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

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

[Blogger]

Thank you Kolkotronis. And to you and yours (In January, right?)

[Kolokotronis]

"This also violates Sola Scriptura. Look at verse 47, "In the presence of all the people, she told..." Then, Jesus says to her "Daughter ...". Presumably, this was also in the presence of all the people. Simple common sense. With such a public admission, surely this incredible circumstance would have been written about by others. More common sense. Further, having a child out of wedlock would have ruined Jesus' status as sinless, and also would have made Him a liar in His teachings. Doing no work at all, Sola Scriptura immediately throws ALL of this out the window."

Oh, I don't know. That which is common sense and common understanding today may well not have been common sense and common understanding then. As a matter of fact, the argument was that far from being illegitimate, the children of Christ were born of His marriage to Mary Magdelen, or so the Gnostic Gospels would have us believe. But of course, a group of Greek speaking bishops took care of the Gnostic Gospels by measuring what they said against the Holy Tradition of The Church and finding them wanting; they didn't employ sola scriptura or "common sense", FK. Common sense didn't give you the scriptures which you interpret through a common sense application of sola scriptura, Holy tradition wielding Greek bishops did! :)

[Kolokotronis]

"Thank you Kolkotronis. And to you and yours (In January, right?)"

Nope, December 25 among the Greeks is the same day as it is among the Americans. Its the Slavs who are calendar challenged. :)

[Forest Keeper]

Nuts. This thread is going to go round in circles for another 10,000 posts...

What are you talking about? That never happens.

[Blogger]

Gotcha. I knew Russian Orthodox celebrated in January, but I thought some Greeks wouldn't go for the Julian Calendar. Thanks for the clarification.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I peeked into some of your back-and-forth: quite interesting, and rather edifying to hear the respectful tone of voice. That's so welcome in this sharkfight known as FReeper Religious Dialog.

A Merry Christmas to you and to all!

[Kolokotronis]

"quite interesting, and rather edifying"

Well, A and I are edifying kind of guys!

A Blessed Nativity Feast to you, Don-o and the rest of your tribe!

[jo kus]

I recited the 51st Psalm with the priest just last night. Kosta knows what THAT means! :)

Ah, see, we are so close, brother! I recited Psalm 51 Friday morning, as is custom of the Divine Liturgy of the Hours in the West! Of course, Friday is a day of penance for us.

Regards

[jo kus]

Uh, man is not wounded. He is DEAD. Demised. An ex-parrot. The Holy Spirit is the only one who can make him ALIVE (Quicken) to Christ to where he will choose Christ.

You may believe what you will, but the mainstream Protestant interpretation (I realize I am generalizing - not all Protestants hold to your idea of the totally corrupt man) is incorrect on Romans 3. One doesn't need to be a Catholic to figure that out. I have already detailed my area of disagreement.

As to man requiring the Holy Spirit, I do not believe I said man could EVER save Himself. There is no need for the false dichotomy - in other words, God saves man, but that does not exclude man. One does not have to be dead to require God's salvation.

There is no point in posting Scriptures on this issue - because there are dozens and dozens of them that tell of men being righteous (as a result of God, of course). I will take your word that you claim to be familiar with Scriptures and can find these yourself.

Merry Christmas

[Blogger]

There is no point in posting Scriptures on this issue - because there are dozens and dozens of them that tell of men being righteous (as a result of God, of course).
Which is the point. We can only ever be righteous people as a result of God's work in our lives. The best of the best of us, our righteousness is still filthy rags. Our hearts are continually set towards evil. We are not wounded as a result of the fall. We are dead. I know you say not to post Scriptures, but it isn't my opinion that I am posting. My stance means nothing. Scripture means everything, so I will not adhere to that particular request. The Bible does not call the lost "righteous," but the saved. Only by the work of the Holy Spirit are we brought from death to life everlasting - and it is NOT of us. It's all about God. It's all Him.

Ephesians 2

1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

[annalex]

I have always thought that Mary really didn't understand the enormity of what was going on.

I would tend to agree with that. I think that the idea that Mary was instantly aware of her fulfilling the prophecy in Isaiah is an interesting hypothesis that has no scriptural support: the Luke's chapter does describe her mental state, and it describes it as confusion rather than an "aha moment". Later, she is described not quite understanding her Son as He stays in the Temple. The Church does not call this ideas wrong, but it is but a hypothesis, and it seems at odds at least with the above episodes.

[annalex]

The Protoevangdlium is not scripture, but it is evidence of the Jewish culture. If the notion of a custodial marriage were as foreign ro the 1c Jews as it is to us, it would not have been copied through, considered for canonization and generally treated as reliable before veneration of Mary became wide spread.

[annalex]

I agree that perpetual virginity is not in the scripture wih nearly the same lucidity as the Trinity; the comparison was with the lack of elaboration on Mary's seemingly illogical response in Luke 1:34, and similar lack of elaboration on some finer trinitarian aspects, which caused the great trinitarian heresies of the Early Church and even today.

[annalex]

It is a forgery

You don;t have to believe a word of it; all that matters is that it explaines Luke 1:34 logically by providing a reference to the Jewish culture of the time.

"Forgery" is a strong word. The attribution to St. James is probably inaccurate, but such attributions were nevertheless common at the time. It is likely that it reflected the tranditional teaching on Mary and her family, possibly admixing some legendary stuff. It originated, arguably, in 2 c.

