Killing Jesus - Bill O'Reilly

[JustaServant]

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.

Forgiveness sounds so…liberal.
If we believed that where would our arguments for war and torture go?

 

[Timothysis]

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.

I watched O’Reilly long enough to know that he is a bone head. Still, it is a poor exercise of one’s intellectual acumen to criticize or dismiss something without even reading it. Think of the many who criticize the Church without having a working knowledge of what they criticize.

If you want to pan O’Reilly’s book, then fine but at least read it first.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I am disappointed to here so many critics of o’reilly and this book killing jesus.

I have not read any of his other books - including killing Lincoln, or killing kennedy, but I did see the movie on one of the cable channels based on his book killing Lincoln and the movie was very good and well made. I am thinking since this November will be the 50th anniversary of the assassination of kennedy that there will also be a movie on tv based on o’reilly’s book killing kennedy.

I was planning in reading killing Lincoln, killing kennedy, and killing jesus when they came out in paperback. now I don’t know if I will.

I would love to read benedict xvi’s books on jesus as well and they would probably be worth more of my time to read.

 

[99th_Monkey]

I have not read it, but Mr. O’Reilly has made it quite clear that this book is an historical, and only historical account of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. It makes no religious claims whatsoever, it is not that kind of book. There is no religious teaching, only verified historical facts, if the facts could not be verified, then they were not included in the book, even if tradition says something different. His other two books are quite good and I am looking forward to reading this one too, but I am reading it because it is a history book not a catechism.

I don’t think Billo’s stock and trade is historical accuracy.

 

[KSU]

Forgiveness sounds so…liberal.
If we believed that where would our arguments for war and torture go?

Forgiveness of one’s enemy is not Liberal, it is a concept introduced into society by Christ and taught by His Church–the one institution feared and hated by Liberals who attack and mock it as a major policy of current-day Liberalism. Forgiveness is seen by the Left as a weakness.

The number one reason why Liberals hate O’Reilly is because he is loudly Catholic, Church-supporting, and semi-Conservative. Despite the fact that he admits to being pompous and arrogant, many people watch O’Reilly’s show because he shines the light on the true anti-Catholic, pro-Socialist nature of Liberalism.

I wouldn’t read is latest book, either, but as to continued allegations that he is pro-war and pro-torture, be very careful because you’re flirting with calumny.

 

[Starrsmother]

Has anyone read this and if so, could we get a quick review? Is it antithetical to Catholic teaching?

I found “Killing Jesus” to be an excellent historical book. I’ve also read “Killing Lincoln” and “Killing Kennedy” too and enjoyed both of them. Bill O’Reilly is a Roman Catholic as you probably know–and in my opinion, he’s an excellent author–very succinct, but very readable. What he does in “Killing Jesus” is to try and prove beyond a doubt BUT ONLY using a strictly secular perspective, that Jesus actually existed, as well to show the perfect storm of events that God allowed and which permitted the crucifixion to occur in the first place. God works through men many times—and that includes events in which evil men are allowed to participate and in some cases even appear to prevail. I’ve heard all the scuttlebutt from fundamentalists who say the book is a heresy because O’Reilly stays completely away from describing Jesus as the “Christ” or the “Son of God”. Those ideas are Christian in nature—and while O’Reilly accepts these things as truth personally, his point in writing the book is not to prove that Jesus was divine—but rather to prove that He actually did exist at all–that He isn’t just a fable. 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 He was on earth. In my opinion, the book could actually contribute to conversions

I found the concept interesting for one main reason. If the only way that we know Jesus really did live and die is by the bible ( a religious set of writings) but nowhere else in history is His existence also confirmed, then perhaps we are sticking our heads in the sand, metaphorically speaking. Jesus’ life on earth–if genuine–should be able to pass the same test of time and secular historical anthropology as the existence of Socrates, Plato, Herod or even King Tut! If a Jewish man was born 2000 years ago, preached a new religion, performed a plethora of miracles and then was crucified by the Romans at the request of the Jewish hierarchy and then was believed to have risen from the dead as well, it simply didn’t and couldn’t have happened in a vaccuum. Ancient peoples of other cultures had to at least have been aware that something big had happened in Jerusalem and the surrounding area. If Jesus cannot survive a secular exam–then He needs to be relegated to the realm of other myths and we need to get over it and live our lives.

