Jesus childhood years?Egypt?

[Ben Avraham]

In the 70's, in the middle of the "Jesus Freak" movement, I had to try. I had never read the Bible, although having been raised Catholic. I had never heard of the term "being born again." So with nothing to compare to, I believed what I was being told was the truth, after all, it was Bible verses... Yes, spoon fed Bible verses. So verse by verse a foundation of belief in Jesus being the Savior was established. Very few controversial verses were ever mentioned. It wasn't until four years later, when I started having doubts, that I went to some Jewish friends and asked them why they didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah. They showed me the verses, like in Matthew, that were taken out of context. So I began taking a closer look at all the things I had been taught. I'm still looking and still doubting.

But for the Christian believer, they see what they want to see. They see the virgin birth being prophesied in Isaiah along with "Lucifer" falling from heaven. They see their devil being talked about in Ezekiel and being a talking serpent in Genesis. But what I think keeps them believing is the power, the spiritual power they feel from believing. They "know" in their hearts that it's the truth. They can feel the Holy Spirit inside of them, guiding them. But, I felt the "Spirit" and I felt guided in three different religious beliefs and in two different forms of Christianity. So I had to ask myself... was the belief true, or did it feel true because I wanted it to be true and believed it was true? So I really think that if someone surrenders their heart to some concept of God, any concept of God from any religion, it's probably going to feel pretty good. It will probably be very liberating, until, like with me, the doubts creep in. Then, it all seems like make believe.

Fantastic experience you have come through. IMHO, the doubts have crept in because you probably continue today as you grew up a Catholic; without ever reading the Bible to exercise your own Freewill attribute.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Somehow, the Egyptians don't appear to have been familiar with that "tradition". Or perhaps, the Egyptian overseer wasn't in any particular danger of killing anybody. Whatever the legal niceties, Moses didn't wait around.
Tom

No, they were not familiar because the tradition was Jewish, and Egyptians hated any thing Jewish. Every Israelite as a slave in Egypt was always in danger to be killed. It took an Egyptian overseer less than wake up in a bad mood
and having an Israelite dead to change the mood.

 

[ukok102nak]

~;> everyone has its
own opinion but its better to give
one opinion's a benefit of a good thought
atleast as posible as one could think of especially when the scripture is the subject matter

as the bible says different things from every human thoughts
thats why
some writtings
where defined in the scripture as
a prophesy where no human method can
perceived those things
unless
as it is written
:read: (like you and the verses in the bible is talkin unto one another)

Matthew 2:14
Joseph got up, took the child and his mother, and left for Egypt that night.
15 He stayed there until Herod died. What the Lord had spoken through the prophet came true: "I have called my son out of Egypt."

2 Peter 1:20
First, you must understand this: No prophecy in Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.
21 No prophecy ever originated from humans. Instead, it was given by the Holy Spirit as humans spoke under God's direction.


:ty:



godbless
unto all always

The bible tells about his birth then has one incident as a child then skips up to his adulthood? Id think that that's a huge thing to leave out.

It also says he escaped to Egypt and lived, I saw a tv show that said with King Herod in leadership for howeve rlong Jesus would've had to live along time in childhood in Egypt and he would braised as an Egyptian learning the Egyptian religion. Sense Egyptians believe in resurrection why shouldn't I believe Jesus just took Paganism back to his people and sugar coated it with Jewish beliefs?I see him as being Pagan in his beliefs.

 

[roger1440]

The bible tells about his birth then has one incident as a child then skips up to his adulthood? Id think that that's a huge thing to leave out.

It also says he escaped to Egypt and lived, I saw a tv show that said with King Herod in leadership for howeve rlong Jesus would've had to live along time in childhood in Egypt and he would braised as an Egyptian learning the Egyptian religion. Sense Egyptians believe in resurrection why shouldn't I believe Jesus just took Paganism back to his people and sugar coated it with Jewish beliefs?I see him as being Pagan in his beliefs.

"Belief in the eventual resurrection of the dead is a fundamental belief of traditional Judaism."
http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

All I did was click the mouse a few times and enter a few words on the keyboard. It took less then 20 seconds.

