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/
But, then, you can't give credit to anyone. The fact is, Mary was instrumental by her presence in carrying out what was needed.
I don't give any "ultimate" credit to anyone outside of God for anything good. That includes Paul, the rest of the Apostles, Luther, Calvin, and everyone else. Now, in my daily life, I certainly give "secondary" credit to those who are kind to me, etc., and to all the aforementioned people, posthumously. The difference is that in the descriptions of Mary and comments I have seen about her here, I get the idea that "ultimate" credit is being given to Mary. That would explain the level of veneration that I see given to her.
She was "instrumental" in that she was used as an instrument by God, the same as the rest of us are. She WAS chosen for an extraordinarily important task, and it is fine to honor her, but it sounds to me like the Apostolic idea is that we "owe" Mary because we are so fortunate that she said "yes". I strongly disagree. God chose Mary first, she did not choose God first. God always gets what He wants.
The only way you can take credit away is if you believe, as I think you do, that we have been programmed to obey (or disobey).
It depends on what "programmed" means. God does not "zap" people to cause them to sin, He leaves them alone, knowing that they will sin. Consider the crucifixion itself. Without it, nobody goes to Heaven. Did God "program" it? (I say "Yes".) Was it "luck"? (I say "No".) Did God "want" it to happen? ("Yes", in the sense that it was part of God's plan, and necessary for the salvation of His children.)
But, God does give us choices, FK. We are free, by His permission, and therefore responsible for our actions. It is always a matter of obedience to God, or disobedience. And, as far as we can tell, Mary always obeyed, to her credit.
Aside from not being sure about what you mean by "It", there is a way I can agree with all of this. :)
Even at Incarnation, she was not impregnated by force, but by consent. God does not force Himself on anyone. Love wins you over lovingly, not forcefully.
Yes, and when God wants to win someone over lovingly, He doesn't fool around. :) God always wins, He is not dependent on the random chance of human decision. It is neither force nor random chance because God changes the heart.
For instance, Orthodox nuns will bless you if asked. This is followed by a kiss of the hand that blessed you, whether it is a priest or a nun, but she will, in turn, after her hand is kissed, kiss a man's hand although they are the one's blessing him.
What a gracious gesture of humility. Very impressive.
The Orthodox teaching is that Mary accepted the will of God in perfect obedience and was cleansed of all sin at the moment of Incarnation, not when she was conceived by her parents. At that moment all her previous sins, if any, were erased and from there on, full of grace, she chose not to sin but to obey until she died.
If Mary was cleansed of "ALL" sin at Incarnation, and never personally sinned again (if ever), then what did she need Jesus to die on the cross for? Or, how did she benefit from it?
Thanks, I didn't know that. I also am fairly comfortable on the subject, but completely agree that we cannot have certain knowledge.
What amazes me is that the Protestants accept pastorship of ordinary men, but refuse the pastorship of those who succeeded Apostles in direct line of succession. I think it's just anti-Romish bias.
It's not that we refuse them as pastors, I mean, they WERE pastors. :) That's not arguable. It's just that we do argue with their infallibility, based on majority vote (for you) or ultimately a single vote in the case of the Latins. Bishops, pastors, leaders, teachers, EVERYONE is capable of being seriously wrong, either individually OR in any subgroup of God's Church. Of course that includes Protestant groups. Men are subject to error. That's why we say that EVERY teaching, no matter how popular, must be tested against the only thing comparatively impervious to change, the scriptures.
Orthodoxy did this? Other than perhaps in Russia, which frankly was pretty tolerant of heterodox religious opinion until after the Revolution, where, when?
Didn't say that Orthodox did kill Protestants, the point was that there non-Protestant Christians, such as Anabaptists.
It would seem you have a hard time with context.
” Rome was not highly esteemed by Christians. Antioch had the much higher claim for leading Christianity than did Rome. Rome only grew in its power when it was backed by the State. “Thus, the State and Church united together began with Constantine in the 4th century and its ‘Roman wing’ with it.””
