NYT Refuses To Run Anti-Islam Ad

[East of Eden]

......AFTER running an anti-Catholic ad.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ny-time ... tholic-ad/

Score one for the Islamic war on free speech.

Anyone want to defend this?

[Atrax Robustus]

No, much of the NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses.

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." II Peter 1:16

What I have read about the subject. There is considerable dispute about how much actual eyewitnesses had any hand in writing the bible. Still the bigger part was written by people that heard the stories from others and wrote it down an awfully long time after they supposedly happened by todays standards.

Not really, parts of the Bible were written within a few decades of the events, while the eyewitnesses would have been alive to contradict it. Nobody did. It was also far to short a time for legends to develop.

Then why are the internal contradictions of the NT so problematic?

Cite?

At the risk of a massive derail . . . if, as you have asserted, the availability of these eyewitnesses would have ensured accuracy over something as simple as the identity of Joseph's father - wouldn't they? Yet the writers of Matthew and Luke managed to contradict each other on this point and spectacularly so over the lineage of Jesus from David.

You make the same assertion as someone who claims the same inspiration for the Qu'ran and Book of Mormon for example. Is the bible the only valid revealed text?

In my opinion, yes. Because there are false religions doesn't prove all religions are false.

I'll mark that down as an opinion and assign it the level of veracity that opinion deserves. Noting that your response avoids the potential where, if as you assert, Jesus (being God) wrote the scripture himself, then why did he contradict himself in his revelation of the scriptures to Matthew and Luke?

Based on your second, irrelevant sentence, I guess that I'd be correct in assuming that you have never applied the same level scrutiny that you apply to these 'false' religions to your own then?

If so, what evidence can you possibly bring to bear that would convince an atheist, muslim or mormon?

It depends on the individual. Many from all three of those groups have become Christians.

. . . and after reading the various holy texts, many Christians have converted to other faiths and many have also become non-believers.

Do you really consider that to be an argument? Seriously?

Uh, yes, what serious historians attest too is usually considered evidence.

How about the Armenian Chronicles of Sebeos? Or isn't an Armenian bishop considered serious?

So, if I propose to you that the stories of Jeshua were developed with the specific intent of asserting that the OT prophecies were fulfilled, on what basis would you argue against me?

That it would be pretty hard for Jesus to 'rig' his place of birth, lineage, details of his death and burial to fulfill OT prophecy.

. . . only if you accept that the NT narratives weren't written with the intent of fulfilling prophecy - and even then they (the authors and your 'eyewitnesses'; or was that, according to your assertion, God himself) couldn't get it right --- Matthew (27:9) tries to ascribe the 'Potters Field' prophecy to Jeremiah. Have a read of Jeremiah and see how accurate Matthew (or is that Jesus/God?) was.

Same argument applies to the miracles and resurrection - Josephus and Tacitus, whom you believe to be authorative, didn't mention anything about miracles or resurrections - why would that be?

The 'wondrous works' Josephus spoke of were very possible a reference to the miracles. Jesus' Jewish enemies reference His miracles both in the NT and the later Bablyonian Talmud. (They ascribe them to 'sorcery'.) The Koran references Jesus' miracles. Why would that be?

I see. So you are of the school that considers that every word ascribed to Josephus is accurate and, therefore, Jesus was a miracle worker. I find this view fascinating. Josephus, as you know, was a Jew. Yet he openly assigns the mantle of Messiah to Jesus . . . Why would that be?

I admit - I haven't read the Babylonian Talmud.

As for the Qu'ran . . . well it was developed about 600-700 years after Jesus died. Perhaps these references came about because there were no eyewitnesses to counter any discrepancies that Muhammed might have heard from the Jews and Christians who lived in his local community.

Wishful thinking? Is it illogical to suspend belief in something for which there is not one iota of evidence?

You would be right, if there were really not one iota of evidence.

Again, at the risk of a massive derail: Provide your evidence.

[East of Eden]

No, much of the NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses.

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." II Peter 1:16

What I have read about the subject. There is considerable dispute about how much actual eyewitnesses had any hand in writing the bible. Still the bigger part was written by people that heard the stories from others and wrote it down an awfully long time after they supposedly happened by todays standards.

Not really, parts of the Bible were written within a few decades of the events, while the eyewitnesses would have been alive to contradict it. Nobody did. It was also far to short a time for legends to develop.

