Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Luke 2:22 casts DARK SHADOWS on Aramaic Primacy
#16
Paul Younan Wrote:
Burning one Wrote:wow - i had no idea the CoE still watched over this command. this is very interesting! thanks for sharing!

Shlama~Shalom Jeremy,

You'd be surprised at how many of these types of things are preserved in the CoE, back from our Jewish days. Never quite shook off some of them.

Read Chapter 7 of Asahel Grant's book for more:

http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/grant.pdf

Shlama Paul,


thanks for the link. i'll check it out for sure!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#17
Shlama once again, Mike,


the passage you are looking for is in Leviticus 15, specifically verses 19-30.

the woman, at the end of her unusual flow of blood, was required to bring a sacrifice of two birds, which lines up with the passage out of Luke, as well, when the days of purification were ended. Yoseph was unclean simply because he was in contact with her -- touching anything she touched would pass the unclean status on to him, and i think it would be almost impossible to attend to a post-partem mother without acquiring this status.

but to pay careful attention to the above-referenced passage, nowhere are we told the man himself was to offer the sacrifice of the birds. therefore, the sacrifice of the birds DOES NOT INCLUDE YOSEPH at all.

keeping this in mind, and going back to the previously proposed problematic passage out of the Peshitta (oy -- say that 3 times fast), the text in Luke 2:22-24 doesn't state that Yoseph made any sacrifice at all. paying carefuly attention to the text merely says they went up only AFTER the days of their purification were ended. see the resolution in the text itself?

Yoseph could not approach the Temple area while unclean from Miryam, and neither of course could Miryam go while in the blood of her purification. they BOTH had to meet the specific requirements, and that is all that the text is really telling us. it doesn't say that Yoseph sacrificed the birds. we know the sacrifice was made only for Miryam because only she could make that sacrifice. but they both had to be pure in order to go up for it.

i hope i am making myself clear here. if you pay close attention to the text of the Peshitta, there is no conflict at all. all fears of a Greek primacy fall away, and you can safely embrace once again the Aramaic authority of Scripture! woo-hoo!!

as for your atonement issue -- i would offer this explanation as well to help reconcile the Peshitta's reading even further: atonement means merely "to cover." that is all that it means. 2000 years of tradition and exposition of Scripture have brought many different flavors of interpretation to the word that do not necessarily convey the Scriptural meaning. KAPHAR is the Hebrew term used in Scripture, and you will find it all over the place in "sinless" instances. for example, the ark of Noah was to be "atoned" in a pitch-like substance. the ark of the covenant was to be "atoned" in gold, and so on and so forth...

now, the problem of sin DOES need covering, and that is what the sacrifices worked towards. but more importantly, the product of sin is what the sacrifices atoned for: DEATH. now stick with me for a moment, and hopefully this will make sense -- in all instances of uncleanness or impurity found in the Scripture, the connecting factor is a DEATH taking place. be it a person actually dying and so reaping the wages of sin, or be it the issue of seed where only 1 (if that, even) actually makes it to the goal and thus continues to live and the millions of the rest die, or the passing of the egg during the woman's monthly flow (and just as well the idea that the life is in the blood) -- each occurrance of the attaining-of or the imparting-of impurity/uncleanness deals with death in some form/level taking place. thus the atonement that must be made is not necessarily a personal/moral sin that the individual has willfully performed against Alaha, but rather the simple fact that as people living in a fallen world, we are subject to the wages of death all around us, and at times, even IN US. as the Creator is pure and set-apart, and truly LIFE Himself, all manner of death associated with man must be atoned-for/covered. thus the explanation for the sacrifices of the birds/lamb.

it is in this sense, i firmly believe, that the sacrifice of the birds was atoning for Miryam, and truly, for all women down through time who had to obey this specific command.

so to wrap it up, i am not seeing any problem at all with the sacrifices made OR the atonement that was secured by making them. i do hope what i've offered makes some sort of sense. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#18
The Aramaic text of Luke 2:22 did not have the word "their" in front of purification; depending on the context and understanding of the Word of God as a whole, "her" purification is more logical.

Luke 2:22 - ?????? ???????????? ?????????? ?????????????????? ?????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????????? ???????????????????? ?????? ???????? ??

Word-by-word translation is "After complete day of purification according to Moses law, ascend to Jerusalem to stand before the LORD."

KJV Luke 2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord

Luke 1:35 The angel replied, and said to her: The Holy Spirit will come, and the power of the Most High will overshadow thee; therefore he that is born of thee is HOLY, and will be called The Son of God. (Murdock)

The child Jesus is HOLY even before his 8 days based on announcement of Angel Gabriel; He has not entered the Covenant of Abraham before his circumcision but it touches nothing about His ceremonial uncleanness. Only his "mother" is ceremonially unclean according to Moses law.

