Killing Jesus - Bill O'Reilly

[prodigalson2011]

prodigalson2011, thank you for those links, but nothing therein establishes anything concerning Bill’s support for the Church–financially, in prayer or on the air. You have no right to say on a public forum that he does not support the Church. My guess is that he contributes more each year than everyone on this thread will have contributed in their lifetimes.

My apologies. I should have been more clear. I meant that he does not always support the Church in its teaching. In other words, he’s a cafeteria Catholic. On the issue of gay marriage, for example, he recently had this to say:

"The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals … ‘We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else.’ That’s a compelling argument, and to deny that you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible."

Can any faithful, informed Catholic here read that and not be offended?

As to his financial contribution, I don’t care to speculate, but to say he’s probably given more than all of us misses the point. He’s a multimillionaire, so what is a lot to us is not much to him. God is more pleased by the man who has little yet gives all than the man who has much and gives a little, even if that little be a lot by the common man’s standards. Mind you, I’m not saying that O’Reilly doesn’t give as much or more, comparatively speaking, than anyone else. I have no idea what he does with his money; he might be exremely charitable for all I know. I’m simply saying that just because he has more money to give doesn’t make him a better Catholic than anyone else.

The links do establish what has already been stated in this thread; what he himself would admit, and is common knowledge–he is arrogant, pompous and quick to believe he knows it all. Personally, I believe he was so shocked, hurt and ashamed of the homosexual perversion that has infested and defiled the human element of the Church, that he lashed out at my beloved JPII as recounted in your links.

I think you judge him too kindly. Keep in mind he also said: “‘I have never liked this pope. I have always felt he was an autocrat who had no vision about how people live in the real world.”*

This from a coddled first-world multimillionaire, speaking about a man who survived years of occupation, oppression and persecution by two totalitarian regimes and went on to play a key role in the downfall of communism. That is the height of pomposity. Not to mention, as a Catholic, he should know that Christianity does not conform to the standards of the world.

• Note also; Bill is not the only person to make this remark. And this particular charge is usually directed at his very vocal condemnation of contraception, which means that this is probably another Church teaching from which Bill dissents, to go back to the point about Bill not supporting the Church in its moral authority. In fact, if you read his first book, “The O’Reilly Factor”, he implicitly condones premarital sex, as well.

While I agree with you completely about the major shortcomings of his book, Killing Jesus, and while I defer to your excellent grasp of the history here at issue, you may have been a might harsh in your reply to Starrsmother. She was looking at the undeniable benefits that will come to millions of ignoramuses because of his book, while you were looking at, and rightly critical of, its not unsubstantial flaws that were clear to someone of your knowledge. Your two perspectives are not entirely mutually exclusive.

Starrsmother, if you are reading this and you were offended by my response to your post, my sincerest apologies. All of my sarcasm is directed at Mr. O’Reilly, but in hindsight I can see that it might also be offensive to you and his other readers. I hope you’ll forgive me.

 

[utah_rose]

He was being interviewed by the Today show this morning about it. I watched as much as I could stomach.
My opinion, and it ain’t pretty.
First, the idea that Bill (DO IT LIVE!!) O’Reilly can write anything outside of a grocery list is laughable. My guess is, like so many other “celebrity authors”, it was ghost-written. I’m sure he read it so he didn’t look completely clueless in the interview.
Second, to have this pro-war, pro-torture…individual, write a book on Jesus, to me, comes very near to blasphemy.

I won’t read this book, but he doesn’t ghost write. I have read both The Killing of Lincoln and also The Killing of Kennedy, and both were well written. Furthermore, he gave proceeds of these books to charity. I think to the Wounded Warrier Project.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

That doesn’t justify it.
.

It does not have to be justified Prodigalson2011. It is what it is.
When he writes about Herod liking purple one summer day when his big toe hurt, he is not trying to convey this as “fact” It is a story. Which is why it is pointless for you to even really critique it. You haven’t read it. You don’t even understand that it is supposed to be historical fiction. It is similar to the other “killing” books. Which I gather you have not read either. But not because of “Catholic” sentiments but probably just because you don’t like him. Which, again, is fine! Don’t read him. There are lots of people I don’t read simply because it is not my bag. Not only that but O’Reilly himself is hard for me to stomach sometimes. Just like Beck.
In this day and age of soundbite wars and little to no education on the issues, sometimes a book has to be written that starts at the lower levels of the argument.
And that is what this book is. You and I may be “above” such sensationalistic drivel but it probably needs to be written and read by someone! It needs to start a conversation. And that is what it does. If you wish to join in on the conversation please offer more than just what you have been “told” about something.

