Does "The Nativity" Movie Get It Right?

[Marcia]

==I am going to see this film tommorow so I will be able to say more, and I will say more, tommorow night.

Good - interested to hear what you think and what it portrays.

1. Joseph did consider a divorce (Matt 1:19). Normally he would have had good grounds for one and, under the Law, more than a divorce (Deut 22:20-24, 24:1-4). So there does seem to have been some level of controversy over her pregnancy.

2. A unmarried, probably devout, Jewish girl getting pregnant would have caused some friction in her family.

So while the Bible does not directly mention any controversy over this, it does hint that there was some.

I have to disagree - the text does not "hint" of any controversy. Joseph privately considered quietly divorcing (putting away) Mary but the angel told him not to and he immediately married Mary.

Look at the children's stories that the churches use, same additions. Point? Don't condemn the movie for doing what we in the church have been doing for longer than I, or my parents, have been alive. If we don't like the above additions then it is "our" job to make sure that "our" presentations are Biblically/historically correct.

I can and will certainly criticize the movie for adding things! Just because some churches act out the Nativity incorrectly doesn't give the film makers the right to do it, especially if they are claiming this is from the Bible. After all, they have the text right there!

You should ask yourself if the above additions are important enough to condemn the film? Personally I don't think they will be. As I said I will see the movie tomorrow and thus I will have more to say on this then.

I'm not condemning the film. Why do you say that? Just because I raise a certain point, which I believe to be a valid one, does not mean I am condemning the film. I am merely bringing up this one point.

We need to realize that all movies that take up historical subject matters will add material (in one way or the other). This should be expected.

And we as believers should realize that as long as this is done, we certainly can point out errors or liberties with the text. The Bible was given to us by God and we should not take additions to or changes in the text lightly, even for a movie.

I for one am not keeping silent when I see liberties taken with the Bible.

 

[J.D.]

I haven't seen the movie but I just saw a preview of it on TBN and from what I saw it's RC, RC, RC! (Roman Catholic)

 

[Martin]

I haven't seen the movie but I just saw a preview of it on TBN and from what I saw it's RC, RC, RC! (Roman Catholic)

==How is it Roman Catholic?

 

[J.D.]

==How is it Roman Catholic?

Most of the interviews were various RC's, inluding a couple of priests and one woman identified as an "expert Mariologist". The priests kept saying "tradition says..." and they never quoted scripture. One priest said that Joseph had "decided" to divorce Mary, but an angel changed his mind. Just one example of several "nuances" to the biblical account.

Like I said, I haven't seen the actual movie, so let us know how it turns out. Maybe I've prejudged incorrectly.

 

[Martin]

I have to disagree - the text does not "hint" of any controversy. Joseph privately considered quietly divorcing (putting away) Mary but the angel told him not to and he immediately married Mary.

==Please note what I said, "some level of controversy over her pregnancy". That was very carefully worded. (on purpose). We don't know how much controversy was caused by her pregancy but there was clearly some. We have to assume her parents found out, and we know Joseph found out. The fact that he was considering (privately) ending the engagement shows that there was some controversy (at least with him). I am not saying it leaked out into the larger community, it could very well have been a "in family" issue. In fact I would say that it had to have been a family issue. Keep in mind that these were religious Jews who knew what the law said about unmarried women who get pregnant (Deut 22:20-24). I think that would have caused some concern in her family and I am sure there were questions from her parents and brothers/sisters (assuming she had some). Let's also keep in mind that soon after the angel left her she left town and went to see Elizabeth and stayed there for around three months (Lk 1:56). Had she told Joseph about the angel (etc) before she left? Had she told her parents? I don't think we can answer those questions for sure. The Scriptures simply do not give us a clear outline here. My personal opinion, however, is that she "probably" did not tell Joseph until after she returned (some three months later). Why do I say that? Because Joseph considered ending the engagment, an angel informed him of what was going on, and he married Mary (though there was no marriage relationship until after Jesus was born so, in one since, they were still only engaged -Lk 2:5). I doubt Mary and Joseph were married when she left town for three months (without him). After all, after they were married, she went with him to Bethlehem (Lk 2:5). Also Luke 1:39 seems to indicate that Mary left very soon after Gabriel departed. But that is all speculation. While it may be fun to try and fit such puzzles together I really doubt much comes from doing to.