Then why are the internal contradictions of the NT so problematic?

Cite?

At the risk of a massive derail . . . if, as you have asserted, the availability of these eyewitnesses would have ensured accuracy over something as simple as the identity of Joseph's father - wouldn't they? Yet the writers of Matthew and Luke managed to contradict each other on this point and spectacularly so over the lineage of Jesus from David.

From Bob Passantino:

"One example Wilson gives of internal contradictions concerns the nativity of our Lord. Wilson lists three important “contradictions� between Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts: 1) In Matthew, the announcement of Jesus’ birth is given to Joseph; in Luke, it is given to Mary. 2) In Matthew, Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem and leave only when Herod begins the slaughter of the innocents; in Luke, Mary and Joseph leave their home in Nazareth and travel to Bethlehem for the census. 3) The genealogies in Matthew and Luke contain a number of different names; most difficult is the fact that in Matthew Joseph’s father is called Jacob, whereas in Luke his father is called Heli.7 Pages have been written by a variety of scholars answering the above objections, so I will comment here only briefly.

1) Luke does not state that the angel told Mary and that no one told Joseph. Matthew does not state that the angel told Joseph and that no one told Mary. In fact, Matthew assumes that Joseph already knew about Mary’s pregnancy before his dream, since he records Joseph as having already decided to divorce Mary quietly for her “indiscretion� before the angel explained to him the true nature of the conception. Far from contradicting each other, Matthew and Luke complement each other.

2) Matthew does not say that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem before Jesus’ birth. He merely states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and that the family lived in a house there at the time the magi came. Luke begins his story earlier than does Matthew, explaining how Mary and Joseph came to be in Bethlehem for Jesus’ birth. While Luke gives more information about the time before Jesus’ birth, he does not mention the escape to Egypt after the birth. For this we have Matthew’s account. Again, far from contradicting each other, the two accounts complement each other.

3) The two genealogies of Jesus do not contradict each other. For something to be a contradiction, there cannot be any possible reconciliation. Several viable explanations are possible, such as this one suggested by Gleason L. Archer:

Matthew 1:1-16 gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, who was himself a descendant of King David. As Joseph’s adopted Son, Jesus became his legal heir, so far as his inheritance was concerned....

Luke 3:23-28, on the other hand, seems to record the genealogical line of Mary herself.... This seems to be implied by the wording of v. 23: “Jesus. . . being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph? Jesus was not really the biological son of Joseph,. . . Mary. . . must of necessity have been the sole human parent through whom Jesus could have descended from a line of ancestors. Her genealogy is thereupon listed, starting with Hell, who was actually Joseph’s father-in-law, in contradistinction to Joseph’s own father, Jacob (Matt. 1:16.... Therefore Jesus was descended from David naturally through Nathan and legally through Solomon.8

We find, then, that each of the three “contradictions� raised by Wilson are not contradictions at all. The same is true of the other internal problems Wilson raises."

I'll mark that down as an opinion and assign it the level of veracity that opinion deserves.

So you are saying because one religion is false, it proves all are? That would be a logical fallacy.

Noting that your response avoids the potential where, if as you assert, Jesus (being God) wrote the scripture himself, then why did he contradict himself in his revelation of the scriptures to Matthew and Luke?

He didn't.

Based on your second, irrelevant sentence, I guess that I'd be correct in assuming that you have never applied the same level scrutiny that you apply to these 'false' religions to your own then?

I actually have a much more liberal view of other religions than you do. You believe that what has most mattered to the majority of men always and everywhere is 100% wrong, while I believe there is a lot of truth in other religions as all men are made in His image and have some truth written in their heart. I simply think where they and Christianity differ, they are wrong and Christianity is right.

. . . and after reading the various holy texts, many Christians have converted to other faiths and many have also become non-believers.

No doubt. Jesus predicted that in the parable of the sower.

How about the Armenian Chronicles of Sebeos? Or isn't an Armenian bishop considered serious?

Never heard of them.

. . . only if you accept that the NT narratives weren't written with the intent of fulfilling prophecy

OK, let's see some evidence for this grand conspiracy theory. Wouldn't ONE person have betrayed it? Any why would the Apostles knowingly die for a lie?

