Anglican leader questions Nativity story

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tedster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tedster

Guest
Anglican leader questions Nativity story

London, Dec. 21, 2007 (CWNews.com) - The Archbishop of Canterbury questioned the accuracy of the Nativity story in a BBC television interview.

Dr. Rowan Williams, the worldwide leader of the Anglican communion, said that the story of the Magi in particular is vague at best, and the claim that the followed a star to Bethlehem is incredible because “stars to not behave like that.”

The Anglican leader said that it is “very unlikely” that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in December. The tradition of celebrating the Nativity in December only arose, he said, “because it fitted well with the winter festival.”

Archbishop Williams also questioned whether Jesus was born of a virgin. While he personally accepts that tenet of faith, he said, “that’s not a pre-condition for being a Christian.”

LINK
 
There is no requirement on Catholics to believe most of the details of the stories either and many Catholic scrupture scholars say the same thing (except for the born of a virgin part).
 
Obviously he doesn’t have faith that with God all things are possible (stars don’t act like that). But as far as when Christ was born… nobody knows the exact date so he could be entirely correct there… but Yes to Bethlehem… scripture as well as historic documentation verifies that fact. Born of a virgin… of course we believe it… it was prophesied, but even at that… what were the Jewish signs of the Messiah? I am sure that one of them was that he would be born of a virgin… so by Jewish tradition, if he wasn’t born of a virgin… he wasn’t the Messiah right? The Magi story is the reason that the execution of the Holy Innocents (infants) was ordered so I am thinking that is verifiable… Did I miss anything?

Oh yeah… I know what I was missing… a great big welcome home to the next wave of Anglicans to come home to the CC!
 
BlestOne said:
Born of a virgin… of course we believe it… it was prophesied, but even at that… what were the Jewish signs of the Messiah? I am sure that one of them was that he would be born of a virgin… so by Jewish tradition, if he wasn’t born of a virgin… he wasn’t the Messiah right?
Click to expand...
No. You have a misconception of what “messiah” means in a Jewish context.

http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Why_Dont_Jews_Believe_In_Jesus$.asp
jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/general-messiah-jewishresponse.html
 
I have just started to read Father George W. Rutler’s Coincidentally. In the Preface he notes:
There is a tendency among Americans to suspect that acting is insincere, which is why they would prfer that their actors be celebrities rather than be able to act. The more ironic English assume that any form of sincerity is bad acting, and so their celebrities must be actors. It is according to an unwritten constitution, and the monarchy itself, to be sincerely constiutuional, must be a very high and noble act. Their Established Church is entirely an act, created by an act, and sustained by acts, and imperils itself when it dabbles in relighion.
Click to expand...
Note that relating this to coincidences is something only Father Rutler could accomplish.😉
 
Here are a few thoughts related to this:
BlestOne said:
… but Yes to Bethlehem… scripture as well as historic documentation verifies that fact.
Click to expand...
What historic documentation would that be? Birth Records from the Bethlehem public records department?
Born of a virgin… of course we believe it…
Click to expand...
Of course we do - as a matter of faith. But, Isaiah 7:10-14 is supposed to predict the coming of a king born to a virgin. Instead, it was addressed to King Ahaz over 700 years earlier who was supposed to see a child named Emmanuel born to a young woman. The Septuagint mistranslates “young woman” to “virgin” (a mistranslation of the Hebrew almah).
it was prophesied, but even at that… what were the Jewish signs of the Messiah?
Click to expand...
The Jews expected a powerful earthly king who would lead them to glory - that is what their prophecies described.
I am sure that one of them was that he would be born of a virgin… so by Jewish tradition, if he wasn’t born of a virgin… he wasn’t the Messiah right?
Click to expand...
That is the Catholic interpretation, not the Jewish.
The Magi story is the reason that the execution of the Holy Innocents (infants) was ordered so I am thinking that is verifiable
Click to expand...
No, there are no records of such an event outside the one gospel. Herod’s attempt to have children two years and younger killed goes unmentioned even by his most scrupulous biographer, Josephus.
 
Tedster said:
Anglican leader questions Nativity story

London, Dec. 21, 2007 (CWNews.com) - The Archbishop of Canterbury questioned the accuracy of the Nativity story in a BBC television interview.
Click to expand...

That’s untrue.​

Dr. Rowan Williams, the worldwide leader of the Anglican communion, said that the story of the Magi in particular is vague at best, and the claim that the followed a star to Bethlehem is incredible because “stars to not behave like that.”
Click to expand...

That’s a fact. The text says “star” - not “comet” or anything else. It falsifies the meaning of the text when people try to save it as accurate reporting of history, by ignoring what it actually says - which is an essential guide to what it means. 😦​

The Anglican leader said that it is “very unlikely” that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in December. The tradition of celebrating the Nativity in December only arose, he said, “because it fitted well with the winter festival.”

Archbishop Williams also questioned whether Jesus was born of a virgin. While he personally accepts that tenet of faith, he said, “that’s not a pre-condition for being a Christian.”

