The Nativity Story

Yes, it looks like it will be a good movie. From the promotional stuff it even looks as if it stays truthful to the Biblical text (thats always a good thing). I believe it opens Dec 1.

 

Get serious. This movie comes from New Line Cinema, makers of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (among other gems).

This movie comes from Hollywood in a day and age of political correctness. While it may be okay to insult Christians, it is not okay to insult atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, practicioners of Wicca, etc.

You don't REALLY believe this is going to be an accurate movie, do you? They will mix in enough truth with the deceptions to cause confusion, not only on the part of the unsaved, but in many saved people as well.

Oh, you think I shouldn't prejudge? I don't need to stick my head in a garbage can to tell you it smells bad inside.

If this were truly an accurate movie, it would never see the light of day.

 

Wow, I actually heard directly from the screen writer the other day. I'm not sure I agree with your comments. Give it a chance. Do you really think they will incorporate chainsaws in the movie just because the same company did the Texas Chainsaw Massacre?? I kind of doubt it since I saw numerous clips and heard from the screen writer. But you could be right...I doubt it though.

 

==So? That does not make it a bad movie. If the movie sticks with Scripture, and if it is well done, then that is enough. I don't believe in using movies for evangelism (etc) I only use movies for entertainment purposes. So I have no problem with New Line being the company that releases this film.

==I don't know that anything in this movie insults Christians. The very fact that New Line releases a movie like this shows that they understand that Christians are a major part of the American society. That is another reason I don't believe they will stray far from the historical accounts found in the Bible.

==Yes, I do believe it could be an accurate movie. I have seen several Biblical themed movies that were produced by secular companies that was Biblically accurate. On the other hand I have seen several Biblical themed movies produced by Christian companies that was not Biblically accurate.

You seem to be passing judgment on the film before you have even given it a chance. When it comes out go see it, as I will, and then make your judgments, as I will. If the movie is not Biblically/historically accurate I will be the first to point it out. What I have seen, however, indicates that they have held very closely to the Biblical/historical account.

==If you are wrong...What if they do stick to the historical accounts found in Scripture? Are you going to admit you were wrong?

Look...

I will gladly re-raise this issue, directed towards you, after I see this movie in december. I can make myself a note to do so. If the movie sticks to the Biblical account(s) then I will be interested to read what you have to say. As I said above, if the movie strays from the Biblical account then I will be the first to say so.

I do expect them to add dialogue. I am talking about the substance of the story.

Do you accept my challenge?

We will both see the movie soon after it is released.
I will create a post giving my judgment (pro or con) of the film (a post directed towards you).
You will reply with your judgment (pro or con) of the film.

I await your response.

==Of course you don't know that this movie is "the trash can" do you?

 

My wife was saved at an "Evangelistic" movie - one of those Billy Graham movies in the 70's. I'm sure glad those who showed it and ministered to new converts afterwards didn't have the same attitude.

As far as this movie is concerened, I hope it's accurate. I hope it causes the lost who see it to think, maybe even seek out a few answers. We'll see.

 

The screenwriter has already admitted to at least one inaccuracy and admits "purists" won't like it. I guess being a purist (one who practices or urges strict correctness) is bad thing.

It just seems to me that if something is not strictly correct, then there is something incorrect. It also seems Martin has already decided this is a great movie and is totally accurate.

Apparently I struck a nerve with my post. I never said the movie was anti-Christian. I never said the movie was "the trash can". There are analogies here.

Here's another analogy: Would you bet on Sea Biscuit to show in the 5th if he had finished dead last in all 20 of his previous races?

 

Just curious, what is the inaccuracy?

 

OK.

They also made Lord of the Rings, and several other films. So what? Since when was the movie industry charged with telling the story of Christ? Um... hunting the Scriptures, I don't see that anywhere. It's the CHURCH that's to tell His story and be His hands and feet. If this movie is even partially accurate, it will at least open a dialogue for us to share the truth. Using the DaVinci Code hype, and rebutting the inaccuracies, I saw many people come to see the light of Christ, having never heard the Gospel before.

I hope so.

Speculation.

That's wise.

Untrue.

 

They aren't. They are "charged" with making money by entertaining the masses. So why are you trusting them to properly portray the birth of Christ?

From an interview with Mike Rich (the screenwriter): "I think some purists will perhaps raise an eyebrow at the fact that we blended the two Gospel narratives, with the shepherds [from Luke] and the Magi [from Matthew]. Yes, we do show that quintessential Nativity scene at the end, with the shepherds and the Magi there together; purists are likely going to take exception with that."

