'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

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."

And your attempts to avoid dealing with what Paul wrote will not make it go away either. Sorry, but I began this "there is no faith alone" by stating James 2 as my evidence. You answer James by going to Paul? And I am having avoidance issues???

I didn't avoid what James said, I addressed it and explained it, even using footnotes from a RCC bible to show that there was no contradiction between the two.

You, on the other hand, have not addressed what Paul wrote in Rom.4

Listen. I certainly CAN explain what Paul wrote. I have done so many times on this very forum. However, the Bible clearly explains the issue in James. Why waste energy trying to prove something from Paul when it is so clearly written in James??? Why waste my time when James says it in ONE SENTENCE that you are wrong!

LOL!

Well, you aren't even explaining what James said, so I know you do not know that Paul is saying.

Here is another reason. Here is what Peter says regarding St. Paul... "...our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16

And what Peter is addressing there is not the salvation Gospel that Paul preached, since he preached it also (Acts 15), but the mystery of the one Body, which was revealed only to Paul (Eph.3), the joining of Jew and Gentile together into the Bride of Christ (Eph.5:30).

That is what Peter was addressing on the difficult things that Paul spoke of, since even Peter got chewed out by Paul for rejecting his Gentile brothers in Gal.2.

Why try to argue from difficult Scriptures that can be twisted, even during the time of Peter, when Scriptures MORE CLEARLY settles the issue by VERY CLEARLY AND FORCEFULLY SAYING THAT ONE IS NOT SAVED BY FAITH ALONE in James!!!!

James never says a word about salvation!

All it says is that someones faith is dead, not that has anything to do with salvation.

That is your misinterpretation of salvation.

James is speaking of fruit bearing, and if the branch bears no fruit it is taken away (Jn.15:2), if a person loses his faith (dead faith) Christ remains faithful (2Tim.2:13)

All you are doing is "twisting Scriptures to YOUR DESTRUCTION". That's right. Your false teachings is leading you and anyone who follows you to destruction. That can't be a good thing...

No, it is you is rejecting the clear teaching of Paul by running to James.

Nowhere does it state that anything is ever added to faith.

Even your own Catechism (which I posted on another post) states that all works are God's works that come from faith

Give up the charade and the smoke and mirrors. Read the Bible and follow it when it clearly says we are not saved by faith alone. ADJUST YOUR INTERPRETATIONS OF PAUL! Paul and James share the same inspiration - God. God is not a God of confusion. Thus, when God clearly tells us we are not saved by faith alone - and God tells us that Paul's writings CAN be twisted and distorted, WHY ON EARTH DO YOU KEEP TRYING TO GO BACK TO PAUL WHILE IGNORING JAMES?

Paul states very clearly that no works are involved in salvation, that is all of faith, that it might be of grace.

James is not even speaking of salvation, but is speaking of showing ones faith, as your own RCC bible notes state.

You are thinking that a 'dead faith' means someone is lost but a dead faith just means that the person has stopped producing fruit and is in danger of losing his physical life (1Jn.5) and rewards (1Cor.3,3Jn.). He is not going to lose his eternal soul, since what was implanted in him at the point of salvation was immortal (1Pe.1:23), the word of God, which 'liveth and abideth forever'. Thus, since it (the Born Again believer) cannot die, even if the person's faith does.

There can be only one answer - you can't admit you are wrong.

LOL!

Search the scriptures! (Acts 17:11)

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? James 2:20

And don't you know that doesn't mean one is lost?

Where does James say that one is lost if one has a 'dead faith'?

Where does Paul say that one has to perform works in order to be saved?

Both state that works are a result of salvation, but do not add to it or keep it.

What more do you want? These verses are the "two by four to the head"! I have other things to do. Please do not bother me with your false teachings that twist things and bring people to their destruction. I am not in the mood to argue about such obvious issues...

What you mean is that you do not want to deal with the truth.

You are under conviction.

I think these posts are going to be repeated back to you at a future date and you are going to have to explain to Christ Himself why you resisted the truth when it was presented to you.

I will pray for you that you realize that God's Word tells us that we are saved by a living faith, one with works of love

I will pray for you to open your eyes to what the scripture says regarding salvation, that it is an event, not a process.

That love works from the new life implanted in you, but that life is immortal and cannot die as clearly stated by Scripture.

One's faith can die by quenching or grieving the Holy Spirit constantly (Eph.4,1Thess5), but the seed that God implanted in those who accept the free gift of eternal salvation cannot die (1Pe.1:23)

First, the Apostles never used the LXX, since it was not in existance

Well, sorry, most scholars would disagree with you.