BUT, the thing is that O’Reilly proves through historically relevant material that Jesus DID very much live and die and that the NT isn’t just a story for Christians. That was the hypothesis behind O’Reilly’s book. What I took from it was that it can be proven beyond doubt that Jesus lived, healed the sick, raised the dead, was crucified, died and was buried and that significant evidence (outside the bible alone) suggest that he was risen from the dead and culminated it all by ascending into heaven. Thus, if after having it proved that all the above are true events, you can still believe that anyone but God could do all these things-----well, then that’s your perfect right–but you may just be an idiot! That’s what O’Reilly’s book is about. I recommend the book highly and infact am sending copies to my adult kids! It’s that good!

 

[Timothysis]

I found “Killing Jesus” to be an excellent historical book. I’ve also read “Killing Lincoln” and “Killing Kennedy” too and enjoyed both of them.

Starrsmother,

Thanks for the excellent review. It is refreshing to see a critique of something that has actually been read by the reviewer!

 

[Starrsmother]

Starrsmother,

Thanks for the excellent review. It is refreshing to see a critique of something that has actually been read by the reviewer!

You are most welcome. Read the book sometime if you have a chance to do so–it really doesn’t deserve all the bad press and hoopla that surrounds it–mostly from protestant fundamentalists–and as you so wisely noted–those who have never even read it! LOL!

 

[KSU]

Starrsmother, this old cheechoko (1965-1969) would like to add his thanks for your review.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I watched O’Reilly long enough to know that he is a bone head. Still, it is a poor exercise of one’s intellectual acumen to criticize or dismiss something without even reading it. Think of the many who criticize the Church without having a working knowledge of what they criticize.

If you want to pan O’Reilly’s book, then fine but at least read it first.

Ok, look. This is all I’m saying: the historicity of the Gospels has long been an established consensus among the historical community. All of the extra-biblical references to Christ’s life and death have long been known to Christian historians. O’Reilly cannot possibly have anything new to add to the mix that isn’t his own half-baked interpretations and amateurish research (and if anyone doubts that his research is amateurish, remember that the Ford Theatre refused to sell his “Killing Lincoln” because of its factual inaccuracy.) The fact that he claims to have used Muslim sources to write an historical account of Christ’s life should say it all: Islam did not exist for centuries after Christ, and whatever Muslim writers have to say about Jesus is only a derivative and distorted version of Christian traditions.

So when someone who is well read in the subject hears his central thesis, which he has explicitly stated on numerous occasions, it is very plain to see that O’Reilly’s central claim is complete bunk. The most important consideration to be made, for a Catholic, is that it is completely contradictory of the Gospels, which are the most contemporary and reliable sources of information on Christ’s life, period; whether you’re reading from a religious or secular perspective, the Gospels are historical documents, and all 4 of the Gospels support one another in the central facts of Christ’s execution. There are no other detailed accounts of the crucifixion which are also contemporaneous with Christ’s life. These are simple facts. I don’t need to read O’Reilly’s book to know that he’s wrong, anymore than I would need to read a book by a Holocaust denier to know that they’re wrong.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I found “Killing Jesus” to be an excellent historical book.

Would you say it is excellent in its readability or its accuracy?

Bill O’Reilly is a Roman Catholic as you probably know–and in my opinion, he’s an excellent author–very succinct, but very readable. What he does in “Killing Jesus” is to try and prove beyond a doubt BUT ONLY using a strictly secular perspective, that Jesus actually existed, as well to show the perfect storm of events that God allowed and which permitted the crucifixion to occur in the first place.

The historicity of Jesus Christ has been established for a long time. All of the things you cite above have already been done by much more rigorous and skilled historians.