The magi arrived some time after the birth of Christ. How much later? We don't know. It could have been as much as two years later. At any rate, Jesus was abiding in a house at the time, not in a manger. Magi were not present at the birth.

No doubt, because of movies like The DaVinci Code, some people have come to the Light of Christ. I have encountered a considerable number of people who are now even more entrenched in darkness because of the same movie.

One for Christ, one for hell! Are we divvying up the population?

Should we witness to people who have seen DaVinci Code? Most definitely! We need to mitigate the damage, but we don't need to promote the movie.

True. Speculation of poor performance based upon consistently poor past performance. Maybe this one WILL be the winning lottery ticket!

Untrue? How many totally accurate movies have you seen? I have seen a lot that come close, but there is always the "tweaking" to make it a better sell. Remember, the number one goal here is to make money.

 

I would imagine most churches that portray Christ's birth are quite inaccurate as well. I've never heard of a church play that doesn't do the exact thing you mentioned. Inaccurate? Probably. Does it harm the story? Not really. It is easier to understand the chronology from reading the story, and you could even make it better in a movie. But it's a little more difficult to make it accurate in that sense in a play. So....LET'S NOT EVER SHOW UP AT A CHURCH PLAY BECAUSE OF THEIR INACCURACIES! I'm being sarcastic because it is a small thing that you have made some really harsh remarks about. Especially for not having even seen it. Give 'em a break. It doesn't have to be perfect to be done. Take advantage of the opportunity.

 

Most churches don't preach a saving knowledge of Christ, either. (I know of no correlation between the two and I am NOT implying there is one). Of the five different churches I have attented since my salvation, I do not recall a single nativity play or nativity scene. We have always had a Christmas cantata with both song and spoken parts. Biblical accuracy has always been a requirement.

I take it that by "reading the story", you mean the Bible. And by rendering the story correctly, you can make a better movie. Since I thought we were discussing a movie, what does making a play easier to follow have to do with it?

Yes, it is a small thing. It is also a needless error. I also suspect it is only the tip of the iceberg, a statement I make based upon the historical performance of the motion picture industry. The number one goal of the film industry is profit. Truth takes a back seat. In making this film, a diverse number of groups were "consulted" and effort made to please (or, at least not to offend) all (any) of these groups. In the legislative process, this process is called compromise. There are situations when compromise is practical, often even necessary. Is the Bible something we should compromise?

How large does an error need to be before it becomes significant? Or does it take a certain number of errors? What if the error is large, but well hidden (ever read a copy of Watchtower)?

Harsh? In what way? By expressing a grave distrust of an industry rife with filthy vile, am I to be considered harsh?

 

Step 1: Calm down. You're getting a little riled up because the magi came immediately following the birth as opposed to a possible few years after. It'll be okay. I don't think we need to condemn the movie (which is basically what you've done) because the same company makes movies other than faith-based.

Step 2: Try not making anymore comments on the "vile" that you claim, and just wait and see how the movie holds up...keeping in mind that its okay that the real Mary and Joseph may have been a little darker than those playing in the movie, and that they didn't speak english. Those things will be okay. Just as it will be okay that the magi came sooner than history probably suggests. I think the movie will still have an impact.

It'll be okay.

 

==Source? I also want to know how you define "purist". I am a purist but I realize that movies like this must add dialogue to have a movie. Again, as I said above, this is entertainment not Scripture. As long as they are generally faithful to the Biblical account then I have no problem with it.

==So I guess you avoid everything that is not perfect?

==Actually I did not say any such thing. Maybe you should go back and read what I actually said.


Now, about my offer....your answer is???

 

This Movie Is Heretical Trash!

==So this is why you have condemned the movie?

Buddy I really hate to inform you of this but I have NEVER seen an exact historically accurate nativity scene. From people's front yards, to church yards, to shopping malls, all of them put the Shepherd's and the Magi at the "barn" together (ie..at the same time). While this is not a historically accurate picture it does not mean we should condemn all nativity scenes or this movie. And it certainly does not warrant the stance you have taken.