Think of Bill as a media Matthew Kelly. Not much substance, but it is the kindling that could start a fire.

 

[prodigalson2011]

There are many things even in the NT that don’t necessarily agree even between the 4 gospels. One example alone is that in one gospel Jesus fed the masses with the loaves and fishes on 2 separate occasions–in the other it happened once only. The story of the ear being cut off the centurion and healed when Jesus was apprehended is told in one gospel but missing in 3 others.

Absence of mention does not equate to a denial of occurence. Just because one Gospel only mentions one instance of miraculous multiplication and the other mentions two does not mean that the former denies the truth of the latter’s claims.

Even the exact manner of Judas’ death differs between gospels–from him hanging himself to his basically being eviscerated. Do these differences mean that Mathew is right but John was wrong or that Luke has the true tale but Mark needs revisited?

The accounts of Judas’ death are actually only found in Matthew and Acts, and in the case of Acts it is not a direct account, but a quote of a speech made by Peter. Much has already been written on this exact question, and the resolution is really quite simple. From Catholic Answers own “Ask An Apologist” forum:

*There are two possible ways to reconcile the verses:

Luke’s purpose in Acts may have been simply to report what Peter said at a point in time when the apostles’ information on Judas’s death may well have been sketchy. After some of the Temple priests converted (cf. Acts 6:7), they may have given further details on Judas’s death that were later incorporated into the Gospel accounts.

It is also possible that after Judas hanged himself the rope broke and he fell onto rocks that disemboweled him postmortem. Matthew’s emphasis then would have been Judas’s actions in taking his own life, while Peter’s emphasis was on what happened to him after his suicide.*

In other words, as regards the first possibility, Luke was just quoting something Peter said before he knew the “full story.” The second possibility is that they are not contradictory at all, but that Matthew simply refers to Judas’ act of hanging himself, while Peter is talking about what happened to the corpse afterwards (namely: it rotted, fell and burst open on the ground.)

We know today that it indeed is more than simply a possibility that Jesus was crucified with nails through His wrists rather than hands. 100 years ago if anyone had proposed such an idea–even though the reality of suspending anyone with nails through their hands and having the crucified person stay put is utterly impossible-- someone would have been screaming HERETIC at the top of their lungs!

I don’t know if this is an impression you’ve been given by O’Reilly, but it’s patently false. The Shroud of Turin itself clearly depicts a man crucified through the wrists, and that fact has never posed a problem to the millions of believers who have venerated it for centuries.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I don’t know if this is an impression you’ve been given by O’Reilly, but it’s patently false. The Shroud of Turin itself clearly depicts a man crucified through the wrists, and that fact has never posed a problem to the millions of believers who have venerated it for centuries.

Now we are in agreement. And there are some things like this in the book that are obviously his errant and anti Catholic opinion.

 

[utah_rose]

My apologies. I should have been more clear. I meant that he does not always support the Church in its teaching. In other words, he’s a cafeteria Catholic. On the issue of gay marriage, for example, he recently had this to say:

"The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals … ‘We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else.’ That’s a compelling argument, and to deny that you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible."

Can any faithful, informed Catholic here read that and not be offended?

As to his financial contribution, I don’t care to speculate, but to say he’s probably given more than all of us misses the point. He’s a multimillionaire, so what is a lot to us is not much to him. God is more pleased by the man who has little yet gives all than the man who has much and gives a little, even if that little be a lot by the common man’s standards. Mind you, I’m not saying that O’Reilly doesn’t give as much or more, comparatively speaking, than anyone else. I have no idea what he does with his money; he might be exremely charitable for all I know. I’m simply saying that just because he has more money to give doesn’t make him a better Catholic than anyone else.

