Killing Jesus - Bill O'Reilly

[LisaA]

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.

Agree totally and that was one of the reasons I picked up the book. I do love history and through this book gained a great deal of insight both into the Romans and the Jewish priesthood at the time. I think it’s a view of how power and money corrupt the soul. Jesus came at a time when He was greatly needed (now would be another good time!) because of the oppression of the people by the state.

I think this lends to the unique message by Christ, turning our hearts to God and not making a god of the Law or Ceasar. He had timeless messages that are as important today as in first century Palestine

Lisa

 

[Peebo]

As to the statement that Mr.O’reilly makes that he didn’t believe Jesus would have been able to say what he did because he was on a cross…I heard a short discussion on this subject on EWTN a few weeks ago where a priest ( I “think” it was Father Mitch Pacwa) said that as Jesus would have spoken Aramaic the words he used on the cross would have been very few as to the English translation…might be a good idea to watch “The Passion” again.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Agree totally and that was one of the reasons I picked up the book. I do love history and through this book gained a great deal of insight both into the Romans and the Jewish priesthood at the time. I think it’s a view of how power and money corrupt the soul. Jesus came at a time when He was greatly needed (now would be another good time!) because of the oppression of the people by the state.

Jumping back into the conversation (and, no, I still haven’t read the book ), I would like to ask a question.

It is true that the Jewish people were expecting hoping for a Messiah who would liberate them from the political oppression of the Romans. However, many of Christ’s initial followers abandoned him as they began to realize that that was not who or what He was (and Judas was among these.)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but does not O’Reilly’s book suggest that He was killed because that is what he was doing? I only have O’Reilly’s interviews to go off of at this point (and before you chastise me, I’d like to state that I did at least make the effort of trying to obtain a copy from our local library) and based on his words, it sounds like he’s saying Christ was doing exactly what many of his followers became upset with Him for not doing.

Am I mistaken?

 

[LisaA]

Jumping back into the conversation (and, no, I still haven’t read the book ), I would like to ask a question.

It is true that the Jewish people were expecting hoping for a Messiah who would liberate them from the political oppression of the Romans. However, many of Christ’s initial followers abandoned him as they began to realize that that was not who or what He was (and Judas was among these.)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but does not O’Reilly’s book suggest that He was killed because that is what he was doing? I only have O’Reilly’s interviews to go off of at this point (and before you chastise me, I’d like to state that I did at least make the effort of trying to obtain a copy from our local library) and based on his words, it sounds like he’s saying Christ was doing exactly what many of his followers became upset with Him for not doing.

Am I mistaken?

My understanding is that the Jewish people were looking for a MILITARY leader to protect them from the oppression of the Romans. Jesus approach was decidedly not military and I have heard some theories that was the reason for Judas betrayal…that he though Jesus would use his power to fight them as a soldier once they tried to arrest him. Indeed those were the followers who left or betrayed him for not being a Davidic type warrior.

As I read the book, it’s clear there was an uneasy alliance between the Romans and the Jewish priestly class. Jesus threatened this with his teachings. He offended the Jewish priests by not following the letter of the law and he offended the Romans by not following their leaders. Both were concerned that the Jewish people would arise and fight them off or prevent them from the relatively lucrative practices of taxation and temple offerings.

It’s the old story of follow the money…and watch out for egos. But I do not in any way think that O’Reilly was inferring Jesus followed the expected path of a military or warrior Messiah. He followed the will of His Father, not the expectations of human beings.

Does that answer your question? Also any “chastising” is for those who haven’t read the book but have an opinion on it based on their dislike for the writer. I don’t have to like a writer to find his/her work worthwhile. I think while O’Reilly’s TV persona is opinion based, his history doesn’t seem to have a political bent. He was a history teacher I believe so comes to this genre from some experience in the field.

Now one question I have to other readers is that he states Mary Magdalene was a prostitute and I thought that was considered inaccurate. After I get done I"m going to look into this issue but that was the one thing in the book that I have questioned so far.

