Print
Three wise men just legend: archbishop
by SMH
Thanks to Rob Harrand for the link.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/three-wise-men-just-legend-archbishop/2007/12/20/1197740452480.html
Three wise men just legend: archbishop
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.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/three-wise-men-just-legend-archbishop/2007/12/20/1197740452480.html
Three wise men just legend: archbishop
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.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, December 20, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 95 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #101250 by Jayvee on December 20, 2007 at 6:32 am
........his first small steps towards Atheism.Other Comments by Jayvee
3. Comment #101251 by Mango on December 20, 2007 at 6:32 am
Stars simply don't behave like that, he told the BBC during an interview.
He sounds reasonable when he affirms that the Bible is not an account of actual events, yet unreasonable when he believes those events anyway. Frustrating to read.
Other Comments by Mango
4. Comment #101252 by rnewson on December 20, 2007 at 6:37 am
"Dr Williams said there was little evidence that the three wise men had existed at all"follow it through, follow it through. If there's little evidence then, maybe, .... no? Not going to go there?
An archbishop that considers lack of evidence as a reason to dismiss biblical statements. That's exactly what I wanted for Christmas!
Other Comments by rnewson
5. Comment #101254 by Dower on December 20, 2007 at 6:40 am
But Dr Williams said almost everyone agreed on two things - that Jesus's mother was named Mary and his father Joseph.
There is no historical evidence that this Jesus was even an acutal person.
Other Comments by Dower
6. Comment #101255 by DamnDirtyApe on December 20, 2007 at 6:41 am
My 'sudden outbreak of common' sense is tingling! Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe
7. Comment #101256 by TonyA on December 20, 2007 at 6:44 am
- It's just a legend.True.
- Reality doesn't seem to agree with the legend.
True.
- We often lie because it fits well with things.
True.
- I believe it anyway, because it's a part of what I have inherited.
WTF? Are they all taking crazy pills?
- Almost everyone agrees on two things - that Jesus's mother was named Mary and his father Joseph.
WTF? Agreement makes truth?
This is still encouraging... He's already broken through the taboo.
Other Comments by TonyA
8. Comment #101258 by irate_atheist on December 20, 2007 at 6:46 am
The archbishop said his approach was to stick strictly to what the Bible says.Really? Is that why he believes some bits and not others? And as for:
He said the virgin birth was "part of what I have inherited".Good grief man. How do you 'inherit' a belief in human parthogenesis?
Other Comments by irate_atheist
9. Comment #101260 by black wolf on December 20, 2007 at 6:48 am
Many Christians view biblical events as these Anglicans do. However, they appear unable to take the logical step of putting The Book in their myths & legends shelf, because they are afraid of discontinuing tradition and losing their sense of purpose. In their minds, the only possible path lies in apparent frantic metaphorism. They feel that they must desperately find deeper meanings in cherished scripture, unable to contemplate or entertain the reasonable and logical conclusion.A toddler will delightedly play with his poo until someone takes it away. For theologians, it's the poo of centuries of predecessors. Unfortunately, our sense of freedom and human rights does not permit society to take the poo away.
Other Comments by black wolf
10. Comment #101262 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 6:49 am
Stars simply don't behave like that, he told the BBC during an interview.
Whereas, obviously, dead people return to life at the drop of a hat. It's hard to keep the bodies in their coffins round my way. We've had to reinforce the lids.
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
11. Comment #101266 by Ohnhai on December 20, 2007 at 6:54 am
You inherit the meme from your parents as surely as you do their genes... Other Comments by Ohnhai
12. Comment #101268 by hungarianelephant on December 20, 2007 at 6:56 am
This is not a very good report of what the Archbish said. It's much clearer from other reports that what he's really saying is that some of the stuff around Christmas doesn't have a biblical basis.Big deal. The Vatican has got rid of the stable theme this year and is portraying the birth of Jesus as being in Joseph's house, which is what Matthew's gospel says.
But the part that made my brain burp was this:
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.
Huh?
Last time I was in a church, which was admittedly a good few years ago, you were supposed to recite the Apostles' Creed -
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Perhaps I am a little naive, but that seems a fairly unambiguous belief to me.
I wonder what other "hurdles" you don't have to get over to join the C of E these days. Is belief in God still necessary?
