Posted on 12/20/2007 1:14:02 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Three wise men leading us astray?
By Jill Rowbotham
December 21, 2007 12:00pm Article from: The Australian
COULD the devil be in the detail of the Christmas story?
That's what the leader of the world's Anglicans, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, has implied in a BBC interview.
The story of the three wise men following the star to Bethlehem is a legend - stars don't behave like that, he said - it is unlikely Jesus was born in December and you can take or leave the virgin birth.
He says he believes in it but that's not a pre-condition for being a Christian. "Matthew's gospel says they are astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire, that's all we're really told," he said. "It works quite well as legend."
He said it was unlikely Jesus was born in December at all. "Christmas was when it was because it fitted well with the winter festival," he said.
Sydney's Catholic archbishop, Cardinal Geroge Pell, took a hard opposing line. "What is important is that the Christ child was and is the son of God," he said. "For this belief and fact, the virgin birth is essential. Those who doubt or deny this are departing from essential Christian teaching."
Anglican Bishop of South Sydney Robert Forsyth said Archbishop Williams was a scholar and sided with him on the wise men.
And regarding the virgin birth? "He's right: it's not the first thing you have to believe to become a Christian - the resurrection is that. If you believe God raised Jesus from the dead, you are open to the questions like the virgin birth."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
Summary: the article is not an accurate representation of what ++Rowan actually said.
Another bishop who got straight Fs in theology.
If Christ was not born of a virgin, then he would have had a human father as well as his human mother and would therefore not be God incarnate, but just a man.
So, if being raised from the dead is the criterion for worship, then why be a Christian? Why not worship Lazarus instead? He was raised from the dead.
Sir Lancealot backs up the Archbishop’s version of things, as they were, a long time ago.
If none of this is true, Rowan Williams’ congregation is basically paying for the privilege of his sinecure in reading ancient works of literature. While there is something to be said for reading ancient literature, it’s unclear that the flock should be paying Williams so that he can live in the style to which he has become accustomed.
One of my preacher’s theorized that the wise men were from Babylon and had the Jewish Scriptures from Daniel, Mishak, Shadrack, Abendigo and the other Jewish hostages. This makes Herod’s ignorance of how to find the messiah particularly ironic.
About the only thing I agree with here is that Christ was probably not born in December. In the middle east, the flocks were kept in th efields from about March through November. This is also the issue that has absolutely no effect on the truthfulness of the Biblical account - it never indicates what month He was born.
I’m no Catholic, but, THANK YOU ARCHBISHOP!!!!
And may the Archdruid rot.
The minute you cease to believe in the complete Truth of the Bible, you cease to be a Christian. You start picking things apart and deciding what you want to believe is true and isn’t you are lost.
More than a theory. “Magi” refers to a Babylonian office (roughly equivalent to “Prophets” among Jews), although it is possible the term was used in a broader sense, the way people call Royal-brand gelatin desert “Jell-o”.
It’s amazing how quickly people abandon “non-essential” teachings. A warm spell, especially given the climate conditions of 2,000 years ago, is so unbelievable? The 25th of the lunar month most closely corresponding to December just happens to be the eighth day of Channukah, the Feast of the Dedication, when the Jews at the time held that the Spirit of the Living God once more dwelt among men. Jesus had the unique behavior of visting the temple for the Feast of the Dedication, suggesting at least an affinity for that date.
Ancient Jews and early Christians believed that great prophets always died on the day they were conceived, so that they were brought into Heaven (or, in the time of the Jews, Abraham’s bosom) on the same day they were brought unto Earth. Jesus died on March 25th, AD 30. If he were conceived on that day, that would mean he was born on December 25th.
Jesus regarded himself the Temple of the Living God. Today, his birthday is celebrated on the same day that the Temple of the Living God is dedicated.
The alternate theory — that his birthday was set to coincide with a Mithras festival — is baseless, since there is no evidence that the Mithras festival was ever held on December 25th, until after the birth of Christ.
So if Christ wasn’t born on Christmas, the ancients at least had strong reason to believe he was.
... and they would’ve known if Christmas was an unlikely day for his birth.
And whether or not that is the correct date is completely irrelevant. With all of the Feasts and High Holy days, we are given specific dates or seasons. However, whether Christ was born on December 25th has no relevance to His life, His atoning death on the cross, or His resurrection.
By the way, Christ was reported to be 33 1-2 years old when He died. (He was 30 when He started His ministry, and ministered 3-1/2 years). If that is correct and He was crucified in March, that would seem to indicate He was born in October, not December.
Also discussed here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1942221/posts
RUSH: “As you people know, I really do not like to stray into religion, because religion is personal and it’s faith-based, and to argue about it is not productive. So I very rarely like to stray into it, but there’s a news story out that’s been out there for a couple days that I have to address, because it bugs me. The liberal Christians out there, these wacko Christians that are liberal just try my patience. It’s that time of year again just before Christmas, when some religious leaders feel the need to explain that the miracles of the Bible never happened, or that the homeless roaming the streets in Buffalo are the modern equivalent of Mary and Joseph. We get the bastardization of the story of the Bible this time of year by liberal Christians. Today’s violator, if you will, is no less than the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, and what he says is that the star of Bethlehem, the star of Bethlehem “rising and standing still,” he said stars “they just don’t behave like that.” Now, that is the Archbishop of Canterbury. This is a man of the cloth, and he said that it’s just not possible. Stars don’t just stop up there.
