying grace.

I think you’re using a poor translation. Every bit of info I can gather on “charitoo” (the word represented as “full of grace” in Douay-Rheims) seems to imply that it’s an active verb – to honor with blessings – to give high favor to.

This “grace” is not a special attribute Mary possessed, but rather a favor – a fortunate situation – bestowed by God. In context, the role as mother of Christ is that situation.

Unfortunately this interpretation is due to error in the Vulgate, and later in translations such as the DRB. In fact, the phrase really means that God is bestowing grace (favor) on Mary, not that Mary already has it.

I’ll talk about this later with some very clear examples. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Vulgate, it is purely a Greek issue.

Was the manger special too? Were the blankets he was wrapped in? Where does the need for a special vessel/surroundings/whatever end?

That doesn’t mean they are completely righteous. To have righteousness is to be somewhat (partially) righteous.

Continued…

Agreed. There is nothing special about the world either Mary or Jesus touched so there is a difference to discuss once I get a chance. A bit later today.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

This is a good point. I guess my answer to that must be that infants do not qualify because they are not capable of making free-willed decisions up to a certain point. They have no understanding of sin (any act of rebellion against God’s established morality, and thus against God himself), and thus have not sinned.

If that passage can excude the billions and billions of infants then I think we can pretty much agree that it can also exlude one special person - Mother of God, Virgin Mary.

So this passage shoudn’t be used as an argument agaist Mary’s sinlessness and we need to lead the discussion in a differnt direction.

That’s my point.

Happy New Year!

 

[jcrichton]

God spoke to the people Before the vessel of the Ark was made – indeed he came upon Moses and made him glorious. Note: he even ate with Abraham before destroying Sodom – are not the three angels representing God holy? Was not the dirt under the burning bush holy?

***Hi, Huiou Theou!

Scripture did not say that Yahweh God could not be amongst the people… what it said was that no man could gaze upon God’s Face and live.

Scripture also tells us that Jacob wrestled with Yahweh and it came to a heated struggle which God only won because He did something like cheat?..

Everything has not been revealed to us so there will be mysteries untill we, as Paul states, come to know Him as He knows us!

My reference to the Ark and to the ground around the burning bush is that it was Yahweh God who declared that these items were holy; a parcel of land is no worse or better than another within the same composition, just like the Ark, which did not exist prior to its creation, did not become holy due to the skills of the artisans or the various components from which it was created, but both the soil/ground and the Ark were deemed Holy by God. It was His determination to do so; as it was His determination to separate the prophets and Mary from amongst the people of Israel.

Try to understand it isn’t what a man eats which makes him unclean.

---

I’ve never stated differently!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[epostle]

Huiou Theou:

That’s interesting, but it is difficult to buy. I am not certain scripturally that she did offer a sin offering – and I am not sure if she didn’t that it would be a sin. Can you prove she was required to under the law? (eg: that the birth was not miraculous).

Lets start with 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.
[23] (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”)
[24] and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”

What I have tried to point out in the past on this thread is that there is something suspicious about Joseph not buying a lamb for sacrifice —

That’s easy. They simply could not afford a lamb. Such allowances are provided for in Lev. 12:8. Your suspicions may be rooted in the Ultimate Sacrifice that will be made by His mother, who had to stand there and watch her Son being tortured to death. If that is not a purification sacrifice then I don’t know what is. And there is nothing in the law that says they had to go to the Temple in Jerusalem. (which is a microcosm of the universe).

The greatest sorrow for any parent is to survive their children. Which is why I feel sorry for parents who have lost their sons in the middle east wars, especially the ones who have no Mother to comfort them.

And epostle, I almost think you’re a genius – not for what you underlined, but for what you didn’t.

Waddya mean- “almost”? And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34-35). Perhaps our in house Greek geeks can explain who “many hearts” are, and what that has to do with the pierced soul of a woman. And hopefully, not with the detachment of a doctor doing an autopsy.

Luke, remember, is far more Greek (Alexandrian Egypt like) than Matthew – and if you have read Maccabees and know what a Zadokite is – the temple conversation could get even MORE interesting.