 

[Ben Avraham]

~;> everyone has its
own opinion but its better to give
one opinion's a benefit of a good thought
atleast as posible as one could think of especially when the scripture is the subject matter

as the bible says different things from every human thoughts
thats why
some writtings
where defined in the scripture as
a prophesy where no human method can
perceived those things
unless
as it is written
:read: (like you and the verses in the bible is talkin unto one another)

Matthew 2:14
Joseph got up, took the child and his mother, and left for Egypt that night.
15 He stayed there until Herod died. What the Lord had spoken through the prophet came true: "I have called my son out of Egypt."

2 Peter 1:20
First, you must understand this: No prophecy in Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.
21 No prophecy ever originated from humans. Instead, it was given by the Holy Spirit as humans spoke under God's direction.


:ty:



godbless
unto all always

 

[Ben Avraham]

ukok 102nak said: Matthew 2:14 "Joseph got up, took the child and his mother and left for Egypt that night. "

How about Luke, what did he say? That Joseph and Mary, soon after what needed to be done in the Temple about Jesus, they took him back to their home in Nazareth of the Galilee. If you read the text, Jesus was only 40 days old.
That's my point. The impression any one is left with is that it seems there were two different Jesuses. If there is any thing here to be understood otherwise, please, enlighten me!

 

[ukok102nak]

ukok 102nak said: Matthew 2:14 "Joseph got up, took the child and his mother and left for Egypt that night. "

How about Luke, what did he say? That Joseph and Mary, soon after what needed to be done in the Temple about Jesus, they took him back to their home in Nazareth of the Galilee. If you read the text, Jesus was only 40 days old.
That's my point. The impression any one is left with is that it seems there were two different Jesuses. If there is any thing here to be understood otherwise, please, enlighten me!

~;> perhaps you should enlighten us first
becaused from the writtings of luke
you read the text, Jesus was only 40 days old when
they took him back to their home in Nazareth of the Galilee.

now
you kindly tell unto all what kind of writings is this that you've mentioned as we could compair it unto
the gospel of luke
if we may say so


:ty:




godbless
unto all always

 

[CG Didymus]

ukok 102nak said: Matthew 2:14 "Joseph got up, took the child and his mother and left for Egypt that night. "

How about Luke, what did he say? That Joseph and Mary, soon after what needed to be done in the Temple about Jesus, they took him back to their home in Nazareth of the Galilee. If you read the text, Jesus was only 40 days old.
That's my point. The impression any one is left with is that it seems there were two different Jesuses. If there is any thing here to be understood otherwise, please, enlighten me!

Where was Herod? Was he in Jerusalem? And 40 day old Jesus was there at the temple? And if they then went to Nazareth, was that still in Herod's jurisdiction? If not, then why go to Egypt? Oh, I'm sorry, it was to fulfill that all important prophecy... "I will call my son out of Egypt." Of course then they moved back to Nazareth to fulfill that other prophecy "He will be called a Nazarethian... or a Nazarite... or something like that. Anyway, they both start with the same letter." Wow, the way Matthew finds these prophecies, he's so assume, oops, I mean awesome.

 

[Kenny]

ukok 102nak said: Matthew 2:14 "Joseph got up, took the child and his mother and left for Egypt that night. "

How about Luke, what did he say? That Joseph and Mary, soon after what needed to be done in the Temple about Jesus, they took him back to their home in Nazareth of the Galilee. If you read the text, Jesus was only 40 days old.
That's my point. The impression any one is left with is that it seems there were two different Jesuses. If there is any thing here to be understood otherwise, please, enlighten me!

How did you come up with that?

 

[CG Didymus]

ukok 102nak said: Matthew 2:14 "Joseph got up, took the child and his mother and left for Egypt that night. "

How about Luke, what did he say? That Joseph and Mary, soon after what needed to be done in the Temple about Jesus, they took him back to their home in Nazareth of the Galilee. If you read the text, Jesus was only 40 days old.
That's my point. The impression any one is left with is that it seems there were two different Jesuses. If there is any thing here to be understood otherwise, please, enlighten me!

