2018-01-03

“Why Did The Washington Post Tweet A Debunked Hit Piece On Jesus?”

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Scandalous. And it’s probably all Donald Trump’s fault! (Seriously…. that’s what the article does suggest)

http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/03/washington-post-tweet-debunked-hit-piece-jesus/

“Given that the article has been widely debunked, what would lead the Washington Post to tweet it out, essentially rerunning it? . . . .

As with so much news coverage these days, the answer to why this essay ran may well boil down to two words: Donald Trump. . . .

It is perfectly acceptable to explore the historic nature of Jesus. It happens in colleges across the world every day. But it should be done in a way that is respectful and balanced. The Washington Post article is neither. . . . .

The protection of minority religious views that media has extended to Islam and Judaism must now be offered to Christianity, as well. Attacks on Christian belief are no longer a redress of historical inequality, they are now simply bigoted. And they need to stop.”

The cause of the alarm at such dire threats to the foundations of our society . . . .

https://twitter.com/PostOpinions/status/945413849636835328

The original article can be read here.

But just to show that the WP really is “balanced” after all, the day before they posted another “shocking” piece arguing how “radical” and “subversive” the story of the magi bringing gifts to Jesus really is.

5 Comments

  • Bob Jase
    2018-01-03 20:31:34 UTC - 20:31 | Permalink

    The majority of the world’s population not only demands you see the invisible clothes of the emperor, it demands you see the invisible emperor too.

  • Attila Csanyi
    2018-01-03 23:30:54 UTC - 23:30 | Permalink

    Comment about the cited article, “Why Jesus’ first Christmas gifts were truly shocking” By Diana Butler Bass December 25, 2017.
    Apparently Diana never really read the gospel stories or if she did, she was thoroughly confused.
    She wrote, “The wise men secretly fascinated me. I did not know what to make of those mysterious kings from the East — their black and brown faces served as a compelling contrast to our white baby Jesus. They wore regal robes and carried exotic and expensive gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh for an infant born of peasant parents in a barn.
    The whole reason they were in a barn in the first place is that authorities forced the young couple, wife heavily pregnant, to leave their home to enroll themselves in a regressive imperial tax scheme.”
    But there is no such story about any “wise men” or “kings” going to the “barn”, bringing gifts to “an infant born of peasant parents in a barn.”
    She cannot tell the difference between Matthew and Luke?
    Actually it is in Matthew that we can read about some unnumbered “magi” or “wise men” (“μάγοι”) who are guided to a house (“οἰκίαν”) and not a barn, by a moving star.
    Also, only the baby’s mother is mentioned in the episode.
    O, well…..
    AC (Born-again skeptic)

  • Kelly Wellington
    2018-01-04 05:13:48 UTC - 05:13 | Permalink

    I always end up wondering why it was that AMatthew found it necessary to have the members of the holy priesthood of the peoples of the Parthian empire to the east, following a miraculous star (for magi priests were astronomers and astrologers), especially since the powers that be in Judea were marshalling forces to utterly destroy the babe. I suspect it has something to do with the prior ‘savior’ of the Israelites….Cyrus, who had brought their captivity to an end and sponsored the building of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Of course, it also does not hurt that those with the best reputation for foresight in the ancient world – magi – foretold the greatness of the babe.

    Foreshadowing.

  • Pofarmer
    2018-01-04 15:16:29 UTC - 15:16 | Permalink

    I’m not sure that “The Federalist” isn’t a Russian media plant, to be honest.

  • Greg Shelley
    2018-01-04 21:58:38 UTC - 21:58 | Permalink

    I just read the “debunking”. It was embarrassingly bad.
    I suspect that for many historicists, they are so convinced they are right they feel they do t need to bother with actual arguments, just throw out a few “nuh uhs” and claim victory, without pausing to consider if their “refutation “ was addressed in the article they are pretending to respond to.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.