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/
Well, apparently, the younger son didn't have much love for his father or brother. The only reason he came back was the thought of his father's servants eating bread. At that point, even being his father's servant seemed like a 'reward.'
He approached with 'humility' knowing that he had no leg to stand on and he hoped that his father would have enough mercy to take him back as a servant (he really just wanted to get some bread!). It was false humility and opportunistic 'love.'
Earlier, you said something interesting: It doesn't presume that the young man was now a saint, ... only that he was now moving in the right direction.
An honorable act must be based on honor or else it's an empty gesture. I don't see it in the intent of the younger son. I wouldn't call it the 'right direction.' It's called opportunism.
I have no clue why you quote a man who 'understood' the scrptire so 'spiritually' he became a Gnostic, and how this relates to the Septuagint.
It does, by using wrong math.
I don't know what CSA is.
I the Greek Church never added them: it used them all along.
Dear Regards & Annalex
I am not defending Jamnia. I am defending the Jews who were, are, and always shall be God's chosen people. I do not defend everything that the Jewish people have ever done. I do defend the fact that they are beloved by God and were led by God to develop a Canon of Scripture long before the council of Jamnia - a canon that did NOT contain the Apocrypha.
The Targums did not contain the extra books. The Peshitta Syriac did not contain them. ONLY the Septuagint and Scripture versions derived from it contained the Apocryphal books. The oldest versions of the Septuagint we have are between the 4th and 5th century. They do contain the Apocrypha. However, these MSS are obviously Christian in origin. They say nothing about what was in the Septuagint of Christ's day.
The early manuscripts of the Septuagint also don't agree as to what books are accepted as Scripture. Vaticanus doesn't contain I & II Maccabees or The Prayer of Manassah, but includes Psalm 151 and 1 Esdras. Sinaiticus omits II Maccabees and Baruch, and includes Psalm 151, 1 Esdras and IV Maccabees. Alexandrinus includes Psalm 151, 1 Esdras, the Psalms of Solomon and III and IV Maccabees.
Josephus (a Jew not hostile towards Christ) contended that the Old Testament canon closed during the reign of Artaxerxes I (400s BC) but even before this, Jesus Himself stated what the Canon was Luke 24:44 "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. " Nothing about the inter-testamental books there.
So, lets move to the "unanimous agreement" of the early Fathers. Well, some rather prominent theologians rejected their canonicity.
Jerome and Origen rejected the books as canonical. Athanasius did the same as did Gregory of Nazianzus. The Old Testament stopped with the Hebrew Scriptures for these men. I suppose that they were just agreeing with the Pharisees and being anti-Christ when they did so. Next thing, you'll be declaring anathema those who agree with them - oops, I guess that already happened too.
Only with the collective Roman hissy fit in the 1500s did they get put in the Canon; but, by then, there had been centuries of Roman persecution against the Jews so whats a little disdain for what they considered Scripture by adding to the Bible those books that apparently only the Alexandrians (potentially but not definately) held as authoritative?
Israel is lost, but she is still loved. God entrusted to the very logia tou theo. Do you think that she was in doubt about what they were? Do you think that their hatred of Jesus was so strong that they, the people who had painstakingly translated every letter and counted them out to make sure that they were accurate would then remove them from the Scriptures over the Jewish Carpenter that they did not believe was Divine? Such contention stretches credibility to say the least.
To be sure, the council at Jamnia didn't get it right. But to say that they removed the apocryphal books because they had it in for Christianity is not substantiated. They represented Israel after her Messiah came. Blind to Christ (not blind to what was their own Scripture though). Israel rejected Christ and is now blinded in part - but not forever. She will look upon her Messiah one day and the errors of her past will be cast away. In the mean time, God's promises towards her still stand. She isn't perfect, but she is His. Bless her. Don't curse her. This doesn't mean full agreement, but it does mean treating her with love.
Oh, geez! There is a guy by the name Mohammad who claims God commanded him to write the Koran, word-by-word, as God 'dictated' it to him.
If you want to 'play' VerseGenerator(R), let's pick a topic, such as "Can God be seen?"
Apparently "Yes"
Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him....
Genesis 18:1 And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre.
Genesis 26:2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of.
Genesis 26:24 And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not.
Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Genesis 35:9 And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padanaram, and blessed him.
Genesis 48:3 And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan.
Exodus 3:16 The LORD God ... appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you.
Exodus 4:5 That they may believe that the LORD God ... hath appeared unto thee.
Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob....
Exodus 24:9-11 Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. And they saw the God of Israel ... They saw God, and did eat and drink.
Exodus 33:11 And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend.
Exodus 33:23 And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts.
Numbers 14:14 For they have heard that thou Lord art among this people, that thou Lord art seen face to face.
Deuteronomy 5:4 The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire.
Deuteronomy 34:10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.
Judges 13:22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.
1 Kings 22:19 I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
Job 42:5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
Psalm 63.2 To see thy power and they glory, so as I have seen thee in the sanctuary.
Isaiah 6:1 In the year that King Ussiah died, I saw, also, the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up.