I’ve heard all the scuttlebutt from fundamentalists who say the book is a heresy because O’Reilly stays completely away from describing Jesus as the “Christ” or the “Son of God”. Those ideas are Christian in nature—and while O’Reilly accepts these things as truth personally, his point in writing the book is not to prove that Jesus was divine—but rather to prove that He actually did exist at all–that He isn’t just a fable.

In order to write a secular account of Christ’s life and death, you don’t have to move away from associating Jesus with the title of “Christ” or “Son of God”, because that was who He claimed to be. You can include that fact without weighing in on whether or not you believe it was true. But the fact remains that His claim to be the Son of God was central to his life, ministry and death. You cannot write an accurate book about Him without taking that consideration into account. Otherwise you end up making asinine claims like, “Jesus was killed because he opposed Roman taxation,” (which he didn’t.) He was killed for a) undermining the authority of the religious leaders of the Jews, and b) most importantly, claiming to be the Son of God.

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 He was on earth. In my opinion, the book could actually contribute to conversions

Again, this is old hat. This is not some astonishing new discovery. Those documents have been around for a long time, and many books have been written which take them into account.

I found the concept interesting for one main reason. If the only way that we know Jesus really did live and die is by the bible ( a religious set of writings) but nowhere else in history is His existence also confirmed, then perhaps we are sticking our heads in the sand, metaphorically speaking. Jesus’ life on earth–if genuine–should be able to pass the same test of time and secular historical anthropology as the existence of Socrates, Plato, Herod or even King Tut! If a Jewish man was born 2000 years ago, preached a new religion, performed a plethora of miracles and then was crucified by the Romans at the request of the Jewish hierarchy and then was believed to have risen from the dead as well, it simply didn’t and couldn’t have happened in a vaccuum. Ancient peoples of other cultures had to at least have been aware that something big had happened in Jerusalem and the surrounding area. If Jesus cannot survive a secular exam–then He needs to be relegated to the realm of other myths and we need to get over it and live our lives.

BUT, the thing is that O’Reilly proves through historically relevant material that Jesus DID very much live and die and that the NT isn’t just a story for Christians. That was the hypothesis behind O’Reilly’s book. What I took from it was that it can be proven beyond doubt that Jesus lived, healed the sick, raised the dead, was crucified, died and was buried and that significant evidence (outside the bible alone) suggest that he was risen from the dead and culminated it all by ascending into heaven. Thus, if after having it proved that all the above are true events, you can still believe that anyone but God could do all these things-----well, then that’s your perfect right–but you may just be an idiot! That’s what O’Reilly’s book is about. I recommend the book highly and infact am sending copies to my adult kids! It’s that good!

I can appreciate that sentiment, but the fact remains that Bill did not prove it; it was proven a long time ago, by much more reputable and thorough historians. If Bill’s book is your first exposure to these facts, I would recommend doing a little more digging. Bill writes far beyond his field (not only a historian, he’s apparently a medical expert, too. Thank the Lord that he finally dispelled that pesky myth about Jesus forgiving his executors from the cross. Silly Bible!) and his writing suffers for it.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I am enjoying the book still. It is different and a retelling of a good story. Something hollywood is fond of these days.

There’s a word for a different retelling of a good (true) story: historical fiction.

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.

Bill claims:

a) Jesus was killed over taxes
b) He couldn’t have possibly forgiven his executors from the Cross (God can raise someone from the dead but mustering a spoken word under extreme physical duress is an impossibility, apparently.)
c) Jesus was scared, violent and just “a regular guy.”

These are all patently stupid claims with no historical basis. Bill has not found any new groundbreaking historical documents, and I am well familiar with the historical evidence re: Christ.

And Bill is not a historian, either, fyi.

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.)

I do not dismiss the book on those grounds. I dismiss the book because its claims are demonstrable bunk.

I mention my personal dislike for Bill to account and apologize for what I think may be my somewhat aggressive tone in expressing my opinion. And yes, he does misrepresent the faith. He’s come under heavy fire from the Catholic League for his imbecilic remarks on Church policy and teaching, and has made numerous slanderous remarks about Blessed John Paul II:

catholicleague.org/bill-oreilly-blasts-the-pope/
catholicleague.org/bill-oreilly-gets-in-over-his-head/
catholicleague.org/educating-oreilly/
catholicleague.org/bill-oreilly-unfair-and-imbalanced/

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.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Twain and Hemingway wrote literature. They did not write supposedly historical accounts of Christ’s life. This is overgeneralizing par excellence. And a straw man to boot.