Both Luke and Matthew were not there when Jesus was born and either went to Egypt or to Nazareth. I wonder, where did they get their information? Since Luke says that he researched it out to get the story right, then why didn't he ever here about Jesus going to Egypt before going to Nazareth? But it's more than that, was there a census? Were there a group of Magi? If the Magi knew and other people knew that Messiah had been born, why did they forget about him for 30 years? Did they think Herod's men had killed him? Oh, and that's another thing. Why doesn't Luke mention the killing of the little boys in Bethlehem? The stories are too inconsistent. The best sources would have been Jesus, or Mary, or even the Holy Spirit. Did they relate the story of the early years of Jesus' life different? I don't get it.

 

[Kenny]

Both Luke and Matthew were not there when Jesus was born and either went to Egypt or to Nazareth. I wonder, where did they get their information?

I wasn't there when my mother and father were born, nor was I there in Pennsylvania... but you would be surprised how much I know about my parents by just asking or them sharing.

Since Luke says that he researched it out to get the story right, then why didn't he ever here about Jesus going to Egypt before going to Nazareth?

He wasn't writing a compendium, IMO, but rather that which was important to the reader he was writing to?

But it's more than that, was there a census?

Yes...
First, extant records point to censuses both in Roman provinces -- Paul Maier suggests Augustus’s three well-known censuses, recorded in his Res Gestate, may have involved Roman citizens living in Roman provinces (“The Date of the Nativity and the Chronology of Jesus’ Life,” in Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan, ed. Jerry Vardaman and Edwin M. Yamauchi [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989], p. 114; cf. Res Gestae Divi Augusti: The Achievements of the Divine Augustus, trans. P. A. Brunt and J. M. Moore [reprint ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1970], pp. 22–23). Schürer, though disagreeing that Roman citizens were involved, does admit, “n the time of Augustus censuses were taken in many provinces” (History of the Jewish People, 1:411).

(with some taking place regularly and, presumably, involving non-Roman citizens -- E.g., there is record of censuses taken in Gaul (27 B.C. and 12 B.C.), Cyrene (7 B.C.), and Egypt (9 B.C.) (Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, pp. 14–15; Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible, rev. ed. [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998], p. 305), along with Sicily (Maier, “The Date of the Nativity,” p. 114).

and even occasionally in client kingdoms. -- E.g., Apamea (Finnegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, p. 305; Maier, “The Date of the Nativity,” p. 114; Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, p. 16; Ethelbert Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, 1st American ed., trans. Richard and Clara Winston [New York: Knopf, 1967], p. 27); Nabatea (Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, p. 16; Marshall, Luke, p. 101; Stauffer, Jesus and His Story, pp. 26–27) and Palestine (i.e., Samaria; Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, p. 16; Pearson, “The Lucan Censuses, Revisited,” p. 266, esp. n. 12). Further, Tacitus is thought to refer to one such incident involving Archeleus the Younger (no relation to Herod’s son, Archeleus), a ruler of Cappadocia (Annals 6.41; cf. Maier, “The Date of the Nativity,” p. 114 and Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, p. 16). On this, however, Brown is surely correct in noting that Cappadocia was at this time a Roman province (Birth of the Messiah, p. 552; cf. Tacitus, Annals 2.42), making the analogy less useful. Brown also notes that there is nothing in Tacitus’s text that demands a Rome-imposed taxation (Birth of the Messiah, p. 552). Rather, Tacitus refers to Archeleus’s taxation as operating “in Roman fashion” (cf. also Marshall, Luke, p. 101; Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 1:414; Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law, p. 162, n.

