Does "The Nativity" Movie Get It Right?

[LeBuick]

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.

Again, I can't disagree with your logic and you take the common position. Because none of the previous women conceived a child due to God impregnation has nothing to do with John. You are implying because God did it one way several time he must always do it that way. I disagree, he can do what he chooses. Again, Adam had no earthly father yet sin was found in him.

IF Elizabeth's child was not born of an earthly father then John would be a sinless man.

You make assumptions here, theoriticaly you are correct but again, God can do anything he chooses. What was John's sin?

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:

I'm sorry, you lost me in all this. Let's make it simple, Mary was Joseph's. Doesn't matter if you call it married or engaged, they were committed to each other. Mary turns up pregnant and Joseph knows he didn't do it. In this light, I don't see how anything I said is wrong. Now scripture says Joseph could have asked for a divorce. Do you divorce someone you are engaged to?

Again, it doesn't matter how you answer that question because we agree that Mary was Joseph's and she turned up pregnant and he knew he didn't do it. These are the facts.

 

[LeBuick]

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...

Poor choice of words, what I meant was she was pregnant and he didn't do it. The way laws were executed in those days he would not have to prove anything. He could just say his wife was pregnant and he didn't do it and everyone would have believed she was guilty. Look at the contrast;

Pre Angel​

Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Post Angel​

Matthew 1:24-25 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

You could see he knew before the angel told him and had a mind like any man would. Now he was good enough not to make a public stoning out of it but he did consider leaving before he found out she was still a virgin.

Also, If I said or impleid angels procreate then I apologize, you are correct, angels do not precreate. However, there are many who disagree with our view.

Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

There are many who believe the Sons of God were angels. I don't take this view but it is very common and very much taught this way.

 

[Martin]

There is nothing in scripture to indicate her family was upset or that they even knew she was pregnant before the marriage!

==Well that is very unrealistic. Joseph knew she was pregnant before he married her, and he was not living with her, so we can be sure that her parents (who were living with her) knew. And we can be sure that, a religious Jewish family, would not be happy that their unmarried, betrothed daughter has become pregnant. To assume anything else is unrealistic. We are dealing with real people here, who have real emotions, fears, and dreams We dare not make them into icons that are different from real people (that is idolatry).

Joseph knew and planned on divorcing her (ie..ending the engagment) and I am perfectly sure her parents knew. Your assumption is just, in my view, unrealistic and not justified by Scripture. Keep in mind that the Gospels are not a day by day, moment by moment, account. So just because the Bible does not directly say her parents knew (etc) we can know that they did by studying the culture (etc) and by using some common sense. If you are living in a small house, and your virgin daughter gets pregnant, you will know it.

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?

==Yes it is possible but it is not required. Again we cannot be dogmatic about a timetable here since Scripture does not give us a timetable and since there are at least two, realistic, possible timetables. I lean towards the idea that Joseph did not find out until about three months after the angel's visit. Why? She left for Elizabeth's very soon after the angel departed (Lk 1:39), she was there for around three months (Lk 1:56), she probably would have been showing by the time she returned to Nazareth, the Scriptures say that she was "found" to be with child (Matt 1:18), Joseph had time to consider what actions to take, it is hard to see Joseph letting his pregnant wife go on a long trip by herself when he knows she is pregnant, etc, etc. To me that is the most realistic timetable based on what we are told in Scripture.

O, and btw, we are not told that Mary told Joseph she was pregnant. We are only told that she was found to be pregnant. That could very well mean that it was discovered by Joseph, probably because she was showing. This seems to add weight to the idea that Joseph only found out after she returned.

Which scholars?

==Every scholar I have read has laid the events out as Joseph finding out after Mary returned. For example Dr. Darrell Bock, of Dallas Theological Seminary, lays it out this way in his book "Jesus According To The Scriptures". I am not aware of anyone who lays it out in a different way.

I may return to this point in the next few days...