- and even then they (the authors and your 'eyewitnesses'; or was that, according to your assertion, God himself) couldn't get it right --- Matthew (27:9) tries to ascribe the 'Potters Field' prophecy to Jeremiah. Have a read of Jeremiah and see how accurate Matthew (or is that Jesus/God?) was.

From the website greatcom.org:

"Doesn't Matthew make a mistake by attributing a prophecy to Jeremiah when it actually was given by Zechariah?

In the Gospel according to Matthew, Judas Iscariot, after betraying Jesus, feels remorse because of his evil deeds, throws the betrayal money into the sanctuary, and commits suicide. Matthew goes on to relate how this money was taken by the priests and used to buy a potter's field.

Matthew concludes:

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah, the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued...and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me (27:9,10, KJV).

The problem is that verse 9 attributes the prophecy to Jeremiah, when it appears that it was Zechariah who gave this prediction. When Matthew 27:9 is examined closely in light of Zechariah 11:12,13, it is clear that this prophecy is the one fulfilled. Why then does Matthew assign it to Jeremiah?

A possible solution is Jeremiah's priority in the Talmud. 43/362 Jeremiah was placed first in the ancient rabbinic order of the prophetic books. Matthew was then quoting from the collection of the books of the prophets, and cited Jeremiah since it was the first and therefore the identifier. The same thing is done in Luke 24:44, where Psalms is used when the entire third division of the Hebrew canon is in mind.

Perhaps the best solution would be to understand that Matthew is combining two prophecies, one from Jeremiah and one from Zechariah, with a mention of only one author in the composite reference, namely Jeremiah, the major prophet.

Zechariah says nothing concerning the buying of a field, but Jeremiah states that the Lord appointed him to buy a field (Jeremiah 32:6-8) as a solemn guarantee by the Lord Himself that fields and vineyards would be bought and sold in the land in a future day (Jeremiah 32:15,43ff).

One of the fields which God had in mind was the potter's field. Zechariah adds the details of the thirty pieces of silver and the money thrown down on the floor of the Temple. So we see that Matthew takes the details of both prophets, but stresses Jeremiah as the one who foretold these events.

Dr. J. E. Rosscup of Talbot Seminary adheres to a view consistent with the above. In classroom lectures he pointed out:

Matthew felt that two passages were fulfilled, one typical (Jeremiah 19:1-13) and one explicit (Zechariah 11:13), and mentions only one author in the composite reference, a practice that sometimes occurred, according to Robert Gundry. 32/124-25

John N. Cool also concludes that Matthew used Zechariah chiefly, but had Jeremiah 19 prominently in mind as well, especially due to its theme of judgment on Israel.

Cool says,

Both (valley, Jeremiah 19; field, Matthew 27) become burial grounds and both their names are changed to remind the people of God's judgment. [This is] confirmed by the traditional location of the potter's field ... within the valley of Hinnom where Jeremiah pronounced his judgment by changing its name to 'valley of slaughter.'

Second, Matthew's consistent use of Isaiah and Jeremiah in his formula quotations reminds his readers of God's salvation and judgment for His people. Isaiah was associated with salvation, Jeremiah ... with judgment.

The use of tote in Matthew 2:17 and 27:9 instead of the purposeful Hina or Houtos found in other formula introductions also underscores the judgment motif by referring to Christ's enemies as fulfilling prophecy.

Gundry says that Matthew's reference to Jeremiah in the introduction formula makes certain that readers will take note of the connection with Jeremiah 19, which might be overlooked."

I see. So you are of the school that considers that every word ascribed to Josephus is accurate and, therefore, Jesus was a miracle worker. I find this view fascinating. Josephus, as you know, was a Jew. Yet he openly assigns the mantle of Messiah to Jesus . . . Why would that be?

Wrong, I do believe parts of the Testimonium were tampered with, but what is probably genuine tell us quite a bit of Jesus, and it corresponds with the Bible.

I admit - I haven't read the Babylonian Talmud.

As for the Qu'ran . . . well it was developed about 600-700 years after Jesus died. Perhaps these references came about because there were no eyewitnesses to counter any discrepancies that Muhammed might have heard from the Jews and Christians who lived in his local community.

Excuse me, why would there be eyewitnesses 600-700 years after the fact?

Again, at the risk of a massive derail: Provide your evidence.

Start another thread, although we are covering some of it here.

[micatala]

......AFTER running an anti-Catholic ad.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ny-time ... tholic-ad/

Score one for the Islamic war on free speech.