You lost me. I’ve been busy playing tag with children to do any serious studying. But I did find this: http://www.billwilliams.org/Scrolls/scrolls.html#D

If I accept your supposition, that sacrifice was required under the law, then I agree it proves nothing about sin – only obedience. Catholics do have a tradition which accepts both the sacrifice and the sinlessness – but is it infallibly defined?,

Yes, both and both sinlessnesses. It begins with the woman, The Mother of All the Living in Gen. 3:15 whose offspring will crush the serpents head, and ends with the woman (New Eve) in Rev. 12:1 and 17 whose offspring “keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” The woman, Mary, (or the Church) is the mother of all the living in Christ. Whether one believes that or not is no concern of hers. She is concerned with just one thing. Believing in her Son. Why do some find that so objectionable?

Peter

 

[jcrichton]

I I’m trying to grasp how it necessitates that Mary be created differently, rather than strictly Jesus being created differently.

***Hi, PC Master!

What was the purpose of the Ark? Why would Moses die if he walked with his sandals onto a portion of land which, most probably, was composed of the same material as the land around it? Why would God separate some men from their mothers’ wombs to place them in His service? Why did Jesus not complain about the people that crowded Him and came into contact with Him but He made an issue of the woman who sought a cure by touching His garment?

God is the one that makes such determinations. The Incarnation of the Word was not a happy coincidence; it was part of His Plan from the very beginning; just as it was that Jesus would come into the world through a poor young woman. Mary was not an afterthought, hence she was separated by God to be the Mother of the Emmanuel.

Limited by? No. But he doesn’t contradict it either, lest it become meaningless.

---

You may see it as contradiction. I see it as exercising His Authority and Will.

Though it is proclaimed that Jesus is the first resurrected from the dead, Scriptures tell us that there were men who resurrected at the time of Jesus’ death–contradiction?

Moses and Jethro… out of the blue Jethro shows up and counsels Moses about delegating his authority; did Yahweh not know that Moses was drawning in the daily dealings with Israel? How could Jethro be more wise than Yahweh?–contradiction?

There’s a difference from being holy (literally “set apart for God’s service”) and being (completely) righteous (that is, sinless). Moses was holy. Noah was holy. Abraham was holy (and had a measure of righteousness). Yet all were sinners.

So who baptized John the Baptist?

I think you’re using a poor translation. Every bit of info I can gather on “charitoo” (the word represented as “full of grace” in Douay-Rheims) seems to imply that it’s an active verb – to honor with blessings – to give high favor to.

This “grace” is not a special attribute Mary possessed, but rather a favor – a fortunate situation – bestowed by God. In context, the role as mother of Christ is that situation.

Unfortunately this interpretation is due to error in the Vulgate, and later in translations such as the DRB. In fact, the phrase really means that God is bestowing grace (favor) on Mary, not that Mary already has it.

I’m not a theologean nor a linguist so I cannot distinguish one version from another.

I understand from the Jehovah Witnesses that the Word was not God but a god (how they came to this version, I know not). Hence, I do not run much with correctness of translations. But if I accept your definition I would also have to believe that Gabriel is telling Mary that she is not full of grace but soon to be full of grace since the event which he came to announce has not yet taken place. The Holy Spirit will come upon Mary but not till she acquiesces and tells Gabriel that she is a servant of the Lord and may His Will be done (paraphrased).

So if Mary will soon be full of grace or just parcial grace then would that grace not be Christ? And if that grace is Christ is Gabriel not being redundant (you will be with grace, that is you will be with child) as he tells her first that she will be with child and then that she will be with child?

And if it is not grace but favor, how does this benefits Mary (as it is clearly pointed out by many non-Catholic Christians that Jesus simply referred to His Mother as woman–as though seeking to put her in her place as much as to distant Himself from a lowly run-of-the-mill woman? So what is this favor? Did God think that she needed a Savior more than anyone else in the world?

In summary: Yahweh makes a whole big to do about someone walking on the ground that He touches but the Word comes into the world into a sinner. Humm… I must digest this very slowly.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Agreed – it can be that way. However “there is none righteous, no not one” is pretty explicit. If there is none righteous, then all (every person; the opposite of “no, not one”) must have sinned.

I’m not always an expert on what the Psalmists have written, though I am familiar with many commentators connecting the passages. Yet Psalm 14:2-3 describe as being unrighteous “the children of men” (those descended from Adam, I would assume).

The psalms first sentence is:
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt; they do abominable deeds; there is not one who does good.