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.

a) you don’t know what I watch and read. And again, artistic works are in an entirely different category from historical ones. There is no basis for comparison.

b) this has nothing to do with taking a moral stand against O’Reilly. It has to do with the fact that the basic claim of his book is wrong; period. Simple, historical, objective fact. Again, I only mention my personal opinion on the man to explain my scathing tone in discussing him. But besides doing that, it should be a red flag for Catholics to consider how ignorant of his own faith is this man who is writing about the central figure of that faith. If he’s that ignorant of the Church, should we really trust what he has to say about its founder?

Moreover, Bill doesn’t even do his own research; he hires Martin Dugard (who is not a historian either) to do all the research and then just rewrites all of Dugard’s research in his own words, and this is all done (again, by Bill’s own admission) rather hastily. His primary concern is drumming up controversy and sales. He is not a historian. He’s a brand name and he knows it.

 

[prodigalson2011]

The number one reason why Liberals hate O’Reilly is because he is loudly Catholic, Church-supporting, and semi-Conservative.

O’Reilly is not Church supporting. (see the links in my above post)

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

There’s a word for a different retelling of a good (true) story: historical fiction.

Bill claims:

a) Jesus was killed over taxes
b) He couldn’t have possibly forgiven his executors from the Cross (God can raise someone from the dead but mustering a spoken word under extreme physical duress is an impossibility, apparently.)
c) Jesus was scared, violent and just “a regular guy.”

These are all patently stupid claims with no historical basis. Bill has not found any new groundbreaking historical documents, and I am well familiar with the historical evidence re: Christ.

And Bill is not a historian, either, fyi.

I do not dismiss the book on those grounds. I dismiss the book because its claims are demonstrable bunk.

I mention my personal dislike for Bill to account and apologize for what I think may be my somewhat aggressive tone in expressing my opinion. And yes, he does misrepresent the faith. He’s come under heavy fire from the Catholic League for his imbecilic remarks on Church policy and teaching, and has made numerous slanderous remarks about Blessed John Paul II:

catholicleague.org/bill-oreilly-blasts-the-pope/
catholicleague.org/bill-oreilly-gets-in-over-his-head/
catholicleague.org/educating-oreilly/
catholicleague.org/bill-oreilly-unfair-and-imbalanced/

You are comparing apples and oranges. Twain and Hemingway wrote literature. They did not write supposedly historical accounts of Christ’s life. This is overgeneralizing par excellence. And a straw man to boot.

a) you don’t know what I watch and read. And again, artistic works are in an entirely different category from historical ones. There is no basis for comparison.

b) this has nothing to do with taking a moral stand against O’Reilly. It has to do with the fact that the basic claim of his book is wrong; period. Simple, historical, objective fact. Again, I only mention my personal opinion on the man to explain my scathing tone in discussing him. But besides doing that, it should be a red flag for Catholics to consider how ignorant of his own faith is this man who is writing about the central figure of that faith. If he’s that ignorant of the Church, should we really trust what he has to say about its founder?

Moreover, Bill doesn’t even do his own research; he hires Martin Dugard (who is not a historian either) to do all the research and then just rewrites all of Dugard’s research in his own words, and this is all done (again, by Bill’s own admission) rather hastily. His primary concern is drumming up controversy and sales. He is not a historian. He’s a brand name and he knows it.

You could have saved some typing by saying "I have not read the book and I don’t like Bill O’reilly.
Do you really think we could have a real fair conversation about this if you are not going to read it.

I like Bill. That is not a sin. I like his politics. I have enjoyed many of his books. I agree with him on some things and not on others. I respect his courage and ability to say things that may be censored by others. (Like his recent comments on race relations)

But he is sensationalistic. As are most media. He wants controversy. As does the NYT.

Is Bill wrong. You bet.