Anyone want to defend this?

Is there a place we can get pictures of the ads that we can actually read?


I would say the Times should create a consistent policy that avoids what looks to be an inconsistency. I can see their concern about violence, given recent events, but I do think this sort of self-restraint can be detrimental in the long term




I would also ad that Ms. Gellar deserves a certain amount of condemnation for her actions, although I will make that condemnation tentative in this case pending actually seeing what the ad says.

Gellar is well-known for distorting the truth and making outrageous and inflammatory statements about Muslims. She was one of the instigators of the anti-Park 51 project (what came to be inaccurately called the "Ground Zero Mosque").



Finally, I have to once again correct the use of the term "free speech" in the OP. Free speech is a right that cannot be infringed on by the government. The NY Times has no legal obligation to print anything they do not want to, and in not publishing the ad, while they may be guilty of hypocrisy, poor judgment or a number of other bad behaviors, this does not constitute a "war on free speech."

I disagree, ANY pressure to stop free speech on the part of anybody is a bad thing.

I agree that pressure to stop free speech is a bad thing.

That is not happening here. No one is stopping Ms. Gellar from saying anything she wants to say. The only issue here is whether she gets to have it published.

The bottom line here is, the NYT limited speech due to pressure from Muslims.

Again, this is not accurate. No one limited Gellar's speech. Not getting published is not the same as limiting someone's free speech rights. Following this logic, anyone who does not have their letter to the editor published is having their speech limited.

Secondly, while I would agree the NYT acted inconsistently, I am not sure I would say this was due to "pressure from Muslims." That phrase suggests some Muslims knew about the ad and contacted the NTY to object. The NYT did this on their own. THey cited possible repurcussions, possible reactions by Muslims, but that is not the same as direct pressure on the NYT.

And it is still a fact that whatever the problems with the NY Times, what they are doing is not a violation of the First Amendment.

I never claimed the First Amendment was involved. The 1A pertains to Congress.

Then you are misusing the term "free speech." That phrase comes from the 1A and the right to free speech can really refer to nothing other than the 1A, unless you disagree with your other statements made elsewhere and accept that there are rights that exist even if the laws or the constitution or the majority do not officially recognize them.

]As far as the publication of the ad, sure, my disagreements with Ms. Gellar, my objections to her lack of truthfulness, etc. are irrelevant.

Off topic, but what lack of truthfulness?

Her characterizations of the Park 51 project and the Imam promoting it were blatantly untruthful.

To the extent that the issue is the morality or hypocrisy of the Times, or the appropriateness of either Ms. Gellar's ad or the other ad you allude to, then Ms. Gellar's truthfulness, the extent to which her view reflect bigotry, etc. are certainly relevant.

But the bigotry of the anti-Catholic ad isn't relevant? Why the double standard?

Having now seen both ads, I agree, the NYT acted inconsistently, perhaps even hypocrtically. Perhaps some will buy their argument that they did not publish they ad because of fear of the repurcussions. It is certainly not unreasonable, given past events, that such repurcussions were a legitimate possibility. The issue is whether one should avoid publication to avoid that possibility.

I would agree the anti-Catholic ad was over the top. All else being equal, if they publish one they should probably publish the other.

Would you object if the NY Times had refused to air the original "anti-Catholic" ad?
Would you object if they refused to run an offensive ad by white supremacists, or Taliban sympathizers?

I just want them to be consistent, and not be intimidated by pressure groups.

So, is it correct to infer you would be OK if they had published neither ad?


And again, I am not sure "pressure groups" are the issue here. Their arguments had to do with public safety, and safety of our troops in harms way.



I would generally agree that it is better for a publication to have clearly stated criteria for the publication of advertising, especially political advertising, and should follow those criteria consistently.

[East of Eden]

......AFTER running an anti-Catholic ad.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ny-time ... tholic-ad/

Score one for the Islamic war on free speech.

Anyone want to defend this?

Is there a place we can get pictures of the ads that we can actually read?


I would say the Times should create a consistent policy that avoids what looks to be an inconsistency. I can see their concern about violence, given recent events, but I do think this sort of self-restraint can be detrimental in the long term




I would also ad that Ms. Gellar deserves a certain amount of condemnation for her actions, although I will make that condemnation tentative in this case pending actually seeing what the ad says.