This sentence in both the Hebrew and the Greek refers “they” back to the fool. In particular, the fool does not believe God will punish them, and are corrupted in misdeeds; he is not doing good not as-far-as one.

The “no not one” could refer to a person – but it can also refer to a good deed. Not one good deed is done by the fool.

In Romans 3:12 the phrase refers not to all people but a subgroup – the fools who do not believe in punishment by God.

See for example: Jeremiah 5:1-5. The psalm is a reflection of why they went into the Babylonian captivity. It is so important that nearly the same psalm is constructed as psalm #53.

But the psalm is using hyperbole as can be seen by looking at verse 14:4, 53:5. The people of God are contrasted to the fools – will these evildoers [fools] never learn who eat up my people like bread?

There are TWO distinct groups in the psalm the fools who do not fear punishment of God and the people of God who pray for deliverance by the messiah.

Abraham sought After God, so he is in the generation of the Just.

Also, note that Romans 3:13 - 18 quotes other parts of scripture which also support the exact same principle: those who do not fear God DO EVIL to God’s people.

Romans 3:13 → psalm 5:9
Romans 3:14 → psalm 10:7
Romans 3:15 → proverbs 1:16
Romans 3:16 → Isaiah 59: 7-8
Romans 3:18 → Psalm 36:11

In each of these there is more than one group of people, the wicked and the victims.

It is also very important to contrast the “sons of men” to what Israel saw itself as:

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

Israel then is a “son of God” the firstborn.

John 8:37-41
John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Yet, can an infant be called righteous?

No, Not without baptism – the Gift of being in communion with Jesus. But there is hope even for infants.

Regardless, even if we were to say that all didn’t mean every individual, that does not necessarily include Mary…
We can’t establish that Mary was sinless from the mere possibility that all does not absolutely require that every single person is a sinner.

Correct, but no other person is the direct mother of God or the source of the flesh offered up for our salvation. I’d say Mary is unique in those respects. Jesus’ human will is affected by the human flesh offered by Mary, and it would be less appropriate to believe that Jesus’ flesh had been salvaged than Mary’s.

The vast majority, at least, of all humans must have sinned according to Romans 5:12 by a union with death. All means a representative group but denies the individual Judgment of persons.

Luke 18:9?

Your point with the infants is also valid. They may be innocent of wrongdoing, but they are also ignorant and unable to will good as far as we can tell by external interaction But we have no way of judging what is invisible.

Matth 7:1-2
Matth 12:35-37

 

[Huiou_Theou]

—continued—

It seems best, then, to focus on evidence that supports that Mary was without sin, rather than trying to prove that every human being has sinned. The best I can do is to say that every human being I know of, that I have sufficient information about, has sinned.

Yes. and I’ll explain κε-χαριτω-μεν-η

I have broken it up into parts. The first part κε is a temporal augment (reduplication), the second part is the root word favor/grace the third part μεν-η is appended to indicate the word is in the middle/passive (eg: self concerned voice or passive) and the final η is the adjectival ending (feminine subject singular).
The middle makes no sense, so this is the passive voice.

The μεν-(+ending) guarantees that this is a participle, the reduplication guarantees this is in the perfect tense because it is followed by an adjective ending ( eg: it was completed in the past, and has ongoing ramifications now – permanent ones ).

This means that Mary is a ‘thing’ which has been kept graced
in the passage of Luke.

To show this is the proper way to interpret, here’s other examples of the same Greek construction reduplication-root_word-μεν-ending

Look here: original.biblebrowser.com/matthew/13-35.htm
κε-κρυμ-μεν-α

It has temporal augment (the same one even – κε) it has a different root word κρυμ (hide/cryptic), followed by the ending μεν-α. The μεν makes it middle/passive – middle makes no sense here either, so it’s passive.

The English translation is “things which have been kept secret”

So, the English tense is “have been kept” which is the idea of the perfect – something completed in the past and having the results continue on. Eg. The secrets are not being directly revealed even now – they are still cryptic (in parables!).

original.biblebrowser.com/john/12-16.htm
γε-γεαμ-μεν-α ( things which have been written / were written (and still are) )

original.biblebrowser.com/john/12-16.htm
κε-κονια-μεν-ε – vocative ending, (eg:name calling) means: has been kept whitened and the effect is lasting. (a curse!)

original.biblebrowser.com/1_timothy/5-5.htm
με-μονω-μεν-η The widow has been kept desolate (the husband won’t come back, she won’t remarry)

original.biblebrowser.com/revelation/12-1.htm
περι + βε-βλη-μεν-η that/she which has been kept wrapped with: eg: the woman who has been clothed with … the sun.
The sun remains her clothes although it was put on before the scene was recorded (no one saw her dress.)

