Killing Jesus - Bill O'Reilly

[10gr8kids]

Isn’t there a big difference in saying, God told me to… vs I was inspired by the Holy Spirit? I’m not saying that O’Rielly was inspired, but I don’t believe it to be improbable. Are we not to discern the Holy Spirit in everything we do? I haven’t read the book nor did I watch the interview, but couldn’t historical facts about Jesus help lead someone to Christ? Maybe he’s just trying to sell a book, but isn’t it possible O’Rielly prayed and asked God for guidance and felt this desire? Who knows if he discerned correctly or not; I always wonder if I discern the Holy Spirit’s will for me correctly.

I just think we need to be careful in our making light of the Holy Spirit’s working in ours and other’s lives.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I’m reading it right now. So far it is no great work of literature but it is ok. He is quite clear that he is not writing a religious book and I appreciate him trying a new format.
I think it is much like Our current Pope. He is starting a dialouge with a world that does not believe. I have had many people actually assert that there was no such thing as Jesus. That he was made up. I think using historical citations to build a “fictional” story could have a beneficial effect. Sometimes you just have to start small. “there was a man named Jesus, this is what he said, this is what the powers that be did, this is what the world was like.” My wife ( the smartest person I know)( usually) asked me if they had a concept of time of day back then. People are so far removed from actual history that I think books like this can help.
It also combats the notion that Jesus did not claim he was God and was just a nice hippie killed by the corporate interests of the time. So far the book is portraying a believable storyline.

My favorite part so far was after describing all the evils of Herod executing the newborns he goes on to describe how a disease has eaten away his testicles. I have no idea if that is historical or accurate but it made me laugh.

What I have gotten out of it so far was how the Romans were so callous about human life. And I think there is a direct parallel to today. Especially with the murder of infants in the womb.

 

[tabycat]

Years ago when I was evangelical myself I would hear things like what O’Reilly claimed. “The Holy Spirit told me ________”, or “God has called me/ given me a burden for (insert upscale, upper middle class part of town)”.
It’s the height of arrogance.

I was not talking about anyone here. I didn’t see any of the shows that O’Reilly was on, but I watch his show sometimes two or three times a week, that was when I heard about some of the reactions to the book. Sorry if I caused any bad feelings.:shrug:

 

[prodigalson2011]

Having just read an interview with Mr. O’Reilly on the topic of this book, I would urge you to toss this one to the dump.

Mr. O’Reilly’s presentation of Christ is highly politicized (which should hardly be surprising) and contradictory of its sources (the Gospels). One of the central claims of this waste of paper: Jesus was killed, not for claiming to be the Son of God… noooo, silly, it was because of his stance on taxes!

Anyone who’s kept track of O’Reilly’s comments on the Church and, in particular, Blessed John Paul II, should know that his understanding of Christ and His Church are desperately wanting.

Instead of reading this half-baked history by an anti-Catholic (and yes, professing Catholics can be anti-Catholic) blowhard, why not read Pope Benedict XVI’s excellent “Jesus of Nazareth - Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection”? Benedict is a much more learned scholar whose intellect far surpasses that of Mr. O’Reilly (sorry, Bill).

My apologies if my somewhat harsh tone offends anybody but, as is undoubtedly obvious, I have very strong feelings about Bill and his ilk; those worldy neo-con Catholics who do more damage to the Church through their defiance and misrepresentation of the faith than their liberal counterparts could ever hope to do.

 

[SamH]

I am the furthest thing from a liberal and I don’t need “talking points”.

That’s Bill’s talking points - or Ted Baxter as he’s become known the last several years.

 

[AnnaDango]

One of the central claims of this waste of paper: Jesus was killed, not for claiming to be the Son of God… noooo, silly, it was because of his stance on taxes!

Okay, so we’re not supposed to believe that part? I saw O’Reilly’s interview on the Today Show and asked my dad about the whole tax thing…he didn’t have much to say. So can you tell a confused seventeen year-old if Jesus died for taxes, for us, or for both? Thanks.

 

[JimG]

Okay, so we’re not supposed to believe that part? I saw O’Reilly’s interview on the Today Show and asked my dad about the whole tax thing…he didn’t have much to say. So can you tell a confused seventeen year-old if Jesus died for taxes, for us, or for both? Thanks.

