Sorry, looks like my 9 page response is even too much for a new thread, sorry for stuffing it up.

Anyway, here's a small portion of something I wanted to share...

The principle given to us especially in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, is that a sin offering MUST be made in order for man to be blameless. And do you know what ? I have a proof that Mary made a sin offering. Do you know what sin Mary committed ? I bet this has got your attention now. You might in fact be suprised to know that it was in fact a sin to conceive a firstborn male. Are you suprised ? Take a look at this :

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; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. - LUKE 2:22-24

Now let us look at what it says in the book of Leviticus...

Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. - LEVITICUS 12:2

And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female. And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean. - LEVITICUS 12:6-8

Take a good read. If you missed it, go over it again. What kind of offerings did Mary present ? Two types actually, a burnt offering and a sin offering.

But wait a minute ! How can it be a sin to conceive a firstborn male-child ? Actually, if you're asking this question, you haven't understood the significance of what I mentioned earlier. Jesus became a sin on our behalf. Mary sinned, and Jesus Himself was the sin. Btw, don't be offended at my saying that Jesus was the sin. Pauls epistle to the Corinthians confirms exactly this.

"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21)

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), October 31, 2002

Answers

I'm researching an answer to this. But in the mean time, simply ponder the fact that over 2000 years of church history, and at least a couple hundered years of Mariology, millions upon millions of briliant, Catholic minds have read the Bible, studied the Bible, studied history, and yet you truly believe that for centuries (at the very least) no one came up with this?

Do you claim to have something over St. Thomas Aquinas? Or Pope John Paul II? Scott Hahn, Fr. John Corapi, and many others have graduated Summa Cum Laude in Theology. They are PhD's in Scripture. Yet you claim to know something that they must have missed!? Ask yourself, "Why is it that I'm the only one who has seen the connection, and understand that Mary sinned?"

The truth of the matter is, and I don't have to research to know, that you are misinterpreting these passages and makeing a very heretical statement about the Mother of our Lord. You better check what you're saying, because if it was my mom I would knock you out! And I'm only human (and very nonviolent at that). If it be true that Mary is sinless, and you are saying these offensive things about Jesus' mom, then far be it from me to know whe Jesus will do!

Father Forgive them, for they know not what they do. Amen. Jesus Have mercy on your brother. Mary, pray for us.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 31, 2002.

Excellent work Oliver, it shows you really know your bible. However, could you clear something up for me please? If Christ, God-made-man became man through Mary, thereby making her unclean, then, as you point out that makes Christ, who is God, unclean? If this is the case, then Christ was imperfect and not fully God, for, as I stated in another thread God is not imperfect but perfect. Further, this would mean that His sacrifice was an imperfect sacrifice just as the days of old when they used to sacrifice goats and lambs. Of course, if this was an imperfect sacrifice then wouldn't that mean that we weren't redeemed?

If you start with the premise that God came through a vessel of sin, who became sin for us, then we have here an imperfect sacrifice, as I said. Therefore, if it is imperfect than you or I were not redeemed, God never bought us at a great price. His blood is worthless and it could have been you or I dying on the cross for the world. If you take away the virginity of mary you also take away the divinity of Christ, which also takes away the whole act of redemption, and if you take that act away, then how are we saved?

Looking forward to your response

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), October 31, 2002.

Oliver,

I found this in ONE search, "Mary" "sin offering" in Yahoo. How much more do you think one can find doing several searches? Hope this helps to clarify your misunderstandings.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 31, 2002.

Here is another SITE for your reference.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 31, 2002.

Dear Ollie:
You mistake ritual offering for a certifiable proof of Mary's guilt. The Purification ritual is expected of her, and she simply fulfills a ritual obligation. Of course, you have an axe to grind. A Catholic wouldn't take this point of view into consideration at all, knowing what the Church says infallibly about Mary.

I suppose to you, then, John's baptism of Our Lord, innocent Lamb of God that He is, was proof of His own need for salvation? The River Jordan flowed with Jesus' washed away sins, as you would have it. It's in the Bible, so it must be so . . .

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 31, 2002.

Good point Eugene! I hope Oliver can enlighten us to understand why exactly Jesus needed to be baptized. Or better yet, why did Jesus need to be circumcised! He already was the Son of God and therefore belonged literally to the House of God. He didn't need to fulfill this "Law", but He did!

Also, if Mary hadn't given the two doves for a burnt offering, then Simeon would not have seen Jesus before he died!

