For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty... that no flesh should glory in His presence.... —that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”
1 Corinthians 1:26-31
Friday, June 25, 2010
Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luke and Moses, witnesses against the Immaculate Conception
I find it humorous that you just simply cannot leave Mary alone. I think the problem is that you suspect deep down that there is something we see that you cannot and it bugs you, as well as it should.
You keep posting absurd, but cute little fabrications of others, because you simply do not understand the Truth. I find it most amazing that you spend 100% of your time trying to disprove the teachings of the Church without investigating even 1% to see if they may be true. I have never once seen a response from you indicating that you saw a point or that you could see the logic behind a coherent argument if it came from the Church. The problem is that you cannot, without having all of your walls come tumbling down, one by one. Your approach reminds me of a famous Jack Nicholson quote, "The truth? You can't handle the truth!"
Mary was conceived without sin and she was ever virgin. In other words, she was a virgin before, during, and after giving birth to Jesus. He did not pass through the birth canal in the normal way. Rather, He passed through Mary much a light passes through glass.
This was written about by the Church fathers as early as the end of the first century. She did not need to suffer the pangs of giving birth to Jesus and she did not need to die physically because she had no sin. This is why she was assumed straight to heaven, body and soul, at the appointed time by God.
She likewise did not need to bring an offering any more than Jesus needed to be baptized. However, it is believed that she chose to physically taste death because her Lord, Savior and Son chose to do so for our sake. Her greatest desire was to emulate and please her Son in perfect submission and service as an example to all of us.
Teresa, What are you objecting to? The post was quoting from scripture that says one of the two turtle doves was for a sin offering. I don't think it's strange at all; it's what God commanded. I believe whatever scripture says. The laws all have a spiritual meaning.
Leo, Read Luke 2:23 which is in the passage that says Mary and Joseph brought Jesus to the Temple to fulfill the law which says "Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called Holy to the LORD." Here scripture clearly says that Jesus opened the womb. If you deny that, then you are caught in your traditions of Mary as taught by the RCC and can't accept the truth of God's word. The only thing that 'bugs' me, as you put it, is that you are believing something that is not true and which at least borders on idolatry. I have no fear that God will judge me for not praying to a woman or not thinking she is sinless or not adoring her. The 'Mary' you see doesn't exist. Mary is a humble human woman who had faith in God and also sinned, as we all do. Christianity is about God being with us, and us loving Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. I deeply resent and abhor the idea of some smiling goddess coming between God and me and His people and saying we must come to Him through 'her.' I'm really tired of arguing about this. If you can't do without 'Mary', then that's up to you.
No, I think you believe whatever you think scripture says. Do we all have that choice? Is truth a matter of just the consensus of like minded scholars?
Anonymous, Much of scripture can be plainly understood, unless one has a reason not to. Some of scripture is not so plain, but it can be understood with the Holy Spirit's help to each individual in the body of Christ that is seeking Him with all their heart. The pastors and teachers can teach the whole congregation, but each individual can also edify the others with what God has taught them.
What interpretations might that be? I wasn't 'interpreting' anything, just understanding what is plainly written. If you don't accept what is plainly written, then you have to come up with excuses why it doesn't mean what it clearly says.
So scripture plainly says no immaculate conception? Sad after all the centuries the Catholic and Orthodox have misunderstood scripture, history, and tradition. Thank you for clearing it up
In other words, what does the Scripture say is the woman's postpartum sin which needs atonement?
It isn't clear to me from the passage so I'd appreciation some interpretation. I'm not being coy, I'm being serious.
(I also wonder, for the Catholics here, whether the woman's uncleanness as taught in Lev. 12 is the reason long ago that Catholic mothers did not attend their child's baptism and the whole need for godparents. Not a bad institution, but still).
Teresa, I haven't studied this. Offhand I'd assume the sin offering is because we sin every day and so it was assumed the mother would need to be cleansed from sin to come into the temple. I would also say this is symbolic of something even more significant than physical childbirth. And I have no idea why the offering would be for the mother and not the father. I need to go read the passage again.
