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

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

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."

It should be painfully clear that the Spirit does NOT lead men to individually interpret Scriptures correctly. You are again making the mistake of equating holiness with Scripture reading. The latter does not necessarily lead to the former.

And you are again describing to me a God of the "Ten Suggestions". If the Spirit is truly leading, THEN there is no individual interpretation. It is the Spirit's interpretation that is given to man. It is not a permission slip given to man to interpret as he sees fit. As we have discussed, it doesn't all happen in an instant, and man still makes mistakes. The process takes a lifetime.

I do not "equate" holiness with scripture reading, but I do say that they do go together. As I asked in a recent post, do you believe that reading scripture does NOT lead to holiness? The tone of your recent arguments leads me to believe that you think that the scriptures are a tertiary side-show to the faith. I hope you think higher of them than that. :)

Your "relationship" with God is through an invisible idea, while mine is through the medium of people and things that I can see. ...

Well, ......

Heb 11:1 : Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

2 Cor 4:18 : So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

2 Cor 5:7 : We live by faith, not by sight.

John 20:29 : Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

---------------

FK: "It establishes "kings" which God said He didn't want in the OT."

Perhaps you have forgotten the numerous times that authority was established by the NT Scriptures, to include Jesus Christ HIMSELF! Isn't it clear that leaders were established in each community as related in the Scriptures? What was their purpose if people were expected to read and heed on their own?

I have not forgotten, and of course, Christ Himself is a special case. There is no comparison to human leaders. This reminds me of the very LAME argument I have heard that Rom. 3:23 doesn't refer to everyone because Jesus isn't excepted. To all who make that argument I say "Give me a break!" :) That's pathetic.

Biblically, leaders are proscribed and are good. There is no arguing that. The problem comes when defining the ultimate authority that they have. I believe that the power you give your leaders is unscriptural because it denies the laity from testing the teachings. For example, as we have discussed, the Bereans were ENCOURAGED to question the teachings as against scripture. The lay Catholic is PROHIBITED from questioning the core teachings from on high, if he wants to remain in good standing as a Catholic.

Now, as a system, I don't really have any problem with this. If one wants to call himself a Roman Catholic, THEN he must believe this, this, and this, and he must practice such and such, etc. That's fine with me. I just don't think that's Biblical because of the extra-scriptural requirements (as I perceive them).

The leadership was established by Christ Himself to preserve what He taught.

Yes.

[continuing:] The Bible is not enough to do this by itself, as is painfully clear in the mere existence of numerous Protestant denominations who claim the Bible as their sole authority... not seeing that THEY are their sole authority. (emphasis added)

The Bible is both an inanimate object and the power of God itself! When you say that the Bible is "not enough" I "hear" you diminishing the literal power of God. I hear you saying that God's own word isn't good enough without the help of men. In a sense, I see your concept as being that God gave us the Bible as a sort of tease. Useless on its face, but for the contrary interpretations (to plain meaning) of those in authority. Certainly, SOME of scripture requires interpretation against what we would normally call "common sense".

However, I see one big difference between Catholicism and Bible-believing Protestantism as being that we hold MUCH closer to the actual text of the scriptures, in the literal sense, than do Roman Catholics. We believe that the text of scripture was meant to be taken in and absorbed by the lay believer, regardless of his proximity to a priest, etc., by the design of God. In this light, it's funny, because except for "mystery", your view is much like a Calvinist's. You know full well that there are millions of Christians who have no access at all to a Roman Catholic priest, Bishop, whatever. Yet, you do not deny them their Christianity. Inside of what you would call "mystery" we would call faith.

In the end, the discussion of Protestant vs Catholic comes down to "who is the final authority"? Myself or the Church?

OF COURSE NOT!!! :) To match the bias of your question, here is how I would frame it from my side: "In the end, the discussion of Protestant vs Catholic comes down to "who is the final authority"? The Holy Spirit or self-appointed fallible men of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church?" ...... That's a little different. :) Now, I "think" we would both say that God is the final authority, and we just disagree on how He administers that authority. Is that fair? :)

The Bible is not the final authority because it is a book subject to interpretation.

Is the word the power of God or not?

FK: "The point of it is that we cannot come to God on our own."

We agree on that, but I believe "total depravity" means we do nothing WITH God. God does everything in this construct. Our choice is nowhere in the mix, which makes God the sole decider of whom will be saved, although God "desires ALL men to be saved".