Bringing up nativity scenes as a way to tell me I cannot criticize anything else is just ludicrous, Martin.

==I am talking about consistancy which, btw, is a very important thing. If you are being critical of one thing because of some reason and you are willing to over look that same reason in another thing, that is inconsistancy. You are certainly welcome to be inconsistant but it only hurts your position.

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.

==I think you have been critical of the movie. Keep in mind I have been reading, and responding to, your posts. You really should see the movie before you continue in this thread. Why? It would help you understand that some of your points, based on the previews, are wrong. Movie previews are not always very informative and this one is no different. The scene in the preview where they are about to stone Mary is not what it seems. When you see the movie you will quickly see what I am talking about (I will not give details since there are some here who have not seen the movie but wish to).

 

[Allan]

...Because none of the previous women conceived a child due to God impregnation has nothing to do with John. You are implying because God did it one way several time he must always do it that way. I disagree; he can do what he chooses. Again, Adam had no earthly father yet sin was found in him.

Again on the Adam Issue - Adam was not Fathered he was created from dust and therefore without sin. The only other person recorded in the BIBLE to have no earthly Father was Jesus and we know this because scripture tells us via the Angel to Mary "that which you have conceived is of the Holy Ghost". It never tells us that John was done so in like manner.

You make assumptions here, theoretically you are correct but again, God can do anything he chooses. What was John's sin?

Now this brings us to John - Yes God can do anything AS LONG AS it is neither contrary to His nature NOR His Word (whether spoken or written). I state this only to show God does have limitations though He is not limited.
However, Jesus HAD to be born without an earthly Father for the sin nature is passed from the father to his children as scripture shows this principle consistently throughout it. John was born of a man for he had a sin nature and was ALSO in need of a savior otherwise 'he' could have been the sacrificial sinless Lamb just as Jesus was (Remember: For ALL have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God) The fact he had a sin nature proves he had an earthly father or scripture is false on this one aspect and therefore false in the whole. John's sin is the same as all men who are in Adam and recipients of his nature.

... Mary was Joseph's. Doesn't matter if you call it married or engaged they were committed to each other. Mary turns up pregnant and Joseph knows he didn't do it. In this light, I don't see how anything I said is wrong. Now scripture says Joseph could have asked for a divorce. Do you divorce someone you are engaged to?

I see and understand your contention here and will tread somewhat lightly if that is ok. Not talking down but trying to clarify you AND me here, ok?

Mary does turn up pregnant (but NOT showing, I will deal with this part later), and that would through any guy off who was never with her, agreed there. (YOUR PART)
However, Joseph found out somehow, and most arguably it was from Mary herself who told him the whole story at God doing this (to which I hold). And Joseph probably though "BULL!" but he loved her still. (MINE) [And so far we agree]

NOW - if they were married it was customary in those days (just as today) on the night of their legal or local ceremonial wedding to consummate it THAT night. So if Mary and Joseph were ALREADY married Mary was no longer a virgin. However (and please look up, Jewish BRETROTHALS and MARRIAGES for this will give you a much better understanding of what I am saying) in the betrothal stage of marriage (it was a 2 stage marriage system) it would last for no less than a year and longer only if the child was under the age of womanhood due to a pre-arranged marriage with another youth. The year was to prove she had not cohabitated with anyone and would be ALLOWED to marry in the religious communities eyes and if not she was to be judged. The betrothal is PART of the marriage aspect and one was considered married while in betrothal but forbidden to copulate until actually married as the betrothal was and is much the same as a legal contract you enter into. So according to Jewish standards and culture, YES you MUST get a divorce if you will not marry the one you are betrothed to as you are in a contract. However in WESTERN Culture betrothal is looked at as engagement but not a guarantee I will follow through and BE married. Two different cultures here brother, so don't mesh them together.
Again if Joseph and Mary were married her virginity would be gone on their wedding night AND they would be living together!

