Posted on 12/20/2007 5:43:47 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
The Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday that the Christmas story of the Three Wise Men was nothing but a 'legend'.
Dr Rowan Williams has claimed there was little evidence that the Magi even existed and there was certainly nothing to prove there were three of them or that they were kings.
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 ...
Great point, a lot of what people 'believe' happened two thousand years ago is just plain made up, without any real basis in history, or even from biblical study. It's just pap used to sell junk.
I have read that some theologans have determined that it took the Magi about two years of travel to reach the child Jesus. They determined that because Herod asked them when it was that they had seen the star for the first time.
That is why he ordered all first-borns two years old and down to be killed. It sounds possible.
Technically, it DURING tax season (the Roman census (for taxes) was the reason Joseph had to go to Bethlehem in the first place. Born there, then grew up in Nazareth. So the murder of the innocents could be in both Bethlehem (where discovered) and (maybe) Nazareth. Though they fled Bethlehem under word from the angel (gee - does this Archbishop believe in miracles and angels even?) without leaving word who they were and where they were going ...So Nazareth might have been spared.
Odd that this Anglican HEAD of his church would quibble and denigrate his own Bible with these messages right before Christmas, since the entire Church year goes through Jesus’ ENTIRE life each year: What?
Does he somehow think that there are 33 years between Christmas and Good Friday?
Further, the 12 days of Christmas represent that travel and celebration time between the birth and the arrival of the Magi/wise men/kings. January 6 is what’s celebrated as their arrival. Then, 12 years later, Christ’s appearance in the temple - again, represented by only one week.
This dolt IS what is wrong with many/most Euro-bureacractic churches. No faith. And their god is in Brussels.
He will lead singing on Christmas morning. They will sing,
We three kings of orient, are
Trying to smoke a rubber cigar.
It was loaded, it exploded,
Sending us near and far.
They call it text proofing the Bible and are very big on it. We’ll all find out one day who was right, won’t we? In the meantime, I just shake my head and trust my faith.
“It also talks of a violent and overt government event - the slaughter of the innocents. Being this gospel was written within the living memory of some people that went through it, it would have been pretty brazen for it to be an out and out lie.”
One would have thought that this violent and momentus event would have been mentioned in one of the other Gospels, or in some of the history that we have of the period (Jospehus, for instance, who wrote fairly extensively on Herod’s reign). Yet it appears nowhere but Matthew’s Gospel, along with the flight to Egypt.
Given that, as you say, many readers may have had eyewitness or first hand accounts of Jesus’ life, wouldn’t it be more reasonable to assume that they already knew those facts, and didn’t need someone to write them down for them. And that Matthew’s intended readership would have been entirely clear that the Gospel was not a ‘history’ of Jesus’ life, which they already knew. In that light, the themes of Matthew’s Gospel story (though opinions differ as to whether it was written by the same author as the rest of the Gospel, I seem to remember from my theology classes) become a lot clearer. In this instance a drawing of a paralell between Jesus and Moses which would have been abundantly obvious to Matthew’s intended audience.
If he had intended to write a historical account for readers two thousand years in the future, then he may have written differently. I doubt that crossed his mind however.
While I agree, I think, with the assignment of the date, I disagree, I think, with the assertion that Jesus wasn't born on that date. There is just as much chance he was born on December 25th as any other day in the year.
The denigration of the tradition of "The Three Kings" is, of course, what you get when you put atheists and/or perverts in positions of authority over religious congregations. There are no eye witnesses to the nativity extant. I don't know if they were kings. I'm not entirely positive it would have made sense in that era for three kings to get together for such a journey. I don't think it matters.
In my family tradition they were three wise men.
It is hard to believe that the Anglican Church is losing adherents so fast that churches are imploding in the vacuum left behind. I know I'd want to attend where the the grand puppeteer tells me my church is the one for idiots. Yikes!