Yes, this is fair and accurate. I believe that the "all men" call is an outward one and not a decree.

[continuing:] As a result, I cannot agree that God does not take into consideration our own choice, even though it is imperfect and cannot come to God by itself.

Why would an omnipotent God take into consideration the choices of fallible men? That would be to relinquish omnipotence. You are saying, by my estimation, that God doesn't care WHICH of us comes to Him. You say that He graces everyone the same, gives everyone the same chance, etc., and whatever happens, happens. This is your idea of a loving, omnipotent God? To me, that would be a negligent, uncaring God. :) If He really IS omnipotent then He should get exactly what He wants.

I believe we do possess the desire, latently, to unite with God.

This is the essence of our honest difference on this.

[continuing:] We all desire happiness and we all enjoy beauty and truth and goodness, at least imperfectly.

There's the rub in that in the imperfection lies desire. IN CHRIST, humans desire happiness, beauty, truth, goodness, etc., but when lost, humans only "think" they desire those things, when they are sorely mistaken.

FK: "I'm not aware of the concept of venial sin in scripture because "the wages of sin is death".

What do you do with I John 5 16-17 (NEB) ......

Here it is in the NIV:

1 John 5:16-17 : 16 If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

So, here it is clearly arguable whether the sin spoken of leads to physical or spiritual death. In the commentaries I consulted on this, the views are all over the place, so I do grant that you have a leg to stand on. :)

Okay, with respectful diffidence, try this wild hare(hair?) of an idea. Jesus once for all did what He did. Is the whatever-it-is which we call being born again or awakened or whatever superfluous? It's an addition of some kind. It is a bestowal/appropriation on/by you of the once for all act? Yes it is chiefly an apprehension of the act of Christ and of its meaning for you, but it is also certainly a grace. so it's a now "re-present-ation" of Good Friday, etc. 33 AD.

Good paragraph. I do not believe that being born again is an "addition" to Christ's sacrifice at all. They are simply two different events within time that take place for all believers. As I have said, "Salvation" can be seen and measured by many different, and equally true, angles. So, No, being born again is not superfluous, because it is all part of the plan WITHIN time. Jesus died, in my view, for the sins of the elect. Then, later in time, and also earlier in time to tell the whole truth, the elect believed in God. The belief of the elect was predestined. It was not an independent act, apart from what Jesus did on the cross. It was intricately associated with it. It was a "package deal". :)

By the way you might be describing it, Calvary and an individual's belief are completely separate actions, one not necessarily having to do with the other. I don't see it that way at all. I believe that, outside of time, Calvary caused the beliefs of all of the elect.

The way I see the Roman Catholic view, as I understand it, is that Christ dying on the cross is like an item in a grocery store. People walk by, some put the item in their basket, some don't. Who cares who makes the choice, God apparently doesn't? This is the issue of EITHER God is omnipotent OR God doesn't care.

Being born again is certainly a grace, as you say, but I do not recognize it as a "'re-present-ation' of Good Friday, etc. 33 AD." I do not believe there is any "re". I would say that Christ died once and for all, with no strings attached, period, etc.

I GUESS I'm conjecturing something like this: It is not the sacrifice which is repeated in the Mass, the confession, or the individual's coming to Jesus, it is all "application".

Okay. I think I'm good with the existence of the application idea, but I have no idea where it comes from or on what it is based. From my POV, "application" is an invented and unnecessary step.

The state of Sin would be opposed to the state of Grace but "sins" happen in both of them.

Yes, absolutely.

Unless we HAVE to, I don't want to get into the free-will/predestination thing because it gives me headaches. Ephesians 1:3-10 (give or take) is an oft recurring canticle in the daily evening prayer and is, I think, read at Mass on the feast of the Immaculate conception. FWIW.

But, uh
It was not an independent act, apart from what Jesus did on the cross. It was intricately associated with it. It was a "package deal". :)
(did you mean "intimtely" or "intrictately" -- or both) but in general: YEAH THAT!
and
but I do not recognize it as a "'re-present-ation' of Good Friday, etc. 33 AD." I do not believe there is any "re". I would say that Christ died once and for all, with no strings attached, period, etc.

We're really close here. I would almost say exactly the second quote, but we'd have to work on what I meant and did not mean be "re".