That should do it, if you need more explanation on the perfect passive participle ( a noun / thing ) I’ll be happy to explain.
Hopefully the examples are sufficient.

The only thing I would add is that in the case of Luke 2-22, the word perfectly-graced/favored is a noun in a spot where a name should be. Eg. Hello (full-of-grace). The word is the name by which the angel calls Mary – the angel does not use her earthly name – which is very startling to Mary.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huiou Theou:
…
That’s easy. They simply could not afford a lamb. Such allowances are provided for in Lev. 12:8. Your suspicions may be rooted in the Ultimate Sacrifice that will be made by His mother, who had to stand there and watch her Son being tortured to death. If that is not a purification sacrifice then I don’t know what is. And there is nothing in the law that says they had to go to the Temple in Jerusalem. (which is a microcosm of the universe).

You missed my point, so I assume you haven’t read all the back posts. I am aware of the standard interpretation you are giving – they were poor. But on what basis is that tradition made – my point is for bible-onlyists (Which I am not) that one can’t prove Joseph was poor based on scripture. Even reason + history does not prove it – only a tradition does, because there is more than one reason to offer birds in sacrifice. That Jesus would have been taken to the temple to be presented is true regardless of whether or not Mary offered a sin offering.

So, I am pushing the interpretation of scripture to see what is and is NOT provable from the scriptures themselves.

Waddya mean- “almost”?

Considering I “lost you” a few sentences down – that’s what I meant. You quoted a bit of scripture in your post which allows another possible interpretation of where Jesus went to be presented. ( Eg: Herod might have been trying to kill children in the Jerusalem temple too… for obvious reasons… )

Yes, both and both sinlessnesses. It begins with the woman, The Mother of All the Living in Gen. 3:15 whose offspring will crush the serpents head, and ends with the woman (New Eve) in Rev. 12:1 and 17 whose offspring “keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” The woman, Mary, (or the Church) is the mother of all the living in Christ. Whether one believes that or not is no concern of hers. She is concerned with just one thing. Believing in her Son. Why do some find that so objectionable?
Peter

I find none of this objectionable. What I am asking is do you have a source of dogma which states that Mary and Joseph were definitely POOR. If they were not poor, then it becomes very dubious that the sacrifice included a sin offering for Mary.
I have never seen a DOGMA which says Mary offered a sin offering anyway – just a tradition.

 

[epostle]

You missed my point, so I assume you haven’t read all the back posts. I am aware of the standard interpretation you are giving – they were poor. But on what basis is that tradition made – my point is for bible-onlyists (Which I am not) that one can’t prove Joseph was poor based on scripture. Even reason + history does not prove it – only a tradition does, because there is more than one reason to offer birds in sacrifice. That Jesus would have been taken to the temple to be presented is true regardless of whether or not Mary offered a sin offering.

So, I am pushing the interpretation of scripture to see what is and is NOT provable from the scriptures themselves.

I missed your point, and I stand corrected. There is no biblical proof that Joe and Mary were destitute. And I just read the back-posts.

Considering I “lost you” a few sentences down – that’s what I meant. You quoted a bit of scripture in your post which allows another possible interpretation of where Jesus went to be presented. ( Eg: Herod might have been trying to kill children in the Jerusalem temple too… for obvious reasons… )

Your eg. takes me back to Rev. 12:17. I’m getting dizzy.

That leaves me with two questions. How many reasons are there to offer birds over and above a lamb in sacrifice? Since the tradition of making an offering has to do with the purification of the one being presented, does Jesus represent all of humanity (John 3:16) for purification, as a forshadow of His death? (making the trip to Jerusalem necessary?)

If that’s the case, then the state of Mary’s soul has everything to do with the mystery of the Presentation, because a righteous prophet of God said her soul would be pierced, in the same way a small sword pierces the heart of any sacrifice, meaning that Mary was sacrificed interiorly, but subordinately, for the sins of the world, or Simeon is a liar.