***If he had intended to write a historical account for readers two thousand years in the future, then he may have written differently. I doubt that crossed his mind however.***
If you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then you will know that Matthew’s Gospel is written exactly as the Holy Spirit wanted it to be written.
“If you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then you will know that Matthew’s Gospel is written exactly as the Holy Spirit wanted it to be written.”
Absolutely. I see no reason to believe that it was intended as an historical text.
Quoted From the website:
From the Book of Acts with Peter quoting Joel: “The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.”
From Mark: ”At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour."
From non-Biblical source: Phlegon Trallianus in Olympiades: "In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [AD 32-33], a failure of the Sun took place greater than any previously known, and night came on at the sixth hour of the day [noon], so that stars actually appeared in the sky; and a great earthquake took place in Bithynia and overthrew the greater part of Niceaea,"
Again, I do not state that the theory at this website is correct. However, I personally find it interesting when archeologist come across evidence showing that these “myths” in the Bible did actually happen. Getting back to the original posting, even some church leaders consider the story of the Star and the visit from the Magi to be a “myth.” I liked the theory at this website because he shows that the points in the Bible can be explained within the context of a natural occurrence. While God is certainly able to create an occurrence out of the ordinary natural occurrence, I find it even more awe-inspiring that He created the universe in such a manner that He knew when the stars would align with history. The website ends with a quote from Revelation 13:8 that Jesus is "the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world."
I have read Exodus 12 to refresh my memory and I found nothing associating the date of Passover being calculated by a crescent moon. There was the word month used but unless I read over it never did find the word lunar or moon.
Now when exactly did Easter become part of Christ? I mean this as a literal Biblical instruction. Christ only observed the Passover and even Paul instructs us to continue to observe Passover in ICorinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
Phlegon doesn't say that the eclipse and the earthquake happened on the same day.
Already early Christian writers pointed out that the darkness at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus could not have been a solar eclipse, which can only happen at new moon.
See the exceprts from George Syncellus at:
www.tertullian.org/rpease/syncellus/index.htm
Further, the 12 days of Christmas represent that travel and celebration time between the birth and the arrival of the Magi/wise men/kings. January 6 is what’s celebrated as their arrival. Then, 12 years later, Christ’s appearance in the temple - again, represented by only one week.
I am not familiar with any Biblical celebrations. The number 12 does have Biblical significance.
This dolt IS what is wrong with many/most Euro-bureacractic churches. No faith. And their god is in Brussels.
Thankfully we all have access to our own Bibles to discover what was actually Written. Remember that right was given while Christ hung on the cross with that miracle of the veil in the holy of holies being rent from top to bottom. All who would, could now have access to the Heavenly Father through the Saviour for one and all time.
See Isaiah 1.14--"Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth..."--the lunar calendar was taken for granted.
"Jingle bells, shotgun shells,
Jingle all the way..."
Actually at that time the winter solstice fell on December 25. Roman pagans celebrated Dec. 25 as the birthday of the sun because that’s when the sun began to move north in the sky. Because the Julian calendar was slightly off (by one day every 128 years) the actual solstice began to fall earlier. The reason the solstices and equinoxes now fall about the 21st of June, December, March and September is that Pope Gregory XIII wanted to get the calendar back to where it was in A.D. 325, because the Council of Nicaea had laid out the rules for calculating the date of Easter.
God says *YOUR* new moons and *YOUR* appointed feasts *MY soul hateth: they are a *TROUBLE* unto ME: I am weary to bear them.
Now I ask you what part of this Scripture gives credence or credibility that the moon or anything lunar is part of a Heavenly Godly calendar. We have God saying His very inner Being HATES.
Now was not the moon described in Genesis as the lessor light and the moon gives no light of it own it 'steals' light from the *SUN* else we would never know it was there. SUN --- SON, so the solar calendar is the reliable calendar, and the moon is never known to be a reliable source of charting time.
When does spring begin... counting from there is Passover, no matter what the moon is doing.
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.