Good Friday is one act. It is not limited to the time and space of Good Friday 33 AD. I say "re" only because of the pesky time thing that I find myself in. IT's not REALLY a "re". It's just my temporality which makes a distinction between good Friday and last night's altar call.

How's that?

In other news I want to resurrect the sidebar about how we're like and how we're different (or should be) from Islam, if you remember it.

And you are again describing to me a God of the "Ten Suggestions".

Please explain your path of logic. Because I say that Bible reading does not necessarily lead to holiness (although it is instrumental in OUR day and age), I am now suggesting a God of the "Ten Suggestions"? How so?

Listen, FK. There are plenty of "Christians" who CLAIM to read the Bible. And yet, we see they have no problem committing adultery, fornication, stealing, and other such grievious sins that are supposed to end once we declare Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Bible reading does NOT make one holy. God makes one holy. We recognize the graces that He gives us and we utilize those graces, especially given through the sacraments, and we become slowly transformed. We become holy. While Bible reading is certainly a part of this, it is not instrumental in it. Submitting to the Will of God is. If only I could show you how many 'bible reading' Christians call me names, condemn me to hell, don't even consider me a Christian. They stoop to levels of conversation that are, quite frankly, embarrassing. This is from people who have been reading the Bible, according to them, for 20 plus years. Bible reading does NOT equal holiness, nor is it an accurate measurement of one's holiness....

We are all aware of holy people. I know a number of elderly people who are not well-versed in Scriptures. However, they adhere to Christ and I consider them quite holy because of their actions and attitudes towards their fellow man. In the USA Today, there are some editorials that are from non-Christians (maybe yesterday or today's paper) that tell of the problem. These people know the basics of Christianity - and see FOR THEMSELVES that many of us are hypocrites. I would venture to say that many of these hypocrites are Bible reading men and women.

As to your comments about "seeing", tell me, what makes you think I see actual blood and flesh when I partake in the Catholic Eucharist? What makes you think I see the Holy Spirit alighting on an infant when he becomes baptized? The sacraments are ALL based on faith in things we DON'T see going on behind the things we do see.

I am not sure what role you have for leaders in your scheme. However, in the Bible, did the Corinthians test the teachings of Paul? Did the Asians test the teachings of John? In the end, they did accept them as from God. That is the difference. I accept the Catholic Church's CLAIM that they speak as representatives appointed by God. They are to be held to the CHURCH'S (the entire community) bar of acceptable teaching. We are told to test the truth - when speaking of traveling teachers where we DON'T know who appointed them. But where is the Scriptural verses that tell us that duly appointed apostles are to be second-guessed - AND that we place OURSELVES in authority? THAT is not Scriptural.

The lay Catholic is PROHIBITED from questioning the core teachings from on high, if he wants to remain in good standing as a Catholic.

So are the lay Protestants. Please.... In your rush to judgment, you don't even consider you do the very same things. How long would you allow a Christian who said the Trinity was from a teaching of the "whore of Babylon"???

I have to cut short. Take care. Please consider what I have said.

Regards

Hi Jo kus, FK

We are told to test the truth - when speaking of traveling teachers where we DON'T know who appointed them.

The scriptures don’t make that qualification.

But where is the Scriptural verses that tell us that duly appointed apostles are to be second-guessed.

How do we know who is duly appointed ?

We know only that the Apostles were duly appointed of Christ.

Beyond that, God leads us to only trust the spiritual to understand (and, therefore, to interpret) spiritual things ... and to note the fruits of those who would claim to be our teachers.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

__________________________________________________________

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

FK: "I said that we all pray "about" things we are sure of. I didn't say we pray "for" those things. My point was to illustrate that prayer is much more than supplication."

It doesn't matter, to pray means to solicit, beseech, supplicate...when we pray we pray because we want something, even if it is simply to be heard or acknowledged.

I completely disagree! :) In my view, while prayer certainly DOES include supplication, in no way is that the end of it. In my own prayer life, it is not uncommon at all for me to pray only in thanksgiving, without asking for anything at all. I see prayer as the primary means of communication between us and God. When a need is upon my heart, I do not hesitate to pray about or for it. However, when I have a praise, I will commonly say a short prayer in thanksgiving without asking for anything. I just cannot believe that is improper. :) I am repelled by the idea that the only time I should talk to God is when I want something from Him.

