Skip to comments.'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children
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:
Jesus is the only way we are secure. We'll probably visit this topic again sometime though, I imagine :)
that's a very good one!
How's that Bible code comin' along?
The science and the art of the authentic Bible Codes appear to be progressing at a fairly rapid clip.
I have been planning to post major portions of the latest digest for weeks. Haven't even finished reading it myself.
Plenty of other fish to fry, it seems.
But it remains exceedingly fascinating and a wonderful glimpse at the Majesty and Wonder of God's power and grandeur . . . and at some of the lengths He will go to, to affirm such to us critters.
I'm happy for ya. :-)
Not sure when you are satirical and when not.
Tell ya what. Give us one prophecy of what's going to happen this year. That way you won't have to constantly tell us about all the stuff that happens after the fact. Just one. Give it to us.
My takeaway, which I've never forgotten: Put all your trust in Jesus Christ and all will be well. For truly as you say, Alamo-Girl: "The life is in Christ, and in Him alone."
On this very thread (I don't want to mention any names) a Reformed Protestant Freeper basically said that if one sins he is not a Christian. So, in part I was reacting to that statement, which seemed rather incredulous.
Rather, while they remain in fellowship with God, they are dead to sin or separated from the penalty of sin
I am not sure I understand the terminology here, or the concept for that matter. But I think this is different than what +Paul is saying in Rom 6. He says rather definitively that those who have been Baptized (accepted Christ as their Savior) are dead to sin and sin no more.
I have also been told by Protestants on this Forum that (1) the elect cannot fall away because (2) God won't let them. From the way you are stating it, I get the impression that we determine if we are going to stay "in fellowship" with God and not the other way around.
Trouble is, we are not dealing with a 'Protestant doctrine' but with individual Protestants who believe, let's be brutally honest, whatever they want to believe, or whatever they think the indwelling Spirit leads the to believe.
As such, a coherent general discussion regarding doctrine or theology is severely limited, as there will always be another Protestant who is likely to disagree with the first one.
Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth [it] not, then cometh the wicked [one], and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth [it]; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. Matt 13:18-23
First, is the Jewish interpretation that the reason there was a beginning at all was that God the Father wanted to reveal Himself.
In the beginning regardless of cosmology (cyclic, inflationary, epkyrotic, multi-world, multi-verse, imaginary time, hesitating, etc.) all that exists is God Himself. Space and time do not exist, neither does causality. In the absence of time, events cannot occur. In the absence of space, things cannot exist. Without space/time there is no energy, no matter, no thing at all. Only existence exists, i.e. God.
IOW, the beginning (both physical and spiritual) was a willful act of God the Creator. (First Cause) Which is to say there is nothing of which anything can be made but God Himself. Reality is God's will and unknowable in its fullness.
But God is Light and in Him there is no darkness at all. He is good and not evil. So I meditated and prayed why this is so.
In response to that prayer, I now have peace in the spirit with this understanding: God has revealed Himself by contrast. How would we know light if we had never seen darkness? Good if we had never seen evil? Sickness v. health, courage v. fear, right v. wrong and so on.
And so there was a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil right there in the Garden of Eden for Adam to see, to observe but not to feed on, not to make a part of himself. But we know how that ended up.
Once Adam fed on the knowledge of good and evil, it became a part of himself and he was hopelessly stained red. No matter how much white was added to him, he could never be more than another shade of pink. He had to be born again, which is exactly what Christ made possible by His own body and blood!
You see, it was never about this heaven and earth from the beginning, it has always been about the next heaven and earth God and His family and those to whom He has revealed Himself and with whom He will always live.
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 1 John 1:1
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Romans 8:4-6
Beautiful and encouraging.
I am reminded of Moses who didn't have confidence in his speech, David who was tiny compared to Goliath, Abraham who passed his wife off as his sister - and so on.
Of all of them, Paul was the least likely (from a human's viewpoint) to become an apostle having persecuted the believers relentlessly.
And yet God used them all - and He uses every one of us, too.
p.s. This is another case of the observer problem. We mortals look at the back of a wristwatch and see everything working against itself. God looks at the front, where it is keeping perfect time.
Exactly.. Same with the RCC sect and the Protestant sects.. and even the psuedo christian and jewish sects, and even stranger sects and cults.... We are where we all are supposed to be.. Sheep Pens(John ch 10) there are also Goat pens as I see it.. following that metaphor..
