10-29-2008, 10:39 PM
Tikanis, Paul. Neipon, ego eime kalo. I am pretty good. Well, I'm not bad.
But thank you for your reply. I have 2 points to make pertaining to this thread and your reply. First, (like I said I did not delve into any "deep" research on this. Just thought about it and looked up appropriate texts) I have to admit that it seems that even within the Greek Byzantine text family type it appears that some/many manuscripts have the word "autwn" (their purification: genitive-plural) while some others of the Byzantine Greek MSs have "auths" or autys (feminine-genitive-singular). These in the latter group appear to be in the minority from what I have found. But they still could be the proper rendering of this word - "her." So, Zorba here shouldn't get all that excited.
However, from your reply, I just can not see how the baby Y'shua could be unclean. I don't have to get all into how he was w/o sin and knew no sin. Paul, there would absolutely be no need for "their" to be used and for Jesus to have a period of purification. HE HAS NO NEED TO BE PURIFIED FROM ANYTHING. I gave this some thought before I opened this thread. Y'shua just can not be referenced here. No way, I believe. In order to go through some "purification" one would have need to be "purified" from some sin or transgression. This excludes Y'shua. I believe that the reference in the law of Moses to purification would include a sin offering or some other offering to "cleans" himself or themselves. I would have brought up the sacrifice that Luke wrote in 2:24 but at this point Joseph would be with Mary and the "they" in Luke 2:22 probably spoke of Joseph and Mary so as to read it thus: "Now when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were completed/fulfilled they(Mary and Joseph) brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord as it is written in the law of the Lord, 'Every male who opens the wombe shall be called holy to the LORD' and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, 'A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.' " (NKJV, Luke 2:22-24) Who offered the sacrifice when they went to the temple?? Why , Mary did and Joseph was there next to her even though the sacrifice was for the benefit of Mary only. I have no problem with the 2nd mention of a plural for "they" in Luke 2:22. I do have a problem with the 1st menion of the plural in Luke 2:22 - "their" as applying to Mary and to Y'shua for the baby Y'shua needed no purifying for anything. There is nothing to be purified from.
Right, Paul??
Thank-you Paul for your input. Like I said, Zorba has nothing really to get too excited about. But still, the feminine-genetive-SINGULAR is found in the Greek manuscripts and there is no SINGULAR found in any of the Aramaic manuscripts.
Cordially,
Mike
But thank you for your reply. I have 2 points to make pertaining to this thread and your reply. First, (like I said I did not delve into any "deep" research on this. Just thought about it and looked up appropriate texts) I have to admit that it seems that even within the Greek Byzantine text family type it appears that some/many manuscripts have the word "autwn" (their purification: genitive-plural) while some others of the Byzantine Greek MSs have "auths" or autys (feminine-genitive-singular). These in the latter group appear to be in the minority from what I have found. But they still could be the proper rendering of this word - "her." So, Zorba here shouldn't get all that excited.
However, from your reply, I just can not see how the baby Y'shua could be unclean. I don't have to get all into how he was w/o sin and knew no sin. Paul, there would absolutely be no need for "their" to be used and for Jesus to have a period of purification. HE HAS NO NEED TO BE PURIFIED FROM ANYTHING. I gave this some thought before I opened this thread. Y'shua just can not be referenced here. No way, I believe. In order to go through some "purification" one would have need to be "purified" from some sin or transgression. This excludes Y'shua. I believe that the reference in the law of Moses to purification would include a sin offering or some other offering to "cleans" himself or themselves. I would have brought up the sacrifice that Luke wrote in 2:24 but at this point Joseph would be with Mary and the "they" in Luke 2:22 probably spoke of Joseph and Mary so as to read it thus: "Now when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were completed/fulfilled they(Mary and Joseph) brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord as it is written in the law of the Lord, 'Every male who opens the wombe shall be called holy to the LORD' and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, 'A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.' " (NKJV, Luke 2:22-24) Who offered the sacrifice when they went to the temple?? Why , Mary did and Joseph was there next to her even though the sacrifice was for the benefit of Mary only. I have no problem with the 2nd mention of a plural for "they" in Luke 2:22. I do have a problem with the 1st menion of the plural in Luke 2:22 - "their" as applying to Mary and to Y'shua for the baby Y'shua needed no purifying for anything. There is nothing to be purified from.
Right, Paul??
Thank-you Paul for your input. Like I said, Zorba has nothing really to get too excited about. But still, the feminine-genetive-SINGULAR is found in the Greek manuscripts and there is no SINGULAR found in any of the Aramaic manuscripts.
Cordially,
Mike