**On the second day of Christmas, my True Love gave to me,
Two turtle doves,
And a Partridge in a Pear Tree. **

cresourcei.org/cy12days.html (Protestant source)

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Well, I have to go today. I have a journey to make in the cold winter’s snow.

As a travel tip – increasing carbon dioxide helps with becoming dizzy from hyper-ventilating. For example, use a paper bag and breathe in and out of it so not quite so much oxygen rushes to the brain. A calming song also helps, sing Mary had a little lamb all in one breath – and then breathe in slowly. It calms the nerves.

God bless you all, and it will be some days before I can do any more – so I hope someone will help PCMaster with any remaining questions while I am out of contact.

I’m sorry epostle that I couldn’t answer those two lingering questions – but a bit of study, and I am sure you’ll work it out.
Good man.



–Andrew

 

[epostle]

If that’s the case, then the state of Mary’s soul has everything to do with the mystery of the Presentation, because a righteous prophet of God said her soul would be pierced, in the same way a small sword pierces the heart of any sacrifice, meaning that Mary was sacrificed interiorly, but subordinately, for the sins of the world, or Simeon is a liar.

My question to those who are taking a break from the thread,

It has been demonstrated by scripture, that Mary is also a sacrifice. How then, can such a sacrifice, in intimate union with her dying Son on the cross, be blemished?

It can’t be. It’s impossible.

Luke 2
25 And behold there was a man in Jerusalem named Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Ghost was in him. (scripture establishes that Simeon is not a heretic or a false prophet)

31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples:
32 A light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
33 And his father and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning him.
*34 And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted;
35 And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed. *

Genesis 3
11 And he said to him: And who hath told thee that thou wast naked, but that thou hast eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?
12 And Adam said: The woman, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat. 14 And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

God makes a covenant, Simeon prophecies, and Jesus and Mary fulfil on earth, and is made a heavenly reality according to Revelation.

how come the Douay-Rheims Gen 3:15 and the the New American Bible Gen 3:15 differ?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

epostle,

I hear part of what you are saying, but will need more clarification.

The offering mentioned in Luke does not include a lamb which is offered at that time. If it did, either Jesus or Mary would have been sacrificed at that time should they fill the role – literally – and neither were.

A freewill offering also must be killed (literally – even if human) when made – so I don’t see that a lamb was sacrificed in the presentation at all. All I see is that birds were offered.

There are at least 2 reasons that the offering could be made.
In Leviticus 12:6, after ‘which days’ of purification were completed – a Lamb of the first year PLUS a young pigeon — OR a turtledove for a SIN offering. This was to cleanse her from the issue of her blood.
BUT:
Leviticus 12:8 says that if she not be able, she could bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons.

Leviticus 15:29 is for a woman who bleeds ( hemmorage ). two turtledoves – only. (no lamb required)

Leviticus 5:7 is for a man who ignorantly commits some sin which is discovered later. Two turtledoves only – should he not be able to bring a lamb, ( Not necessarily because he is too poor as the law may have forbidden it for other reasons. )

Leviticus 14:21 shows Lamb followed by two turtledoves for a man’s trespass.

So I repeat, there are at least two reasons birds could have been offered.

Mary ‘will be’ a sacrifice has been demonstrated – to what end is not specified other than the public revelation of hearts.

I do think Mary is unblemished as the source of Jesus’ flesh because HIS flesh which comes from her can’t have any imperfection of any sort (nor be saved).

But I wouldn’t use the apologetic that UNION with the sacrifice of Christ guarantees that one has sinlessness – because we all unite our sacrifice of ourselves to Christ (and as WE there is sin involved before the purification).

Jesus as representative of us all (including mary) (plural) could be purified – but then one would expect it to be ‘his’ purification as head – not their purification as scripture records it in Luke.
The language is inconsistent.

– as a side note: Revelation 12 where the woman flees to the desert matches with the traditional path taken to Egypt through the desert. So your dizzy comment matches with the alternate interpretation I had in mind as well. Puzzles are fun.