One Church, Body of Christ, and Bride of Christ, multiple sheep and goat pens.. Everything is just as it should be.. Jesus opened the door to the sheep pen we can leave or not.. Obviously some like to be penned up.. God bless them anyway..
What a plan..
Is God(Father, Son, Holy Spirit) COOL or WHAT?..
Jesus Himself seems to set great store by the dude. FWIW, I don't think He would have done that, in the case of "a spiritual doofus," a "Barney Fife...."
We are all of us Barney Fifes, spiritual doofuses...just like Peter...and every single one of us has the power to loose and to bind upon the earth, according to the Word and Spirit, the Power of God in and through Christ Jesus our Lord and Head, to us via the Holy Spirit, amen!
But we have this treasure in jars of clay
to show that this all-surpassing power is from God
and not from us.
~2 Corinthians 4:7
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised thingsand the things that are notto nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.
~1 Corinthians 1:25-29
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
LOL, see my post just above (which I did not ping you to, just as you did not ping me to this one)! Totally LOL.
I love that whole post and testimony! That line above in particular reads to me as being straight from your writings in Timothy.
BTW - John Piper Is Bad!
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:26-27
We could be reading more into this than there is. The verse is applicable to any leader and any following. Republicans don't hear and follow Democrats and vice versa. Mostly because they don't want to.
Often used in homilies. But it suggests randomness (it doesn't say sower put some seed on fertile ground, some in stony places, etc.). Are we just 'seed' strewn all over the place, with some destined randomly to be devoured by (those 'bad' biblical) fowls, while some just happen to 'land' on fertile ground?
But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth [it]; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. Matt 13:18-23
And what control do we have over who receives and who doesn't if we are 'seed' sown at random? Randomness completely negates and defeats a loving God concept (or even God, for that matter, since 'randomness' is in control!).
How would we know light if we had never seen darkness? Good if we had never seen evil? Sickness v. health, courage v. fear, right v. wrong and so on
So, then God had to "create" Evil in order for us to know what is "Good?" I don't think so! By that reasoning, we should all get raped just to know what's it's like not to be raped.
All of us on this Forum seek the ultimate question "What's this all about?" The answer is really not ours to know. We can hope that we shall find out, one day, but none of us knows. I think we should live a life of 'do no harm,' and trust that whatever happens to us will be merciful and just (even if we don't think so), live a life of mercy, pure intentions, love towards one another and begin and end each day with a "Thank you" and "Thy will be done."
So what do you do with 1 Cor 12:4-30? I take it to mean not that all the gifts are given to each member but that each member has some gift, and member A may have a gift which member B does not have while member B may have one (or more) which member A does not have.
You've given a thoughful commentary which deserves a thoughful response. I'm off to the Liturgy so I'll post later today.
Phooey.. you outted me.. evidently one of my Barney Fifelike gambits got exposed..
She was quoteing another poster that posted to her..
Wow Quix, that was a really good post! Kudos!
Blush, am humbled and blessed by your kind words.
The truth can tweak all of us at times.
The Word of God is spoken openly for all to hear, like seeds being scattered. The quality of the ground is the spiritual understanding of the hearer, not everyone can hear (ears to hear) or hears equally as well. (Matt 13:18-23)
It was a sign (language) to Adam standing there. Adam could see the fruits of good and of evil but he was not to make those fruits part of himself by feeding on it under pain of death death. (Gen 2)
To use a modern metaphor, it is as if Adam was being shown a stage play so that he could understand the difference between good and evil to comprehend that God is good and not evil. But instead of watching the show to absorb this revelation of God, he jumped onstage and became a part of it. He couldnt step off the stage without bringing the corruption with him and thus he was banned to mortality, doomed to be an actor in the play he was intended to watch (Genesis 4.) He did it to himself. The only way Adam can get off that stage is to be born anew as a spectator, that is what Christ accomplished in the Resurrection.
Below are prophesies to which Christ reveals Himself as the fulfillment in John 10. By the way, all of these passages go to my remarks that it is a perilous thing to be standing between Jesus and His sheep (requires extraordinary humility) that the sheep feed on the Living Word of God and the importance of the parting instruction given three times to Peter by Jesus, feed my sheep:
Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man [that is] my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. And it shall come to pass, [that] in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off [and] die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It [is] my people: and they shall say, The LORD [is] my God. Zech 13:7-9
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53:6
And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe [be] to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?...
Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD; Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I [am] against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them. For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, [even] I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out. As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep [that are] scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day. And I will bring them out from the people, and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all the inhabited places of the country. I will feed them in a good pasture, and upon the high mountains of Israel shall their fold be: there shall they lie in a good fold, and [in] a fat pasture shall they feed upon the mountains of Israel. I will feed my flock, and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord GOD. I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up [that which was] broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the strong; I will feed them with judgment .
And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, [even] my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them; I the LORD have spoken [it].
And I will make with them a covenant of peace, and will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the land: and they shall dwell safely in the wilderness, and sleep in the woods. And I will make them and the places round about my hill a blessing; and I will cause the shower to come down in his season; there shall be showers of blessing .
And I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any more. Thus shall they know that I the LORD their God [am] with them, and [that] they, [even] the house of Israel, [are] my people, saith the Lord GOD. And ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, [are] men, [and] I [am] your God, saith the Lord GOD. Ezekiel 34 (selected)
And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. John 12:20-24
Praise God! Maranatha, Jesus!
Thank you for your beautiful testimony and the selection of Scriptures!
Yeah, sorry for the delay on that, but it wasn't something I could answer accurately and completely off the top of my head, and since my Sabbath is spent with the youth group of our congregation, I wasn't going to have time until today to dig into it.
Before I begin, let's make sure that we're defining our positions accurately. As I've said, I am not arguing for the perfection of the Masoretic text, nor am I arguing that the Apostles did not frequently make use of the LXX as the default translation cited for their predominantly Greek-speaking audience. The Masoretic clearly has some issues--though these are few and far between--but there are other Hebrew textual traditions, including those in the DSS, as well as other non-Greek sources like the Samaritan Penteteuch which serve as a corrective along with the LXX in doing our textual criticism. Nor is it surprising that the NT authors used the LXX frequently, any more than it's surprising that so many Catholics have used the Duoay-Rheims as their default English translation or so many Protestants and Evangelicals default to the KJV.
So the issue is not the LXX vs. the Masoretic, but the Greek vs. the Hebrew--that is, can a translation be divinely inspired so as to replace the original Scriptures (as the KJV-Onlyists claim)? While I may quote the KJV as a useful "common ground" translation with an English audience, that doesn't mean that I won't prefer the original languages of the Scriptures or even refer back to them if I think the KJV has mistranslated something.
How is that important to us? Simply so: The instant one corrects a translation in any regard by referring back to the original languages of the Scriptures, one a priori throws out the idea that the translation is "God-breathed" and inerrant.
"But," you may argue, "the Aposltes also corrected the Masoretic!"
This is true, but again, I'm not defending the Masoretic--I'm defending the Hebrew. The doctrine of inerrancy in the Scriptures has always been that the original autographs were without flaw or error, but acknowledges that scribal errors have since entered into many texts. That is why even Biblical inerrantists must rely on textual criticism to reconstruct the original state of the text--and why God has provided that no doctrine is given in but a single passage, let alone a disputed one.
In the course of my research, I came across this page which you'll doubtless find interesting, especially since the author takes your position on LXX primacy. The most useful part of his data is where he charts the agreement between the NT and the LXX and/or MT (about halfway down the page). And here we notice something very interesting: In the great majority of cases, there is no substantial disagreement between the LXX and MT for the NT to choose between!
If there's no substantial disagreement, then it hardly follows that the NT authors were favoring the LXX simply because they quoted it, anymore than I'm favoring the KJV over the Greek NT when I find them to be in agreement and quote the KJV!
Below that, we find the author, though he in his conclusion clearly favors the LXX, admitting six instances where the NT favors the MT, and eleven instances where they favored neither but instead did their own translation. Frankly, seventeen instances of correcting the LXX versus thirty instances of favoring it does not indicate that the NT authors considered the LXX to be vastly superior to the Hebrew texts at their disposal.
