Anglican leader questions Nativity story

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tedster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is very sad. It is added to the common Anglican disbelieve in the resurrection as well. Anglicans like to say: “Christ rose into the kerygma.” Yikes. This means that Christ did not litterally rise from the dead but the faith in him rose in the community of followers. What nonsense.
 
I must admit my first reaction to this story was “Oh no, another blatant reversal of basic Christian doctrine by the Anglican church!” But in fact it’s a total media beat-up. The media probably meant to praise, rather than condemn him, for supposedly denying the virgin birth, but it’s a beat-up just the same.

But in fact all he said about it was that belief in the virgin birth is “not a pre-condition for being a Christian.” That is technically perfectly correct, since a “Christian” is anyone who “follows Christ”. Hypothetically one could follow Christ and not even believe that Mary had ever existed.
 
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...
We have ancient documents describing Alexander the Great’s infancy as being very similar to that of Jesus - his divine birth, the supernatural omens and portents - are those historical documentary evidence that lead us to believe that Alexander was also a god?
 
XtusVictor said:
This is very sad. It is added to the common Anglican disbelieve in the resurrection as well. Anglicans like to say: “Christ rose into the kerygma.” Yikes. This means that Christ did not litterally rise from the dead but the faith in him rose in the community of followers. What nonsense.
Click to expand...
Odd. I’ve heard Anglicans say a lot of things, but never that.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
EB4304 said:
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…
Click to expand...
Vicki is merely an Episcopal bishop, not archbishop.

GKC
 
People don’t rise from the dead either. So what’s next on his agenda, I wonder?
 
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.

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.”
Click to expand...
Hi

I think it was fixed for December, for convenience only, Jesus was not born in Dec. in my opinion as I infer from Quran.
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...
I think Dr. Rowan Williams is rational in this connection also. I agree with his view.

Thanks
 
patg said:
We have ancient documents describing Alexander the Great’s infancy as being very similar to that of Jesus - his divine birth, the supernatural omens and portents - are those historical documentary evidence that lead us to believe that Alexander was also a god?
Click to expand...
What “divine birth”?:confused: The ancient documents say that Alexander was the son of King Philip of Macedon.
 
Petergee said:
What “divine birth”?:confused: The ancient documents say that Alexander was the son of King Philip of Macedon.
Click to expand...
Yes, some do. But the documents containing infancy narratives describe his divine origins. Just Google “the birth of alexander” and you can read all about it. He even claimed to be the son of a god (that sounds familiar…).

Or try Caesar - Julius claimed descent from Iulus, son of the legendary Trojan prince Aeneas, the son of the goddess Venus.

Or read about the Egyptian pharoahs, who were almost all considered to be divine beings, the physical offspring of a god. The myth of the ruler’s divine birth centered on the god assuming the form of (or becoming incarnate in) the king’s father, who then impregnated his wife, who accordingly bore the divine ruler.

These stories are very common, making the gospel accounts less than original (but I’m not at all saying they aren’t “true”).
 
KarenNC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Antiquity is not necessarily my only criterion for historical reliability.
 
irenaeus1 said:
Antiquity is not necessarily my only criterion for historical reliability.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that was the only one you mentioned.

“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?”

What then are your criteria for literal historical reliability of the details of Jesus’ birth as presented in these two accounts independent of their place in the Christian canon?
 
The cave seems to be ancient belief in the Eastern Churches. See Mere Comments
Make ready, O Bethlehem; for Eden hath been opened for all. Prepare, O Ephratha; for the Tree of Life hath blossomed forth in the cave from the Virgin. For her womb did appear as a supernatural paradise, in which is planted the Divine Plant, whereof eating we shall live and not die as Adam. Verily, Christ shall be born, raising the image that fell of old." (Prefeast of the Nativity, Troparion, December 23)
Click to expand...
The cave for His Birth provides an interesting balance to the Tomb at His death.
 
Forget the Dr. Rowan Williams, that is his problem ! But it would be nice of the Anglican Church to return the stolen property of the Holy Roman Catholic Church they stole from us during Henry’s rage. After all these years, wouldn’t you think it would be the Christian thing to do ? Maybe the Women Priests and the Homosexual Priests could decuss the issue of this over high tea one day.
 
I just heard on the news that Tony Blair finally joined the Catholic Church. I wonder what effect that will have on those Anglican churches that are considering joining the Church. From my point of view, if we can get the Tony Blairs and those other disaffected Anglicans, Rowan Williams can keep the old properties Henry VIII expropriated.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I just heard on the news that Tony Blair finally joined the Catholic Church. I wonder what effect that will have on those Anglican churches that are considering joining the Church. From my point of view, if we can get the Tony Blairs and those other disaffected Anglicans, Rowan Williams can keep the old properties Henry VIII expropriated.
Click to expand...
Well, if the Catholic got the few faithful left in the CofE, the muslims would probably get the properties. The rest of secular England retains just one residue of Anglicanism: Anti-Catholicism.

So the English will remain content al long as the Catholics dont get their stolen churches back.
 
KarenNC said:
Sorry, that was the only one you mentioned.

What then are your criteria for literal historical reliability of the details of Jesus’ birth as presented in these two accounts independent of their place in the Christian canon?
Click to expand...
It was the only one mentioned because patg questioned the existence of any historical documentation pointing to the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. So I asked the question as to whether the scriptures themselves constitute historical documentation. As to what other criteria could be applied, there are several. In the instance of Luke, he specifically states that his intent is to provide an orderly account so that we can have certainty of the things of which we have been informed. He speaks concerning eyewitnesses and those who were actually involved (ministers of the word), and how he took the effort to carefully compile these things after having followed these things closely. Of course, Luke could either be deluded or lying, but normal historical analysis presumes that the author is stating the truth unless proven otherwise.
 
patg said:
Yes, some do. But the documents containing infancy narratives describe his divine origins. Just Google “the birth of alexander” and you can read all about it. He even claimed to be the son of a god (that sounds familiar…).
Click to expand...
“a son of a god” is immeasurably different from “The Son of (The) God” - the essence of everything that exists. As you mentioned \many ancient pagans regarded most or all of their ruleras as “gods” - obviously a totally different thing from “God”.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I just heard on the news that Tony Blair finally joined the Catholic Church. I wonder what effect that will have on those Anglican churches that are considering joining the Church. From my point of view, if we can get the Tony Blairs and those other disaffected Anglicans, Rowan Williams can keep the old properties Henry VIII expropriated.
Click to expand...
I could see a potential if the Archbishop or the Queen converted as they are heads of the Anglican Church, don’t really see that the former Prime Minister will make that much of a difference other than as a mild point of potential interest.

If Jimmy Carter converted to Catholicism, do you really think that Baptists would be flocking to the Catholic Church because of that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top