The Archbishop of Canterbury's Baby Steps towards Atheism

[columbusdude82]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/three-wise-men-just-legend-archbishop/2007/12/20/1197740452480.html

Three wise men just legend: archbishop

    *
    * Email
    * Printer friendly version
    * Normal font
    * Large font

December 20, 2007 - 4:25PM
Advertisement

The leader of the world's Anglicans has described the Christmas story of the three wise men as nothing but a "legend" and says not all followers must believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has picked apart elements of the Christmas story, including how a star rose high in the sky and stood still to guide the wise men to Jesus's birth place.

Stars simply don't behave like that, he told the BBC during an interview.

Dr Williams said there was little evidence that the three wise men had existed at all. Certainly there was nothing to prove they were kings.

The only reference to the wise men from the East was in Matthew's gospel and the details were very vague, he 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," he said.

He went on to say that while he believed in it himself, new Christians need not leap over the "hurdle" of belief in the virgin birth before they could join the church.

He said the virgin birth was "part of what I have inherited".

And on the timing of Jesus's birth, he said the son of God was likely not born in December at all.

"Christmas was when it was because it fitted well with the winter festival," he said.

But Dr Williams said almost everyone agreed on two things - that Jesus's mother was named Mary and his father Joseph.

The archbishop said his approach was to stick strictly to what the Bible says.

AAP

[loco]

In the words of Richard Dawkins, if fundys betray reason, people like this Archbishop betray both faith and reason.

[Deicide]

In the words of Richard Dawkins, if fundys betray reason, people like this Archbishop betray both faith and reason.

Word Up Fundy!

[columbusdude82]

In the words of Richard Dawkins, if fundys betray reason, people like this Archbishop betray both faith and reason.

Come to think of it... Yes! Why is it so hard to find a CoE cleric with actual convictions? None of this watered-down "my god lives in a black hole and Jesus is my homie" religion...

You know, loco, when I posted that, I couldn't help noticing that the Archbishop sounds so much like our own dear OzmO.

[gcb]

In the words of Richard Dawkins, if fundys betray reason, people like this Archbishop betray both faith and reason.

words are easy, but who are you to say the Archbishop has betrayed anything.

[MCWAY]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/three-wise-men-just-legend-archbishop/2007/12/20/1197740452480.html

Three wise men just legend: archbishop

    *
    * Email
    * Printer friendly version
    * Normal font
    * Large font

December 20, 2007 - 4:25PM
Advertisement

The leader of the world's Anglicans has described the Christmas story of the three wise men as nothing but a "legend" and says not all followers must believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has picked apart elements of the Christmas story, including how a star rose high in the sky and stood still to guide the wise men to Jesus's birth place.

Stars simply don't behave like that, he told the BBC during an interview.

Dr Williams said there was little evidence that the three wise men had existed at all. Certainly there was nothing to prove they were kings.

The only reference to the wise men from the East was in Matthew's gospel and the details were very vague, he 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," he said.

He went on to say that while he believed in it himself, new Christians need not leap over the "hurdle" of belief in the virgin birth before they could join the church.

He said the virgin birth was "part of what I have inherited".

And on the timing of Jesus's birth, he said the son of God was likely not born in December at all.

"Christmas was when it was because it fitted well with the winter festival," he said.

But Dr Williams said almost everyone agreed on two things - that Jesus's mother was named Mary and his father Joseph.

The archbishop said his approach was to stick strictly to what the Bible says.

AAP

And these are baby steps toward atheism because..........

For starters, most of what this archbishop has renounced is stuff that the Bible never stated, in the first place, which includes (but is not limited to):

- There being exactly three wise men
- Jesus being born on December 25
- Nativity scenes, with the wise men and shepherds finding Jesus simultaneously or concurrently (we discussed this before on another thread, one of yours I believe).

As for the virgin birth, that fits part and parcel with the gospel accounts in Luke and Matthew. Remember that Jesus was NOT Joseph's biological child and Joseph was contemplating divorcing Mary (instead of having her brought to trial and executed for adultery), when he was told of the immaculate conception. And in the Gospel of Luke, the high priest, Simeon, sees the baby Jesus at the temple and confirms that his prayer (that he see the promised and prophecied Messiah, before his death) had been answered. That doesn't happen if Joseph is the biological father of Jesus.

Plus, the man said that his approach was to stick strictly to what the Bible says. That's hardly a step toward atheism.

[columbusdude82]

McWay, you use the term "immaculate conception" to refer to Mary being pregnant with Jesus. I am almost sure that "immaculate conception" is a Catholic doctrine concerning the conception of Mary by her own parents. Lots of Catholics confuse "immaculate conception" and "virgin birth."