Killing Jesus - Bill O'Reilly

[pnewton]

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

Lisa

No, and I explained why I won’t. The author said some of the things on the cross that were said could not have been said. He didn’t include them because they were not possible. I also don’t read Richard O’Brien. I do not read something I believe to have an underlying error that would color the whole work. This sort of deconstructionism is not heresy, but neither do I agree with it. I am very traditional when it comes to inspiration of Scripture.

I find it interesting how such a work will challenge our labeling of people. We tend to think in terms of right and left, even though we know that no one really fits such strict categories. Having a politically conservative person write an account in this way will show some a new way of view the Gospel. I am already familiar with this school though I do not like it. I think O’Reilly showed a lot of bravery in striking off in this direction.

 

[LisaA]

No, and I explained why I won’t. The author said some of the things on the cross that were said could not have been said. He didn’t include them because they were not possible. I also don’t read Richard O’Brien. I do not read something I believe to have an underlying error that would color the whole work. This sort of deconstructionism is not heresy, but neither do I agree with it. I am very traditional when it comes to inspiration of Scripture.

I find it interesting how such a work will challenge our labeling of people. We tend to think in terms of right and left, even though we know that no one really fits such strict categories. Having a politically conservative person write an account in this way will show some a new way of view the Gospel. I am already familiar with this school though I do not like it. I think O’Reilly showed a lot of bravery in striking off in this direction.

Right…you haven’t read the book but feel your opinion as requested by the OP is relevant…OOOKAAAAYYYY

Lisa

 

[Larry_Michael_J]

My recommendation if you want to find out about the Death Of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Dig into
Holy Scripture for the Real, True,History. P.S. Make sure it’s a Catholic Bible.
I do not recommend O’Riley for anything. Best wishes .

 

[ManOnFire]

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.

“Assume much?” would be an appropriate question for those who don’t like the book without reading it. Their minds are already made up. It’s called bigotry. Some people think bigotry against conservatives is OK if the power of the government-sanctioned IRS and the liberal media approves of it. The nazis likewise approved of what they were doing, so yes, it’s a fair comparison. The fact that people refuse to acknowledge this is further proof that the propaganda is working. Imagine the IRS targeting any group of people. Bye bye miss american pie…

 

[ManOnFire]

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.

Charity is needed to help the victims of liberal behaviors. Prevention is the best medicine. Logically, people could stop the liberal behaviors and need less charity, but you won’t hear many people recommending that. That’s why logical people like O’Reilly are frustrated. No one is forcing people into liberal behaviors which need charity. Or are they??

 

[Rdunbar123]

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.

Have to call BS on not being able to speak, especially at first, Jesus died very quickly,the whole point of crucifixion was slow death over several days, ultimately from blood loss and suffocation.

 

[pnewton]

“Assume much?” would be an appropriate question for those who don’t like the book without reading it. Their minds are already made up. It’s called bigotry

You use that word, “bigotry”. I do not think you know what it means

Some people think bigotry against conservatives is OK if the power of the government-sanctioned IRS and the liberal media approves of it. The nazis likewise approved of what they were doing, so yes, it’s a fair comparison. The fact that people refuse to acknowledge this is further proof that the propaganda is working. Imagine the IRS targeting any group of people. Bye bye miss american pie…

Politics again. I have to disagree that this is a political discussion. I will not be drawn off topic into politics.

Right…you haven’t read the book but feel your opinion as requested by the OP is relevant…OOOKAAAAYYYY

Lisa

You might want to go back and read the actual original post. I answered the first of two questions and I gave my reason. In my last post I clarified that** my** primary reason is that it is antithetical to my belief about Holy Scripture, but that the Catholic Church allows a more liberal approach to Scripture. This objection alone is not antithetical to Catholic teaching. I seriously doubt as O’Reilly is Catholic that it would be antithetical to Catholic teaching. On the other hand, it is not approved Catholic teaching, so it would need to be taken with a grain of salt, as to all things secular.

I also stated my secondary reason which is a personal dislike of crossovers, like celebrities think their fandom makes them political pundits. The last history that I read by a political expert was terrible. It was the history of the sixties.

