Article

2007-12-20 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Arch-Druid of Canterbury: Anglicans need not believe in Virgin Birth

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dick Arbusto, CEO of Hallibushwater 2007-12-20 05:41|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top

#1 Hmm.. Anglicans need not believe this but Muslims must?

The Koran - Sura XIX - Mary

He said: "I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a holy son."

She said: "How shall I have a son, when man hath never touched me? and I am not unchaste."

He said: "So shall it be. Thy Lord hath said: 'Easy is this with me;' and we will make him a sign to mankind, and a mercy from us. For it is a thing decreed."

Posted by john frum 2007-12-20 06:43|| 2007-12-20 06:43|| Front Page Top

#2 I was born a virgin, too. Somehow the people I know don't think that's anything special, either.

Posted by gorb 2007-12-20 06:48|| 2007-12-20 06:48|| Front Page Top

#3 ummm ... that's not what the Virgin Birth means gorb.

You knew that - I think.

Posted by lotp 2007-12-20 07:39|| 2007-12-20 07:39|| Front Page Top

#4 The man is an idiot. Ignoring a massive amoutn of theology that hs been devoted to this - including the prophecies in Isaiah that Christ fulfilled (And claimed to fulfill), which include virgin birth.

Are we sure this isnt Rowan ATKINS (Mr Bean)?

As for the wise men, King Herod certainly beleived them, given that he ordered the dlaughter of all those male children based on what he got from the "wise men from the east".

As for the star "standing still", is he ignoring figurative speech combined with less scientific knowledge and ability to express it in those days? Or is he claiming that to be out of reach from God's hands in terms of a miracle? Or is he claiming the Gospel to be in error?

Clearly he is an idiot and the Church of England under his guidance is attempting to drop all Christian precepts and dogma, and become an empty shell.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-12-20 08:45|| 2007-12-20 08:45|| Front Page Top

#5 Hopefully he is a virgin and will never reproduce.

Posted by ed 2007-12-20 08:53|| 2007-12-20 08:53|| Front Page Top

#6 From Rowan and Martin? WTF.

Posted by Icerigger">Icerigger 2007-12-20 09:30|| http://coonlakebeach.com/support_mn_troops.htm]">[http://coonlakebeach.com/support_mn_troops.htm] 2007-12-20 09:30|| Front Page Top

#7 You betcher sweet bippy.

Posted by Fred 2007-12-20 10:31|| 2007-12-20 10:31|| Front Page Top

#8 Who listens to this guy anymore? He's like the crazy uncle in the attic.

Posted by tu3031 2007-12-20 10:37|| 2007-12-20 10:37|| Front Page Top

#9 Freudian projection. Just because he can't find three wise men or a virgin among Anglicans today doesn't mean one couldn't find them in Judea among Jews two thousand years ago.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-12-20 10:47|| 2007-12-20 10:47|| Front Page Top

#10 Sounds like we need to send some Christian missionaries to the UK.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-12-20 11:56|| 2007-12-20 11:56|| Front Page Top

#11 who cares.

Posted by Broadhead6 2007-12-20 13:48|| 2007-12-20 13:48|| Front Page Top

#12 If the Arch-Druid had his way, Anglicans would have to believe in nothing but the demonic nature of the United States and the cleansing power of western self-abasement.

that's it, Dick Arbusto, CEO of Hallibushwater, in a nutshell!

Posted by RD">RD 2007-12-20 14:36|| 2007-12-20 14:36|| Front Page Top

#13 Fact is, virgin births are rare, but not unheard of, and any true "Virgin Birth" is always Female. (No male chromosones available)

Posted by Redneck Jim 2007-12-20 15:47|| 2007-12-20 15:47|| Front Page Top

#14 There was no 'virgin birth' of Jesus.

As I recall my catechism, the whole issue of 'immaculate conception' was about MARY, not Jesus: Mary was conceived and born free of original sin so that she could be the mother of the Son of God.

Aarrgh.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-12-20 15:55|| 2007-12-20 15:55|| Front Page Top

#15 im real hesitant to step in here, but from MY limited understanding, virgin birth aint the same as immaculate conception. I will say no more on that.

And IIUC, the NT doesnt say the birth took place in December/Kislev, does it?

Posted by Liberalhawk 2007-12-20 15:59|| 2007-12-20 15:59|| Front Page Top

#16 LH, it doesn't give a month. But based on other elements of the story, such as lambs being born, there is a belief that Christ could have been born in the springtime.

The celebration was moved to December to blend in with a Roman festival called Saturnalia or another one called Sol Invictus, starting in the fourth century.

Posted by Swamp Blondie 2007-12-20 16:14|| 2007-12-20 16:14|| Front Page Top

#17 Clearly, Moriarity, when the VIRGIN MARY/HOLY MARY appears in people's dreams andor talks to vari personages, this partic ArchBishop of Canterbury is not one of them? Methinks Canterbury is taking per se Anglican suppor of PUBLIC GOVT. a bit too far.