KJV Lev 12:1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying,
Lev 12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and borne a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
Lev 12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
Lev 12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

Abrahamic covenant speaks of the male child that circumcision is a requirement to ENTER the covenant and not specifically about male child's ceremonial uncleanness and purification.

Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you.
Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.


How can the Aramaic-English translation contradicts with the Word of God spoken by Angel?
Luke 1:35 The angel replied, and said to her: The Holy Spirit will come, and the power of the Most High will overshadow thee; therefore he that is born of thee is HOLY, and will be called The Son of God. (Murdock)

Luke 2:23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, that every male opening the womb shall be called HOLY to the LordSmile (Murdock)

It is obviously the Aramaic-English translation has went wrong but not the Aramaic manuscript.

Exo 13:1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying,
Exo 13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

Num 8:16 For they are wholly given unto me from among the children of Israel; instead of such as open every womb, even instead of the firstborn of all the children of Israel, have I taken them unto me.
Num 8:17 For all the firstborn of the children of Israel are mine, both man and beast: on the day that I smote every firstborn in the land of Egypt I sanctified them for myself.

Every firstborn male child shall be dedicated to the LORD by circumcision on the 8th day from the time of birth. As far as I am concerned there is no Mosiac law on purification for a firstborn male child. It is a dedication or separation for the LORD YHWH by the 8th day.
Reply
#19
Shlama Akhi Positron:
In Luke 2:22 ?????????????????????????????????? the parser shows under "morphological information" that the word is feminine, singular, emphatic. The suffix is "third, masculine, pleural". So, it must mean "mother and child".

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.php?adr=2:4601&font=Estrangelo+Edessa">http://www.dukhrana.com/lexicon/word.ph ... elo+Edessa</a><!-- m -->

Luke 2:22-Translation by John Wesley Etheridge

And when were completed, the days of their purification according to the law of Musha, they carried him up to Urishlem, to present him before the Lord:

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#20
positron Wrote:Every firstborn male child shall be dedicated to the LORD by circumcision on the 8th day from the time of birth. As far as I am concerned there is no Mosiac law on purification for a firstborn male child. It is a dedication or separation for the LORD YHWH by the 8th day.

Shlama Akhi Mike,

This is going to be my last post on this topic because it does not appear that we are making any progress. For example, your statement above has been answered already, yet you do not seem to be acknowledging it.

Once again, I will answer it.

A male child, from the time he is born until the time he is circumcised is ceremonially unclean.

The phrase in Luke 2:22, "days of their purification", refers to the combined, concurrent time periods where the mother and the child are ceremonially impure. The boys first 7 days of life and the mothers' 40 days. During the first 7 days after childbirth, they (mother and boy) share a state of ceremonial impurity.

The offering at the temple was not for Yeshua, his ceremonial impurity ended 33 days ago. The offerings, both the burnt offering (the freewill/peace gift) and the atonement offering, were for Mariam.

Take care!
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#21
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Mike,

This is going to be my last post on this topic because it does not appear that we are making any progress. For example, your statement above has been answered already, yet you do not seem to be acknowledging it.

Once again, I will answer it.

A male child, from the time he is born until the time he is circumcised is ceremonially unclean.

The phrase in Luke 2:22, "days of their purification", refers to the combined, concurrent time periods where the mother and the child are ceremonially impure. The boys first 7 days of life and the mothers' 40 days. During the first 7 days after childbirth, they (mother and boy) share a state of ceremonial impurity.

The offering at the temple was not for Yeshua, his ceremonial impurity ended 33 days ago. The offerings, both the burnt offering (the freewill/peace gift) and the atonement offering, were for Mariam.

Take care!

Shalom

Thank you for your kind clarification. I wonder as how to interpret the word of the Angel who declared that the child is "holy" (Luke 1:35) versus ceremonially unclean for 8 days. Was the holiness absent or unable to commence without 8 days purification?

By the eighth day will the mother and the child be present before the temple in Jerusalem for this circumcision ceremony? Or Joseph and baby Jesus can be present at the temple?

Now these offerings of turtledoves or pigeons is also for the 8th day purification

Lev 14:22 And two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, such as he is able to get; and the one shall be a sin offering, and the other a burnt offering.
Lev 14:23 And he shall bring them on the eighth day for his cleansing unto the priest, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, before the LORD.

How do we know it is for 8th day purification or for 40th day purification offerings?
Reply
#22
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.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#23
Quote:I hope I've made my point - now please, let's stop wasting our time on this utter nonsense.

Thank you Paul for your patient. I can sense your frustration to repeat the answer. I concur with you that it is ceremonially unclean for a child who is uncircumcised. But this discussion is not "utter nonsense" as the plain word "holy" must be interpreted to get along with ceremonial uncleanness. At first thought, holy means Set apart for God. Afterall, baby Jesus came from the Holy Spirit and not from a paternal father.