I think you judge him too kindly. Keep in mind he also said: “‘I have never liked this pope. I have always felt he was an autocrat who had no vision about how people live in the real world.”*

This from a coddled first-world multimillionaire, speaking about a man who survived years of occupation, oppression and persecution by two totalitarian regimes and went on to play a key role in the downfall of communism. That is the height of pomposity. Not to mention, as a Catholic, he should know that Christianity does not conform to the standards of the world.

• Note also; Bill is not the only person to make this remark. And this particular charge is usually directed at his very vocal condemnation of contraception, which means that this is probably another Church teaching from which Bill dissents, to go back to the point about Bill not supporting the Church in its moral authority. In fact, if you read his first book, “The O’Reilly Factor”, he implicitly condones premarital sex, as well.

Starrsmother, if you are reading this and you were offended by my response to your post, my sincerest apologies. All of my sarcasm is directed at Mr. O’Reilly, but in hindsight I can see that it might also be offensive to you and his other readers. I hope you’ll forgive me.

I like O’Reilly, but don’t necessarily agree with him. As for the same sex marriage, I read that this is now Fox’s belief, and all of the people on it including O’Reilly, Hannity, Megan Kelly et all sadly have to conform to this. O’Reiilly privately may had a different opinion, but doesn’t broadcast it. He’s supposed to be a good Catholic, but I do know he has disagreed with Blessed Pope Paul 11 and I think Pope Benedict also. Sadly, Fox contributes to the gay movement, and some of their newscasters and consultants are also gay. Even Hannity avoids this subject. So, because of this my regard for Fox itself has rapidly gone downhill, although its usually much fairer to Christians than Cnn and MNBC. O’Reilly would be a great Catholic if he publicly disavowed their views, and just bowed out. He certainly has enough money.

 

[prodigalson2011]

It does not have to be justified Prodigalson2011. It is what it is.
When he writes about Herod liking purple one summer day when his big toe hurt, he is not trying to convey this as “fact” It is a story. Which is why it is pointless for you to even really critique it. You haven’t read it. You don’t even understand that it is supposed to be historical fiction. It is similar to the other “killing” books. Which I gather you have not read either. But not because of “Catholic” sentiments but probably just because you don’t like him. Which, again, is fine! Don’t read him. There are lots of people I don’t read simply because it is not my bag. Not only that but O’Reilly himself is hard for me to stomach sometimes. Just like Beck.
In this day and age of soundbite wars and little to no education on the issues, sometimes a book has to be written that starts at the lower levels of the argument.
And that is what this book is. You and I may be “above” such sensationalistic drivel but it probably needs to be written and read by someone! It needs to start a conversation. And that is what it does. If you wish to join in on the conversation please offer more than just what you have been “told” about something.

The only person who has “told” me anything about this book is O’Reilly himself. You may understand it as being historical fiction, but that’s not how Bill is billing it, nor is that how it’s being sold.

As to why I have not read it, it’s because there are a million other books I’d rather read. It has nothing to do with either my Catholic sentiments or my dislike of Mr. O’Reilly. I don’t like Nietzsche, he definitely offends my Catholic sentiments, but I still read him. Same goes for countless other writers who stand at odds with my own worldview and some of whom I also have as much a personal distaste for as Mr. O’Reilly. So all of these charges of my critique being based on my personal distaste for O’Reilly are severely misplaced. They are based on the things he has said about the book himself. I have said it again and again: the only reason I even mentioned my distaste for O’Reilly to begin with was to account for my harsh and sarcastic tone. My views on his statements about this book are based on the content of those statements alone. I would say the same thing no matter who said them.

So, unless someone who has read the book would care to show me where I am mistaken in the implications of O’Reilly own public pronouncements, all of my statements heretofore stand unchallenged.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Now we are in agreement. And there are some things like this in the book that are obviously his errant and anti Catholic opinion.

Ah! It feels so much better to agree!

 

[utah_rose]

I’m disappointed because I’ve yet to read a Catholic review of this book in a blog, or Catholic publication. I thought for sure that the Register would have written something about it, but so far nothing.

Bill O’Reilly did have Raymond Arroyo on his show a few days after the book was published, and he seemed to have no problem with it. I thought that maybe Raymond would have had a commentary on this book on his show, but haven’t heard anything yet.