Lisa

 

[KSU]

…As I read the book, it’s clear there was an uneasy alliance between the Romans and the Jewish priestly class. Jesus threatened this with his teachings. He offended the Jewish priests by not following the letter of the law and he offended the Romans by not following their leaders…

LisaA, are you saying that is what O’Reilly believes?

How did Jesus offend the Romans? That is not something that squares with Church teaching.

And you are correct; the Church does not teach that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.

Please continue to provide reviews.

 

[LisaA]

LisaA, are you saying that is what O’Reilly believes?

How did Jesus offend the Romans? That is not something that squares with Church teaching.

And you are correct; the Church does not teach that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.

Please continue to provide reviews.

I don’t know what O’Reilly believes. I don’t understand your comment regarding Church teachings. Jesus was crucified by the Romans after a brutal beating. I’d say he offended them wouldn’t you? They considered him an insurrectionist and the Romans were very quick to deal with those undermining their authority. The Jews claimed he was a blasphemer.

So how does this not comport with Church teaching? It’s a matter of historical record rather than an interpretation.

Lisa

 

[KSU]

I don’t know what O’Reilly believes. I don’t understand your comment regarding Church teachings. Jesus was crucified by the Romans after a brutal beating. I’d say he offended them wouldn’t you? They considered him an insurrectionist and the Romans were very quick to deal with those undermining their authority. The Jews claimed he was a blasphemer.

So how does this not comport with Church teaching? It’s a matter of historical record rather than an interpretation.

Lisa

I asked wether that is actually what O’Reilly wrote (believes) because it is not Church teaching that Jesus offended the Romans. I was grateful for your book report, and in no way attacking you. Now you reply that you don’t know what O’Reilly believes about Jesus offending the Romans, and that you don’t understand my comment about Church teaching.

OK, just forget it. It’s not worth pursuing.

But what is worth pursuing is your statement that “Jesus was crucified by the Romans after a brutal beating. I’d say he offended them wouldn’t you?”

No, I absolutely would not say that he offended them, and I absolutely would not say that they considered Jesus an insurrectionist. How you could have that opinion after reading the biblical account of his crucifixion is beyond understanding.

 

[LisaA]

I asked wether that is actually what O’Reilly wrote (believes) because it is not Church teaching that Jesus offended the Romans. I was grateful for your book report, and in no way attacking you. Now you reply that you don’t know what O’Reilly believes about Jesus offending the Romans, and that you don’t understand my comment about Church teaching.

OK, just forget it. It’s not worth pursuing.

But what is worth pursuing is your statement that “Jesus was crucified by the Romans after a brutal beating. I’d say he offended them wouldn’t you?”

No, I absolutely would not say that he offended them, and I absolutely would not say that they considered Jesus an insurrectionist. How you could have that opinion after reading the biblical account of his crucifixion is beyond understanding.

To claim I knew what O’Reilly BELIEVES would be the height of arrogance. I do not know and neither do you. Maybe you would like to enlighten me on how Church teaching is in opposition to historical records. I’ve never found it to be so. I am not sure if you are coming from a philosophical or theological approach rather than a historical approach because Christ was condemned and crucified by the Romans. It because of his apparent influence over the people who were under the thumb of Rome and their fears of further uprisings. Had he just been another itinerant preacher he would not have been a threat.

Truly I find your whole line of inquiry totally baffling. We are speaking of a particular book (that you haven’t read) and somehow you are arguing against a historical account based on ??? I do not know.

Lisa

 

[KSU]

To claim I knew what O’Reilly BELIEVES would be the height of arrogance. I do not know and neither do you. Maybe you would like to enlighten me on how Church teaching is in opposition to historical records. I’ve never found it to be so. I am not sure if you are coming from a philosophical or theological approach rather than a historical approach because Christ was condemned and crucified by the Romans. It because of his apparent influence over the people who were under the thumb of Rome and their fears of further uprisings. Had he just been another itinerant preacher he would not have been a threat.

Truly I find your whole line of inquiry totally baffling. We are speaking of a particular book (that you haven’t read) and somehow you are arguing against a historical account based on ??? I do not know.