Second, the Protestant view on the Fathers is that they are only to regarded when they follow the Scriptures...Yours is when they follow the Church.

The Church does not follow Scripture? One could also say that Protestants regard others only if they personally agree with their interpretation of the Scripture.

Our final authority is the 66 Books, yours is of consensus of men

The 66 books you follow are put together by a consensus of men!

Chrysostom said regarding scripture, that every word was pure, directly from the Prophets and Apostles, and when one read the scriptures, it was as if they were there speaking directly to them

Yeah, but who decides what is scripture?

He placed all tradition as being subject to the scriptures

...which were decided by a consensus of men.

You flatly rejected what he said on the subject

First, we don't have any originals (not even original copies of the originals!), so we can't state that reading the scriptures is like the Apostles and prophets speaking to us directly.

Chrysostom did that on his own assumption, and so do others who agree with him. It's their choice, their personal belief based on nothing but hope, not on fact.

Second, the books of the Bible are anonymous. Ignatius and Papias are the first people (2nd century) who are identifying certain writings with "Matthew."

There is an awful lot of assuming in that statement of John Chrysostom, none of which is historically factual.

James doesn't disagree with Paul's view of salvation, since James isn't talking about salvation Well, I agree that Paul and James do not disagree, but James IS talking about salvation. It is YOU who are having issues... What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? James 2:14 Why can't you just read what is there? What is the problem? Why are you so stubborn about this? Isn't it clear that James IS talking about salvation????

And where does James say that he is talking about salvation?

That is a theological assumption on your part which comes from a flawed view of sanctification.

James is speaking of losing one's physical life not eternal life.

We see that from what the Lord says in Jn.15:2, every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away .

This view is again repeated in 1Jn.5:16 with the 'sin unto death' and we saw an example of it in Acts 5.

James never even refers to eternal life, he is speaking of what is seen of men.

A 'dead faith' is a non-productive faith and is not evident to men and thus, does not glorify God.

Moreover, the word 'justify' also has the connotation in English of 'to show to be just, right or warranted.

James is using that word in the legal sense, while Paul uses it in the theological sense.

You need to remember that revelation is from God - not from our own private interpretations. WE need to change, not God.

It is you who is using private interpretations, not comparing scripture with scripture,but imposing your incorrect RCC theology on the passage.

A text without a context is a pretext.

When Peter speaks of 'private interpretation' he is not speaking of individuals making judgment on scriptures, but taking verses out of context and alone.

First, the Apostles never used the LXX, since it was not in existance Well, sorry, most scholars would disagree with you.

Well, most scholars would be wrong, the scriptures and the historical evidence show otherwise.

You cannot prove one quote in the New Testament came from the LXX.

Second, the Protestant view on the Fathers is that they are only to regarded when they follow the Scriptures...Yours is when they follow the Church. The Church does not follow Scripture? One could also say that Protestants regard others only if they personally agree with their interpretation of the Scripture.

Your Church is a consensus of men over the centuries.

You add tradition to scripture and thus nullify it (Mk.7-7-13).

For the Protestant his final authority is the word of God and that is where the final appeal is to.

We don't make our appeals to tradition or what any man has said unless it is supported by the scriptures.

Our final authority is the 66 Books, yours is of consensus of men The 66 books you follow are put together by a consensus of men!

No, it was put composed by men under the control of the Holy Spirit.

And the evidence of the correctness of the Books was attested to by Him.

Chrysostom said regarding scripture, that every word was pure, directly from the Prophets and Apostles, and when one read the scriptures, it was as if they were there speaking directly to them Yeah, but who decides what is scripture?

God does.(2Tim.3:16, Heb.4:12)

God reveals what is true to the believer through the Holy Spirit (Gen.40:8) and by comparing scripture with scripture (2Pe.1:20)

He placed all tradition as being subject to the scriptures ...which were decided by a consensus of men.

No, the scriptures were from God and recognized by men.

You flatly rejected what he said on the subject First, we don't have any originals (not even original copies of the originals!), so we can't state that reading the scriptures is like the Apostles and prophets speaking to us directly.

What we have is a perfect preservation of what God wanted us to have (Ps.12:6-7)

Chrysostom did that on his own assumption, and so do others who agree with him. It's their choice, their personal belief based on nothing but hope, not on fact.

Well, nevertheless, Luther's view and the Protestant view is a return to that view held by a revered Greek Church Father, not a novel 16th idea.

