Mary's bloodless birth a myth

Luke quotes Leviticus 12:6 applying it to Mary=she had an issue of blood:

Luke 2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished,

Leviticus 12:5 But if she shall bear a maid child, she shall be unclean two weeks, **according to the custom of her monthly courses. ** And she shall remain in the blood of her purification sixty-six days. 6 And when the days of her purification are expired, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring to the door of the tabernacle of the testimony, a lamb of a year old for a holocaust, and a young pigeon or a turtle for sin: and shall deliver them to the priest. 7 Who shall offer them before the Lord, and shall pray for her: and so **she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. ** This is the law for her that beareth a man child or a maid child.

The impurity is identified with and expressly defined as the issue of blood during pregnancy. If there were no issue of blood there would be no impurity and therefore no need to sacrifice turtledoves.

When Mary sacrificed two turtledoves, one as an offering for sin, it was for her sin of defiling God’s dwelling by having such while in atonement with Him.

Douay Rheims Leviticus 15: 29 And on the eighth day she shall offer for herself to the priest, two turtles, or two young pigeons, at the door of the tabernacle of the testimony: 30 And he shall offer one for sin, and the other for a holocaust, and he shall pray for her before the Lord, and for the issue of her uncleanness. 31 You shall teach therefore the children of Israel to take heed of uncleanness, that they may not die in their filth, when they shall have defiled my tabernacle that is among them.

The turtledove cleanses sin from her so she can be allowed back into God’s presence, His Tabernacle-dwelling: = atonement restored.

The other turtledove is for restored communion like that experienced at a “family meal” symbolizing atonement has been restored, sin cleansed from her that enables her to be in God’s presence.

Unless Mary did it it out of tradition and modesty and obedience, exactly the same way Jesus was baptized.

Either way I was reedemed by Jesus and his mom was Mary and nothing changes.

[quote=Buford]Unless Mary did it it out of tradition and modesty and obedience, exactly the same way Jesus was baptized.

Either way I was reedemed by Jesus and his mom was Mary and nothing changes.
[/quote]

I don’t follow your reasoning at all. The deposit of the faith says Mary’s birth of Christ was normal in every respect. The RCC Magisterium teaches a different Mary than is presented in the Bible.

This difference was in evidence since the beginning of the faith:

Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.), a believer in Mary’s perpetual virginity, says in support of it:

But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.-Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol 2, p. 551. [Italics mine]

The expression “many even down to our own time” hints this was the more ancient view albeit one losing ground.

Clement’s appeal to popular myth rather than sound scriptural exegesis illustrates the lengths religionists will go to propose a “Fantasy Mary” that grossly contradicts the natural meaning of Scripture. Observe his idea Mary would allow “the curious” to “look” after Christ’s birth to see if she was still a virgin!

Yea, sure she would.

It isn’t Catholic dogma that Mary delivered Jesus without issue of blood, or even without pain This is just pious tradition, and one which even exists within Protestantism. That having been said, it is, as far as I know, the unanimous conviction of every single early Church Father; they profess it as if it came directly from the Apostles.

I really don’t think there’s a need to get into a whole big discussion over this.

Even if she didn’t suffer labor pains, she still would have gone through with the Purification ritual, for the sake of not causing scandal and her demonstrating her complete obedience to the Law.

It’s for this same reason that Jesus received John’s baptism “for the forgiveness of sins” and even payed the Temple tax for himself and Peter, after telling Peter that he was, in fact, not obliged to pay it.

Yawn

You honestly think that there’s an objection you cane come up with that hasn’t crossed the minds of the Church’s greatest saints and doctors, most of whome knew the Bible better than you know the back of your hand? C’mon . . . :rolleyes:

The expression “many even down to our own time” hints this was the more ancient view albeit one losing ground.