Gellar is well-known for distorting the truth and making outrageous and inflammatory statements about Muslims. She was one of the instigators of the anti-Park 51 project (what came to be inaccurately called the "Ground Zero Mosque").



Finally, I have to once again correct the use of the term "free speech" in the OP. Free speech is a right that cannot be infringed on by the government. The NY Times has no legal obligation to print anything they do not want to, and in not publishing the ad, while they may be guilty of hypocrisy, poor judgment or a number of other bad behaviors, this does not constitute a "war on free speech."

I disagree, ANY pressure to stop free speech on the part of anybody is a bad thing.

I agree that pressure to stop free speech is a bad thing.

That is not happening here. No one is stopping Ms. Gellar from saying anything she wants to say. The only issue here is whether she gets to have it published.

The bottom line here is, the NYT limited speech due to pressure from Muslims.

Again, this is not accurate. No one limited Gellar's speech. Not getting published is not the same as limiting someone's free speech rights. Following this logic, anyone who does not have their letter to the editor published is having their speech limited.

Secondly, while I would agree the NYT acted inconsistently, I am not sure I would say this was due to "pressure from Muslims." That phrase suggests some Muslims knew about the ad and contacted the NTY to object. The NYT did this on their own. THey cited possible repurcussions, possible reactions by Muslims, but that is not the same as direct pressure on the NYT.

And it is still a fact that whatever the problems with the NY Times, what they are doing is not a violation of the First Amendment.

I never claimed the First Amendment was involved. The 1A pertains to Congress.

Then you are misusing the term "free speech." That phrase comes from the 1A

But is not limited to the 1A. The 'free speech' movement on campuses in the '60s had nothing to do with Congress either.

Her characterizations of the Park 51 project and the Imam promoting it were blatantly untruthful.

Cite, or are you just saying that because you disagree with her about the mosque location?

Having now seen both ads, I agree, the NYT acted inconsistently, perhaps even hypocrtically. Perhaps some will buy their argument that they did not publish they ad because of fear of the repurcussions. It is certainly not unreasonable, given past events, that such repurcussions were a legitimate possibility. The issue is whether one should avoid publication to avoid that possibility.

I would agree the anti-Catholic ad was over the top. All else being equal, if they publish one they should probably publish the other.

Agreed, either all or nothing. It's like saying you're only going to run ads from one political party and not the other.

So, is it correct to infer you would be OK if they had published neither ad?

Yes. I know newspapers are hurting, but if it were up to me I would take a soap ad over one insulting large groups of people.

And again, I am not sure "pressure groups" are the issue here. Their arguments had to do with public safety, and safety of our troops in harms way.

Did we tone down our rhetoric against Hitler and Tojo in WWII for that reason?

[Atrax Robustus]

No, much of the NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses.

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." II Peter 1:16

What I have read about the subject. There is considerable dispute about how much actual eyewitnesses had any hand in writing the bible. Still the bigger part was written by people that heard the stories from others and wrote it down an awfully long time after they supposedly happened by todays standards.

Not really, parts of the Bible were written within a few decades of the events, while the eyewitnesses would have been alive to contradict it. Nobody did. It was also far to short a time for legends to develop.

Then why are the internal contradictions of the NT so problematic?

Cite?

At the risk of a massive derail . . . if, as you have asserted, the availability of these eyewitnesses would have ensured accuracy over something as simple as the identity of Joseph's father - wouldn't they? Yet the writers of Matthew and Luke managed to contradict each other on this point and spectacularly so over the lineage of Jesus from David.

From Bob Passantino:

<snip>

Several viable explanations are possible, such as this one suggested by . . .

<snip>

We find, then, that each of the three “contradictions� raised by Wilson are not contradictions at all. The same is true of the other internal problems Wilson raises."

Oh yes. A Christian apologist answers the questions . . . by suggesting multiple 'viable' explanations exist - picking one or two - and declaring that the contradictions are not so - therefore all other contradictions are also answered. It's an old ploy, as long as you are willing to accept the unfounded premise that the 'viable' explanation/s chosen is factual then you're going to agree aren't you?

Oh - and you also need to omit the fact that Bob skips around the issue where the writer of Luke explicitly states that Joseph was Jesus' father before inexplicably deciding to trace his lineage through Mary - which in itself is a quandary . . . a matriarchal lineage from a 1st Century Jewish author is problematic in itself . . . . . . . if you don't chose to ignore it.