Well, he died to save us from our sins. That’s the theological answer, and the Christological answer. If you want to examine the history of it in more detail, it’s pretty interesting. If Pilate had wanted Jesus dead, he could have accomplished that easily at any time, without crucifixion. The historical mystery is–why the crucifixion? To answer that from a strictly historical perspective, I would recommend “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity,” by Paula Fredriksen.

 

[Timothysis]

So, two pages into this thread and O’Reilly’s book is widely panned…even though no one has read it. It reminds me of Lauren Green’s interview with Dr. Reza Aslan and his book about Jesus, Zealot. Her first question was, why is a muslim writing a book about Jesus? and then went on reading criticisms from others. It was apparent that she didn’t read the book and the same seems to be here.

Why not start a thread on O’Reilly’s divorce scandal…

 

[KSU]

Well, he died to save us from our sins…The historical mystery is–why the crucifixion?

Because the Jews demanded crucifixion. We all know the story. There never has been any historical mystery about it.

Perhaps I misunderstood you?

 

[JustaServant]

So, two pages into this thread and O’Reilly’s book is widely panned…even though no one has read it. It reminds me of Lauren Green’s interview with Dr. Reza Aslan and his book about Jesus, Zealot. Her first question was, why is a muslim writing a book about Jesus? and then went on reading criticisms from others. It was apparent that she didn’t read the book and the same seems to be here.

Why not start a thread on O’Reilly’s divorce scandal…

I see irrelavent, ghost-written “celebrity” books all the time when I enter chain bookstores, I walk right past them. I have no interest. They are usually badly written, geared toward a junior high reading level, and toward thier target audience. Heck, the last time I was in a chain bookstore I saw several books by the “Duck Dynasty” reality show stars.
My comment is about the AUTHOR of the book, who supports continued wars, and is pro-torture. Neither of which is Catholic let alone remotely Christian.

 

[JustaServant]

I was not talking about anyone here. I didn’t see any of the shows that O’Reilly was on, but I watch his show sometimes two or three times a week, that was when I heard about some of the reactions to the book. Sorry if I caused any bad feelings.:shrug:

I was commenting on O’Reilly’s claim of being “inspired by the Holy Spirit”.
No bad feelings here.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Okay, so we’re not supposed to believe that part? I saw O’Reilly’s interview on the Today Show and asked my dad about the whole tax thing…he didn’t have much to say. So can you tell a confused seventeen year-old if Jesus died for taxes, for us, or for both? Thanks.

Christ’s crucifixion had nothing to do with taxes. The Gospels, being the only explicit historical sources for the passion narrative, all agree that Christ was killed for his perceived blasphemy (claiming to be God Incarnate). In John 8:56-59, we read:

“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” 57 The Jews therefore said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple.

“I am who am” is the response that God gave to Moses when Moses asked for His name (Exodus 3:14). The people are clearly trying to kill him for claiming to be God. And again in John 10:27-33

"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. 29"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30*“I and the Father are one.”** 31The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”*

When Christ is finally apprehended, the Sanhedrin (the Jewish council) makes clear the reason for His arrest. In Luke 22, we read:

66 At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and the teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67 “If you are the Messiah,” they said, “tell us.” Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.” 70 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You say that I am.” 71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”

Now, once they lead Christ to the Romans to attempt to have him executed, they use the fabricated charge of his opposition to taxes (you’ll remember that Christ said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…) as an excuse to have him put to death. But even then, Pilate is not swayed (Luke 23:1-4):

*23 Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king.” 3 So Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?” “You have said so,” Jesus replied. 4 Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”

13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.”*

Ultimately, Pilate agrees to have him crucified, not because he thinks that Christ is deserving, but because the mob becomes fanatical in demanding it. He ultimately does it out of fear of insurrection. That he did not want to do it is made obvious by the fact that, afterwards, he washes his hands and says, “I am innocent of this man’s blood.”

So, upon a simple reading, it is evident that the real reason for Christ’s crucifixion was his claim to be the Son of God. Pilate, the deciding authority, didn’t even want to do it, and it would be preposterous to think that the occupied Jewish people, who were hoping for a political Messiah to overthrow the Romans, would be outraged that someone didn’t want to pay taxes to the very people they so despised. The whole story about taxes is fabricated by the Jewish leaders to try to convince the Roman authorities, who alone had the power to execute, and who had no interest in the Jewish religion or subversion thereof, to crucify Jesus.

