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

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

[jo kus]

I wrote "A place suggests a physical location. Where would you suggest heaven be located? Is God there but not somewhere else?"

I was suggesting that it could be right in front of us, but imperceivable. Such might be the case for us as compared to a 2-dimensional man "living" on a plane. Carrying out the idea, God could be (is) all around us, but not perceivable physically.

There is probably more truth to that than you think. From what I have read (and my Eastern friends can verify this) about the Transfiguration, the Greek implies that Moses and Elijah were already there, but made visible - not that they were called away from somewhere else. The letter to the Hebrews also makes that implication when it says we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses.

So be careful. You are being watched!

Regards

[jo kus]

Alex actually made it up — it was a joke, and I fell for it! :-(

That clever guy!

It rhymes nicely.

[hosepipe]

[.. Same with any human body.. the spirit does not die.. / The soul who sins will die [Eze 18:4] ..]

The spirit DOES NOT die.. else what is HELL..
Again what is DEATH?... please pay attention..

[hosepipe]

[.. I find it fascinating, and a bit troubling, that any Christian could profess a belief in the pre-existence of souls. ..]

You seem to be shying away from the word "SPIRIT"..
What do you think is the difference between Soul and Spirit.. or IS there a difference?..

[jo kus]

All scripture is God-breathed. Peter recognizes Paul's writings as scripture. Maybe I don't know what you mean.

In context, 2 Timothy is refering to the writings that Timothy read as a youth. That would be the Old Testament, wouldn't you agree?

Here is what Barnes writes about this verse:

"All Scripture. This properly refers to the Old Testament, and should not be applied to any part of the New Testament, unless it can be shown that that part was then written, and was included under the general name of the Scriptures. Comp. 2Pet 3:15,16. But it includes the whole of the Old Testament, and is the solemn testimony of Paul that it was all inspired. If now it can be proved that Paul himself was an inspired man, this settles the question as to the inspiration of the Old Testament."

The Lexicons that I have read on the word "Scripture" also doesn't necessarily mean as you imply. Thayer's Lexicon lists the following meanings of the Greek word:

1) a writing, thing written

2) the Scripture, used to denote either the book itself, or its contents

3) a certain portion or section of the Holy Scripture

Thus, it isn't necessary to say that Peter thought that Paul's writings were on par with the Old Testament. That, to me, is anachronistic thinking.

The meaning of my writing is that the Church recognizes God's inspired Word because the written word is in compliance with the oral word already taught. The community recognizes the inspiration and calls it "Holy" and so forth.

I believe the Holy Spirit leads all believers, including the first Christians after the Apostles. However, it is clear that not everyone gets everything at the exact same time, and in the same amounts. Sanctification is tailored by the Spirit to the individual. The Spirit leads no one "astray", but we humans still make mistakes.

We aren't speaking of sanctification. I would agree with your points if we were. We are speaking of how we can know the truth. God has given us a pillar and foundation for knowing the truth, and it is not our own minds "interpreting" what the "spirit" tells us. Such an idea disagrees with Protestant anthropology of the totally corrupt man who cannot think of anything good.

the NT scripture was still obviously being taught orally. That does not offend Sola Scriptura at all.

Sorry, Sola Scriptura is offensive and is not found anywhere in the Bible. I have asked this question to many Protestants, including you, and have not received a satisfactory answer from even ONE verse.

As to the NT being taught to the first Christians, you got it backwards, FK. The Apostles didn't start out thinking they were going to teach a written letter first through oral teachings. They taught orally - and much later, they wrote letters based on their oral teachings already given. They didn't teach anything by letter that the reader wouldn't understand. We have no indications that Jesus passed out NT Scriptures or outlines or anything written to the Apostles.

Nothing new was added to the Scriptures. The writings only address what was already taught. For example, from the NIV:

For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. 2 Cor 1:13

The writings were based on what Paul had ALREADY taught, but NOWHERE do we get the indication that EVERYTHING was written down in what we now call Scriptures. For example, the daily liturgical practice. Where do we see that in the Scriptures? HOW did they "break the bread"? What prayers did they say? What was their posture? WHO led the prayers? And baptism? The same questions... If the Bible was written more like a Catechism, more all-encompassing, I might be inclined to agree with you. However, the Bible is ambiguous and unclear on MANY issues, even the important ones, IF we are expected to read it without help from the community. Thus, the Ethiopian needed help in Acts 8 from the Church.

They argued from pure truth, and it was God who convicted His elect, NOT the Apostles then, and not us now. The scriptures BECAME authority for God's chosen.

Whether you like it or not, God has chosen us clay vessels to spread His Word. He doesn't need us to do that, but out of love, He has chosen to share this ministry with us men. God allows men to use human arguments and human writings to appeal to man's reason. God provides the faith in the man's heart to accept the reasonable arguments provided.

Yes, the Scripture became authority for God's chosen. Which tells us that the Scripture is not self-authenticating. If they were, then men would have no choice but to follow them. We believe they are God's Word bsaed on faith and the belief in the witnesses of Christ.

