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

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

[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/

[Alamo-Girl]

Discussing the issues in smaller sections here on the forum is ok with me as long as we accept the revelations of God altogether:

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: - Luke 24:25

Concerning the Song of Moses and its reference to the Gentiles in verse 21, you said:

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!

To the contrary, dear kosta50, the verses following 21 are speaking of God’s judgment of the children of Israel for their idolatry – not the Gentiles.

Here is the commandment and reason given to Moses for writing the “Song of Moses” which will also be sung in heaven:

And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go [to be] among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them. Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God [is] not among us? And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods. Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel. For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, that floweth with milk and honey; and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxen fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant. And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are befallen them, that this song shall testify against them as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed: for I know their imagination which they go about, even now, before I have brought them into the land which I sware. – Deut 31:16-21

And here is the section of the Song of Moses, the mention of the “not-a-people (Gentiles)” is italicized, followed by the curses which truly apply to the nation of the children of Israel, not the Gentiles:

And when the LORD saw [it], he abhorred [them], because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters. And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end [shall be]: for they [are] a very froward generation, children in whom [is] no faith. 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. For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them. [They shall be] burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust. The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling [also] with the man of gray hairs. I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men: Were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy, lest their adversaries should behave themselves strangely, [and] lest they should say, Our hand [is] high, and the LORD hath not done all this.

For they [are] a nation void of counsel, neither [is there any] understanding in them. O that they were wise, [that] they understood this, [that] they would consider their latter end! How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up? For their rock [is] not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves [being] judges. For their vine [is] of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes [are] grapes of gall, their clusters [are] bitter: Their wine [is] the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps. – Deut 32:19-33

And so it has been, that when Israel is right before God, the nation has had astonishing military successes – and when they were not - they were overcome in similar disproportion revealing that God Himself caused it (Jericho, Ai, Isa 30:15-17). Likewise, God has scattered them (diasporas) and regathered them again. (Jer 31:10, nation of Israel today.)

How many nations have survived two millennia of diaspora?

I strongly reassert that the statements in Romans 10:19-21 applying Deu 32:21 to Gentiles are Truth.

[topcat54]

Coming from a Baptist background, we do not call them “sacraments.” Rather, we call them ordinances.

Correct, because in the Zwinglian model they do not confer grace.

We do not believe that they confer any special “grace”, though those who participate are certainly blessed for having done so.

Can you define the nature of this “blessing” scripturally? If they are not a means of grace (i.e., that which builds us up wrt our salvation in Christ), then what other sort of blessing is implied?

Christ ordained that we should participate in them, however, or lack of participation in them does not in any way diminish the fact we are saved.

Let’s not confuse terms. Christ said, “if you love Me you will keep My commandmants.” The means of grace do not contribute to our justification. That rests entirely on the work of Christ. However, part of our salvation is our sanctification, which we may not neglect to the peril of our soul. The means of grace (or “evangelical graces” per the WCF) relates us to our sanctification. If you say you belong to Christ yet neglect habitually His sacraments, is that not hypocrisy?

Does good fruit grow on a bad tree? A good tree will produce good fruit. A bad tree will produce bad fruit. Participation in the means of grace is evidence (good fruit). But more than that they are like fertilizer, to strengthen the fruit that is being produced by the tree.

I think you have a stunted (baptistic) view of what salvific means in toto. Thus the view of (optional) ordinances vs. sacraments as a true means of grace.

Regarding the Lord’s Supper, the Second Helvetic Confession puts it this way:

Sacramental Eating of the Lord. Besides the higher spiritual eating there is also a sacramental eating of the body of the Lord by which not only spiritually and internally the believer truly participates in the true body and blood of the Lord, but also, by coming to the Table of the Lord, outwardly receives the visible sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord. To be sure, when the believer believed, he first received the life-giving food, and still enjoys it. But therefore, when he now receives the sacrament, he does not receive nothing. For he progresses in continuing to communicate in the body and blood of the Lord, and so his faith is kindled and grows more and more, and is refreshed by spiritual food. For while we live, faith is continually increased. And he who outwardly receives the sacrament by true faith, not only receives the sign, but also, as we said, enjoys the thing itself. Moreover, he obeys the Lord's institution and commandment, and with a joyful mind gives thanks for his redemption and that of all mankind, and makes a faithful memorial to the Lord's death, and gives a witness before the Church, of whose body he is a member. Assurance is also given to those who receive the sacrament that the body of the Lord was given and his blood shed, not only for men in general, but particularly for every faithful communicant, to whom it is food and drink unto eternal life.