Has anyone here seen a Catholic Review? I hesitate to read this because as posters said there have been many books on the historical Jesus, and it troubles me that he did not mention His divinity.

I remember Jim Bishop wrote a very good book, “The Day Christ Died” and also Bishop Sheen.“Life of Christ” is excellent. I reread Bishop Sheen’s book every Lent.

That said however, perhaps O’Reilly’s book could be a starter for some non-Christians. And who are we to question his motives? Jesus sometimes works in mysterious ways on the people you’d least suspect.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The only person who has “told” me anything about this book is O’Reilly himself. You may understand it as being historical fiction, but that’s not how Bill is billing it, nor is that how it’s being sold.

As to why I have not read it, it’s because there are a million other books I’d rather read. It has nothing to do with either my Catholic sentiments or my dislike of Mr. O’Reilly. I don’t like Nietzsche, he definitely offends my Catholic sentiments, but I still read him. Same goes for countless other writers who stand at odds with my own worldview and some of whom I also have as much a personal distaste for as Mr. O’Reilly. So all of these charges of my critique being based on my personal distaste for O’Reilly are severely misplaced. They are based on the things he has said about the book himself. I have said it again and again: the only reason I even mentioned my distaste for O’Reilly to begin with was to account for my harsh and sarcastic tone. My views on his statements about this book are based on the content of those statements alone. I would say the same thing no matter who said them.

So, unless someone who has read the book would care to show me where I am mistaken in the implications of O’Reilly own public pronouncements, all of my statements heretofore stand unchallenged.

I think you are falling prey to O’reilly’s own sensationalistic approach.

Of course your sentiments are challenged. You have not read the book.
And pulling a quote by a man trying to sell a book and cause a sir is hardly a good source for you to base a critique on.

 

[Starrsmother]

Absence of mention does not equate to a denial of occurence. Just because one Gospel only mentions one instance of miraculous multiplication and the other mentions two does not mean that the former denies the truth of the latter’s claims.

The accounts of Judas’ death are actually only found in Matthew and Acts, and in the case of Acts it is not a direct account, but a quote of a speech made by Peter. Much has already been written on this exact question, and the resolution is really quite simple. From Catholic Answers own “Ask An Apologist” forum:

*There are two possible ways to reconcile the verses:

Luke’s purpose in Acts may have been simply to report what Peter said at a point in time when the apostles’ information on Judas’s death may well have been sketchy. After some of the Temple priests converted (cf. Acts 6:7), they may have given further details on Judas’s death that were later incorporated into the Gospel accounts.

It is also possible that after Judas hanged himself the rope broke and he fell onto rocks that disemboweled him postmortem. Matthew’s emphasis then would have been Judas’s actions in taking his own life, while Peter’s emphasis was on what happened to him after his suicide.*

In other words, as regards the first possibility, Luke was just quoting something Peter said before he knew the “full story.” The second possibility is that they are not contradictory at all, but that Matthew simply refers to Judas’ act of hanging himself, while Peter is talking about what happened to the corpse afterwards (namely: it rotted, fell and burst open on the ground.)

I don’t know if this is an impression you’ve been given by O’Reilly, but it’s patently false. The Shroud of Turin itself clearly depicts a man crucified through the wrists, and that fact has never posed a problem to the millions of believers who have venerated it for centuries.

The reason that most crucifixes today show Christ crucified through His hands is that from the Middle Ages until recently that was how most of the “experts” thought they did it. They were wrong–and no I didn’t need O’Reilly to inform me of that–it was an example I used as to people being so scrupulous over detail that they become disinterested in the entire picture as a whole.

Yes, the loaves and fishes episode could have occurred twice—but many theological experts–including those who wrote the New American Bible–a Catholic bible with footnotes—tend to believe that it happened only once but was referred to twice in one particular gospel Who is right? Who knows. Do I think the discrepancy vital? No, not at all. Doing it even once is good enough for me. Again, I mentioned it only as evidence that if the only things that can be considered in discussing Jesus’ life on earth are the gospels–and if there is no other substantial historical evidence to prove He existed other than these religious and biblical sources (thus having an agenda) but nothing secularly historical–then we are probably in big trouble. This, however, is not the case. History proves what the NT records concerning Jesus. To me–this is a good not a bad thing as I always am more interested in the truth–even if it turns out to be unpleasant or challenges me on a long held belief.

