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 he was the only one who was found to be righteous.
You see, it doesn't matter if you have sinned or not; we all have sinned. What matters is if God finds us to be righteous, and there are many such people in the Bible.
Neither.. the paraclete(Holy Spirit).. is the one who comes alongside(any christian) to help and administer comfort.. for thats what paraclete MEANS.. The Holy Spirit is NOT a moron..
The Holy Spirit received this charge from Jesus who received his charge from the Father.. "Wherever two or even three congregate(in my name) there am I(Father, son, Holy Spirt) in the midst of them"
You either believe this or not.. NO other authority is recogized by the faithful.. Because there IS no other authority.. Many congregations meets in some other name.. a church name usually..
If the Holy Spirit is NOT there then you meet in vain... Who then is in charge of the "meeting" the Holy Spirit -or- some drama play with historical meaning.. and a script, litergy, and even a band(music) sometimes..
Takes faith to believe in the Father, Jesus AND the Holy Spirit.. Jesus left us all in the hands of the Holy Spirit.. We are not orphans.. and need to learn how to be spirits ourselves.. Could be WHY Jesus did that <<- left us in the hands of the Holy Spirit.. Ya Think?..
I see what you are saying. I think there is a much greater difference in how my side views justification vs. salvation. We see justification as being only and purely legal. We have no real involvement or participation of any kind. Salvation is more familial, since our love for Him is involved and participates (within the Reformed view, of course :).
Thus, a man can abide in Christ today, thinking he is of the elect today, and then turn around and fall away - revoking Christ. Is such a man still of the elect? I would say the Scriptures refer to this sin of apostasy as sufficient to lose one's salvation. IF this happens even once somewhere, then absolute salvation guaranteed is false.
OK, that's what I was trying to nail down, thanks. My side believes that God promises that this never happens.
[Re: 1 Cor. 9] FK: "The "disqualification" he speaks of at the end of 9 does not refer to salvation. He switches gears in first talking about the aimless person, and then about beating his own, already saved, breast. It refers to the same rewards in Heaven he speaks of in 1 Cor. 3:14-15:"
He doesn't say that FK. Where does he say he is already saved?
Paul says he is already saved all over the place in his writings. Here are just a couple:
Rom 10:9 : 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
It is clear to me that Paul believed he had already completed this requirement when he made his statement. He doesn't say "you 'might' be saved". See also verse 13.
Eph 2:8-9 : 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
Surely Paul already believed this also applied to him. Finally:
2 Thess 2:13 : 13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
Again, Paul would obviously include himself in this. There can be no doubt of any kind that PAUL knew he was saved and of the elect according to the Bible. The only question that can be asked is whether he was right, since Tradition disagrees with Paul.
Really? You sure you want to discuss 1 Cor 3:14-17? Read 1 Cor 3:17 and you will find that Paul is not talking about rewards and rewards lost in heaven!
Well, then it's a verse-off between 15 and 17. I see no reasonable way to interpret around 15. While "destroy" in 17 can certainly mean "kill" or refer to death, it can also mean severely punish for sin, without the loss of salvation. That is reasonable since we all do "something" in this category during our lives, and our salvation is not lost.
First of all, in YOUR understanding of salvation, a person is not "just barely saved as if running out of a burning building"! Either you are saved or not. And it is not even your own doing. Thus, how can someone just "barely" be saved?
You are right that my position is that no one is just barely saved, he either is or he is not. I do not see this concept anywhere in our passage. 15 says that if a man's works are lesser, then his Heavenly reward will be lesser, but nonetheless, he will still be just as saved as before. Here, the comparison is to being alive. Whether one has burned edges or not, alive is alive. I think that is the point.
Either one loses salvation and is condemned to eternal fire or they enter heaven. Have you not read the story of the vineyard workers who ALL received the same pay for various times at work? We ALL will receive the reward of heaven. These verses more properly would refer to the Catholic understanding of purgation.
Yes, I have read the story. :) While I think your reading is perfectly reasonable, I also think there is another, equally reasonable reading. That is, if this parable was about the type of rewards in Heaven that I am talking about, then it is still useful for teaching. For example, let's say that you and I both became Christians today with equal faiths and zeal for God. We both strike forth eagerly to do good things for God. Well, one month from now, I am run over by a bus. You miss me terribly, but you soldier on and do many many wonderful and great things for God for the next 40 years. Now when we both face our reward judgment, as I claim, it is possible for us to still come out the same, even though you did many more great things for God than I did. This parable can reasonably be seen in more than one way.