 

[epostle]

Thanks, Huiou. Now I can polish my posts and make a slam-dunker case against those who wish to blaspheme the Incarnation.
" Mary was a sinner, Mary had other children …blah, blah, blah…I have to restrain myself and cool my keyboard. These concepts come right from pits of hell, and it’s only natural to get righteously angry should someone insult even ones own mother in a reckless manner. It’s not so much post-reformists, it’s evangelical cults (most of them founded in the last 20 years) who scourge Our Lord with scripture, and fueling novelists who make millions on books like The Da Vinci Code. We are an easy mark for hostile “Christians” who have no respect for others dignity, and have idolized the Bible over and above Christ who has never left the Church. We are an easy mark for hostilities because to much is given, much is expected. That little, they know.

I suppose that is the real approach to use. Try and maintian the dignity of others with patience and kindness. For me, it’s very hard to do while condemning such evil in the strongest possible terms, because it seems it’s not about giving knowledge, it’s about overcoming prejudice.

Fr. John Hardon said the greatest miracle is not a profound physical healing, it is the illumination of ones mind.

 

[ericktiu]

Mary did sin The word says all have all have sinned, Mary was a vessel to bring the saviour in the world. Because she was a virgin,the bible never said anything about her sinless.

Satan is the Father of lies and accusers. If Mary is a sinner the very first thing that satan will do is accused Jesus of the sin of His mother. :tsktsk: If this is so Jesus will be humiliated and salvation will be impossible because in order for us sinners to be save by Jesus there must not be a hole for satan to accuse Jesus.
The prophecy in Genesis 3:15 "I will put enmity between you(serpent=satan) and the woman(Mary) and between your(serpent’s=satan’s) offspring and hers(woman’s=Mary’s).

Woman=mother of holiness & enemy of sin
Satan=father of sin & enemy of holiness & accuser

Jesus=source of holiness & enemy of sin & savior
Satan=sources of unholiness & enemy of holiness

Mary=new Eve
Jesus=new Adam
Satan=still full of pride

I hope this will clear things up.

You catholics are going to believe anything that Pope says anyway oh and by the way Paul preached to Gentiles(the gospel) , not Peter.

Pope is an ecclesiastical title expressing affection & respect given to the bishop of Rome.
Peter is the visible shepherd of Christ’s only one Church(Mt.16:18-19; and in Church history Peter was succeeded Linus & so on.
Jn21:15-17). Yes Paul’s mission was to preached to Gentiles but Peter’s leadership is on the whole Christian Church. SeeActs10:1-49.

Be a berean and study to show yourself approve.

In history only the Roman Catholic Church’s origin can be traced back to Apostles and to Jesus. So no need to be in any of a man made religion/fellowship/movement.
As we profess in the Creed “…I believe in the Holy Spirit & Holy Catholic Church…”

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Mary did sin

Be a berean and study to show yourself approve.

Regards

joehar

Study your history, especially the purifications rites of the Jews at the time of our Lord. Remember Cana and those water jars?

Oh, and be a eunuch and have someone explain Scripture to you.

Robert

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Mary did sin The word says all have all have sinned, Mary was a vessel to bring the saviour in the world. Because she was a virgin,the bible never said anything about her sinless. You catholics are going to believe anything that Pope says anyway oh and by the way Paul preached to Gentiles(the gospel) , not Peter. Be a berean and study to show yourself approve.

Regards

I looked up the concept of sacrifice in the Hebrew encyclopedia on the internet and they had an interesting discussion of it. The artisle said that the concept of the sacrifice had other purposes and that the idea of purification from sin was only one reason, not the sole reason in sacrifice. Today the Jewish people do not offer animal sacrifices because they were only to be offered in jerusalem in the temple but sin forgiveness came through other means as well: prayer, good deeds, fasting.

( of vourse Jesus fasted as well and we don’t say He sinned)

One of the primary reasons for offering sacrifice was to draw nearer to God.

Here is a quote from the enycolpedia:
"Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of qorbanot is not simply to obtain forgiveness from sin. Although many qorbanot have the effect of expiating sins, there are many other purposes for bringing qorbanot, and the expiatory effect is often incidental, and is subject to significant limitations.

The purposes of qorbanot are much the same as the purposes of prayer: we bring qorbanot to praise G-d, to become closer to Him, to express thanks to G-d, love or gratitude. We bring qorbanot to celebrate holidays and festivals. Others are used to cleanse a person of ritual impurity (which does not necessarily have anything to do with sin). And yes, many qorbanot, like many prayers, are brought for purposes of atonement."

jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm

MaryJohnZ