M
maljr2001
Guest
With all due respect, he sounds more like an atheist…
- Status
K
KarenNC
Guest
Why?
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Actually he is a druid, which I think is a pagan.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Very big difference between religious Neopagan Druids and the Gorsedd of the Bards that is part of a Welsh cultural organization.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2171775.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2172918.stm
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
FWIW
- I think that your reply is an instance of “baiting-& switching”
- It isn’t “ours” - it is not our property, which no one must touch unless we have given him permission: it is not possession of any man or Church, but the gift of God to us all. Least of all is it a tribal totem which only those can look at who are ceremonially permitted to do so.
- It is “his faith” too, & that of many millions of Anglicans: as a pastor of Christians, he is insulting no one & nothing, but acting like the Christian & the Archbishop & the servant of the Gospel that he is. It is his vocation as a bishop in God’s Church (NB: not ours, but God’s) to explain & preach the Gospel
- The Pope has a far less hostile view of the C of E in general, & of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, than (so it seems) most Catholics on CAF - I’m with the Pope on this,even if there are Catholics whose idea of brotherly love is more that of Cain than of Christ.
- Slamming the C of E is not going to heal its wounds, real or imagined; & does nothing to suggest that we have any idea of what the Gospel requires of us. Ungraciousness is not a grace.
- We can hardly complain of non-Catholic “dabbling” - we seem to be ready enough to “dabble” in their affairs. If we can “dabble” in their business, so can they in ours. Besides, what concerns one part of the Body, is of concern to all
- The Abp. of Canterbury is not the head of the Anglican faith - Christ is, in both theory & reality. (At least you didn’t think the Queen was
)
- The Abp. of Canterbury is not the head of the Anglican faith - Christ is, in both theory & reality. (At least you didn’t think the Queen was
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
No - no big deal, not even for a Catholic bishop or other cleric. He does not deny the Virginal Conception; he affirms it.
As to the question of history, it is uncontroversial to suggest that the Infancy Narratives are not formally historical. As they aren’t, whether they are historically accurate is not an issue. (Some matters in the gospels are historical - but not all of them; not all things that may look like historical events, are intended to be understood as such; the accounts of the Temptation are not historical writing; unlike the accounts of the Crucifixion. A superhuman being such as an angel is not historical, but is real in a different way.The only shot-taking I’ve seen on this thread has been by Catholics against the C of E or the Archbishop.
K
KarenNC
Guest
I stand corrected for poor phrasing. The Queen is the head of the Church of England, the Anglican Church in England. She is not the head of the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the spiritual head of the worldwide Anglican Communion. I was, however, responding to a question that specifically addressed the Anglican Church in England (ie the Church of England).*]7. The Abp. of Canterbury is not the head of the Anglican faith - Christ is, in both theory & reality. (At least you didn’t think the Queen was
As to the role of Christ, one would presume that Christ is also the head of the Catholic faith, but I doubt any here would deny that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church.
The point of my original post was that as far as I can see it is really only a minor point of interest in terms of the structure of the Church of England whether the former Prime Minister becomes a Catholic, about the same as whether a pop star, actor, or other public figure becomes a Catholic.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
What “divine birth”?The ancient documents say that Alexander was the son of King Philip of Macedon.
But those who are better informed are aware that he was the son of Zeus - as is proved by his identification at the oasis of Siwah with Zeus-Amun.
He is certainly either a god, or the avatar of a god. The evidence for belief in his Divinity is overwhelming - & very widespread. Only a rationalist would deny the godhead of Alexander.It is rationalistic & unbelieving to deny that he is the son of Zeus - to those who dare to believe that he is a god, it is obvious that he can be nothing else. If he were not truly the son of Zeus, if Zeus were not truly his Father, how is it that Alexander did what, according to the inspired poets, Zeus has done ? The gods plainly wished all men to know long in advance that the god Alexander, whose very name means “Defender of men”, would come among men to help them.
