Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
By John-Henry Westen
NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.
While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."
In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.
The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."
Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".
The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."
Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."
Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."
Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."
Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."
And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."
See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/
No, He expects us to forgive before we ask for forgiveness. Your Bible version is misleading you into false theology. The original (Greek) Lord's Prayer says:
And forgive (afeV)...as we have forgiven (afhkamen)
The merciful (those who have shown mercy and forgiveness) shall receive mercy (the Beatitudes).
Are you saying that Tyndale did not use the corrupt Textus Receptus that eventually resulted in the KJV?
If everyone in Eastern Europe thought that Codex Alexandrinus or the Alexandrian Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were so pure and authoritative, then why weren't they making more Greek copies of them
They are not as "Christian" as the Church would have liked them to be. Just as Comma Johanneum found its way into the bibles of the West, the Eatsern manuscripts also have their own sellection of additions. The whole library, east and west, is corrupt! Forgeries on top of forgeries!
BTW The KJV was based upon Beza's 1598 Greek Text
The Geneva Bible was largely based on Tyndale's work, which was based on the corrupt Textus Receptus. All this then ended up being dumped into the KJV.
We are just going in circles here looking for a way out, UC.
"Your Bible version is misleading you into false theology"
No, my bible is correct theology. The Lord's Prayer was taught to His disciples later in His ministry when the disciples had been called and again after they had been commissioned and sent out to minister. They were already sons of God so could call God, Father. No one can call God, Father unless given the authority by the Father dependant upon their believing that Jesus is the Christ, not by forgiving some one else.
Good grief! I would hope that "Forgive us as we have forgiven" isn't correct theology! I don't know about you, but I want to be forgiven FAR MORE PERFECTLY than I have forgiven others!
That doesn't follow. God does everything with a purpose:
Rom 8:28-30 : 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
I don't know why God picks Fred but not Frank, but there is a reason. To think otherwise would be to diminish the power of His will and sovereignty.
Why not [baptize] at the age of 5, or 2 or infants? Who decides what is the 'right' age?
To Baptists, the right age varies from person to person. It is that age at which someone is able to give at least a rudimentary testimony, evidencing faith. The earliest I have ever witnessed was at age 6.
And Dr. E. is absolutely right when she says: "As far as baptism goes, Reformed of all persuasions do not believe in the error of baptismal regeneration. We all believe our baptism as adopted children is a sign and seal of God's grace given to those who are His. Like the Lord's Supper, our baptism brings us closer to Him." Baptism is very important, but it is not salvific.
It's like someone calling his moron a moron. It says a lot about the husband who chose her. You are saying God either made us trash or allowed us to become trash.
I don't think it's the same thing. I would agree with you if we were comparing humans with other humans. But we are not. God is so much higher that there really is no truly accurate comparison. The point remains that for "father-child", we would have to be seen as helpless young children, not grown adults.
We are helpless regardless, according to the Reformed theology. God already decided what's going to happen with all of us, so no amount of praying, crying or reading will change that.
That's right, no amount of works will save us. However, we are not helpless as believers. When the Spirit indwells, we actually have access to a great deal of power, including the power of the word.
Rom 8:31 : 31 What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us , who can be against us?
The norm is I will forgive but I won't/can't forget. God says "your sins are forgiven and I will remember them no more". I think I wan't His kind of forgiving, not mine.
And by "forgeries", you mean the Byzantine Text, right??? All those Greek Orthodox scribes and monks churning out "forgeries" right under the noses of their own metropolitans and nobody knew it or stopped them. Doesn't sound like the way to run a church, does it? Think about how long it took to make one copy of those "forgeries" --- about a year??? Who was paying the salaries of those Greek scribes in the monasteries and churches all that time???
Well, anyway thank God they were the right kind of "forgeries" --- forgeries of the Byzantine text, you know, the one that is closest to the original autographs. I don't think Paul, John, Matthew and the others minded that copies of their originals were made and disseminated to those who would actually translate them into Bibles that people could read rather than keeping them locked up in some metropolitan's ecclesiastical mausoleum.
The Geneva Bible was largely based on Tyndale's work, which was based on the corrupt Textus Receptus. All this then ended up being dumped into the KJV.
Nope --- Get your facts straight. Beza's 1598 Greek Text was the foundation for the KJV New Testament.
And we Protestants want to thank all of those Greek monks and scribes who worked day and night without pay all those years without anyone knowing it just so that Erasmus, Tyndale, Stephanus, Beza, and the KJV translators could have so many Greek manuscripts to confirm that the Greek text underlying their translation would be the right one.
We are just going in circles here looking for a way out, UC.
We're not --- You are ---
And as human beings, I think it is difficult if not impossible at times to forget. In fact, sometimes it is dangerous not to forget. We can forgive- no longer holding someone responsible. But ONLY our Heavenly Father forgives AND forgets our sins.
Should have read dangerous not to REMEMBER. Take for example an abuse victim. They can forgive the abuser, but putting themselves in a position where they can continue to be abused is not wise.