This link might offer more insight into the Reformed perspective.

[hosepipe]

[.. And reveal the truth to the un-religious? ..]

Exactly..

[topcat54]

I don't mean to come across as being snippy. It seems straight forward though, Communion and Baptism either are symbolic acts or they impart Grace to a believer.

If there were only two views, than you would be correct. I believe the Reformed view provides the via media between two extreme views; memorialist vs. infusionist.

The Roman view is not that the sacraments impart grace to the believer, but rather that it infuses grace into the believer. You may not see the difference between Reformed and Romanism, but there is one.

I suggest you locate a good study of the Reformation esp. wrt the Lutheran, Zwinglian, and Reformed/Calvinistic positions on the sacraments, all of which are non-Roman Catholic. Calvin has an extensive treatment of the subject in his Institutes.

[Blogger]

Gee. You managed to say all that and throw in an insult against Baptists to boot.

As to a blessing, a blessing is something that God gives to us that may or may not be in reward for something we have done. Grace is wholly the unmerited favor of God upon us.

Zwingli, while I agree with him on many things, is not the model for Baptists. We are sola scriptura and have quite a healthy understanding of soteriology, thank you very much.

Scripture for “Blessing”?

Genesis 22:18
and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”

Matthew 5:10
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

[topcat54]

Gee. You managed to say all that and throw in an insult against Baptists to boot.

Oh, come now. We’re not that thin skinned around here, are we? It’s not like I called you an “anti-Semite”.

As to a blessing, a blessing is something that God gives to us that may or may not be in reward for something we have done. Grace is wholly the unmerited favor of God upon us.

Seeing as you are a sola Scriptura person, can you give me those definitions from the Bible?

Scripture for “Blessing”?

I know how to use a concordance. I really was interested how you come to use “blessing” vs. “grace” wrt the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper without being arbitrary.

[Alamo-Girl]

As with Deuteronomy 32:21 - Isaiah 65:1 applies to the Gentiles and Paul was the scribe for Spiritual Truth when he explains both in Romans 10:19-21:

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

And, as with the previous post on the Song of Moses, we can see which prophesies apply to the Gentiles and which apply to the Jews alone by spiritually consuming the entire Isaiah 65. (hosepipe, your remarks about God’s attitude toward the outwardly religious are underscored below) Obvious references to Christians are italicized:

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. I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way [that was] not good, after their own thoughts; A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick; Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable [things is in] their vessels; Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These [are] a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.

Behold, [it is] written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom, Your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the LORD, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.

Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and [one] saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing [is] in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all. And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there. And Sharon shall be a fold of flocks, and the valley of Achor a place for the herds to lie down in, for my people that have sought me. But ye [are] they that forsake the LORD, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number. Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose [that] wherein I delighted not.

Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty: behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed: Behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit. And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name: That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes.

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever [in that] which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner [being] an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit [them]; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree [are] the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they [are] the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.

And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust [shall be] the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

Paul has scribed Truth which must be spiritually discerned. Jesus emphasizes that we will worship the God of/in Truth (Isa 65):

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. – John 4:21-23

[hosepipe]

So true... its was the religious folk that murdered the Messiah.. Choosing "Barabbas"(son of the father) as a mocking gesture.. When the word religious is spoken with no respect the same kind of people rise up to defend it..

Religions are indeed Clubs.. that think the God that made the universe is a moron and a member or sponsor of their club..

When the reality is they are sheep pens(John Ch10) all the true sheep have been released.. The unprofitable servants remain penned up.. The plan is beautiful in its simplicity..

[Blogger]

I answered your question Topcat. You wanted a Scriptural definition of blessing verses grace. I gave it to you. Now as to the nuance of blessing as specific to Lord’s Supper and Baptism, I refer you to my previous post. Regardless what the topic is, Grace is wholly unmerited, whereas a blessing may be bestowed with or without the good deeds of the individual. When David cries “I will bless the Lord!” He is sending praise towards Him for both WHO He is and for WHAT He does. If God had done nothing for us, simply by virtue of who He is, He is worthy of our praise, blessing, honor and glory.

In Baptism, we are obedient to Christ. In Lord’s Supper as well. In obedience, there is blessing. But God’s grace is wholly unmerited and He gives it to both saint and sinner alike as He wills. (Are not the heathen participants in His grace by simply being alive and in not cast into the fire at any given moment?)

Contrary to being thin-skinned, I’m just noting that you are starting a conversation as you always seem to start it off - with an insult. I try to get you to further clarify your statements as non-salvific (i.e., in the sense of Catholicism), and you smear my denomination. I am trying to be civil, and was trying to clarify what you were saying. On this particular issue, we are a lot closer together than far apart. I can set aside disagreements on other issues. Can you?

