Killing Jesus - Bill O'Reilly

[LisaA]

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.

I’d never heard about him converting or even having a positive impression of Jesus. However he is often cited having included Christ in what was considered very a credible history. Those who claim Jesus never lived…notwithstanding any reference to his Resurrection…have little to support their theories with several accounts by either pagan or Jewish writers who would have no reason to fabricate a character such as Jesus.

Continuing to read Killing Jesus after a week off (out of town) and it is very historical in nature. O’Reilly was asked by Stuart Varney (Fox Business) why it was not a religious book and O’Reilly stated that his series is intended to be historical and fact focused rather than philosophical. He also claimed that the reason Jesus was crucified was that He interfered with the financial stranglehold of the Romans and the upper crust Jewish priests who had a good thing going with the Temple and the taxes.

So far I like the book and find it not only credible but fascinating. The first section deals with Roman history, the murder of Caesar, various battles resulting therefrom and various palace intrigues as different factions vied for power.

Lisa

 

[Bill1940]

O’Reilly makes a stretch to assert that one cannot speak while crucified. Our Lord hung upon the Cross for three hours and all the while, breathed enough to sustain at least a glimmer of life. No matter how much the pain, one can articulate words in gasps, if one is desperate to communicate something urgent. Mary, John and others were present and fixedly attentive and probably our source for the last seven things Jesus said in His agony. The saying that touches me the most is, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”. It is fundamentally ignorance that leads us into sin and away from God. If we knew, really knew, would we reject Love? Forgive my ignorance, Dear Lord.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

O’Reilly makes a stretch to assert that one cannot speak while crucified. Our Lord hung upon the Cross for three hours and all the while, breathed enough to sustain at least a glimmer of life. No matter how much the pain, one can articulate words in gasps, if one is desperate to communicate something urgent. Mary, John and others were present and fixedly attentive and probably our source for the last seven things Jesus said in His agony. The saying that touches me the most is, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”. It is fundamentally ignorance that leads us into sin and away from God. If we knew, really knew, would we reject Love? Forgive my ignorance, Dear Lord.

If he were correct it would mean that no one crucified spoke. Not the thousands that it happened to and certainly not the two thieves.
I would think that if no one crucified could speak that probably would have been caught in the early Church. During the writing of the Gospels and such.

 

[LisaA]

If he were correct it would mean that no one crucified spoke. Not the thousands that it happened to and certainly not the two thieves.
I would think that if no one crucified could speak that probably would have been caught in the early Church. During the writing of the Gospels and such.

Good point. Certainly many have attempted to dispute the crucifixion even occurred and if no one could communicate it would have been easy evidence to argue the point that this could not have happened. Also seems to ignore that Christ could do many things that mere mortals could not!

There have been a number of experiments where researchers have (to the extent possible) put volunteers into a mock crucifixion to monitor their response. Although certainly not nailed to the cross, I watched several documentaries where the volunteers were tied with arms up and then allowed to hold the position until too distressed to continue. The individuals could communicate although certainly it was a struggle as difficulty breathing is immediate.

Lisa

 

[loucyfer21]

I am reading it right now and so far a good book on the “history” of Jesus and what Bill thinks. But isn’t that on any book, I mean any book on this subject(jesus)…isn’t it just a “man’s” opinion about the history of antiquity. Nobody has the “facts”…NOBODY!!! It’s the one thing that throws a monkey wrench into the “faith” thing. I have read many books about someones authority on this subject, believers and non-believers. And to this day not one can provide any real “facts” to back up their words.

 

[ManOnFire]

Doesn’t sound like anyone has read it yet.

But it doesn’t seem to stop people from telling what an awful book it is.

So many judgmental haters with closed minds… I bet they have no problem with the IRS unfairly targeting and auditing certain groups as long as they are enemies. The nazis did the same, and yes, it truly applies now that the prejudice, unfairness and injustice is obvious. Time to fly the flags at half mast next July 4th.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Norah O’Donnell: You include two quotes from Jesus on the cross, but not the most famous one: “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” Why not?

