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/
As I alluded, in Christianity it would be Orthodox theosis vs most Reformed methods (extreme example, Revival altar call). Examples in buddhism: Vipassana meditation is gradual, Zen is sudden.
To the best of my knowledge, Origen did not have the Dead Sea Scrolls. The only source he had in Hebrew was the Palestinian (Pharisaical) rabbinical canon from Jamnia, the same canon that makes up the MT collection, which the Protestants still claim is the only 'authoriative' version.
Very well. Toss out the 800 year tradition of memorizing where all the vowels go in the OT Scriptures, because that is what your Protestant OT is based on...
I'm not as well versed on this issue of the Hebrew text versus the LXX as others, but it seems pretty clear that the primary reason the RC's and EO are so vehement in supporting the LXX, or whatever version you are talking about, is because they include books that allow for praying to angels, purgatory and some of the other unique beliefs you hold.
You are mistaking us for the "Reformers" who invent their own theology and then cut out the Scripture that won't support it...Don't you wonder why Luther wanted to get rid of James?
It's an odd position to hold to since so many of the pre-nicenean theologians rejected those books as Scripture.
Well, as you said, you are not well versed...
On this very thread, I proved that wrong to all people who have tried to show otherwise. Can you show me more than 2 Church Fathers who did not consider the OT Deuterocanonicals Scripture? To save you time, don't bother with St. Athanasius, Origen, St. Hillary, or St. Gregory Nazianzus - we've already disproven that.
Now, if we find that these men DID consider the various books from the Septuagint Scripture, what will you do then? Will you remain cut off from part of the Word of God?
Regards
Do you have a quote on that?
It seems that if so, he was unaware of the writings at Qumran, who were wiped out during the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Writings used by early Christians found at Qumran include Ps. 151 (found also in the Septuagint), Tobit, Sirach (found also at Masada in Hebrew) and the Letter of Jeremy (= Baruch 6). This pretty much blows the theory that the Septuagint was only formed AFTER Christianity came into being...
Regards
So here is Origen who could get his hands on any number of vastly differing Greek translations of the OT, but he could only find one kind of Hebrew manuscript for the OT. Think about it.
By copies, he means fragments and ofcourse there is disagreement over the meaning of those fragments by the scholars themselves.
Paul Kahle (a famous OT scholar) who has done extensive work in the Septuagint does not believe that there was one original old Greek version and that consequently the manuscripts of the Septuagint (so-called) cannot be traced back to one archetype. The theory, proposed and developed largely by him, is that the LXX had its origin in numerous oral, and subsequently written translations for use in the services after the reading of the Hebrew original. Later an official standardized version of the Law was made, but did not entirely replace the older versions, while for the rest of the books there never was a standard Jewish translation, but only a variety of versions (Gooding).
G. R. Driver (1965) disagrees with the interpretation which Albright, Burrows, Cross and other scholars have placed upon the Dead Sea Scrolls. Denying that these documents date from pre-Christian times, he relates them instead to the Jewish Revolt against Rome in AD 66 - 73, thus making them roughly contemporary with the New Testament. He believes that the Righteous Teacher mentioned in the Scrolls was Manaemus (Menahem), a leader in the Revolt and perhaps a son of the rebel Judas mentioned in Acts 5:37. Hence, in Driver's opinion, the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in the first and early second centuries AD, a theory which, if true, greatly alters the significance of these Scrolls both for history and for textual criticism.
Thus we see that, despite the new discoveries, our confidence in the trustworthiness of the Old Testament text must rest on some more solid foundation than the opinions of naturalistic scholars. For as the current Qumran studies demonstrate, these scholars disagree with one another. What one scholar grants another takes away. Instead of depending on such inconstant allies, Bible-believing Christians should develop their own type of Old Testament textual criticism, a textual criticism which takes its stand on the promises of Christ and views the evidence in the light of these promises.
http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv2.htm#X
Anyone interested you can listen to Catholic Radio (sirius radio station) free for three days, at this web site. Go to free on-line trial.
http://www.sirius.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Sirius/CachedPage&c=Channel&cid=1158082409509
You might remember that the original LXX was kept in the Library at Alexandria, so it is hardly surprising that we don't have it: the Library was damaged by riots of Coptic monks, and destroyed by the Muslims.
The fact is the Masorete, in terms of oldest extant manuscript, is about 700 years more recent than the LXX. It is simply a scholarly error to regard it as more 'authentic' than the LXX simply because it is in the same language as the hypothetical ur-text.