I'll mark that down as an opinion and assign it the level of veracity that opinion deserves.

So you are saying because one religion is false, it proves all are? That would be a logical fallacy.

I have said nothing about false religions. You introduced that wild goose. Your opinion was that the Bible is the only revealed text. Without support it remains your opinion and has no weight in the discussion.

Noting that your response avoids the potential where, if as you assert, Jesus (being God) wrote the scripture himself, then why did he contradict himself in his revelation of the scriptures to Matthew and Luke?

He didn't.

So, according to your interpretation, I assume that your position is something akin to "he wrote in riddles that could only be deciphered by apologists". Would that be accurate?

Based on your second, irrelevant sentence, I guess that I'd be correct in assuming that you have never applied the same level scrutiny that you apply to these 'false' religions to your own then?

I actually have a much more liberal view of other religions than you do. You believe that what has most mattered to the majority of men always and everywhere is 100% wrong, while I believe there is a lot of truth in other religions as all men are made in His image and have some truth written in their heart. I simply think where they and Christianity differ, they are wrong and Christianity is right.

Have we met? I don't think so. Rather than assuming that you know more than I do about other religions and what I believe; and then using that assumption as an excuse to introduce another wild goose into the discussion, why don't you address the question I posed? Have you ever applied the same level of scrutiny that you used to identify these 'false' religions to your own?

. . . and after reading the various holy texts, many Christians have converted to other faiths and many have also become non-believers.

No doubt. Jesus predicted that in the parable of the sower.

Another diversion. Shall we go back to the original question? What evidence could you possibly bring to bear that would convince a non-believer, muslim or mormon that your scripture is the authentic revealed text?

How about the Armenian Chronicles of Sebeos? Or isn't an Armenian bishop considered serious?

Never heard of them.

So you retract your assertion that Mohammed isn't ratified in the texts of 'serious' historians? Surely, you're not going to take the intellectually dishonest approach of ignoring this, are you?

. . . only if you accept that the NT narratives weren't written with the intent of fulfilling prophecy

OK, let's see some evidence for this grand conspiracy theory. Wouldn't ONE person have betrayed it? Any why would the Apostles knowingly die for a lie?

Surprisingly for some, there are many people who have spent their entire academic lives studying religious texts . . . and they are not apologists. Perhaps you should expand your reading to encompass some of the academic reviews of the bible? I'd recommend that you try reading something by Bart Ehrman for starters - then you might like to graduate up to some of the more intense analyses of the aramaic and greek manuscripts.

- and even then they (the authors and your 'eyewitnesses'; or was that, according to your assertion, God himself) couldn't get it right --- Matthew (27:9) tries to ascribe the 'Potters Field' prophecy to Jeremiah. Have a read of Jeremiah and see how accurate Matthew (or is that Jesus/God?) was.

From the website greatcom.org:

"Doesn't Matthew make a mistake by attributing a prophecy to Jeremiah when it actually was given by Zechariah?
<SNIP>

A possible solution is . . . <SNIP>
Perhaps the best solution would be . . . <SNIP>
Dr. J. E. Rosscup of Talbot Seminary adheres to a view . . . . <SNIP>

"authority' of apologists was discussed above

One of the fields which God had in mind was the potter's field.

. . . although some apologists appear to have a very clear understanding of God's thinking processes!

I see. So you are of the school that considers that every word ascribed to Josephus is accurate and, therefore, Jesus was a miracle worker. I find this view fascinating. Josephus, as you know, was a Jew. Yet he openly assigns the mantle of Messiah to Jesus . . . Why would that be?

Wrong, I do believe parts of the Testimonium were tampered with, but what is probably genuine tell us quite a bit of Jesus, and it corresponds with the Bible.

Perhaps you might consider reading some academic analyses of the Testimonium Flavianium as well? I think you woud find it hard to put together more than a paragraph that might be confidently ascribed to Jesus (Oh and BTW - I do believe that a person named Jesus/Jeshua existed around 2000ya and that the NT is derived from his activities).

Just seems a little odd that Josephus, who happily devotes pages recording the history of non-descript citizens and assorted criminal personalities, was unable to write more than about ten lines about a holy man who had performed "wondrous works" and was able to attract huge crowds to hear him speak.