Certainly. Scribes were inserting all sorts of things, making copying errors, etc.
Nope --- Get your facts straight. Beza's 1598 Greek Text was the foundation for the KJV New Testament.
You need to get your fact straight: between 80and 90% of the wording of the Geneva Bible is Tyndale's.
You have questioned everything so far without proving a single objection. Your major one was whether Erasmus's work involved retro-translation from Latin to Greek. It did. I have backed up everything I have said while you sit and wait for me to give you facts so that you can switch gears. Well, keep your seat.
If you can't understand why it is important for us to be able to forgive, before we can ask for forgivenss, that is your loss, imo.
Amen and absolutely. Everyone who is saved is saved in the same way.
Just a simple question since it seems your bible is quite different from the one I have. How can an unbeliever have the same Father as Jesus? Jesus says when you pray say,
"Our Father, who art in heaven"
"hallowed be Thy name"
"Thy kingdom come"
"Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven"
Please explain how an unbeliever, one who has not already been forgiven, can petition for these things when he does not even understand what holiness is, what the kingdom is about, nor does he care what God's will is? All of this before he even gets to the forgiveness part and why would an unbeliever even care whether God forgives him or not?
That doesn't describe the method. If God is not partial, His selection is random. That makes God subject to chance, which we do not believe.
I don't know why God picks Fred but not Frank, but there is a reason. To think otherwise would be to diminish the power of His will and sovereignty
No one questioned His reason. We are discussiing the method of His impartiality.
And Dr. E. is absolutely right when she says: "We all believe our baptism as adopted children is a sign and seal of God's grace given to those who are His"
That's actually quite close to the Orthodox teaching (Baptism is adoption, by grace of the Holy Spirit, and one is never too old or too young to be baptized). Of course we don't know who is really adopted and who is not. Only God knows if the baptized is His or not.
The point remains that for "father-child", we would have to be seen as helpless young children, not grown adults
Well, the Bible compares them to sheep. Calling them children is implying the same essence. Only those who become Christ-like become His adopted children.
That's right, no amount of works will save us. However, we are not helpless as believers. When the Spirit indwells, we actually have access to a great deal of power, including the power of the word
FK, the way Reformed theology is presented (and I have no reason to believe it is otherwise) is basically like saying you are on a train going to a known destination.
No matter what you do on that train, even if you take controls of its engine, will change the track leading you to that destination. You may be able to speed up or slow down, but the train will get there sooner or later because 'it's on track' and the track will not change.
So, you can sleep, play games, read, cry, pray, whatever, you are not going to change the route. You are on the train because of some impartial reason. Someone put you there.
We believe God gives everyone a ticket. There are also many false trains, trying to get you to climb aboard. You must believe the One who gave you the ticket to board only His train no matter what others may say.
Not only that, but our train makes frequent stops! At those stops you can decide to change trains or wait for a faster one or even get off the train altogether! Whether you stay on the right train will depend on your faith in the One who gave you the ticket.
Who is talking about unbelievers? Did I say unbelievers recite or sing the Lord's Prayer? I am not talking about Buddhists or Muslims! I am a Christian. I talk to other Christians about Christianity, and to non-Christians who ask.
We recite the Lord's Prayer in every Divine Liturgy. Who is praying in the church if not the Christ-believers?
The Lord's Prayer says (in original Greek) "Forgive us...as we have forgiven." It doesn't get much clearer than that, BD.
Our Lord expects us to forgive our enemies so that we may ask for forgiveness for our traspasses against the Lord.
The biblical story about a man who failed to forgive someone who owed him money is clear on that as well. We must show mercy to ask for mercy, even if our enemies don't.
Sounds like those Greek scribes who copied the Byzantine text of the NT were not as diligent as the Hebrew scribes who copied the Hebrew Text of the OT. The Orthodox should have hired the Jews to make copies, don't you think??? or maybe the scribes who copied the Byzantine Text accurately thoughout history were Jews, Christian Jews or Jewish Christians.
You need to get your fact straight: between 80and 90% of the wording of the Geneva Bible is Tyndale's.
But we're talking about the KJV not the Geneva Bible, and the KJV used Beza's 1598 Greek Text for its translation.
You have questioned everything so far without proving a single objection. Your major one was whether Erasmus's work involved retro-translation from Latin to Greek. It did. I have backed up everything I have said while you sit and wait for me to give you facts so that you can switch gears. Well, keep your seat.
Oh please, get a grip. We agree on much of what you have said. However you are overstating your case. Most of Erasmus's First Edition of the Greek Text came from Greek manuscripts and you know that because you have already provided a list of five of them and there were others besides those five. And he used other manuscripts to improve on that one for his Second Edition.
It is well known that he did have to translate the Vulgate back into the Greek for the latter part of the Book of Revelation in his first edition, but let's get real, to say that his entire translation was a retro-translation when only a few verses came from the Latin is an exaggeration of monstrous proportions. Anyway Jerome's Latin Vulgate, since it was based upon Alexandrian Texts, would not have translated back into the Byzantine Text of Erasmus' Greek Text, right??? So your "retro" theory falls flat on its face.