And, how does purgatory fit into this? From my understanding, purgatory is (de)merit-based. That doesn't seem to fit the model of this parable.
Your tradition is 1500 years removed from the Apostles.
That's OK because my tradition is not an authority to me. :)
No it is not invalid because the Eucharist WAS better developed in terms of its reality. The identity of Christ was NOT universally known and accepted by those same writers. All you need to do is read, FK. The evidence is clearly there. The major themes of the first three Councils were the identity of Christ. One of the greatest heresies was called Arianism - the idea that Christ was NOT the essence of God. Many in the East followed this teaching. Where do you find such disagreement on the Eucharist, FK?
Part of my point was that your first sentence here CANNOT be right. By definition. :) Alright, I'll cut right to the chase: when the Arians worshiped, did they perform a valid Eucharist, believing in a Christ that neither you nor I recognize? I can't imagine that is possible. "Ex opere operato" does not stretch this far! :) If any whole (Arian) church was apostate, then how could anyone be rightly disposed to receive the sacraments? It's not possible. They didn't believe in the correct God.
FK: "Paul knew Christ's identity immediately upon conversion."
No, I disagree. That is not how God works - with ANYONE. Even Christ "learned" and "grew" in wisdom. I don't see Paul receiving divine revelation in an instant about His entire plan. The Scriptures tell us that HE ALSO stayed in Antioch and learned the faith immediately following his conversion.
Knowing Christ's identity and having everything figured out are two COMPLETELY different things. I think it was on this thread that I had to revise an earlier statement to acknowledge that Paul did indeed grow in faith after his conversion. However, the first thing we learn at the conversion "scene" is Paul recognizing Jesus as Lord. I don't see how there can be any question of this. Paul WAS "zapped" with special wisdom and faith instantly. He then went away for three years and developed it (under God) to be able to give us the writings he has. God's perfect plan. From scratch, Paul went from Saul the Christian hunter to Paul the author of most of the NT in three years. That is not possible without SPECIAL divine intervention.
FK: "The centurion was obviously fully converted when he spoke, so he had greater faith than Mary. It would be better for your side to say that Mary WASN'T converted by then. :)"
I don't understand how you came up with that one. The centurion was fully converted? Which Scripture commentary makes such a statement?
I just reasoned that if his was the greatest faith in all of Israel, then he must have been converted. So, to answer your question, I had to look it up. I found this:
On Matthew 8:10 : [I have not found so great faith] The word "faith," here, means "confidence" or belief that Christ had power to heal his servant. It does not of "necessity" imply that he had saving faith; though, from the connection and the spirit manifested, it seems probable that he had. If this was so, then he was the first Gentile convert to Christianity, and was a very early illustration of what was more clearly revealed afterward-that the pagan were to be brought to the knowledge of the truth. (from Barnes' Notes)
And this is from Matthew Henry:
[2.] He applauded him in what he said to them that followed. All believers shall be, in the other world, but some believers are, in this world, confessed and acknowledged by Christ before men, in his eminent appearances for them and with them. Verily, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. Now this speaks, First, Honour to the centurion; who, though not a son of Abraham's loins, was an heir of Abraham's faith, and Christ found it so. Note, The thing that Christ seeks is faith, and wherever it is, he finds it, though but as a grain of mustard-seed. He had not found so great faith, all things considered, and in proportion to the means; as the poor widow is said to cast in more than they all, Luke 21:3. Though the centurion was a Gentile, yet he was thus commended. (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible) (emphasis added)
And these were the first two places I checked. I didn't think it would be any problem to find support for that the centurion was converted. The text tells us. He knew without seeing. From a Gentile at that time, it just screams true faith to me.
As to Mary not being converted, I guess it is your natural aversion of the Mother of God.
I believe Mary was fully converted at some point, but I don't think we can be sure about when that was. Surely she was not when Jesus was 12.
I suppose Jesus really appreciates such thoughts about His human mother whom He fashioned from scratch. I suppose this is another stellar example of your "veneration" and "honor" you give to Mary. With friends like you, who needs enemies...
Jesus appreciates truth, which is given to us in His word. His word does not describe a perfect, sinless Mary. It describes a loving mother, Mary. It describes a faithful Mary. For that I do honor her. If I meet her in Heaven, I doubt her reaction will be "Why didn't you pray to me and bow down before icons and statues of me and venerate me properly?"
