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

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

[HarleyD]

Then I don't understand you comment about the scriptures never equating Satan and the devil together. Revelation states:

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

You can understand my confusion.

[D-fendr]

ah..

Speed of Dark = 1/Speed of Light.

:)

thanks..

[annalex]

The symmetry is right there: "behold your mother" -- "behold your son".

As to the rest, you make your extrapolations and my Church makes hers. Good luck with your councel.

[D-fendr]

Who said anything about having my fantasies!

You did, t'was my point.

When you put me on the couch in your psychoanalytical post that I replied to.. you described a fantasy life that wasn't mine. That's how we started down this rabbit trail.

Have your own.

Thanks! You too, friend..

[kosta50]

Sure Christ taught that. Right through Paul.

That's not the only possibility.

[kosta50]

But this does tell me something. Does it tell you anything? :)

Let me guess: it's a riddle?

[kosta50]

You can understand my confusion.

The OT never equated Satan with the devil; it's a "deuterocanonical" concept that was incorporated into the New Testament by the Apostles because they used the Septruagint.

The Jews didn't associate evil with Satan. The Christians do. The roots of that are in the 'deuterocanonical' books. Judaism considers Satan a loyal and obedient servaht of God. Ihe is portrayed that way in the OT.

[Kolokotronis]

"Kolokotronis, is my grammar right here? Would not stylos be inflected "stylou" together with "Theou" if it were epithet of God?"

Blogger and I went over this posts and posts ago. I think the answer is no. Either reading is grammatically correct, but I do think that if you want it to read the way Blogger does its strained and probably would require a couple of more words. The phrase "the living pillar and foundation (or base) of the truth" doesn't modify God or church in the way a simple adjective would. For example, "God is the pillar and foundation...." or "The pillar and foundation... is God" The case of the noun to which the phrase relates really doesn't matter here. Of course, the lack of any original punctuation certainly doesn't help matters any.

Maybe blogger saved my undoubtedly erudite response?

[HarleyD]

Frankly I don't see your point. The OT never equated Jesus Christ with being the Messiah. So? The NT completes what the OT started.

To say that the Apostles got their information from the deuterocanonical is meaningless. Assuming the Apostles did get some of their information out of these books, that doesn't validate that EVERYTHING written in the deuterocanonical is inspired. It means only that this portion is inspired written exactly as it is written by the Apostles-not in the deuterocanonical. Had John inserted the entire book of Tobias into Revelation, Tobias would have been inspired.

However, as I have posted several times now, the Jewish fathers HAD the Old Testament, declared it inspired and used it. And what they used did not include the deuterocanonicals. Three hundred years later the Greek Church fathers decided to add some more and that started the problems.

It's just like you Greeks. Always wanting to read more. :O)

[HarleyD]

If you wish to follow the Hebrew canon, that is your choice. I happen to be Christian and read the Christian Canon.

Hmmm...well what was good enough for Peter, Paul and John is good enough for me. :O)

[Blogger]

You are trying to take it from a "Communication with the dead [including Mary] is unbiblical" to "God makes communication with Mary possible." In all seriousness, I was just responding to one thing you said. I am not trying to prove the over all contention. You made the secretary crack. I responded to it. That's all. I didn't claim that my work with that comment proved the whole case. I said nothing about the whole question.
Fair enough. I can see how at least part of our conversation took off in the direction it did. My "secretary crack" stemmed from Annalex's answer to my question about whether or not Mary was omniscient and omnipresent. He/She answered that Mary was with Jesus who is. Then you jumped in the conversation and off we went.

You said something like "That makes Jesus Mary's secretary." I responded. and now you say I am switching the subject. It is if you were saying, NOT only is it unbiblical and preposterous on a thousand other grounds, but it makes Jesus Mary's secretary.
In the context of Annalex's response, yes. That was the implication.

And I address everything after the but, and nothing else. I wasn't responding to everything you ever said, or even some other things you ever said. I wasn't saying it was Biblical. I wasn't saying it was free of any other objections. I was responding to one thing and only one thing.
Fair enough.