You say it is just the tip of the iceberg, and I assume you could be right. After all the movie...pictures Joseph and Mary going through the desert alone on a donkey. The Bible says nothing about a donkey in either Luke or Matthew's account, and anyone familiar with the history of the area (etc) knows they probably traveled in a caravan of some sort and not alone. However, like the issue of the Magi and the Shepherds, this is a error that is found in most all church plays, Christian books, cartoons, movies (etc). So maybe you are correct and I am wrong. This movie is heretical trash, as are all nativity scenes, church plays, movies, cartoons (etc) since 99% of them make the exact same errors.

Silly? Of course but that is the logical conclusion of your position. If you demand absolute perfection then you must condemn any mistake or error, no matter how small.

The nativity scenes, plays, cartoons (in church publications), the movie(s) do make these errors. Yes. However these are minor errors that do not, in anyway, affect the story or people's undertsanding of the events. Also these errors do not deny any historical event(s), they only combine them.

Point? You are making way too much of this! If the movie denied historical events that would be one thing. From what I have seen it does not appear that the movie denies any historical event. The movie follows in the footsteps of many Christians and non-Christians alike of collapsing several events that occured over several years into one event. I am not going to condemn the movie for that. As long as it generally follows the historical account I am not going to nit-pick over unimportant details (that change nothing). Now if they denied historical events, or changed the story in some real way, then I would (and will) protest loudly. However there is ZERO evidence the producers of this movie have done this.

My offer is still on the table...what is your answer?

 

Where have I condemned the movie? Read my comments. All I have done is to urge caution and express a distrust of the motion picture industry based upon very poor past performance.

VILE
1. Loathsome; disgusting
2. Unpleasant or objectionable
3. a) Contemptibly low in worth or account; second-rate; b) Of mean or low condition
4. Miserably poor and degrading
5. Morally depraved

Here are some excerpts from the entertainment section of today's local newspaper:
Catch a Fire - thematic material involving torture and abuse, violence
The Departed - strong brutal violence, pervasive language, some strong sexual content and drug material
The Grudge 2 - mature thematic material, disturbing images and some sensuality
The Guardian - strong language and some sensuality
The Illusionist - sexuality and violence
Infamous - language and violence
Jesus Camp - a children's pastor indoctrinates youngsters
The Last King of Scotland - strong violence and gruesome images, sexual content, language
Man of the Year - language including some crude sexual references, drug related material and brief violence
Marie Antoinette - violence, sensuality, language
The Prestige - violence, disturbing images
Running with Scissors - strong language and elements of sexuality, violence and substance abuse
Saw 3 - strong grisly violence and gore, sequences of terror and torture, nudity and language
Flicka - mild language
The Queen - brief strong language
Flags of Our Fathers - graphic war violence and carnage

Roughly 80% of the above list meet the definition of "vile". What other word would better describe the output of the motion picture industry? Would you expect a fine meal from a resturant where 80% of the food served caused sickness? Would you expect a well fitting suit from a tailor who botched 80% of his fittings? Would you buy an automobile from a manufacturer when 80% of the vehicles they produced broke down while being driven off the lot?

A purist is one who desires that a particular item remain true to its essence and free from adulterating or diluting influences.

I previously mentioned an interview with Mike Rich by Christianity Today dated 8/29/06. Mike Rich said, "I think some purists will perhaps raise an eyebrow at the fact that we blended the two Gospel narratives...".

I said, "It just seems to me that if something is not strictly correct, then there is something incorrect."

Did I say that? Read the post. Think my statement through logically.

I stated, "It also seems Martin has already decided this is a great movie and is totally accurate."

Actually I did not say any such thing. Maybe you should go back and read what I actually said.[/QUOTE]

Okay, here is what you have said:

Maybe you should go back and re-read what you said, too.

Where have I condemned the movie? I have, however, expressed grave doubts about the film industry's ability (or willingness) to present a scripturally accurate movie.

Now that you mention it, neither have I. Perhaps that why my church doesn't have one. Never really gave it much thought before. So what? A nativity scene in somebody's front yard bothers me about as much as a snowman and reindeer. Nativity scenes have nothing to do with whether or not the movie is going to be scripturally accurate.

I said, "I also suspect it is only the tip of the iceberg."

Then it's a good thing I don't demand absolute perfection. I do desire strict adherence to scripture. In areas where scripture is silent, such as the number of wise men, whether Joseph and Mary traveled alone or in a caravan, a donkey or a mule or a camel, I really don't care, as long as whatever is portrayed tastefully and is plausible.