[annalex]

it is a recording of what someone believed were the beliefs of early Christians about Mary. Its a very early work, though clearly composed after she died. To the best of my knowledge, Orthodoxy has no dogmas as such which find their [origin] in the story, but there is theologoumenna which find their source there.

Exactly so, and this is my attitude about it as well. I quoted it in response to Blogger's question, why anyone would marry a girl he did not intend to have sex with. I was fully aware that the next thing Blogger would do is forget his own question and thump the table with allegations of forgery.

[kosta50]

So she was "The Immacualte Incubator" huh? Christ had no physical relationship to Mary?...In what way then is Christ the Son of Man?...In what way is Christ the Son of David?...In what way is Christ the seed of Abraham?

LOL!!!

In his human nature, of course! We know that He "took on" human nature using Mary's "flesh." That's all we know. God did not need to be a demigod "zygote" in order to take on human nature, nor is there any evidence that He "toucher" Mary's egg.

So, what were Adam and Eve to God? Were they not His creation, His tools, to use as He sees fit? Is it "demeaning" to be a "suitable vessel" for a woman, singled out by Nog Himself, to carry Incarnate God in the form of a Child? Is it "demeaning" that God uses us as He sees fit, even as "immaculate incubators", if you will?

And she carried the Child to term and gave birth to Him, and as such she is truly the Theotokos, the bearer of God, as the Church correctly calls her, and He, God, is her Child, and she His Mother. The only begotten of Father, and God, and the only-begotten of Mary, and as such her Son, by His will and miracle. Which part do you find "offensive" in all this?

With regards to his lineage, Jesus was a Jew, because His Mother was a Jew, and as such both were related to Abraham, as all mankind is related to Adam and Eve, even to Abraham, through our humanity. For, as different and varied as we may be, each and every one of us is by nature, i.e. essence, human and as such related to each other.

Just as we cannot share human and animal nature, we cannot share divine and human nature. Jesus did not "fuse" by some genetic acrobatics of human haploids and divine genetics into a demigod. Incarnation is not mixing, and fusing, but joining, seamlessly, without confusion and mixing as the Ecumencial Council declares. It is God's Mystery and a true miracle. Not genetics.

He used the flesh of what you derogatively call "immaculate incubator" to become man (i.e. incarnation), unlike any other child. Zygotes are not "incarnated" spirits, P-Marlowe. Our spirits do not pre-exist us in flesh, as Gnostic heresy teaches. To speak of Mary's pregnancy as something "natural;" or even "logical" is not just heresy, but outright fantasy as I said before, and I am apalled that some in the Protestant community would even consider such "possibilities."

[kosta50]

Good boy! :)

[kosta50]

I recited Psalm 51 Friday morning, as is custom of the Divine Liturgy of the Hours in the West!

But our numbering is not the same as yours.

[Forest Keeper]

But one must also be a little careful when we speak of DNA. Two strands of DNA are required for conception, one set from the father, the other form the mother. Each set (in the egg and sperm) are haploids (cells containing only half the DNA required; trouble is, Mary's egg would contain only the female half). Ooops, there goes the touched-her-egg theory!

How so? The Spirit added the equivalent of male human DNA to join with Mary's egg so that she "conceived". No sex was involved. How is this inconsistent with your set-up?

The only way that Christ could have ended up with both sets of Mary's DNA signature is by using her existing flesh (or bone or hair, or any part of her body (a product of her mothers' and her father's DNA, and not her egg).

I agree. I'm not saying that I think that Jesus was some kind of weird male clone of Mary. He wasn't. I think He was FULLY human which means having the "normal" DNA structure, which was supplied by both Mary and the Spirit. My opinion is that it was God's version of some sort of supernatural artificial insemination.

Knowing all this, insisting on His birth being "natural" is just plain naïve, in sharp contrast to His appearance and incarnation in Mary's body.

You appear to hold the view that "Jesus the fetus" (sounds like a name for a Dave Barry rock band :) just popped into Mary's womb independent of any biological interaction with any part of Mary at all. That could be correct. I don't think the scriptures are clear enough for me to declare my view as a fact. However, as I have elsewhere posted, I think there is some scripture that supports my scenario and does allow for the pregnancy and birth to have been "normal". Given the importance of literal blood lines to the Jews of the time, how do you deal with the lineage requirement?

[adiaireton8]

If a person is homozygous recessive for a gene, are they therefore not fully human? Should they be treated as less human than you or I (assuming we are not homozygous recessive for any human genes), with less rights, and less dignity?

I know a boy who died today, who was homozygous recessive for a certain gene. He was 17 years old. In spite of his condition, he was fully human, even though his genetic defect did not allow him fully to express his human nature. (Say a pray for him and his family, if you would; he is with the angels and saints now, and happier than he has been in a long, long time.)

It is reductionistic to equate human nature with a having a certain set of genes or chromosomes. That is why all this speculation about Jesus's DNA is silly. Jesus took his human nature from Mary. That's all we know. From that, we can deduce nothing about the DNA of Jesus. Human nature per se is at a deeper ontological level than the information and arrangement of DNA, even though human nature is manifested in that information and arrangement. Human nature is not *reducible* to that information and arrangement.

-A8