The Nativity Story - Fact or Fiction?
Find a Conversation
The Nativity Story - Fact or Fiction?
| Sat, 12-02-2006 - 5:50pm |
There's been a lot of buzz about the movie "The Nativity" which has pulled in a C+ from the critics. Have you seen or are you going to see it?
What do you think about the story? Believe it happened that way? Or is it fabricated for effect?
** Remember, this is just for lively discussion and everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether or not you agree with it!
Bink
Not really into Siggees...
Not all who wander are lost.
(J.R.R. Tolkien)

Pages
Right -- and you don't miss a thing with pause, plus you don't have to stumble over disgruntled people's feet in the dark, either! :D
Gypay
)O(
Blessings,
Gypsy
)O(
It's based on fact. Does it really matter? Jesus is an historical figure. He was born. He lived a human life. If one were to ask the question "Was he really born?" is like asking me if Abraham Lincoln was really born. Well, he was here wasn't he? He had to be born somewhere. Was Jesus really born in a manger in close proximity to livestock? I believe it. I have no reason to disbelieve it. As a matter of fact, there is more reason to believe than not to. My reason is because it makes me happy to believe it, I need nothing more. So if believing brings you joy, go with it. If believing brings one distress, that's for the person to sort out... Each person's experience is different.
I think there should be more inspiring movies and more resources to find them than what's available in hollywood. The Spiritual Cinema Circle is absolutely wonderful. What I like the most is that I can keep the volumes for my own growing library of inspirational films (short and feature length).
http://secure.spiritualcinemacircle.com?af=73665
I watched The Nativity Story this past weekend and absolutely loved it. The cinematography was beautiful and the rendering of the stars and interpretation of the 3 Wise Men (scientists) from the east was also beautiful. Everything in the gospel accounts was included, and also much artistic license was included as well which is what made this artistic telling of the story so inspiring.
If you plan on enjoying it, you will. If you plan to pick it apart, you'll do that too. But I only ask this one thing, please don't pick it apart out loud in the theater, that's just bad manners and disrupts the viewing of others who paid for their own ticket.
I'm glad you liked the movie.
Bink,
I do not know how I gave the impression that your post offended me, I was not offended in any way by your post. I'm actually very hard to offend. While writing my response I was unemotional and responsive - maybe reactive? mainly to the collective reading of ALL the posts in the thread. Just my 2 cents. You'll find that when a question is asked, I like to "philosophize" and raise more questions.
What's the better question?.. is my favorite question.
May the one and only God bless you with an unreasonably large amount of peace, abundance & joy.
Mimi
Edited 12/7/2006 4:12 pm ET by finding_mimo
Point of clarification and not related to the movie. More on the comments about the gospels and when they were put written/recorded. Jesus could never have been "dead for 100 years". He rose on the 3rd day and ascended to heaven after a time. So... after 3 days did not remain dead, and neither did He die a second time. That's why there's Easter.
There is no solid evidence to the contrary, scientific nor otherwise.
There is a story about my great-great-great? grandfather who was a soldier and killed on the battlefield at Gettysburg. No one wrote it (the story of his life) down, the story was oral tradition and was passed on word of mouth down the generations and with different perspectives from various individuals who knew of him from unrelated circumstances.. That's over a hundred years ago, and if I am about to write about it for my heirs... does the fact that I'm writing about it over a hundred years after the fact make it less/more/equally true? It only makes it "written" over a hundred years later. Some would say some details might get lost and they would be correct. But my story, nonetheless, would likely capture the essence of the spirit of the person about whom, in all truthful intention, I am writing.
The gospels were written (supposedly) under conditions of stillness and veiled in prayerful reverence. The story of Jesus would be too outlandish for anyone to come up with on their own, or to invent. Non-biblical scribes would have stepped up an effort to warn later generations of the scribblings of lunatics. Why would any regular Joe (back in those days) put down such craziness if it were not the truth - what would they have to gain by lying ~ other than being laughed at through the ages. Nothing.