Second, the books of the Bible are anonymous. Ignatius and Papias are the first people (2nd century) who are identifying certain writings with "Matthew."

So now you are denying the authorship anbd validly of the book of Matthew?

There is an awful lot of assuming in that statement of John Chrysostom, none of which is historically factual.

No, Chrysostom had it right and it is you who are assuming that God can't preserve what He gave to men to have, His perfect words.

Well, most scholars would be wrong, the scriptures and the historical evidence show otherwise

What historical evidence do you have about any of the scriptures? There is not a single original to be found. It's accepted on faith.

You cannot prove one quote in the New Testament came from the LXX

As much as you can prove that the five books of Moses came from Moses.

For the Protestant his final authority is the word of God and that is where the final appeal is to

No, it's what he considers to be the word of God. Again, it defaults to a man. In which case I would rather go with a consensus. The Protestants claim that what they believe is equal to the word of God. What proof is there of that?

No, it was put composed by men under the control of the Holy Spirit

And you can't prove it. First, not a single father agreed fully on what constitutes Christian canon and, second, it took a consensus to finalize it (and even then it wasn't fully accepted by all, Revelation of John being one case in point!). If the HS had anything to do with, it was in the Church as a whole and not in any individual father.

And the evidence of the correctness of the Books was attested to by Him

What "evidence" (proof)?

What we have is a perfect preservation of what God wanted to have

"Proving" scriptures with scriptures — on faith alone. Preconception is not a proof.

So now you are denying the authorship and validly of the book of Matthew?

I am merely stating the fact that it is unsigned (anonymous) and that the earliest 'proof' of that authorship comes from two men (Ignatius and papias) who were not inspired to the best of my knowledge, in the second century AD, anywhere from 55 to 65 yrears after the fact, by simply saying that it is!

You are placing your trust in two men who offer no proof, factual or spiritual, whatsoever that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.

No, Chrysostom had it right and it is you who are assuming that God can't preserve what He gave to men to have, His perfect words

Oh, God certainly can, but men can't.

Well, most scholars would be wrong, the scriptures and the historical evidence show otherwise What historical evidence do you have about any of the scriptures? There is not a single original to be found. It's accepted on faith.

No, we have more historical evidence for the Old and New Testament then any other ancient work.

We do not need the 'originals' to be able to reconstruct the correct text with manuscript evidence.

We have noted how carefully the Jews copied their texts.

The TR differs very little between the various manuscripts (unlike the Critical text)

But, yes we do accept on faith the providential preservation of God's word.

You cannot prove one quote in the New Testament came from the LXX As much as you can prove that the five books of Moses came from Moses.

Sure I can, I can quote Christ who stated Moses did in Mt. 8:4; Jn. 5:46; 7:19.

For the Protestant his final authority is the word of God and that is where the final appeal is to No, it's what he considers to be the word of God. Again, it defaults to a man. In which case I would rather go with a consensus. The Protestants claim that what they believe is equal to the word of God. What proof is there of that?

In other words, you are doubting the word of God but are replacing it with the consensus of men.

No, it was put composed by men under the control of the Holy Spirit And you can't prove it. First, not a single father agreed fully on what constitutes Christian canon and, second, it took a consensus to finalize it (and even then it wasn't fully accepted by all, Revelation of John being one case in point!). If the HS had anything to do with, it was in the Church as a whole and not in any individual father.

The entire Canon was accepted by the Body of Christ (the church), long before any 'official' recognition of it occurred.

And the evidence of the correctness of the Books was attested to by Him What "evidence" (proof)?

The proof is in the fruit that it produced.

Christ attested to the complete Old Testament (minus the Apocrypha books) and by the end of the 1st century, we had the complete New Testament Books, the same books we have today and the same that your church accepts as well.

What we have is a perfect preservation of what God wanted to have "Proving" scriptures with scriptures — on faith alone. Preconception is not a proof.

Well, the only way you know of the birth, death, and Resurrection of Christ is through those Scriptures, so you have to accept them.

What you want is the 'freedom' to accept what you want and reject the rest.

So now you are denying the authorship and validly of the book of Matthew? I am merely stating the fact that it is unsigned (anonymous) and that the earliest 'proof' of that authorship comes from two men (Ignatius and papias) who were not inspired to the best of my knowledge, in the second century AD, anywhere from 55 to 65 yrears after the fact, by simply saying that it is!

The Greek heading tell us who the author is, just as it does Hebrews.

You are placing your trust in two men who offer no proof, factual or spiritual, whatsoever that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.