First, it has to be biblical, which it is not. Second, it has to show up in Scripture as something that we are supposed to do.

Sez you. That's your canon of proof, not mine, which is why I wasn't addressing that.
Okay. What is your canon of proof?
(And as far as I'm concerned, even by your canon I would sya it has to show up as something we MAY do - or as somethng that is explicitly forbidden -- and then we could argue about the state of the "Departed" since the resurrection.
It is the same as the departed before the resurrection at this point in time since nobody but Christ has a glorified body as of yet. Prior to the resurrection people went to either 1) The place where Old Testament Saints went or 2)The place where those who were not believers went. One was a place of punishment and one was a place of rest. The Spirits of the departed or whichever stripe are no more alive now than they were then. Some live forever in torment. Some live forever in bliss. That hasn't changed. With the resurrection, the location of the ones living in bliss has changed. We now go to heaven and are immediately in the presence of our Risen Lord. As Scripture plainly says, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

With that foundation, when the Old Testament forbad people from trying to communicate with the dead (as Saul did to Samuel knowing full well that it was forbidden), it wasn't forbidding people from communicating with people in a basic state that was different than the state that those who die in Christ reside in today. Samuel was a saved believer in Christ (from the other side of the cross). Saul sinned when he tried to communicate with him. Further, you do not see the practice instituted in the New Testament at all. I don't think it occurred to them to try to pray to the dead in Christ. Peter spoke of the great persecution going on. They were all acquainted with those who had been martyred, and yet nowhere do you see any of them taking advantage of or instructing others to engage in prayers to the departed saints. James was martyred by the time Peter and Paul wrote their epistles. Stephen was martyred. By the time of the epistles. And, according to tradition, all of the apostles except for John were martyred by the time John wrote Revelation and possibly his other works were written late. None of them give an instruction to pray to the departed. So, the burden of proof rests upon you as far as that goes.

No, because it still creates a rather odd scenario. We communicate with Mary. Mary can't hear it so Jesus takes the message. Mary gets the message and then tells Jesus what it was.

leaving aside questions about the operation of various persons of the Trinity, that's how I think ALL communication takes place. It wouldn't be exceptional for communication with the saints in heaven to take place that way. It would be normal (stipulating arguendo that such communication takes place at all.)
It wouldn't be exceptional if it weren't unbiblical. Again, though, my comment isn't meant to be one defining the operation of the members of the Trinity. Rather, it is a spin off of Annalex's comment.

Now, if you had said that God gave Mary omniscience, then he is no longer her secretary.

Not even then. Mary could never have omniscience "in her own right". If we want to use time language about it, then we would say that IF God gave Mary omniscience, He would maintain it, preserve it, operate it for her at every infinitessimal quantum of time. He is the factotum and the facsemper.
Agreed.

God always works things for the good of His people. This does not mean that He is the people's servant. His actions are that of a benefactor. But it is 100% His will and plan, not ours.

OH. I'm getting it. You're on the "obedience" side of "Servant" I'm on the "service" side. God is not obedient to the people (which God forbid!), He is not their servant to boss around. He is their servant in that He serves them , and commands them to join Him in service to one another. In His perfect self-disclosure He comes among us as one who serves.
And the servant is not greater than the master. To call God our servant is to make us His master. To say that He is benevolent towards His children encounters no such difficulty. Christ became a servant as an example to us. He is not perpetually our servant though. He showers us with His love and grace, but not in service. Rather out of love and His own good pleasure to do so.



We don't know that we will be omniscient as He is omniscient.

Again: I am very open to the concept that there are people, much less saints in heaven and angels, who know more than I do about what's going on and any number of things. I do not think therefore they are omniscient. Saying that Mary can handle a bunch of incoming and outgoing calls is not equivalent to saying she is omniscient an domnipotent. I don't think any RC theologian attributes omniscience to Mary, but I could be wrong. "Like" is not the same as "same" (even in Greek. ) And she could me "pluriscient" and "pluripotent" without being omniscient or omnipotent. "Greater things than these .
She would also have to be pluripresent and all is mere hypothesis to justify a doctrine which finds no biblical support.