Because, yeah, I am curious what sin Mary is charged with but more than that, I'm a little concerned about myself ... I've had four kids! You know? Is there something I should be confessing, specifically? (Am I overreacting?)
Anonymous, Scripture doesn't mention the immaculate conception, because it doesn't exist. It does mention what we've already gone over about Jesus opening the womb and about Mary bringing a sin offering. It does mention her need of a savior and specific instances when she doubted, sinned, and misunderstood Christ's identity and purpose.
Teresa, I don't think the sin offering is because of childbirth having anything to do with sin, but because we are all sinners, and are everything we do may have sin involved unless it's done in faith. We are born in sin and live in sin, and must repent and be redeemed from our sin.
Theresa, I thought you were Catholic. Be confident in your faith if you are following Church teaching. You have nothing to worry about...all of the answers necessary to inherit eternal life are within the Catholic Church.
Jennie said: I have no idea why the offering would be for the mother and not the father.
And yet Luke says that they both offered it, mother & father, "they brought Him up to Jerusalem ... and to offer a sacrifice ..." Maybe Luke didn't know the law very well.
Teresa, or maybe it really was for both, as they are one flesh. And maybe the New Testament sheds light on the Old. Luke was writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
But these guys at Beggars All are all wrong. First of all, the textual notes on Luke 2:24, taken from the New American Bible:
"Their purification: syntactically, their must refer to Mary and Joseph, even though the Mosaic law never mentions the purification of the husband. Recognizing the problem, some Western scribes have altered the text to read 'his purification,' understanding the presentation of Jesus in the temple as a form of purification; the Vulgate version has a Latin form that could be either 'his' or 'her.'"
OK, we aren't the first readers to notice Luke's slip up.
But, then, more significantly, from notes in the Jewish Study Bible on Lev. 12:
"Three elements effect the disposal of impurity: the passage of time, cleansing (usually in water), and the purification offering. The first two purify the individual, the third purges the sanctuary. ... 6-7a: The expiation, that is, decontamination of the sanctuary, is accomplished elsewhere by means of the 'hata't' sacrifice (see ch 4). Uniquely, the mother is also required to offer a burnt offering, though generally this is not needed for expiation. It may be an expression of thanks or a required gesture of obeisance. 6:Sin offering, correctly, purification offering; no sin has been committed."
And, so, Jennie, I do not find the application of Lev. 12 to Luke 2:24 indicative of any sin on Mary's part in giving birth to our Lord.
Teresa, The quote from the Jewish bible is interesting. If the sin offering represents the decontamination of the sanctuary, that goes back to the times that the Temple was defiled and had to be purified. This happened when the Israelites were disobedient and enemies came in and desecrated the Temple. The Temple of course is fulfilled now in the body of Christ, the church. Mary is representative of the body of Christ in which He dwells. God departed the Temple when disobedience of His people continued so long that He had to chastise them by their enemies. God left the Temple and it had to be purified again so fellowship could be restored. So I think the offering represents both our personal sin that separates us from God and the corporate purification of His body as a whole. Sometimes the church or portions of it are in disobedience and need to repent and be purified and rededicated so God can do as He promised: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me." This passage was written to a church, not to unbelievers. Rev. 3.
While the birth may symbolically represent God leaving the Temple, childbirth is not an evil thing or a sin personally for the woman. But each of us who is saved is the temple of God, and we all sin while in this body and need to restore fellowship.
It just also occured to me that Jesus 'left the sanctuary' in order to come and save His sinful and disobedient people. So even His leaving is so He can ultimately show mercy. He wasn't 'in' the Temple anymore, but He was still among His people, 'God with us.' Thanks for sharing that.
It's even more interesting than that and I don't think the Beggars All guys appreciate the Jewish concept of purity/impurity and how it affected the sanctuary.
But impurity was not sin - it's a natural part of existence. The only sin that came from impurity was in refusing to purify oneself at some point, at the appropriate time, through the means God had provided.
The other key point to be aware of is that the Jewish concept wasn't static but changed over time. So, by the time of Jesus, Jews observed the laws in Leviticus, presumably, but almost certainly had a different understanding of them than in the time of Moses. And we have a different understanding of them today.
