Posted on 04/09/2016 10:30:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Young Messiah (TYM) is a film at once entertaining and endearing. An admittedly fictionalized imagining of Jesus as a seven year-old boy, this movie’s treatment of its subject matter is eminently respectful.
Not everyone feels this way, however.
Dave Armstrong, a “professional Catholic apologist,” concedes in Pathos that “there are several aspects of [the] development of the human knowledge of Jesus…that are legitimate and perfectly orthodox [.]” It is, though, unorthodox and, hence, illegitimate to depict Christ as “growing into… awareness” of His identity, for the Church has affirmed for centuries that, from conception, Jesus knew that He was God (italics added).
Armstrong quotes Neil Madden who, writing at Conservative Review, makes the following remark:
“’The Young Messiah’” depicts Mary and Joseph as having more knowledge about Jesus’s true nature than He does. This is a problem. If Jesus was always God, begotten and not made, surely wouldn’t an omnipotent God know who he was as he was learning and growing in preparation for His mission here on Earth?”
Though Armstrong doesn’t seem to notice it, he and Madden are actually making two distinct points. Armstrong’s point is that Jesus, in His humanity, knew that He was God from the time that He was conceived. Madden, on the other hand, refers to Jesus in His divinity.
Doubtless, this controversy stems from nothing less than the mystery of the uniquely Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, the doctrine that God became a human being in Jesus: Christ is “true God and true man,” fully divine and fully human.
Two replies to TYM’s critics are in the coming.
First, if Neil Madden is correct that Jesus, being “an omnipotent God” must have always known His own identity “as he was learning and growing in preparation for His mission here on Earth,” then there would’ve been no “learning and growing in preparation” for that mission, for “an omnipotent God” would’ve had already known all that could be known about everything and anything.
On the other hand, if the “omnipotence” of Christ in His divinity is compatible with Christ in His humanity coming to learn and grow in some matters, then it is, in principle, compatible with Christ as fully human coming to learn and grow in all matters.
Secondly, unlike Madden, Armstrong alludes to Christ in His humanity, Christ at conception. Yet even here it is a mistake to think that if Christ knew from conception that He was God that He could not have grown into an awareness of His identity.
The two propositions do not necessarily contradict one another—as long as “knowledge” isn’t construed in an unduly shallow sense.
From at least the time of Plato throughout the centuries until Freud and beyond, a great many thinkers (and non-thinkers alike) have been of the mind that knowledge can be explicit and implicit, conscious and unconscious. Examples abound to suggest that this position has something going for it.
Take, for instance, what is known as “the principle of non-contradiction,” the principle that a thing can’t be and not be in the same respect and at the same time, that “(A) and (non-A)” must be false. Though most people outside of philosophy and logic classes have never heard of this principle, everyone knows it, for it is the most fundamental law of all thought.
Students must “grow into an awareness” of the principle of non-contradiction. And yet they’ve known it all of their lives.
If knowing could consist in human subjects growing into an awareness of (at least some of) what they already implicitly know, then how much more fitting would such an approach be regarding the God-Man? Consider: As God, Christ would had to have known all things from eternity. As a man, Christ would have to have grown and developed like all humans—even if that knowledge was already in Him from conception.
In conclusion, TYM’s portrayal of Jesus as learning His divine identity from Joseph and Mary is compatible with the position that, in His divinity, He always knew His identity. It’s also compatible with the idea that Christ, in His humanity, knew His identity from conception.
The only position that the thesis of TYM obviously contradicts is the thesis that Jesus, in His humanity, or from conception, was fully conscious of his divine nature, for if this thesis was true, then it would’ve indeed been logically impossible for Jesus to have grown into a consciousness of His identity.
The Young Messiah doesn’t deviate at all from theological orthodoxy when it comes to the question of Jesus’s knowledge of His own divine identity.
Jesus was human and as such, his brain would develop like every other human’s, and the older he got, the more he would understand his role as God/Man come to save us.
I see nothing wrong with this movie and would see it.
I agree.
That kid needs a haircut.
Not Everyone Agrees On The Young Messiah.
Coincidentally, not everyone agrees on The Bible.
lol. That a unique observation.
Thought this was about Cruz
You mean like atheists?
1. From his parents, who could have told of Gabriel's message (and Elizabeth's and Simeon's and Anna's), although reliance on such otherwise-untested human sources would be far from definitive.
2. From the Scriptures which predicted his advent, even to the time, place, and circumstances--today, we still recognize this as definitive and conclusive.
3. From God directly. Although we have no New Testament Scriptural support for such communication in His youth, who can doubt it took place, especially once He saw Himself predicted in scripture?
Whether you like the movie or not it’s all speculative conjecture. Nothing is written about his early youth because it is unknown. The earliest known age was when he was twelve and he spoke with the elders. It may be a nice story but that is all it is.
Agreed. Kids in those days wore their hair longish only because they went a long time between hair cuts. But occasionally mom or dad would cut off a hunk with a knife.
You’re quite correct and for those reasons I’ll be foregoing the “pleasure” of watching this film. Still, you have to give the filmmakers at least this much credit: this young Semite doesn’t have blue eyes and blonde hair. So that’s something...