You’ve really got to get beyond this Roman bogeyman of yours. Rome’s position in the One Church, as I said, predated Constantine. Orthodoxy always maintained that that primacy was because it was the see of the capitol of the Empire. Rome claimed and claims that it was because of the fact that Rome was the See of +Peter, but so was Antioch, as you seem to understand. At base however the fact remains that Rome has had primacy in The Church since very nearly the beginning. And that had absolutely nothing to do with an emperor who left Rome and established his seat at Constantinople. As between Orthodoxy and the Latin Church, the issue isn’t primacy, its what primacy means, how it is properly exercised. That had nothing to do with Roman emperors in the 4th century, the 11th century or now.
And you need to get your facts straight.
Rome was just one church among many and had no primacy.
Until the State could back up with force the Roman Church's claims, they were irrelevant.
” Well, that sounds like the same reason that the Protestant Reformation broke out!”
Sort of. Some of the Reformers, and in increasing numbers as the generations went on, were determined to deny virtually the entire Eucharistic, Sacramental nature of The Church as it had existed for 1500 years. The Schism between the Roman Church and the rest of The Church was premised on what the East and the Latins perceived as violations of the canons and dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils by the other. That’s not the beef Western Christians had against Rome in the 16th century.
Well, sort of.
The Reformers believed that the Roman Church had become corrupt and had left them.
Thus, the Reformation was an attempt to return to the primitive Church before Rome had corrupted it.
Thus, the Reformation shared many of the same Orthodox complaints against Rome.
“The point that the article from your Orthodox website was making is that the ‘break’ began almost immediately in the 4th century.”
That’s true, but it had nothing to do with the “legalization” of The Church by Constantine. It did have something to do with the move to Constantinople but on a broader level, geographically, psychologically and linguistically, it was the descent of the West into barbarism and the loss of fluency in the Greek language which really started the separation. The greatest Western theologian of the era, Blessed Augustine, couldn’t read Greek, at least not well, so when he started his “theologizing”, he, unlike his predecessors, had no recourse to the scriptures in Greek or three centuries of patristic writing save for some Western works translated into Latin. That deficiency is apparent in Blessed Augustine’s works which are in great measure quite radically different from Greek patristic thought. The East, in the meantime, either couldn’t or wouldn’t read Latin. You know the influence +Augustine’s works had almost immediately in the West. In the meantime, the filioque clause was added to the Creed and that little bit of possible heresy lead in part to the Great Schism in the 11th century. The Church in the West and The Church in the East didn’t speak the same language and lived very different lives, the West a sinking into barbarism and the East a glittering, educated, metropolitan society. That’s what caused the division, not the emperor Constantine’s Edict of Milan.
That doesn't explain the reason the split began between Rome and Byzantine.
What the Byzantine wing resented was Rome's constant assertion of superiority and attempts to enforce it.
It was the growing strength of the Papacy that caused the Orthodox faith to draw back from Rome.
The doctrinal issues only compounded the problems, especially when Rome demanded that its views be considered the final answer.
“So ‘Romanism’ was already attempting to exert it primacy over the whole of the Roman Empire.”
The Church of Rome has always been jealous of what it perceives to be its prerogatives. The other 4 ancient Patriarchates refused to allow Rome to exercise its primacy in a way which they believed and believe to be in violation of the canons. Its really pretty much that simple as regards primacy. And that has nothing to do with Constantine either, except perhaps to the extent that the establishment of Constantinople and a Patriarchate there diminished Rome.
Yes it is that simple, Rome grew with its combination of state power and that is what it used to enforce its edicts.
That did not begin until the 4th century, when Christianity became the state religion.
“You should have thought long and hard before you posted your initial post.”
I always think long and hard about any theological matter. Its something we Orthodox have been doing for 2000 years.
You didn't bring up theological matters.
You brought up political ones, attempting to dismiss the Protestant resistance to Rome's abuses as irrelevant.
“So far, I haven’t seen one Orthodox adherent show anything but contempt for any of us you consider to be ‘Protestants’.”
Then you haven’t read enough. On the other hand, much of what is written here, from the perspective of The Church, is pretty contemptible. As you know, we have a “caucus” system here on FR to prevent the sort of bile we see on threads like this one. It works well. The Catholic/Orthodox caucus list includes a large number of Protestants, even some non-Latin Western Christians, Baptists for example. We have wonderful discussions, but then again, nobody in that caucus thinks someone else’s Church is “spiritually dead” or that Orthodox and Latins worship stumps or such like.