No, I am not concerned with those two men at all, I have a King James Bible that gives me the correct authorship, coming from the correct Greek text, with the authors name on it.

No, Chrysostom had it right and it is you who are assuming that God can't preserve what He gave to men to have, His perfect words Oh, God certainly can, but men can't.

God certainly did and used men to do so, just as He used men to get the Originals to us.

It is obvious from 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that the Apostles viewed the Scriptures as sufficient for faith and practice.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be PERFECT, THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

The term "perfect" here is not used in the sense of sinless perfection, but in the sense of completion and sufficiency. THE QUESTION WHICH FOLLOWS IS HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE BIBLE, WITH ITS 66 BOOKS, CONTAINS THE COMPLETE SCRIPTURES WHICH ARE ABLE TO MAKE THE MAN OF GOD PERFECT?

FIRST, THE APOSTLES WERE PROMISED INSPIRATION FOR THE COMPLETION OF SCRIPTURE. The Lord Jesus Christ promised the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth and that He would shew them all the things they needed to know.

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you" (John 16:12-15).

In fulfillment of Christ's promise the New Testament revelation was completed by the Apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The apostolic writings which formed the New Testament Scriptures were accepted as Scripture by the first century churches. The Apostle Peter, speaking to the Christians about Paul's writings, referred to them as Scripture and placed them on par with the Old Testament prophets. "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:15,16). The Apostles knew that the Lord had promised them inspiration (John 16:12-15), and they knew that they were receiving revelation. Consider, for example, Paul's statement to the churches in Galatia:

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11,12). Consider the words of Paul to the church at Thessalonia:

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when YE RECEIVED THE WORD OF GOD WHICH YE HEARD OF US, YE RECEIVED IT NOT AS THE WORD OF MEN, BUT AS IT IS IN TRUTH, THE WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

The Thessalonian believers knew that Paul had given them the WORD OF GOD!

Consider, also, the words of Peter to the Christians in the first century churches:

"This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour" (2 Peter 3:12).

Peter reminded the Christians that the commandments of the Apostles are on par with the Old Testament prophets. Obviously this was something which the Apostles were careful to teach to all of the churches. They could not have been put in remembrance of something which they had not already been taught. The Christians of the first century were a close-knit community. It is ridiculous to think that they did not know these things, that they did not recognize that the Apostles were writing Scripture and that they did not receive the New Testament epistles as such. It was left for the modernists of the 19th and 20th centuries to deny these things and to claim that the forming of the New Testament canon was an almost haphazard thing which did not occur until centuries after the Apostles.

SECOND, WE KNOW THE BIBLE CONTAINS THE COMPLETE WORD OF GOD BECAUSE WE ARE TOLD THE FAITH WAS ONCE DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS.

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for THE FAITH WHICH WAS ONCE DELIVERED UNTO THE SAINTS" (Jude 3).

"The faith" refers to the body of New Testament truth delivered by the Apostles through Holy Spirit inspiration. The term "once delivered" tells us that this body of truth was given during one particular period of time and was completed. It refers to the New Testament Scriptures. This verse refutes the idea that the Christian faith has been progressively given through the Roman Catholic Church.

THIRD, A SEAL WAS PLACED ON THE FINAL CHAPTER OF THE FINAL BOOK OF THE BIBLE, SIGNIFYING ITS COMPLETION AND WARNING EVERY MAN NOT TO ADD TO OR SUBTRACT FROM IT.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Rev. 22:18,19).

Those who claim to have a new revelation or a tradition equal to the Bible fall under the judgment described in this passage. The book of Revelation completes the Holy Scriptures.

FOURTH, THE COMPLETED CANON OF SCRIPTURE WAS RECOGNIZED IN THE SECOND CENTURY. Christian leaders in the second century recognized the completed canon of the New Testament and accepted the apostolic writings as Holy Scripture on equal authority with the Old Testament. Irenaeus (125-192), for example, in his writings which still exist, made 1,800 quotations from the New Testament books and used them "in such a way as to imply that they had for some time been considered as of unquestioned authority" (Herbert Miller, General Biblical Introduction, p. 140). Irenaeus accepted the four Gospels, and four only, as Scripture. Clement of Alexandria (150-217) quotes from and acknowledges the four Gospels and most other New Testament books, calling them "divine Scriptures." Tertullian (150-220) made 7,200 citations from the New Testament books and accepted them as Scripture. The Latin Itala translation which was made in the second century "contained all the books that now make up the New Testament" (John Hentz, History of the Lutheran Version, p. 59). A list of New Testament Scriptures dating to the latter half of the second century was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, Italy, in 1740. This second-century list contained all of the books of the New Testament canon (Ibid., p. 60).