I can and will certainly criticize the movie for adding things! Just because some churches act out the Nativity incorrectly doesn't give the film makers the right to do it

==Wait a minute, some churches? Let's be more honest about this, ok? Most, if not all American and European churches, get it wrong. If we, the church, don't get it right we cannot expect a secular, nonChristian, production company to get the details right. The Church needs to stop trying to blame the world and start looking in the mirror. If we don't like how the Nativity is portrayed in this film we have only ourselves to blame for it. That, my friend, is the truth.

Also if they did not add dialogue (etc) there would be no movie.

especially if they are claiming this is from the Bible. After all, they have the text right there!

==So do Christians, who are in the churches, and we are the ones who are (in theory anyway) reading the Scriptures. Yet we don't get it right. Do you have a Nativity in your home? In your church? What about Nativity plays in your church? Do they get the details right? Like I said, before we complain about this movie we need to look at ourselves.

Personally it is just a movie. I hope it is good, and I hope that they generally stay true to the story. However it is just a movie. I don't attend movies to learn history, Bible, or life lessons. If I watch a movie, and it is a rare thing that I do, I watch it for entertainment.

And we as believers should realize that as long as this is done, we certainly can point out errors or liberties with the text. The Bible was given to us by God and we should not take additions to or changes in the text lightly, even for a movie.

==Again I ask you to look at your church, the books children read, Christian cartoons, etc.

As a side note, none of the additions/mix-ups are important enough for me to get upset over. Now if they had denied the virgin conception, if they denied that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, or something like that, then I would be bothered. If all they are doing is mixing up some details, adding dialogue (etc) for the purposes of making a movie, and as long as that dialogue does not take away from the actual account, I am not going to get upset. If I watch a movie on Alexander the Great, or George Washington, I know that the film makers are going to add dialogue (etc) and they may get some details wrong. Am I going to get upset over that? No.

Also I would point out that this movie is not the text of Scripture. It does not even claim to be a word for word re-telling (as are the Visual Bible productions). It is only "based" on the accounts found in Scripture. In other words it is based on a true story. It is not word for word the true story (this is normal for movies based on a true story).

Please folks this is a movie, not Scripture, and it should be understood as such.

I for one am not keeping silent when I see liberties taken with the Bible.

==So I assume you speak out when you see churches using the typical nativity scenes? I assume you speak out when your church, or another church, uses the basic nativity scene for a church play? I ask because we both know the typical nativity scene/play has several errors (many of the same errors this movie has). You say you are not one for keeping silent when liberties are taken with the text of Scripture. I am asking you if, on this issue, that is really the case. Mabye it is, but I have a feeling that you have not spoken out at church (etc) over the typical nativity scenes/plays. Or, have you? Sorry just a point I think has to be made. I have run into several people taking your position and, to a person, they can't say or even pretend that they are consistant on the point.

As a person who is deeply interested in theology and history I have been aware of these problems for "years". I have noted them before in coversations (etc) but I have not been upset by them. Why not? The problems are not big enough. I have learned, over the years, to pick my battles.

 

[Martin]

Most of the interviews were various RC's, inluding a couple of priests and one woman identified as an "expert Mariologist". The priests kept saying "tradition says..." and they never quoted scripture. One priest said that Joseph had "decided" to divorce Mary, but an angel changed his mind. Just one example of several "nuances" to the biblical account.

Like I said, I haven't seen the actual movie, so let us know how it turns out. Maybe I've prejudged incorrectly.