Any 'faith' that rejects the true Gospel of Christ is spiritually dead-period.
Now, if you have some Baptists who disagree with that, please ping them and I would be happy to hear them disagree with that.
“It is clear that your theology is far closer to the Romanists than it is to that of Biblical Christianity.”
I have always found that sort of comment really silly. The badly translated canon of the NT Bible you thump is something a group of Greek speaking bishops of The Church gave you. The OT you use is a similarly badly translated rework of the Greek Septuagint and the so called Hebrew Canon of the late 1st century. You got those from Greeks too. Now you can argue that the HS inspired those bishops just that one time and then went off to play bocci for 1200 years if you want, but the vast majority of Christians will disagree. Or perhaps you’d rather argue that those shadowy unaffiliated Christians you claim religious descent from preserved the scriptures?
Yes, the Hebrew Scriptures were preserved by the Jews and the New Testament scriptures were preserved largely in Byzantine and made their way West after the fall of Constantinople, sparking both the Reformation and Renaissance.
So, yes we have the perfectly preserved Received Hebrew and Greek texts.
As for the LXX, it is a 3rd century AD translation, whose books are unevenly translated.
Your view of the Canon and scripture is as distorted as your view of Church history and Bible doctrine.
” I would like to remind you that no Protestants killed Orthodox followers, but Rome did. Christians may speak bluntly, but we have never waged war on your faith.”
Tell that one to the Orthodox Christians of the Balkans.
It wasn't Protestants killing the Orthodox followers in the 1940's, it was Roman Catholics,with the full support of the Pope.
The Croatians were Roman Catholics and were supported by Hilter.
The Serbs were fighting on the side of the Allies.
Your understanding of modern history is as bad as your understanding of everything else.
World War II: The Nazis over-ran Yugoslavia. The country was partitioned. The fascist Ustashe (Croatians; primarily Roman Catholics) established a puppet Nazi state, which included Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Large numbers of Serbian Orthodox believers, Jews and Roma (Gypsies) were exterminated. 1992: Bosnia declared independence. A civil war among the Croats, Serbs and Muslims erupted. The world was horrified by new images of starving prisoners in concentration camps. The civilian population was heavily targeted by armies on all sides. Hans Küng and Karl-Josef Kuschel commented: "Similarly, there is no doubt that the Catholic and Orthodox churches in particular have identified themselves all too much with their own political leadership in the most recent controversies and not made a commitment for peace openly, opportunely and energetically." 1 http://www.religioustolerance.org/yugo_his.htm
No, a 'church' has two connotations.
One, is the Church as the Body of Christ and that connotation is spiritual.
Thus, only believers in Christ enter into that relationship with Him, being 'born again'.
That is the Church as 'organism', growing and alive.
The other connotation of a church is as an organization.
An unbeliever can be a member of that type of church, as many are.
Now, a organizational 'church' that does not teach the truth of God's saving grace, and substitutes man's traditions for God's truth is a dead church.
The doctrines of both Churches are dead, depending on the traditions of men, rather than the words of God (Mk.7:7-10).
That is your personal opinions, which, quite frankly, totally ignores YOUR traditions of men, such as Sola Scriptura, an invention of MEN of the 1500's that ironically is not found in the Bible anywhere, and Sola Fide, an invention of MEN of the 1500's that is DENIED EXPLICITLY in the Bible, in particular, James 2.
Christ preached Sola Scriptura.
As for Sola Fide, it is very much taught in the New Testament by Paul (not of works-lest any man should boast) and James is not speaking of works leading to eternal life.
So, your constant appeal to James to avoid what Paul clearly states only shows your determination to reject the truth.
Don't bother with your lame explanations. I've heard them and I am not in the mood to get sick on a weekend...
Funny, you can't refute those explanations, nor can you explain away what Paul is clearly stating.
Look to the beam in your eye, forth, look to the beam...
And you ought to look to the scriptures and learn from the failure of the Jews,
But Israel which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone...They have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge for they being ignorant of God's righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. (Rom.9:31-32,10:2-4)
Regards
Likewise.