Second, extant records indicate that Rome at times accommodated local customs in such censuses. -- . Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, p. 15; W. M. Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? A Study on the Credibility of St. Luke(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1898), pp. 186–87; D. J. Hayles, “The Roman Census and Jesus’ Birth: Was Luke Correct? Part 1: The Roman Census System,” Buried History 9 (December 1973): 126. Brown permits this as a possibility (Birth of the Messiah, p. 549). Perhaps this is further supported by Rome’s other specific accommodations to Jewish customs, namely tax exemption every Sabbath year (Josephus, Antiquities 14.202–10) and freedom of special religious observances (e.g., “Sabbaths and…their other rites,” Antiquities 14.241–43; cf. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, p. 905, n. 9). Some suggest that an Egyptian papyrus (A.D. 104) provides a parallel, for it speaks of citizens returning to their home towns for census purposes (Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, p. 15; Marshall, Luke, p. 101). Schürer, however, points out that the reference to kat' oikian (kat, oikiavn) denoted one’s place of residence and work (History of the Jewish People, 1:412–13), not place of ancestry. And Brown adds that it undoubtedly involved property taxation (Birth of the Messiah, p. 549; see also p. 396). This leads Marshall to suggest that Joseph had property in Bethlehem for which he was liable (Luke, p. 101; cf. Matt 2:11; though cf. Luke 2:7 and Brown, Birth of the Messiah, p. 549).


Third, extant records indicate that Herod’s relationship with Augustus had turned sour near the time of the census, making his client status a less formidable obstacle.
Josephus, Antiquities 16.290. Cf. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, p. 17; Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, p. 305; Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? pp. 178–85; also Porter, “The Reasons for the Lukan Census,” p. 177. Brown demurs, arguing that Caesar’s threatened demotion was never realized (Birth of the Messiah, p. 551). Similarly, based on Herod’s client status, Barnett alternatively suggests that this apographē (a.pografh) was the “machinery” established to facilitate, not taxation, but a “nation-wide oath taking” to Caesar (“Apographe and apographesthai in Luke 2:1–5,” Expository Times 85 [September 1973]: 378; cf. idem, Jesus & The Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999], pp. 98 and 107, n. 30; somewhat similarly, Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? p. 179). In fact, Barnett lists other texts that use apographē(a.pografh) similarly (Antiquities 12.31; Heb 12:23; Justin, Apology 1.34), though only the second is completely devoid of tax (or other remunerative) implications. And, he lists two other texts which speak of such an oath-taking (Antiquities 17.42; 15.369), though neither seems to prove something as formal or as empire-wide as Barnett must and Luke does suppose. Also, Barnett’s view works best if prōtē (prwth) is translated before and not first, as the latter would imply more of a connection between this and the well-known registration in A.D. 6, a registration which was for tax purposes. However, as will be seen, this translation is not to be preferred.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/01/Once-More-Quiriniuss-Census.aspx#Article

Were there a group of Magi? If the Magi knew and other people knew that Messiah had been born, why did they forget about him for 30 years?

The Magi were descendants of the time of Daniel and from the same are. I'm sorry that they didn't think about your request back then. Next time, should we ask them to log their miles and date them?

Living in the area of Herod, after being warned, I think it was wise for them to leave. Like when ISIS is hunting for Christians in an area or people who aren't Muslims.

Did they think Herod's men had killed him? Oh, and that's another thing. Why doesn't Luke mention the killing of the little boys in Bethlehem? The stories are too inconsistent.

I'll ask him why when I see him.

The best sources would have been Jesus, or Mary, or even the Holy Spirit. Did they relate the story of the early years of Jesus' life different? I don't get it.

And you know that Holy Spirit didn't help relate the stories...... how?

 

[CG Didymus]

I wasn't there when my mother and father were born, nor was I there in Pennsylvania... but you would be surprised how much I know about my parents by just asking or them sharing.

He wasn't writing a compendium, IMO, but rather that which was important to the reader he was writing to?

All of it's important. Is it a fairy tale or did this stuff really happen. We have only two gospel writers that bothered talking about the birth of Jesus. Both weren't there, so they needed to get their information from other people. Who did they talk to? Jesus? Mary? Maybe Joseph? All of them? If so, then the story should be consistent. If one person told Luke that they went to Nazareth after 40 days and some else told Matthew that the family went to Egypt, then someone's got the story wrong and the whole NT has some credibility problems.

Add to that fairy tale things like a moving star and an angel telling Mary she's going to have a baby without having "known a man", then it makes some people question whether or not the whole thing is made up or at least a lot of embellishments to spice up the story.