Isaiah 6:5 For mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.
Ezekiel 1:27 And saw ... the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward....
Ezekiel 20:35 And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face.
Amos 7:7 The LORD stood upon a wall made by a plumbline, with a plumbline in his hand.
Amos 9:1 I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake.
Habakkuk 3:3-5 God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran .... He had horns coming out of his hand.
Matthew 18:9 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
And apaprently "NO!"
John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father.
1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.
1 Timothy 6:16 Whom no man hath seen nor can see.
1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time.
So, God then dictated to to the writer of the Old Testament that apparently He can be seen, except in Ex 33:20 when he sounds pretty definitive that NO MAN shall see Him and live.
But then that same God writes in 1 Timothy and 1 John that none of that impressive stuff in the OT is really true (any more I guess).
So, let's say that in the pre-NT time people did see God despite Gen 33:20), and in the NT times he is no longer visible...it's fun playing with VerseGenerator(R).
"I the Greek Church never added them: it used them all along."
Do you include the books of Esdras and Manasseh?
Whe I was at seminary in Denver one of the fellows I studied with was Brad Nassif. A great mind and terrific believer. Have you heard of Him?
"Bradley Nassif has been a courageous and enthusiastic pioneer of Orthodox-evangelical dialogue around the world. Dr. Nassif holds a Ph.D. from Fordham University, where he was one of the last students of the late Fr. John Meyendorff. He also holds an M.Div. from St. Vladimir's Seminary; an M.A. in New Testament Studies, Denver Seminary; an M.A. in European History, Wichita State University; and a B.A. in Religion and Philosophy, Friends University (Wichita, KS). Dr. Nassif is currently professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at North Park University (Chicago"
And how beautifully God explained this when He said His Name is I AM.
And God said let there be light...
So?
CSA=Confed. States of America
Earlier, you said something interesting: It doesn't presume that the young man was now a saint, ... only that he was now moving in the right direction.
An honorable act must be based on honor or else it's an empty gesture. I don't see it in the intent of the younger son. I wouldn't call it the 'right direction.' It's called opportunism.
You're opining on motives.
Even if there was anything other than opportunism mixed in with the young man's motivations, ... it is a start.
His father now has the opportunity to teach honor to his son.
There was no chance of this so long as he was in the world.
“You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.” - Augustine of Hippo, 5th century
"Every part of Holy Writ announces through words the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ, reveals it through facts and establishes it through examples. ..For it is our Lord who during all the present age, through true and manifest adumbrations, generates, cleanses, sanctified, chooses, separates, or redeems the Church in the Patriarchs, through Adam's slumber, Noah's flood, Melchizedek's blessing, Abraham's justification, Isaac's birth, and Jacob's bondage." - Hilary of Poitiers, written around 350 AD
This silly argument was never the view of the church fathers-even the Gnostic ones.
All Orthodox include Esdras (Ezra), some include 1 Esdras and only Russian (and non-Chaledonian Ethiopian Orthodox) include 2 Esdras.
Likewise, some (the Church in Jersualem for sure) include the Prayer of Manasseh, but the Greek editions don't. I would be curious to find out what books are used on Mt. Athos.
I have never heard of Dr. Bradly Nassif. He certainly seems to have an impressive educational background in theology.
Perhaps that was your mistake.
[the Septuagint] is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. - Wikipedia
The issue was not with translations, but with the books contained in it. The books the Protestants consider 'apocryphal' were part of the Septuagint long before Christ. If they were there, it means that whatever "Hebrew Bible" the 72 scribes used as their original text, contained them too.
The whole point was that the Jewish canon was not set. Obviously, the Alexandrian Jews belonged to a sect whose canon differed from that of the Essenes and Pharisees and Sadducees (all of whom had very different theologies). The Sadducees, for example, considered as canonical only the Five Books of Moses. For them the Pharisee canon was full of 'apocrypha.' The Essenes has numerous revelations not found in others, etc.
As for translations, yes, of course, something is always lost in translation.But transcribing errors and other omissions/deletions are common to manual copying.
Given that we have no original of any part of the Bible whatsoever, we must assume that there is a possibility of error, loss, etc. because whatever extant copies we do have show great variations in context and content, in places where the scribes felt that their predecessors had to make a mistake, and changed whatever text seemed more. appropriate.
This silly argument was never the view of the church fathers-even the Gnostic ones.
You have no proof whatsoever that the originals resemble any particular version of the Bible in their entirety. The only silly thing is people being so gullible as to assume that every word in their version of the bible is exactly as God 'dictated' it.
By throwing a party after what he has done? By neglecting his older son's honor and obedience?
This is the kind of liberalism that doesn't correct bad behavior, but only makes people 'feel good' about their bad behavior. No wonder we solve nothing with this approach.
A good start would have been to turn down his father's offer, ask for a conditional return as a servant until he had earned enough to pay back his father with honest work, and then to ask his father for forgiveness.
What is the difference and how is the Bible not the word of God?
What is the difference and how is the bible not the Word of God?
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.