Well, we also know that Noah knew the effects of wine (Matt. 24:38) and yet became drunk (Gen. 9:20, et seq.), thus shaming himself. Therefore, "just and perfect" does not describe a lifelong state (as Quix aptly noted). Rather, it applies to how they were seen by other men. As far as anyone knew, some may have appeared as blameless as against other people, but no one is blameless before God. This is true of Noah, Job, Mary, and everyone else. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Besides, I doubt you are making a case that Mary's lifelong sinless club is joined by all the people you mention above. :) Or are you?
At Cana, Mary had seen no miracles, yet she asked for one.
Really? From birth to 30 years old, Mary had NEVER seen her son commit the slightest sin in all His life. You don't call that a noteworthy miracle? :) She certainly had "seen" miracle, but at that time it may not have been God's choice to let her SEE miracle. It is simply unknowable what the state of her faith was at Cana. But if we agree that Cana was before the centurion, then the text leads us to think that Mary's faith was not yet fully developed at Cana. Therefore, we cannot conclude that she asked for a miracle.
As to the literal "no one in Israel", we have to discount the immediate family, and especially Mary simply because she had a revelation from God the centurion or anyone else did not have. Her journey of faith had happened before anyone else even heard of Jesus.
That doesn't follow logically. How is there any connection between a special revelation to Mary and what Jesus said? Who among the listeners could have possibly understood the distinction? No one. It just doesn't follow. We also know that Mary's revelation was incomplete AT LEAST until Christ was 12, since she did not recognize Him as God. We are (arguably) not told when the same revelation that you and I have was made full in Mary. If any inference can be made from the text, it would have been after the scene with the centurion.
FK: "I do not take "his disciples believed in him" in the most literal sense."
And I do. I am aware that the faith of the disciples was tested severely and failed them at times, but this does not discount the fact that the first deposit of faith, however infirm, was seeded after the intercession of Mary. [at Cana] (emphasis added)
SO, when all the disciples dropped their entire lives to follow Christ BEFORE the wedding in Cana (end of John 1 vs. beg. of John 2), that counted for nothing in the faith department ("first deposit")? :) We see no presence or participation by Mary when Jesus gathered His disciples for the first time.
FK: "Mary didn't adopt John, it was the other way around."
John took Mary "to his own" ("home" is a Protestant obfuscation). But John is called her son, as well as Mary is called his mother, so the adoption was two-way. You adopt when you call someone a son, not when you figure out who lives where.
But who was responsible? Of course at that time it was unequivocal that the man was to take care of the woman. We are led in no other direction here. We know that John was a strong young man and Mary was pushing 50. We both presume Joseph is gone by this point, so the only answer is that Jesus was handing Mary over to John in order to take care of her. No shame on Mary, but also no grand pronouncement that Mary was now the mother of the Church. That would make Mary the person of power here, and the text just doesn't support that at all.
The Incarnation is dependent on Mary in a fundamental sense, plus there are other scriptures, Cana and the mutual adoption foremostly, that outline her role as intercessor.
This presumes that Mary could have somehow stopped the Incarnation as God had planned it, ostensibly by saying "No", or something. If that actually WAS possible, then I would venerate Mary every bit as much, probably more so, as you all do today. I would "owe" my salvation to her in great part because of her decision. Of course, I would have to share my gratitude with the Roman goddess "Fortuna", the goddess of luck. If Mary DID have the full power to thwart God's plan for the salvation of mankind in His elect, then it was very fortunate for us that she made the choice she did. I mean, the Bible is full of stories about humans going ANYWHERE with "yes" or "no" choices, even among the best, like Moses. He blew an easy one, and it cost him a lot. Thank Mary in Heaven and Fortuna that the same didn't happen to her. (?) :)
That's true, but I don't think we can logically approach how things work in the afterlife to a large degree.
Regards
True to a point. However, that ignores the parables of Christ that discuss those trying to enter the Kingdom, that Body of believers, are a mixed group. Christ talks about a winnowing at the harvest time, a separation between goats and sheep, weeds and wheat. This tells us that even the "nominal Christians" are part of the Body, thus, making the organizational "Church" more closely in tune with the Body of Christ, not the "hidden" component.