I would suggest that baby Jesus is Holy which means He is without sin while ceremonial uncleanness is in submission to this ceremonial law.

Oh I see. Aramaic Peshitta to English is better in translation than Greek version in this manner. So you have defended it well.

Cheers!
Reply
#24
Dear Jeremy, Paul, Pisitron, Stephen and anyone else who may have had an interest with this thread.

Well, I have read soem more of the recent posts. I did make a reply but I have saved it as a draft because I want to maybe think and meditate some more on this. So, another reply may be forth and coming. I just want to make sure it will be fruitful before I do.

Also, I did not intend for this to be laborious or long and drawn out or even boring. But I actually think that some of the replies were thought provoking and good. I would have to say Paul (and this is just my lowly opinion) that I do think we are making some progress. You know, ummm, sometimes when discussing things like this the there may be times when the thought process is slow and progress slow as well. But then, with patience, a major breakthought will take place. I try to think through things before I open up a thread as I don't want to be spinning my wheels either. Some subjects though might have to travel at a slower pace before the goal is reached.

I think some of the confusion might be around the key word for ''THEIR'' in Luke 2:22. We are not at a consensus whether it is referring to Y'shua and Mary or Mary and Joseph. And the nd factor would be as to the time perion in which Mary offered the 2 birds. After 8 days or on the 40th day. But Like I said I will think on this some more.

But I have to sign off now.

Mike
Reply
#25
You make a good point that, in Luke 2:22 the word for "their" can be or should be referring to Y'shua and Mary. However, (oh that pivitol word) I think there is something very obvious that we (or just I, have missed.) Where in the Torah(mainly first 5 books of Moses, does it state that the newborn child is ceremonially unclean until the day of his circumcision?? I can not find it in the book of the Law or Torah anywhere!

Your point, Paul, is taken very well that "ceremonially unclean" does not necessitate sin. okay then. But when I did some study over the weekend I could not find one reference in the Old Law/Testament or Torah that a newborn baby(whehter the first, 2nd,3rd, 5th or 10th) is in any way "unclean" until the 8th day - day of his cirumcision. So, this would mean that Y'shua is not only w/o any sin; He is not even "ceremonially unclean."

Courtiously,

Mike

Reply
#26
Tikanis Mike,

Mike Kar Wrote:But when I did some study over the weekend I could not find one reference in the Old Law/Testament or Torah that a newborn baby(whehter the first, 2nd,3rd, 5th or 10th) is in any way "unclean" until the 8th day - day of his cirumcision.

Please read the following:

http://dafnotes.blogspot.com/2007/07/daf...ights.html

Specifically:

Quote:Are we permitted to anoint an uncircumcised infant (prior to eight days old) with terumah oil?

The Gemora explains the inquiry: Does being uncircumcised before its time (the mitzvah of milah (circumcision) does not take effect until the eighth day) prevent him from benefiting from terumah, or does it not prevent him from benefiting from terumah?

Rabbi Zeira brings a proof from the following braisa: The Torah states explicitly that the non-circumcision of one???s children at the time of the slaughtering prevents him from offering the korban Pesach (passover offering); and the Torah states explicitly that the non-circumcision of one???s slaves at the time of the eating prevents him from eating the korban Pesach (passover offering). How do we derive the laws stated by this one to that one, and the laws stated by that one to this one? The word ???then??? was specifically stated in both categories so that an analogy between the two might be drawn.

Rabbi Zeira analyzes the braisa: We can find a case where the uncircumcised slaves were in his possession at the time of the eating of the korban Pesach, but they were not in his possession at the time of its slaughtering; if he bought the slaves after the slaughtering, but prior to the eating. However, how is it possible to have a case where his uncircumcised sons were present during the eating of the korban Pesach, but they were not present during the slaughtering? It must be referring to a case where the son was born in between the slaughtering and the eating (and the braisa rules that this will prevent him from eating the korban Pesach; this is indeed a proof that an uncircumcised child before its time is regarded as uncircumcised, and it should be forbidden to anoint him with terumah oil).

This is an exhaustive topic and I really don't have time to delve into it at the moment, for all you ever wanted to know about Jewish purification laws, go to your local library and check out a copy of Jacob Nuesner's book titled "The Talmud of the land of Israel."

PS - and it's not only until the 8th day that a baby boy is ceremonially impure, the flow of blood (until it is healed) also renders him unclean. So it is really a variable period of time until the wound heals after the 8th day that the boy is going through a period of purification, like his mother.

Anyone who has come into contact with blood, or is bleeding, is ceremonially impure.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)