I don't agree that impurity is not a sin, but God knows we all sin. The greater sin is in refusing to purify oneself, through the means that God has provided, as you said.
Just the way impurity was understood, from Moses' day to Jesus' day.
I don't agree that impurity is a sin. Moreover, for what it's worth, Mary dispensed with it at the appropriate time, in the God-appointed way. I see no fault here.
Impurity, as far as needing the body cleansed from dirt, etc., is not a sin; but impurity in action, thought, and heart is a sin. All of us need repentance and cleansing from this.
Yes, oftentimes they are, but symbols of the spiritual cannot, uh, "overwrite" or obliterate the literal meaning. At Christ's birth, Mary is under the Mosaic Law, historically-speaking, and Luke shows her observing it.
Anyway, I reject how Beggars All used the Lev. text in their argumentation, but you don't necessarily require their argument to be sound in order to continue to believe Mary committed personal sin.
So I'm satisfied that they've misunderstood the Scripture and you're still convinced Mary sinned because "everybody does."
My main reasons for believing Mary was a normal human being no different from anyone else who had faith yet sinned, are: 1. Scripture shows her as normal and fallible. 2. Scripture doesn't say anything about her being sinless or above us. 3. The main reason is that according to scripture Jesus is the only one who never sinned, and He is the only one we need to look to as our example of someone who never sinned; He is the one who gives us His righteousness and takes our sins, and gives us grace to live holy lives. This is all told in scripture. Nothing about Mary doing any of this. Jesus is our everything. No human of flesh can carry that weight and fulfill those offices.
31 comments:
An intriguing "use" of ritual purity laws.
So, after giving birth, a woman is ritually unclean. You believe that?
Her own blood purifies her uncleanness (vvs. 4, 6).
There's no mention of sin in these passages, as related to bearing a child. So, why the sin offering at all? For anyone? Very strange.
Jennie,
I find it humorous that you just simply cannot leave Mary alone. I think the problem is that you suspect deep down that there is something we see that you cannot and it bugs you, as well as it should.
You keep posting absurd, but cute little fabrications of others, because you simply do not understand the Truth. I find it most amazing that you spend 100% of your time trying to disprove the teachings of the Church without investigating even 1% to see if they may be true. I have never once seen a response from you indicating that you saw a point or that you could see the logic behind a coherent argument if it came from the Church. The problem is that you cannot, without having all of your walls come tumbling down, one by one. Your approach reminds me of a famous Jack Nicholson quote, "The truth? You can't handle the truth!"
Mary was conceived without sin and she was ever virgin. In other words, she was a virgin before, during, and after giving birth to Jesus. He did not pass through the birth canal in the normal way. Rather, He passed through Mary much a light passes through glass.
This was written about by the Church fathers as early as the end of the first century. She did not need to suffer the pangs of giving birth to Jesus and she did not need to die physically because she had no sin. This is why she was assumed straight to heaven, body and soul, at the appointed time by God.
She likewise did not need to bring an offering any more than Jesus needed to be baptized. However, it is believed that she chose to physically taste death because her Lord, Savior and Son chose to do so for our sake. Her greatest desire was to emulate and please her Son in perfect submission and service as an example to all of us.
Deal with it... ;-)
Teresa,
What are you objecting to? The post was quoting from scripture that says one of the two turtle doves was for a sin offering. I don't think it's strange at all; it's what God commanded.
I believe whatever scripture says. The laws all have a spiritual meaning.
Leo,
Read Luke 2:23 which is in the passage that says Mary and Joseph brought Jesus to the Temple to fulfill the law which says "Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called Holy to the LORD." Here scripture clearly says that Jesus opened the womb. If you deny that, then you are caught in your traditions of Mary as taught by the RCC and can't accept the truth of God's word.