Again, it doesn't matter how you answer that question because we agree that Mary was Joseph's and she turned up pregnant and he knew he didn't do it. These are the facts.

Actually as you can see above it does matter how you answer that as IF they were actually married they would be living together and she would not be a virgin.

Also just for Note: Their wedding night was special but also a confirmation of her virginity. Due 22:17 speaks that if a woman’s virginity is brought into question The Husband is to bring "the Cloth" also known as the "tokens of her virginity" which is saved from that wedding night to PROVE that before the marriage she was a virgin. :thumbsup:

I'll let my contentions lay here though as we have both set our views here, and I have enjoyed it. I may reply to your one other posting but not sure if I will. (I am a baptist you know so leaving an argument alone is almost against my nature. :laugh: ) Thanks Brother.

 

[Allan]

Poor choice of words, what I meant was she was pregnant and he didn't do it. The way laws were executed in those days he would not have to prove anything. He could just say his wife was pregnant and he didn't do it and everyone would have believed she was guilty. Look at the contrast;

You could see he knew before the angel told him and had a mind like any man would. Now he was good enough not to make a public stoning out of it but he did consider leaving before he found out she was still a virgin.

I will only address these two issues herein.
In the first paragraph that I embolded, this is not a true statement historically.
Your contentions that he would not have to prove anything is groundless as in order to pass judgment they HAD to have proof (even if they had to make it up - as with Jesus and the phony trial AND witnesses). So yes as stated IN THE LAW in Due IF you accussed your married spouse of adultry you had to show proof. If one was only espoused and NOT yet married (therefore still a virgin) there were ways of proving virginity. Just because someone contends (they did such and such) history nor scripture shows or states they passed judgement without a hearing of evidence. You contrast shows nothing but that Joseph was espoused and not married (or else she would not be a virgin) and then he finds out that Mary is pregnant.

Now in finding out that Mary is pregnant, for some reason some people ASSUME (and this includes SOME scholars) that whe is walking around like 4 or 5 month along pregnant woman and THIS is how she realizes she is pregnant. This is quite a dumb statement as once she would have miss one regular menstrial cycle (I would say at the most two) she would have found herself pregnant and became worried, which is why the Angel appeared to her to calm her fears. I don't why I wrote that part... I think I am responding to someone but not sure if it was you... So take this paragraph or toss it. :tongue3:

The embolding I did on your statement was done to show that your contention of them BEING married is in direct conflict with the statement of her being a virgin. As stated before, on the night of the marriage they would have (as was custom) consumated the marriage that night.

 

[Allan]

Joseph knew and planned on divorcing her (ie..ending the engagment) and I am perfectly sure her parents knew. Your assumption is just, in my view, unrealistic and not justified by Scripture. Keep in mind that the Gospels are not a day by day, moment by moment, account. So just because the Bible does not directly say her parents knew (etc) we can know that they did by studying the culture (etc) and by using some common sense. If you are living in a small house, and your virgin daughter gets pregnant, you will know it.

Your contention of her parents knowing is not scriptural nor is it logical for if sin is found in the home and the Father does not address it the sin is upon the whole of the home and shame upon ALL. And if the father didn't address the issue the sons of age would HAVE TO, and if her mother was widowed, it would be the the mother (or eldest son of age) who would HAVE to bring her before the Elders. Being found with child WHILE engaged and NOT of the espoused was a SERIOUS crime punishable by death. This was not something taken lightly as sin was not taken lightly as it is in Western Culture. So while your contention her family knowing (though probable) it is unlikely and illogical as they would have had to bring her for judgment. Why? Because Mary was raised by LAW abiding perents and we see this as she is living aright before God.