Bill O’Reilly: We don’t put in things that we don’t think happened.

Norah O’Donnell: How do you know?

Bill O’Reilly: Because you couldn’t say something like that, audibly that people would hear. He, you die on a cross from being suffocated. That your lungs can’t take in anymore air. You can hardly breathe. We believe Jesus said that, but we don’t believe he said it on the cross, 'cause nobody could’ve heard it.

‘’…cause nobody could’ve heard it"

If ↑ this is true, then ↓ this is false;

*One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!”
But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”
And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” *
Luke 23:39-43 (ESV)

And this;*

Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!”*

And this;

“…but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”

And this;

After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), “I thirst.”

 

[7_Sorrows]

I’d never heard about him converting or even having a positive impression of Jesus. However he is often cited having included Christ in what was considered very a credible history. Those who claim Jesus never lived…notwithstanding any reference to his Resurrection…have little to support their theories with several accounts by either pagan or Jewish writers who would have no reason to fabricate a character such as Jesus.

Continuing to read Killing Jesus after a week off (out of town) and it is very historical in nature. O’Reilly was asked by Stuart Varney (Fox Business) why it was not a religious book and O’Reilly stated that his series is intended to be historical and fact focused rather than philosophical. He also claimed that the reason Jesus was crucified was that He interfered with the financial stranglehold of the Romans and the upper crust Jewish priests who had a good thing going with the Temple and the taxes.

So far I like the book and find it not only credible but fascinating. The first section deals with Roman history, the murder of Caesar, various battles resulting therefrom and various palace intrigues as different factions vied for power.

Lisa

thanks for your critique of the book so far. I hope I get a chance to read it. I wonder how the sales are going for o’reilly.

 

[Alabotacat]

7 Sorrows, I would go ahead and read those books. Killing Lincoln was fascinating, like a detective story slowly unraveling. I look forward to reading O’Reilly’s books on Kennedy and Jesus, as well.

For all the uninformed above, Bill O’Reilly really is a Roman Catholic, the product of Catholic schools, and even a teacher in one, himself, during his early adulthood. Anyone who takes the time to watch his show regularly will find frequent references to Catholic teachings.

That he sought to write a provably historical account does not mean that O’Reilly does not know, value, and believe all that is written in the Gospels. Rather, I think he was trying to broaden his audience.

And here is one very good reason to buy O’Reilly’s books: every bit of profit from the sales is donated to charity! The guy walks the talk.

 

[pnewton]

If he were correct it would mean that no one crucified spoke. Not the thousands that it happened to and certainly not the two thieves.
I would think that if no one crucified could speak that probably would have been caught in the early Church. During the writing of the Gospels and such.

Well, there is also the fact that man does not float and bread does not spontaneously reproduce. The problem with trying to find only what is provable it relies on a bias against the miraculous, or in this matter, anything outside of the norm. Yet we know even from a worldly point of view things happen outside of the norm all the time, much less what God can do outside of the possible.

The whole thing about not talking is simply ridiculous. These three were on the cross three hours. Yes, if you come back three days later, he might have a point. There was a reason the legs were broken. They were breathing and capable of talking. This is why I do not get my theology from politics. It makes as much sense as the celebrity that thinks their popularity makes them a political expert.

Even when it comes to history, I think I will stay away from those with a noted bias. I made the mistake of reading a Politically Incorrect book on American history. That was my first and last history/politics crossover.

 

[pnewton]

So many judgmental haters with closed minds… I bet they have no problem with the IRS unfairly targeting and auditing certain groups as long as they are enemies. The nazis did the same, and yes, it truly applies now that the prejudice, unfairness and injustice is obvious. Time to fly the flags at half mast next July 4th.

Hmm. Assume much? No one is hating anyone. That is a strong word, but no stronger, mistaken or stranger than bringing Nazis into this discussion.

Romans, I could understand. At least they tangentially relate.

