Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
"Not at all. The Levitical law that you quote did not *make* a woman unclean at birth. The Levitical law was for the purpose of purifying what was unclean. In other words, the Law assumes that the woman would be unclean. And in ordinary cases the woman is *indeed* ceremonial unclean in such circumstances. But the law does not say that every birth (whether male or female) of a woman *necessarily* makes her unclean. The law is not ruling out the possibility of a divine miracle that prevent a woman from being made ceremonially unclean upon the birth of a male child. That's where you are making your mistake. You are assuming that the Levitical law in question makes it impossible for God to miraculously prevent a woman from being made ceremonially unclean upon giving birth to a male child. But you are not justified in limiting the omnipotence of God in this way."
Whoa, and you think the Protestants are "gnostic" because of a belief in the witness of the Holy Spirit? What secret formula do you need to divine this mystery? Mary knew she had to go through the purification rites and the priests of the day knew that fact. Nothing in the scriptures say that she was exempt because of some miraculous "get out of impurity" card. The scriptures do say over and over again that Jesus was sinless so to compare the necessity of His baptism to Mary's purification is comparing apples and oranges. They are inapposite.
"What was she supposed to tell the Jewish priests"
Are you saying Mary lied to the priests about the birth of Jesus?
No formula, just careful study.
Mary knew she had to go through the purification rites and the priests of the day knew that fact.
Agreed.
Nothing in the scriptures say that she was exempt because of some miraculous "get out of impurity" card.
That is an argument from silence.
The scriptures do say over and over again that Jesus was sinless so to compare the necessity of His baptism to Mary's purification is comparing apples and oranges. They are inapposite.
That begs the question.
-A8
"Nothing in the scriptures say that she was exempt because of some miraculous "get out of impurity" card."
"That is an argument from silence."
No, that's what's called a reasonable inference from the facts.
"The scriptures do say over and over again that Jesus was sinless so to compare the necessity of His baptism to Mary's purification is comparing apples and oranges. They are inapposite."
"That begs the question"
No, I cited the scriptural references to Jesus' sinlessness in previous posts and the scripture for the necessity for the purification rites so this is a inference drawn from facts outside the conclusion.
No, because you are ignoring the extra-biblical facts preserved in Tradition as well as made explicit in the fathers.
Your claim that comparing Jesus's baptism and Mary's ritual purification is comparing apples and oranges simply begs the question. I already showed that the Law does not necessitate impurity; it is given to deal with impurity. Therefore, obedience to a ritual cleansing law does not prove impurity, just as Jesus's baptism does not prove His impurity.
-A8
"I already showed that the Law does not necessitate impurity; it is given to deal with impurity. Therefore, obedience to a ritual cleansing law does not prove impurity, just as Jesus's baptism does not prove His impurity."
You just gave your opinion that the Law does not necessitate impurity without any factual basis for the conjecture. If there was ever "begging the question" it was your conclusion.
Those verses are not teaching that there are not various degrees of righteousness and wickedness.
Yes ... only that none of us are sinless and, therefore, ... all of us need a Saviour.
-A8
Prove my statement wrong.
Did, or did not, Jesus keep the Law? Yes. Was Jesus impure? No. Therefore keeping the Law does not necessitate impurity.
-A8
"Still waiting for that Bible verse that calls anyone other than Jesus a "son of Mary" or "daughter of Mary"."
At the foot of the cross there are four women mentioned (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25):
Mary, Jesus’ mother who had Jesus and four named sons (James, Joseph, Jude, Simon) and daughters (Matt. 13:55, Mark 6:3) (James, Gal. 1:19, 2:9, Acts 15, 21:18, Jude 1:1) (Jude, Jude1:1). His brothers are mentioned in Luke 8:19 and 1 Cor. 9:5.
Mary Cleopas (Alpheas) sister of Mary, Jesus’ mother. She had two sons James the less, son of Alpheas, and Joseph (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40).
Salome, wife of Zebedee who had two sons, John, James.
Mary Magdalene with no children mentioned.
"Did, or did not, Jesus keep the Law? Yes. Was Jesus impure? No. Therefore keeping the Law does not necessitate impurity."
What's your point? It is agreed that Jesus did not commit sin therefore His baptism was an identification and a sign. It was a voluntary obedience.
Mary's purification rite was different. She had a male son and the law said if a woman has a male son she has to undergo the purification rite to be part of the religious community i.e attend the sanctuary. It was not voluntary. She obeyed because her actions brought her within the Law.
(1) Keeing the Law does not necessitate impurity. (shown in 469)
(2) Mary kept the Law.
Therefore
(3) Mary's keeping the Law does not necessite any impurity in her.
-A8
"(1) Keeing the Law does not necessitate impurity
(2) Mary kept the Law.
Therefore
(3) Mary's keeping the Law does not necessite any impurity in her."
That's nice but it does not correspond with reality.
(1) The law states that a woman who births a male child is impure and must undergo the purification rites.
(2) Mary births a male child.
Therefore,
(3) Under the Law, Mary is impure and must undergo the purification rites.
That's the reality of the situation according to the scripture.
(2) Mary births a male child.
Therefore,
(3) Under the Law, Mary is impure and must undergo the purification rites.
The problem is in premise (1). You are taking it as a modal statement, "Any woman, without exception, who gives birth to a male child is unclean". But the Law does not say that or mean that. The Law is remedy for uncleanness, not a stipulation that uncleanness necessarily (such that even a divine miracle cannot prevent it) follows the birth of a male child.
-A8
I know. We should teach the outsiders. When I do, I am reminded that all we need a hug (428). Hug.
Veneration of a saint is a request for the saint's prayer be addressed to Jesus, the sole mediator to the Father.
The Isaiah verse prohibits worship of statues and other images, as it clearly describes the man asking the residue of the fire for delivery and calling it god.
Noah and Jacob, for example, are described one as righteous another as perfect. By reason we know that infants are likewise free form personal sin.
It is true that all righteousness and perfection, of Mary or anyone else, is a gift from God, just like the Council of Orange teaches.
The ability of the Church to refine, define, and explain the Christian faith are scriptural and historical facts. Sola Scriptura is not.
Yes, I do.
Where is the scriptures or the early church father's writing on this?
I don't know. The Church teaches that today and has taught it for a long time. I listen to the Church.
sorry, brother. I thought you were Lutheran. Methodists are nice. I remember going to a Methodist Church in my home town. They hosted a dance for teens. I have NEVER met a grumpy or angry Methodist. I have never met one who is unkind. <P. You fellas are awfully nice and boring. Maybe you ought to get a few Irish to come over and liven things up :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.