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/
Yes in a couple of small meetings.. But in the past I've cast demons out of one speaking in tongues.. the gibberish kind.. gobbling..
Understand.
When it happens in a large group meeting—it’s incredible. One could almost imagine the whole large auditorium hovering in the air.
Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. - I John 4:13
Thus for me - and those like me - the "private interpretation" is not the Spirit's authenticating Scriptures and bringing them alive within us - but rather what other mortals try to tell us the Holy Spirit really means by what He said. The indwelling Spirit speaks for Himself.
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. II Cor 2:6-16
I am not here to criticize them for choosing such a path. But it is clearly not the path Chris has chosen for me.
There is a 240 year difference between the Jewish calendar and the Christian calendar - but if the Christian calendar is right, then Christ's millenium - the 1,000 year Sabbath - is due to start any time now, but only the Father knows when.
The leaning I have in the spirit concerning Eze 28:15-19 is that it is indeed speaking of Satan. Whether it also has some meaning concerning a Phoenician entity makes no difference – many such things have more than one meaning, even the Hebrew word satan itself has two meanings. Also, Luther’s doctrine about sin is irrelevant to me because I eschew all the doctrines and traditions of men across the board.
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin. – Hebrews 4:15
Saying, Let [us] alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. – Mark 1:24-25
And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him. – Mark 1:34
"The evil one possesses not evil but life as his essence, and hence he lives immortally. Yet his essence was capable of admitting evil since he was honored with free will. Had he voluntarily accepted a subordinate status and cleaved to the everflowing Well-spring of goodness he would have partaken of true life. But since he deliberately gave himself over to evil, he was deprived of true life and was justly expelled from it, having himself abandoned it in the first place. Thus he became a dead spirit, not in essence - since death lacks substantial reality - but through his rejection of true life. Yet unsated in his pursuit of evil and adding more and more to his wretchedness, he made himself into a death-generating spirit, eagerly drawing man into communion with his own state of death." +Gregory Palamas
Thank you Kolo. Indeed, the satan is more than a fallen angel; he is an angel of death, his own and others’.
Christ is the anthropomorphic form of God. We can anthropomorphize Christ because of His essential duality (icons of Christ are not idolatry, because they represent an image of a Man). His divine nature is never absent from His human nature, and the two are always in perfect harmony (or so the Church teaches, although sometimes this doesn't seem so).
Why did Christ "need" Spirit as His guide is an enigma which +Paul did not explain at all, as far as I am concerned, and it remains an enigma just as the Spirit descending on Him at the Baptism in the River Jordan.
Our Trinitarian understanding of God is challenged by those sections of the NT, imo.
As long as you remember that all these men (and women) had Spiritual leanings, just as one could say that the doctrine of A-G should be eschewed because it is a doctrine of a human.
There is something inherently suspect in any opinion being presented as "spiritual truth" while rejecting everyone else's as a "doctrine of men."
As for the millennium, the Scriptures say "soon" (in speed) and in the liftetime of one generation and individuals who were present whe He was speaking. All that was later on scrambled with various rationalizations because the millennium did not occur "soon."
I choose not to second guess God. It will come in due time, like everything else.
Of a truth, one’s concept of a thing – the nature of Satan and good v evil among them – is directly related to what he allows into his "toolset."
Following are excerpts from the Jewish Encyclopedia on Satan which covers many sources relative to subject: looking first at the Bible (Tanakh), then the Apocrypha, then the New Testament, then the Talmud and Midrash and finally, the Cabala. The entire webpage is informative and I’ve excerpted quite a bit of it to evidence the point about sources:
Term used in the Bible with the general connotation of "adversary," being applied (1) to an enemy in war (I Kings v. 18 [A. V. 4]; xi. 14, 23, 25), from which use is developed the concept of a traitor in battle (I Sam. xxix. 4); (2) to an accuser before the judgment-seat (Ps. cix. 6); and (3) to any opponent (II Sam. xix. 23 [A. V. 22]). The word is likewise used to denote an antagonist who puts obstacles in the way, as in Num. xxii. 32, where the angel of God is described as opposing Balaam in the guise of a satan or adversary; so that the concept of Satan as a distinct being was not then known. Such a view is found, however, in the prologue to the Book of Job, where Satan appears, together with other celestial beings or "sons of God," before the Deity, replying to the inquiry of God as to whence he had come, with the words: "From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it" (Job i. 7). Both question and answer, as well as the dialogue which follows, characterize Satan as that member of the divine council who watches over human activity, but with the evil purpose of searching out men's sins and appearing as their accuser. He is, therefore, the celestial prosecutor, who sees only iniquity; for he persists in his evil opinion of Job even after the man of Uz has passed successfully through his first trial by surrendering to the will of God, whereupon Satan demands another test through physical suffering (ib. ii. 3-5).
