5

I read that Leslie Dixon Weatherhead, an English Christian theologian, made every effort to present Mary as a very pure, sincere, immature, young maiden who simply had interpreted the Angel's Annunciation as a divine instruction to stay for three months with her cousin's husband, Zechariah, and that was when Jesus was conceived.

Then, excluding the case that Leslie was either a crazy man or an illiterate man, which doesn't seem true, on which parts in the gospels is Weatherhead's argument about Mary, mother of Jesus, founded?

Improve this question
2
  • 2
    It would seem that the proper source here would be to read Weatherhead's explanation, then evaluate it from that standpoint. In my opinion, his suggestion is utter nonsense and is entirely without biblical foundation. But I don't know how he claims to find support for his position.
    – Scott Severance
    Commented Jan 23, 2014 at 17:49
  • 2
    Downvoted because there is no reference to Weatherhead's writings, and it appears that his opinion has little to do with Christianity.
    – Bit Chaser
    Commented Jun 5, 2014 at 22:34

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Rev Dr Leslie Weatherhead (1893-1976) was a Methodist minister and a very popular preacher in London from the 1930's to the 1960's, in a liberal Protestant tradition. He was also a prolific and popular author.

There is a new and helpful article on Wikipedia (posted in September 2014) about Leslie Weatherhead. It has a full bibliography.

Weatherhead's speculative theory about the conception of Jesus Christ was published in his book "The Christian Agnostic", (published in London in 1965, and also in the Abingdon Classics series) based on his rather loose interpretation of the Gospel of Luke, chapters 1 and 2.

Weatherhead has a small and ageing following in the UK, not significant in the leadership of the Methodist Church.

Improve this answer
4
  • 3
    This doesn't provide any information relevant to the question.
    – curiousdannii ♦
    Commented Oct 7, 2014 at 0:07
  • 1
    @curiousdannii - wha?? did we read the same post?
    – bruised reed
    Commented Oct 7, 2014 at 6:31
  • 1
    The first, second and fourth paragraphs are purely biographical. The only relevant thing is "based on his rather loose interpretation of the Gospel of Luke, chapters 1 and 2." which is pretty obvious considering the question.
    – curiousdannii ♦
    Commented Oct 7, 2014 at 7:41
  • @curiousdanii: The relevant part is that he cites the work in which Weatherhead propounded his theory , so that OP can now take Scott Severance's advice to read Weatherhead's actual writing on the subject. Granted, requests for resources are out of scope, but in this case might help OP to refine, if not resolve, his own question.
    – Brian Hitchcock
    Commented Jan 17, 2015 at 11:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .