English Archbishop says nativity is a legend

From The Telegraph we have a story from the BBC about how Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, (whatever that means) tells the Telegraph that the story of the nativity scene is nothing but a legend. He states that the story probably did not happen because there is only one account of this event in the bible. As if this matters to one who is supposed to believe in GOD and the Bible as the inspired, breathed word of GOD.

Is there not one account of the flood? Is there not one account of the creation of the world, but yet here we are.

Is this man of supposed higher learning saying that just because there are more than one account of Jesus' death on the cross that that event is more believable than another event that is only recorded one time?

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".

You know, I got no problem with that. For one thing, no, it probably did not snow in Bethlehem during his birth. And who in their right mind takes theology from Christmas cards!?!!?

And, for those who actually read the Bible, to expect that all those that visited the baby Jesus following his birth all visited him on the same day is also not logical or even believed by most Christians. To point it out in this piece only goes to attack Christians and their faith as being nothing but ignorant.

And if that was not bad enough, the BBC interviewer felt that the proper opposing viewpoint could only have been had by.... none other than.... a comedian.

His comments came during an interview on BBC Radio 5 Live with Simon Mayo yesterday. Later on in the show, the Archbishop was challenged by fellow guest Ricky Gervais, the comedian, about the credibility of the Christmas story.

Gervais told Dr Williams he was concerned about "brainwashing" of children who are sent to faith schools at an early age, comparing teaching that God exists to belief in Father Christmas.

But, I am just setting this all up. For the meatiest part of this whole ordeal is the comments section. If you wonder why and how a follower of the Bible could hold some of these views, just read some of these comments:

By Paul:

...the gospels were certainly not written by eye-witnesses. They didn't show up until over a century after the death of Jesus. Paul wrote without any knowledge of the gospels and, in fact, contradicts them. I'm amazed at how little Christians tend to know about their own religion or scriptures.

By Robert Blake:

Well, to prove something doesn't exist is logically inconsistent. It cannot be done. However, consider that outside of the bible, there is no credible evidence that jesus even existed.

By James:

If members of a fringe cult allege a supernatural event occurred, the burden of proof is upon they who make that claim, and not upon the rest of us to disprove it. Christianity, like any religion, began as a fringe cult, and is not magically exempt from common-sense logic. So I'm still waiting for first-person extra-biblical accounts of the star in the east, Herod's infanticide, Jesus's miracles and resurrection, etc. There's plenty such accounts of other more mundane socio-political events at that time, so what's the problem?

By Henry Cave Devine:

The fact of the matter is that Jesus said very little, and the best discussion of what he did say is probably in the 1930's works of Emmet Fox...

The Bible has been so heavily editied and politicized over the past 1,800+ years that who knows what if anything in the remaining text has really to do with Christianity per se... other than to carry out the planning and aspirations of a very few who came more in our time than during the life of Jesus or shortly thereafter.

Here is how one person views Americans. Borst says:

Oh no, here come the Americans, ready to save the souls of the world. Spent 3 months outside Atlanta several years ago, and listened to the airwaves chock full of religous broadcast, with door to door evangelicals pleading with you.

By Maria Joel:

BTW Mary being a virgin was largly a contruct of the early patristic fathers such as Augustine and was mistranslated in lukes gospel.

By maze4muz:

It's a shame what religion has done to us. What a bunch of hogwash.

By Thomas:

Actually, none of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Mark was the earliest, and he created his Gospel based on another person's eyewitness acount. The nativity story is mostly extrabiblical.

By Lata:

Why is everyone in hysterics about a story that was never believable?

Really, grow up.

By Jodie:

What has the Archbishop said that isn't true? He is not questioning the existence of the wisemen, just the embelishments added after 2,000 years. There is no mention in the Bible about the number of wisemen or the idea that they are kings. There is no mention that two are white and one is black (if you don't understand this referrence, try reading the transcript of the interview - what a novel concept). There is no mention of asses or oxen in the Bible. The Bible also doesn't mention the date he was born.

And this is but a small sample. Please people. The fact that they had to stay in an area commonly used for holding oxen and asses, and that they used hay and a manger..... in no way suggests that there might have been animals present with them. Course not.

There is proof of a star that was bright in that part of the sky during the time of Jesus' birth. There is a gargantuan probability that there were shephards about. Would an angel have appeared to them to herald the coming of the King of Kings? God has always gave prior messages to spectacular events that he has planned for mankind and the earth.

Were there magi present during these times? Without a doubt. Could they have learned of the prophecy of a king being born? Yes, these were learned men of prophecy and astronomy. Could God have used non-God believing/non-Israeli/non-Jew/non-Hebrew people to spread his word? He did so numerous times in the bible.

Did Herod exist? Most assuredly. Was there a Bethlehem? Yep.

Then what is the problem here in believing the Bible? The Bible, time and time again, has been proven right. It has been proven right ideologically and archaeologically. The religion based upon its premise is the ONLY religion today that has spurned governments that were built on freedom, peace and love of others. All other religions, based on those who oppose God have all been built on control, domination, hatred and death.

Is it really so hard to believe in good?