I realize that you need and believe the whole Bible to be true, but how far do you go believing all of it is literally true? What is strange is the supposed words of Jesus himself aren't taken literally. In Mark 16:17-18 he says that those that believe in him will be able to pick up serpents and drink deadly poison. How many believers do can do that? In another place he says by faith you say to a mountain to be moved, and it will move. In another place he says that if your eye offends you pluck it out. Who would do that to themselves? Nobody. So no, you don't take the Bible literally, you use your brains and figure out that some things aren't the literal truth. Yet, with writers that weren't eyewitnesses, you take what they say as absolute, literal and historical truth?

I know you'll have some kind of explanation. So tell me, how do you make the two stories mesh? When does the trip to Egypt take place? Does Jesus and the family still go to Nazareth after 40 days? You might as well answer my next questions too. If they went to Nazareth that soon, weren't they safe from Herod already? If they went to Nazareth and weren't safe, why would they go back south past Jerusalem and Herod to get to Egypt? Or, Luke was wrong, they did the temple dedication and went to Egypt and not to Nazareth?

 

[Kenny]

All of it's important. Is it a fairy tale or did this stuff really happen. We have only two gospel writers that bothered talking about the birth of Jesus. Both weren't there, so they needed to get their information from other people. Who did they talk to? Jesus? Mary? Maybe Joseph? All of them? If so, then the story should be consistent. If one person told Luke that they went to Nazareth after 40 days and some else told Matthew that the family went to Egypt, then someone's got the story wrong and the whole NT has some credibility problems.

Please help me with this 40 days thingy - couldn't grasp what point people were making and where they found that issue.

But I agree and don't agree. Yes, all of its important. But why do you insist that all had to say exactly the same thing? If everyone wrote "exactly" the same thing then the complaint would be "they just copied each other". Now, if someone already believes it is a myth then it won't matter what you say because they will always find fault in it.

In the book "Cold Case Christianity" - written by an expert investigator out to prove the Gospel wrong and getting saved in the process, his point was that if everybody had the exact same story, then it is contrived and memorized. So I don't agree with your premise.

Add to that fairy tale things like a moving star and an angel telling Mary she's going to have a baby without having "known a man", then it makes some people question whether or not the whole thing is made up or at least a lot of embellishments to spice up the story.

I suppose that to make it more believable, we would have to make it all possible in the natural sense (having a baby with a known man). Then again, if that were the case, we didn't need God to do anything.

I realize that you need and believe the whole Bible to be true, but how far do you go believing all of it is literally true? What is strange is the supposed words of Jesus himself aren't taken literally. In Mark 16:17-18 he says that those that believe in him will be able to pick up serpents and drink deadly poison. How many believers do can do that? In another place he says by faith you say to a mountain to be moved, and it will move. In another place he says that if your eye offends you pluck it out. Who would do that to themselves? Nobody. So no, you don't take the Bible literally, you use your brains and figure out that some things aren't the literal truth. Yet, with writers that weren't eyewitnesses, you take what they say as absolute, literal and historical truth?

It depends on your application, interpretation and omitting all other parts such as "don't tempt the Lord thy God". Paul was bitten by a serpent and the poison didn't hurt him. A friend of mine's daughter had poison in the middle of nowhere in the mountains of Guatemala. He was out, wife was with the child, no means of transport and the child's veins were turning blue because of the poison. A Guatemalan old lady knocked on her door and said God sent her. Prayed for the child (Amber) and she was instantly well. Sounds like God does have provision for getting well from poison.

Of course, "thou shalt not tempt the Lord your God" and we don't go around picking up snakes and drinking poison just to prove it. Jesus said and showed us not to in the days of temptation

As far as the eye. Please use the brain. If he meant it literally, he would have gone about gouging eyes out. Context was to keep yourself pure.

I know you'll have some kind of explanation. So tell me, how do you make the two stories mesh? When does the trip to Egypt take place? Does Jesus and the family still go to Nazareth after 40 days? You might as well answer my next questions too. If they went to Nazareth that soon, weren't they safe from Herod already? If they went to Nazareth and weren't safe, why would they go back south past Jerusalem and Herod to get to Egypt? Or, Luke was wrong, they did the temple dedication and went to Egypt and not to Nazareth?

Would be happy to. But you really have me confused about the 40 days. (sincerely). Could you tell me where that is?