Yes, you are joking that "reformed" Protestants give honor to Mary.
We honor her humanity as well as her deeds. I wonder what she would think if she knew that hundreds of millions of people would effectively take away her humanity by elevating her above it. If it is meant to be, I look forward to seeing her in Heaven, and I will have a clear conscience.
Would you mind commenting on your understanding of these verses? {My questions follow each verse.}
“Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.” (Eph. 4:29) {Does this not appear to speak of increased grace as the result of obedience?}
“Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord: looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled;” (Heb. 12:14,15) {Does not the will of the person play into the “falling short”?}
“Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for "God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.” (1 Peter 5:5; cf. James 4:6) {Does not grace come to those who are willingly humble?}
“We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain.” (2 Cor. 6:1) {How can one receive God’s grace in vain if it has nothing to do with the “individual’s will”?}
“But as you abound in everything--in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all diligence, and in your love for us--see that you abound in this grace also.” (2 Cor. 8:7) {Does this not speak of “abounding in grace” as the result of our actions?}
“You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” (Gal. 5:4) {Again, how can one “fall from grace” if it is “irrespective of the individual’s will”?}
Then went Luther split from the Church, as a fully ordained priest, didn't he carry the "apostolic succession"?
It's not about leading the flock 'legally' — the east-west split is over theology. As long as we don't agree on some issues we cannot be in communion. That's the only thing thats separates us. There is no other separation.
What a hoo! That to me sounds like a big DUH! You can say the Protestants split over theology as well. If the keys are handed to Peter and the Vatican traces its succesion of Popes to Peter, then it seems to me the Orthodox are not following the line of Peter, now are they? Where is the apostolic succession in all of this?
Apostolic succession is really nothing more than a myth.
I'm just curious, have you ever read Hebrews and the distinction between the Levitical priesthood (of what the passover was part and which passed away 2000 years ago) and the better priesthood of Melchizedek of which Jesus is High Priest? Do you get the difference? Are you suggesting that Jesus and Christians today are Levites?
Can you point to any place in the Bible where God authorized His people to modify these temporary, old covenant rites associated with Passover to fit current conditions?
It seems that should answer your questions.
The convincing power is God's alone. He is Light. And He speaks to us individually - from the very same passage revealing one truth at one time to one person in one circumstance - and yet another truth from the same passage at a different time, perhaps even to the same person in a different circumstance.
Now that's spoken like a true Protestant.
THANKS! AMEN!
Ouch!.. well thats in your face.. I like it..
Jesus metaphor of eat my body drink my blood was hyperbolic metaphor.. and boy did it WORK..
It brought out the MOONBAT in some..
I have certainly read Hebrews and know that the order of Melchizedek is not something new but stretches all the way back to Abraham. I also see in the Old Testament prophecies of what will surely happen (for the promises of God are without repentance) that the priesthood will be restored to Israel. Different slant this time, for they will recognize the Messiah. But, it will be there nevertheless.
Zechariah 12
10And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
11In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
12And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;
13The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;
14All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.
Zechariah 14
16And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
17And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
20In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD’s house shall be like the bowls before the altar.
21Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.
And if not???
This sounds to me like you don't know.
Speaking in hypotheticals does not indicate what I believe about their system of belief one way or another. From other threads, you know full well what my beliefs are concerning the future of Jews, Messianic or otherwise.
That's too bad. I think it comes from your idea that man is totally corrupt. We see man as wounded. In either case, we absolutely require God's aid, but we also see a cooperation within that necessary aid. Thus, being just means to give God his due that He deserves. We believe that man can do that - or refuse that - at different points in their lives.
OK, that's what I was trying to nail down, thanks. My side believes that God promises that this never happens.
Only the elect. Again, however, we don't know who the "true" elect are until we are judged. ALL are judged upon death. This would be unnecessary if we already knew we were elect. We would just flash our badge...
Paul says he is already saved all over the place in his writings. Here are just a couple:
Rom 10:9 : 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
I was refering to 1 Cor 9, not an entirely different letter within an entirely different context. The confusion is that Paul is often ambiguous on "salvation". Sometimes, it refers to that one moment where we accept Jesus as our Lord and beg for forgiveness. Sometimes, it is refering to a current healing or sanctification, and at times, he refers to entering the Kingdom of Heaven after we die. Thus, it is a mistake to appropriate the definition of one meaning and apply it to ALL of Paul's use of the word.