As far as the magi arrival is concerned, it is indeed a small error. Nevertheless, it is an error. If it turns out to be the only error, then Hollywood will have finally delivered something worthy.

What you people seem to be missing is the apprehension and distrust I have for the motion picture industry. My disgust, if you will read my posts, have been directed toward the industry. I have (strong) reservations they will (or are willing) to produce a truly scripturally accurate film. My fears lie in how the virgin birth is going to be presented, particularly the conception. Is there going to be some sort of "escape" presented for the benefit of people who reject a virgin birth? Is the story being presented as fact, or is a "once upon a time" thing?

Mike Rich said, "I think some purists will perhaps raise an eyebrow at the fact that we blended the two Gospel narratives...". (re-read the definition of a purist.)

Looks like you lost before the race even started. The only question now is by how much. (Note to Dan e. - Now THAT is harsh!)

 

==You did a good job of ignoring this statement (to which I was refering)...

"You seem to be passing judgment on the film before you have even given it a chance. When it comes out go see it, as I will, and then make your judgments, as I will. If the movie is not Biblically/historically accurate I will be the first to point it out. What I have seen, however, indicates that they have held very closely to the Biblical/historical account."

==Quote: "You don't REALLY believe this is going to be an accurate movie, do you? They will mix in enough truth with the deceptions to cause confusion, not only on the part of the unsaved, but in many saved people as well.Oh, you think I shouldn't prejudge? I don't need to stick my head in a garbage can to tell you it smells bad inside". That sounds like a pretty clear condemnation to me.

==The movie, from what I have seen, makes the same type errors that those front yard nativity scenes make (and the nativity scenes in church cartoons, books, etc). So why are you not concerned about the things people see every year, that are not technically historically correct, and you are concerned about a movie that (a) percentage wise few people will actually see (b) few will see it more than a handful of times and (c) in twenty years nobody will know what it is. Seems like you are just making a fuss over this movie because you don't like New Line Cinemas.

==So, again, why are you not bothered by the front yard nativity scenes (etc)? Btw, none of these nativity scenes deny any historical/Biblical truth. They just constrict several events into one event. I don't think that is doing damage to anyone.

Also you say you don't demand absolute perfection yet, from what I see, you are blasting this movie when the mistakes it makes are (a) common and (b) minor.

Again, I think you just don't like New Line Cinemas. Would you have the same views if Cloud Ten Pictures, or Namesake Entertainment, put out the exact same film?

==Wait a second. You said "I do desire strict adherence to scripture" and now you say that you don't care about things being added to the accounts? If neither Luke nor Matthew mention a donkey then it is not "strict adherence" to add a donkey. If, historically, they did not ride through the open desert alone (at night) then implying that they did is not "strict adherence" to history (and the Gospels are narrative history). Either you want "strict adherence" or not.

Personally the nativity scenes, plays, etc, do bother me. However that is because I am a theology/history person and I guess that goes with the role. However I don't believe those "additions to" or "constrictions of" the accounts do any historical/Biblical damage for the average person. The scenes are not denying any historical event, nor are they denying any major theological truth (virgin birth). The same with this movie. While it may (and we DON'T know any of this for sure yet) make minor mistakes it does not deny any historical event or theological truth.

==Actually Hollywood did produce a film called "The Gospel of John" which is a word-for-word movie based on the Gospel. It was in theators nationwide but was drowned by The Passion movie. They also did "Matthew", "Acts", "Luther" (based on Martin Luther's life) and a few others. Not everything that comes out of Hollywood is bad.

Again you statement here, and your above statement about the front yard nativity scenes, don't seem to fit. Maybe it is the source of the film that causes you to object?

==I think it is better to have a "case-by-case" policy on movies. Judge each individual movie on its own merits, no generalizations. That is what I do, anyway. Most of what Hollywood puts out is trash but once and a blue moon they get it right. It appears that with the nativity movie they have come really close to getting it right. I am not going to get all upset over small points. If there are major problems with the movie that I notice when I actually view it, then I will get upset. Until then, based on the previews, I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

==The preview has a clip of this. It appears that they portray the virgin birth as an historical event.

==The preview, on the website, makes it clear that they don't try to escape from the virigin birth. It seems to be presented head on and as a historical event.

If you have not done so, view the long preview on the website.

 

Regarding the earlier response that Martin re-read his own posts as to whether or not he has pre-approved "The Nativity Story":

The statement was not ignored. It was considered in the totality of all the statements which you have made. Subsequent statements tend to further reinforce the allegation.

