Posted on 12/20/2007 4:55:01 PM PST by TaxachusettsMan
Dr Williams argued that the traditional Christmas story was nothing but a 'legend'
He said the only reference to the wise men from the East was in Matthew's gospel and the details were very vague.
Dr Williams said: "Matthew's gospel says they are astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire, that's all we're really told. It works quite well as legend."
The Archbishop went on to dispel other details of the Christmas story, adding that there were probably no asses or oxen in the stable.
He argued that Christmas cards which showed the Virgin Mary cradling the baby Jesus, flanked by shepherds and wise men, were misleading. As for the scenes that depicted snow falling in Bethlehem, the Archbishop said the chance of this was "very unlikely".
In a final blow to the traditional nativity story, Dr Williams concluded that Jesus was probably not born in December at all. He said: "Christmas was when it was because it fitted well with the winter festival."
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
If you do not believe the Bible, you are not a Christian. As Jesus says, “If you continue in My Word, then are you my disciples indeed. And you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” (Matthew 7:21-23)
Has the good archbishop ever looked into the Unitarians?
They would love him over there. He would fit in just fine.
So is the validity of his claim to apostolic succession! Even apart from considering questions on this theme dating back to the 1500’s, it is clear that the Anglican episcopacy has had severe defects of “intention” for some time now. The current Arch-laic’s scorn-filled moniker as a “Druid” only underscores the point. This man is an abomination, an embarrassment to actually Christian Anglicans everywhere, and an apostate. His opinions on the Nativity of Christ, or any other Christian topic, are about as relevant to the Body of Christ as those of the Dalai Lama. Perhaps even less so, since the Dalai Lama demonstrates a working knowledge of authentic Christian principles, even if, like the AoC, he doesn’t actually believe in them!
He is free to start his own religion but he can’t call it Christianity. He probably denies the resurrection of the body.
There may not have been asses in the stable but there sure is one in Canterbury.
Perhaps he simply meant that it should be made into a movie starring Will Smith.
and they were not homeless but traveling to sign up for the census/tax rolls
He’d fit in with the Episcopal church too. Wait...never mind.
He's certainly right there. Jesus may have been as old as two by the time the wise men came, and he certainly wasn't still at the manger. Matthew says they were in a house.
One can look through the writings of early Christians and not a single one of them considered the Virgin birth, the humble manger, or the Resurrection of Jesus Christ to be other than straight-forward truth.
It appears that Williams is a doctor of deceit.
He shouldn’t pretend that his mytholical take on the subject makes him a Christian. He’s a lost, lost man.
Everyone should really read the interview transcript. The title of this article is misleading.
Wouldn't Thomas Moore be proud.
In addition, Williams recently affirmed the Virgin birth in a survey also done by the Spectator. His answer, when asked if he believed in the Virgin birth was as follows: Yes; I believe that the conception of Jesus was a moment when the creative action of God produced a reality as new in its way as the first moment of creation itself. And I believe that what opened the way for this was the work of God through human history over centuries, coming to its fullest moment in Mary’s consent to God’s call. The recognition of the uniqueness and newness of Jesus is a recognition of the absolute freedom of God to break the chains of cause and effect that lock us into our sins and failures; the virginal conception is an outward sign of this divine freedom to make new beginnings.
It seems to me that a headline writer deliberately posted the provocative claim implying that Dr. Williams calls the entire Nativity a legend, when this is in fact NOT the case. Don't we know better than to trust that the papers will get things right? Let's criticize folks for what they actually DO say, and let's not be so quick to label someone non-Christian on the basis of a misleading headline.
Thank you for the additional info, Flo.
If the writer went further into the writings of Williams, especially prior to his Archbishopric, we would find a better record of what Williams actually believes.
his role is not to academically advise the world on these details, but to offer hope that springs forth from the gospel. What a shame that he’s blown a chance this holiday season to offer Christ, but instead has chosen to publicly quible over debatable matters. At least I know where his heart is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.