I liked the depiction of Joseph and Mary in the film, but the tradition is so mixed. For all we know, Joseph could be been a widower with older children who wedded Mary for her dowry. That is the theme of the pro-gospel of St. James, a kind of “novel” written in the 2nd century based on one tradition.
It's a little more than that, I think. Starting with why the movie was made at all. For example, is "someone" worried about His return?
Since we're in Movie Theology Land, I'll remark that I recently watched Da Vinci Code again. Yeah, yeah, I know, so save it. But interestingly, in that movie it's put forth that "some theories" say the Messiah doesn't come here even knowing who He is at first. Which, obviously, correlates with the entire theme of the movie of this thread.
In India it is taught that the human body is surrounded by three "koshas" or sheaths, each corresponding to a type of divine ignorance. It is further said that even a perfect incarnation of God has at least one, in order to incarnate, and that another spiritual master has to remove it for them so they can remember who they are. Like, for example, John the Baptist baptizing Jesus, while still freely admitting he was less than Jesus.
In other words, the whole forgetting/remembering thing formalized into religious theory.
51 Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.
I liked the movie a lot and see nothing wrong with it and I have studied Catholic Theology/philosophy.
The whole Trinity thing is a mystery for a reason. We will NEVER on this earth have a mind that is able to comprehend God—ever.
All we can do is put out logical scenarios and they admit is is fictionized-—and it is a very clever, interesting premise. Thoroughly entertaining.
I just didn’t like how effeminate they made Jesus although he came off more masculine in the movie.
I like a muscular (manly) Jesus where everything reeks of “boy” or “man” (I raised four boys and a girl and you would NEVER confuse the boys for girls for a second-— at that age).
The Postmodernists want to make women into men and interchangeable to destroy the Patriarchy and Christianity, so I find it annoying when they try to confuse the audience or force you to think “girl” when you are looking at a boy-—but this “boy” does come off more “boy” than the stills portray—to my relief.
The feminization of Jesus-—is what troubles me more than everything. It is what destroyed and emasculated the Catholic Church by VII—that Kumbaya (New Age) “Jesus”—this removing of the Masculine and destruction of the (true) Feminine (to make women into men) which blurs the natural instincts and roles in little children—especially warps the children with broken homes).
Emasculation is the destruction of the whole Catholic belief System-—which is based on the Masculine and Feminine (Bride of Christ), etc. Natural Law Theory is based on Reality/Natural Law-—like the Catholic Canon....and you never destroy or pervert Natural Law (God’s Works/Design/Science) and make women into men....etc. They are doing that in our public schools to confuse children and destroy their natural desires and worldview-—to flip it to the irrational and warped—so they are slaves for life (Vice (irrationality/removed from Truth/God) creates Slaves for the State only).
I find it always curios how Jesus is depicted in films and art these days. There’s that Christian theme park (FL?) that has some actor looking like that famous painting of Jesus knocking on a door.
The reason these stories weren't included in the Bible is much of it cannot be corroborated elsewhere and some of it doesn't match the known accounts of what God portrays in Scripture. I'm sure Mary and Joesph knew of His uniqueness because they were visited by angels and told who He was. When Jesus went to Canaan for the wedding, when asked to make wine, He said it was not yet His time. His life was planned out to the letter in the OT and this wasn't covered. His ministry started when John baptized Him and he went to the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights. To give life to a dead child before He started His ministry is just fiction. Jesus was a child and needed to learn Scripture, learn to walk and talk, and just grow up as any other child. There are stories of Him speaking in the manger as an infant. For me, that takes from His humanity. The whole story of Jesus is to show that he was FULLY man and fully God when he was murdered. If He was just God from birth, one might say It was easy for Him to die on the cross for He was God and could dull the pain and remove His humanity from the scene. The whole point of His prayer in the Garden was to show His humanity. He was having a "crisis of faith" asking God to take the cup from Him, just as we will when enemy has your head on a chopping block to renounce the King of Kings. Jesus was a man, filled with the Spirit that never did anything without the Father showing Him what to do. This demonstrates that we could mimic Jesus if we would just surrender to God. The whole prayer in John 17 was to make us like Him to the Father. Our problem is always keeping our humanity and rejecting the divine. Jesus said we would do greater exploits than Him. Is anyone healing the blind and raising the dead in your church? It's only because we haven't "died to the flesh" yet and we don't do things like they are done in heaven here on earth. Most Christians even deny supernatural healing and other gifts exists today. Why even bother to pray for a sick person if you believe that's true?
I don't mind seeing a movie that is fiction, but the problem lies in others seem to latch on to visual things and somehow it becomes what we call today a "meme". If repeated often enough, it seems to evolve into fact. It's hard enough to get people to read their Bibles today without introducing fiction in the mix. Just as we go watch movies that are allegedly "facts", taken right from Scripture, inevitably there is "license" taken to make some obscure point the writer wants to make. Just as it's easier to listen to an audio book, watching a movie that supposedly gives you the facts will cement falsehoods in the person's mind that may never leave if they don't pursue the truth.
I guess it’s really unimportant the history or lineage of Joseph but it is important knowing Mary’s who can be traced back in the OT.
If Jesus could do miracles as a child, why didn’t he raise Joesph when he died? answer: It was before His ministry started.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.