Making Sense Of Uncleanliness In The Bible

[Little Flower]

"when Mary was "purified" after giving birth it wasn't because she was gross or evil or bad, it was a time of celebration and giving thanks to God"

 

i suppose you could clarify this. even Jesus was baptized. to be consistent with catholic theology, neither really needed to be baptized but seem to have done it to stay true to form. i've never heard of anyone 'purifying' mary, or Jesus. they were already pure. unless i'm not sure what you're referring to. you use this example, and much hinges on it, so it can't be as obscure as it is.  

something is okay, then it touches the sacred, then it needs purified.... because it is impure, unclean. seems pretty basic.

I do not have a Masters degree in Theology (much as I would like to!) so I will not be able to say this as well as Basilia Marie... anyhow Basilia Marie please correct me if anything I say is incorrect

 

Something very important to note - our sacrament of baptism and the baptism of John are very very different. The baptism of John was a baptism of repentance. Basically people came to him and were baptized as a symbol of how they were rejecting evil and wanted to live good lives, they were rejecting their sin. Jesus was baptized by John, not because he needed to be cleansed (John's baptism provided no cleansing anyway - it was a symbol that in reality had no meaning/effect) but more as an act of humility, and also to provide us an example. When Jesus instituted the sacrament of baptism (he tells the disciples to go forth and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit), his baptism actually does change us. It marks our soul as children of God.

 

John 3:16 NIV "John answered them all, “I baptize you with^b water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with^c the Holy Spirit and fire.""

 

From this we can see that John is saying, his baptism has no real effect except as an external sign of a promise you make to reject sin. Jesus rejected sin, but that does not mean that he had previously accepted it. It was an act of humility to be baptized by John, but not an act of cleansing.

 

Also we can see here that Jesus' baptism would have much more effect. The baptism of Christ causes the Holy Spirit to enter our soul. Our soul is permanently marked as a child of God, and sanctifying grace (the life of God) enters our souls. In other words, God comes and lives in us as a result of baptism. We can drive him out by sin, but he will always come back when we repent and go to Confession. However the mark on our souls will never go away no matter how badly we sin.

 

Sorry if I'm not explaining well. One of these days I'm going to get that MA in theology and then I'll be able to talk like Basilia Marie!

[Apotheoun]

"when Mary was "purified" after giving birth it wasn't because she was gross or evil or bad, it was a time of celebration and giving thanks to God"

 

i suppose you could clarify this. even Jesus was baptized. to be consistent with catholic theology, neither really needed to be baptized but seem to have done it to stay true to form. i've never heard of anyone 'purifying' mary, or Jesus. they were already pure. unless i'm not sure what you're referring to. you use this example, and much hinges on it, so it can't be as obscure as it is.  

something is okay, then it touches the sacred, then it needs purified.... because it is impure, unclean. seems pretty basic.

Christ was not baptized in order to "stay true to form"; instead, He was baptized in order to sanctify water so that it could be used to conform His followers to His divine likeness in the holy mystery of baptism.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I do not have a Masters degree in Theology (much as I would like to!) so I will not be able to say this as well as Basilia Marie... anyhow Basilia Marie please correct me if anything I say is incorrect

 

Something very important to note - our sacrament of baptism and the baptism of John are very very different. The baptism of John was a baptism of repentance. Basically people came to him and were baptized as a symbol of how they were rejecting evil and wanted to live good lives, they were rejecting their sin. Jesus was baptized by John, not because he needed to be cleansed (John's baptism provided no cleansing anyway - it was a symbol that in reality had no meaning/effect) but more as an act of humility, and also to provide us an example. When Jesus instituted the sacrament of baptism (he tells the disciples to go forth and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit), his baptism actually does change us. It marks our soul as children of God.

 

John 3:16 NIV "John answered them all, “I baptize you with^b water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with^c the Holy Spirit and fire.""

 

From this we can see that John is saying, his baptism has no real effect except as an external sign of a promise you make to reject sin. Jesus rejected sin, but that does not mean that he had previously accepted it. It was an act of humility to be baptized by John, but not an act of cleansing.

 

Also we can see here that Jesus' baptism would have much more effect. The baptism of Christ causes the Holy Spirit to enter our soul. Our soul is permanently marked as a child of God, and sanctifying grace (the life of God) enters our souls. In other words, God comes and lives in us as a result of baptism. We can drive him out by sin, but he will always come back when we repent and go to Confession. However the mark on our souls will never go away no matter how badly we sin.

 

Sorry if I'm not explaining well. One of these days I'm going to get that MA in theology and then I'll be able to talk like Basilia Marie!