Yet it is also evident from the prologue that Satan has no power of independent action, but requires the permission of God, which he may not transgress. He can not be regarded, therefore, as an opponent of the Deity; and the doctrine of monotheism is disturbed by his existence no more than by the presence of other beings before the face of God. This view is also retained in Zech. iii. 1-2, where Satan is described as the adversary of the high priest Joshua, and of the people of God whose representative the hierarch is; and he there opposes the "angel of the Lord," who bids him be silent in the name of God. In both of these passages Satan is a mere accuser who acts only according to the permission of the Deity; but in I Chron. xxi. 1 he appears as one who is able to provoke David to destroy Israel. The Chronicler (third century B.C.) regards Satan as an independent agent, a view which is the more striking since the source whence he drew his account (II Sam. xxiv. 1) speaks of God Himself as the one who moved David against the children of Israel. Since the older conception refers all events, whether good or bad, to God alone (I Sam. xvi. 14; I Kings xxii. 22; Isa. xlv. 7; etc.), it is possible that the Chronicler, and perhaps even Zechariah, were influenced by Zoroastrianism, even though in the case of the prophet Jewish monism strongly opposed Iranian dualism (Stave, "Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judenthum," pp. 253 et seq.). An immediate influence of the Babylonian concept of the "accuser, persecutor, and oppressor" (Schrader, "K. A. T." 3d ed., p. 463) is impossible, since traces of such an influence, if it had existed, would have appeared in the earlier portions of the Bible.
In the Apocrypha.
The evolution of the theory of Satan keeps pace with the development of Jewish angelology and demonology. In Wisdom ii. 24 he is represented, with reference to Gen. iii., as the author of all evil, who brought death into the world; he is apparently mentioned also in Ecclus. (Sirach) xxi. 27, and the fact that his name does not occur in Daniel is doubtless due merely to chance. Satan was the seducer and the paramour of Eve, and was hurled from heaven together with other angels because of his iniquity (Slavonic Book of Enoch, xxix. 4 et seq.). Since that time he has been called "Satan," although previously he had been termed "Satanel" (ib. xxxi. 3 et seq.). The doctrine of the fall of Satan, as well as of the fall of the angels, is found also in Babylonia (Schrader, l.c. p. 464), and is mentioned several times in the New Testament. Satan rules over an entire host of angels (Martyrdom of Isaiah, ii. 2; Vita Adæ et Evæ, xvi.). Mastema, who induced God to test Abraham through the sacrifice of Isaac, is identical with Satan in both name and nature (Book of Jubilees, xvii. 18), and the Asmodeus of the Book of Tobit is likewise to be identified with him, especially in view of his licentiousness. As the lord of satans he not infrequently bears the special name Samael. It is difficult to identify Satan in any other passages of the Apocrypha, since the originals in which his name occurred have been lost, and the translations employ various equivalents. An "argumentum a silentio" can not, therefore, be adduced as proof that concepts of Satan were not wide-spread; but it must rather be assumed that reference to him and his realm is implied in the mention of evil spirits of every sort (comp. Demonology, and Kautzsch, "Apokryphen," Index).
In the New Testament.
The high development of the demonology of the New Testament presupposes a long period of evolution. In the Gospels the beliefs of the lower orders of society find expression, and Satan and his kingdom are regarded as encompassing the entire world, and are factors in all the events of daily life. In strict accordance with his manifold activity he bears many names, being called "Satan" (Matt. iv. 10; Mark i. 30, iv. 15; Luke x. 18 et passim), "devil" (Matt. iv. 1 et passim), "adversary" (I Peter v. 8, ἀντίδικος; I Tim. v. 14, ἀντικείμενος), "enemy" (Matt. xiii. 39), "accuser" (Rev. xii. 10), "old serpent" (ib. xx. 2), "great dragon" (ib. xii. 9), Beelzebub (Matt. x. 25, xii. 24, et passim), and Belial (comp. Samael). The fall of Satan is mentioned in Luke x. 18, John xii. 31, II Cor. vi. 16, and Rev. xii. 9. He is the author of all evil (Luke x. 19 et passim; Acts v. 3; II Cor. xi. 3; Ephes. ii. 2), who beguiled Eve (II Cor. xi. 3; Rev. xii. 9), and who brought death into the world (Heb. ii. 13), being ever the tempter (I Cor. vii. 5; I Thess. iii. 5; I Peter v. 8), even as he tempted Jesus (Matt. iv.). The belief in the devil as here developed dominated subsequent periods, and influenced indirectly the Jews themselves; nor has it been entirely discarded to-day .
