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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Opal0427
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is a good point. I think he said orthodox doesn’t require people to believe Mary is sinless?

Right now, he doesn’t know who is right except that Christianity in general is true. He’s searching.

Pray for him please.
 
Last edited:
The menstration comparison finally sunk in. Thank you! I need to check Leviticus now, but if anything else is mentioned with a “sin offering” thats involuntary… I think that would be a very good argument against this refrencing a moral sin vs simply ritual purification.
 
Last edited:
Jesus was sinless yet allowed His cousin John the Baptist to baptize Him, publicly.

I agree with posters who say the tenor of your post borders on offensive.

And by the way, it should be ‘have stood for truth’, not 'have standed.
 
Thank you for the correction. I see I’ve offended a lot of people. I’m sorry for that. It was unintended. I’m Catholic and these are questions given to me by a friend seeking if the Catholic Church is true.

I tried to edit it it to word it less offensively. These are genuine questions.
 
Last edited:
Opal0427 said:
Thank you for the link. Do you know of any sources I could use to prove that this offering was not based on any moral faults?
Click to expand...
Leviticus explains the concept of ritual uncleanness, as several other posters have pointed out. If your friend is knowledgeable about Scripture then he should be intimately familiar with Leviticus, and if he’s truly interested in understanding what that Scripture actually meant to Jewish people in the time of Moses and in the time of Jesus’ birth, he should be able to do any further scriptural research he needs to understand the Jewish concept of ritual uncleanness.

If he persists in actually thinking that a “sin offering” in this context means a woman (any woman, not just Mary) sinned by giving birth, then it’s not a case of him misunderstanding Catholicism, it’s a case of him misunderstanding the Old Testament itself, and we really can’t do much to help anyone who’s bound and determined to misinterpret the OT. Catholics didn’t invent the Mosaic Law. Historically, it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
paperwight said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have solid Catholic literature which does capitalize “she” and “her” in re to Our Lady. Re your last sentence: St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort addresses that in True Devotion to Mary . He actually refers to Our Lady as “the divine Mary” and explains his reasons for doing so.

I’ll dig out my copy of True Devotion and edit my post accordingly.
 
Opal0427 said:
These are genuine questions.
Click to expand...
Thank you for coming on a Catholic forum to look for answers to the challenges from your friend.
Often our friends from other Christian churches are taught things about Catholics that are not true. There is a lot of misconceptions on how Catholics view our blessed mother.
 
Mary was an exemplar Jew. She followed all the Commandments, and, according to tradition was dedicated as a young girl to service in the Temple.

Jesus, Joseph, all the Apostles and disciples were good Jews.

John the Forerunner was an exemplar Jew, as were his parents.

They all observed the Commandments, including those for ritual purity.

Jesus our True God submitted Himself to baptism by John.

When healing the leper, Jesus sent him to observe the ritual law, even though He had made him clean.

As Scripture reminds us, all will he taught by God,
Deacon Christopher
 
Opal0427 said:
o, how can I explain why Mary offer the sin offering after giving birth since she was sinless? Why didn’t she stand up for the truth? She wasn’t afraid of the consequences to getting pregnant out of wedlock. This seems out of character and not neccisarily a trait of humility.
Click to expand...
The law required it, but It accomplished the requirement to present Jesus as a sacrificial offering and be accepted by a priest (Simeon because he blessed the family) at the entrance to the temple by laying his hands on the head of the sacrifice and being accompanied by 2 doves or young pigeons and the unleavened bread and wine offering.
In a similar way Jesus’ baptism allowed Him to be washed by a priest at the entrance as the required first step to being ordained as a priest.
Grace and peace, Bruce
 
Margaret_Ann said:
She did not want to scandalize others (scandal being used in the Thomistic sense). To put it another way, She wanted to set a good example for others as well as fulfill the law.
Click to expand...
I second that. Also, word would have gotten to Herod who was looking to kill the baby Jesus.
 
Thank you. That was tomorrow’s Gospel btw 😉.
Father mentioned in his homily that St. Joseph didn’t ask questions when the angel told him to flee with Jesus and Mary - he just did what the angel told him.
 
Margaret_Ann said:
40.png
CarmeliteKnight:
She was a very obedient Israeli.
Click to expand...
She was a very obedient Jewish lady. Also, Israel was founded in the late 1940s. Prior to that it was Judea, Palestine or the Holy Land.
Click to expand...
What does the Shema say? It doesn’t say, Hear, O Judea, or, Hear, O Holy Land, but Hear, O Israel.

Israel has always been Israel. Judah is a part of Israel, not its predecessor.
 
Maybe this will help from a Jewish understanding
  1. The offerings for recovery from discharges and childbirth being for the breaking of a taboo about contact with blood - pus potentially containing blood, menstruation obviously containing it, and in the case of childbirth blood comes with the placenta. Textual scholars believe that the biblical regulation specifying the offering for childbirth in Leviticus 12 originally fell among those concerning bodily discharges in Leviticus 15 (due to various textual features), and hence that childbirth was treated as a form of abnormal discharge , for which a period of recovery was required.[23]
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Our Lord was born under the law so as to fulfill the law. He created His mother to be an integral and irreplaceable part of this. Therefore, she also had to be in obedience to the Mosaic law.

Galatians 4 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)​

4 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave, though he is the owner of all the estate; 2 but he is under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. 3 So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe. 4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir.
Click to expand...
 
You’ll find it under Leviticus 15, bodily discharges. But under that persons understanding as why he thinks giving birth is a sin. Put the burden on him to prove God believes childbirth is sinful. Further, limit this person to scripture alone. No opinions.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top