Protestant's comments on Mary

[DianJo]

Wow, Duane1966! That’s an awesome link! I hadn’t read an explanation like that. It really made things clear, especially about the offering for ‘sin’. Thanks!

 

[Duane1966]

Wow, Duane1966! That’s an awesome link! I hadn’t read an explanation like that. It really made things clear, especially about the offering for ‘sin’. Thanks!

You are welcome. Well worth the five minute read.

 

[Duane1966]

For those of you who did not want to read what I linked to, I am posting the relevant parts.

One answer would simply be that***ritual impurity isn’t the same as sin. **Everything from touching a dead body to menstruating led to ritual impurity, but those things aren’t sins. Christ Himself sat to eat without ritually washing (Luke 11:37-38), and He was pretty explicit in denouncing obsessing over ritual impurity, and conflating it with sin (see, e.g., Matthew 15:1-3, 10-20; Luke 11:37-41).

But I think that Luke 2isa smoking gun… but for the Catholic side. Let me show what I mean.

There’s no question that Luke 2 needs to be read alongside Leviticus 12, since Luke quotes the chapter directly to explain why this sacrifice is being offered. Protestants are right to see the two passages are connected. So let’s start with that passage, Leviticus 12:2-8:

*“Say to the people of Israel,*If a woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days;*as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying; she shall not touch any hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed. But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days.“

And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, and he shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her; then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female.And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”

So far, it sounds like the Protestant side is right. But here’s where it gets fascinating. Leviticus 12:2 is being translated very loosely here, as it is in many other English-language Bibles, in saying that the sin offering applies whenever “a womanconceives, and bears a male child.” It doesn’t say that.** The Hebrew literally says that it applies if “a womanreceives seed,** and bears a male child.” The Hebrew is clear here:

1. In prophesies about the Virgin Birth, like Isaiah 7:14, the word used ishareh, which means“pregnant.”
2. In Leviticus 12:2, that’snotthe verb used. Rather, it’szara’, which means“to sow,”or“to receive seed.” For example, this is the verb used for sowing in*Genesis 47:23 and Exodus 23:10. In both Hebrew and English,

In other words, Leviticus 12 only applies to a woman if she’sinseminated. The KJV gets this right, but most translations use the more polite “conceives.”Normally, that’s no big deal. Here, it’shuge,because MaryconceivesJesus, but she was neverinseminated.

This means that regardless of your views on Mary’s perpetual sinlessness,Leviticus 12 clearly doesn’tapply to Mary, simply due to the Virgin Birth. This is huge. It means that Mary was free of this legal burden by right, but we still see her freely submitting to it.

 

[PRmerger]

"In the Bible, Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us.

The Bible no where says Mary was a sinner.

She said herself that she needed a “Saviour” (Lk. 1:47), and she even had to offer a sacrifice for her sins in Luke 2:24."

Yes, she was saved from being a sinner. Before falling into the pit of sin.

So there’s 2 ways to be saved:

• prior to falling into the pit (like Mary)
• or after one has fallen into the pit (like the rest of us)

But either way we need a savior–someone to stop us from falling in or someone to pull us out when we’ve fallen in

 

[epostle]

I always thought that the merits of the Cross are not linear, they go in both directions in time, thus making the Immaculate Conception possible. That is why she rejoiced in God, her savior, who spared her from sin. Only a savior could do that.

The angel said, “Hail Mary! Full of Grace!!!..”
He did not say, “POOF! You are now full of grace…” That’s not a title.

She was already Full of Grace (a description and a title), so it begs the question: When was Mary initially full of grace? Did she accept Jesus as her personal savior at an altar call in the Temple? I don’t think so.

One cannot be “full of grace” and have sin at the same time.

 

[Della]

I always thought that the merits of the Cross are not linear, they go in both directions in time, thus making the Immaculate Conception possible. That is why she rejoiced in God, her savior, who spared her from sin. Only a savior could do that.

The angel said, “Hail Mary! Full of Grace!!!..”
He did not say, “POOF! You are now full of grace…” That’s not a title.

She was already Full of Grace (a description and a title), so it begs the question: When was Mary initially full of grace? Did she accept Jesus as her personal savior at an altar call in the Temple? I don’t think so.

One cannot be “full of grace” and have sin at the same time.

Indeed, the merits of the Cross are eternal not limited by time. :yup: This is how the OT saints were saved, as well, for salvation is only in Christ. They were obeying the Law in order to gain the redemption to be earned for them by the Messiah “For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins” (Heb.10)[4]. It was their faith that was merited to them as righteousness. Mary was preserved free from sins at the moment of her conception in St. Anne’s womb by the merits of the Cross. Again, :yup:

 

[Church_Militant]

Man…you could save yourself a ton of time by using the search engines here.
About Mary…where in the Bible does it say…
Was Mary sinless throughout her entire life?
Do I have to believe Mary was sinless to be a Catholic?
Mary’s Sinless Nature
The Immaculate Conception in Scripture
If Mary was born without original sin and did not sin during her life, does that mean that she did not need to be saved by Jesus?

 

[steve_b]

“In the Bible, Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us. She said herself that she needed a “Saviour” (Lk. 1:47), and she even had to offer a sacrifice for her sins in Luke 2:24.”

The 1st part doesn’t make sense, from my knowledge, the Catholic Church realizes that Mary needed a Savoir, right? But, what about this, “and she even had to offer a sacrifice for her sins in Luke 2:24.” Why did she offer sacrifice for her sins when she was free from original sin?

From the 13th century, Dominican (Aquinas) & Franciscan (Scotus) represented 2 thoughts on Mary’s sinlessness.

Duns Scotus ofm b~1270 – d 1308
doctor-duns-scotus
Catholicculture.org/

Thomas Aquinas dom b 1225 – d 1274
jimmyakin.com/aquinas

 

[epostle]

Study Mary in the Old Testament, and scriptures explode in a dazzling array of fireworks!
It’s too bad so many are content just reading the package.

 

[Randy_Carson]

“In the Bible, Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us. She said herself that she needed a “Saviour” (Lk. 1:47), and she even had to offer a sacrifice for her sins in Luke 2:24.”

The 1st part doesn’t make sense, from my knowledge, the Catholic Church realizes that Mary needed a Savoir, right? But, what about this, “and she even had to offer a sacrifice for her sins in Luke 2:24.” Why did she offer sacrifice for her sins when she was free from original sin?

Luke 2:24 – Mary’s Sin Offering

Why did Mary make a sin offering in accordance with the Law of Moses if she was without sin? Here are the relevant passages:

Leviticus 12:7-8
‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’ "

Luke 2:22-24
22When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), 24and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

Mary fulfilled the Law.

According to Leviticus 12:2-8, a mother was purified forty days after the birth of a son, and she was required to offer a lamb as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering. A poor woman could substitute another pigeon or turtledove for the lamb, thus offering two of them.

The purification had to do with ritual uncleanliness and didn’t imply a moral fault in childbirth. As Jesus would later at His baptism, Mary fulfilled all the precepts of the Law, which, clearly, wasn’t written to make allowances for a sinless man (the Messiah) or his sinless mother.