I admit - I haven't read the Babylonian Talmud.

As for the Qu'ran . . . well it was developed about 600-700 years after Jesus died. Perhaps these references came about because there were no eyewitnesses to counter any discrepancies that Muhammed might have heard from the Jews and Christians who lived in his local community.

Excuse me, why would there be eyewitnesses 600-700 years after the fact?

Correction. I have read the Babylonian Talmud. Silly me! I have three different copies of the Talmud on my bookshelf! (It was late when I replied).

Unfortunately, my attempt at sarcasm wasn't successful. I was attempting to point out that there were no eye witnesses around when Muhammed had those verses revealed to him - therefore there is no-one who could remind Muhammed that these were in fact, stories that he had heard from the christians and jews who lived in his local community.

Again, at the risk of a massive derail: Provide your evidence.

Start another thread, although we are covering some of it here.

I'd happily start another thread - but there has been no evidence provided yet. I don't consider that baseless assertion and the illogical output of apologists constitutes evidence.

If you have something else - let me know.

[His Name Is John]

Neither should have been printed.

It's just that Catholic's have thicker skins.

[micatala]

Then you are misusing the term "free speech." That phrase comes from the 1A

But is not limited to the 1A. The 'free speech' movement on campuses in the '60s had nothing to do with Congress either.

I can accept there can be multiple connotations. However, if we use the term "free speech" in the context of "rights" then the implication is that it is a first amendment issue. If we use the word "attack" then the implication is that someone is trying to prevent a person from engaging in protected speech.


Again, neither of these is happening in this instance. Thus, the use of this term seems to me to be inappropriate, and appears to be an effort at making a victim where none really exists.

Her characterizations of the Park 51 project and the Imam promoting it were blatantly untruthful.

Cite, or are you just saying that because you disagree with her about the mosque location?

Since this is off-topic, I will not get into the details here. You may recall we went over this in another thread. The issue is not my disagreement with Ms. Gellar's objection to the location. Some of the issues were:

1) Portraying in her advertising that the structure would be literally at Ground Zero. That is not accurate.
2) Showing a portrayal of a domed mosque structure, ala the one in Jerusalem, again right at Ground Zero. Again, not accurate.
3) Inaccurate and nigh on slanderous comments about the Imam.
4) Inaccurate, inflammatory, and insulting suggestions that this was intended to be a "victory mosque," a sort of celebration of the success of 9-11.

Having now seen both ads, I agree, the NYT acted inconsistently, perhaps even hypocrtically. Perhaps some will buy their argument that they did not publish they ad because of fear of the repurcussions. It is certainly not unreasonable, given past events, that such repurcussions were a legitimate possibility. The issue is whether one should avoid publication to avoid that possibility.

I would agree the anti-Catholic ad was over the top. All else being equal, if they publish one they should probably publish the other.

Agreed, either all or nothing. It's like saying you're only going to run ads from one political party and not the other.

We are in agreement here. While they are not under a legal obligation necessarily to do so, I think the Times is under an ethical and professional obligation to be fair and avoid if possible the appearance of unfairness.

So, is it correct to infer you would be OK if they had published neither ad?

Yes. I know newspapers are hurting, but if it were up to me I would take a soap ad over one insulting large groups of people.

I am more or less in agreement here as well.

And again, I am not sure "pressure groups" are the issue here. Their arguments had to do with public safety, and safety of our troops in harms way.

Did we tone down our rhetoric against Hitler and Tojo in WWII for that reason?

This is a non sequitur.

There is a difference between Hitler and Tojo, as rulers of countries we were officially at war with, and angry mobs of private citizens. There is a difference between angry mobs of private citizens and "pressure groups" who are organized and engage in planned action to influence the political process or other private entities.


I am not saying Islamic pressure groups do not exist.

I am saying that the possibility that such an ad would provoke some in the Islamic world to riot or engage in spontaneous violence does not make those hypothetical individuals into a pressure group. To have a pressure group you need to have planning and intention to produce a particular effect.


I would certainly accept that pressure groups (and Al-Qaeda could be considered such, one that employs terror to exert pressure) might use such an ad as an excuse for action, in addition to any spontaneous reactions which occur. The Times does not, as far as I am aware, allude to groups like Al-Qaeda, but seem to be concerned about the spontaneous rioting.

I have not see any evidence that Muslim "pressure groups" of any type were aware of the potential ad, or took action to stop its publication.