==I have removed TBN from my channel line up (for reasons I will not get into here) but once and a while I do peak in on the word of faith crowd. I think I caught most of the program you are talking about several days ago. My advice? Don't judge anything based on a program shown on TBN. I have seen them promote movies that were terrible ("Omega Code" comes to mind).

 

[Marcia]

==Please note what I said, "some level of controversy over her pregnancy". That was very carefully worded. (on purpose). We don't know how much controversy was caused by her pregancy but there was clearly some. We have to assume her parents found out, and we know Joseph found out. The fact that he was considering (privately) ending the engagement shows that there was some controversy (at least with him). I am not saying it leaked out into the larger community, it could very well have been a "in family" issue.

This is all just speculation on your part. Speculation is fine, but please don't insert it into a movie for the public as though that is what the Bible says, or gives the impression that it says that. We can speculate until the cows come home, but that does not make it okay to present it as fact, or present it in a movie as though that is the way it was.

Let's also keep in mind that soon after the angel left her she left town and went to see Elizabeth and stayed there for around three months (Lk 1:56).

I think we can conclude from the text that she was married when she went to see Elizabeth. The text says Joseph married her after his visit from the angel. The sequence seems to be Mary conceiving, the angel telling Joseph not to divorce her, and Josephy marrying her. Then she goes to see Elizabeth when she is 3 months along.

I doubt Mary and Joseph were married when she left town for three months (without him). After all, after they were married, she went with him to Bethlehem (Lk 2:5). Also Luke 1:39 seems to indicate that Mary left very soon after Gabriel departed. But that is all speculation. While it may be fun to try and fit such puzzles together I really doubt much comes from doing to.

I see nothing from the text to indicate she was not married when she saw Elizabeth, especially as Joseph married her as soon as the angel told him not to divorce her. He would have divorced her by then if the angel had not prevented it, and we know he married Mary right after that.

The Church needs to stop trying to blame the world and start looking in the mirror. If we don't like how the Nativity is portrayed in this film we have only ourselves to blame for it. That, my friend, is the truth.

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm concerned that a movie might present facts not in the text. The fact that churches may get the story wrong, according to you, does not prevent me from criticizing a movie. Am I supposed to not criticize a movie for the public just because some churches get it wrong? I must keep silent forever? That's ridiculous. That's your criteria, not mine.

Do you have a Nativity in your home? In your church? What about Nativity plays in your church? Do they get the details right? Like I said, before we complain about this movie we need to look at ourselves.

No to the first 3 questions. No Nativity in my home or church. No Nativity plays in my church that I know of. Oh, I have a little tree ornament (but no tree) on the heater that shows Mary, Joseph, and Jesus. That's it.

If I watch a movie on Alexander the Great, or George Washington, I know that the film makers are going to add dialogue (etc) and they may get some details wrong. Am I going to get upset over that? No.

Well, I consider God's word more important than history about G Washignton.

Also I would point out that this movie is not the text of Scripture. It does not even claim to be a word for word re-telling (as are the Visual Bible productions). It is only "based" on the accounts found in Scripture. In other words it is based on a true story. It is not word for word the true story (this is normal for movies based on a true story).

I never said I was upset. Go back and read my first post. I asked a question and then made a point that events not in the Bible should not be portrayed. I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

[LeBuick]

When Mary visited Elizabeth, she was married.

You are wrong when you say Elizabeth was "pregnant by the Holy Spirit." Only Mary conceived by the HS!!! Otherwise, John the Baptist would also be a God-man! Elizabeth conceived miraculously, but God was not the Father of John the Baptist and Elizabeth was not a virgin.

Not necessarily even though you have the common belief and I won't doubt you. If God can have an angel take on the form of a human (see Lot) then it is possible for him create a man with a spirit other than divine (see Adam).

I always find it stange the Angel stuck this in for free when he did.
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

so no, Elisabeth was not a virgin but the Bible is not clear on her pregnancy. Any of us can assume but only she, her hubby and the divine know for sure.