 

[Alabotacat]

Here’s one more thought in response to the person (above) who liked Stephen Colbert’s “critique” of Bill O’Reilly’s book. When Stephen Colbert begins to donate as much as Bill O’Reilly to charity, when he begins to act like the Catholic he claims to be by not totally degrading people he doesn’t like, such as Sarah Palin, than I might possibly be inclined to look harder for something intelligent in what he has to say.

 

[LisaA]

7 Sorrows, I would go ahead and read those books. Killing Lincoln was fascinating, like a detective story slowly unraveling. I look forward to reading O’Reilly’s books on Kennedy and Jesus, as well.

For all the uninformed above, Bill O’Reilly really is a Roman Catholic, the product of Catholic schools, and even a teacher in one, himself, during his early adulthood. Anyone who takes the time to watch his show regularly will find frequent references to Catholic teachings.

That he sought to write a provably historical account does not mean that O’Reilly does not know, value, and believe all that is written in the Gospels. Rather, I think he was trying to broaden his audience.

And here is one very good reason to buy O’Reilly’s books: every bit of profit from the sales is donated to charity! The guy walks the talk.

Absolutely! You can criticize O’Reilly for being a bit bombastic and sometimes abrupt. He may not be the perfect Catholic but let those who are step forward…? I didn’t think so

Also agree that he is very charitably inclined and has been very effective using his position, his bully pulpit and his vast audience to raise money for various worthy causes. He is particularly devoted to Wounded Warriors and having volunteered for another troop support group, my contact with that organization was absolutely positive. O’Reilly is an example of someone who uses wealth and power to also glorify God and help his fellow man. This is in sharp contrast to many wealthy politicians and TV celebrities who are uninterested in anything beyond their lifestyle.

Continuing to read Killing Jesus and as O’Reilly and Dugard set the stage, various battles and power struggles among the Romans and their appointees in Judea continue to create the milieu for the persecution and death of Christ.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Here’s one more thought in response to the person (above) who liked Stephen Colbert’s “critique” of Bill O’Reilly’s book. When Stephen Colbert begins to donate as much as Bill O’Reilly to charity, when he begins to act like the Catholic he claims to be by not totally degrading people he doesn’t like, such as Sarah Palin, than I might possibly be inclined to look harder for something intelligent in what he has to say.

I believe Colbert also claims he is Catholic or at least was raised Catholic. I do not watch the man but the clips I’ve seen demonstrate a caustic and acerbic manner.

Oh and to 7 Sorrows, I understand the book is number 1 on Amazon and other book lists.

Lisa

 

[7_Sorrows]

7 Sorrows, I would go ahead and read those books. Killing Lincoln was fascinating, like a detective story slowly unraveling. I look forward to reading O’Reilly’s books on Kennedy and Jesus, as well.

For all the uninformed above, Bill O’Reilly really is a Roman Catholic, the product of Catholic schools, and even a teacher in one, himself, during his early adulthood. Anyone who takes the time to watch his show regularly will find frequent references to Catholic teachings.

That he sought to write a provably historical account does not mean that O’Reilly does not know, value, and believe all that is written in the Gospels. Rather, I think he was trying to broaden his audience.

And here is one very good reason to buy O’Reilly’s books: every bit of profit from the sales is donated to charity! The guy walks the talk.

thank you for your thoughts! I am waiting for the other two o’reilly books to come out in paperback. currently I am reading bishop fulton sheen’s Life of Christ which is very good.

I am glad to hear that o’reilly is being so generous and donating the profit from the sales to charity. that speaks well of him as a Catholic.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I believe Colbert also claims he is Catholic or at least was raised Catholic. I do not watch the man but the clips I’ve seen demonstrate a caustic and acerbic manner.

Oh and to 7 Sorrows, I understand the book is number 1 on Amazon and other book lists.

Lisa

thanks for the info on where the book is on amazon and other lists. I wasn’t sure if it was a bestseller yet. we sell it at the store I work at, but I haven’t seen that many go through the line when I am working. it seems to be selling better than the Elizabeth smart book though.