I hope that’s helpful.

 

[prodigalson2011]

So, two pages into this thread and O’Reilly’s book is widely panned…even though no one has read it. It reminds me of Lauren Green’s interview with Dr. Reza Aslan and his book about Jesus, Zealot. Her first question was, why is a muslim writing a book about Jesus? and then went on reading criticisms from others. It was apparent that she didn’t read the book and the same seems to be here.

Why not start a thread on O’Reilly’s divorce scandal…

The difference here is that O’Reilly has given interviews in which he makes claims that are clearly contradictory to the faith he professes, not to mention the vast majority of New Testament scholarship. Neither O’Reilly nor Mr. Dugard are New Testament scholars, and Bill is not a historian of any type.

He openly admits, in the interview that has been referenced several times in this thread, that he is a sensationalist. Sensationalists are more concerned with stirring up controversy and attention, and therefore sales, than they are with accuracy or factuality.

With that in mind, note that Bill openly states one of the central claims of his book in the interview: that Jesus was killed for opposing Roman taxation. I don’t need to read his book to know that that’s a load of hogwash. The Gospels, being the only detailed historical accounts of the Passion, make it clear that He was executed for claiming to be God. For a more extensive exposition on why O’Reilly’s theory is utterly stupid, see the above post.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think the Holy Spirit was waiting 2,000 years for Bill O’Reilly to come along and reveal some astonishing new secrets about the death of Christ that centuries’ worth of devout Biblical scholars and historians haven’t already discovered.

In sum, sometimes you can smell the poo before you step in it.

 

[JimG]

Because the Jews demanded crucifixion. We all know the story. There never has been any historical mystery about it.

Perhaps I misunderstood you?

Some of them did. But Roman authority was not known for giving in to the demands of the Jews, and in fact put down Jewish rebellions, most definitively in A.D. 70, but earlier as well. And crucifixion was reserved for political opponents, not religious leaders. Pilate does not seem to have viewed the Jesus movement as any particular threat; if he had, he would have executed the apostles as well.

But there was something about his reception at that last Passover, apparently which made him view Jesus as a more imminent threat, perhaps because his claims for ‘the kingdom’ came to be seen as more immediate rather than something in the future. But it’s been awhile since I read the Fredriksen book, so I’m sort of rehashing it from memory here. Was Pilate just giving in to the demands of a particular crowd on a particular day? Maybe not.

As for the O’Reilly book, I haven’t read it and so can’t comment on it; but there have been many books on the subject.

 

[AnnaDango]

Thanks to those who put my worries to rest. I was guessing I shouldn’t listen to O’Reilly, but I’m glad you guys were able to clarify for me.

 

[Timothysis]

The difference here is that O’Reilly has given interviews in which he makes claims that are clearly contradictory to the faith he professes, not to mention the vast majority of New Testament scholarship. Neither O’Reilly nor Mr. Dugard are New Testament scholars, and Bill is not a historian of any type.

He openly admits, in the interview that has been referenced several times in this thread, that he is a sensationalist. Sensationalists are more concerned with stirring up controversy and attention, and therefore sales, than they are with accuracy or factuality.

With that in mind, note that Bill openly states one of the central claims of his book in the interview: that Jesus was killed for opposing Roman taxation. I don’t need to read his book to know that that’s a load of hogwash. The Gospels, being the only detailed historical accounts of the Passion, make it clear that He was executed for claiming to be God. For a more extensive exposition on why O’Reilly’s theory is utterly stupid, see the above post.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think the Holy Spirit was waiting 2,000 years for Bill O’Reilly to come along and reveal some astonishing new secrets about the death of Christ that centuries’ worth of devout Biblical scholars and historians haven’t already discovered.

In sum, sometimes you can smell the poo before you step in it.

And still you condemn his book without even reading it. Got’cha

 

[LisaA]

And still you condemn his book without even reading it. Got’cha

One of the reasons I get so annoyed with Amazon “reviews” where someone spouts bile and it is obvious they didn’t read the dust jacket.

I’ve started the book and as noted it is very historical with many footnotes and supporting documents noted. I won’t write a review until I finish the book. As to O’Reilly himself as a pundit I find him more knowledgeable than most who are merely world’s best expert on their own opinions.