Again, Paul would obviously include himself in this. There can be no doubt of any kind that PAUL knew he was saved and of the elect according to the Bible. The only question that can be asked is whether he was right, since Tradition disagrees with Paul.
Paul never comes out and says "I'm of the elect of heaven" or "I am going to heaven, regardless of what I do". He says he is saved with confidence that IF he continues to persevere through the grace of God, he will attain the goal, have finished the race. He never says he has completed the race already. The very idea of race doesn't give in to the idea of "already a done deal".
While "destroy" in 17 can certainly mean "kill" or refer to death, it can also mean severely punish for sin, without the loss of salvation
Now you are using special pleading to twist the meaning of the word "death". When does death mean "punishment without loss of salvation"? Can you point me to an example of a person dying spiritually while maintaining his seat in Heaven???
That is reasonable since we all do "something" in this category during our lives, and our salvation is not lost.
WHICH salvation is not lost?! That one moment in time of the past, or our current status in God's eyes or our future position in heaven? See what happens when we discuss the word "salvation"? It has multiple meanings. What you are doing is taking the first meaning and applying it to everytime the word is used. The word is used in the past, present, and future tense as something being gained or yet to be gained or already gained. This is causing you to believe we can never loss salvation, because you narrow the definition to only the past and apply it to all other uses of the word.
You are right that my position is that no one is just barely saved, he either is or he is not. I do not see this concept anywhere in our passage. 15 says that if a man's works are lesser, then his Heavenly reward will be lesser, but nonetheless, he will still be just as saved as before. Here, the comparison is to being alive. Whether one has burned edges or not, alive is alive. I think that is the point.
The comparision in Protestant commentaries on these verses is to note that a person is just barely saved AS IF he had just escaped a burning house, with his clothes singed. This is a very problematic set of verses for Protestant theology. Also, you are again reading into the Scripture what is not there. NOWHERE does the verses discuss "heavenly rewards" or loss of them while retaining heaven! In context, they are speaking of eternal heaven or loss of heaven. Again, verse 17 seals the deal. NO ONE who is "dead" or "destroyed" spiritually will enter heaven!
Now when we both face our reward judgment, as I claim, it is possible for us to still come out the same, even though you did many more great things for God than I did. This parable can reasonably be seen in more than one way.
Scripture can be read in many different ways... This is why I do not believe that Scripture is self-explanatory.
And, how does purgatory fit into this? From my understanding, purgatory is (de)merit-based. That doesn't seem to fit the model of this parable.
The parable doesn't detail everything about how salvation works. It only discusses an aspect of it. Purgatory is dependent upon our response to God, true. However, once we are purified, we will all receive the same God as our reward. The difference in heaven, I believe, is that those who loved more will be more open to the Union in heaven.
my tradition is not an authority to me. :)
Sure it is! You have the tradition of Sola Scriptura. You know deep down that the Bible doesn't mention that anywhere. You know that the Catholic attack on Sola Scriptura makes sense. However, to maintain your own tradition, you doggedly stand by it, defending it, although you must know that common sense nullifies the doctrine. If Sola Scriptura was true, God would have mentioned it at least once in the Bible, don't you think? But He didn't. Thus, you maintain a tradition that is not found in the Scriptures. Worse, you maintain Sola Fide, which is DENIED in the Scriptures. This is to maintain the tradition that has been handed down to you, not because you came up with this teaching on your own reading of the Bible!
Alright, I'll cut right to the chase: when the Arians worshiped, did they perform a valid Eucharist, believing in a Christ that neither you nor I recognize? I can't imagine that is possible. "Ex opere operato" does not stretch this far! :) If any whole (Arian) church was apostate, then how could anyone be rightly disposed to receive the sacraments? It's not possible. They didn't believe in the correct God.
AH, that is exactly what St. Athanasius challenged the Arians with! He asked them "HOW can you worship Jesus as God in the Eucharist, in Mass, if Jesus is not God"? This question on the liturgical practices of the Arians brought out the separation between practice and theological belief. They worshipped Christ and then said He wasn't God! How could they be true Christians - since only God is worshipped? They worshipped correctly but did not think out their heretical beliefs. That is generally the case with heresy - incorrect theological assumptions or questions leads to a theological matrix that is not supportive of other beliefs within the matrix.
