• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

wrangor pans noah

Marquee Moon said:
http://time.com/42274/ken-ham-the-unbiblical-noah-is-a-fable-of-a-film/
Click to expand...

Actually going to see the movie tonight I Think. Looking forward to it. I don't get too caught up with the facebook/religious craze over stuff like this. It is a movie. They are a telling a story. It would matter to me if my church made a Noah film, but I really don't care what Russell Crowe or the director of this movie thinks about Noah. I am just hoping it is an entertaining film.

I am trying to avoid any reviews or comments about the film, just because I hate spoilers, but I'll read the article after I view the film.
 
"There were many animals that came to Noah and went aboard the ark, but there were far too many creatures crammed inside, certainly many more than were needed"

I thought the Bible said two of every animal.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
"There were many animals that came to Noah and went aboard the ark, but there were far too many creatures crammed inside, certainly many more than were needed"

I thought the Bible said two of every animal.
Click to expand...

mammals and birds were bumped to first class
 
Believes literally in the bible and that Noah's ark was real saving all animals on earth, upset a Hollywood film has an ark that is crowded with too many animals?
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
Believes literally in the bible and that Noah's ark was real saving all animals on earth, upset a Hollywood film has an ark that is crowded with too many animals?
Click to expand...

Ham goes way beyond that - he believes that Noah brought dinosaurs (albeit small, immature ones that could grow/procreate post-flood) on the ark
 
Movie was ok. Not really sure why people get upset this sort of thing. If my church made this movie I would be upset, but I don't expect many Hollywood producers to share the same theological view as I do.

It wasn't a biblical portrayal of the story at all and that is pretty much where I left it. My wife was a little bit more unsettled about the film and ran across this article which was somewhat revelatory for me. I am certainly not steeped in Kabbalah so the imagery went over my head in the movie.

http://drbrianmattson.com/journal/2014/3/31/sympathy-for-the-devil

Anyway. Not a huge fan if the movie mainly because I thought it was a little boring. It preached a gospel, just not the Christian gospel. Seemingly the gnostic/Kabbalah gospel.
 
RevDeac06 said:
Perhaps because it's a Jewish story, not a Christian one?
Click to expand...

Rev a bit cranky this morning. Lol. No I consider Noah to be an integral part of the Christian story. It is a precursor to Christ's redemption on the cross.
 
Wrangor said:
Rev a bit cranky this morning. Lol. No I consider Noah to be an integral part of the Christian story. It is a precursor to Christ's redemption on the cross.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your differentiation. Of the Old Testament/Torah, what do you not consider "integral" to the "Christian story"?
 
I want Aronofsky to give his secular take on the Muhammad story next.

Then I'll give him props. Otherwise this was just a shitty slap in the face to a classic Judeo-Christian story.
 
Wrangor said:
Rev a bit cranky this morning. Lol. No I consider Noah to be an integral part of the Christian story. It is a precursor to Christ's redemption on the cross.
Click to expand...

Not cranky, just truthful. What you're suggesting comes off close to supersessionist, which isn't necessarily anti-Semitic, but it's pretty close. While Christ is the fullest disclosure and means of grace of God, I wouldn't say that the OT was simply the foundation being laid for Christ's life and death. That leads us to a puppet-master sort of God that is simply setting up dominoes.

Do we really want to say- "Okay, God's coming in the flesh of Jesus, but this just can't happen without foreshadowing. So, let's see, let's have a big flood, oh, and a guy getting swallowed by a while, oooh, and how about liberation from Egypt and a journey through the parted Red Sea water, and how about a Babylonian Exile, you know, just for good measure. Because, we just can't have Jesus show up without proper foreshadowing. So let's stick it to the Jews for 2,000 years so that they'll really appreciate the Messiah when he shows up and say 'thank goodness we had all of those precursors to prepare us for this.'"?

I'm fine with saying some of the OT prefigures the narrative of the Gospels, but most of the NT doesn't see the OT as prophetic fulfillment, but rather midrashic explanation of the Messiah in light of the story of Israel. And there is a big different between the two.
 
RevDeac06 said:
Not cranky, just truthful. What you're suggesting comes off close to supersessionist, which isn't necessarily anti-Semitic, but it's pretty close. While Christ is the fullest disclosure and means of grace of God, I wouldn't say that the OT was simply the foundation being laid for Christ's life and death. That leads us to a puppet-master sort of God that is simply setting up dominoes.

Do we really want to say- "Okay, God's coming in the flesh of Jesus, but this just can't happen without foreshadowing. So, let's see, let's have a big flood, oh, and a guy getting swallowed by a while, oooh, and how about liberation from Egypt and a journey through the parted Red Sea water, and how about a Babylonian Exile, you know, just for good measure. Because, we just can't have Jesus show up without proper foreshadowing. So let's stick it to the Jews for 2,000 years so that they'll really appreciate the Messiah when he shows up and say 'thank goodness we had all of those precursors to prepare us for this.'"?

I'm fine with saying some of the OT prefigures the narrative of the Gospels, but most of the NT doesn't see the OT as prophetic fulfillment, but rather midrashic explanation of the Messiah in light of the story of Israel. And there is a big different between the two.
Click to expand...

Seems you are trying to pick a fight. Not really sure why. I see the entire Bible (OT and NT) as the revelation of God's character with all events either pointing towards or reflecting back on the work of Christ. I have no idea what midrashic means, and I don't intend to trivialize any of the OT by saying it points to Christ. In the end the revelation of God's character is the revelation of Christ because Christ is God. The story of Noah points to man's sin, the the need for justice to be done because of that sin, and our inability to take that wrath (because it results in our destruction). Christ eventually took the wrath that we could not bear in order to redeem us to a perfect God that cannot abide in the presence of sin. Not sure if you would call that prophetic fulfillment or midrashic explanation. Doesn't really matter to me. The story of Noah is the story of sin before a perfect God. It is a story of God's grace towards mankind by allowing Noah's family to escape the wrath even though they were not deserving (obviously Noah was not a perfect man), and it points to Christ who would one day by grace save all of mankind from their sins and give free access to a perfect God through Jesus' sacrifice on the cross and resurrection.
 
Certainly not trying to pick a fight, but rather have a civil debate/discussion. Christianity is doomed if we assume that we're fighting with each other instead of trying to more fully grasp the Truth of Scripture.

That being said, midrash is an absolutely essential concept to understand in reading any of the Bible. A lot of people have heard of rabbis doing Midrash of the OT, but it's also what the authors of the gospels did in their writing about Jesus.

I have a larger understanding of atonement/justification/salvation/cross that simply substitution atonement. Understanding the cross in only one way (such as a sacrifice for sin) is like saying the sun provides light (ignoring heat, gravity, etc.); while that statement isn't wrong, it certainly isn't complete.
 
RevDeac06 said:
I'm fine with saying some of the OT prefigures the narrative of the Gospels, but most of the NT doesn't see the OT as prophetic fulfillment, but rather midrashic explanation of the Messiah in light of the story of Israel. And there is a big different between the two.
Click to expand...

That's what the Gospel of Matthew is all about but there are 3 others, Luke calling to the Gentiles, Mark telling the story succinctly and John the evangelical?
 
Go said:
I want Aronofsky to give his secular take on the Muhammad story next.

Then I'll give him props. Otherwise this was just a shitty slap in the face to a classic Judeo-Christian story.
Click to expand...

Story tellers have been using classic folk stories to tell a different story for years and years. Look at every Disney cartoon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top