And the fact remains that Erasmus's Greek Text was improved upon, revised, corrected, confirmed by Stephanus and later Beza and it was Beza's 1598 Greek Text that was used by KJV translators for their English NT.
You guys yap about "tradition" but the fact remains that the Byzantine Text that underlies the KJV is the traditional text of the Orthodox Church which the Greek scribes and monks knew and transmitted and sent to the West --- a fact of history that the modern day Orthodox seem to have ignored in their disdain for those big bad Protestants.
You haven't answered my question: Just when did the Orthodox Church abandon the Byzantine Text [also known as the Antiochian Text] and adopt the Codex Alexandrinus Text for their scriptures with the Byzantine text in the Gospels but the Alexandrian Text for the Epistles and Acts???. Could you search that out for me and tell me what Church Council made that decision and when???
We know that the Roman Church decided upon Jerome's Latin Vulgate for its official Bible, and that the Council of Jamnia fixed the Hebrew Text that was used by Origen, Jerome, and the Masoretes, but just when did the Greek Orthodox officially adopt Codex Alexandrinus as its official bible???? When was that???
I don't think it had top do with diligence, or lack of it. Christianity had an agenda, which started when it was obvious that the Church will not make it in Israel. The more "Christianized" scriptures enjoyed favor of the Church.
But we're talking about the KJV not the Geneva Bible, and the KJV used Beza's 1598 Greek Text for its translation
My understanding is that KJV is based mostly on Textus Receptus. The Geneva Bible is based on Beza's Greek.
In either case, the problem with the so-called Majority Text (Byzantine-type) is that it is 'too polished,' redacted, etc. compared to the Alexandrain-type.
My understanding is that the Greek Orthodox Church uses Byzantine-type for the Gospels and Alexandrian-type for subsequent books, which corresponds more or less to Codex Alexandrinus.
I don't think there was ever an official 'switch' after C. Alexandrinus came out in the 5th century. C. Alexandrinus was never a pure Byzantine-type canon.
The only reason the Byzantine-type was instrumental in make its way into the Protestant Bible is its numerical superiority. As you probably know, the Byzantine-type text represents over 90% of extant Greek biblical text.
However you are overstating your case
How many errors are acceptable in the "word of God?" Six, ten, one hundred...? Erasmus did what he did because he wanted to beat a deadline. He cut corners, even admitted so, just to meet the deadline.
Later on he accepted a forgery (Comma) as 'genuine' Greek text. One must seriously question his selectivity and ethics of 'means justified the end' approach. It is certainly unfitting for a Bible.
The first edition of KJV came out with admitted cornucopia of errors, along with the authors' admission that their work was not inspired. Why would such a Bible, based on Textus Receptus, a highly corrupted collection of already doctored Greek sources, become a 'standard" is beyond me.
As an Orthodox Christian I disagree with the Greek Church's continued adherence to Byzantine-type sources and to the KJV as its English 'equivalent.' But to do otherwise would mean the Church was wrong. It will never happen. Eventually, it may silently 'morph' into more neutral, Alexandrian-type sources, but never overtly or publicly.
My understanding is that this was a judgment call. It had been in the Old Latin texts, and so the question was: How did it get there so early and where would it have come from?
Since the Old Latin had been originally translated from the Greek vulgate beginning around 150 AD, it was thought to have been in the Greek vulgate at that time. Then about 70 years later when the Sabellian heresy was plaguing the East around 220 AD, it was believed to have been removed from the text to quell the heresy, since this verse was often quoted by Sabellians as their proof text. But since the Sabellian heresy was not as pronounced in the West, it survived in the Old Latin bibles.
It is cited by Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Jerome. Though Jerome did not put it in his Latin Vulgate, but it was put into the Vulgate around 800 AD from the Old Latin. It was included in Erasmus' 2nd edition and subsequent bibles including the KJV because of its long useage in the Latin-speaking church --- not deception or fraud or forgery, but tradition and a judgment call.
You have that backwards, Kosta. Those whom God has adopted from before the foundation of the world will become Christ-like, at a time of His choosing.
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. " -- Acts 13:48
the way Reformed theology is presented (and I have no reason to believe it is otherwise) is basically like saying you are on a train going to a known destination.
Every man's life is like riding a bicycle on board a train. We think we're peddling to our destination all on our own, but the train is heading where God intends.
Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." -- Acts 17:-28"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
We believe God gives everyone a ticket.
No one can buy a ticket to heaven for themselves and all men are heading for a brick wall without a ticket. But God ordained from before the foundation of the world to freely give some men a ticket bought with the blood of Christ and that ticket will take them all the way home.
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." -- 1 Peter 2:7-10"Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
You got that right.
There was nothing in me that desired Christ. Had the Holy Spirit not grabbed me by the throat and brought me into the Kingdom kicking and screaming, I would be lost forever.
There is nothing in me that would trigger this conversion. Nothing that made me worthy. It was all that God's eternal purpose of election might stand.
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.