He also says that “belief in the Virgin Birth should not be a ‘hurdle’ over which new Christians had to jump before they” can be signed up as Christians. You can be a Christian without believing that. No big deal. I mean, who really thinks that happened anyway? says the Archbishop of Canterbury. Well, a lot of Christians know where his reasoning is going to end up, or where this line of reasoning will take you, because it ends up denying the fundamental basis of Christianity, which is the resurrection. Because if that didn’t happen, then the whole thing is in trouble, and if these biblical miracles didn’t happen, the star of Bethlehem didn’t stop, if there was no virgin birth, then, of course, there probably wasn’t a resurrection. In which case, what the hell is the Archbishop of Canterbury doing in the business, if he wants to rewrite it this way? This is the typical way that... (interruption) That is the worst toupee I have ever seen on anybody. I’m watching CNBC, and I’ve got Fox on the top. That is the worst toupee I have ever seen. I have not lost my place.
Now, the Resurrection. I’ve told you about the French philosopher, Pascal. Blaise Pascal. He was just agonizing over trying to find earthly proof of the existence of God, aside from inanimate objects and the existence of human beings. He was looking for some sign, and, of course, there is no sign that we knowingly receive. So he began to philosophize about it, and the Resurrection was his problem point. He said, “If that didn’t happen, then all of this might be bogus.” So he said, “How do I explain the resurrection?” This is the thing about religion and the Bible, people take it on faith, but truly inquiring minds, curious minds, are going to examine it and try to establish proof for themselves rather than just have to accept the word of others. It’s natural. It’s part of the way we’re created; there’s nothing wrong with it. So Pascal set about to explain to himself in a satisfactory way the Resurrection, and I’m going to paraphrase, because I don’t have it right in front of me, but he basically said, “It’s easier to believe that something that has been can be again than it is to believe that something that’s never been can be,” which takes me back to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams. He said that the star didn’t stop, and he said that the virgin birth, you don’t have to believe that. Why would anybody not believe in these things?
Isn’t it because they are contrary to scientific laws, contrary to how we observe nature operating? If we don’t see it operating a certain way, scientists say, “It couldn’t have happened that way.” Yet — yet, ladies and gentlemen — our very existence cannot be explained by science. The Big Bang violates the best-known law of science, the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics says that you cannot create something out of nothing. Hello, Mr. Pascal. He wasn’t even a scientist. He was a philosopher. It’s easier to believe that something that has been can be again than it is to believe that something that has never been can be. Yet, the Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics. That law says you cannot create something out of nothing. But cosmologists, who are physicists that study the evolution of the universe, have to invent new physics to explain the Big Bang: physics that have never been observed. So is this science or is it faith? The Big Bang crowd, nobody was there to see it. We’re just told that this tiny little speck of almost nothing exploded one day and became the universe?
What law of physics explains that? We don’t have one. They’ve had to create it because they haven’t observed it. The Big Bang is as much an article of faith as anything else is in any other religion. It’s just like the other day. We found out nobody in the world of science or medicine has yet to prove that unsaturated fats, saturated fats, whatever, clog your arteries and make you sick. Nobody has ever proved it. Yet we all believe it, and a lot of people run around believing the Big Bang. Nobody can prove it, and the laws of physics as we know them cannot explain it, and yet we accept it. So what’s the problem with Dr. Rowan Williams? You can claim that the universe has always existed, if you want, on the other hand, but if you do that — if you say that the universe has always existed — now you’re violating the next most important law in science, which is the second law of thermodynamics, which says that everything is running down and wearing out, but the universe is still wound up and operating, isn’t it? But we’re told it’s still expanding. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time? I was able to get through 80% of it before I gave up. The universe is still expanding. Then it’s going to contract. The Big Bang is going to become the Big Implosion.
We’re going to all die! Well, we won’t be around when this happens because we’re talking gazillions of years. But wild guess. So it’s wearing down. It’s the second law of thermodynamics. “Oh, yeah. It’s wearing down. We’re going backwards here. The universe is still wound up and operating.” Therefore, here’s the bottom line: Whether he knows it or not (and this is the key point here for the Archbishop of Canterbury), his very existence is a miracle, as is all of ours a miracle. That is, it cannot be explained by modern science. By the way, the Archbishop of Canterbury also said the nativity scene is a “legend.” Not real, just a legend. So for those of you out there who feel compelled to take some of your Christian beliefs, discard the miracles, and replace them with modern science and thereby invent a new religion, go right ahead — and if this is what Dr. Rowan Williams wants to do, if he wants to throw out the things in Christianity that he just can’t explain in his “superior mind,” go ahead, Dr. Williams. But just don’t call it Christianity. You are distorting and debasing it. Call it whatever you want. Call it Williamsism. I don’t care what you call it, but do not call it Christianity. When you start cherry-picking things that you want, cherry-picking things that your superior mind says you can’t possibly accept because stars don’t stop; there’s no virgin both, and nobody can rise from the dead, fine. Go base your own religion on that; find the flock that you want, but don’t call it Christianity.”
Well, he’s right. They were astrologers, not Kings, and he probably wasn’t born in December. I’ve heard more like October.
>>And whether or not that is the correct date is completely irrelevant. <<
No, it’s not irrelevent, because the athesists, 7-day adventist whackos, pagans, muslims and the like lie about Christianity being based on a pagan religion.
>> If that is correct and He was crucified in March, that would seem to indicate He was born in October, not December. <<
How do you figure? 3/25 + 9 months = 12/25.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
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.