Thus the completed Greek New Testament Scriptures were being circulated and accepted by God's people under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Many of the modernistic textual scholars who write today about these early centuries deny, or totally overlook, the working of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration and canonicity of the New Testament. The Apostles were not left to their own devices to transcribe the record of Christ, nor were the early Christians left to their own devices to recognize which writings were Scripture. The words of the New Testament are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ through Holy Spirit inspiration, and the Lord's sheep know the voice of their Good Shepherd and can discern His voice from false shepherds (John 10:4,5,27).

FIFTH, THE PASSAGES WHICH URGE CHRISTIANS TO FOLLOW TRADITION REFER TO THE INSPIRED TRADITION GIVEN BY THE APOSTLES, NOT THE UNINSPIRED TRADITIONS OF MEN WHO HAVE FOLLOWED AFTER THEM. Tradition is used in two ways in the New Testament. First it refers to apostolic doctrine given by inspiration (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6). The churches are bound to obey this tradition as it is recorded in the New Testament Scriptures. Second, tradition refers to uninspired teachings which religious teachers attempt to add to the Word of God and by which they attempt to bind the lives of men (Matt. 15:1-6; Mk. 7:9-13; Col. 2:8). In this sense, tradition is soundly condemned.

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:9). "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye" (Mark 7:13).

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Colossians 2:8).

We can praise the Lord that He HAS given us a completed revelation and that we are not dependent upon extra-biblical prophecies, visions, voices, tongues, or traditions. In the Bible we have everything the churches need for faith and practice.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns237.html

And where does James say that he is talking about salvation? Can you read? I posted said verse and bolded it for you several times already. Read James 2:14 very carefully. What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? The rhetorical question is ALWAYS answered by a "NO!"

Can faith save him from what?

You are assuming that what James is talking about is salvation, because that fits your preconceived RCC notions.

In fact, James just asks if faith alone can save a person but never says that he is referring to eternal salvation.

Faith alone can't save one from physical death since Jn.15:2 states that if one is not producing fruit, God removes him physically.

When the Jewish spies came back from spying on that generation believed the negative report, that generation died because of its lack of faith (Num.13-14, Heb.4:2) Moreover, as I stated, (but you choose to ignore), a person can lose his faith as stated clearly in 2Tim.2:13 but Christ remains faithful.

Had Rehab not acted on her faith, she would have died along with the rest of the people of Joshua.

Her faith with actions saved not only her own life but that of her family as well.

It had nothing to do with her eternal soul.

Nowhere does James state that he is talking about a persons eternal salvation, only what is seen being produced by faith.

Now, if you are interested in the Word of God, you will adjust your theology accordingly. If you prefer to wallow in your obstinancy, please do not bother me anymore on the subject. It is clear that you are merely being argumentative.

What is clear is your rejection of the truth.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it a truth.

James speaks of what is seen of men, Paul speaks of what is seen of God.

One can have a dead faith but still be saved, but that dead faith will not save him from physical judgment by God (1Jn.5:16, Jn.15:2).

We do not need the 'originals' to be able to reconstruct the correct text with manuscript evidence.

Nonsense. We can obtain an 'average' or 'common' baseline but have no proof that they reflect the original writings to any extent.

We have noted how carefully the Jews copied their texts.

How some Palestinian Jews copied their version of the OT.

The TR differs very little between the various manuscripts (unlike the Critical text)

Nonsense. TR is not the norm, and neither is the CR. These are conjectures based on extant copies of copies, mixted with mythology and other manipulations that were applied to Christian writings.

Sure I can, I can quote Christ who stated Moses did in Mt. 8:4; Jn. 5:46; 7:19.

And you have absolutely zero proof that that is exactly what Christ said or that He even said it! You simply take it on faith, based on a copy of a copy or caopy...

In other words, you are doubting the word of God but are replacing it with the consensus of men.

Why should I trust an individual opinion and not a consensual agreement of many as better? The blasphemous claim that somehow individual believers are guided by the Holy Spirit and denying that the same is true of the whole Church has no legs to stand on. There is a much greater likelyhood that an individual will be wrong than the entire Church.

The entire Canon was accepted by the Body of Christ (the church), long before any 'official' recognition of it occurred.

Nonsense. The fathers were arguing over what is scripture and what is not. NT detero-canonicals were probably not even written before the 2nd century.