The poets are inspired, & priests are sevants of those who inspire them. Which is not true of the unbelieving & faithless men who presume to doubt the oracles & promises of the gods. Those who are pious & wish to please the gods will heed their messages, & not ignore or doubt them. They say that Alexander is no man, but is a god - so it is very clear that he is a god.
Mere men do not - could not - conquer the remotest parts of the earth: Alexander did. As only a god could conquer Asia & Egypt, it is thoroughly unreasonable to doubt that his mother Olympias was visited by Zeus.
The Egyptians worship him - they should know whether he is Amun, for Amun is their Zeus. If he is a mere man, why does he appear on Greek coinage as a god ?
So it is absurd to call Philip of Macedon his father.
Alexander The Great: Who Did He Say He Was?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Agreed - but when one doesn’t belong to a Church, it’s the easiest thing in the world to have weird ideas about it
And the C of E comes in for its share of themThe point of my original post was that as far as I can see it is really only a minor point of interest in terms of the structure of the Church of England whether the former Prime Minister becomes a Catholic, about the same as whether a pop star, actor, or other public figure becomes a Catholic.
Agreed - many thanks for straightening things out. 
S
Stevenson
Guest
Well, God can make stars do whatever He wants them to. But as has been pointed out, it was probably a comet, or a convergence. In any case, the Bible doesn’t say the star moved, it says that they followed it to Bethlehem. The idea may have been that they had a text which called for the birth of a King when certain planets were in conjunction. In this sense they followed the star.
Williams is just being nit-picky. He should know better.
S
Stevenson
Guest
I think what is most troubling about this is that this man is the spiritual leader of millions of Anglicans around the world…
I am not sure it’s appropriate for him to be questioning doctrines in the press…
…At Christmas time.
I am not sure it’s appropriate for him to be questioning doctrines in the press…
…At Christmas time.
P
patg
Guest
The only thing mentioned that is a “doctrine” is the virgin birth - and he said he agreed with that. There is nothing doctrinal about Bethlehem, the magi, the star, angels in the sky. the slaughter of the innocents, etc.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
proagein = “go before”, is a verb of motion - the subject of the verb is aster, “star”
But that falsifies the text of Matt. 2 
- :
- the Greek uses a word for star - not for any other celestial entity
- by obliterating the precise - & inspired - reference to a star, the non-stellar interpretations also obliterate the Messianic significance of the passage, & the point the inspired text is making, & the OT reference
- this one word “star” is jam-packed with echoes of & allusions to other passages - it is vital to the Evangelist’s message:
cf.blb.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=star&Version=KJV&sf=3
It is an odd doctrine of Scripture that allows or requires us to falsify its meaning in order to maintain its truthfulness.
- **Mat 2:9 **When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
For the Greek words: blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=2&verse=9&version=KJV#9
S
Stevenson
Guest
But we are also dealing with texts that while inspired, were composed according to contemporary human understanding.proagein = “go before”, is a verb of motion - the subject of the verb is aster, “star”## But that falsifies the text of Matt. 2
By ignoring what the text actually says, one obscures the wealth of meaning in it. How is the sense of the text being respected if we ignore what the words in it mean ? If the reading of it were uncertain or corrupt, then fair enough - but that is not the problem here. That the Greek noun in question in the text is aster, & that it means “star”, is not in doubt. So there is no justification for reading it to mean anything else.
- the Greek uses a word for star - not for any other celestial entity
- by obliterating the precise - & inspired - reference to a star, the non-stellar interpretations also obliterate the Messianic significance of the passage, & the point the inspired text is making, & the OT reference
- this one word “star” is jam-packed with echoes of & allusions to other passages - it is vital to the Evangelist’s message:
cf.blb.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=star&Version=KJV&sf=3
It is an odd doctrine of Scripture that allows or requires us to falsify its meaning in order to maintain its truthfulness.