Mad Dawg, it if fine if you want to believe in prayers to Mary. Well, it isn't, but it is your choice and I'm not about to stand in the way of your or anyone else's choice. I'll try to reason with you from Scripture. But if you choose to do otherwise, then you choose to do otherwise. The facts are that Scriptural commentary concerning the person Mary is scant. None of it portrays her the way that Marian dogma has grown up around her. When it is referred to by Catholics, it is never taken for just what is on the page but is full of eisegetical inferences and traditional commentary. When Protestant protest Marian doctrine it is because we see it as not only non-biblical or extrabiblical but in many cases anti-biblical. Your statement that you pray to God more than Mary is a good one. I wish you didn't pray to her at all. But, I don't think you are a Mariolater (is that a word???) I can't say that about all of the defenses I have read and know what people are prone to. Thus, I will continue to make what I believe is the biblical case.

[Blogger]

Annalex, when I have said it is not of works, using Scripture, you have tried to make a distinction between "salvific" works and the works of the law. That is what I was referring to in this post, but I think you know that. 1 Corinthians 3 doesn't make a distinction of works either. It makes a distinction in MOTIVE for the works. The works done are still works. It is the motive that determines whether they are burnt or not. And note, it is not a salvific judgment for 3:15 clearly states:
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Wha la! You just stumbled on the judgment of the dead in Christ. We will not be judged for our sins. Our sins were already dealt with on the cross. We WILL be judged by our works - but not salvifically. It is a matter of reward or lack thereof. The Bible indicates that there will be some who will be in heaven who didn't do anything with a pure motive for their Lord. Kinda like the Pharisees who prayed in public in order to be seen of men. They will not be rewarded in heaven no matter how pious they appeared on earth. They will get to heaven. They are saved. They have just suffered great loss in terms of reward.

Salvation is not of works, but it works. Again, I contend that you confuse the cause with the effect of salvation. Your love does not get you saved. Yet, if you are saved, you will love.

I have already checked the church is the pillar of truth verse out with a couple of Greek Scholars. Again, nothing forbids God from being the pillar.

And finally, the church does not determine the Canon. The Canon existed before the church took a vote. GOD determines the Canon.

[Quix]

I thought I noted that you had a fine mind . . . grand enough to conceive of two things being true . . . . that some might not be able to see as true.

I think I stopped well short of telling you what you knew.

I don't know about the word games . . . things get very complex, convoluted and tricky hereon on a number of fronts.

Check out ANGELS ON ASSIGNMENT by Roland Buck. I'd a free ebook available on the net. He spent a significant time with THE FATHER.

Doesn't change a thing about the classical doctrine of The Trinity. I find that an odd statement and no basis for it.

I know of no Biblical basis requiring this: "I would say that every "apparition", like that to Moses, is "through the Son" and "in the Spirit"."

Given that THE SON SUBMITTED HIMSELF WHOLLY TO THE FATHER . . . AT THE CROSS . . . God The Father could have well done whatever HE wanted with Moses. Fathers are normally over Sons in some sense. Christ's submission to Him indicated something of that order of things, too.

Yes, The Father in honor of Christ's obedience to The Cross placed all things under Him. That's a different issue, imho.

[Blogger]

Actually, I think I just deleted it Kolo. I had a ping list buried in my freep mail to get to and I've received so much mail in regards to this thread that I deleted what I thought was a closed topic.

I believe that your main objection was that God can not be a part of something that He is. Since Christ is the way the truth and the life, your argument was that he couldn't be both the Truth and the Pillar of the truth. He couldn't be part of something he was in full. I argued that he could be because we see him both as The Life and the Lord of Life.

