Luke 2:22 casts DARK SHADOWS on Aramaic Primacy

[Paul Younan]

Positron,

You seem hung up on the "Holy" thing. We all agree that baby Jesus was Holy from even before His conception. We all agree on that.

What does being Holy have to do with being ceremonially unclean because the foreskin is still attached?

We all know that Jesus didn't need to become circumcised. But his parents circumcised Him because they were devout Jews who followed the Law, as they were commanded to do. Likewise, He had no need of John's baptism - but He submitted himself to it, anyway. And what was the reason He gave the Baptist, when John said it was he who needed to be baptized by Jesus?

On your second point, for the millionth time - yes, the sacrifices (both of them) were for Mary. But what does that have to do with the phrase "days of their purification?"

I hate going round and round with the same discussion over and over again, if you've got a point other than the two above that have been answered multiple times, then make it already as this is getting very tiresome.

Otherwise, read talmudic literature from the time period regarding Niddah and you will quickly find out that a week-old newborn is ceremonially unclean, firstborn or tenthborn, Jew or Gentile, Jesus or Bubba. Doesn't matter, as long as a foreskin is attached the baby infant is ceremonially unclean.

There is no sin involved there. Ceremonially unclean does not mean sinful, for crying out loud. It's a baby we're talking about here.

I hope I've made my point - now please, let's stop wasting our time on this utter nonsense.