My objection was why pray if you believe God has predetermined everything and all.

Well, God HAS predetermined everything, but we don't know what that predetermination is. So we pray about it because the Bible tells us that prayer is good. I have never thought that my prayer has ever "changed" God's mind on an issue. My prayer is either in accordance with His will (in which case what I want happens) or it is not (I lose) or it is a "wait". With different prayers come different levels of confidence, but it is NEVER pointless. When I pray for the health of a sick relative, then who knows what God's plan is? However, when I pray for God to continue sanctifying me, I know that is a "no lose" prayer. :) The Bible SPECIFICALLY instructs us to pray. I need no other reason to do so.

If you are predestined to hell, no prayer will help you avoid it.

Correct. No one so predestined is able to pray anyway.

If you are destined to heaven, no prayer will change that either.

Also correct. Prayer is for OUR benefit during our lives here on earth. With more prayer comes a better quality of life while we are here.

And since you are certain of your resurrection and salvation, aren't you just making mindless repetitions with prayers?

You ask a valid question but no, I don't see prayer as being mindless, because I don't see prayer as being about changing things. It is communication with God, which He says He wants, and is always good. Communication with God is something that WE need as believers. It helps sustain us throughout our lives. Along with God commanding it, that makes it worthwhile.

In my own prayer life, it is not uncommon at all for me to pray only in thanksgiving, without asking for anything at all

Except to be heard! You want God to acknowledge your prayer. Surely you don't pray to a wall.

Well, God HAS predetermined everything, but we don't know what that predetermination is. So we pray about it because the Bible tells us that prayer is good

Why is it good if it cannot change something, or fulfill something other than what was determined?

With different prayers come different levels of confidence, but it is NEVER pointless.

But what's the point of it? It doesn't change anything (according toy reformed theology). It doesn't merit anything. It doesn't earn you anything.

However, when I pray for God to continue sanctifying me, I know that is a "no lose" prayer

But you will be sanctified whether you pray for it or not if God predestined you to be sanctified. If not, no amount of prayer will result in your sanctification.

The Bible SPECIFICALLY instructs us to pray. I need no other reason to do so

That's because the Jews believed that prayer does change things; that sacrifices can atone for our sins, that on occasion God will grant us something we were not going to get. From the Jewish point of view, prayer makes a lot of sense, so it is not surprising that the Bible says we ought to pray. But form the Reformed POV it does nothing to change things.

No one so predestined [to hell] is able to pray anyway

Chances are those who choose satan as their master will be praying to him and not to God.

Prayer is for OUR benefit during our lives here on earth. With more prayer comes a better quality of life while we are here

How so? What does it change, what does it accomplish? What doe it get you that God didn't already decide to give you? How does it make your quality of life better?

You ask a valid question but no, I don't see prayer as being mindless, because I don't see prayer as being about changing things

Really? And your prayers that He may continue to sanctify you is not about change?

It is communication with God, which He says He wants, and is always good

Then the Jews would have called it "talking to God" and not "praying to God." The word prayer intrinsically means to supplicate. To communicate is not a prayer. A prayer is a communication of a supplication, not just empty chatter. We communicate with people and animals. What do you communicate with God? Baseball scores?

We communicate on the FR, back and forth, trying to outwit each other. Certainly that's not the "communication" we have with God (or at least I should hope it's not!).

There is only one instance that God commanded us "thus you should pray" and there is but one Prayer that He gives us to pray. That Prayer is pure supplication, ...

What? No Way! :) When you pray "Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done", are you making a request as if it might not happen but for your prayer and others??? Of course not. The point of that is for you to ACKNOWLEDGE your UNDERSTANDING of His power. PRAISE and thanksgiving is an instrumental part of prayer, at least to me. Do you think God's Kingdom might not come unless we pray for it? Do you think that God's will might not be done but for our prayers? Come on! :) That is not supplication. That is worship.

My point was based on the flawed Reformed theology of double predestination which makes any prayer a useless repetition, because prayers in a doubly predestined world cannot change the outcome God predestined.

Prayers do NOT change God's will according to us Reformed, that is true. That has nothing to do with whether prayer is worthy or not. IF you think the main point of prayer is to "get stuff", then we pray for very different reasons. :)

When you pray "Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done", are you making a request as if it might not happen but for your prayer and others??? Of course not.