My original statement:
"You don't REALLY believe this is going to be an accurate movie, do you? They will mix in enough truth with the deceptions to cause confusion, not only on the part of the unsaved, but in many saved people as well. Oh, you think I shouldn't prejudge? I don't need to stick my head in a garbage can to tell you it smells bad inside".

There isn't any condemnation in the statement whatsoever. You are confusing skepticism and incredulousness with condemnation.

The only reason New Line Cinemas was mentioned is because they happen to be the studio putting out "The Nativity Story". Would I have the same views if Cloud Ten Pictures, or Namesake Entertainment, put out the exact same film? Yes.

You quoted the entire paragraph, yet failed to read it. "In areas where scripture is silent...". If God didn't feel the need to include such details into scripture, we shouldn't quibble about it.

Really? I guess the inclusion of a Santa Claus or a snowman in a nativity scene displayed on public property in an effort to make them politically correct makes you go ballistic. Or is the annoyance so insignificant as not to be worth mentioning?

Admittedly, I had never heard of this movie. My research revealed there is indeed such a movie, and it does indeed follow the Gospel of John, word for word. Did Hollywood possibly come out of the blue and hit a home run? Alas, my research went too deep. "The Gospel of John" is a word for word rendition of the Gospel of John as presented in the Good News Bible".

The focus of research now shifted to the Good News Bible. It turns out there are several variants of this translation. One is the Good News Bible as published in Great Britain. In the United States, it is variously called the Good News Bible, Good News Translation, Good News for Modern Man, and Today's English Version. First I looked at the British version and was appalled at the numerous subtle, yet significant doctrinal errors. When my attention turned to Today's English Version, my reaction was, "Holy blasphemy, Batman! This makes the British version look good by comparison".

Giving the movie (Gospel of John) the benefit of the doubt, I will assume the milder British version was used. Are you aware the Good News Bible, the bible used for the production of The Gospel of John, denies the virgin birth? This is done in a subtle and indirect way. It is not obvious in a casual reading. (In the TEV, it is not so subtle).

"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made." - Genesis 3:1a

"For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." - Romans 16:18

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" - Ephesians 4:14

You are a student of theology, bothered by a nativity scene, yet major doctrinal error escapes you?

“Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” – Matthew 23:24

The source being Hollywood? Bingo!

Do you believe the Bible is relevant and has application to daily life?

"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." - Matthew 7:17-18

"Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? 12Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh." - James 3:11-12

You certainly did get a lot of insight out of a two minute preview. You must have been a real whiz in school. When you were assigned a book to read, what did you do? Read the dust cover and proceed to write your report? Maybe once in awhile you read a CliffsNotes?

Were you aware that previews for movies are actually advertisements? I guess that since your major interests lie in theology and history you aren't too familiar with marketing concepts. I have a dirty little secret to share with you about marketing people. Sometimes they lie!

To this point, Martin, you have been displaying credulous behavior pertaining to “The Nativity Story”. I eagerly await your next attempt to obfuscate the discussion.

 

==I believe the movie contained mainly British actors (etc) so that is probably the version they used. I am not aware of any doctrinal problems with the translation however I will admit that it is not my favorite nor would I recommend it. However it worked well in the movie, the movie did not promote any errors, nor did it deny any doctrinal truths. This is mainly because, like the "Matthew" and "Acts" movies, it stuck to the Biblical text. Of the three movies I believe John "looks" the best, but I like the presentation of "Matthew". They were going to do a film on "Mark" but last I heard the thing went belly up.

That is ok for me since Matthew, John, Luke, and Acts have been put to film. I don't know that there is a need for another word-for-word movie on the Gospels right now. However there is word that a different company, an evangelical group, is looking to film a version of "John" as a evangelistic tool (sort of like the Jesus film).

==No, I was not aware of that. I would have to sit down and look at it myself. I do have a copy of the TEV and I will look at the virgin birth passages.

==Don't try that bait and switch game on me. I have been around these circles too long to let that go. You are the one who was making a big deal over minor errors that you think are in a movie you have yet to see. Yet you are the one who is "ok" with those very same errors in nativity scenes, plays, and other church materials (etc). I only pointed out that those errors did bother me yet, as you failed to mention here, I have made it clear that I don't believe those errors affect the re-telling of the story since they don't deny or radically alter any historical event (they just collapse them).

