Why didn't Mary oppose the sin offering after birth?

[paperwight]

To scandalize others is to cause them to sin. Remember what Our Lord said in the Gospel re scandalizing “little ones”.

If She had not done so She would have been ostracized from the community for disobeying the Law.

I think it would be better if you did not capitalise ‘she’, to be honest. Surely capitalising pronouns is what we do when referring to God. Doing it for Mary could mislead readers into thinking Catholics regard her as dviine.

 

[EndTimes]

Birthing a baby (expelling it from one’s body) is a bodily function.

You’ve already said that .
and Birth of say Jesus - Son of God Himself - and Redeemer along with any and all of us
is more than just a simplistically mentioned, bodily function.

 

[Opal0427]

I’m not starting multiple threads with the same question. It’s 2 separate questions on the same topic. 1) Is the idea Mary submitted out of humility valid as often Jesus openly fought against unneccisarily strict observance of Jewish laws while perfectly humble & 2) Specifically referring to Leviticus laws, why were sin offerings given after birth & how to argue the Catholic stance on Mary’s sinlessness in light of this.

They’re 2 separate questions that have been presented to me today that I didn’t know how to answer.

 

[Opal0427]

Thanks I remember something about this in RCIA. Is there any scripture or other writings you could refer me to that could help me explain the differences between ritual “sin” and actual sin in the old testament?

 

[Opal0427]

How can I explain/prove that ritual purification is different from sin offerings for something we’d think of as a sin nowadays?

 

[QwertyGirl]

You’ve already said that .
and Birth of say Jesus - Son of God Himself - and Redeemer along with any and all of us
is more than just a simplistically mentioned, bodily function.

You seem to have read too much into the OP question. It was “Was giving birth a sin in the old testament?” Then OP goes on to discuss Mary birthing Jesus. It is unnecessary, once you understand the answer to the original question is a resounding “No”.

My answer remains the same. No, birthing it isn’t a sin. It is a normal bodily function.

You may wish to take it to the next level and discuss the birth of Jesus in conjunction with the question. I didn’t do that.

 

[Usagi]

Something can make you “ritually unclean” without being morally a sin.

Giving birth or having your period is not a sin.

Having a nocturnal emission, for a man, is not a sin.

Having leprosy is certainly not a sin.

But all made you ritually unclean under the Law of Moses and required purification.

 

[TheLittleLady]

So, we know Mary brought the sacrifice after Jesus was born out of humility, not because she sinned.
But - since this was a sin offering for giving birth - was giving birth or some aspect of it a sin under the law at that time?

The same reason that Christ, who was without sin, was baptized. Out of humility to the law.

 

[EndTimes]

My answer remains the same. No, birthing it isn’t a sin. It is a normal bodily function

Or Course Birthing isn’t a sin… Who would even dream of asking such a question

And Giving Birth is more than just a bodily function

When it comes to e.g., the Nativity - No one I’ve ever run into peddled that notion of “bodily function”

It sounds very non-Christian - if you asked me.
_)

 

[TheLittleLady]

Humility and obedience, the same reason that Christ submitted to baptism.

 

[1ke]

as often Jesus openly fought against unneccisarily strict observance of Jewish laws

Except he didn’t do that.

He was circumcised, he kept the Passover, he went to the Temple for sacrifice, he received John’s baptism.

 

[EndTimes]

To scandalize others is to cause them to sin. Remember what Our Lord said in the Gospel re scandalizing “little ones”.

If She had not done so She would have been ostracized from the community for disobeying the Law

Again and again… No…

 

[1ke]

Specifically referring to Leviticus laws, why were sin offerings given after birth & how to argue the Catholic stance on Mary’s sinlessness in light of this.

Ritual purification.

 

[EndTimes]

To scandalize others is to cause them to sin. Remember what Our Lord said in the Gospel re scandalizing “little ones”.

If She had not done so She would have been ostracized from the community for disobeying the Law.

Are you not familiar with the GOSPEL accounts?

RECALL: There is nothing in Scriptures which indicates that Mary who was informed by an Angel of God that it is She who is to be the Prophecied Mother of the Messiah via God’s Holy Spirit - that Mary did anything other than beautifully and faithfully accept what was said to her.

Don’t you know that IT is Only JOSEPH who connects with potential Scandal?

Whereupon Joseph, her future husband, who was a good man and did not want to see her disgraced, planned to break off the engagement quietly. But while he was turning the matter over in his mind an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife! What she has conceived is conceived through the Holy Spirit,

 

[QwertyGirl]

Or Course Birthing isn’t a sin… Who would even dream of asking such a question

Um…OP asked the question.

And Giving Birth is more than just a bodily function

Actually it isn’t, in the physical sense. You can attribute, subjectively, whatever additional meaning you wish to it.

It sounds very non-Christian - if you asked me.

Honestly, I don’t know where you get this. And I didn’t ask you.

Muting, now.

 

[1ke]

How can I explain/prove that ritual purification is different from sin offerings for something we’d think of as a sin nowadays?

You can look in Leviticus where the same offering is required after menstruation.

Menstruation is not a sin.

Bleeding during and after childbirth and menstrual bleeding are basically the same thing. Therefore they made one ritually impure— just like every other body fluid did.

 

[EndTimes]

Um…OP asked the question.

Errmmmm.

It remains an odd-to-Christians Question.

No Christian refers to eg. the Nativity of Jesus, Messiah of All - as a 'bodily function"

 

[CarmeliteKnight]

Mary went to the temple because she was ritually impure, but not impure because of sin. Reread Leviticus 12.

 

[QwertyGirl]

No Christian refers to eg. the Nativity of Jesus, Messiah of All - as a 'bodily function"

Please pay attention. My response was not related to the Nativity of Jesus. Take that lens off, please. My response is a generic answer to a generic question. The Question was: Was giving birth a sin in the OT. Answer: No. It is a bodily function.

Honeslty, are you not able to see that my answer was one with no religious bent to it at all? Quit putting a religious bent on it, where there was none, please.

My answer is accurate and correct. There is nothing sinful in birthing a child. It is a bodily function.

If you want to extend the conversation and your answer into what childbirth meant with regards to Jesus’ birth, have at it. I have no objection to you discussing that. You seem to have a pretty strong idea and need to disucss that. I am fine with it. But you don’t need to tell me childbirth isn’t a bodily function. I have birthed a baby before, and I can tell you it most definitely is.

 

[EndTimes]

The Question was: Was giving birth a sin in the OT.
Answer: No. It is a bodily function.

Quit putting a religious bent on it, where there was none

Recall the OP - [Was giving birth a sin in the old testament? (Mary)?]

See? That’s just about as Religious as all get-up…

And your response “bodily function” has naught to zero in answering said Religious Question…

Others answered it.

Anything else?

_