Now, a organizational 'church' that does not teach the truth of God's saving grace, and substitutes man's traditions for God's truth is a dead church
Now we are entering the realm of your personal opinion. Your opinions of the "teaching of God's saving truth" are just that, opinions. They are one of many different possible readings of the Scriptures. By our fruits, we are known. And I see lots of good fruit within the Catholic Church.
Christ preached Sola Scriptura.
Ridiculous. I have not had ONE Protestant prove that to me from the entire Bible yet, and I have seen all the arguments. Now, you are narrowing it down to just Christ's words? Prove it.
As for Sola Fide, it is very much taught in the New Testament by Paul (not of works-lest any man should boast) and James is not speaking of works leading to eternal life.
We've already been through this, and you are confused if you think that James is talking about the physical life. Talking about twisting Scriptures out of whack! We ALL physically die, whether we have faith or not! James is talking about spiritual death, because our life and death in THAT realm is determined by our faith and works - since faith alone is dead. Works of love, in faith, don't save our physical body!!!!
Didn't Peter say that twisting Paul's writings leads to destruction? (2 Pt 3) I'd advise you re-analyze the false belief of sola fide that is explicitly denied in Scriptures
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Yes, BELIEVES! TODAY. Not 10 years ago like you seem to say with your "once saved, always saved". Christ expects us to believe today and tomorrow and so on. Present tense.
Regards
I can't speak for all Baptist's.
Yes, I believe the water Jesus is referring to in John 3:5 is the water that you are physically in prior to birth.
It's because we can read Scripture, study history and think.
The Apostles were missionaries. The Apostles did not serve as bishops, except James the brother of Jesus in Jerusalem. Decision making and organizational structure of the early church was congregational. The idea of a direct line is a myth as there are gaps in it, the most glaring being the Apostles not directly appointing the next generation of leadership. The monobishophoric system did not emerge until after the Apostolic era and was not created by the Apostles.
In addition the merger of the church to the state and the systematic creation of doctrine that separates the believer from God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit leads any Bible believing Christian to reject their claimed authority.
The view is held among Reformed (Protestant) Christians that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are sacraments and do impart grace in a real sense.
The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. (Westminster Confession of Faith, 27:3)Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance [baptism], yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. (WCF, 28:5)
The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time. (WCF, 28:5,6)
The Reformed believe the wine and bread are transformed and the Holy Spirit only indwells the believer after Baptism? If not how can these ordinances impart Grace?
“The view is held among Reformed (Protestant) Christians that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are sacraments and do impart grace in a real sense.”
What is the grace that is imparted?
“Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance [baptism], yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. (WCF, 28:5)”
What is the “great sin” to neglect baptism and conversly, what is the effect on the unbeliever who is baptized? If it confers grace, then it seems like there should be some adverse spiritual consequences for the unbeliever.
Me: Whether the Gentiles were to be included or not is a story unto itself. Jesus never taught it and Acts 13:46 suggests it was an aftertought.
You: I strongly disagree. It was taught in the Song of Moses (Torah) and in the prophets: They have moved me to jealousy with [that which is] not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with [those which are] not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. – Deut 32:21
Yeah, in the OT the Gentiles were included alright — in God's wrath, that's for sure. Read on, why stop at verse 21; go the next three verses and see that this "inclusion" was anything but "grafting" the Gentiles to the Jewish vine; rather, it is a declaration of genocide!
Some "inclusion" AG.
Ah. Don't tell me another time your mariophobia has no deleterious effects. God did not send Christ as God. God sent Christ as Man.
What? What do you mean God did not send Christ as God? He was sent as both, since He WAS both. And, what does this have to do with Mary? I'm not following you.
Christ as God could not be sent anywhere. He is God now and forever and outside of time.
If you want to take it from God's POV, that is always fine with me. As you know, I do it all the time. :) In this case, Christ as God is "sending Himself", as it were. I do the same thing when I decide to run an errand. Not a big deal to me. The language used is more suited to the human POV, but it is adaptable to God's also.
Now, Christ, in this verse, plain text, sends the Church likewise, like men. I know it is shocking, but all I do is read what is written.