In the end, you indicated that stylistically it would be more natural to see it as the church being the pillar and ground of truth, but that the Greek didn't forbid the other interpretation. Actually, I found my original email to you concerning this issue and this was my question - kinda on the same track as Annalex. "I was wondering if the sentence structure here allows God to be the pillar and ground of the truth or is it the church. My Greek, being rusty, says no since if it were attached to Theos the ending would be masculine like alletheon. Am I correct here or could it be taken either way?" You surprised me by saying stylistically it was smoother to say it was the church, but that the Greek wouldnt' forbid it.

[Quix]

I think I got lost in the rabbit trail. Maybe I'll try and find the beginning of it and reinterpret what you seemed to be trying to get across to me.

[blue-duncan]

"So would you kneel to me, seeing as how I am a believer?"

Depends on what I just said and what's in your hand.

[annalex]

1 Corinthians 3 doesn't make a distinction of works either. It makes a distinction in MOTIVE for the works.

That is right; and so does Christ and St. Paul. This is exactly the distinction the Church sees: works that are good in themselves, when done for a social recognition ("boast") are not salvific, and when done in charity are salvific.

It is also true that 1 Corinthinas 3 described the judgement of the saved only, -- we call that thing Purgatory. Matthew 25 described the judgement that separates the saved form the lost, and it is works based.

[Blogger]

To be absent from the Body is to be Present with the Lord.

[Kolokotronis]

Here's what I said to you:

"I think one could interpret the passage in exactly the way you suggest. In many ways, it is the punctuation we see in English which leads us to interpret it in the way we do. That Greek of the NT, of course, wasn't punctuated so even the printed structure of what we read in the NT in English is necessarily someone's interpretation. I don't know why even we Greeks interpret it as meaning that The Church is the pillar and foundation of The Truth. I suspect it may go back to the idea that God is "O OWN" (can't use the Greek fonts here unfortunately)which is to say that God is the creator of everything, even the Truth, and thus as Creator wouldn't be part of The Truth. There is also the notion in Orthodoxy that The Church is only interested in bringing The Truth to mankind and thus would be its pillar and foundation. But that aside, I think you are correct to say that from a pure read of the sentence, one might well conclude that it is God rather than The Church which is the foundation and pillar. My earlier mention of the word "tou", for "Who" is just a stylistic observation based on other passages."

[Blogger]

The saved are the only ones who can do works based upon their love for Christ. Why is it such a difficulty for you to see that salvation is by grace through faith and that true salvation produces good works? Further, why do people do works in your religion? Truthfully. Is it out of love for Christ or is it out of some feeling that they have to pay some debt or achieve salvation?

Protestants do not do works to achieve their salvation. We believe Christ already took care of that for us. Our works done for Christ are out of the pure motive of our love for Him and desire to please Him. He has done so much for us, how can we help but not want to serve Him?

The following statement is not an implication concerning the people on this thread. It is an anectdotal statement about what I've seen in Catholics in my own family's lives. They go to church because they think it is the thing they should do. My aunt began taking her children to church because she believed that they should be raised Catholic. They don't know a lick of Scripture. They go to confession, occasionally, because it is what they are supposed to do. They do like Mary a lot. And, they have a certain distant understanding and relationship with Jesus. When My aunt's mother died they had little prayer cards with Mary's picture on them. I think they even have a Mary statue in the yard somewhere. The kids went to Catholic school but had never heard John 3:16. I am surrounded by Catholics at work. Only one of them seems to be particularly devoted, maybe two. The rest go to church (when they go) because they think it is what they are supposed to do. They figure, well, if I don't get it exactly right, I'll spend a little purgatory time and then I 'hope' go to heaven.

To me this is sad. It is indicative of centuries of folks who missed the essence of Christianity. Christianity isn't about a God who admires our works but about a God who loves us even while we were yet sinners. It isnt' about a God who demands double jeopardy payment for our sins but one who marked our sin debt "paid in full." It is about a God who we serve not out of necessity mixed with love but out of love and thankfulness.

Incidentally, I think most Protestants are also in the same boat as my relatives. They go because its the thing to do. Maybe not to get saved, but because it is what we do. They miss out as well on the true essence of the Christian life.