Anglican leader questions Nativity story

[Neil_Anthony]

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.

False. The birth stories of Alexander the Great were written exactly for the purpose of making up a false history so that Alexander could be declared a god. If Alexander had two human parents, then he would have been a human, not a god. To support his claim to be a god, he had to make up a false history.

With Jesus, we don’t believe his birth story is false. We really believe that his father is God. If Jesus’ father was Joseph, then Jesus isn’t the Son of God, he is the son of Joseph.

 

[patg]

False. The birth stories of Alexander the Great were written exactly for the purpose of making up a false history so that Alexander could be declared a god. If Alexander had two human parents, then he would have been a human, not a god. To support his claim to be a god, he had to make up a false history.

From the website “Livius - Articles on ancient history”, we read:

Although Alexander the Great was the son of king Philip of Macedonia and queen Olympias, he claimed to be the son of a god. As a consequence, stories about his miraculous procreation were needed. In section 2-3 of his Life of Alexander, the Greek author Plutarch of Chaeronea shows us what was invented.

Let’s try something just for the fun of it to see how it reads:

*Although Jesus was the son of the Jews Mary and Joseph, he claimed to be the son of a god. As a consequence, stories about his miraculous procreation were needed. In the beginning chapters of their gospels, the scripture authors Matthew and Luke show us what was invented. *

No wonder the pagan gentiles converted to Christianity in great numbers, they had heard all this before and ***they *understood what it meant. Please note I am not denying the divinity of Jesus or the validity of any church teaching. I am merely pointing out how grave a mistake it is to misunderstand the literary of any piece of scripture.

There is no real difference in the above words, the difference is in your faith and belief.

With Jesus, we don’t believe his birth story is false. We really believe that his father is God. If Jesus’ father was Joseph, then Jesus isn’t the Son of God, he is the son of Joseph.

I agree. And I repeat that if this is your primary reason for believing the divine nature of Jesus, you are on mightly weak grounds - or you must also believe that the other ancient leaders were also truly gods.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Although Alexander the Great was the son of king Philip of Macedonia and queen Olympias, he claimed to be the son of a god. As a consequence, stories about his miraculous procreation were needed. In section 2-3 of his Life of Alexander, the Greek author Plutarch of Chaeronea shows us what was invented.

Let’s try something just for the fun of it to see how it reads:

Although Jesus was the son of the Jews Mary and Joseph, he claimed to be the son of a god. As a consequence, stories about his miraculous procreation were needed. In the beginning chapters of their gospels, the scripture authors Matthew and Luke show us what was invented.

…]

There is no real difference in the above words, the difference is in your faith and belief.

There is no real difference between the two paragraphs above because they are both written from the perspective of disbelief. Disbelief that Alexander the Great was the son of a god, and diseblief that Jesus Christ was the son of God.

Now, here’s how a believer would write it:

*Although Jesus was brought up by Joseph and his mother Mary, he was actually the son of God, not the son of Joseph. The story of Mary’s virginal conception through the Holy Spirit and the virgin birth is given in the beginning chapters of the gospels of Matthew and Luke. *

 

[O.S.Luke]

My Lord… the media totally turned around the Archbishop’s words with bylines and out-of-context quotes, and many of you are just expanding a media beat-up of Christians. Shame on you.

Reading a newspaper or watching Communist News Network or Faux News and taking it as the truth is horribly misaligned and misguided.

I don’t want to hear about anymore beating up on Catholics. Catholics seem to be pretty good at it themselves.

This is disgusting.

O+

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

But we are also dealing with texts that while inspired, were composed according to contemporary human understanding.

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…

We have to begin with what they meant - only then, & not before, can we see what their text may mean for us. So we can’t start with our meanings - we start with what they meant.​

Otherwise, I agree with you whole-heartedly - that’s why I don’t agree on this point

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.

In principle, it doesn’t - we just need to be careful of which meanings are admitted.​

Quite the opposite in fact.