I strongly disagree. The Odes of Solomon [A.D. 80] record:

A cup of milk was offered to me, and I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord’s kindness. The Son is the cup, and the Father is He who was milked; and the Holy Spirit is She who milked Him; Because His breasts were full, and it was undesirable that His milk should be ineffectually released. The Holy Spirit opened Her bosom, and mixed the milk of the two breasts of the Father. Then She gave the mixture to the generation without their knowing, and those who have received it are in the perfection of the right hand. The womb of the Virgin took it, and she received conception and gave birth. So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not require a midwife, because He caused her to give life. She brought forth like a strong man with desire, and she bore according to the manifestation, and she acquired according to the Great Power. And she loved with redemption, and guarded with kindness, and declared with grandeur. Hallelujah.

And then there’s the Ascension of Isaiah [A.D. 70]:

After this I saw, and the angel who spoke with me, who conducted me, said unto me: “Understand, Isaiah son of Amoz; for for this purpose have I been sent from God.” And I indeed saw a woman of the family of David the prophet, named Mary, and Virgin, and she was espoused to a man named Joseph, a carpenter, and he also was of the seed and family of the righteous David of Bethlehem Judah. And he came into his lot. And when she was espoused, she was found with child, and Joseph the carpenter was desirous to put her away. But the angel of the Spirit appeared in this world, and after that Joseph did not put her away, but kept Mary and did not reveal this matter to any one. And he did not approach May, but kept her as a holy virgin, though with child. And he did not live with her for two months. And after two months of days while Joseph was in his house, and Mary his wife, but both alone. It came to pass that when they were alone that Mary straight-way looked with her eyes and saw a small babe, and she was astonished. And after she had been astonished, her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived. And when her husband Joseph said unto her: “What has astonished thee?” his eyes were opened and he saw the infant and praised God, because into his portion God had come. And a voice came to them: “Tell this vision to no one.” And the story regarding the infant was noised broad in Bethlehem. Some said: “The Virgin Mary hath borne a child, before she was married two months.” And many said: “She has not borne a child, nor has a midwife gone up (to her), nor have we heard the cries of (labour) pains.” And they were all blinded respecting Him and they all knew regarding Him, though they knew not whence He was. And they took Him, and went to Nazareth in Galilee.

Granted, these works are not inspired and inerrant; but I’ve no reason to believe that they don’t pass on the truth regarding the miraculous nature of Christ’s birth, given the subsequent acceptance of this belief by Christ’s Church. And these particular works, while apocryphal, are otherwiseorthodox and not heretical, like the Gnostic texts.

[quote=DominvsVobiscvm]It isn’t Catholic dogma that Mary delivered Jesus without issue of blood, or even without pain This is just pious tradition, and one which even exists within Protestantism. That having been said, it is, as far as I know, the unanimous conviction of every single early Church Father; they profess it as if it came directly from the Apostles.

[The one exception I know of is Tertullian.]

I really don’t think there’s a need to get into a whole big discussion over this.

Even if she didn’t suffer labor pains, she still would have gone through with the Purification ritual, for the sake of not causing scandal and her demonstrating her complete obedience to the Law.

It’s for this same reason that Jesus received John’s baptism “for the forgiveness of sins” and even payed the Temple tax for himself and Peter, after telling Peter that he was, in fact, not obliged to pay it.

Yawn

You honestly think that there’s an objection you cane come up with that hasn’t crossed the minds of the Church’s greatest saints and doctors, most of whome knew the Bible better than you know the back of your hand? C’mon . . . :rolleyes:
[/quote]

I was married for 13 years, some details of female hygiene I would rather not know the particulars. There is a pious tradition that Jesus was a bloodless birth. I don’t doubt it, but I could take it or leave it.

Say it was not, it changes nothing that He did on the cross for you & me.

Tell me Jesus and John were gay lovers, or he had brothers & sisters, or Christ was the illegitimate child of a Roman soldier. Then I will give you a brouhaha to remember.

If I had to select one hem I have NO desire to look up, it would be Mary’s. & if she is the source of the pious legend (she would have to be), I would be the last to doubt her word.

[quote=LetsObeyChrist]When Mary sacrificed two turtledoves, one as an offering for sin, it was for her sin of defiling God’s dwelling by having such while in atonement with Him.
[/quote]

In other words, you’re saying that God is at fault for having Mary sin by bearing His sinless Son who takes away the sin of the world?

Hey Lets,

Was there a real point to your post or did ya just home to stir something up?

Anyway :twocents: :yawn:

Later

[quote=Church Militant]Hey Lets,

Was there a real point to your post or did ya just home to stir something up?

Anyway :twocents: :yawn:

Later
[/quote]

It’s actually the third time he’s started an almost identical thread.

Someone should remind this fella that it was the Catholic Church who maintained and preserved the Bible over the centuries, who wrote the New Testament, who canonized the Scriptures and bound them into a single publication, in the 4th century…
The Church’s doctrines, teachings, and traditions don’t conflict with her writings!

Hey, LetsObey:

In another thread which has apparently vanished, I asked you several times this question: If the Catholic Church does not have ultimate authority to interpret Scripture, who does?

You eventually responded that Christ Jesus has that ultimate authority.

I then asked: How can I directly contact Christ Jesus to make sure that what you are saying conforms completely with what He would say?

I never got an answer to this last question.

– Mark L. Chance.

It’s actually the third time he’s started an almost identical thread.

Why this weird obsession over whether or not Mary’s vagina bled? Doesn’t this strike anyone else as add, possibly indicating a deep-seated psychological disturbance?

“Calling Dr. Freud!”

[quote=DominvsVobiscvm]Why this weird obsession over whether or not Mary’s vagina bled? Doesn’t this strike anyone else as add, possibly indicating a deep-seated psychological disturbance?

“Calling Dr. Freud!”
[/quote]

Freud is dead, can anyone private message Dr Kevorkian.

Three times? Let it go!

For what it’s worth, I’m a very conservative Catholic and I believe she had a relatively normal childbirth, if less painful than many. There’s no rule in the Church that we must believe otherwise; the Magesterium says nothing on the matter other than she was a virgin before and after.

[quote=Ghosty]For what it’s worth, I’m a very conservative Catholic and I believe she had a relatively normal childbirth, if less painful than many. There’s no rule in the Church that we must believe otherwise; the Magesterium says nothing on the matter other than she was a virgin before and after.
[/quote]

Before, during and after. If there was an ‘issue of blood’ then that would undermine Our Lady’s virginity. This protestant rabble-rouser must show us where in Holy Writ it explicitly states that Mary ceased to be a Virgin. It doesn’t, so he can’t; unless he claims some authority to infallibly interpret Scripture, which then undermines his ‘Sola Scriptura’ creed, which then means his whole position is without foundation, and so on.

Buford is right, I think LetsObeyChrist is a sad, lonely person with some kind of mother complex. Maybe he was abused, or still is.

LetsObeyChrist, get some help. See a qualified counselor. Get a referral from your family doctor, or high school counselor for your problems. The reason you don’t have many, if any, friends is because you seem to be addicted to inflicting pain on others, and having it inflicted back on you. That explains your obsession with making inflammatory threads, repeating them and making non-replies or no replies.

LetsObeyChrist, Jesus loves his mother, but you don’t seem to at all. Jesus never broke the 4rth commandment, (honor your parents) but you are dishonoring His mother. But since you can’t dishonor your own mother, you have to hate yourself, and that is what your posts are really about. You demand to be hated, it’s the only reality you know.

Find some books by John and Paula Sanford, they are written by Protestant counselors, and have been in the inner healing ministry for a long time. Another good one is “Healing the Shame that Binds You” by Dr. John Bradshaw.

Before, during and after. If there was an ‘issue of blood’ then that would undermine Our Lady’s virginity.

Not really; contrary to the belief of many of the ancients, being a virgin has nothing to do with ether or not one’s hymen has been ruptured, but whether or not a woman has had sex.

(The hymen can break for completely non-sexual reasons, as any girl who plays sports can tell you.)

[quote=DominvsVobiscvm]Not really; contrary to the belief of many of the ancients, being a virgin has nothing to do with ether or not one’s hymen has been ruptured, but whether or not a woman has had sex.

(The hymen can break for completely non-sexual reasons, as any girl who plays sports can tell you.)
[/quote]

From what I can tell, he thinks he’s found a hole in Catholic theology, and is trying to use it to show Catholicism is false. First he targeted the Vulgate, then the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and now her perpetual virginity :whacky:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.