Lisa

You gave us a report about the book in your post #62, thereby entitling us to assume that you were reporting what O’Reilly actually wrote. Here is what you reported:

QUOTE As I read the book, it’s clear there was an uneasy alliance between the Romans and the Jewish priestly class. Jesus threatened this with his teachings. He offended the Jewish priests by not following the letter of the law and he offended the Romans by not following their leaders. Both were concerned that the Jewish people would arise and fight them off or prevent them from the relatively lucrative practices of taxation and temple offerings. END QUOTE

In my post #65, I explained my inquiry, viz: “I asked wether that is actually what O’Reilly wrote (believes) because it is not Church teaching that Jesus offended the Romans”. Lisa, it simply is not Church teaching that Jesus offended the Romans-- certainly not to the point of crucifixion.

Now, despite my attempt in #65 to avoid word games between what O’Reilly “wrote” and what he “believes”, you still refuse to acknowledge my inquiry about what O’Reilly wrote by playing that exact word game, i.e., you continue to reply that none of us know what O’Reilly BELIEVES.

When one is in a hole, one should stop digging, but you keep digging, viz: “Maybe you would like to enlighten me on how Church teaching is in opposition to historical records.”

There is no record–I repeat, “record” as opposed to religious bigotry–, historical or otherwise, that Jesus (the totally innocent and pure victim without fault or blemish) was crucified because he offended the Romans. To answer your question, I am coming from a philosophical and theological and historical approach. Too bad you can’t have a little chat with Pilate who attempted to release Jesus; “I find no fault in this man”
biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r2785.htm

Lisa, you have been and continue to be one of my favorite posters on CA; I think of you as a kindred soul. So I never would have thought that you would place the book above the Book as the superior historical account of the Crucifixion, especially when the book flies in the face of the theology of Innocence Incarnate.

 

[LisaA]

In my post #65, I explained my inquiry, viz: “I asked wether that is actually what O’Reilly wrote (believes) because it is not Church teaching that Jesus offended the Romans”. Lisa, it simply is not Church teaching that Jesus offended the Romans-- certainly not to the point of crucifixion.

Now, despite my attempt in #65 to avoid word games between what O’Reilly “wrote” and what he “believes”, you still refuse to acknowledge my inquiry about what O’Reilly wrote by playing that exact word game, i.e., you continue to reply that none of us know what O’Reilly BELIEVES.

When one is in a hole, one should stop digging, but you keep digging, viz: “Maybe you would like to enlighten me on how Church teaching is in opposition to historical records.”

There is no record–I repeat, “record” as opposed to religious bigotry–, historical or otherwise, that Jesus (the totally innocent and pure victim without fault or blemish) was crucified because he offended the Romans. To answer your question, I am coming from a philosophical and theological and historical approach. Too bad you can’t have a little chat with Pilate who attempted to release Jesus; “I find no fault in this man”
biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r2785.htm

Lisa, you have been and continue to be one of my favorite posters on CA; I think of you as a kindred soul. So I never would have thought that you would place the book above the Book as the superior historical account of the Crucifixion, especially when the book flies in the face of the theology of Innocence Incarnate.

I’m afraid you are playing the word games. I reported what O’Reilly wrote in the book and what history documents. I am aware that Pontius Pilate attempted to save Jesus both in not finding fault with him and also by giving the rabble the chance to set him free…but they chose Barabbas instead.

That being noted, what was the agent of Jesus death? He didn’t die of a disease or fall off a cliff did he? He wasn’t killed by thieves or the Jewish priests. He was crucified at the hand of Roman soldiers at the behest of Roman leaders, abetted and supported by the Jewish priestly class. Both of these elements found him a threat. I don’t know how you have any argument with what were plainly documented in historical records of the time as well as the Biblical version.