The only thing that 'bugs' me, as you put it, is that you are believing something that is not true and which at least borders on idolatry. I have no fear that God will judge me for not praying to a woman or not thinking she is sinless or not adoring her. The 'Mary' you see doesn't exist. Mary is a humble human woman who had faith in God and also sinned, as we all do. Christianity is about God being with us, and us loving Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. I deeply resent and abhor the idea of some smiling goddess coming between God and me and His people and saying we must come to Him through 'her.' I'm really tired of arguing about this. If you can't do without 'Mary', then that's up to you.
No, I think you believe whatever you think scripture says. Do we all have that choice? Is truth a matter of just the consensus of like minded scholars?
Anonymous,
Much of scripture can be plainly understood, unless one has a reason not to. Some of scripture is not so plain, but it can be understood with the Holy Spirit's help to each individual in the body of Christ that is seeking Him with all their heart. The pastors and teachers can teach the whole congregation, but each individual can also edify the others with what God has taught them.
So, we are in agreement that some of your interpretations may be wrong. Good.
What interpretations might that be?
I wasn't 'interpreting' anything, just understanding what is plainly written. If you don't accept what is plainly written, then you have to come up with excuses why it doesn't mean what it clearly says.
So scripture plainly says no immaculate conception? Sad after all the centuries the Catholic and Orthodox have misunderstood scripture, history, and tradition. Thank you for clearing it up
I'll repeat my question: why the sin offering?
In other words, what does the Scripture say is the woman's postpartum sin which needs atonement?
It isn't clear to me from the passage so I'd appreciation some interpretation. I'm not being coy, I'm being serious.
(I also wonder, for the Catholics here, whether the woman's uncleanness as taught in Lev. 12 is the reason long ago that Catholic mothers did not attend their child's baptism and the whole need for godparents. Not a bad institution, but still).
Teresa, I haven't studied this.
Offhand I'd assume the sin offering is because we sin every day and so it was assumed the mother would need to be cleansed from sin to come into the temple. I would also say this is symbolic of something even more significant than physical childbirth. And I have no idea why the offering would be for the mother and not the father. I need to go read the passage again.
OK, thanks for checking on it.
Because, yeah, I am curious what sin Mary is charged with but more than that, I'm a little concerned about myself ... I've had four kids! You know? Is there something I should be confessing, specifically? (Am I overreacting?)
Anonymous,
Scripture doesn't mention the immaculate conception, because it doesn't exist.
It does mention what we've already gone over about Jesus opening the womb and about Mary bringing a sin offering. It does mention her need of a savior and specific instances when she doubted, sinned, and misunderstood Christ's identity and purpose.
Teresa,
I don't think the sin offering is because of childbirth having anything to do with sin, but because we are all sinners, and are everything we do may have sin involved unless it's done in faith. We are born in sin and live in sin, and must repent and be redeemed from our sin.
Theresa, I thought you were Catholic. Be confident in your faith if you are following Church teaching. You have nothing to worry about...all of the answers necessary to inherit eternal life are within the Catholic Church.
Jennie said: I have no idea why the offering would be for the mother and not the father.
And yet Luke says that they both offered it, mother & father, "they brought Him up to Jerusalem ... and to offer a sacrifice ..." Maybe Luke didn't know the law very well.
Teresa,
or maybe it really was for both, as they are one flesh. And maybe the New Testament sheds light on the Old. Luke was writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
One flesh, yes, that's fine.
But these guys at Beggars All are all wrong. First of all, the textual notes on Luke 2:24, taken from the New American Bible:
"Their purification: syntactically, their must refer to Mary and Joseph, even though the Mosaic law never mentions the purification of the husband. Recognizing the problem, some Western scribes have altered the text to read 'his purification,' understanding the presentation of Jesus in the temple as a form of purification; the Vulgate version has a Latin form that could be either 'his' or 'her.'"
OK, we aren't the first readers to notice Luke's slip up.
But, then, more significantly, from notes in the Jewish Study Bible on Lev. 12:
"Three elements effect the disposal of impurity: the passage of time, cleansing (usually in water), and the purification offering. The first two purify the individual, the third purges the sanctuary. ... 6-7a: The expiation, that is, decontamination of the sanctuary, is accomplished elsewhere by means of the 'hata't' sacrifice (see ch 4). Uniquely, the mother is also required to offer a burnt offering, though generally this is not needed for expiation. It may be an expression of thanks or a required gesture of obeisance. 6: Sin offering, correctly, purification offering; no sin has been committed."