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
13. Comment #101274 by joshuaslocum on December 20, 2007 at 7:05 am
It's hard to keep the bodies in their coffins round my way. We've had to reinforce the lids.
Paula, bless you my child for giving me today's first coffee-through-the-nose moment!
Other Comments by joshuaslocum
14. Comment #101275 by Rtambree on December 20, 2007 at 7:07 am
Keep going, Rowan. You can do it... baby steps.Other Comments by Rtambree
15. Comment #101280 by nickthelight on December 20, 2007 at 7:13 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJosQdY6P_A Other Comments by nickthelight
16. Comment #101289 by Friend Giskard on December 20, 2007 at 7:26 am
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...
It would be nice to have a direct quote to this effect, so that the we have something to point to next time he tries to pretend that Christians don't believe any of the wacko stuff RD and others rightly say they believe.
Where is this BBC interview?
Other Comments by Friend Giskard
17. Comment #101292 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 7:30 am
"Come towards the light, Rowan." Other Comments by AllanW
18. Comment #101295 by SRWB on December 20, 2007 at 7:42 am
The archbishop said his approach was to stick strictly to what the Bible says.
Say what? Didn't his previous comments in the very same article contradict this one simple statement? Is he a literalist or not? It seems to me that the archbishop is not only an arch cherry picker but a hair splitter as well!
Other Comments by SRWB
19. Comment #101296 by Diacanu on December 20, 2007 at 7:45 am
How many times can you split a hair, and still have angels be able to dance on it? Other Comments by Diacanu
20. Comment #101300 by michaelrose on December 20, 2007 at 7:50 am
Why is Simon Mayo saying "You can't be a spiritual athiest?"Other Comments by michaelrose
21. Comment #101301 by faouloki on December 20, 2007 at 7:50 am
The "Good" doctor never fails to surprise. Other Comments by faouloki
22. Comment #101310 by Tyler Durden on December 20, 2007 at 8:05 am
Here's the TimesOnline link:It's all a Christmas tall story
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3076008.ece
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
23. Comment #101311 by Rationalist1 on December 20, 2007 at 8:07 am
In a former life (so to speak) I studied theology (3 courses away from a M.Div.) and what I was taught was one set of beliefs but told not to upset "Mrs. O'Leary" in the pew with these new ideas as it might upset her traditional beliefs. Especially at Christmas these add-on beliefs get piled one on top of another. To the Archbishop's credit he's starting to dismiss many of the Christmas add-ons. And maybe it will encourage some people to go even farther in examining Christianity's unsupported claims. Once questioning starts, it's hard to stop it.Other Comments by Rationalist1
24. Comment #101315 by Rtambree on December 20, 2007 at 8:14 am
I wonder how much Rowan actually believes from all this nonsense. Deep down, he may be agnostic, but is now simply embedded too deep now (and too old) to change careers.Just like Mother Theresa, we may discover his crisis of faith in his personal diaries after he dies.
Other Comments by Rtambree
25. Comment #101323 by Jack Rawlinson on December 20, 2007 at 8:25 am
So the guiding star tale is a myth because, "stars don't behave like that", but he believes in the virgin birth, even though human reproduction doesn't behave like that.You have to marvel at how much cognitive dissonance a faith head's head can hold.
Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
26. Comment #101330 by alexmzk on December 20, 2007 at 8:39 am
from the timesonline article:"The thing is, belief in Santa does not generate a moral code, it does not generate art, it does not generate imagination. Belief in God is a bit bigger than that," the Archbishop said.
see, i would argue that, for children, belief in Santa does exactly those things. in adulthood, people are concerned with their own mortality and, as such, would like to think that after death, they will be rewarded for their good deeds.
for children, unaware of the existence of death, or at least not preoccupied with it, the hope of an immediate, yearly reward for being good is very much a reason to be "moral".
and of course, the story of Santa inspires imagination. it's a kind of theology for children - "how does Santa get down so many chimneys in one night?" is probably the juvenile equivalent of the problem of evil.
Other Comments by alexmzk
27. Comment #101331 by PrimeNumbers on December 20, 2007 at 8:39 am
So the Archbishop is no longer a Christian, but he respects religion - let's make him leader of the Liberal party!Seriously though, what a blithering idiot and hypocrite!