I'll bet if Mary hadn't given the two doves and proclaimed her own sinlessness, then some Protestants would think that Mary was arrogant or conceded.

For 1500 years Christians were okay with all these doctrines and seemed to think that they went along fine with Scripture. Now, of course, Protestants want to be known as anything but Catholic, and so the study Scripture not for its richness and lifesaving instruction, but to simply find passages to refute Catholic teachings. Please, Oliver, trust common sense! Why would Catholics, who handwrote your bible for centuries, teach something contrary to Scripture?

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 31, 2002.

Oops! Don't get my post wrong. I don't want to sound like I hate Protestants. I am friends with several! And they do know their Scripture, that's for sure. It's just a shame that they don't understand the fullness of the Catholic Faith.

Hope I didn't hurt anyones feelings.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 31, 2002.

Hi everyone. I have actually addressed all the points brought forward in the previous thread and more in a 9 page reply. Unfortunately the server couldn't handle such a lengthy post (as u will see when u try to click on the links). Anyone who wants this reply, just send me an email and I'll give it to u personally.

For me, I absolutely do not believe that the Catholic church is pure in its teachings.

To twist the meaning of the scriptures to say that Mary didn't sin, and her sin offering was just a ritual practice is a joke. The account in revelation is absolutely clear in the fact that NOONE was worthy to open the seals, and John himself wept because of this. Only Jesus Christ. Why would John weep? He wouldn't weep if only God was supposed to be able to open the seals. He wept because all were sinners and all have fallen short of the glory of God.

Even Enoch who was raptured. Although he walked with God and was raptured, this by absolutely no means is any proof to say he didn't sin. Enoch is a type of those who are to be raptured at the Lord's coming who are walking with God, In Christ. Just because we might get raptured absolutely does not mean we haven't sinned.

The amount of attention Mary is given is absolutely inconsistent with the scriptures. This point of sinlessness and much much more are classic examples of where the Catholic doctrine has little or no biblical evidence. Why ? Because they go by man's traditions, speakings by human elected Pontiffs. There is so much substitution, so much leven it's not funny.

However I will conclude here. I have my belief and you have yours. I believe you are all my brothers and sisters. Whether you think I am your brother or not I do not know. At the end of the day we are all responsible for ourselves to the Lord. We must run the race as Paul charged us and love the Lord Jesus with our whole heart, our whole mind and our whole soul.

In saying this I will no longer continue the debates because I have stated all I wish to say. If you want my previous thread response of 9 pages, email me and I'll give it to you. Apart from that, I thank you all for your time and contributions to the postings. May the Lord Jesus bless you all in your Christian life, as you come to know Him more and more each day through the washing of the water in the word.

The Lord be with your spirit, grace be with you. Oliver.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), October 31, 2002.

Bye, Oliver,
Thanks for your good intentions. We know you act sincerely and the Mother of God isn't vindictive at all. Her prayers will help you on the last day and we'll also pray for you. It will be sooner than we think! --Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 31, 2002.

Oliver,

You never answered why Jesus needed to be Baptized, or even circumsized (Both ritual practice). And I hope that you looked at the links I posted, becasue you will see how they offered the same burnt offering to purify the alter (which of course couldn't sin!).

I will take your silence on this subject to mean that you either agree, or can't refute this truth.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 01, 2002.

Even jesus being both God and man is a contradiction in God's own law if read that way. Jesus naturally(supernaturally?) cleaned up a lot of these "men's" laws that he and his parents dutifully submitted to. And the early Church following Pau's advice placated this type of tradtion and understanding up to a point- the point that you seem to suggest crossing. Sin offerings for ritual uncleanness have nothing to do with moral blame but considered as marks of enfeebled human nature(from its origins)to be cleansed in gestures of humility and counter signs(offering pure blood of innocent animals). Who has not had parents who followed a custom that we the children found repulsive? Yet Christ took away that ancient sign back to the prophetic ideal of the heart and cleansed person. Mary was certainly no rebel, no great teacher or proudly self-righteous person. Why on earth should she feel obligated to break the custom, submitting to God's will as she knew it then in all things? This type of discussion if put to her directly would seem the devil's trap that Christ on occasion had to swiftly disarm. Theological discussions of her deeds in these customs seem abstract. It might be as fair as to condemn all Israel for cruelty to animals when only Hindus and Buddhists at that time had some theological reasons(reincarnation, pantheism) to do so.

-- P.E. Murphy (murky@rochester.rr.com), November 01, 2002.