I don't view your condemnation of this movie and your position on nativity scenes (adding a donkey, a night trip through the desert alone, etc) as consistant.

You said:
"In areas where scripture is silent...". If God didn't feel the need to include such details into scripture, we shouldn't quibble about it."

So it is ok to add things to Scripture when re-telling the accounts? However it is not ok to collapse events? That seems like a contradictory position. If you don't like them collapsing the events then I don't see how you can approve of anyone adding donkeys when none are mentioned in the historical accounts.

I am not aware of any major doctrinal error in the movie. And, btw, neither are you. Or have you already seen the film and know something I don't?

Paused to look through a copy of the TEV...

As for a major doctrinal error in the TEV concerning the virgin birth. Let's see what it says...

"This is the way that Jesus Christ was born. His mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they were married she found out that she was going to have a baby by the Holy Spirit...Joseph, descendant of David, do not be afraid to take Mary to be your wife. For it is by the Holy Spirit that she has conceived...Now all this happened in order to make come true what the Lord had said through the prophet, the virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son" -Matthew 1:18-23 (various) TEV

Certainly that verse does not deny the virgin birth. Yet you claimed, "the Good News Bible, the bible used for the production of The Gospel of John, denies the virgin birth? This is done in a subtle and indirect way. It is not obvious in a casual reading. (In the TEV, it is not so subtle)".

Let's look at Luke in the TEV...

"You will become pregnant and give birth to a son...Mary said to the angel, I am a virgin. How, then, can this be? The angel answered, The Holy Spirit will come on you, and God's power will rest upon you. For this reason the holy child will be called the Son of God" -Luke 1:30,34-35 TEV

I must be missing something here because the translation of those verses in Luke support the virgin birth. Yet you say that in the TEV the denial of the virgin birth is "not so subtle. Maybe you can point out what I am missing.

While I am not a fan of the TEV I think any person who reads those verses will come away believing in the virgin birth of Jesus.

==Your throw out the baby with the bathwater philosophy ignores the fact that hollywood, as bad as it can be, can put out good material from time to time. However I don't expect you to admit that.

==Yes, and I believe it is important to keep Scripture in context. That section of Matthew 7 is talking about individual teachers/preachers and not abstract entities. Hollywood is not one person. There are different people in it with different views. James 3:11-12 is talking about individual speech, the tongue. I don't see how you can apply verses that speak of individual speech/teachings with an abstract entity such as hollywood. Hollywood is not one person, one studio, or even one mindset. So I would argue that you are misapplying those verses. You certainly could use them about individual people in hollywood, or anywhere, but I don't see those verses applying to an abstract entity such as hollywood. Each person, each movie, must be judged by its own merits.

==Again you are the one condemning the movie based on small things you have picked up here and there. I assume, though I can't know, one of your sources was the clip. I took what I saw in the clip, that refered to the virgin birth, and stated that it "appears that they portray the virgin birth as an historical event". They don't seem to deny it.

==Thats cute. But let's stick with reality and the issue at hand. Ok?

==So you think the movie denies the virgin birth? On what basis? As far as I can tell, from the advert, the movie does not deny the historical reality of the virgin birth. That is all I have to go on. As I said, I will see the movie when it comes out and I will write a post on it. In fact I have made an offer to you about that. An offer you have failed to respond to. Will you now respond? Are you going to see the movie? Or are you going to continue to condemn it without actually seeing it?

O, and btw, your statement that I am "confusing skepticism and incredulousness with condemnation" will not work. Clearly you believe that this movie is full of doctrinal compromise and error. On what factual grounds you believe this, other than your general dislike of the movie industry, I am not sure. Your statement about the John movie, Cloud Ten Pictures, and Namesake Entertainment makes this very clear. You seem to look for things to be critical of in films you have not bothered to view. Are you going to watch the Gospel of John film? How about Matthew and Acts?

==Actually I have worked in business for many years and I took marketing classes at University. So I am very familiar with marketing and false advertisement. I would say that if this movie denies the virgin birth the advertisement for the movie is misleading and false. We will wait and see. For now, based on the advert, I must assume it does not deny the virgin birth.

 

You have read the TEV and have been unable to see the error(s)? I was able to spot at least two doctrinal errors within the first 5 verses of the 1st chapter of John. I would point them out to you but I doubt you would be able to comprehend them.

“But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” – 2 Corinthians 4:3,4

“Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding. 7He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. 8Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.” – Proverbs 9:6-8