Moreover, many of the cases in which this author cites the LXX over the MT (near the top of the page) are not actually instances of superior transmission, but of the NT authors making use of the LXX's clarifying statements. For example:
- He cites Mat. 1:23 as an instance of favoring the LXX over the MT. However, the fact is that the Hebrew word almah does mean a virgin girl of marriageable age in every instance in which it is used in the Tanakh, so this is more an instance of arguing over the translation of a Hebrew word than it is the MT getting it wrong.If you take out those types of differences, you're left with a handful of true descrepancies, like Heb. 1:6 vs. the MT of Deu. 32:43--but at that point, there's not much distinction left between the number of times the NT favors the LXX over the MT and the number of times it disputes the LXX (not always in favor of the MT)!
- Likewise, in Mat. 12:21, Matthew is simply making use of the LXX's clarification of "coastlands" to refer to the Gentiles--an interpretation which Isaiah's readers understood. I use the Message and the Complete Jewish Bible in the same way, without considering either to be superior to the Greek NT or Hebrew Tanakh.
Therefore, I maintain to you that while the NT authors used the LXX as their default Greek translation, the fact that they corrected it as often as they corrected the Masoretic (and we don't know which versions of the Hebrew Scriptures they had at their disposal, so it's not even certain that the LXX was the reason they favored certain readings) proves that they did not regard the LXX as divinely correct or inerrant.
What a person does often makes him reliable or unreliable in general.
True, but a person's failings in one area do not automatically make him unreliable in unrelated errors. So again I ask you: What specific evidence do you have that Josephus was unreliable, or had any reason to be, in transmitting the canon of the Tanakh which was broadly accepted in his day?
If you have none, then you're reduced to making a fallacious "poisoning the well" argument.
What was the reason for him to spell out the Jewish canon?
For a quick background on the work, look here.
Exactly! And not only into Josephus' writings but into the Bible itself! As a result, there is no way of knowing which came first, what was added, what was deleted, what was not there to begin with.
I think you're a little too quick to despair. In most instances, it's not that hard to figure it out. For example, in the case of the Josephus witness to Yeshua, we have copies of his work in Arabic which contain the passage, but without the Christian interpolations--which weren't exactly characteristic of Josephus' style anyway.
In the case of the Bible, the multiplicity of early manuscripts in agreement with each other help us to weed out "creative editing" from later centuries, as do the voluminous quotes from the rabbis and early Church fathers in their works. If we lost every copy of the NT, we could reconstruct it sans only a handful of verses from their quotes alone.
Nearly all disputes that are still up in the air involve minor spelling discrepancies, most of which do not affect the reading of the text enough to present a problem. The other major dispute is over the Majority Text vs. the slightly earlier but probably redacted Alexandrian manuscripts. In that case, the ECF strongly favor the Majority Text.
No, in response to your claim that the Hebrew version has been "perfectly" persevered. Even a 'handful' makes it not perfect.
The same applies to the LXX.
I don't think anyone in the EOC would claim that any one version is absolutely faultless.
Hence the need for textual criticism. :)
Until such time that we discover Aramaic versions, Greek will be the original language of the NT.
Oh, we have Aramaic versions; there's just some dispute over whether they were preserved in Aramaic from the beginning or translated back into Aramaic from the Greek. We also have some Hebrew manuscripts, but again we face the same problem. But I agree that one must work with the Greek which we know has been preserved for the most part--though we've found that translating Yeshua's words back into Aramaic and Hebrew has yielded some surprising clarity on some of His "hard sayings." It's even revealed an underlying poetic meter to His teachings.
KJV was created for political purposes and is based on a "Greek" text retro-translated into Greek from a Latin translation from Greek.
Yep. It also contains some anti-semetic and anti-Torah mistranslations that can only be called deliberate. Hence why even when I quote it or the NKJV, I correct it against other sources. I personally do my study from an interlinear Bible which uses a woodenly literal translation, using the CJB, NASB, and a few other translations for clarity.
Of course, translations that rely on the Vulgate run into the same problem. Which isn't your problem, I realize. I'll have to read the Eastern Orthodox English translation for comparison purposes someday.
Anyone who uses any single source as the Bible is guilty of self-deception.
Exactly! And I think since we agree on that, the most important point, everything else comes down to discussing the original state and meaning of certain passages. Which we can do if you'd like, but I'm also fine on ending on a point of agreement.
No, the LXX illuminates the thinking of the pre-Apostolic Jewish translators. Which is what makes it so useful: When it translates almah in Isa. 7:14 as parthenos, "virgin," no one can accuse the translators of having a Christian bias.