Also, I believe Mary was married prior to getting pregnant. Read the text carefully and you will see what I mean. I know Allan says there is a diffenence in being espoused and being married, however, if you read carfully you will see Joseph option was to divorce her. You don't divorse someone you are not married to.

 

[LeBuick]

==Please note what I said, "some level of controversy over her pregnancy". That was very carefully worded. (on purpose). We don't know how much controversy was caused by her pregancy but there was clearly some. We have to assume her parents found out, and we know Joseph found out. The fact that he was considering (privately) ending the engagement shows that there was some controversy (at least with him). I am not saying it leaked out into the larger community, it could very well have been a "in family" issue..

I have to agree with you Martin, any man who just married a woman and has not consummated the marriage then finds out she is with child will have some controversy. That is even today which is much more tolerant in these areas. In Joseph's day if a man found his bride to not be a virgin meant he could put her to death or return her to her Dad with much shame. Man married virgin's back then, no if, ands or buts about it.

The fact the bible writers heard, tells me the story was one spoken about. How it was spoken of by the time they wrote the text is surely less dramatic since they then knew who Christ was. When she first came up pregnant and said an Angel came to me, I am sure her cousin Elisabeth was the only one who fully understood. Others may have said they understood but I am sure Joseph had a little doubt in the back of his mind thinking, "she must think I'm a fool." I don't know how an angle comes to you or how he came to Joseph as I don't usually remember my dreams but I can say, being a Man, I would have been looking for the Angle who knocked up my wife to have some words with him...

 

[Allan]

Not necessarily even though you have the common belief and I won't doubt you. If God can have an angel take on the form of a human (see Lot) then it is possible for him create a man with a spirit other than divine (see Adam).

I always find it stange the Angel stuck this in for free when he did.
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

so no, Elisabeth was not a virgin but the Bible is not clear on her pregnancy. Any of us can assume but only she, her hubby and the divine know for sure.

Also, I believe Mary was married prior to getting pregnant. Read the text carefully and you will see what I mean. I know Allan says there is a diffenence in being espoused and being married, however, if you read carfully you will see Joseph option was to divorce her. You don't divorse someone you are not married to.

Here brother I think is the only time since I have been on here, that I have disagreed with you (that I can recall anyway). The child whom Elizabeth carried is Fathered by someone - so is it God, an Angel, or a man as in her husband. Please don't forgot the many times in the scriptures God opened a baren womb that conception between the man and wife would be possible. (ie. Abraham and Sarah, [old couple concieving] Elkanah and Hannah, and so on..) None of these women concieved a child due to God impregnating them nor an angel but through the natural father - Remember - with God all things are possible, which means that which you thought can never happen CAN with God! God did do it but through natural means.

IF Elizabeth's child was not born of an earthly father then John would be a sinless man. Sin (sin nature) is passed from the father to the children this principle is laid out throught the OT and is the Reason Jesus did not have an earthly father that He would be born without sin. This is why and the very reason Mary HAD to be a virgin. This is why in the Garden God did not state that in Adams seed (seed is spoken of coming from the male) but in the Womans seed (a reversal of the common usage - but not when you understand Jesus was not born of Man but God and He used a woman to create or wrap in flesh via her seed) there shall be enmity against the seed of the serpent.

Actually concerning Jewish customs and espousal or engaments LeBuick you are not accuate. To the Jewish mind set if one was engaged or espoused one was CONSIDERED for all intents and purposes to be married but not YET legally married that consumation can happen in Holiness. If you slept with someone else during this period of time you were guilty of adultry even though you are NOT married yet. And you could be guilty of fornication if they (the marry couple) were to copulate BEFORE the Actual marriage. However though, Marriage is consumated but not authinticated via sexual relations. However they were not ACTUALLY married as of yet: See Matt 1:

Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

We see he (Joseph) had not YET taken Mary unto him or MADE her his own though she is CONSIDERED his wife.
After the Angelic encounter Joseph THEM takes her UNTO him or makes her his own (ie, marries her).
You can find the espousal and it's Jewish cultural understanding in most any Bbile dictionary or Bible Encyclopedia. It is a good study and really opens ones eyes as to many things in scripture and how God views his people and convents.