If you want to focus on Isaiah, go ahead, and join the Christ-denying Jews in removing the prophecy of Christ's virgin birth from the Scriptures. Yes, on that point, Qumran agrees with the Masorete.
But you still have to explain away the Hebrew copies of Tobit and Ecclesiasticus found at Qumran, and the fact that Genesis, Eziekiel, Proverbs and several other books have the reading of the LXX confirmed against that given in the Masorete by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And I still haven't heard a reason for preferring textual transmission via anti-Christian rabbis to textual transmisison by Christ's Church. Will one be forthcoming?
Antenicean-ness per se is hardly a trait to commend a theologian: Paul of Samosata, Arius and Origen were all ante-nicean. They were also all heretics.
But yet Origen plays a large role in this discussion about the correct translation.
One thing has occurred to me in this discussion. Why would Jews write their Scriptures, or copy them for that matter, in Greek instead of Hebrew?
First, they were commissioned to translate the Scriptures into Greek by one of the Ptolemaic Pharoahs.
Second, Hebrew was, for most Jews in the centuries just before and after Christ's Incarnation at most a liturgical language only, like Latin for the Latin church, pre-Vatican II, or Church Slavonic for the Russian Church. It was not the native tongue: Jews either spoke Greek or Aramaic.
The word 'synagogue' for instance is Greek, while the noted Jewish historian and philosopher Philo of Alexandria wrote exclusively in Greek, and seems to have read the Scriptures in Greek translation.
It is not entirely clear from this that the Jewish custom of praying in Hebrew only is not itself an anti-Christian innovation.
I have always been under the impression that the original writer of the Torah and writers of the Tanakh wrote in Hebrew. Your saying from the beginning these writings were in Greek, or at a later time copies of the originals were made in Greek?
But it is the same text with vowel points that was in Origen's first column, right? and it preceded his fifth column LXX which was being composed as he went along. The text that emerged from Jamnia was in Origen's first column and thus precedes the LXX that came from Origen by 200 years.
But you still have to explain away the Hebrew copies of Tobit and Ecclesiasticus found at Qumran
What??? just because something was found at Qumran we're supposed to put it in the canon of scripture. A lot of things were found there, should we put the rules of the religious sect living there in the canon as well???
and the fact that Genesis, Eziekiel, Proverbs and several other books have the reading of the LXX confirmed against that given in the Masorete by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
So what. They were bad Greek translations and were probably discarded by the community. What about all of the fragments in Hebrew from the DSS that confirm the readings of nearly every book of the OT as found in the Masoretic text.
Are you going to trust a translation over the original text??? Since when??? Should we do that with the Greek NT???? That must mean that one or all of those English translations are superior to the original Byzantine Greek, right???
And I still haven't heard a reason for preferring textual transmission via anti-Christian rabbis to textual transmisison by Christ's Church. Will one be forthcoming?
Those "anti-Christian rabbis" transmitted the text that God gave to them and that they faithfully protected and preserved, even though in that text were prophecies of a Messiah who they had rejected. The fact that all those Messianic prophecies and books were transmitted accurately is clear evidence that the Jews knew them to be such an integral part of the Scriptures that to remove them would be a sacrilege. And since they so faithfully with those passages that confirmed the religion of their opposition, then they could certainly be trusted with the rest of the neutral text.
You do believe Paul don't you? You do believe him when he says that "unto them [the Jews] were committed the oracles of God", don't you? Are you going to tell God that he made a mistake???
So, now then you admit that our faith is not 'free?' It is attached to a condition that we owe to God? Then it's not a gift! What God gave us freely is what we have; it is ours.
No, faith is a free gift, that is, it is unconditional. An engagement ring is a conditional gift (i.e. not free) and carries with it the string of going through with the wedding. Your distinction between "having" something and being given something makes no sense to me.
When you give a gift, it is still yours? Not unless it is freely given back to you! (here is where our free will comes in and why God gave us free will; if we can't give God back freely what He gave us freely, there is no true love)
No, there are no takebacks with faith. God does not accept returns. Do you think God says "thank you very much for returning my free gift of faith"? No, that elevates man over God and is unbiblical. This has nothing to do with man's true love unless it is born of him. If man's power superseded God's will, then I would agree with you. But it does not. This does have to do with God's true love for us, though.
The old saying says: if you let your bird free and he comes back to you, then he is yours. If he doesn't, he never was.
ALL, 100% of the birds God sets free come back to Him. Birds are not more powerful than God either.
