Controversy over Jewish-Israili actress playing Virgin Mary

Post Reply New Topic

That's a really great observation.

A 16 year old Israeli Jew with pimples. I'm not sure about the braces, though. Were braces biblical? I don't remember anything in the Bible about dentists practicing their art.

I don’t care if they weren’t biblical. There needs to be a 16 year old, pimpled Virgin Mary with braces and maybe a boy band tee shirt.

How do we know Mary wasn't the too-much-eyeliner and My Chemical Romance t-shirt type?

^ That’s a possibility, but my feelings are telling me it’s the other way, and when I say my feelings, I mean God’s Holy Spirit.

Young Maryam isn't just being an edgy teenager when she complains God like totally ruined my life.

Yeah, I think her door slamming, temper tantrums were perfectly understandable. It’s hard finding a cute maternity dress to wear to prom.

Herod didn't build the Temple from scratch. He remodeled and expanded an already-existing Temple. The Second Temple was originally built back in approximately 516 BCE.

Even if people thought Herod's remodeling was unnecessary, too expensive, and motivated by vanity, and even if people resented the taxes to pay for the remodeling, the Temple was regarded as extremely holy to begin with, and Herod's remodeling didn't make it any less holy.

The movie would have been much more amusing, and more consistent with Catholic teachings, if they had adhered more closely to the Infancy Gospel of James.

https://www.gospels.net/infancyjames

For example, the movie depicted Joseph as a handsome young man who got twitterpaited when he happened to catch a glimpse of Mary washing clothes beside a river. Twitterpaition runs contrary to Catholic dogma.

Also, for Catholics especially, Mary's virginity is EXTREMELY important. The movie was remiss in excluding this bit about Salome:



This Salome must be different from the Salome in the movie, who was Herod's sister, an Edomite. Although, the Edomites might have also been descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In the movie, they could have had Salome arrive from the palace on a chariot, to "insert her finger" (see the footnotes at the bottom).

I never fully realized that Catholics believed that Mary remained a virgin her entire life. Sexual purity is such a strange concept.

Matthew 1:24-25 implies that Mary and Joseph had sex after Mary gave birth to Jesus:

^ Catholics will explain that and other passages away. For them, it is EXTREMELY important that Mary be not only a lifelong virgin, but remain a perpetual virgin in Heaven, where she serves as Queen.

For more information: https://marian.org/mary/in-the-catechism

Oh yes, I remember engaging in all sorts of mental gymnastics when I was a Christian. It was exhausting sometimes.

Here’s a tweaked and expanded post from my Disturbing Passages thread on the canonical accounts of Mary and a mildly interesting reference to Isaiah 7:14:

The earliest gospel - Mark - doesn’t allude to Mary getting knocked up at all, but here’s how it plays out in the following gospels (earliest to latest).

In the previous verses, the writer of Matthew gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph which is silly for obvious reasons. Anyway, verse 18 says that she was “found to be pregnant.” It doesn’t reference an angel appearing to her at all although one does appear to Joseph who was thinking about breaking up with her when he found out she was pregnant.

In the account in Luke 1:26-38, an angel appears to Mary and tells her what’s going to happen. Mary expresses willingness to obey, but her ability to consent under the circumstances seems questionable to say the least - power imbalance, uninformed, and probably other stuff.
The following occurs when Mary visits Elizabeth (who I’m sort of named after): The book of John, which was written last (in 90-95 CE which was still well before the Gospel of James - written in 150), doesn’t allude to Jesus’ birth at all. The writer preferred a more spiritual take of the story.

Much of the reason why a couple of the writers made Jesus be born of a virgin was related to preexisting myths and also Isaiah 7:14.

The NRSV:
The NIV:
Apparently, the more accurate translation is “young woman,” but it continues to be mistranslated in some popular translations of the Bible due to tradition and to make it fit better with the New Testament - to make it seem like Bible prophecy was being fulfilled.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14

Mary is not depicted as a particularly important Bible character in the canonical accounts. She was primarily a good woman who God “blessed” by impregnating. After giving birth to Jesus, the focus is on the supposed exploits of Jesus and his BFFs. As time went on and due to later works like the Gospel of James, more importance was given to Mary and the Cult of Mary emerged. I suppose it would make logical sense to venerate the Mother of God (or the Son of God) even if it’s not well-supported in canon. It’s fascinating to me how this stuff evolves from humble beginnings.

I personally think it’s most likely that Mary got pregnant the usual way after marrying Joseph although they could’ve had sex before marrying and quickly tied the knot when they thought she was pregnant. None of the canonical gospels say how old she was. She may have been older or younger than 16. In any case and assuming there’s any truth to the gospel accounts, she always struck me as a tragic character. I can’t imagine anything worse than seeing your kid die a painful death. Being the Mother of Jesus seems more like a punishment than a reward, even taking into account eternal harp-playing in Heaven. I like harps.

I wonder why "Jesus", which I think was a variation of a common name at the time, and not Immanuel?

I think they claim that Immanuel is more like a title or an alternative name for Jesus:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-wasnt-j ... d-be-named

I used to think it was like calling Satan “Beelzebub” which actually relates to Baal, I believe. As a Christian, I was used to having different names for things, so it didn’t seem that strange to me.

Anyone who really does want to know what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary should look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

https://marian.org/mary/in-the-catechism

https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teach ... lic-church

Please remember that this is a very personal and sensitive issue for many people.

Please stop and think about how you would feel if someone was making fun of or criticizing your own mother.

^ Criticism of religion or of historical or religious figures is not the same as criticism of people’s mothers. That IS against the rules here.

^ Your statement is subjective and not objective. Your lack of empathy and perspective taking is quite profound. The reason I made the statement is precisely because they are the same for me and for many people like me. Please don't presume to speak for me. It is quite common for prejudiced people to assume they are not really prejudiced because they don't think so.