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/
Benton's LXX and also from Orthodoxinfo site article.
I don't have a translated Papyrus on Gen 4, but I have a reference to Psalm 89:4-7 (a 4th century BC fragment).
BTW that TANACH translation sounds like it was done by the NIV translators
No, actually it's a Jewish site. Your source is actually Israeli. If anything it shows that even Jewish scriptures, once translated, do not match perfectly.
Ar any rate, here is a comparative table of the same psalm, Papyrus #740 (left column), LXX (middle) and Tanach. [note: I removed all verse numbers, since they don't appear in the papyrus]:
| I will establish thy seed forever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Pause. The heavens shall declare thy wonders, O Lord; and thy truth in the assembly of the saints. For who in the heavens shall be compared to the Lord? And who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of God? God is glorified...
Psalm 89:4-7, 4th century BC fragment of LXX. |
I will establish your seed forever, and build up your throne to all generations. Selah. The heavens shall declare Your wonders, O Lord; and Your truth in the assembly of the saints. For who in the heavens shall be compared to the Lord? And who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of God? God is glorified in the council of the saints; great and terrible toward all that are round about Him. | Until eternity, I shall establish your seed, and I shall build your throne for all generations forever. And the heavens acknowledge Your wonder, O Lord, also Your faithfulness in the congregation of holy ones. For who in the heavens is equal to the Lord? [Who] resembles the Lord among the sons of the mighty? |
So much for the theory that originally (3rd century BC) there was only the Torah that comprised the LXX.
Or the theory parroted by so many who never consult the Sources but do Goodle 'science,' when they claim that only the Torah was translated faithfully. This Psalm shows otherwise.
The LXX and the Hebrew versions are almost identical, word by word, and even more so in the overall meaning. There is more agreement in this example than in Gen 4.
I will try to find Rahlfs documents on the BC fragments.
So, finally you agree that there is nothing older then some 2nd century fragments of the Torah.
The minor prophets are not BC (nice try).
Besides, there are no OT fragments of any kind older than 500 BC. Does that mean ther was no OT before that? If we are to follow marginal Prostestant biblical thinkers, such as Paul Kahle, there wasn't!
No, because there is other historical evidence of a Hebrew Bible, as it being quoted by Christ and the Apostles.
The careful copying of Jewish scribes is proven by how close the copy of Isaiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1st century AD) matches that of the MT (10th century)
There were probably individual Greek translations of some of the Hebrew Books, but there was no single translation that we know today as the Septuagint.
As for Kahe being a 'marginal Protestant', nice attempt at 'poisoning the well'
Is being a 'marginal Protestant' anything like being a 'marginal Christian' like the Orthodox are?
lol. Verily verily, I say unto you, you must be born again, not inherit religion ftom your parents.
Those were printing errors, not errors in the Text
The NA26 made 544 changes in its text using TR readings and rejecting earlier NA25 readings (WH).
The King James Bible has never altered its text
It has corrected printing errors (which still occur today in written works) and updated spelling and punctuation.
Being a 'Protestant' doesn't change those facts It changes everything.
Yes, I guess it does since Protestants seem to be more concerned with truth then with defending a particular theological position no matter how wrong it is.
Amen.
'Marginal' Christians are spritually dead Christians who think that rituals and traditions are substitutes for the rebirth of the human spirit which only comes by faith in the finished work and person of Christ.
No that's what was found so far. But the very existence of Greek language Old Testament dating before Christ (actually the oldest are 3rd century BC) is something you cannot answered fully with your denials.
I am asking you agian, why would there be any, any, any translations of the Hebrew scriptures in Greek three centures before Christ?
Besides, DSS show Hebrew-language Septuagint verses as well. Obviously, the Palestinian version of the OT was not the only Hebrew version.
No, because there is other historical evidence of a Hebrew Bible, as it being quoted by Christ and the Apostles
Well, the Apostles make OT references that don't agree with the Hebrew bible. I suppose they must have been referring to some other scriptures.
The careful copying of Jewish scribes is proven by how close the copy of Isaiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1st century AD) matches that of the MT (10th century)
The copying may have been meticulous, but the Mishanh and Talmud interpretations and corrections of the Septuagint are a different story. The DSS evidence did not come with vowells, which were added later and which can change the whole meaning of the words.
There was no translation involved, so naturally, there would be less variation. There was also no satanic insertions of false Hebrew versions of the OT such as was the case with the Greek translations made by Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus. Even some Church Fathers (Jerome) fell for them.
Is being a 'marginal Protestant' anything like being a 'marginal Christian' like the Orthodox are?
Kahle's baseless claims have been proven wrong with the DSS discovery. There is nothing marginal about the Orthodox, no matter how much you may wish it to be.
They are not a 16th century man-made innovation. That's for sure.
Reference please.
Sometimes facts do poinson the well, I suppose. Too bad. Kahle has been pushed to margins by facts, not opinions. He is a 19th century relic without credibility.
Really?
Might you actually show where F.F.Bruce (by he way who is a Protestant I believe) actually proves this from the evidence?
Nothing he cites shows the existance of any BC Septuagint.
The fact is there is no historical evidence of any BC Septuagint.
You can find each change listed in the recent work,
The Reintroductions of Textus Receptus Readings in the 26th Edition and beyond of the Nestle/Aland Novum Testamentum-Graece (Dr. Bobby Adams, Dr. Samuel Gipp, Daystar Publishing)
That is all we have now
So unless something shows up, you have no evidence today that any BC Septuagint (entire Old Testament) ever existed.
I am asking you agian, why would there be any, any, any translations of the Hebrew scriptures in Greek three centures before Christ?