Regards

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Christianity has its bounds and doesn't spill into other religions. Some people are universalists and I recognize that, but one cannot be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddihist or a Shinto all at the same time and call himself a Christian.

I disagree on the Jewish part. Christ Himself was incarnated a Jew. The apostles did not abandon the law and the prophets - or indeed many of the Jewish traditions though they chose not to burden the Gentiles with much of it – what we might call those things which are not central to the spirit of the law..

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. – Matt 5:17-18

The leaning I have in the spirit is that Christ did not come to establish a new religion but to fulfill the law and prophets in establishing God’s family. It was always Christianity, but most of the Jews didn’t understand that then – nor do they understand it even now.

it's an altogether different thing to form a personal religion out of cherry-picking those doctrines of men that you do like and eschewing those you don't.

If I were to fabricate a religion or doctrine of my liking, it would not resemble that to which I have testified. In my “religion” Christ would have arrived the conquering lion, healed everyone, revealed Himself to all, brought this heaven and earth to an end – all without suffering the Cross. Peter didn't want Christ to suffer either, but that was not God's will and is why Christ said to him "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Now I, like Peter, pray for God's will to be done no matter what. His Name, His will, His kingdom - that is what is truly important. Nothing else compares.

In other words, God's knowledge (idea) of Adam is not equivalent to Adam's creation. The (fore)knowledge does not impart the "breath of life" into a lifeless form.

Not that you are wrong, but the indwelling Spirit has leaned me to the understanding that God is beyond “time” and therefore our concept of “cause/effect.”

Again, I am not asserting “re-incarnation.” The only Scriptural evidence known to me which approximates the concept is a) the resurrection body and b) the two witnesses in Revelation 11. However, there is nothing to indicate that any of these become a new identity when they appear “in” the physical realm. Indeed, our “new life” begins when we are indwelled by the Spirit Himself (John 3) – but our identity continues.

me: I AM is a Name of God

You: I AM means Life. "I am" is also our reality. It means we are alive. Adam could not say "I am" until God created him and gave him life.

The phrase is used in ordinary language to mean that we exist. Cogito ergo sum and all that.

But ”I AM” is not a name for anyone but God. Period.

And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:13-14

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58

IMHO, His Name I AM is a very difficult meditation for time-bound observers such as we are - and yet the Name itself answers most every question with overwhelming peace: why, when, what.

[Kolokotronis]

"You seem to be shying away from the word "SPIRIT".. What do you think is the difference between Soul and Spirit.. or IS there a difference?.."

I can assure you, I am not shying away from the word "spirit" at all. I said it several times at the Divine Liturgy this morning. In Greek we use different words for these. The word for "spirit" is πνευμα while the word for "soul" is ψυχη. The word πνευμα is almost always used in the phrase "Αγιω Πνευματι", to the Holy Spirit. We do very occassionally use the words πνευμα or πνευματι otherwise, but not really to mean "soul". That word is virtually always ψυχη. Thus we say "ψυχοσωματικος" not "πνευμοσωματικος" when describing the nature of man from a religious point of view.

[hosepipe]

[.. I can assure you, I am not shying away from the word "spirit" at all. I said it several times at the Divine Liturgy this morning. In Greek we use different words for these. ..]

So then; you have no idea of what spirit/Spirit is?..

[Kolokotronis]

“So then; you have no idea of what spirit/Spirit is?..”

Maybe. Is this some Protestant idea or do I simply not understand your question?

[betty boop]

I recommend "Topics of Natural and Theological Science" in the Philokalia as an informative and challenging read for Westerners.

Sounds like a magnificent work, from your excerpt. Thank you for the recommendation, Kolokotronis!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

This is always a fascinating discussion and seems to lead in a variety of directions. To recap my position, I don't believe animals have a spiritual realm within them. Their actions will not be weighed on Judgment Day. Christ did not die to pay for the sins of animals. Animals cannot sin.

I also don't believe men are two separate components, body and soul. Man is what God made him, one aspect of the whole man is physical and one aspect of the whole man is spiritual.

All the elect will be acquitted of their sins by Christ's sacrifice while the condemned will suffer the consequences of their own sins without the justification of Jesus Christ.

Before men are born as body and spirit, they are not sitting somewhere waiting to breath air. They do, however, exist perfectly and completely designed by and through and in the mind of God who willed all things from before the foundation of the world, according to His perfect plan of creation. All men will be born exactly as God wills them to be born and live the lives God ordains for them, with every hour and every hair numbered.

I found this interesting link that offers worthwhile insight...

Man as Body and Soul

"...The soul, then, is the whole person. The body also is the whole person. Neither soul nor body is a detachable part of man. Soul is man thinking, willing and living. It is the life, the me, the self in its acting and feeling. Body is the same whole person seen from the perspective of his form and substance. In the words of Pedersen, "The body is the soul in its outward form."