 

[Allan]

I have to agree with you Martin, any man who just married a woman and has not consummated the marriage then finds out she is with child will have some controversy. That is even today which is much more tolerant in these areas. In Joseph's day if a man found his bride to not be a virgin meant he could put her to death or return her to her Dad with much shame. Man married virgin's back then, no if, ands or buts about it.

The fact the bible writers heard, tells me the story was one spoken about. How it was spoken of by the time they wrote the text is surely less dramatic since they then knew who Christ was. When she first came up pregnant and said an Angel came to me, I am sure her cousin Elisabeth was the only one who fully understood. Others may have said they understood but I am sure Joseph had a little doubt in the back of his mind thinking, "she must think I'm a fool." I don't know how an angle comes to you or how he came to Joseph as I don't usually remember my dreams but I can say, being a Man, I would have been looking for the Angle who knocked up my wife to have some words with him...

Again LeBuick, it is not the she was NOT FOUND TO BE A VIRGIN, for she was one! So that is a mute point to bring up as any test via the Law would prove such. What is of interest to me is the the angel NEVER states they can not be together but it seems to be his and her personal choice in the matter. However the argument can be made that they chose this because scripture states this Virgin will bring forth a son... Anyhoo...

Scripture NEVER states anyone but Joseph knew and then most likely (I believe) Elizabeth and her Husband who was mute till Johns birth. There was no "others that may have understood..." scripture tells of no others knowing and yes this includes her family. If her family knew it would be her father that must bring her before the elders to be judged if his daughter was with Child and not legally married, and if the father didn't then the brothers, Mother, then daughters or else ALL would be guilty under the Law and punishable) and if they did bring her she would have been stoned to death at worst and known as a whore at least and therefore making her undesirable by any Jewish males for marriage and a shame to the family of any who DID marry her.

ANGELS CAN NOT PRO-CREATE, Nor did any ANGEL knock up anyone.

 

[Allan]

Not necessarily even though you have the common belief and I won't doubt you. If God can have an angel take on the form of a human (see Lot) then it is possible for him create a man with a spirit other than divine (see Adam)

One more thing here: Adam was not created by an Angel have sexual relations with a woman but was made by God from the dust of the ground. Angels do not Create, much less create man with a spirit.
BUT IF an angel procreated with her is would be a sinless man (like Christ) as well since Angel are sinless, except of course those who chose TO sin.
IF it was the Holy Spirit like it was with Mary then Jesus has a spiritual brother IN GOD HIMSELF. He would be the equivilent of Hercules being half God and half man through sexual intercourse. But wait....She was still a virgin! That is why it is called the miraculous conception as in no sex since the Child was begun in her.

 

[blackbird]

BUT IF an angel procreated with her is would be a sinless man (like Christ) as well since Angel are sinless, except of course those who chose TO sin.

Scriptures teach that ALL creation is fallen --- thus because angels are a creation of God --- they, too fall into the realm of fallen creation --- thus even IF an angel procreated with her --- the thing created cannot be sinless!!

See??

 

[Allan]

Scriptures teach that ALL creation is fallen --- thus because angels are a creation of God --- they, too fall into the realm of fallen creation --- thus even IF an angel procreated with her --- the thing created cannot be sinless!!

See??

So the holy angels as says scripture is just a lie.

Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mar 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luk 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and [in his] Father's, and of the holy angels.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

Angels were created WITHOUT sin, just as Adam was created WITHOUT sin. But by their choice sin came upon THEM (as in those who sinned - If they would have offspring it would take on their nature - fallen or otherwise).
Please share with me the scriptures that state ALL creation including the Holy Angels are corrupted and sinful. Becuase the very opposite of that is to be Holy and scripture as I have shown states pretty infatically that they are not corrupt nor are they tainted with Sin. I do agree the Natural creation is fallen and even some spiritual beings known as FALLEN ANGELS.