And, for the record, I didn’t say it wasn’t a star.

LOL - you didn’t say it wasn’t a sausage, either ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

Only if they were [credited with being] fathered by gods ​

Or were gods themselves. I suppose Queen Victoria could be regarded as a goddess - I read somewhere that she was worshipped in India.

Alexander makes a very credible god.

The whole point of mentioning him on this thread, is that many of the arguments for Christ also fit Alexander.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

Birth from Olympias by Zeus is not a virgin birth, so Alexander was not virgin-born. If the myth about Danae & Jupiter is any guide, he was probably born of divine seed. Matters are complicated a bit by the ancients’ lack of understanding of the woman’s part in conception.​

Julius Caesar was adopted as a god - not born as one. With some people - e.g. Heracles - the line between being a mortal hero (albeit of semi-divine status) is a bit fuzzy. He doesn’t really count as a god until his father Zeus preserves his divine part after his mortal part is burnt away on his funeral pyre.

Jesus is in the position of being both:

• a god (well, God)
• born of a virgin
  So he is very unlike Heracles or Alexander or Scipio or Caesar; or, OTOH, Buddha. Which could be very significant.

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.

patg:

Let’s try something just for the fun of it to see how it reads:

Although Jesus was the son of the Jews Mary and Joseph, he claimed to be the son of a god. As a consequence, stories about his miraculous procreation were needed. In the beginning chapters of their gospels, the scripture authors Matthew and Luke show us what was invented.

No wonder the pagan gentiles converted to Christianity in great numbers, they had heard all this before and ***they *understood what it meant. Please note I am not denying the divinity of Jesus or the validity of any church teaching. I am merely pointing out how grave a mistake it is to misunderstand the literary of any piece of scripture.

There is no real difference in the above words, the difference is in your faith and belief.

Maybe Plutarch (& thousands of others) believed in the power of Zeus to be the Father of Alexander.​

For “the Lord of gods and men” to become the Father of the divine man whom he would equip to conquer the known world, would be exceedingly appropriate. This would explain a great deal in Alexander’s life.

[my emphasis]

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Martyr means witness. A martyr gives witness to the truth of his belief by his willingness to give his life for it.

How many martyrs gave their lives to prove the divinity of Alexander or Julius?

 

[patg]

How many martyrs gave their lives to prove the divinity of Alexander or Julius?

Many thousands gave their lives following both of those leaders. I don’t see that giving one’s life “proves” the divinity of a leader in any way.

 

[patg]

There is no real difference between the two paragraphs above because they are both written from the perspective of disbelief. Disbelief that Alexander the Great was the son of a god, and diseblief that Jesus Christ was the son of God.

Now, here’s how a believer would write it:

*Although Jesus was brought up by Joseph and his mother Mary, he was actually the son of God, not the son of Joseph. The story of Mary’s virginal conception through the Holy Spirit and the virgin birth is given in the beginning chapters of the gospels of Matthew and Luke. *

Yes, I agree - that is how a believer would write it. But that ignores the real question - if a believer believes the above because of the stories in the beginning chapters of the two gospels then simple logic implies that the believer also believes in the divinity of many other leaders.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Yes, I agree - that is how a believer would write it. But that ignores the real question - if a believer believes the above because of the stories in the beginning chapters of the two gospels then simple logic implies that the believer also believes in the divinity of many other leaders.

We accept the nativity stories of Jesus but not of Alexander the Great. We trust the sources, the Evangelists. The fact that there were fraudulent nativity narratives made up for people like alexander doesn’t change the validity of the Gospels.

 

[paarsurrey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by **Neil_Anthony **
There is no real difference between the two paragraphs above because they are both written from the perspective of disbelief. Disbelief that Alexander the Great was the son of a god, and diseblief that Jesus Christ was the son of God.