In Talmud and Midrash.
The Angelology of the Talmud, moreover, proves that, according to the older view (until about 200 C.E.), punishment was inflicted by angels and not by Satan. In the course of time, however, official Judaism, beginning perhaps with Johanan (d. 279), absorbed the popular concepts of Satan, which doubtless forced their way gradually from the lower classes to the most cultured. The later a midrashic collection the more frequent is the mention therein of Satan and his hosts. The Palestinian Talmud, completed about 400, is more reticent in this regard; and this is the more noteworthy since its provenience is the same as that of the New Testament. Samael, the lord of the satans, was a mighty prince of angels in heaven (Gen. R. xix)….
His Functions.
The chief functions of Satan are, as already noted, those of temptation, accusation, and punishment. He was an active agent in the fall of man (Pirḳe R. El. xiii., beginning), and was the father of Cain (ib. xxi.), while he was also instrumental in the offering of Isaac (Tan., Wayera, 22 [ed. Stettin, p. 39a]), in the release of the animal destined by Esau for his father (Tan., Toledot, 11), in the theophany at Sinai, in the death of Moses (Deut. R. xiii. 9), in David's sin with Bath-sheba (Sanh. 95a), and in the death of Queen Vashti (Meg. 11a). The decree to destroy all the Jews, which Haman obtained, was written on parchment brought by Satan (Esther R. iii. 9). When Alexander the Great reproached the Jewish sages with their rebellion, they made the plea that Satan had been too mighty for them (Tamid 32a). He appeared as a tempter to Akiba and Mattithiah b. Ḥeresh (Ḳid. 81a; Midr. Abkir, ed. Buber, p. 11). He sowed discord between two men, and when Meïr reconciled them, he departed, crying, "Alas, Meïr has driven me from home!" (Giṭ. 52a; comp. 'Er. 26a)—i.e., Satan is the angel of strife (see also Yoma 67b; Shab. 104a; Yeb. 16a). If any one brings a beautiful captive home, he brings Satan into his house, and his son will be destroyed (Sifre, Deut. 218); for Satan kindles the evil impulse ("yeẓer ha-ra'") to impurity (Ex. R. xx.). Where one makes his home Satan leaps about; where merriment rules, or wheresoever there is eating or drinking, he brings his accusations (Gen. R. xxxviii. 7); and when there is a chance that prosperity may be enjoyed in this world or in the next he likewise rises up as an accuser. Even Jacob was forced to prove to Satan that he had borne much suffering in this world (Gen. R. lxxxiv., in Weber, "System der Altsynagogalen Palästinischen Theologie," p. 323); and when Satan reveals the sins of Israel to God others plead the alms which Israel has given (Ex. R. xxxi.). In the hour of birth, and thus in the hour of peril, he brings his accusation against the mother (Eccl. R. iii. 2). The serpent of Gen. iii. is identified with Satan (see Weber, l.c. pp. 218 et seq.; comp. Adam; Eve; Serpent).
As the incarnation of evil Satan is the arch-enemy of the Messiah: he is Antichrist. The light which was created before the world was hidden by God beneath His throne; and to the question of Satan in regard to it God answered, "This light is kept for him who shall bring thee to shame." At his request God showed Satan the Messiah; "and when he saw him he trembled, fell upon his face, and cried: 'Verily this is the Messiah who shall hurl me and all the princes of the angels of the peoples down even unto hell'" (Pesiḳ. R. iii. 6 [ed. Friedmann, p. 161b]; further details are given in Bousset, "Der Antichrist").
In the Cabala.