Lisa

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I am enjoying the book still. It is different and a retelling of a good story. Something hollywood is fond of these days.
I find it odd that so many either hate Bill, or his politics and freak out about a book like this without even reading it. It is good to know that many of you are such adept writers and historians. One wonders if I have read many of your books.

I also envy those who dismiss this book on the grounds that they do not like Bill or that he is misrepresenting the faith. ( He may well do this.) Perhaps you can all help me find TV shows, movies and books that are not antiCatholic. Since that is the criteria you all seem to have. I can’t imagine not reading Twain, Hemingway, or others based on their political or religious views.

Before you all jump to the idea that O’reilly is some sort of Hemingway or Twain, or Hugo, or Lewis, Or Tolkien, please recognize that I know that these books and many books in the modern era are sad, sad works in comparison. We live in a time where more people read the Harry Potter Novels than the Bible and think it is some great work.

If you don’t like Bill, fine. Few do. Even I can only stand so much of his personality and rhetoric. But spare me the idea that it is because of some moral stand you are taking about a guy who is at odds with the faith sometimes. Think about all the other things you watch and read.

 

[MJE]

The liberal MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked “When are we going to have the book we’ve been waiting for, Killing O’Reilly?”
Any liberal/progressive media types (or non media types) expressing disgust @ this comment?

 

[prodigalson2011]

And still you condemn his book without even reading it. Got’cha

Do I need to read Bishop Spong’s books to know that they’re tripe? No. People like him and O’Reilly make their views explicitly clear through other mediums. A few quotes from Mr. O’Reilly:

*“I’m writing a book, ‘Killing Jesus,’ about why Jesus of Nazareth was executed. It’s a history book. But obviously, the Gospels that discuss this were involved with that. But there are some contradictions among Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And then it’s my job and Martin Dugard, my co-author, to cut through the contradictions and to try to give a narrative of what actually happened to Jesus, because he was executed.”

Norah O’Donnell: What did you find that you think people will be surprised to learn about Jesus?

Bill O’Reilly: That he was a regular guy; very afraid. Very afraid.

Norah O’Donnell: What do you mean very afraid?

Bill O’Reilly: Scared to die. Scared to be put on a cross. And that he got angry and that he was a little violent and that he was a man.

…

Bill O’Reilly: Absolutely. He was, he was upset that the Jews were taxing, overtaxing, and extorting the folks.

Norah O’Donnell: And that story is important to tell because it explains why so many people wanted him dead?

Bill O’Reilly: That’s the crux of the “Killing Jesus” theme, is that there was a reason he was executed. Not that he was saying he was God. Droves of people said they were God. But now when you interrupt a money flow – now you’re into territory where they gotta get rid of him.

And O’Reilly says there was usually a seat on the cross, but soldiers took it off this time because they wanted Jesus to die faster.

Bill O’Reilly: They didn’t want the folks seeing him on there. They thought there was going to be big trouble if they saw him there. So they wanted to kill him and outta there.

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.

Norah O’Donnell: But, Bill, you know what people are going to say. “The Bible says that Jesus said on the cross, ‘Father forgive them,’ but Bill O’Reilly says that’s not true, so I should believe Bill?”

Bill O’Reilly: Well you believe what you want. If you want to take the Bible literally, then that’s your right to do that.****

Pay particularly close attention to this one:

*Norah O’Donnell: But you use as your sources for this book the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But you pick and choose.

Bill O’Reilly: Right, but that’s not our only source. I mean, we use Muslim sources*, we use Roman sources, we use Jewish sources.

Islam did not exist for centuries after Christ’s death. Why would you use Muslim sources, which are separated by a gaping chasm of both time and culture from the event you’re writing about?

Again, it’s painfully obvious that O’Reilly and Dugard, neither of whom are professional historians, utilize a method of historical research that is laughable. So, yes, I will disparage Mr. O’Reilly’s book without reading it, because he’s already shown his ignorance more than enough. He makes it quite obvious he’s done two things: stripped Christ of his divinity while simultaneously politicizing him, and all in contradiction of the most reliable sources of Christ’s life we have. Writing a book about Christ without reference to God is bound to be inaccurate, because his divinity (whether real or perceived) is inextricably linked to his identity. Period.

Stephen Colbert made this last point very well when he said, criticizing O’Reilly, (paraphrased) “Walking on water? Multiplying loaves and fish? No problem. But speaking loud enough to be heard? Now you’re on Bill’s territory.”*