One can certainly try to “reconcile” the different possibilities concerning Judas’ death–or then again, one can simply accept that, at the realization of what he had done by turning Jesus in to the authorities sunk in to his mind, he died–probably from suicide–which would have been the second stupidest thing he did that particular day.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The reason that most crucifixes today show Christ crucified through His hands is that from the Middle Ages until recently that was how most of the “experts” thought they did it. They were wrong–and no I didn’t need O’Reilly to inform me of that–it was an example I used as to people being so scrupulous over detail that they become disinterested in the entire picture as a whole.

Yes, the loaves and fishes episode could have occurred twice—but many theological experts–including those who wrote the New American Bible–a Catholic bible with footnotes—tend to believe that it happened only once but was referred to twice in one particular gospel Who is right? Who knows. Do I think the discrepancy vital? No, not at all. Doing it even once is good enough for me. Again, I mentioned it only as evidence that if the only things that can be considered in discussing Jesus’ life on earth are the gospels–and if there is no other substantial historical evidence to prove He existed other than these religious and biblical sources (thus having an agenda) but nothing secularly historical–then we are probably in big trouble. This, however, is not the case. History proves what the NT records concerning Jesus. To me–this is a good not a bad thing as I always am more interested in the truth–even if it turns out to be unpleasant or challenges me on a long held belief.

One can certainly try to “reconcile” the different possibilities concerning Judas’ death–or then again, one can simply accept that, at the realization of what he had done by turning Jesus in to the authorities sunk in to his mind, he died–probably from suicide–which would have been the second stupidest thing he did that particular day.

Do you have any credible Catholic sources for this belief. And how does it mesh with the miracle of the shroud of turin. Not only that but how does it mesh with the Stigmata that many saints have had. I have seen relics of the stigmata and it most certainly is not in the wrists.
Why would God Himself perpetuate a false notion of how He HImself was Crucified?
Really!?

 

[Starrsmother]

Do you have any credible Catholic sources for this belief. And how does it mesh with the miracle of the shroud of turin. Not only that but how does it mesh with the Stigmata that many saints have had. I have seen relics of the stigmata and it most certainly is not in the wrists.
Why would God Himself perpetuate a false notion of how He HImself was Crucified?
Really!?

Can’t speak for stigmata–other than it’s a sign–a miracle so to speak—and I suppose Jesus can do so as He chooses, when He chooses and where He chooses. You’d probably have to ask Jesus about that one–or at a minimum, a true church theologian. I’ve actually read a little on the stigmata discussion–and at least some think that the actual location of the stigmata is less important than the fact that it miraculously appears, doesn’t heal and is associated with certain other signs such as a pleasant fragrance etc.

BUT, as a matter of fact–the Shroud of Turin–which I personally do believe is authentic though it has never been accepted as the real deal by the Catholic church–does support that the nails went through the wrists not the palms. Even if it were ultimately found to be a fraud by the church, it certainly seems to be a genuine burial shroud from someone who was tortured and crucified in the correct Roman tradition.

I don’t think God does promote false myths nor does the church. Listen to the Creed. It simply states that Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried, rose again etc. The issue at discussion here is that human beings–curious creatures that we are and that I admit I am–want to know more detail. Studying secular history can sometimes provide more detail–not always–but sometimes.

Just for the record, here is one Catholic link discussing the actual location of the “hand wounds” on the Shroud and the issues of stigmata:

greatspiritualbattle.com/handvswrist.html

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Can’t speak for stigmata–other than it’s a sign–a miracle so to speak—and I suppose Jesus can do so as He chooses, when He chooses and where He chooses. You’d probably have to ask Jesus about that one–or at a minimum, a true church theologian. I’ve actually read a little on the stigmata discussion–and at least some think that the actual location of the stigmata is less important than the fact that it miraculously appears, doesn’t heal and is associated with certain other signs such as a pleasant fragrance etc.