While the Pirḳe R. Eli'ezer, and the mystic midrashim edited by Jellinek in his "Bet ha-Midrash," belong historically to the post-Talmudic period, they do not fall under this category so far as their content is concerned. Here belong, strictly speaking, only the Zohar and other esoteric works comprised under the name "Cabala." The basal elements remain the same; but under the influence of medieval demonology a wider scope is ascribed to the activity of Satan and his host, daily life falling within the range of his power. The miscreants of the Bible, such as Amalek, Goliath, and Haman, are identified with him; and his hosts receive new names, among them "Ḳelippa" (husk, rind, peeling, scale). Antichristian polemics also complicate the problem (see the rich collection of material in Eisenmenger, "Entdecktes Judenthum," i. 812 et seq.)...
FWIW, it was quickly pointed out that because that is not official doctrine, or dogma (I can never keep track of the difference) this obvious inconsistency doesn't matter. I'm sure all you lawyers understand these fine points of distinction. I'm just part of that "old school" that expects consistency.
Why did Christ "need" Spirit as His guide is an enigma which +Paul did not explain at all, as far as I am concerned, and it remains an enigma just as the Spirit descending on Him at the Baptism in the River Jordan.
If one concentrates on the differences between Jesus Christ as a man and Jesus Christ as God, he is apt to see Jesus as two persons when He is One Person with two facets.
Here’s one way to visualize it:
Likewise, Jesus is the express image of the Father’s person. Again, worthy of meditation that there is no delineation between the image of the person and the person and yet there is a difference. Meditate not on a reflection of an image, like a mirror – but the image itself.
Further, I assert that there is no delineation and yet a difference in the seven Spirits before God:
If God in three Persons – or Jesus in two facets – or the Spirit in seven - were each an “Identity” according to Aristotle’s Law of Identity - the following would not be logical:
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. – Luke 3:22
And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, - Luke 4:1
For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto him]. – John 3:34
[Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. – John 14:17
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: - John 15:26
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. - John 16:7
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. – Acts 2:4
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:9
All my loyal and my much-loved companions,
They approve of me and share my code.
~Bob Dylan
Truly, the entire purpose for my being is to love God absolutely and as a distant second, to love my neighbor unconditionally. I am obsessed with the love of God.
I am pointing to Him for Truth - not to any mortal - and least of all, me.
To God be the glory!
You have been given assurance of justification when you first "put on the mind of Christ". But you personally have not been given any assurance that you are of the saved elect bound for heaven. That is our HOPE. If Paul himself could speak of his "disqualification" in 1 Cor 9, what makes you supposedly a "super Apostle" that you have been given assurance that Paul was not given? Such thoughts are not Scriptural.
But you know better than I that there were plenty of heresies on things even more basic (and core) than the Trinity, such as Christ's identity. There are heresies about everything.
Which proves the error of your idea that a person can pick up the Bible and come to the same conclusions...
That is unknowable. {there was no heresies on the Eucharist or Apostolic succession because "everyone" knew about it and was taught it.} Are you telling me that screwups like the Corinthians got tons of things wrong, but on these issues they got it exactly right? You just can't know that, especially given the specious coverage of them in scripture. The argument that "everyone" knew just doesn't wash.
Are you aware of the VAST amount of Christian writings of the period we are discussing? I am sure you know there is a 34 volume book set that has SOME of the Church Father writings in them, from the second century up to maybe the seventh century? Only SOME of them! And where exactly do we find this "disagreement" you speak of? NOWHERE...
Your argument is invalid because it HOPES that SOMEONE taught that the Eucharist was not Christ. Yet, we have no evidence that an orthodox Christian taught that. Many taught or thought that Christ was the Adopted Son, was not the essence of the Father, and many other such matters. Some taught many variations that later were judged to be deviations from the faith. But where do we find the Eucharistic deviations among catholics??? Your argument from silence is wishful thinking, quite frankly.
An honest person in search of the truth will read the evidence and draw the conclusion that the Catholic position is correct - that the early Christians did indeed believe in the real presence. You pin your hopes on invisible and non-existing evidence. Is that what people do who are searching for the truth, or is it what people do who have already made up their mind that they are right and everyone else is wrong?
I would expect that from the Episcopalian leadership, not from a Roman Catholic. :) (The HS is doing a new thing, etc.) Whatever happened to always and everywhere believed?