Nor does your comment that I’d put O’Reilly’s history book against the Bible have any basis in reality. The Bible is a completely different writing than a historical book. I also get a magazine called Biblical Archeology. It shows stories of the Bible from a historical base through excavation of ruins. Although the stories told are the same, the perspective is different. The Bible is much much more than a history book and O’Reilly’s book doesn’t pretend to be anything but.

Lisa

 

[KSU]

I’m afraid you are playing the word games. I reported what O’Reilly wrote in the book and what history documents. I am aware that Pontius Pilate attempted to save Jesus both in not finding fault with him and also by giving the rabble the chance to set him free…but they chose Barabbas instead.

That being noted, what was the agent of Jesus death? He didn’t die of a disease or fall off a cliff did he? He wasn’t killed by thieves or the Jewish priests. He was crucified at the hand of Roman soldiers at the behest of Roman leaders, abetted and supported by the Jewish priestly class. Both of these elements found him a threat. I don’t know how you have any argument with what were plainly documented in historical records of the time as well as the Biblical version.

Nor does your comment that I’d put O’Reilly’s history book against the Bible have any basis in reality. The Bible is a completely different writing than a historical book. I also get a magazine called Biblical Archeology. It shows stories of the Bible from a historical base through excavation of ruins. Although the stories told are the same, the perspective is different. The Bible is much much more than a history book and O’Reilly’s book doesn’t pretend to be anything but.

Lisa

Per Lisa: “I reported what O’Reilly wrote in the book.” I. E., that Jesus was brutally beaten and crucified by the Romans because they considered him an insurrectionist.

Thank you, my friend. That’s all I was asking.

As you know, my position is that he could not be more wrong, and in fact is anti-Scripture on that point and at least one other. It seems exceedingly arrogant for him, as a Catholic, to come out with a book he knows will be read by millions of people around the world, and imply therein, without any explanation, that the Bible is wrong on certain historical points concerning Christ’s crucifixion.

With respect to O’Reilly’s assertion that Jesus was a political insurrectionist and was crucified for that reason, you add on your own assertion: “I don’t know how you have any argument with what was plainly documented in historical records of the time as well as the Biblical version.”

Lisa, of course not every passage in the Bible should be regarded as “history”, but your assertion that there are historical and Biblical records supporting O’Reilly is just not true. You seem to believe it just because O’Reilly said so. Will you share those alleged documented historical records, as well as the mysterious and unspecified Biblical version that Jesus really was a political insurrectionist? There must be footnotes.

My position is based on the Bible. As to non-Christian sources, the Original Catholic Encyclopedia says, “The non-Christian sources for the historical truth of the Gospels are both few and polluted by hatred and prejudice.” Are those the “historical records” relied upon by O’Reilly? Obviously, he is not relying on Catholic sources or the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Neither states that the Romans really considered Jesus an insurrectionist. Nor does the Bible, but Communists have said so. (No, I don’t believe you are a Communist; just the opposite.)

O’Reilly is NOT a liar. He sometimes comes across as an arrogant and pompous know-it-all, but his heart is in the right place. He loves our country as well as the Church, but does not agree with Her 100%. He says his book is historical, not religious, so he may not have known or cared if its “historical” audacity conflicted with Catholic theology. He knows it now, and he revels in the fact that attacks from both friend and foe help make it the number one best seller in the world. I’m sure it has great entertainment value, as well as much actual historical value for the doubters of Christ’s existence.

 

[Starrsmother]

I’m afraid you are playing the word games. I reported what O’Reilly wrote in the book and what history documents. I am aware that Pontius Pilate attempted to save Jesus both in not finding fault with him and also by giving the rabble the chance to set him free…but they chose Barabbas instead.

That being noted, what was the agent of Jesus death? He didn’t die of a disease or fall off a cliff did he? He wasn’t killed by thieves or the Jewish priests. He was crucified at the hand of Roman soldiers at the behest of Roman leaders, abetted and supported by the Jewish priestly class. Both of these elements found him a threat. I don’t know how you have any argument with what were plainly documented in historical records of the time as well as the Biblical version.

