[blue-duncan]

"The fact is that the early Church, and her contemporaries (i.e. +Ignatius) considered her to be the immaculate Mother of God."

Luke,the physician, the writer of the gospel did not consider her the "immaculate Mother of God." She had to go through the purification rites just like every other mother in Israel because, Lev. 12: 2"..If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child...". Gen. 3:15, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;". There isn't any question that she was impure according to the law; not virtually impure, actually impure, no matter what the Church said after.

[Nihil Obstat]

and Jesus was baptized too

[Campion]

There isn't any question that she was impure according to the law; not virtually impure, actually impure

"Impurity" in the Mosaic legal sense isn't a moral failing. Proof: God can't command anyone to sin, yet he commands various practices that cause legal impurity. Childbirth, for example. The burial of the dead, for another.

[adiaireton8]

Luke,the physician, the writer of the gospel did not consider her the "immaculate Mother of God." She had to go through the purification rites just like every other mother in Israel

That is a non sequitur. Just because she had to go through the purification rites does not entail that she was not the immaculate Mother of God.

-A8

[kosta50]

Luke,the physician, the writer of the gospel did not consider her the "immaculate Mother of God." She had to go through the purification rites just like every other mother in Israel because, Lev. 12: 2"

Again, she had to go through purification rites because she was with a Child. What was she supposed to tell the Jewish priests, that the Chuld is not your ordinary human? What would that accomplish? And if she told them that +Josph was not the father, she would have been stoned to death.