Other Comments by PrimeNumbers
28. Comment #101335 by ronnieharper on December 20, 2007 at 8:47 am
I watched a show called Zeitgeist (http://zeitgeistmovie.com/) which claimed that the story of the birth of christ is actually ancient astrology repackaged. They showed a diagram of three bright stars lining up in the sky over Judea around that time, and linked the 'wise men' in the texts to these three stars. Other aspects of the story also coincide with astrology, according to the documentarian. The movie is a bit alarmist/conspiracy theory, but interesting nonetheless (and free). Other Comments by ronnieharper
29. Comment #101338 by annabanana on December 20, 2007 at 8:53 am
So the guiding star tale is a myth because, "stars don't behave like that", but he believes in the virgin birth, even though human reproduction doesn't behave like that.
Just to throw a wrench in things and be a bit antagonistic, there are certain species of sharks, that if kept in captivity, adapt by becoming hermaphroditic and actually produce offspring, so it is not entirely unfathomable that the same could have happened in the human world. Although, admittedly, the odds are probably almost ridiculously insurmountable since there has never been a case of this in any humans recorded(or mammals for that matter), but I just thought I'd mention it. :)
Other Comments by annabanana
30. Comment #101341 by mjwemdee on December 20, 2007 at 8:58 am
Re: Comment #101331 by PrimeNumbers:A blithering idiot? A hypocrite? I think I prefer to be generous and see a human being who has made an enormous (and very public) life-choice error. Now he's trying painfully to make sense of it all. Let's be ready to welcome him in, rather than crow about past ineptitude.
Go on, Rowan, come clean...you know you want to!
Other Comments by mjwemdee
31. Comment #101343 by robert s on December 20, 2007 at 9:00 am
Indeed, parthenogensis is not uncommon in vertebrates, although I don't know of a case of it being observed in mammals.However, in species where gender is genetically determined, the offspring are always female.
Other Comments by robert s
32. Comment #101344 by cursor on December 20, 2007 at 9:01 am
Stars simply don't behave like that, he told the BBC during an interview.
I think I heard Patrick Moore insist the "star" was probably a meteorite of some sort.
Other Comments by cursor
33. Comment #101346 by annabanana on December 20, 2007 at 9:03 am
Thanks for that robert s, I didn't realize that they were always female, though, now that I think about it, duh! Ok, so maybe Jesus was a woman, then...haha... Other Comments by annabanana
34. Comment #101347 by DNAtheist on December 20, 2007 at 9:04 am
He said the virgin birth was "part of what I have inherited".
He said the virgin birth was "a dogma with which I was indoctrinated as a child."
Fixed it for him.
Other Comments by DNAtheist
35. Comment #101349 by Bonzai on December 20, 2007 at 9:06 am
I don't see this as a "gotcha" moment. The mainstream Churches have acknowledged that the three wise men story was probably a myth long time ago. A Catholic nun told me that something like a decade ago.Other Comments by Bonzai
36. Comment #101351 by al-rawandi on December 20, 2007 at 9:07 am
Paraphrase:"I realized it was bullshit, so it's ok if you think that too. But just remember, the other bullshit is true. So try to keep it all straight."
Jesus is coming, act busy.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
37. Comment #101357 by Ty_Webb on December 20, 2007 at 9:16 am
and of course, the story of Santa inspires imagination. it's a kind of theology for children - "how does Santa get down so many chimneys in one night?" is probably the juvenile equivalent of the problem of evil.
That one's easy though. He just stops time. He's magic dontchaknow. The problem of evil on the other hand is a very difficult one to get around. Some (including me) would say impossible. That's my proof that the Christian god does not exist.
Other Comments by Ty_Webb
38. Comment #101360 by black wolf on December 20, 2007 at 9:19 am
The mainstream Churches have acknowledged that the three wise men story was probably a myth long time ago. A Catholic nun told me that something like a decade ago.
Which clearly shows that it's not principal honesty about lack of evidence and therefore retracting unjustified conclusions keeping them going. It's defensive behavior for protecting core beliefs, doctrines or dogmas, being such inspite of their equally unevidential sillyness because they were so defined by others for no better reason than provision of an intently divisive framework.
