In reply to message #2
>But it should not. You
>see "days of purification" does
>not simply mean "unclean" it
>refers to a special condition
>that the woman is in
>during the 33 days after
>her "days of sepeartion" and
>before her purification ritual.
Verse 22 says nothing about 33 days. It's purposely vague because it speaks of "their purification."
>An unclean man is NOT in
>"days of purification"
Sure he is. A leper certainly is (Lev. 14) and so is an infant during the first 7 or 14 days.
>Yes because this ritual does tot
>realte to the "days of
>her impurity" in fact it
>COULD have been done 10
>days earlier but Miriam could
>not have been present.
Right - all the more reason why Luke said "theirs" - he's trying to point out that they celebrated BOTH ceremonies because "their days of purification" had finished.
Luke is not giving Torah - he's giving history and you are limiting him to write as Moses wrote.
>Which cannot occur until after the
>"days of her purification" (Lev.
>12:4) which had to pass
>before Miriam could enter the
>Temple for either of these
Right - so both of "their days" had completed - they could celebrate BOTH ceremonies with BOTH parents present.
>Again this term does not refer
>in the Torah to days
>in which a person is
>ritually impurte. It refers
>to a specuial conmdition which
>the Mother undergoes after her
>days of seperation are over
>and before her Templke ritual
>of purification may take place.
But Luke is not using it that way. Luke is telling us why on one, combined day BOTH ceremonies were taking place. BECAUSE they waited for Mary's purification to complete so that she could be present.
There's no restriction on presenting the firstborn at 40 days - the law stipulates 30 days OR AFTER.
Luke is simply telling us that "their days" of purification were over - BOTH of them, so that these two rituals were held on the SAME day.
And yes - there's nothing wrong with saying "their days of purification" - your suggestion that a male can't have "days of purification" is ridiculous.
Lepers have 7 "days of purification" as do males who have a seminal emission.
Your suggestion that we can't call these days "days of purification" is preposterous.
>No. the phase "days of
>purification" does not appear in
>verse 21 and it should
>not. The days in
>chich a newborn are unclean
>are NOT called "days of
>purification" in the Torah.
That doesn't mean that Luke can't call them "days of purification" if, indeed, they are days when the newborn is becoming "purified."
You're just playing on semantics.
>A newborn is unclean during the
>first seven days but tehse
>are not "days of purification"
Sure they are. Just like the 7 days of a leper or a man with a seminal discharge are "days of purification."
The fact that they have to wait for a period of time means that they are being given enough time to purify themselves - after which the man with a discharge, for instance, has to sit in the SAME Mikveh (purification bath) as a woman who was menstruating does.
This argument is very weak.