[dusk]

Not really, parts of the Bible were written within a few decades of the events, while the eyewitnesses would have been alive to contradict it. Nobody did. It was also far to short a time for legends to develop.

A few decades is quite a long time. Also there was no wikipedia, no internet, not printing machine. There was probably some writer that heard the story and wrote it down. The real eyewitness cannot contradict anything unless they actually know that it is written down in the first place.
If the writer just wrote down the hearsay from a intermediary that heard the preaching of the real eyewitness. Even the real eyewitnesses are most likely the same ones that ran around preaching the teachings of Joshua. Everybody knows that people tend to exaggerate even if they were actually present. They want it to sound better than it was.
Story tellers also add stuff at will if it helps carry over the message. Among Catholics it is accepted that loads of the stories about Jesus aren't really meant to be taken at face value but written later to accentuate the person. Like the children stories with the Angels and the shack. The stories are there to deliver a message which is also why it is entirely unimportant what day you celebrate it. You want to celebrate the birth of your savior. You don't know anything about it. You make up a nice story that kind of fits well.
That is actually what they teach you in the subject religion in school. Taught by Catholic religion teacher.

I also read some book by the current Pope he wrote obviously before he was Pope. The Catholics claim that the symbols, the meaning, the feeling matters more and they think protestants cling to desperately to "the word" sometimes seem to look at the words more than the sentence.
Though when you go further and look at what the vatican accepts as true they are quite crazy in their own right.

Anyway a few decades is nothing and more than ample time for "legends" to develop. That there could be some eyewitness around somewhere means nothing. What matters if there is evidence that the writers were in direct contact with those. The stuff I read suggests there is little such evidence.
Also who knows by what standards the first council picked together what is now considered the bible. Maybe they threw out the stories closer to the truth because they weren't amazingly enough written and put in the more fancy stuff.
What historians can tell about the bible's creation doesn't really inspire a whole lot of confidence in the text. Unless you are very biased and insist the holy spirit made sure it all turned out exactly as it was meant to, it is really quite poor evidence.
Islam's evidence is better even if I much like you don't like their message very much. (not even the moderate versions) Yet objectively speaking they got the more reliable source. Though it might have helped this accumulation of rantings if they had a creation process more like that of the bible.
The holy spirit way might have been the better idea but it still makes for hearsay quality evidence.

A proper prophet would have made sure his words are properly written down instead of wasting all his time preaching and relying on some fools to get it right later.

Maybe I was wrong about this one, but a disclaimer at the beginning might have been a good idea and prevented many problems it caused otherwise.

[East of Eden]

Neither should have been printed.

It's just that Catholic's have thicker skins.

And they don't typically issue death threats against their opponents.

[East of Eden]

Then you are misusing the term "free speech." That phrase comes from the 1A

But is not limited to the 1A. The 'free speech' movement on campuses in the '60s had nothing to do with Congress either.

I can accept there can be multiple connotations. However, if we use the term "free speech" in the context of "rights" then the implication is that it is a first amendment issue. If we use the word "attack" then the implication is that someone is trying to prevent a person from engaging in protected speech.


Again, neither of these is happening in this instance. Thus, the use of this term seems to me to be inappropriate, and appears to be an effort at making a victim where none really exists.

Her characterizations of the Park 51 project and the Imam promoting it were blatantly untruthful.

Cite, or are you just saying that because you disagree with her about the mosque location?

Since this is off-topic, I will not get into the details here. You may recall we went over this in another thread. The issue is not my disagreement with Ms. Gellar's objection to the location. Some of the issues were:

1) Portraying in her advertising that the structure would be literally at Ground Zero. That is not accurate.

The building proposed for the mosque site was damaged on 9/11, making it in many people's minds part of Ground Zero, even though it might not fit the technical use of the term.

2) Showing a portrayal of a domed mosque structure, ala the one in Jerusalem, again right at Ground Zero. Again, not accurate.

I doubt she was proposing that is what the mosque would look like, it was probably just a symbol. I don't think the mosque would have been visible from the street.

3) Inaccurate and nigh on slanderous comments about the Imam.
4) Inaccurate, inflammatory, and insulting suggestions that this was intended to be a "victory mosque," a sort of celebration of the success of 9-11.

Those are matters of opinion, I would tend to agree with hers.