 

you do bring up an interesting idea. you said that John's baptism was more of a promise to reject sin, but the baptism that Jesus allowed for actually cleansed you from sin. if i understand you correctly. but i would take the john point a step further. it could be said that that external sign could be said as an unclean in an "im not worthy" sense act after touching the sacred. this isn't so bad. we are not after all sacred. the only issue with that though is that you have to wash everything you touch, which would make it seem more like you are actually dirty, unclean. maybe you aren't worthy, and any sacredness that rubs off on other stuff is not worthy either? that's stretching it, but maybe. how jews acted, the cultural understanding of it, that God had to tell something similar to peter about pork as mentioned earlier etc... doesn't make it seem like that far fetched theory is right.

it has all the connotations of "the material world is bad" etc etc, that i do know some great theologians beliefved, but that is generally rejected. they probably based their ideas on this sorta stuff, on the fall etc. and that general culture that i'm talkin about.

 

Edited July 19, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

Christ was not baptized in order to "stay true to form"; instead, He was baptized in order to sanctify water so that it could be used to conform His followers to His divine likeness in the holy mystery of baptism.

 

that is an interesting theory. it is nice to think of all the water that has commingeld with the water that touched jesus.

is this based on teachings of the early church, the eastern church or? never heard of it.

all i know was he said something about it was to "fulfill all righteousness". i would assume it's about form, and establishing a precedent etc. it's kinda ambiguous so it could mean many things, and would be open ot many ideas. touching water to make it all pure does seem like it's trying to hard to make his baptism into something that had super scientific logical rational systematic reasons behind it, necessary to turn it into that sort of system.

[Apotheoun]

that is an interesting theory. it is nice to think of all the water that has commingeld with the water that touched jesus.

is this based on teachings of the early church, the eastern church or? never heard of it.

all i know was he said something about it was to "fulfill all righteousness". i would assume it's about form, and establishing a precedent etc. it's kinda ambiguous so it could mean many things, and would be open ot many ideas. touching water to make it all pure does seem like it's trying to hard to make his baptism into something that had super scientific logical rational systematic reasons behind it, necessary to turn it into that sort of system.

I wish I could take credit for the "theory," but it is not my idea. Instead, it is simply the common teaching of the Church Fathers, and its earliest reference is found in the writings of St. Ignatios of Antioch, who died a martyrs death in the year A.D. 107.

[Seven77]

why do we keep debating a troll-fairy who deserves to be ignored? well, i guess its good practice in patience.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Seven77

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Jewish women would have to be ritually purified because they cooperated with life--- they were considered to be unclean meaning sacred. That is the sense of the word in this context. Father Mitch Pacwa is a Jesuit Bible scholar who explains this. He says that ritual impurity for women is exactly the same as ritual impurity for someone who touches the Torah barehanded-- you can't touch anything sacred without becoming “defiled.”"

 

"meaning sacred". no one has yet to say that the women were sacred, and that that's what was meant by sacred. i assumed this was a typo. if not a typo it needs explained how unclean and sacred could mean the same thing, or how that could be similar to 'defiled'. and if it's admitted they are unclean, no one has shown how it's not a bad thing, or how it doesn't actually mean unclean. if you admit it's unclean, we all agree. i just think it's wrong thinking. and God probably does too as he did when he told Peter to tel the jews 'what God has made clean you are not to caLl unclean". if it's ritual purification, that just means purifying the impure as far as i can tell. if it's similar to Jesus or mary getting baptozed, how is it like that? mary or jesus would never be called unclean or defiled. and the fact everything u touch needs washed too shows the context is clear. all i see is a bunch of stuff that does not follow in trying to rationalize the verses.
my arguments are ironclad and so far have been irrefutable.

Edited July 21, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

the fact that the bible says the LORD said stuff, like a woman's period makes her unclearn, and that the situation is to be remedied by doves and other novelties.... is ridiculous.

 

it's not like i'm saying we must admit we are wrong, and not that we shouldn't defer to the bible, usually, cause we should. all i'm sayijng is we should be mroe understanding of others if they aren't so deferential. it's not like we should be happy with nonchrsitans, or differing christians, its that we should be understanding, that is humility. we shouldnt be understanding so much of nonchristians, but at least that there would be a variet of beliefs, and who are we to act out against others when our basis of authority also says ridiciouslous things about women's periods and doves?

 

everyone here should be quick to admit the ridiculous nature of it. instead there is an erry silence, and lots of ratinoalization ans stretching of things if anyone says anything. this is childish, and extremely lacking in courage to stand against something seen as so authoritative in your religion and among your own people.

 

Trying to understand the OT in NT thought process is invalid to begin with. One must keep in mind the Salvation History and that the Lord is teaching the Hebrews how to be HIS people. If one sees doves and other novelties as ridiculous then it only tells me that they are missing the entire process of the evolution of the covenant as God prepared the World for his Son. Certain things were disallowed the Jews that are not inherently wrong, but rather because they needed to separate themselves from the world.