But I give kudos to someone who writes a book that talks about Jesus. This Man and God that changed the world. And as an apologist to many atheists and agnostics and teens, I appreciate the need to actually come at it from a non religious perspective. I can not tell you how many times I run across someone hostile to the Christian faith and they think Jesus is a made up figure. That we have no credible proof he was ever even born. So, from a basic perspective it is nice to take it from just a pure secular story. BUT I will concede that Mr. O’reilly will probably not be viewed as a credible source to those who already are hostile to the idea of Jesus.

Historical fiction. Absolutely. But so are most books about this subject.

I don’t know what you read. But are you really asserting that the standards that you object to with this book you hold to all other media you intake? I doubt it. I am pretty sure it is because you don’t like the author. That is fine. He is controversial.

But again. You argue and type these points and have nothing to back it up with. Just reports from others. Not from your own eyes.

Perhaps you should start a thread about how reading it is not a good idea. This thread asked for reviews on it by readers.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I found “Killing Jesus” to be an excellent historical book. I’ve also read “Killing Lincoln” and “Killing Kennedy” too and enjoyed both of them. Bill O’Reilly is a Roman Catholic as you probably know–and in my opinion, he’s an excellent author–very succinct, but very readable. What he does in “Killing Jesus” is to try and prove beyond a doubt BUT ONLY using a strictly secular perspective, that Jesus actually existed, as well to show the perfect storm of events that God allowed and which permitted the crucifixion to occur in the first place. God works through men many times—and that includes events in which evil men are allowed to participate and in some cases even appear to prevail. I’ve heard all the scuttlebutt from fundamentalists who say the book is a heresy because O’Reilly stays completely away from describing Jesus as the “Christ” or the “Son of God”. Those ideas are Christian in nature—and while O’Reilly accepts these things as truth personally, his point in writing the book is not to prove that Jesus was divine—but rather to prove that He actually did exist at all–that He isn’t just a fable. 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 He was on earth. In my opinion, the book could actually contribute to conversions

I found the concept interesting for one main reason. If the only way that we know Jesus really did live and die is by the bible ( a religious set of writings) but nowhere else in history is His existence also confirmed, then perhaps we are sticking our heads in the sand, metaphorically speaking. Jesus’ life on earth–if genuine–should be able to pass the same test of time and secular historical anthropology as the existence of Socrates, Plato, Herod or even King Tut! If a Jewish man was born 2000 years ago, preached a new religion, performed a plethora of miracles and then was crucified by the Romans at the request of the Jewish hierarchy and then was believed to have risen from the dead as well, it simply didn’t and couldn’t have happened in a vaccuum. Ancient peoples of other cultures had to at least have been aware that something big had happened in Jerusalem and the surrounding area. If Jesus cannot survive a secular exam–then He needs to be relegated to the realm of other myths and we need to get over it and live our lives.

BUT, the thing is that O’Reilly proves through historically relevant material that Jesus DID very much live and die and that the NT isn’t just a story for Christians. That was the hypothesis behind O’Reilly’s book. What I took from it was that it can be proven beyond doubt that Jesus lived, healed the sick, raised the dead, was crucified, died and was buried and that significant evidence (outside the bible alone) suggest that he was risen from the dead and culminated it all by ascending into heaven. Thus, if after having it proved that all the above are true events, you can still believe that anyone but God could do all these things-----well, then that’s your perfect right–but you may just be an idiot! That’s what O’Reilly’s book is about. I recommend the book highly and infact am sending copies to my adult kids! It’s that good!

thank you for your review and opinion of the other two books he wrote also. at least you have read the entire book and are giving your honest critique of Killing Jesus.
I think those that don’t like bill o’reilly for whatever reason, will look for anything to deny the validity of the book. I like the fact that he has written an historical account to prove that Jesus did just not exist in the Gospels. that He was real. however, I have not read the book yet so I cannot rule out what the other posters have said. I tend to believe that if one is biased against o’reilly, the man and the fox anchorman, in the first place, I think you will be biased against the book also.

 

[7_Sorrows]

There’s a word for a different retelling of a good (true) story: historical fiction.