 

[roger1440]

The bible tells about his birth then has one incident as a child then skips up to his adulthood? Id think that that's a huge thing to leave out.

Why do you think most people know very little about other famous people’s childhood? Here are a few examples: George Washington, Donald Trump, Hitler, Einstein, and Paul McCartney. The answer is simple, no one cares. If the childhood of Jesus was important to the message of the Gospels it would have been included. If each and every thing Jesus did with his 30 years of life was included in the Gospels it would take 30 years to read.

 

[Riders]

Why do you think most people know very little about other famous people’s childhood? Here are a few examples: George Washington, Donald Trump, Hitler, Einstein, and Paul McCartney. The answer is simple, no one cares. If the childhood of Jesus was important to the message of the Gospels it would have been included. If each and every thing Jesus did with his 30 years of life was included in the Gospels it would take 30 years to read.

There is a record of some of his child hood in the Lost books of the bible.

 

[roger1440]

There is a record of some of his child hood in the Lost books of the bible.

There are no lost books of the Bible. Do you honestly think the people who compiled the Bible misplaced a few of the books? Yeah, that’s it, years later they were found under someone’s couch.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Both Luke and Matthew were not there when Jesus was born and either went to Egypt or to Nazareth. I wonder, where did they get their information? Since Luke says that he researched it out to get the story right, then why didn't he ever here about Jesus going to Egypt before going to Nazareth? But it's more than that, was there a census? Were there a group of Magi? If the Magi knew and other people knew that Messiah had been born, why did they forget about him for 30 years? Did they think Herod's men had killed him? Oh, and that's another thing. Why doesn't Luke mention the killing of the little boys in Bethlehem? The stories are too inconsistent. The best sources would have been Jesus, or Mary, or even the Holy Spirit. Did they relate the story of the early years of Jesus' life different? I don't get it.

Well Didymus, believe me! You are on the right track of the Truth. Keep asking those wise questions and you, one day
will decide what to do. Allow me to add a few more words. The whole of the NT was written by Hellenists former disciples of Paul. None of the disciples of Jesus wrote a single page of it. They would not write against their own Faith.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Where was Herod? Was he in Jerusalem? And 40 day old Jesus was there at the temple? And if they then went to Nazareth, was that still in Herod's jurisdiction? If not, then why go to Egypt? Oh, I'm sorry, it was to fulfill that all important prophecy... "I will call my son out of Egypt." Of course then they moved back to Nazareth to fulfill that other prophecy "He will be called a Nazarethian... or a Nazarite... or something like that. Anyway, they both start with the same letter." Wow, the way Matthew finds these prophecies, he's so assume, oops, I mean awesome.

No, don't be sorry! The words of Hosea in 11:1 were a reference to Israel. "When Israel was a child, "From Egypt I called My son." (Hosea 11:1) This text is in tune with Exodus 4:22,23. "Israel is My son" said the Lord. "So, let My son go that he may serve Me." Then comes Hosea 11:1 to complete the text of Exodus 4:22,23. "From Egypt I called My son. Then came the Hellenist who wrote the gospel of Matthew and plagiarized the text of Hosea to enhance the credibility of the "Christ" of Paul. The thing can get very confused especially to those under the control of Christian preconceived notions.

 

[Ben Avraham]

~;> perhaps you should enlighten us first because from the writings of Luke you read the text, Jesus was only 40 days old when they took him back to their home in Nazareth of the Galilee. now you kindly tell unto all what kind of writings is this that you've mentioned as we could compare it unto
the gospel of luke if we may say so

The case is that Jesus was a Jew and, for having been born a boy, the mother had to remain unclean for seven days. (For a girl it would be two weeks) The mother would have to continue in the state of blood purification for 33 days. (For a girl it would be 66 days) According to the ritual, she could not enter the Sanctuary while in the condition of blood purification. So, in the case of Jesus, 7 days + 33 days would add to 40 days. That's when Joseph and Mary took Jesus into the Temple for the presentation of Jesus and for the purification of Mary. Those who could afford, had to bring a lamb to be sacrificed so that the mother could be declared clean by the High Priest. Those who could not afford as in the Case of Mary, she brought two pigeons. The quote is in Leviticus 12:1-8.