I know that Colbert’s sister was running on the democratic ticket somewhere back east recently. I am not sure the type of Catholic he is either. I don’t watch his show. I find him a bit embarrassing. he can have a good sense of humor, but he is too hyper for me.
I know jon stewart represents the liberal side and I think Colbert spoofs o’reilly, but I haven’t watched him enough to see how fair he is.

 

[pnewton]

Here’s one more thought in response to the person (above) who liked Stephen Colbert’s “critique” of Bill O’Reilly’s book. When Stephen Colbert begins to donate as much as Bill O’Reilly to charity, when he begins to act like the Catholic he claims to be by not totally degrading people he doesn’t like, such as Sarah Palin, than I might possibly be inclined to look harder for something intelligent in what he has to say.

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

So, how much does Stephen Colbert donate to charity?

The way this discussion is going it sure seems like this book is more about politics than either history or Jesus. On the other hand, bringing Jesus from the Gospels in as witness to support one’s political position is a tactic both sides use when a topic has virtually nothing to do with the political topic. This assumes, of course, one believes the gospel and doesn’t edit out the parts not politically conducive to one’s own politics.

 

[LisaA]

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

So, how much does Stephen Colbert donate to charity?

Uh…you apparently do not understand the verse. We DO and we MUST judge actions. We cannot judge another’s soul. Referring to O’Reilly’s substantial support of charitable endeavors vis a vis Colbert’s silence on such issues is perfectly legitimate. It is an action, it is public, Further, I recall O’Reilly when asked about pro-life issues told a story of being a young man and upon learning that a female friend was pregnant and contemplating abortion offered to assist her financially and emotionally so she would carry her child to term. Sadly I think she declined the offer but it did make in impact on me that O’Reilly does take his Catholic faith serious.

Maybe Colbert is another Bill Gates but if so he’s keeping it a secret which would be a surprise given the ego of the man and his celebrity status. Much back patting and preening occurs among the glitterati as they attend black tie dinners for some cause or another. Rarely do they keep this quiet.

Aside from that how does this pertain to the thread?

Lisa

 

[pnewton]

Uh…you apparently do not understand the verse.

LOL Your gift of assumption astounds me. I* just *quoted the verse. If you don’t like it, take it up with Jesus. He said it. I believe we needed to be reminded not to cross the line of deciding when one is “acting Catholic” enough for us, usually defined as doing what we do, but also can mean have the same politics I do.

Aside from that how does this pertain to the thread?

This statement.
When Stephen Colbert begins to donate as much as Bill O’Reilly to charity, relies on the knowledge I asked for.

If someone were to post,* “When Mr. X starts posting like the Catholic he claims on his account, I start thinking he has something to add to the discussion”,* while pointing out faults you have, would you object? Such a statement goes beyond actions to what people* are.* That is why I put that verse in. We need to not personalize attacks. A little application of Golden Rule substitution shows this.

EDIT - I just scanned back through. I did not see one person question Bill O’Reilly;s faith. If they did, the same thing would apply.

 

[LisaA]

LOL Your gift of assumption astounds me. I* just *quoted the verse. If you don’t like it, take it up with Jesus. He said it. I believe we needed to be reminded not to cross the line of deciding when one is “acting Catholic” enough for us, usually defined as doing what we do, but also can mean have the same politics I do.

This statement.
When Stephen Colbert begins to donate as much as Bill O’Reilly to charity, relies on the knowledge I asked for.

If someone were to post, “LisaA claims to be Catholic” while pointing out faults you have, would you object? Such a statement goes beyond actions to what people* are.* That is why I put that verse in. We need to not personalize attacks.

No you are completely misunderstanding both the verse and the original phrase. It’s not a matter of “liking” or disliking the words of Christ but understanding them rather than misrepresenting them. As to the poster’s personal conclusion, if he/she judges one person’s actions vis a vis another it doesn’t make him/her more or less Catholic.

Again what does this rabbit trail have to do with the OP? I think a number of posters are disgusted with those who haven’t read the book, have some beef with O’Reilly and then claim that because they don’t like O’Reilly’s style or his politics that the book must be panned.

So have you read the book and what do/did you think of it?

Lisa