Other Comments by black wolf
39. Comment #101362 by konquererz on December 20, 2007 at 9:20 am
You know, as I was reading the bible, I was uncovering these things, and I didn't find it so easy to justify away things that just don't make sense. I truly don't understand how they do it. I was a christian for 25 years before I really dug into my bible (I wanted to get closer to god! LMAO!)and these types of things that made sense before, started making, well, not so much sense when I was faced with questions like this that started nagging at me. They nag at him too, he has to have some serious working delusion machine inside his head. I couldn't break through into the illusion again, I had to break free. To bad he can't seem to. But its not a quick process, he may yet come out into the light of knowledge. Other Comments by konquererz
40. Comment #101364 by Paula Kirby on December 20, 2007 at 9:22 am
there are certain species of sharks, that if kept in captivity, adapt by becoming hermaphroditic and actually produce offspring, so it is not entirely unfathomable that the same could have happened in the human world.
Is the Christian world ready for Mary the Holy Hermaphrodite, do you think? !!!!
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
41. Comment #101365 by dbunker on December 20, 2007 at 9:22 am
If this is what he's saying in public, what must he be thinking in private.Other Comments by dbunker
42. Comment #101373 by black wolf on December 20, 2007 at 9:28 am
dbunker, three possibilities:1) He says exactly what he believes.
2) He's a closet atheist and privately admits it to himself.
3) The opposite. He's much more dogmatic in his true belief, and panders to agnostics and atheists to get them back into the fold of 'resonable faith'.
Other Comments by black wolf
43. Comment #101375 by irate_atheist on December 20, 2007 at 9:31 am
41. Comment #101365 by dbunker -Whatever it is, from the evidence we've seen, I very much doubt it's consistent or rational.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
44. Comment #101377 by Vaal on December 20, 2007 at 9:33 am
So, myrrh is just a legend? Other Comments by Vaal
45. Comment #101398 by Jamougha on December 20, 2007 at 10:03 am
webb,The problem of evil on the other hand is a very difficult one to get around. Some (including me) would say impossible. That's my proof that the Christian god does not exist.
I don't think evil is really inconsistent with the god of the Bible. :)
Other Comments by Jamougha
46. Comment #101410 by Nefrubyr on December 20, 2007 at 10:22 am
But Dr Williams said almost everyone agreed on two things - that Jesus's mother was named Mary and his father Joseph.
Funny, I thought Jesus's father was named Yahweh (or Jealous, if you want to take Exodus 34:14 literally). But then the word "father" is rather heavily overloaded in this particular religion.
Other Comments by Nefrubyr
47. Comment #101411 by annabanana on December 20, 2007 at 10:22 am
Paula,I'm sure they aren't, but it's a good laugh to think about it.
I did actually see a documentary on TV once where some scientist/doctor (I don't remember) was suggesting that it would have actually been possible for Mary to have been a hermaphrodite making the virgin birth possible (yes another one of those let's start with a conclusion people). I do remember more vividly, however, the responses I got when I talked to people about this and they were not pleasant responses ;)
Other Comments by annabanana
48. Comment #101412 by lobdog on December 20, 2007 at 10:23 am
Just a thought but has any one else noticed thatSanta is an anagram of Satan?????
Other Comments by lobdog
49. Comment #101416 by ChicagoMolly on December 20, 2007 at 10:37 am
But Dr Williams said almost everyone agreed on two things - that Jesus's mother was named Mary and his father Joseph.
Ah yes, good solid Hebrew names, those -- like Reg, Stan (oops, sorry, Loretta!), and of course Brian and the nearly-virgin Mandy.
--I'm all right really. I've been looked at but not seen to.--
Other Comments by ChicagoMolly
50. Comment #101420 by Ultraviolet G on December 20, 2007 at 10:47 am
>>NefrubyrWhile reading the article I was most struck by the same thing as Nefrubyr.
"Jesus' father was Joseph"?
Coming closer to reality step by step. Because this is all word games anyway; that's an important phrase to keep alive.
(He gets his credit finally, poor ol' dad!)
Other Comments by Ultraviolet G
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #101246 by alexmzk on December 20, 2007 at 6:27 am
...?Other Comments by alexmzk