Again we cannot be dogmatic about a timetable here since Scripture does not give us a timetable and since there are at least two, realistic, possible timetables. I lean towards the idea that Joseph did not find out until about three months after the angel's visit. Why? She left for Elizabeth's very soon after the angel departed (Lk 1:39), she was there for around three months (Lk 1:56), she probably would have been showing by the time she returned to Nazareth, the Scriptures say that she was "found" to be with child (Matt 1:18), Joseph had time to consider what actions to take, it is hard to see Joseph letting his pregnant wife go on a long trip by herself when he knows she is pregnant, etc, etc. To me that is the most realistic timetable based on what we are told in Scripture.

You are right that we can not be dogmatic about the time tabel per-say. However there is a time table in place but it is in direct contention with your view. Your contention of what you lean toward has some flaws.
1. Joseph would not have been permitted to travel with Mary alone as they were YET married so others (other women) would have had to go along with her and from there - scandel
2. The erroneous contention that is not held biblically is that Joseph found out like everyone else Mary was pregnant because she was showing. Perposterous! At that point it would be manditory to bring her before the Elders (as it would be a known and open sin) and be judged for her sin her husband/espoused IF her husband/espoused consented to allow the her to be judged or freed, - whether he did or didn't it would be known by everyone and Mary would be known as the whore or harlet from then on. The fact scripture states she was 'found' with child is where SOME people including SOME scholars get it wrong. The Greek here of "she was found with child" does not insinuate that others took note of her pregnant belly but literally "she, herself found to be with child" or in commons it would be "she found herself to be with child".

What you contend in just those two positions places Mary and the baby in danger of death at worst death and at the least shame upon her and her family and married family with scandel attached to them.

O, and btw, we are not told that Mary told Joseph she was pregnant. We are only told that she was found to be pregnant. That could very well mean that it was discovered by Joseph, probably because she was showing. This seems to add weight to the idea that Joseph only found out after she returned.

You are right it does not state that Mary told Joseph but ANY view contrary to Mary telling him, places her before the judgment of the Elders. It was a secret and is why Joseph was going to divorce her privately so as NOT to bring shame upon her. This is KEY to understanding these things. There was yet NO shame known! This is why Joseph had to know BEFORE Mary left for her cousins house because he would have to go with her being married to her for reasons of protection because if he was not married but only espouced they would have to go with shaparones which usally included three of more other women of womans family. If they were married BEFORE she went to her cousins no one would have suspected any ill or adultry because when she returned she WOULD been seen as being most definately pregnant.

==Every scholar I have read has laid the events out as Joseph finding out after Mary returned. For example Dr. Darrell Bock, of Dallas Theological Seminary, lays it out this way in his book "Jesus According To The Scriptures". I am not aware of anyone who lays it out in a different way.

Then read more for you are not looking very well.

=

=I am talking about consistancy which, btw, is a very important thing.

I agree here, and you are not being consistant with the culture of that time regarding Jewish Laws. People keep trying to veiw Jewish laws through Western viewpoints of assumptions and this leads to a lot of confusion.

 

[LeBuick]

Again on the Adam Issue - Adam was not Fathered he was created from dust and therefore without sin. The only other person recorded in the BIBLE to have no earthly Father was Jesus and we know this because scripture tells us via the Angel to Mary "that which you have conceived is of the Holy Ghost". It never tells us that John was done so in like manner..

Again, you are letting your human logic interfere with divine workings. If God can make a creature as complex as man from dust, he can make John complete with a sin nature with or without an earthly father. I respect your view and even teach it that way but again, the Bible is not clear regarding John's father.

I fully understand the concept of Jewish BRETROTHALS and MARRIAGES. To a degree I feel you don't understand me. It does not matter is she was betrothed or married, she belonged to Joseph and came up pregnant and he didn't touch her. Consummating their marriage according to Duet 22:17 would have added more support for the Virgin Mary because Joseph would have produced a bloody cloth. This would have made it very clear that a virgin was pregnant and would have removed all doubt in his mind.

From that perspective it might have been good...

 

[Filmproducer]

Saw the movie last Saturday with my family. I agree with Martin's assessment 100%. It is definitely a must see.