 

[Martin]

The previews I saw on TV made it look like Mary was villified for being pregnant outside marriage, but that is not in the Bible. I could be wrong, but that is what it looked like.

==In fact, you are wrong. I saw the movie today and it does not indicate that she was villified for being pregnant outside of marriage. You should see the movie before you are critical of it. Now the movie does show that her family and friends did not know what to think about her being pregnant which, though the Bible does not directly state, is certainly what happened. This was a first century religious, Jewish girl who, engaged, showed up pregnant. That would have caused some concern in her family. I thought the movie handled this very, very well.

This is all just speculation on your part. Speculation is fine, but please don't insert it into a movie for the public as though that is what the Bible says, or gives the impression that it says that. We can speculate until the cows come home, but that does not make it okay to present it as fact, or present it in a movie as though that is the way it was.

==Well actually, that her family was upset by her being pregnant when she was not married, is speculation based on common sense. Her family were humans, you can expect that they reacted the way any religious family would have reacted. Joseph was thinking of divorcing her so that certainly shows he was concerned.

You are taking a movie too seriously. Mainly considering the fact that you have not even seen it.

I think we can conclude from the text that she was married when she went to see Elizabeth. The text says Joseph married her after his visit from the angel. The sequence seems to be Mary conceiving, the angel telling Joseph not to divorce her, and Josephy marrying her. Then she goes to see Elizabeth when she is 3 months along.

==I agree with the movie's chronology here, and with the chronology put forth by various scholars on this. I don't "think" she told Joseph (etc) until after she returned. Since the New Testament does not tell us the exact order I think this "is" speculation and I will just let this point go as agreeing to disagree.

I see nothing from the text to indicate she was not married when she saw Elizabeth, especially as Joseph married her as soon as the angel told him not to divorce her.

==Sorry but that proves nothing. When did Joseph find out she was with child? When did the angel appear? Did he find out before she left or after she returned? Based on my study I think it was after she returned. She seems to have left very soon after the angel appeared to her. This means Joseph did not find out until after she returned and the angel did not appear to him until after she returned. Of course, I could be wrong. Again Scripture gives us no timeline here so any timeline is theory.

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm concerned that a movie might present facts not in the text. The fact that churches may get the story wrong, according to you, does not prevent me from criticizing a movie.

==According to me? Have you looked at a nativity scene lately? This is not my opinion, this is FACT. Take your Bible, find a nativity scene, and compare it with Scripture. You will find several factual errors.

O, btw, the movie does not make as many factual errors as the average nativity scene. In fact I was really amazed they stuck to the New Testament account as much as they did. Sure they added dialogue, but that added dialogue was good historical fiction (ie...it is probably gives a fair representation of dialogue that would have occured, even though no dialogue is mentioned in the NT accounts). The movie gets alot right even where the average nativity scene gets it wrong. For example it has Jesus born in a cave and not a barn (historically, Biblically correct). A mistake it does make, however, that is common with the average nativity scene is having the three wise men (though the Bible never says there were three) and the shepherds at the cave together on the night of Jesus' birth. That is unBiblical and unhistorical. However that does not harm any nativity scene and it did not harm the movie.

Am I supposed to not criticize a movie for the public just because some churches get it wrong? I must keep silent forever? That's ridiculous. That's your criteria, not mine.

==How can you openly critizcize a movie you have not seen? How can you justify being critical of this movie and not the average nativity scene when both make the same type of mistakes? Your position here seems inconsistant.

You should see the movie, asap.

No to the first 3 questions. No Nativity in my home or church. No Nativity plays in my church that I know of. Oh, I have a little tree ornament (but no tree) on the heater that shows Mary, Joseph, and Jesus. That's it.

==So you have never been to a nativity play, you have never scene a nativity scene, you have never compared them to the Bible? That ornament, are they in an American style barn? This goes to consistancy.