BUT, as a matter of fact–the Shroud of Turin–which I personally do believe is authentic though it has never been accepted as the real deal by the Catholic church–does support that the nails went through the wrists not the palms. Even if it were ultimately found to be a fraud by the church, it certainly seems to be a genuine burial shroud from someone who was tortured and crucified in the correct Roman tradition.

I don’t think God does promote false myths nor does the church. Listen to the Creed. It simply states that Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried, rose again etc. The issue at discussion here is that human beings–curious creatures that we are and that I admit I am–want to know more detail. Studying secular history can sometimes provide more detail–not always–but sometimes.

Just for the record, here is one Catholic link discussing the actual location of the “hand wounds” on the Shroud and the issues of stigmata:

greatspiritualbattle.com/handvswrist.html

That is not a reliable link. Nor is it convincing

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The reason that most crucifixes today show Christ crucified through His hands is that from the Middle Ages until recently that was how most of the “experts” thought they did it. They were wrong–and no I didn’t need O’Reilly to inform me of that–it was an example I used as to people being so scrupulous over detail that they become disinterested in the entire picture as a whole.

That is the problem with history when we make ourselves authorities on the subject. You use qualifiers meant to bolster your claims when they do little to back them up. “Some people think” “Theologians now think”
Blah Blah Blah…

Then we end up with these silly assumptions that we say like they are facts.

Here.

I will use an admitted non reliable source and even a questionable source will show you that with just a little research you can disprove most of these so called Experts.
Middle ages huh?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_in_the_arts

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Meister_des_Rabula-Evangeliums_002.jpg/800px-Meister_des_Rabula-Evangeliums_002.jpg

As you can see the closer we get to the actual event the story still holds to the hands.

Now at what point do you believe the thought shifted in the artistic world. The renaissance?
Where is your evidence for this. You claim it wrong. Why? You cannot just state something without backup!?
I’ll take the word of God,

John 20:26 And after eight days again Jesus’ Disciples were within, and Thomas was [now] with them. And though the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood in the midst and said: Peace be to you! 27 Then He said to Thomas: Put your finger in here, and see My hands. And bring here your hand, and put it into My side and be not faithless but believing! 28 Thomas answered and said to Him: My Lord and my God! 29 Jesus said to him: Because you have seen Me, Thomas, you have believed. Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed!

The miracles of God Stigmata. ( Padre Pio’s glove to cover the stigmata did not even cover his wrist. I’ve seen it.) The shroud. Clearly wrists.
And the eye witnesses themselves. (bible)
not to mention 2000 years of history of the Church’s greatest saints and artists and theologians. You can have the Johnny come lateys that you cite.

Junk science=Junk history.

But we are off topic aren’t we. And even tough I defended O’reilly’s book, I think we have taken a step backwards and perhaps shown the naysayers that they may have valid points on this historical fiction.

You are making it hard to stay on your side.

 

[Starrsmother]

That is not a reliable link. Nor is it convincing

Then do your own homework and look elsewhere. There are many, many sites with the same exact info–and it certainly doesn’t seem to be in err in any way. But again–if you want the truth–LOOK!!!

 

[pnewton]

He uses older secular material–including ancient pagan writers such as Josephus—to prove that not only did Jesus truly exist but that other religions and cultures took great note of Him and His followers way back when

FYI - Josephus was not a pagan. He was Jewish, probably a Pharisee.

I will pass on the book. I questioned it when I heard him say God told him to write it, then he lost me when he said he didn’t include the parts in the Bible that didn’t happen.

 

[7_Sorrows]

FYI - Josephus was not a pagan. He was Jewish, probably a Pharisee.

I will pass on the book. I questioned it when I heard him say God told him to write it, then he lost me when he said he didn’t include the parts in the Bible that didn’t happen.

thank you for clearing up the fact that josephus was not a pagan. he was jewish, but wasn’t he also a convert?

 

[pnewton]

thank you for clearing up the fact that josephus was not a pagan. he was jewish, but wasn’t he also a convert?

I don’t know. I found this in CE.

newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm

 

[7_Sorrows]

I don’t know. I found this in CE.

newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm

ok. thanks. it doesn’t mention about any conversion to Christianity. I thought I had read somewhere about how he might have been persuaded to write about Jesus for some reason or another. too bad he did not write more.