Anyway, see my most recent post to Kosta: The NT authors did not always favor the LXX, so your thesis just went right out the window.
I would say that new translations are useless and many are outright harmful.
Not all translations are created equal, granted. But at the same time, linguistic scholarship did not freeze in the fourth (or seventeenth) century, nor did textual criticism, so translations that take into account up-to-date scholarship are a must.
Jerome went back to the Hebrew because he understood the futility of getting an accurate reading doing translations of translations. If you're getting your English translation from the Vulgate, then you dishonor his memory.
If one wants to understand better the Vulgate, he should ask the Church for guidance or look at the Greek and Hebrew originals for clarification -- exactly what St. Jerome did.
I do go to the Church for guidance--just not your church. And looking at the Greek and Hebrew originals for clarification is exactly what I've been arguing this whole time. Nice to see that you agree with me.
The point was that St. Paul was more likely than the other, more hellenized disciples to use the Hebrew scripture . . .
lol My friend, the Galileans were more prone to speak Aramaic than Greek (why do you think Peter and John needed help from translators?), and they used Hebrew in the synagogues. We also know from the DSS that Hebrew, not just Aramaic, was in common use in Judea, so if they were going down for the Feasts and preaching the Gospel there, they most likely could read the Scriptures in Hebrew as well as in the Targums.
I am by the way, waiting for you to name non-Pauline instances where, you say, the quoting of the Old Testament i the New followes the Hebrew text.
Again, see my post to Kostas.
Of course. This is because the Hebrew Tradition is deprecated in Christianity to a considerable extent. This says nothing of the role of the Christian Tradition.
Actually, the Apostles went out of their way to keep Jewish Tradition as well as the Torah (cf. Acts 21:20-26)--they just didn't make it a requirement for Gentiles. Their disputes with the Pharisees were over the latter's hardened hearts and in letting their traditions violate the Torah in many (not all) cases. Moreover, their disputes were only with a subset of the Pharisees, since Sha'ul and many other Jewish believers remained a part of the Pharisee sect (Acts 15:5, 23:6). In fact, Yeshua's actions and teachings were not that far removed from the Pharisees (in particular, with Rabbi Hillel, who died when Yeshua was just 10 or 13), and the fact that He was invited into their homes for table-fellowship indicates that He followed their traditions closely enough to be considered "clean" for fellowship!
But if you, not knowing or understanding the historical and cultural backdrop of the NT, want to denigrate the Pharisees and the Jews in general, so be it. However, don't think that you can judge them for adding their traditions on top of Scripture so as to violate it and get away with doing the exact same thing! A Pharisee by any other name . . .
Could be, but what the Jewish authority outside of Christianity considered canon is simply not relevant, whether at Jamnia or at other times.
On the contrary, Jewish authority before Christianity as to the canon is very important, since it tells us what Bible Yeshua and His disciples used. Josephus and Jamnia may have recorded their canonical lists shortly after the advent of our Lord, but they were not making up anything new; rather, like the counsels that discussed the NT canon in the fourth century, they were merely ratifying and passing on what was already long-established by their time.
About how long, do you figure?
I see nothing to dispute in that statement!
Please believe me that I'm not saying this with "Aha! GOTcha!," in my alleged mind, but to delineate the different way we go with the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Thank you so much for that treatment, and also for your discussion of Adam 1 and his observer problem.
The only way Adam can get off that stage is to be born anew as a spectator, that is what Christ accomplished in the Resurrection.
It is a fascinating discussion you are inviting me to eavesdrop upon, both here and above; thank you!
We've all been outted...it happened one Friday...
I don't know of any Protestants who would assert that Christians do not sin.
That's even worst.
To take the NT example, "I figure" from the moment the Apostles put pen to paper their writings were received as Scripture by the congregations who first read them. What I can prove, going to the ECF, is that the vast majority of the NT canon, including all four Gospel accounts, Acts, all of Sha'ul's letters, 1 John, 1 Peter, James, and the Revelation, were accepted as canon by the second century, with 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Hebrews being widely quoted, though with some debate.