 

[LisaA]

You use that word, “bigotry”. I do not think you know what it means

Politics again. I have to disagree that this is a political discussion. I will not be drawn off topic into politics.
You might want to go back and read the actual original post. I answered the first of two questions and I gave my reason. In my last post I clarified that** my** primary reason is that it is antithetical to my belief about Holy Scripture, but that the Catholic Church allows a more liberal approach to Scripture. This objection alone is not antithetical to Catholic teaching. I seriously doubt as O’Reilly is Catholic that it would be antithetical to Catholic teaching. On the other hand, it is not approved Catholic teaching, so it would need to be taken with a grain of salt, as to all things secular.

I also stated my secondary reason which is a personal dislike of crossovers, like celebrities think their fandom makes them political pundits. The last history that I read by a political expert was terrible. It was the history of the sixties.

Again, the book is NOT intended to be or to substitute for Scripture. It is a historical account of the people, places, and conditions of the time. I am almost halfway through the book and so far Jesus is a minor figure although I realize this is about to change. O’Reilly and Dugar are setting the stage with vivid descriptions of the debauchery, corruption, and cruelty of the Romans–aided to some extent by Jewish officials who liked their creature comforts and power. Obviously you are free to read or not read the book but to make claims that the reason you won’t is based on a complete lack of understanding regarding the contents and purpose of Killing Jesus is not very compelling to me at least. Others MMV.

As to “celebrities” writing, O’Reilly is a well educated and legitimate journalist as well as being formerly a teacher. It is not as if Whoopi Goldberg or Snooki were weighing in on the subject. But again like all of us, you are the world’s greatest expert on your own opinion. And that’s what you have expressed.

Lisa

 

[oneofmany]

Number 1 book in America now.

O’Reilly said he awoke in the middle of the night with the idea to write the book and I would not question his belief the Holy Spirit inspired him. He said it himself, that is our faith tradition, when the interviewer questioned him on talking to God. No, he did not talk to God but he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the book. I can’t believe Catholics would put that down when we understand the Holy Spirit. Do we question others when they say the Holy Spirit inspired them? I hope not, that would be presumptuous of us.

His other 2 books on historical figures dying were number one books so why not believe the Holy Spirit inspired this book to be written? How better to get the conversation going about Jesus in our modern world? A much needed conversation.

 

[pnewton]

Do we question others when they say the Holy Spirit inspired them? I hope not, that would be presumptuous of us.

I do not see where it is presumptuous. I would rather say that it is presumptuous to* assume* everyone who says God told them to do something, that it was in fact God. Was Joseph Smith correct and is it presumptuous to doubt his statements of being told by and angel to copy Mormon? Look at the explosion of growth of the LDS. I would rather examine the particulars in a case. This is not presumption. It is discernment.

I know a lot of people who have told me that God leads them to do this or that. The latest one was just this weekend where a guy told me that God has taken away his desire to read mail and to eat so he refuses all mail and food.

Then there was Oral Roberts who said God told him that he was going to die if he didn’t raise a certain monetary figure. I didn’t send him money specifically because I questioned his claim.

 

[LisaA]

Number 1 book in America now.

O’Reilly said he awoke in the middle of the night with the idea to write the book and I would not question his belief the Holy Spirit inspired him. He said it himself, that is our faith tradition, when the interviewer questioned him on talking to God. No, he did not talk to God but he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the book. I can’t believe Catholics would put that down when we understand the Holy Spirit. Do we question others when they say the Holy Spirit inspired them? I hope not, that would be presumptuous of us.

His other 2 books on historical figures dying were number one books so why not believe the Holy Spirit inspired this book to be written? How better to get the conversation going about Jesus in our modern world? A much needed conversation.

I am all for anything that gets Jesus into everyday conversations. I think it’s important that it NOT be a particularly philisophical or denomination based book which would be offputting to most. I’m about 2/3 through and was at a local large bookstore Sunday when I ran into a couple fo friends. Both were carrying copies of “Killing Jesus.” It’s flying off the shelves so to speak.

I think the historical approach with a novel type narrative is very appealing to someone who wouldn’t delve into a deep Bible study. Also a good lead into the REAL Christmas story that our society is increasingly trying to ignore.

As a history buff I am enjoying all of the background and as someone who’s pretty familiar with the Bible, I’m enjoying learning little bits and factoids about Jewish customs, the origin of certain words and how secular and Jewish forces worked together to TRY to get rid of Jesus’ influence.

Didn’t work did it!
Lisa

 

[blmathew1955]

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.

I agree with you, Sorrows, reading Pope Benedict XVI’s works will be far more enlightening and accurate than reading Mr. O’Reilly’s “Killing Jesus”.