Again, I will give you the analogy of receiving a text book on day one of Calculus. Now, if you have ever taken a college class, did you know everything there was to know about the class on day one? As we further analyze what we have received, guided by the Spirit, we grow in understanding as a community on what God has revealed through His teachings. They have many hidden and spiritually deep layers that one generation could not possibly pick up on. A cursory reading of the Fathers will show this to be true.
However, I don't see how this addresses whether men today have a greater understanding than did Paul.
See above paragraph.
Yes, He absolutely did! (Did Jesus keep secrets from Mary) Her faith in Him as God was not realized at least until Christ was 12.
What did the angel tell Mary again? And what did Mary do? Contemplate it in her heart, no? Read it more carefully. I do agree that all was not revealed to Mary. Nor was it revealed to Paul. That was my point, FK.
What? We don't honor her as you do, but none of the Protestants here I call friends has anything against Mary.
You are joking, right?
Take care.
Who has all truth but God, all men have but a facet of truth including the writers of the Bible.. Unvarnished Truth cannot be expressed in mere words(language) because language processes truth and limits it.. The source of dogma, all dogma , is processed thru someones metaphorical kitchen..
Thats why the church/Body of Christ is needed.. to spread truth out like paint on a canvass.. One of us cannot express it, truth.. any truth.. Since truth is Jesus Christ himself.. As he said , "He "IS" the way and the truth", himself.. it takes many testimonys to express aspects of Jesus.. Spiritual sacrifice is what LOVE IS... Love is spiritual sacrifice.. You know service.. to God and one another.. to neigbor and/or family..
We can accept some of each others testimony as a measure of truth or a measure against truth.. both point to the truth.. Even measures against the truth expresses the opposite as true..
The truth is (I Beleive, LoL) we can take pointers from each other but we will be held guilty for our own decisions.. for seeking "the Truth" on all issues.. Our own decisions will either FREE us or LIMIT us.. to finding a bigger/larger truth.. And thats the way is should be.. We are being tested.. After all who knows it all?..
"Behold, my belly is as wine which hath no vent; it is ready to burst like new bottles."I will speak, that I may be refreshed: I will open my lips and answer.
Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man.
For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away." -- Job 32:19-22
In the first place, we ought not make the mistake of identifying the God of Job with the Logos. There is an important distinction to be preserved between pneumatic (spiritual) and noetic (intellectual) experiences of divine nature, both of which may originate in and refer to the One True God and would therefore be fully justified in/by Him.
Your second clause sets up an unfortunate (to my mind) complementarity of the relationship between God and the satan. The statement seems to have Zoroastrian and Manichaean resonances. Yet the idea of "complementarity" presumes two different modalities of a single thing; and God and the satan can never be "single" together, for the simple reason that God is Creator, and the satan creature (a "son of God").
God and satan cannot meet as "equals" on the same "ontological playing field." Indeed, as I recall it was Chesterton who said it was Saint Michael the Archangel who was Lucifer's ("The Prince of Light" i.e., satan's) "opposite number," so to speak; certainly not God Himself.
Satan is as completely subject to the Will of God as any other creature. Period. Because he knows that, he already knows his bid to destroy God's beloved is already doomed; he knows his time is growing short....
The mystery is that the satan performs a role in God's providential economy, in His Plan for the resurrection of man and creation at the End of Days. As such, he is clearly a servant of God, certainly not God's equal, let alone "rival." Oh, how the satan must chafe against such compulsory service! Must make him feel even meaner toward mankind; because he thinks the only way to "hurt" God is to hurt God's most-beloved creature....
Kosta you asked, "Can you tell me why did Jesus need to be led by the Spirit into the wilderness?"
Jesus was fully God -- and fully Man all at once. We do not know when He as a human (and the plan of the human seems always to involve learning) became aware of His essential divinity, whether from the moment of birth, or from childhood, or somewhere else along the timeline of his mortal life.
Maybe He was then just getting His "sea-legs" (so to speak), and needed guidance and support; maybe He and the Spirit just enjoyed hanging out together, they being Two of the Three Persons of the One God; and their Two being together completed the divine Power by invoking the Presence of the Father, the First Person. Maybe the Three Persons needed to commune that day, on earth as it is in Heaven....
In short, there's no way for us to know, by means of rational analysis. IOW, we humans can only push the nous so far; then Spirit and Grace must take over....
God willing, in the Name of His Son, Jesus Christ. May all things be according to His Word. Amen.
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.