Bill claims:

a) Jesus was killed over taxes
b) He couldn’t have possibly forgiven his executors from the Cross (God can raise someone from the dead but mustering a spoken word under extreme physical duress is an impossibility, apparently.)
c) Jesus was scared, violent and just “a regular guy.”

These are all patently stupid claims with no historical basis. Bill has not found any new groundbreaking historical documents, and I am well familiar with the historical evidence re: Christ.

And Bill is not a historian, either, fyi.

I do not dismiss the book on those grounds. I dismiss the book because its claims are demonstrable bunk.

I mention my personal dislike for Bill to account and apologize for what I think may be my somewhat aggressive tone in expressing my opinion. And yes, he does misrepresent the faith. He’s come under heavy fire from the Catholic League for his imbecilic remarks on Church policy and teaching, and has made numerous slanderous remarks about Blessed John Paul II:

catholicleague.org/bill-oreilly-blasts-the-pope/
catholicleague.org/bill-oreilly-gets-in-over-his-head/
catholicleague.org/educating-oreilly/
catholicleague.org/bill-oreilly-unfair-and-imbalanced/

You are comparing apples and oranges. Twain and Hemingway wrote literature. They did not write supposedly historical accounts of Christ’s life. This is overgeneralizing par excellence. And a straw man to boot.

a) you don’t know what I watch and read. And again, artistic works are in an entirely different category from historical ones. There is no basis for comparison.

b) this has nothing to do with taking a moral stand against O’Reilly. It has to do with the fact that the basic claim of his book is wrong; period. Simple, historical, objective fact. Again, I only mention my personal opinion on the man to explain my scathing tone in discussing him. But besides doing that, it should be a red flag for Catholics to consider how ignorant of his own faith is this man who is writing about the central figure of that faith. If he’s that ignorant of the Church, should we really trust what he has to say about its founder?

Moreover, Bill doesn’t even do his own research; he hires Martin Dugard (who is not a historian either) to do all the research and then just rewrites all of Dugard’s research in his own words, and this is all done (again, by Bill’s own admission) rather hastily. His primary concern is drumming up controversy and sales. He is not a historian. He’s a brand name and he knows it.

if your 3 claims are indeed what o’reilly proclaims in his book then I do not agree with these statements. Jesus was NOT just a regular guy in my opinion. he was both divine and human. I wouldn’t describe Jesus as violent, but I think He did get angry. I also don’t think it is correct to say Jesus was killed over taxation. He was killed because he was seen as a troublemaker among the Jews and causing division and claiming to be the Messiah - the Son of God. the Romans did not want any trouble in Jerusalem with so many people gathering to celebrate Passover. the Romans wanted to send a message to the followers of Jesus. that is my understanding.

 

[tabycat]

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?

I don’t know any lib media (or non media) types that were digusted by the remark, but there may have been happy about it.

I wonder if there are any here that agree with Chris Matthews’ remark?

 

[prodigalson2011]

You could have saved some typing by saying "I have not read the book and I don’t like Bill O’reilly.
Do you really think we could have a real fair conversation about this if you are not going to read it.

I may read it just to have a more broad conversation, but I am 99.99999…% certain that reading it is not going to shed any further light on my perception as regards Bill’s central claim.

I like Bill. That is not a sin. I like his politics. I have enjoyed many of his books. I agree with him on some things and not on others. I respect his courage and ability to say things that may be censored by others. (Like his recent comments on race relations)

I didn’t say it was a sin, and I am aware that some here may be fans of his. That’s why I offered an apology for my tone in my first post.

But he is sensationalistic. As are most media. He wants controversy. As does the NYT.

Is Bill wrong. You bet.

But I give kudos to someone who writes a book that talks about Jesus. This Man and God that changed the world. And as an apologist to many atheists and agnostics and teens, I appreciate the need to actually come at it from a non religious perspective. I can not tell you how many times I run across someone hostile to the Christian faith and they think Jesus is a made up figure. That we have no credible proof he was ever even born. So, from a basic perspective it is nice to take it from just a pure secular story.