Body and soul are like the biblical expressions flesh and spirit. They do not refer to two parts of man but to the whole man from two different perspectives. The medieval church read flesh and spirit with Grecian glasses. She understood them to mean the higher and lower nature. This had disastrous consequences for the church's view of piety and salvation. Luther returned to the biblical view that flesh means the whole man in his natural, sinful state, while spirit means the whole man led by the Holy Spirit..."

Regarding "nephesh"...

Says The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible:

The word "soul" in English, though it has to some extent naturalized the Hebrew idiom, frequently carries with it overtones, ultimately coming from philosophical Greek (Platonism) and from Orphism and Gnosticism, which are absent in [nephesh]. In the OT it never means the immortal soul, but is essentially the life principle, or the living being, or the self as the subject of appetite and emotion, occasionally of volition.

The Interpreter's Bible also says that nephesh in Genesis 2:7 means "a complete person." The New Bible Dictionary says that it is "clear from Gn. ii. 7, the primary meaning [of soul] is 'possessing life'. Thus it is frequently used of animals (Gn. i. 20, 24, 30, ix. 12,15, 16; Ezk. xlvii. 9)."

We must not read a presupposed "religious" meaning into the Hebrew word nephesh. In many Old Testament texts nephesh plainly means the animated, living person. We cannot impose a "spiritual," metaphysical meaning on soul where, for instance, a person is represented as saying that his soul desires physical food, water or honey (Prov. 25:25; 27:7; Num. 21:5; Deut. 12:15, 20-21). Because the Hebrews made no sharp distinction between the physical and the psychical, the word soul can have either a physical or psychical emphasis. The whole living person is always in view.

The word soul can be applied to a person's thinking, emotions, will or action (Gen. 49:6; Deut. 4:29; Job 7:15; Ps. 86:4; Isa. 1:14). Quite often soul is used where we would use the word person (Lev. 7:21; 17:12; Ezek. 18:4). When the Bible talks about seventy souls going down to Egypt, it obviously means seventy persons. The word soul is also used as a synonym for the personal pronouns I, me, myself (Judges 16:16; Ps. 120:6; Ezek. 4:14). It can even be used to designate a dead body (Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6; Hag. 2:13).

H. Wheeler Robinson says that of the 754 times the word nephesh appears in the Old Testament, it means principle of life 282 times, it has a psychical meaning 249 times, and it means the person himself 223 times.

[Kolokotronis]

You might find this monograph interesting:

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/christou_palamas.html

[hosepipe]

[.. Maybe. Is this some Protestant idea or do I simply not understand your question? ..]

Not sure.. thats why I ask.. and you cannot or will not or refuse to answer..

What is spirit/Spirit?..

I am not a protestant.. I am protesting nothing..
The self proclaimed orthodox are not.. or don't seem to be..

My question is not to decide the issue but to expose what you think spirit/Spirit means/is..
So that I can respond better.. Because you have not, so far, as I can tell..

[Kolokotronis]

Read this:

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/christou_palamas.html

You will understand what both Kosta and I have been saying.

[hosepipe]

[.. I also don't believe men are two separate components, body and soul. Man is what God made him, one aspect of the whole man is physical and one aspect of the whole man is spiritual. ..]

Have you ever seen a dead body?..
Whats missing?.. The spirit?.. WHAT?..

What is life?... DNA?... like that...

[hosepipe]

Thanks for the effort but Gregory Palamas does not answer my question to you either..
What is spirit/Spirit?..

He prevaricates and talks around the subject but does not answer the question..
Parsing the question does not provide an answer..
I asked you not him.. anyway.. either you know or do not know..
Be Bold and humble or arrogant but do not be Lukewarm..
Thanks..

[Kolokotronis]

“Thanks for the effort but Gregory Palamas does not answer my question to you either..
What is spirit/Spirit?..”

I didn’t think you’d understand +Gregory Palamas in the original (even in translation) so I chose Christou’s monograph. Seems you didn’t understand that either. The distinctions among soul, spirit and Spirit are laid out quite clearly there. You certainly are free not to accept the distinctions, but those are the ones made by the Orthodox Church and as such they are accepted by Orthodox Christians, like me. So...

“spirit” (pneuvma) is a vivifying element or power of the soul, along with nous and logos. These are all created elements.

“Spirit” (Pneuvma)is the “divine spirit” which is not a created element but rather an uncreated divine energy of our Triune God which we can receive.

Thus,

“Life to the body is granted by the human spirit and real life to the soul is granted by the divine spirit. That is why the abandonment of the soul by the vivifying divine spirit causes its spiritual death, just as the abandonment of the body by the vivifying human spirit causes its physical death. The soul, when removed from God, only technically preserves its immortality.”

[Quix]

Christ Alone! God’s Son, Savior, Lord.

Praise to The Father and The Spirit; 3 N 1.

[Quix]

Christ Alone! God’s Son, Savior, Lord.

Praise to The Father and The Spirit; 3 N 1.

[Quix]

Much sense to me.

Would you be willing to Freepmail to me your own personal translation of Mat 24—the verse about “this generation” and if you are generous, the verse before it?

If too bothersome, no sweat.

Thx,