Now, I know from reading the Judaica that the Torah, being the foundational Scripture, has never been in doubt. Neither have any of the books listed as being "the Prophets": Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and the Twelve. Ezra/Nehemiah and Chronicles were also universally accepted, even though they came at the tail-end of the prophetic period. Lamentations was accepted due to its prophet author (Jeremiah), the Psalms were universally accepted both as Israel's hymnbook and as prophecy, and the Proverbs as the pre-eminent "wisdom liturature" by Solomon, who like his father was a Prophet-King (albeit not a very good one).
The other Writings were occasionally disputed. For example, Esther was disputed on the basis that it did not contain the Name of God (which it actually does in its original language--in acrostic form; this feature is lost in the LXX), but was broadly accepted and read yearly on Purim. Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes were the only two other books that were disputed, but were accepted on the basis of being Solomon's work.
I've so far left out Daniel, not because it was disputed as canon, but because there was dispute over whether it belonged in an honored position among the Prophets, or a less-honorable but still canonical position in the Writings. I won't go into that debate here; suffice to say that I regard Daniel as among the most important of prophets.
Now, among the Apocryphal books, I've already noted that no pre-Christian or Apostolic contemporary quoted from any of them with the usual formulas to indicate that they were quoting Scripture--nor for that matter do any of the NT authors. In fact, these books disqualify themselves!
For example, just as New Testament books were accepted or rejected on the basis of their Apostolic authority--this is why, for example, Polycarp's account of the Gospel, while considered excellent history and not conflicting with any Scripture, is not given the status of canon--the books of the Tanakh were accepted or rejected on the basis of their Prophetic authority; that is, they had to be written by a prophet or by the prophet's authority.
Shortly after the completion of the Second Temple, the prophetic Spirit ceased to move in Israel. This was in accordance with Amos 8:11--"'Behold, the days are coming,' says the Lord GOD, 'That I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine of bread, Nor a thirst for water, But of hearing the words of the LORD.'"--and is acknowledged in the very intertestimal books themselves. For example, 1 Maccabees 4:46 speaks of the Jews storing away the stones of the defiled altar until "should come a prophet to tell what to do with them." In other words, they were acknowledging that there was no prophet among them.
No prophet, no Scripture. Useful history and to be studied, certainly, but definitely not canon.
Josephus' list of 22 books, as well as the contemporaneous Council of Jamnia and the quotations from the pre-Christian rabbis (Philo, Hillel, etc.) are all in perfect agreement that the Apocrypha were not accepted as canon by any Jewish authority before the time of the Messiah Yeshua, and His own choice of books to quote from as well as that of His Apostles confirms the rabbinical selection. Frankly, even the later Catholic Church has had questions about the Apocrypha, naming them the "Deutero-canon"--a "second" canon--and with an authority as well thought of as Jerome protesting their inclusion in the Vulgate, and relegating them to their own section, apart from either Old or New Testament. Therefore, they may be quoted on their own merits, as either history or wisdom, but cannot be used to determine doctrine.
Excellent words poured through obedient fingers, as usual.
I concur, although there is no temptation too great than that which may be resisted.
No, I'm sure you're right. Mxxx
Am humbled by your kind words.
Just share from my perspective.
Praise God when it resonates with anyone else fruitfully.
Somehow, I wonder if your hubby--or maybe it's someone else you know--would profit from the latter parts of this thread:
How so, FK? The term was "coined" to address a Christological heresy and as such really wrote "finis" to that heresy.
I think Xzins nailed exactly where I was coming from in his 5654. Perhaps WAY back in the day, the context would have better understood by the average layman. I'm just saying that today, I don't think it is. To a person who didn't know what was behind it, "mother of God" "sounds" bad for the reasons already discussed. However, with a full explanation, then it's OK. In the same way, "mother of Christ" "sounds" bad to you because it has a defined meaning under Nesotrianism. However, Nestorianism aside, it "sounds" perfectly good to me, and if I said I thought it was OK, and then gave you a full explanation of what I meant by it, you would probably say "fine" to the idea I was conveying, just in that context.
"Actually, the Apostles went out of their way to keep Jewish Tradition as well as the Torah (cf. Acts 21:20-26)--they just didn't make it a requirement for Gentiles."
Let's assume that what you say is correct. What changed by the late 1st century to cause +Ignatius of Antioch to write in his Letter to the Magnesians:
"It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God."
Do we really have to redefine our terms because some people don't know enough to figure such things out correctly? Political correctness run amok!