 

[Starrsmother]

I agree with you, Sorrows, reading Pope Benedict XVI’s works will be far more enlightening and accurate than reading Mr. O’Reilly’s “Killing Jesus”.

But, I will say this: Killing Jesus is an entertaining and a less wordy read

 

[LisaA]

But, I will say this: Killing Jesus is an entertaining and a less wordy read

Yes. I LOVE LOVE LOVE everything I’ve read by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. I started reading his work while he was Cardinal Ratzinger and was thrilled when he succeeded Blessed John Paul II. But his works are quite scholarly and truly not meant for the average reader who might be a Christian but not ready for seminary! I’d always read Pope Benedict’s work in short increments so I could absorb and re-read the sections.

Killing Jesus though is a total page turner, written in a breezy but clearly credible style. I think it will clearly show those who do not know Christ that he was amazing, inspirational and worthy of the sacrifices made to follow Him. If it turns a heart toward Christ, I think I’ll forgive that it’s not something for 3rd year seminary students

I’m almost done and sadly I know the ending. But I am enjoying and appreciating the book.

Lisa

 

[oneofmany]

Yep, face it, more secular people will read O’Reilly than read the Pope.

O’Reilly also fights the good fight on keeping Christ in Christmas each year. He has already taken on a school about not singing more religious songs at Christmas time.

If someone wants to say God speaks to them, I won’t disagree. If they want me to send them money because of it with nothing in return I can always refuse. You can read the book or not read it, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[KSU]

Then there was Oral Roberts who said God told him that he was going to die if he didn’t raise a certain monetary figure. I didn’t send him money specifically because I questioned his claim.

You don’t like O’Reilly but you listen to Oral Roberts?

Just kidding, p.

 

[Starrsmother]

Yes. I LOVE LOVE LOVE everything I’ve read by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. I started reading his work while he was Cardinal Ratzinger and was thrilled when he succeeded Blessed John Paul II. But his works are quite scholarly and truly not meant for the average reader who might be a Christian but not ready for seminary! I’d always read Pope Benedict’s work in short increments so I could absorb and re-read the sections.

Killing Jesus though is a total page turner, written in a breezy but clearly credible style. I think it will clearly show those who do not know Christ that he was amazing, inspirational and worthy of the sacrifices made to follow Him. If it turns a heart toward Christ, I think I’ll forgive that it’s not something for 3rd year seminary students

I’m almost done and sadly I know the ending. But I am enjoying and appreciating the book.

Actually, one of the things I enjoyed most was the explanation of the political climate before and during the time Jesus was born–the descriptions of what the towns and structures were like, how the people of the time lived and practiced judaism at the time-- not to mention the detailed history of the Roman and Egyptian rulers, their power-plots and so on. And old Herod was certainly a mess wasn’t he? Imagine killing 3 of his sons and the Holy Innocents to boot, just to try to remain Rome’s token king.

 

[KSU]

…And old Herod was certainly a mess wasn’t he? Imagine killing… the Holy Innocents to boot, just to try to remain [in power]

Don’t have to imagine it. Even some self-described Catholics happily facilitate and support killing Holy Innocents all the time, with our money to boot, just to stay in power. Worse, they then take Communion at Mass. Talk about a mess!

O’Reilly’s book shows that, if anything, Herod was a piker compared to some current-day low-lifes.

 

[Starrsmother]

Don’t have to imagine it. Even some self-described Catholics happily facilitate and support killing Holy Innocents all the time, with our money to boot, just to stay in power. Worse, they then take Communion at Mass. Talk about a mess!

O’Reilly’s book shows that, if anything, Herod was a piker compared to some current-day low-lifes.

You make an excellent point. But, now how do I put this politely–that had to have been some kind of gangrene that Herod contracted though to have his testicles rotting off! GAG!

 

[pnewton]

You don’t like O’Reilly but you listen to Oral Roberts?

Just kidding, p.

Listened, not listen. He’s dead. The only way I could listen to him now would be if he was talking to me at night in my head, telling me to write a book, or send him more money, or start a crusade.

Really, the only time I would listen to him was back when he was on television and the television choice was three channels. As to Bill O’Reilly, I neither like or dislike him, not in the way dislike the pontificating of Al Franken, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh or Jon Stewart. As a rule, I have found one-sided media to be fairly useless. At first, I welcomed that stuff as a contrast to what they call the “mainstream media,” but most of these guys have become what they always criticize.