And, so, Jennie, I do not find the application of Lev. 12 to Luke 2:24 indicative of any sin on Mary's part in giving birth to our Lord.
Peace.
Teresa,
I think I already said the sin wasn't in giving birth, but just sin in general, incurred from day to day, I would think.
Teresa,
The quote from the Jewish bible is interesting. If the sin offering represents the decontamination of the sanctuary, that goes back to the times that the Temple was defiled and had to be purified. This happened when the Israelites were disobedient and enemies came in and desecrated the Temple. The Temple of course is fulfilled now in the body of Christ, the church. Mary is representative of the body of Christ in which He dwells. God departed the Temple when disobedience of His people continued so long that He had to chastise them by their enemies. God left the Temple and it had to be purified again so fellowship could be restored. So I think the offering represents both our personal sin that separates us from God and the corporate purification of His body as a whole. Sometimes the church or portions of it are in disobedience and need to repent and be purified and rededicated so God can do as He promised: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me." This passage was written to a church, not to unbelievers. Rev. 3.
While the birth may symbolically represent God leaving the Temple, childbirth is not an evil thing or a sin personally for the woman. But each of us who is saved is the temple of God, and we all sin while in this body and need to restore fellowship.
It just also occured to me that Jesus 'left the sanctuary' in order to come and save His sinful and disobedient people. So even His leaving is so He can ultimately show mercy. He wasn't 'in' the Temple anymore, but He was still among His people, 'God with us.' Thanks for sharing that.
It's even more interesting than that and I don't think the Beggars All guys appreciate the Jewish concept of purity/impurity and how it affected the sanctuary.
But impurity was not sin - it's a natural part of existence. The only sin that came from impurity was in refusing to purify oneself at some point, at the appropriate time, through the means God had provided.
The other key point to be aware of is that the Jewish concept wasn't static but changed over time. So, by the time of Jesus, Jews observed the laws in Leviticus, presumably, but almost certainly had a different understanding of them than in the time of Moses. And we have a different understanding of them today.
I don't agree that impurity is not a sin, but God knows we all sin. The greater sin is in refusing to purify oneself, through the means that God has provided, as you said.
Teresa,
What's 'even more interesting than that'?
Just the way impurity was understood, from Moses' day to Jesus' day.
I don't agree that impurity is a sin. Moreover, for what it's worth, Mary dispensed with it at the appropriate time, in the God-appointed way. I see no fault here.
Impurity, as far as needing the body cleansed from dirt, etc., is not a sin; but impurity in action, thought, and heart is a sin. All of us need repentance and cleansing from this.
That's a different sort of impurity that you are talking about. Look here - you are talking about #3 and Lev. is talking about #1.
But laws, etc. in the Old Testament are often symbolic of spiritual things that are taught in the New Testament.
Yes, oftentimes they are, but symbols of the spiritual cannot, uh, "overwrite" or obliterate the literal meaning. At Christ's birth, Mary is under the Mosaic Law, historically-speaking, and Luke shows her observing it.
Anyway, I reject how Beggars All used the Lev. text in their argumentation, but you don't necessarily require their argument to be sound in order to continue to believe Mary committed personal sin.
So I'm satisfied that they've misunderstood the Scripture and you're still convinced Mary sinned because "everybody does."
My main reasons for believing Mary was a normal human being no different from anyone else who had faith yet sinned, are:
1. Scripture shows her as normal and fallible.
2. Scripture doesn't say anything about her being sinless or above us.
3. The main reason is that according to scripture Jesus is the only one who never sinned, and He is the only one we need to look to as our example of someone who never sinned; He is the one who gives us His righteousness and takes our sins, and gives us grace to live holy lives. This is all told in scripture. Nothing about Mary doing any of this. Jesus is our everything. No human of flesh can carry that weight and fulfill those offices.
Post a Comment