[topcat54]

You wanted a Scriptural definition of blessing verses grace. I gave it to you.

I'm sorry to say, but you did not. Since that is critical to the discussion, I'm afraid we cannot progress until you are willing to share exactly from the Bible "grace" vs. "blessing" and how they may relate to the sacraments.

I suspect you have an opinion, but until you can substantiate it from the Word of God I don’t have much to go on.

Grace is wholly unmerited, whereas a blessing may be bestowed with or without the good deeds of the individual.

You are only repeating yourself. You need to demonstrate these things wrt the sacraments from the Bible. Why is that so hard to do?

Contrary to being thin-skinned, I’m just noting that you are starting a conversation as you always seem to start it off - with an insult. I try to get you to further clarify your statements as non-salvific (i.e., in the sense of Catholicism), and you smear my denomination.

I don’t think I said anything about anyone’s denomination. If I said something offensive I apologize.

[Blogger]

I think you have a stunted (baptistic) view of what salvific means in toto.
Was the statement I was referring to, and apology accepted. The rest I will work on later tonight as I have run out of time this afternoon.

[topcat54]

Looking forward to it.

BTW, “baptistic” is not a denomination.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

FOREST KEEPER: 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?

KOSTA; So that she may be resurrected.

Frankly, that's a non-answer since anyone who has been cleansed of their sins by Christ's atonement will be resurrected. Period.

Unless you know of someone, Kosta, for whom Christ died who will not be resurrected.

[Alamo-Girl]

{me: Gentiles were an afterthought [see Act 13:46 which says "since you repudiate it [the word of God] and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles"]; Alamo-Girl: disagrees, quotes NT}

To the contrary, dear kosta50, I quoted the Old Testament prophesies along with the New Testament fulfillment of them. Spiritual discernment involves the entire revelation of God – it cannot be achieved with a flashlight pointed to an isolated verse here and there like Acts 13:46:

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: - Luke 24:25

Of course Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of Israel. He had to be rejected by them for grace to abound to us Gentiles. That was the reason I cited Matt 15:24-28 along with Matt 23:37-38. He knew they would reject Him, but that was all part of God’s plan to open the door for everyone, both Jew and Gentile. That is how He makes them jealous fulfilling the prophesy of Deut 32:21 and Isa 65:1, (Romans 10:19-21) as well as Zec 12:10, Rev 1:7 and Isa 45:23, Phl 2:9-11

That is why I also cited John 4:21-23, John 10:16 and John 12:20-24. While He knew the Jews would reject Him, He also knew (John 12) that His death would bring forth much fruit for the Father, i.e. obviously beyond the Jews who would reject Him, which is to say, fruit among the Gentiles.

Here it is again in summary form:

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:10-13

That was the plan, that was always the plan – from the foundation of the world. Everything moves towards the new heaven and new earth, God and His family.

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Col 1:15-20

That is why I aver that it has always been Christianity, though the majority of Jews didn’t “get it” in their day – nor do many of them understand it even now.

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.

Exactly. They were unable or unwilling to discern what God said to them in Isaiah 65.

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).

Not so, dear kosta50. Christ is telling her that salvation is from the Jews, i.e. He Himself the Messiah, root and offspring of David. Moreover, He is telling her that the true worshippers are not known by their accoutrements of worship but rather that they worship the Father in spirit and in truth. As mentioned in the above post, this also ties back to the prophesy of Isaiah 65:

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. – John 4:21-23

You continued:

In context of Mat 15:24, the "sheep" in question [John 10:16] 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.

Not at all, dear kosta50. Let’s look at the context in John 10 (emphasis mine):

The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him? Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind? And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.

Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: John 10:13-27

The Jews were physically hearing Him (sound, pressure waves) – but they were not spiritually hearing Him. His sheep are the ones who can hear Him – both of the Jews (one fold) and of the Gentiles (another fold.)

In reference to my quote of John 12:20-24 – the appearance of the Greeks seeking Him and His reply that “The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.” You said:

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.

That was indeed the false understanding of the Apostles in Jerusalem. God corrected Peter’s understanding in Acts 10 and 11 when He gave him the vision of the sheet, the call to see Cornelius and then gave Cornelius the Holy Spirit while Peter was still speaking, without a prior water baptism or laying on of his hands.

However, religious people that they were – they not only continued in many of the pointless Jewish traditions (which Christ condemns in Mark 7:7) – but gave the new Gentile converts the impression they were expected to become Jewish by custom as well. Paul corrected them in Acts 15 and 16.