Just something else to consider while driving or doing whatever else we do.
I agree in principle with your logic.
I guess I'm a newbie. Thanks for the welcome. Sorry if any of my comments offended.
My background is Salvationist. Until about 18 months ago my husband and I were Captains in The Salvation Army. So we were both ordained ministers for about 11 years. Our denomination transfers people very frequently and along with some other issues, we decided that for the sake of our 4 kids and for ourselves too, that we needed to settle down in one community. Our 12 year old son had attended 7 schools!
When we stopped being in ministry our kids first question was, "Are we still Christians?"
We are part of a church family that we attended a few years ago. My husband and I were chaplains in a men's shelter and had social services responsibilities so we worshipped as a family with this congregation.
My faith has evolved and pared down as I have grown.
I don't have religion, so much as a relationship with a Person. So I don't try to follow rules as such, I try to live in a way that shows to Jesus that I love Him. For me, this means that I try to extend the love and grace that I have received to others. I love the Purpose Driven Life and a series of books by Sarah Ban Breathnach.
I guess I'll stop for now- Is there a thread for introductions?
Tina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~You said:
I agree in principle with your logic. However, there were many "gospels" written in the early years and the Holy Roman Catholic Church decided to include only four because there were four winds, or points to the compass, a rather arbitrary number at best. Does that make those four divinely inspired and the other 10 or so flawed? They contain very different slants and reporting on the same events, including the Gospels of Judas and Mary Magdelene.
In the same light, if 10 or 14 of your relatives wrote down the story of your ancestor, there would be 10 to 14 different versions of the same story.
Bink
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The use of the 4 gospels had nothing to do with 4 winds nor 4 points on the compass. I do not know where you heard that but I'm sure it's from a source that makes it their mission to bash the Catholic Church and "all things Catholic", which is their choice however, by definition renders the source unobjective and eliminates its credibility. If one has a question about Microsoft programs, for instance, wouldn't it be best to go to Microsoft for answers, instead of Apple?
The publication and use of THE 4 gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) in the mission of spreading the teachings of Christ was no accident and hardly arbitrary.
Source:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403fea1.asp
Dom Bernard Orchard is a Benedictine monk at Ealing Abbey, England. He was general editor of the Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (1953), served as chairman of the editorial committee for the New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (1969), and is the author, with Harold Riley, of The Order of the Synoptics (1987). He concludes..
We may sum up the relationships between the Gospels as follows:
1. Matthew was composed to meet the urgent needs of the primitive Church of Jerusalem (the Church set up by Peter), which needed a manifesto defending its integrity and its right to exist in the earliest days.
2. Luke was written at the behest of Paul to meet the urgent need of his churches to have their own manifesto to prove their full equality with Jewish Christians.
3. Mark was the result of the collaboration of Peter and Paul to make sure that the spiritual and doctrinal unity of the Universal Church was not impaired as a result of the appearance of Luke beside Matthew in the churches of both.
4. The Gospel of John made it clear that the primary objective of Jesus throughout his public ministry was the winning over of the spiritual authorities in Jerusalem; at the same time it had the further purpose of readjusting the chronological sequence of his ministry which had been somewhat distorted by the literary sequence of the three synoptic Gospels.
------------------------------------
All publications had to be validated by Peter who was the eye-witness. Also read about the Council of Trent.
In my opinion, since scrolls were the media used in those days, at least 10 meters in length each, and all had to be hand carried across hundreds and thousand of miles it also would seem impractical to carry all 4 scrolls anyway, let alone seek out all the rest that might have been written. I invite you to read Bernard Orchard's article in its entirety (link provided above).
About the 10-14 different versions of the life of my great great great grand daddy, yup, all accounts may be different/varied, and all 10-14 versions would be true. Your high school classmates' experience of you is different from your college classmates, and the book club, and the soccer team, and the church group, etc... Yes all different perspectives of their experience of you, but all true all the same.
best regards,
Mimi
Pages