However, the first thing we learn at the conversion "scene" is Paul recognizing Jesus as Lord. I don't see how there can be any question of this. Paul WAS "zapped" with special wisdom and faith instantly. He then went away for three years and developed it (under God) to be able to give us the writings he has. God's perfect plan. From scratch, Paul went from Saul the Christian hunter to Paul the author of most of the NT in three years. That is not possible without SPECIAL divine intervention.
It appears that you agree with me that Paul grew in knowledge of God. As to Paul's conversion, we continue to see such things even today. I know of people who hated Christians and became one later in life. Yes, it is not possible without divine intervention. But that goes without saying as ALL OF US require divine intervention - FAITH - to call upon His Name.
I wrote : I don't understand how you came up with that one. The centurion was fully converted? Which Scripture commentary makes such a statement?
You responded : I just reasoned that if his was the greatest faith in all of Israel, then he must have been converted. So, to answer your question, I had to look it up. I found this:
You are missing my understanding of "fully converted". Where does the Gospel tell us that this man "dropped everything and became a disciple of our Lord"? He had faith in Jesus' POWER TO HEAL, His authority over sickness. It doesn't follow that the Centurion had ANY clue that Jesus was the Messiah or the Son of God or the Savior of the world. I think you are going way too far on your assumptions from what is written. IF the Centurion was "fully converted", he would have put aside his former life and followed Christ, which is what all disciples of Christ do.
I believe Mary was fully converted at some point, but I don't think we can be sure about when that was. Surely she was not when Jesus was 12.
Mary KNEW better than any other human that Jesus would be the Savior of the world. The angel told her so at the Annunciation. She was fully converted, according to your definition. The incident in the Temple that you speak of is Mary not completely understanding God's plan of salvation and how she would be involved. Perhaps Mary was thinking of their relationship as mother-son in human terms too closely. Jesus transcends that relationship, here, but even more so during His ministry, beginning with Cana, WITHOUT dispensing of it. Mary had to "ponder these things in her heart" just like we all must. That is why I do not believe that ANYONE, including Paul, is given absolute and perfect knowledge about God's Will.
It describes a faithful Mary. For that I do honor her.
In what ways? Explain your devotion to her. I would imagine you revere your favorite soap opera star more than the Mother of God.
If I meet her in Heaven, I doubt her reaction will be "Why didn't you pray to me and bow down before icons and statues of me and venerate me properly?"
Of course she won't. Mary is humble, and humble people don't ask such questions. YOU will ask YOURSELF that question once you discover Mary through the eyes of the Church. As a hint, consider reading "Mary" whenever you see the Bible speak about the "Church". Its purity, its holiness, being mother and virgin, and so forth. Then, it will become more profoundly clear what exactly the Church teaches about herself and Mary.
Regards
I notice how quickly you can get off track.
Deal with Hebrews first, and then we can talk about Zechariah, the priesthood, prophecies, etc in the light of what we learn from Hebrews and the rest of the NT.
Hebrews is not in a vacuum. You have to take the Bible as a whole. I am on track. You are out of context.
How would one know, since you haven't given any indication you know what Hebrews is all about?
You won’t get Zechariah right until you can demonstrate you got Hebrews right, and you understand what the apostles were teaching about the OT prophecies and how they all applied to Christ.
Lots of hand waving and no substance.
Frankly, your response is gibberish to a Christian, Kosta. To say that supporting Scripture "dilutes the point we're making" is like saying that using our arms and legs while we swim takes the fun out of the swimming pool.
God intends for us to measure every step we take by His word, by Jesus Christ as He reveals Himself to us in Scripture through the work of the Holy Spirit. We might get some things wrong, but we're never not supposed to strive for correct alignment with His word. It is the yardstick by which all human thought must be reconciled, whether men acknowledge that fact or not.
This is the correct, prosperous and optimal way to live. To diminish the word of God is to diminish God. Period.
It's no coincidence that out of the 33 chapters of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the very first chapter is, "Of the Holy Scripture." Each of the footnotes refers to supporting Scripture...
I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6] II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.[7] III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.[8] IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9] V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11] VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14] VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16] VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22] IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23] X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]
Of the Holy Scripture
If you can't or won't cite Scripture in defense of your positions, your positions just aren't worth very much to God or to Christian men and women. Sorry. I don't make the rules, but I sure can read them.
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.