I presume you mean to distinguish the elite hierarchy from the laity ("Church" vs. men). I would certainly agree that all the Christian Catholic hierarchy are also called to follow Christ, minister, lead, etc. So are all Protestant pastors, ministers, deacons, etc. Nothing shocking there. I think we again disagree on who "the Church" is. Your hierarchy was included in the verse, but not to the exclusion of other Christians. That's the difference.
I am sought of [them that] asked not [for me]; I am found of [them that] sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation [that] was not called by my name. – Isaia 65:1
Here we have a similar misrepresentation as in Deuteronomy 32, shown to be out-of-context as is manifest simply by reading more than one select verse.
Chapter 65 of Isaiah is all about the Jews, not Gentiles. God is angry with idolatrous Jews. It is clear that throught the chapter, in context, God speaks about the Jews, not the Gentiles.
[Note: a point of clarification is needed here: the OT uses the word goyim to include the non-believeing (idolatrous) people, Jews OR Gentiles. The only way to know which 'goyim' are spoken of is in context]
But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you [Deu 32]. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people [Isa 65]. – Romans 10:19-21
This is an excellent example how +Paul mixed and matched unrelated OT quotes to OT-ignorant Romans to support his teaching. Both quotes (Deuter 32, and Isa 65) are not even remotely related to anything about God intending to include the Gentiles in His fold.
As I have shown in my previous post, Deut 32 is actually a call for genocide against those whom the OT God intensly dislikes rather than including the gentiles into the Jewish "vine."
The Reformed believe that the sacraments are a real means of grace in that they truly and physically represent God’s salvation to us. It confirms to those who truly believe that they are in a state of grace and can have assurance of salvation in this life.
The Reformed do not hold to a Roman Catholic concept of grace, which appears to be the presupposition behind these questions.
Two things here sping to mind: (1) Christ was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, not for the Gentiles as well. (2) Gentiles who wish to hang around their "master's" tables can benefit from the "crumbs" of their master's blessings. Only the "dogs" who believe in their masters will benefit as well (provided they don't bite the hand that feeds them). In other words, submissive and cooperative Gentiles will benefit but will never become like their masters; man and dogs will never be the same.
Let us not forget that any inclusion of Gentiles was unthinkable in those days. The Jews could not even eat with the Gentiles or form close relationships, converts notwithstanding. The only way a Gentile could be "grafted" onto the Jewish vine was for him or her to become Jewish.
No inclusion here.
Mat 23 is all about Pharisees and Jews. No inclusion here. we are talking about the lost sheep of the house of Israel all along.
A bit of contextual explanation is needed here. Samaritans use their own version of the Old Testament as their Scripture (in verse 25 the woman says "'"I know that Messiah is coming; when that One comes, He will declare all things to us'"). The Jews considered them to be false believers.
Christ is telling the woman that they don't know what they believe, and that seeking God through the Samaritan heresy is wrong. For, their true salvation is in the Jewish faith, not their distortion of it (funny, the rabbis used the same argument in Jamnia against Christians).
In other words, since they already claim the God of Abraham, they need to worship Him in true spirit (as the Jews do).
There is nothing here to indicate a general call of inclusion of the Gentiles into the Jewish vine, as a second-class add-on, but nothing short of full conversion to Judaism. certainly Christ never taught that Gentiles were to forsake the circumcision or dietary restrictions and still be considered true believers. Not even Samaritans whose only Scripture is the OT were acceptable because their OT fell short of the Jewish interpretation of it.
In context of Mat 15:24, the "sheep" in question are the lost sheep of the House of Israel (not of this fold), the only purpose for Christ's coming accoridng to Matthew. It is not an unequivocal call for gentiles to 'join' without adhering to Judaism.
The call to follow Him did not mean it's okay not to follow the Jewish customs for anyone who wants to convert.
There is nothing here to suggest the Greeks could join without circumcision, or dietary restrictions. Nothing short of becoming fully Jewish. Either you were a Jew or a Gentile.
I meant to ping you all to 14,098 FWIW
AH! You are paying attention! :)
Busted clock syndrome. But I DO try. :)
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.