Why wouldn't there be attempts to translate particular books into Greek for Jews who were outside of Israel?
Besides, DSS show Hebrew-language Septuagint verses as well. Obviously, the Palestinian version of the OT was not the only Hebrew version.
I am sure there were corrupt Hebrew versions, just like there is one today, with the Critical Hebrew text.
No, because there is other historical evidence of a Hebrew Bible, as it being quoted by Christ and the Apostles Well, the Apostles make OT references that don't agree with the Hebrew bible. I suppose they must have been referring to some other scriptures.
No, God the author of scripture is free to quote it as He sees fit.
The New Testament writers did not have to be directly quoting the Old Testament.
For example the LXX has in Hab.2:4 the Just will live by my faith.
The MT has the just will live by his faith, while Paul says that the Just shall live by faith (Gal.3:11), clearly, not directly quoting from either one.
The careful copying of Jewish scribes is proven by how close the copy of Isaiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1st century AD) matches that of the MT (10th century) The copying may have been meticulous, but the Mishanh and Talmud interpretations and corrections of the Septuagint are a different story. The DSS evidence did not come with vowells, which were added later and which can change the whole meaning of the words.
The vowel points have not changed anything and the MT is the accurate represenation of God's OT.
As for the Talmud and Mishanah they have nothing to do with the correct text
There was no translation involved, so naturally, there would be less variation. There was also no satanic insertions of false Hebrew versions of the OT such as was the case with the Greek translations made by Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus. Even some Church Fathers (Jerome) fell for them.
All of the three mentioned above were part of a heretical cult of gnostics (Ebionities).
Origen, the worse heretic of all finished the LXX translation and added the Apocrypha as well as being Canonical.
That was something that Jerome did not fall for.
Is being a 'marginal Protestant' anything like being a 'marginal Christian' like the Orthodox are? Kahle's baseless claims have been proven wrong with the DSS discovery. There is nothing marginal about the Orthodox, no matter how much you may wish it to be. They are not a 16th century man-made innovation. That's for sure.
The Kahle theory has not been proven wrong, since no evidence of a LXX has (by your own admission) been found.
To disprove the thesis you need to actually prove the existance of an BC LXX, not just hope for one.
As for being a Christian, if your view is that depending on anything other faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ then you are depending on a dead (orthodox) religion to save you and not Christ.
And that comes from 60-90 AD in the New Testament Epistles.
God does not change. Men do.
The rest of your post is same old same old, so I will leave it at that.
God does not change. Men do.
God does not change, but He does change in His dealings with men.
Hence, we have the Old and New Testaments.
Amen. Protestants, by nature, are inclined to search out the truth for themselves, knowing it is to be found in Scripture.
"Buy the truth and sell it not." -- Proverbs 23:23
Nope. Wrong again. "He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
Hence, we have the Old and New Testaments
Nope, again. We have the NT because the Jews made the Old obsolete by thgeir idolatery AND because reading their Hebrew scripture, they do not recognize Christ even when he is among them.
God didn't change. He still gives each an every one of us a perfect soul.
And do you offer any burnt offerings?
What you said had nothing to do with the fact that God changes in how He deals with mankind.
Nope, again. We have the NT because the Jews made the Old obsolete by thgeir idolatery AND because reading their Hebrew scripture, they do not recognize Christ even when he is among them. God didn't change. He still gives each an every one of us a perfect soul.
God didn't change but His dealings with men did.
III. THE LONGER CATECHISM OF THE ORTHODOX, CATHOLIC, EASTERN CHURCH. Examined and Approved by the Most Holy Governing Synod, and Published for the Use of Schools, and of all Orthodox Christians, by Order of His Imperial Majesty. (Moscow, at the Synodical Press, 1830.) 28. In what consisted the Old Testament? In this, that God promised men a divine Saviour, and prepared them to receive him. 29. How did God prepare men to receive the Saviour? Through gradual revelations, by prophecies and types. 30. In what consists the New Testament? In this, that God has actually given men a divine Saviour, his own only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.vi.iii.i.html
That is called 'progressive revelation'
You will note that not a word is said about the Jews rejecting Christ with their Hebrew Scripture, which according to this Orthodox Creed was the basis of the correct OT
How many are the books of the Old Testament?
Ans. St Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Anthansius the Great, and St.John Damascene reckon them at twenty-two, agreeing therein with the Jews, who so reckon them in the original Hebrew tongues
Why should we attend to the reckoning of the Hebrews?
Because, as the Apostle Paul says, unto them were committed the oracles of God; and the sacred books of the Old Testament hae been received from the Hebrew Church of that Testament by the Christian of the New.
Why is there no notice taken in this enumeration of the books of the Old Testament of the son of Sirach and of certain others?
Because they do not exist in the Hebrew. (emphasis added)
No. Do you?
What you said had nothing to do with the fact that God changes in how He deals with mankind
I said nothing. The Gospel says that God gives the same to the righteous and the unrighteous. God does not change. What changes is how we perceive, understand, (ab)use, (mis)use, corrupt, betray, etc. His blessings.
The Cathecism...In what consisted the Old Testament? In this, that God promised men a divine Saviour, and prepared them to receive him
And yet, the Jews who read the same OT (in their language) will tell you otherwise! They don't see the divine savior in where we do. They don't see the foreshaddowing, where we do, they don see the aschtypes where we do. And yet they read the same OT the Protestants read.
At least we Orthodox "know" why this is so (we read that Greek "forgery" that was made to fit seamlessly with the NT as some Protestant schoalrs tell us); what's your excuse?
Mindset, fronhma, dear friend, is what changes our perceptions and our conceptions about God. God does not change; we do.
aschtypes =archtypes
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.