- Mat 2:9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
For the Greek words: blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=2&verse=9&version=KJV#9
So a “star” to us, was, to them, any bright heavenly body without any distinction as to whether it was the centar of a “solar” system; i.e. a sun, or a planet. And three planets in conjunction would make one such, very bright star…
At any rate, this is somewhat like when the Bible tells us that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish. Marine Biology back then wasn’t what it is today (it didn’t exist) so they would not have differentiated between a fish and a whale, the word “fish” is used but it may very well have been a whale.
I don’t understand how admitting more possible understandings can impoverish a reading of the sacred text.
Quite the opposite in fact.
And, for the record, I didn’t say it wasn’t a star.
S
Stevenson
Guest
Doctrines are not just those truths of the faith elucidated by tradition and experience.
A doctrine is a teaching, that’s what the word means. These are all teachings and inasmuch as they are all clearly taught in Scripture, they are not only doctrines, they are, in some sense dogmatic; i.e. they may not really be controverted.
Every dogma is a doctrine but not every doctrine is a dogma.
P
Petergee
Guest
I guess the men who conquered the Roman, Han Chinese, Moslem, Mongol, Turkish, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Dutch, French, British, German, Soviet, US, etc. empires must all have been “gods” too, because their empires were far greater (in area, population, wealth, military strength, whatever) than Alexander’s.
P
patg
Guest
And the church does not teach that one must believe literalistically in the stories of the nativity.
These stories only teach you something if you understand them. Ignoring the literary form, ignoring the genre, and insisting on a literalistic reading instead of understanding that this form of writing was commonly used by the ancients to tell us who someone was.
I totally agree with Gottle: It is an odd doctrine of Scripture that allows or requires us to falsify its meaning in order to maintain its truthfulness.
S
sandmountainsli
Guest
I have returned just in time!
Just in time to remind everyone that the Anglicans are falling deeper and deeper into Apostacy!
I remain a Congregational Methodist and proud of it.
WP
Just in time to remind everyone that the Anglicans are falling deeper and deeper into Apostacy!
I remain a Congregational Methodist and proud of it.
WP
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
So the ancients commonly made up stories about how their gods were born through virgin births. It’s the only logical way they could claim that a human being was also a god. To deny that the person was conceived by a god and born of a virgin is to deny the person’s divinity.
So rejecting the virgin birth story of Alexander means you reject that Alexander was divine. And rejecting the virgin birth story of Jesus means you reject that Jesus was divine.
P
patg
Guest
Yes, denying that is not an option, especially if your reasoning has any basis in history.
I don’t know any reason to assume that is a requirement.
If that is the ONLY reason you have for believing Jesus was God, then I guess so. I see no logical way to insist on Jesus’ supernatural nature if you are only relying on what was a common legendary way of writing about the infancies of great leaders.
If you understood the classic literary form of the story, you would know that it is not a matter of believing or rejecting the story at all. The birth stories of Alexander, exactly like the birth stories of Jesus, were not written to tell us what happened from a historical viewpoint, they were written to tell us who the person was and to attach supernatural significance to what they became.
The author of an infancy narrative is not responding to the question “How can I tell the story of this person’s birth exactly as it occurred?” but to the question “How can I tell this story so that the reader understands just how great this person became?” An infancy narrative is not written from a point of view contemporary with its subject’s birth; it is written in hindsight, in the light of subsequent events to teach what came to be known about the person over time. The birth narratives of Jesus were written after the resurrection, after the disciples had come to understand Jesus’ true identity (exactly like the other infancy stories we have discussed).
If you understood the point of view of the author of an infancy narrative, you wouldn’t ask, “Are infancy narratives historically accurate?” The author is not trying to describe events exactly as they occurred, as would a historian. Rather, the author is trying to describe events so that the listeners, or readers, understand the significance of events within the context of their lives.
Scripture scholars believe that Matthew and Luke’s infancy narratives include a historical core – the information that the stories have in common – but they also contain many details that do not find their source in events but in the text of the scripture. The infancy narratives wind throughout their accounts of events scriptural images that cast light on the significance of events. (This teaching technique, known as midrash, was common in Jesus’ time and culture).
- Status