I hear Christians complain all the time on how the entertainment industry will not cater to them, and they only want to produce junk. We are finally seeing a rise in Christian friendly entertainment, only to hear complaints on how well they did/did not follow scripture? If Christians do not even agree on the timeline regarding Christ's birth, what makes you think a production company will? They saw a market, and tried to reach out to it. They did a pretty good job, too. It is pretty much biblically accurate, more so than many nativity scenes that churches promote. I recommend this movie. It was a good movie, and it certainly has more meaning to me than Santa Claus 3 with Tim Allen. I'm happy that Hollywood has finally seen the potential in the Christian market. It is a step in the right direction.

 

[Marcia]

==Joseph knew she was pregnant before he married her, and he was not living with her, so we can be sure that her parents (who were living with her) knew. And we can be sure that, a religious Jewish family, would not be happy that their unmarried, betrothed daughter has become pregnant. To assume anything else is unrealistic. We are dealing with real people here, who have real emotions, fears, and dreams We dare not make them into icons that are different from real people (that is idolatry).

Martin, it's fine you have your views but please do not act like my views are unrealistic when you have no scripture to back up your view. The other view is just as valid according to what is in the Bible.


And no, I am not making anyone into idols. That's a straw man.

Again we cannot be dogmatic about a timetable here since Scripture does not give us a timetable and since there are at least two, realistic, possible timetables. I lean towards the idea that Joseph did not find out until about three months after the angel's visit. Why? She left for Elizabeth's very soon after the angel departed (Lk 1:39), she was there for around three months (Lk 1:56), she probably would have been showing by the time she returned to Nazareth, the Scriptures say that she was "found" to be with child (Matt 1:18), Joseph had time to consider what actions to take, it is hard to see Joseph letting his pregnant wife go on a long trip by herself when he knows she is pregnant, etc, etc. To me that is the most realistic timetable based on what we are told in Scripture.

I do see your points. My point is a movie presenting an account as though it is in the Bible when it is not. My point is not that one can draw different conclusions.

This is why I did not see "The Passion." I knew that it had many things in it that are not in the Bible and some of which came from the visions of a nun (which I do not believe came from God). Personally, I just want to read the Bible and imagine the account from that, not see what other people imagine or say is in it.

I think you have been critical of the movie. Keep in mind I have been reading, and responding to, your posts. You really should see the movie before you continue in this thread. Why? It would help you understand that some of your points, based on the previews, are wrong. Movie previews are not always very informative and this one is no different. The scene in the preview where they are about to stone Mary is not what it seems.

I have not criticized this movie. I have stated concerns about adding things that are not in the Bible into a movie.

Stone Mary? Can you 1) please say why they are going to stone Mary and 2) where is that in the Bible???? If you don't want to give away a plot point here, please PM me.

And FilmProducer, I agree with you - I am glad that there are movies that pretty much stick to traditional Bible stories.

 

[Allan]

Saw the movie last Saturday with my family. I agree with Martin's assessment 100%. It is definitely a must see.

I hear Christians complain all the time on how the entertainment industry will not cater to them, and they only want to produce junk. We are finally seeing a rise in Christian friendly entertainment, only to hear complaints on how well they did/did not follow scripture? If Christians do not even agree on the timeline regarding Christ's birth, what makes you think a production company will? They saw a market, and tried to reach out to it. They did a pretty good job, too. It is pretty much biblically accurate, more so than many nativity scenes that churches promote. I recommend this movie. It was a good movie, and it certainly has more meaning to me than Santa Claus 3 with Tim Allen. I'm happy that Hollywood has finally seen the potential in the Christian market. It is a step in the right direction.

In actuality, I do want to go see it but we got off on discussing a side issue of scripture and I think we need to bring it back to the OP. I am guilty of being a side issue person that helped get it off track.

I did go see Santa Clause 3 and thought it bombed big time compared to 1 and 2 and personally I think 1 was the best hands down.

 

[Filmproducer]

Marcia,

I sent you a pm about the stoning....