LINK
Click to expand...

Maybe it’s worth posting the link to what was actually said: telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UBYU1H3ZO0M1DQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/12/20/nwise220.xml​

AFAICS, the Archbishop was doing no more than any bishop should.

It is not his fault if the Press & its readers is too dim or too negligent or too plain ignorant to realise that the oxen, donkeys, three kings, snow etc. are not part of the text of Matthew. Bishops aren’t supposed to embroider the text with post-Biblical additions - & he didn’t. He stayed with what it said.

This kerfuffle is all about less than nothing.
 
Joe_Kelley said:
I have just started to read Father George W. Rutler’s Coincidentally. In the Preface he notes:

Note that relating this to coincidences is something only Father Rutler could accomplish.😉
Click to expand...
This:
  • There is a tendency among Americans to suspect that acting is insincere, which is why they would prfer that their actors be celebrities rather than be able to act. The more ironic English assume that any form of sincerity is bad acting, and so their celebrities must be actors. It is according to an unwritten constitution, and the monarchy itself, to be sincerely constiutuional, must be a very high and noble act. Their Established Church is entirely an act, created by an act, and sustained by acts, and imperils itself when it dabbles in relighion.
  • would awaken no end of protests if an Anglican had been so ungracious as to say it of the CC.
So what makes it permissible to insult the Christian faith of others ?
 
patg said:
Here are a few thoughts related to this:
What historic documentation would that be? Birth Records from the Bethlehem public records department?
Click to expand...
If Matthew and Luke were not sacred scripture, would you not consider these ancient writings as historical documentary evidence as attesting to Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem?
Of course we do - as a matter of faith.
Click to expand...
But not blind faith. We assent to it because we believe it to be a matter of fact.
No, there are no records of such an event outside the one gospel. Herod’s attempt to have children two years and younger killed goes unmentioned even by his most scrupulous biographer, Josephus.
Click to expand...
Josephus probably did not record every heinous deed committed by King Herod. And with Nazareth being a small town, the number of Holy Innocents murdered may have been quite small. Could have been a 100… could have been 10… who knows.
 
irenaeus1 said:
If Matthew and Luke were not sacred scripture, would you not consider these ancient writings as historical documentary evidence as attesting to Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem?
Click to expand...
Do you consider the Vedas to be historical documentary evidence that Ganesha has the head of an elephant? They are more ancient than the Gospels.
 
Tedster said:
Anglican leader questions Nativity story

London, Dec. 21, 2007 (CWNews.com) - The Archbishop of Canterbury questioned the accuracy of the Nativity story in a BBC television interview.

Dr. Rowan Williams, the worldwide leader of the Anglican communion, said that the story of the Magi in particular is vague at best, and the claim that the followed a star to Bethlehem is incredible because “stars to not behave like that.”

The Anglican leader said that it is “very unlikely” that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in December. The tradition of celebrating the Nativity in December only arose, he said, “because it fitted well with the winter festival.”

Archbishop Williams also questioned whether Jesus was born of a virgin. While he personally accepts that tenet of faith, he said, “that’s not a pre-condition for being a Christian.”

LINK
Click to expand...
The Archbishop of Canterbury questioning traditional Christianity? Well, there’s one for the books…:rolleyes:
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:
This:
  • There is a tendency among Americans to suspect that acting is insincere, which is why they would prfer that their actors be celebrities rather than be able to act. The more ironic English assume that any form of sincerity is bad acting, and so their celebrities must be actors. It is according to an unwritten constitution, and the monarchy itself, to be sincerely constiutuional, must be a very high and noble act. Their Established Church is entirely an act, created by an act, and sustained by acts, and imperils itself when it dabbles in relighion.
  • would awaken no end of protests if an Anglican had been so ungracious as to say it of the CC.
So what makes it permissible to insult the Christian faith of others ?
Click to expand...
Is not the fact that the head of the Anglican faith is questioning the faith of the majority of Christians equally insulting? Why is he dabbling in our beliefs?
 
Well, I guess I won’t believe in the Resurrection either since men don’t usually rise from the grave.
 
Also, I’m going to be brought into the Catholic Church this spring. I used to be an Anglican (when I even considered myself a Christian) and things like this are what made me run away from the Anglican Church screaming. That and, you know, the Episcopal Archbishop declaring that he ‘always wanted to be a June bride’ on the subject of his upcoming gay union. What a shame…
 
Many scholars would say the exact same thing he said with regard to historical accuracy. If a Catholic leader said this would it be such a big deal, or is this just a chance to take a shot at another religion?
 
THutch04 said:
Many scholars would say the exact same thing he said with regard to historical accuracy. If a Catholic leader said this would it be such a big deal, or is this just a chance to take a shot at another religion?
Click to expand...
If a Catholic Bishop questioned the virgin birth? Such a person couldn’t properly call himself a Catholic, nevermind a Bishop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top