10-30-2008, 02:03 PM
Well, I thank-you both for responding. It could be that both Mary and Y'shua were ceremonially unclean as the information you provided seems to point to that direction. The sacrifice by Mary though that end the narrative in Luke 2:24 would only be for Mary and if it tied into "HER days of purification" then the problem still exists as the sacrifice is for the purpose of making atonement and we all know that at no time in Y'shua's life would or did HE need atonement. Mary's blood offering here of 2 young pigeons or 2 turtledoves are blood offerings and they point to the Messia Himself as fulfillment of ALL the Old Testament sacrifices.
But if I understand the law of Moshe correctly than for any person who becomes unclean or ceremonially unclean and the days of his or her "purification have been fulfilled" a sacrifice is to be done and presented. Here, in the context of Luke 2:22-24 it can NOT be applied to Y'shua because as we see in Leviticus throughout these sacrifices are for the purpose of making atonement. So, if Mary's baby is involved than we have a problem. But if there is ceremonially uncleanness in Y'shua the baby (with no sin offering or sacrifice involved or needed) than everything is okay. Only Mary needs to present an offering at the temple and does not apply to Y'shua.
To be honest I did not read Leviticus through to check and see if someone who was ceremonially unclean ALWAYS needed to make an animal sacrifice. So you may be right, Paul and probably are.
But Burning One, I would have to disagree with you that Joseph was impure here, even ceremonially. There seems to be no mention at all in Luke that he was impure. Plus, in Leviticus 12 where the woman who is going through the purification process never mentions the husband (male) at all. He is not unclean and even in Lev. 12 when a sacrifice or offering is presented the male(husband) is not even mentioned either. Anyway, thanks for your replies. It may take some more study. But it just looked like a real loser for Aramaic Primacy on the surface and I thought I might have had something for ole Zorba. This may need to take some more looking at. Hey guys, thanks.
sincerely,
Mike
But if I understand the law of Moshe correctly than for any person who becomes unclean or ceremonially unclean and the days of his or her "purification have been fulfilled" a sacrifice is to be done and presented. Here, in the context of Luke 2:22-24 it can NOT be applied to Y'shua because as we see in Leviticus throughout these sacrifices are for the purpose of making atonement. So, if Mary's baby is involved than we have a problem. But if there is ceremonially uncleanness in Y'shua the baby (with no sin offering or sacrifice involved or needed) than everything is okay. Only Mary needs to present an offering at the temple and does not apply to Y'shua.
To be honest I did not read Leviticus through to check and see if someone who was ceremonially unclean ALWAYS needed to make an animal sacrifice. So you may be right, Paul and probably are.
But Burning One, I would have to disagree with you that Joseph was impure here, even ceremonially. There seems to be no mention at all in Luke that he was impure. Plus, in Leviticus 12 where the woman who is going through the purification process never mentions the husband (male) at all. He is not unclean and even in Lev. 12 when a sacrifice or offering is presented the male(husband) is not even mentioned either. Anyway, thanks for your replies. It may take some more study. But it just looked like a real loser for Aramaic Primacy on the surface and I thought I might have had something for ole Zorba. This may need to take some more looking at. Hey guys, thanks.
sincerely,
Mike