Faith is no different than our ears and our eyes. God gave them to us; they are ours to have and to use as we please. The same is with the faith: He inscribes it in our hearts; some use it; others don't.
This sounds like you mean all are born with all the faith they need to come to Christ. That can't be right, can it? Maybe this is the problem.
Your grace is independent of your will. It is not a gift.
What does the will have to do with whether something is a gift? Grace is a gift and so is faith. Neither is of ourselves.
And, what did she buy you as a 'token' of her love? Did she also scrape enough of her youthful cash to buy you the most beautiful token of love she could? If she did, that's unusual. The 'token buying' (which is a major purchase and hardly a 'token,' yet another oxymoron we use so freely) is a one-way street, FK.
It went with us in the traditional way, so yes it was a one-way street. That made it a gift, just like faith and grace.
In many many societies in the world, it's the father of the bride who brings gifts to the groom (dowry). Somewhere along the line, the roles got reversed. :)
That's why I intentionally decided to have one son and one daughter. :) No matter what the culture does, I'm in the same spot.
[Paul] fit the mold of . . . well . . . of Jesus. TRUTH AND LOVE--RUTHLESS TRUTH--NO HOLDS BARRED LOVE--AND NOT A SHRED OF LENIENCY TOWARD INDIVIDUAL, GROUP OR ORGANIZATIONAL IDIOCY.
Amen. It's never about the group, it's always about Christ. You gave many excellent examples of the problem.
PTL!
Praise His Precious Name.
Thanks for your kind and humbling words.
Amen, it sure is. That's why I read all of your posts religiously. :)
The Letter of Aristeas was a fraud. So the entire story of the 72 is probably fraudulent as well. Any translation of the OT that takes only 72 days would have been so hastily done that it would be riddled with errors. So just how good could it really have been, if at all???
Also for such a translation to take place, the translators would need to know both Hebrew and Greek but the Greek language was not well known within the Jewish scribal community at that time. So they could send all the Hebrew scribes in Jerusalem down to Alexandria they want, but if they didn't have a command of the Greek language, their translation would have been fatally flawed.
And finally, only the scribes of the Levitical priesthood were permitted to handle the Torah. So who in their right mind would request or send 6 elders from each of the twelve tribes down to Alexandria to translate their sacred writings that they were neither permitted nor qualified to do by virtue of the very Torah that they were going to translate??? Why would God bless a translation that was made in violation of his Law???
Nothing in that myth of the Septuagintal 72 elders in 72 days on survivor island in Alexandria makes much sense.
Second, Hebrew was, for most Jews in the centuries just before and after Christ's Incarnation at most a liturgical language only, like Latin for the Latin church, pre-Vatican II, or Church Slavonic for the Russian Church. It was not the native tongue: Jews either spoke Greek or Aramaic.
That is pure nonsense. The Jews of Judea, Galilee, and the cities of Israel all spoke Hebrew, as did Jesus. That's why the inscription on the cross was in Latin [for the Romans], HEBREW [for the Jews], and Greek [for everyone else].
The word 'synagogue' for instance is Greek, while the noted Jewish historian and philosopher Philo of Alexandria wrote exclusively in Greek, and seems to have read the Scriptures in Greek translation.
Philo was a fully Hellenized Jew living in Greek Alexandria and he was writing for a Greek audience. What would expect him to write in??? Swahili???
It is not entirely clear from this that the Jewish custom of praying in Hebrew only is not itself an anti-Christian innovation.
Jesus prayed and taught and read and wrote in Hebrew. So was He being anti-Christian then??? And when he spoke to Paul from heaven, it was in Hebrew. So I guess if you don't like the language, then you probably won't like heaven.
LOL! :)
Our PRESIDENT has stood firm against the darkness, following his oath to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. GO GWB!
Amen, may God be with and bless our leader and all of our troops. Flush the RINOs.
Well, the Essene canon contains numerous apocalypses not found in the "other" Hebrew canon (or LXX for that matter). I suppose you will dismiss that too.
If the Essenes were a sect so were the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Along with Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria and Asia Minor, they were all Jewish, they all had different canons, and no sect to the best of my knowledge had any monopoly on what constitutes a "Jewish canon," and that includes the sole-surviving sect of Pharisees who morphed into post-Jamnia Judaism.
You do believe Paul don't you?
Do you believe the Apostles would use a 'false' scripture? The crucial question the Protestant side fails to answer is why did the Apostles so overwhemlmingly use the LXX as the source of OT verses, and in fact called it scripture.
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.