Now, here’s how a believer would write it:

Although Jesus was brought up by Joseph and his mother Mary, he was actually the son of God, not the son of Joseph. The story of Mary’s virginal conception through the Holy Spirit and the virgin birth is given in the beginning chapters of the gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Yes, I agree - that is how a believer would write it. But that ignores the real question - if a believer believes the above because of the stories in the beginning chapters of the two gospels then simple logic implies that the believer also believes in the divinity of many other leaders.

Hi

I had read that Elexander the Great was born of a virgin, similarly, I had read in distant past, please excuse me as I have no ready references to quote, that Changez Khan, and a Chinese Emperor who found a dynasty were also born of virgins with sort of similiar dreams to their mothers, were also without fathers, the dreams got fullfilled. I also found a tale among the native tribes of America, one of their tribal Kings was born of virgin.

If anybody else has the same information, please provide the sources.

Thanks

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Many thousands gave their lives following both of those leaders. I don’t see that giving one’s life “proves” the divinity of a leader in any way.

The thousands died following them when they were alive. How many died to profess a belief in them once they were dead?

 

[Contarini]

what were the Jewish signs of the Messiah? I am sure that one of them was that he would be born of a virgin

You are wrong. There was no Jewish tradition on that point whatsoever. In fact, this is one of the arguments for the historical accuracy of the virginal conception–it looks very much as if Matthew looked in the OT for a passage that could be interpreted as predicting what Christian tradition told him had happened (he does this throughout the Gospel, particularly in the birth narrative).

The article as a whole misrepresents the Archbishop in ways typical of the media. It is not accurate to say that someone “questions” a doctrine when they say that it is not necessary in order to be a Christian. I don’t think people who disbelieve in apostolic succession are not Christians, but I think the doctrine is true–does that mean that I am questioning it?

What the Archbishop said is pretty typical of mainstream Catholic and Protestant scholarship–Fr. Raymond Brown, for instance, said many of the same things. I know many of you think Fr. Brown was some sort of way-out liberal, but your own Magisterium never censored him, and in fact honored him repeatedly, so he’s clearly a more mainstream representative of Catholicism than anyone on this forum.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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.”

Some liberal Anglicans (and other liberal Christians) say this. In my experience they are in the minority. Certainly the Archbishop is not among them. He has made it clear that he believes firmly in the bodily resurrection. At one time he did question the historicity of the virgin birth, but he has now come to accept it, although as the article says he does not consider it to be an essential of the Faith. I am not sure I agree with him on that point, but I’ve become increasingly weary of the fights over what is and is not “essential,” and I’m unwilling to get into such a fight when the truth of the doctrine itself is not in question.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

why if almah means also a virgin?

 

[IrishBrigade]

…*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 ?*

…I see…the Catholic Church is entirely free from assault by Protestant forces…ok…good selective analysis there…

 

[Contarini]

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?

No. Scholars do not accept ancient texts uncritically. Josephus, Herodotus, Livy–even more careful historians like Thucydides or Tacitus–they are all questioned and checked against other evidence. A miraculous story occurring in two ancient texts (and not in the presumptively oldest source, or in the two other possibly reliable primary sources) with almost completely different details would almost certainly be rejected out of hand if religious presuppositions were not in play, especially given the tendency for legends to develop surrounding the births of famous people.

Edwin

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

There is no tradition of Jewish interpretation of Isaiah, before or after Jesus, that understands the text to be predicting a virginal conception. Period.

Edwin, this is false, and you know it.
The Septuagint was translated by Jews, well before the birth of Christ, and they used the specific greek word for virgin.

 

[KarenNC]

Edwin, this is false, and you know it.
The Septuagint was translated by Jews, well before the birth of Christ, and they used the specific greek word for virgin.

This article speaks directly to the question from a Jewish point of view:
outreachjudaism.org/matthew.html

The Septuagint that was translated by the Jews was only the first 5 books and therefore did not include Isaiah.