You are such a lawyer, FK! :) Do you really think I am going to "forget" the rest of the Lord's Prayer? But you seem to have selectively done just that!

Well, let me remind you: "Give us this day...and Forgive us...because we have forgiven...And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the Evil One.

What we see in the first part of the Lord's Prayer are the usual platitudes given to those in power. We also recognize that His will is universal. He is the absolute Sovereign of all that exists (in heaven and on earth).

But, once the platitudes are made, supplications follow. We ask God to give us, to forgive us conditionally (because we have forgiven), we implore Him not to lead us into temptation (why would God do that?), and to deliver, that is, to rescue us from the evil one.

The "meat" of the Lord's Prayer is not telling Him how great God is (the platitudes are considered a required introduction when addressing someone superior even though that someone knows he is superior), but to supplicate Him to feed/sustain us, to forgive us, to lead us in the right direction and to save us.

Prayers do NOT change God's will according to us Reformed, that is true. That has nothing to do with whether prayer is worthy or not.

FK, people pray because, one way or another, they ask for mercy. They pray in hopes and desires that God would hear their prayers and grant them their hopes. People don't pray to God to tell Him what happened at work.

I will never forget that song of old "Oh Lord, won't you give me a Mercedes Benz..."

IF you think the main point of prayer is to "get stuff", then we pray for very different reasons.

Even if you pray for no other reason but for God to hear you, you still want to get His attention, FK. You don't pray to a wall. You pray so that you may be heard. You want God to acknowledge your prayer. To say otherwise is to make your prayer meaningless repetitions. So, the motive and the purpose of your prayer is to get something, even if it is no more than His ear.

When you pray "Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done", are you making a request as if it might not happen but for your prayer and others??? Of course not.

You are such a lawyer, FK! :) Do you really think I am going to "forget" the rest of the Lord's Prayer? But you seem to have selectively done just that!

Well, let me remind you: "Give us this day...and Forgive us...because we have forgiven...And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the Evil One.

Prayers do NOT change God's will according to us Reformed, that is true. That has nothing to do with whether prayer is worthy or not.

I will never forget that song of old "Oh Lord, won't you give me a Mercedes Benz..."

IF you think the main point of prayer is to "get stuff", then we pray for very different reasons.

I wrote : We are told to test the truth - when speaking of traveling teachers where we DON'T know who appointed them.

You wrote : The scriptures don’t make that qualification.

??? Sure it does! Quite often. What's wrong with the verse you used?

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Actually, the later writings of the NT also have such qualifications. John, Jude, Peter, Colossians and the Pastorals all speak of false teachers. Even Thessalonians and Corinthians and Galatians speak of such men. We test the veracity of their claim by the Gospel once given. That is how we know a false teacher - one who brings a different gospel, as Paul says in Gal 1:10.

What the early community was expected to do was to RETAIN what was once given by Paul and the other Apostles and use that as a reference to guard against traveling teachers who might distort the good News. When their teachings differed from the Apostles, when their fruit was noted, the community knew they were being given a false gospel. Again, look at Gal 1:10. Paul claims that the Gospel HE gave is from God. He doesn't say "whatever you guys come up with when you read the Scriptures". He says the "traditions once given". That does not bode well for trying to figure out God's teachings alone with your bible in your lap "guided by the 'spirit'".

We know who was duly appointed by the Apostles because the Scriptures themselves say that these apostles appointed successors, such as Timothy and Titus. Elders were left in the each community. We have no indication that Christian communities were left WITHOUT a successor or leader appointed by men sent by the Apostles or the Apostles themselves. It is pure fantasy to think that the individual was left without a guide in his community and that Sola Scriptura existed anywhere in Christianity during this time.

Later Christian writers verify this, such as Irenaeus, who says that WE KNOW which is the correct Gospel (contra Gnostics) BECAUSE of the duly appointed successors of the Apostles. He even goes on to state the successors of the Bishop of Rome, using this as proof vs. the Gnostic's who could not show such a trace of succession back to the Apostles.

Regards

I wrote : We are told to test the truth - when speaking of traveling teachers where we DON'T know who appointed them.

You wrote : The scriptures don’t make that qualification.

??? Sure it does! Quite often. What's wrong with the verse you used?

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Regards

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.