I have agreed before with this point. My point has been that O’Reilly is far from the first to do it–he’s just a high profile name. My intention here has simply been to point out and suggest to my fellow Catholics that they can find much more reliable and worthwhile resources for historical research on Christ than Mr. O’Reilly.

BUT I will concede that Mr. O’reilly will probably not be viewed as a credible source to those who already are hostile to the idea of Jesus.

I agree completely.

Historical fiction. Absolutely. But so are most books about this subject.

That doesn’t justify it.

I don’t know what you read. But are you really asserting that the standards that you object to with this book you hold to all other media you intake? I doubt it. I am pretty sure it is because you don’t like the author. That is fine. He is controversial.

No, because I do not have the same standards for “all other media.” I judge works of non-fiction by completely different standards than I do for fiction. You can’t put them all under the same umbrella. A work of fiction is going to be judged by things like its moral value, its treatment of its themes, its artistic integrity, etc.; a work of non-fiction is going to judged by its factual accuracy. If a work of non-fiction presents claims which I know to be bogus, then yes, I am going to dismiss it. Simple as that.

But again. You argue and type these points and have nothing to back it up with. Just reports from others. Not from your own eyes.

Reports from others? What are you talking about? I have Bill O’Reilly’s own words to back it up. I made one post in which I quoted him extensively, speaking about this very book. My entire argument has been directed squarely at statements straight out of O’Reilly’s own mouth. Seeing as he is the author, I think I’m safe in assuming he’s a fairly reliable source on the content of his own book.

 

[KSU]

O’Reilly is not Church supporting. (see the links in my above post)

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.

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.

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]

I’ll just add this and then butt out as I am not being paid to sell O’Reilly’s book to anyone–PLUS, I seriously doubt that O’Reilly himself cares much about whether a few people scream heresy or not–it only adds suspense to the reading matter. LOL!

Firstly and again–the book is really good and an interesting read in my opinion–which was my understanding of what the thread starter was asking–rather than “opinions” by folks who’d never even opened the book. If you have read the book and hate it–well, that’s fair enough and your opinion should certainly be considered by someone who is looking for “reviews” prior to reading the book themselves. If you haven’t read it and have an opinion anyway, well–Hmmmm…

Secondly, O’Reilly does suggest that possibly the “Father forgive them…” words attributed to Jesus as being said with His dying breath, may or may not actually have occurred at the exact dramatic moment when many folks think they were said. He does NOT argue with whether or not Jesus said them–only considers how this would have fit in with the physiological process that was at the core of the agonizing death caused in a Roman crucifixion. Death by crucifixion is pretty well known now days to have resulted more from asphyxiation and shock than from blood loss–which is undoubtedly one reason that the Romans of Jesus’ day were a little surprised that Jesus died in a matter of hours (as it even mentions them being) in the NT. Crucifixion victims often hung on to life–in and out of consciousness and suffering, for 24 hours or longer–depending on their physical strength and ability to lift their bodies up far enough so that their diaphragm could expand and allow for air intake. The torture aspect was a very real object in the Roman’s choosing crucifixion as a manner of executions. They were not of a “lethal injection” mind set in any way. Thus–being able to speak coherently was a bit questionable hours after being crucified—especially only moments before the person actually died. O’Reilly doesn’t deny or doubt that Jesus forgave those who were crucifying Him at all–he only suggests that in reality if He said these words, He may have done so after being beaten nearly to death, crowned with thorns, mocked and so on–but before the exact moment of His death—and again, this possibility is presented only as a “likely” though not “certain” possibility in the book.

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. 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? 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 agree that nobody HAS to read O’Reilly’s book to have an opinion of it. However, if someone who hadn’t read any book–whether O’Reilly’s or anyone else’s–attempted to give me an opinion on it–I’d consider the source. For those who choose to read the book–decide for yourself if you think Bill is correct in his factual interpretations. You may decide that he got it right–at least in some cases–or even decide he is wrong in all cases. But I can almost guarantee that you will not grow hair in the palms of your hands by simply picking up the book–and it was interesting–at least in my personal opinion!