* Iff as per URBAN MYTH/LEGEND "lawyers don't speak English" or "lawyers/judges don't understand the law or justice", etc. DITTO FOR PRIEST(S)/SERVANTS OF GOD VERSUS GOD???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-12-20 18:52|| 2007-12-20 18:52|| Front Page Top

#18 1980's GORBACHEVISM > Iff the EAST = USSR/COMMIE BLOC cannot be brought up to the standards of the WEST, THE WEST WILL BROUGHT DOWN TO THE STANDARDS OF THE EAST.

IMO has to be more to this than Canterbury simply trying to piss off Anglicans, Brits andor Europe??? Compare Canterbury = ANGLICAN XCH/UK wis BREITBART > WHAT NOT WHO WILL SHAPE RUSSIA IN 2008!? SHAPE OF [FUTURE POST-WOT/OWG?] BRITAIN???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-12-20 19:21|| 2007-12-20 19:21|| Front Page Top

#19 Immaculate Conception was Mary's conception. She was free from original sin at birth and blessed by not having typical human concupiscence (the tendency to sin).

Since she was a "God Bearer" while pregnant with Christ Jesus, she had to be a sinless and holy container, like the Ark of The Covenant, where God dwelled when he was physically with the Jewish people. Since the ark is inanimate, it is inherently sinless. Thus to be an Ark, Mary had to be sinless.

This is evidenced in the greeting "Hail Mary, Full of Grace" the angel gives Mary. FULL of Grace - meaning you cannot cram any more grace in there - she has all the Grace of God that God can grant to a human. Since Mary is human, that required a bit of input from God at the moment of her conception (thus follows proper Christian doctrine that life begins at conception). Whats remarkable is that she still could have said no, and she went through with it. Think about what she was asked to do and how she had to say Yes, just on faith. That's why Cathokics venerate (but do not worship) Mary - she's someone to be proud of, to emulate, and to look up to.

The Virgin Birth is Jesus birth - which also satisfies the prophecy in Isaiah (7:13-14) to Ahaz, where Isaiah specifies that a "parthenos" (virgin, specific term, straight from the Septuagent translations of the 70 Rabbis responsible for it, as opposed to the term neanis, young woman, which is used trhought the rest of the Septuagent Greek Old Testament). This ties back to the original prophecy, the proto-evangelium in Genesis 3:15.

So, Rowan Williams either doesn't know or doesnt care what the Bible and biblican and (Catholic) scholars have researched and argued for centuries. Some theologian, eh?

He is a dunderhead. What's next, denying the resurrection?

Posted by OldSpook 2007-12-20 20:13|| 2007-12-20 20:13|| Front Page Top

#20 "Will some one rid me of this troublesome priest"

Posted by Chedderhead 2007-12-20 20:24|| 2007-12-20 20:24|| Front Page Top

#21 Ah, do this dimwit "theologian" who says his approach is to stick closely to the Bible does not know the Bible.

The Bible that refers to the Star as such an unusual occurrence that three astrologers mount up and follow this unusual celestial phenomenon until they come to Herod and the Temple to inquire as to what it means. Or the angel Gabriel that the Bible refers to as a messenger to Mary the mother of Jesus and Elisabeth the mother of John the Baptist through her husband, the child John the Baptist, cousin to Christ.

The fact that the reason for the Virgin birth was so that a just "man" would come directly from God to replace Adam, the only other man who came directly from God, but through a woman this time, so that the promise made to Satan by God when Satan deceived Eve, that the seed of a woman would bruise his head when all Satan could do was bruise his heel would come true.

Merry Christmas, but all of this works of God who intervened miraculously on behalf of humanity clearly is not for you Mr. Williams.

Posted by www 2007-12-20 21:12|| 2007-12-20 21:12|| Front Page Top

#22 IIRC, lambs are born in late February, early March in Palestine. I don't think it really matters WHEN we celebrate it, but that we DO celebrate it. As for the virgin birth, the Bible says that Jesus would be born of a virgin (Mary). A God capable of creating an entire universe shouldn't have any problem starting a male child within a virgin. Sounds like the archdruid of Canterbury doesn't have much faith in his own Church. Maybe he should become a liberal sociology professor. It seems to fit his character better.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-12-20 21:14|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-12-20 21:14|| Front Page Top

#23 See also HOTAIR > BELIEF IN VIRGIN BIRTH IS NOT A REQUISITE IN BECOMING A CHRISTIAN.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-12-20 21:59|| 2007-12-20 21:59|| Front Page Top

23:56 rjschwarz
23:54 rjschwarz
23:53 rjschwarz
23:51 rjschwarz
23:39 Steefauctofex
23:20 JosephMendiola
23:16 JosephMendiola
23:07 g(r)omgoru
23:00 JosephMendiola
22:59 msbobbie
22:53 SteveS
22:26 twobyfour
22:22 Pholugum Stalin1270
22:20 JosephMendiola
22:18 Pholugum Stalin1270
22:16 Pholugum Stalin1270
22:16 Frank G
22:13 JosephMendiola
22:12 JosephMendiola
22:04 Alaska Paul
22:03 Tencz57
22:02 crosspatch
22:00 Mike
21:59 JosephMendiola