This story is being told to us for yet another reason – a theme which goes from the law and the prophets all the way to Jesus’ message to the church of Ephesus. It is not enough to be doctrinally pure, to be religious in behavior and appearance. We must love God absolutely and our neighbors unconditionally (Matt 22 paraphrased) or we will suffer the fate of the Ephesians who did not overcome their religiousness. (Rev 3)

Who do we believe?

God knows our hearts, that oftentimes we choose to believe a religious system or organization or another mortal or ourselves rather than Him. We must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth - nothing can be above Him in our hearts and minds.

[Alamo-Girl]

Excellent Scripture! Thank you so very much!

[hosepipe]

All our righteousnesses are/is as a filthy rag.. we are all heretics.. and need the covering of the blood of Jesus.. Covered by the blood of Jesus we are Holy, NOT covered we are not.. whether Pope, Mary; Jesus' body's mother or you or I.. or any pretender..

Any that says different are delusional.. and arrogant..

[Alamo-Girl]

me: These words are setting off the alarms in the Spirit. The doctrine [that disciples believed in riencarnation and Christ did not rebuke them] you embrace rejects that which God Himself declared

You: You then quote Mat 11: 11:15 and Matt 17:9-13 (both of which speak of Elijah). As you know, Elijah never died, so incarnation is not an issue, but I am talking about the disciples saying Christ was John the Baptist and Jeremiah (both of whom were dead).

Actually, what you said is this:

Thus, when the Apostles believe that Christ is Elijah, or Jeremiah, or John the Baptist, they are expressing a Judaic pagan-ifluenced belief (common in those days) in reincarnation, for which Christ, curiously, does not rebuke them. Yet Christianity rejects reincarnation.

In Matt 16, Mark 8 and Luke 9 – Christ is asking the disciples who the people are saying that He is – and their replies are Elijah, Jeremiah or John the Baptist. That is not a statement of the disciples’ beliefs. When asked who they think He is, Peter responds with Christ, the Son of the living God.

We have discussed re-incarnation previously. The resurrection body we shall receive is a re-incarnation, we retain our identity. The two witnesses in Revelation are re-incarnated (then die and are re-animated) and retain their identity. I have no further leaning in the spirit concerning re-incarnation nor am I suggesting that all of us are merely re-incarnations of previously existing identities.

But Christ made it very clear that John the Baptist is the prophesied Elijah who would appear before He comes, and did. This requires spiritual discernment – like the body and the blood of Christ we are to eat in John 6 and being born again in John 3.

John the Baptist was not the same, whole identity as Elijah, re-incarnated (John 1:21) as we shall be in our resurrection bodies. He was John the Baptist. Nevertheless, he was also Elijah.

Elijah again appears with Moses on the mount (Matthew 17) in his own, whole identity. Notably, Moses died (Jude) but Elijah did not – and neither did Enoch. Some believe the two witnesses in Revelation will be (or were) Moses and Elijah – others say Enoch and Elijah because neither died. I have no leaning in the Spirit, but my musing is Enoch and Elijah.

At any rate, the apostles were not expressing a Judaic pagan-influenced belief by answering Jesus’ question. Nor is Christ's response or lack thereof - nor is His declaration that John the Baptist is Elijah - a Judiac pagan-influenced belief. It is Truth.

He who lives in eternity knows of Adam from all eternity, but Adam did not exist from all eternity. Therefore knowledge and existence are not one and the same. Adam's soul did not pre-exist his body.

Nor did I claim that it did – only that Adam (like kosta50 and Alamo-Girl) is always known to God because time is not a property of the Creator but rather, the Creation.

[Alamo-Girl]

When the reality is they are sheep pens(John Ch10) all the true sheep have been released.. The unprofitable servants remain penned up.. The plan is beautiful in its simplicity..

Beautiful insights, dear brother in Christ! So very true.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, all of our righteousness amounts to filthy rags. If any mortal could be good enough to get to heaven, then Christ died for nothing. (Gal 2:20-21)

[hosepipe]

[.. John the Baptist was not the same, whole identity as Elijah, re-incarnated (John 1:21) as we shall be in our resurrection bodies. He was John the Baptist. Nevertheless, he was also Elijah. ..]

Interesting concept eh!.. John the baptist being Elijah..

Would be an easy task IF "the body" was just transportation for the spirit..
i.e. Elijahs spirit was John the Baptists spirit.. different bodies..
Would also explain much of what Jesus was TALKING ABOUT most of time..