The proof is in the fruit that it produced.

Really? And what would that fruit be?

No, copies of the copies of different and differing texts, altered, manipulated and oytherwise changed by individual scribes, that are accepted as official truth tell us what Christ supposedly attested to.

We don't know who wrote them, or if they simply copied someone else, or spoke on account of a popular myth, or if they actually witnessed it. You accept it on faith what some men wrote.

Well, the only way you know of the birth, death, and Resurrection of Christ is through those Scriptures, so you have to accept them.

Yes, that is unfortunate, isn't it, for we must depend on undependable writings of men to put our entire belief in God in that. On faith alone. However, it is not the only way to know. There is circumstantial evidence to show that the turth may be somewhat different.

What you want is the 'freedom' to accept what you want and reject the rest.

Not much different that wanting the 'freedom' to accept what you want and reject the rest.

The Greek heading tell us who the author is, just as it does Hebrews.

Those are latter-day additions. You obviously know nothing about how the books were titled in 1st century AD, and are not aware of the fact that first clear refrences to authorship (even as hints) did not exist until about 150 AD. For at least 65 years or more after the Gospels were written, no one creditted any of the Apostles in quoting from the Gospels.

No, I am not concerned with those two men at all, I have a King James Bible that gives me the correct authorship, coming from the correct Greek text, with the authors name on it.

The ostrich approach works for some people, I guess.

God certainly did and used men to do so, just as He used men to get the Originals to us.

No He didn't. The Church did nothing to preserve the originals for posterity. Obviously they didn't put much value in originals. We don't have originals of any kind when it comes to the Bible. None, Zip, Zilch, Zero.

But, burying one's head in the sand and pretending the sun doesn't shine is an option, I suppose.

Yawn. What you post is protestant pap, and it is not scriptural. some passages could be interpreted your way in isolation, but the protestant sola fide is not anything scriptural if the scripture is viewed as a whole.

[Romans 2:6-10] is not speaking of adding anything to faith to be saved.

It does not speak of faith at all; it says plainly that he who "worketh good" is saved, and who does not, is not. What you offer is counterscriptural spin.

James is not saying anything about salvation in James 2

Yeah, right. Learn to read. Generally, your musings on James are uncomprehensible, when the passage is very clear: "by works a man is justified; and not by faith only". Period, end of story. Clear scripture.

you avoid Paul's statements in Rom.4 that state very clearly that works are not involved at all in salvation.

Romans 4 says that works of law, such as the circumcision (see verse 9), are not involved in salvation. It contains no general statement of works not involved in salvation "at all", -- this is your invention.

[Luke 17:5-10] shows that we ought to work, not that works are necessarly for salvation

Christ explains in that passage that work increases faith, if it is done not out of obligation, but out of love of God, just as the Church teaches.

the Christian [will be judged] at the judgement seat of Christ and if he has produced nothing he will not receive any reward (but he will still be saved)(1Cor.3,Rom.14:10,2Cor5:10).

This theory -- that works only count for reward -- is Protestant spin. The Scripture does not teach that. 1 Cor 3 speaks of the suffering of the saved soul for past impurutues, -- it is a prooftext for purgatory, as I recall explaining to you once, -- but it does not guarantee salvation without good works. Rom. 14:10 seimply states that we will all be judged, it does not explain on what principle. 2Cor5:10 is, of course, another prooftext for necessity of works for salvation itself, not for rewards of the saved: "we must all be manifested before the judgement seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil". You cite what you don't understand, and it does not remove the clear teachign of Romans 2 and James 2, that deal with the issue directly.

Moving to your next post.

Mary offered up a sin offering like any other Jewish woman did

That she did, but it does not say anything about her actually sinning.

The only one I am concerned about understanding is the Lord Jesus Christ

At that, you fail. False mariology is false christology.

It is good that you read the Catechism. The passage you quote explains an important point: that good works contribute to salvation only because of the grace of God. It is indeed often misunderstood.

However, the passage does not conclude that the believer is "adding nothing to faith" as you claim; it says the opposite, that man is freely collaborating with grace. These are relevant paragraphs also:

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:
[...]
2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"⁵⁰

Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.⁵¹

2002 God's free initiative demands man's free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. The promises of "eternal life" respond, beyond all hope, to this desire:

If at the end of your very good works . . ., you rested on the seventh day, it was to foretell by the voice of your book that at the end of our works, which are indeed "very good" since you have given them to us, we shall also rest in you on the sabbath of eternal life.⁵²

(GRACE)

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.