Allen,

I saw the first one, and I think maybe the 2nd. I had no interest int he 3rd. I think it has played it course. It certainly did not do as well at the box office, although that might have had more to do with when it was released than interest in the movie. Two Christmas movie being released for Thanksgiving is one too many. I guess I am also guilty of derailing a thread. Sorry Marcia....

Seriously though, I really do recommend the Nativity, especially to Christians. We have already talked about adding it to our Christmas tradition. We always read from Luke, but I think we will also buy the DVD and watch it every year as well.

 

[Martin]

Martin, it's fine you have your views but please do not act like my views are unrealistic when you have no scripture to back up your view. The other view is just as valid according to what is in the Bible.

==I am saying your view is unrealistic because (a) it does not make sense that nobody in her family knew she was pregnant and (b) it does not make sense that nobody was upset. I am taking what the Scriptures do tell us and drawing conclusions from that. On these two points I am very comfortable that I am correct. On the timing of when Joseph found out I have my timeline, you have yours, and both are possible. Clearly I favor the timeline I have presented because it, in my mind, makes the most sense of the events laid out in Scripture.

And no, I am not making anyone into idols. That's a straw man.

==I did not say your were. I was making a general statement about something we need to avoid.

"We are dealing with real people here, who have real emotions, fears, and dreams We dare not make them into icons that are different from real people (that is idolatry)."

No accusation there. If you misunderstood what I was trying to say then I apologize for not making my point clearer.

I do see your points. My point is a movie presenting an account as though it is in the Bible when it is not. My point is not that one can draw different conclusions.

==What has that got to do with a motion picture made by a secular motion picture company? They did a good job. Is it perfect? No. Would I have changed somethings? Yes, but over all they did a very good job. If someone really believes that a movie, even one based on a true account, is a good source of historical/Biblical information then they are in trouble before they ever see any movie. As far as I could tell, btw, New Line Cinemas has not claimed that the movie is point by point based on Scripture.

This is why I did not see "The Passion." I knew that it had many things in it that are not in the Bible and some of which came from the visions of a nun (which I do not believe came from God).

==The Passion was a good movie the first time I watched it. By the second time, to be honest, I got bored with it. Things seemed to drag on and on and on. As for the scenes you mention, well, its a movie. To me it was nothing more. I did, however, like the fact that "The Passion" avoided the typical sterilized version of the crucifixion that is seen in many movies/films/paintings.

If you don't want to give away a plot point here, please PM me.

==I think FilmProducer has already sent you a pm about this.

 

[Marcia]

Quote by Martin: If someone really believes that a movie, even one based on a true account, is a good source of historical/Biblical information then they are in trouble before they ever see any movie. As far as I could tell, btw, New Line Cinemas has not claimed that the movie is point by point based on Scripture

I don't necessarily expect accuracy but it still bothers me if it isn't or if there is a lot of stuff added that is not in the Bible. I will continue to be bothered by that. This does not mean I am against the movie or that maybe I would not like it if I saw it.

However, to me, the top movies I've seen on Jesus are
1. Jesus of Nazareth, based on Luke
2. The Gospel According to John, which was just that - it used the text from John.

Now even with these two, sometimes things are put in the scenes that might not be from the text or are speculated. I realize that. Doesn't mean I like it. I am not black and white, as you seem to think, when it comes to these things. But I will raise what I consider valid points when it relates to Scripture. The above 2 movies are faithful to the text and they are excellent films.

==I think FilmProducer has already sent you a pm about this.

Yes, she did. We had some good PM exchanges just over the past half hour.

I think you and I have pretty much made our points. I respect your views and I am hardly foaming at the mouth about our disagreements. :laugh:

 

[Martin]

However, to me, the top movies I've seen on Jesus are
1. Jesus of Nazareth, based on Luke
2. The Gospel According to John, which was just that - it used the text from John.