Well, I consider God's word more important than history about G Washignton.

==I think you know my point. This is not about God's Word, btw, this is about a movie that is based on an account found in God's Word. The account in God's Word, btw, is history and not just a nice story.

I never said I was upset. Go back and read my first post. I asked a question and then made a point that events not in the Bible should not be portrayed. I don't see what's wrong with that.

==There is nothing wrong with that...if you are consistant.

 

[dan e.]

I've been waiting your thoughts on the movie after you saw it. Thanks for the info., sounds like a movie I'll have to go check out.

 

[blackbird]

I've been waiting your thoughts on the movie after you saw it. Thanks for the info., sounds like a movie I'll have to go check out.

I probably will end up going to see it --- but it --- as in all movies Helly-wood produces will probably be botched up. Hollywood can tear up a spiritual steel Anvil with a Rubber Mallet!!! They may have a license to produce it --- but that does not give them a license to force me to believe it!!! Whatever "it" is!!!

 

[Martin]

I probably will end up going to see it --- but it --- as in all movies Helly-wood produces will probably be botched up. Hollywood can tear up a spiritual steel Anvil with a Rubber Mallet!!! They may have a license to produce it --- but that does not give them a license to force me to believe it!!! Whatever "it" is!!!

==Actually they did a very good job with it. There were some points I would change and, as I stated above, they made alot of the typical nativity mistakes. However I think they did a very good job over all. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being the worst, 10 the best) I give the movie an 8. I take one point off for the typical nativity mistakes and another point for a slow, and somewhat choppy, start.

Go see the movie I think you will enjoy it. Please keep in mind it is "JUST" a movie. Don't go in expecting to see Scripture "come alive" because that is not what it is. It is a movie "based on" the Scriptural accounts sort of like a tv movie that is "based on" a true story. However if you go in looking for a good movie that is based on the Scriptural accounts you will be pleased. That is if you make it past the first twenty minutes or so. The start of the movie was slow and, at times, choppy. At other points throughout the movie I got the impression they were just filling time. They did this by focusing alot on the relationship between Joseph and Mary. Those parts were not boring or anything like that but it was obvious what they were doing. Still a very good movie. I say go see the movie!

 

[Martin]

I've been waiting your thoughts on the movie after you saw it. Thanks for the info., sounds like a movie I'll have to go check out.

==Let me know how you like it. Like I said in the above post I give it an 8 out of 10. Not bad for me because I don't watch alot of movies and when I do I can be very critical of them. It is a good movie and I think you will enjoy it. I really liked the way they wrapped the movie up. Very good effects, very good acting, and great drama.

 

[Marcia]

Quoted by Martin: Now the movie does show that her family and friends did not know what to think about her being pregnant which, though the Bible does not directly state, is certainly what happened. This was a first century religious, Jewish girl who, engaged, showed up pregnant. That would have caused some concern in her family. I thought the movie handled this very, very well.
==Well actually, that her family was upset by her being pregnant when she was not married, is speculation based on common sense.

There is nothing in scripture to indicate her family was upset or that they even knew she was pregnant before the marriage! After all, from the text, it is entirely possible that Joseph married her within a few days of her conceiving, is it not? Should we take speculation, whether common sense or not, as part of the story?

==I agree with the movie's chronology here, and with the chronology put forth by various scholars on this.

Which scholars?

==How can you openly critizcize a movie you have not seen? How can you justify being critical of this movie and not the average nativity scene when both make the same type of mistakes? Your position here seems inconsistant.

Bringing up nativity scenes as a way to tell me I cannot criticize anything else is just ludicrous, Martin. That's like saying we should not be upset if people are murdering, because people are also stealing. I made it clear that I was questioning what I saw in previews. I asked about it. Then it turned into a discussion of the events surrounding Mary, her pregnancy, and marriage to Joseph. I have not criticized the movie - look at my posts.