==I really like The Gospel According To John and The Gospel According To Matthew movies. I love the word for word idea though I agree with your point about some of scenes. As for Jesus of Nazareth, I have been watching that since I was a child. Great movie.

 

[blackbird]

Saw the movie last Saturday with my family. I agree with Martin's assessment 100%. It is definitely a must see,
I'm happy that Hollywood has finally seen the potential in the Christian market. It is a step in the right direction.

Filmproducer!! It isn't the fact that Hollywood is finally . . . (whatever) ---whether they miss the target(lineing up with infallable Scripture) by 1 mile or by 1 inch ---- they've still done what??? Missed the target!!!

What does bother me is --- the Christian believers who "ga-ga, goo-goo" over the film's production as if it came straight from the infallable, inerrant mind of God Himself!!!! Just like millions of believers "ga-ga, goo-gooed" over "The Passion" and other Hollywood "half-truths"

 

[Martin]

What does bother me is --- the Christian believers who "ga-ga, goo-goo" over the film's production as if it came straight from the infallable, inerrant mind of God Himself!!!! Just like millions of believers "ga-ga, goo-gooed" over "The Passion" and other Hollywood "half-truths"

==I think that is over the line. The fact is it is just a movie, nothing more. Anyone who takes it too seriously is misguided. That would include those who think it is a witnessing tool (which it is not) and those who think it is bad because it does not get everything right. It is just a movie folks! Whatever happened to just enjoying a movie? We need to lighten up a bit. It is a nice little film about the nativity. Just enjoy it for what it is.

My word..............

 

[SBCPreacher]

I just saw the movie last night. Loved it!

Was it completely accurate - no. But I don't think the intent was to make a completely accurate account of Christ's birth. I, for one, don't believe that the magi were there the night of Christ's birth. But that doesn't take away from the movie for me.

I believe it is definitely worth seeing!

 

[blackbird]

==I think that is over the line. The fact is it is just a movie, nothing more. Anyone who takes it too seriously is misguided. That would include those who think it is a witnessing tool (which it is not) and those who think it is bad because it does not get everything right. It is just a movie folks! Whatever happened to just enjoying a movie? We need to lighten up a bit. It is a nice little film about the nativity. Just enjoy it for what it is.

My word..............

Like I said, Martin

I don't have nothing against Hollywood making a movie

I just don't like it when their movies "point" kinda sorta in the general direction of Christianity ---- then suddenly its one of those "You've got to see it!! --- Better not miss it!!" type things we carry over to church --- then people go to church and say junk like

"I was really moved by . . . "

"I could feel the presence when . . . "

Then Christians look at Hollywood's "latest" Jesus freak film and are led to believe "We've really got somethin' here!!!"

Then we go on like Jesus lives in Hollywood!!!

 

[Pistos]

any movies, in my own opionion, are only 'good' or 'bad' to watched... but it never represent the TRUTH of the WORD of GOD...

watching it most of the time will make you feel bad about it why did they do this or do that in the movie since it is not in the Bible or so...

it only create issues which are not worthty to discuss or issues that might confusion even the new believers...

 

[Filmproducer]

Movies are for ENTERTAINMENT purposes only. To say otherwise is ridiculous, besides a Christian friendly movie does not necessarily have to be based on actual biblical events. As someone who enjoys watching movies it is nice to see that Hollywood is recognizing there is a market for Christian friendly movies. Does that mean I think "Jesus lives in Hollywood"? Hardly. In fact I have not seen anyone here who has remotely suggested that. The Nativity is a MOVIE for pity's sake. It was nice to see a Christmas film that wasn't about Santa or reindeer for once. You don't like it, don't see it. I recommend it to those of you who like watching movies for the sake of entertainment.

As for using movies for witnessing tools, I don't. Unless, of course, you consider conversations about movies that turn into questions about God and the Bible tools. I have had a few conversations about the Passion that eventually led into discussions about God and Jesus, but generally that does not happen.