Nor does your comment that I’d put O’Reilly’s history book against the Bible have any basis in reality. The Bible is a completely different writing than a historical book. I also get a magazine called Biblical Archeology. It shows stories of the Bible from a historical base through excavation of ruins. Although the stories told are the same, the perspective is different. The Bible is much much more than a history book and O’Reilly’s book doesn’t pretend to be anything but.

Lisa

Well stated Lisa. I had previously read several histories of that time period when I first came back to the Catholic church. Frankly, I wanted to prove to myself that Jesus did actually live. IF He did, then I instinctively concluded that I had to return to the Catholic church–as only it could possibly have been the the one instituted by Jesus. The only other possibility frightened me a lot–but that was that if Jesus were basically a legend–like perhaps the legends of Thor or Apollo–well then I needed to rethink a whole lot of stuff–as I’d rather believe nothing than a lie. Almost everything in O’Reilly’s book, I’d already read at least in part–as I had perused written records by pagans, jews etc from that time frame for over a year before I did return to the church… However, I had NOT tied it all together as well as O’Reilly did. The Christian answer to why Jesus was crucified is that He died for our sins of course. But, as so often happens, God let mankind seal their own fate. Rome was becoming very decadent at the time. Homosexuality, pedophilia, rape, murder, divorce and remarriage and far worse were all becoming paramount in the Roman rulers of the 1st century–and the jews were subject to Roman rule at that time. Rome then reminds me of San Francisco now–only without penecillin! Caiphias–the high priest–was the first high priest in a very long time that had lasted over a year (he made it for over 30 years) and he did it by being a total puppet master suck up for the Romans. He attained great wealth as did the Romans by taxing the jews terribly to maintain a lifestyle of conspicuous consumption. The high priest also taxed the poor, working class jews with the temple taxes. The jewish leadership/high priests and the roman leadership had arrived at a status quo. As long as nobody rocked the boat, the rich could get richer and the poor get poorer and everyone who thought they counted was happy.Jesus represented a double threat to both the Romans and the jewish leaders.And, therefore the high priest who wanted Jesus dead so the rank and file could not follow Him and end their power and money gravy train conspired with Roman leaders such as Herod and Pilate and accused Jesus of both blasphemy and basically sedition “He says he’s the King of the Jews–we have no king but Ceaser.” Both were capital crimes–one for jews, the other under Roman law!

God used the evil of that day to conspire to allow Jesus’ crucifixon. Obviously, God could have gone about it any way He chose. If Jesus’ death were mandated for our salvation, God could have simply sent His Son to earth already on the cross. He didn’t. Rather, God allowed man to once again conspire, reject Him and sin–just as Adam and Eve once did—but in doing so, this time God showed us by example how to live and die! Thus—man’s sin of the crucifixion of the Son of God—this time lead toward our salvation rather than away from God. But just as most reasonable people now accept that evolution played some part in God’s creation of the universe—it is even more amazing and profound to me to see God’s hand at work in allowing human traits such as greed, impurity, lust for power, etc—all of which lead to original sin-- culminate in killing the single and only truly innocent man ever to be among us, who only taught us how to be better people! And this sacrifice–which Jesus freely allowed to happen and had predicted many times during his years of teaching–is what saved us from that first sin. If anything, the book just made me even more firm in my faith!

 

[KSU]

Well stated Lisa.

So you agree with her that Jesus was killed because the Romans truly believed he was an insurrectionist who threatened the Roman Empire, despite what the Bible says? You agree with her that Jesus’s insurrection is well documented by history and the Bible?

Really, Starrsmother? What “history” did you research to believe that? Will you share it with the Church so it finally can correct the Bible as well as its teachings after 2,000 years?

 

[Starrsmother]

So you agree with her that Jesus was killed because the Romans truly believed he was an insurrectionist who threatened the Roman Empire, despite what the Bible says? You agree with her that Jesus’s insurrection is well documented by history and the Bible?

Really, Starrsmother? What “history” did you research to believe that? Will you share it with the Church so it finally can correct the Bible as well as its teachings after 2,000 years?

I believe that you have to understand that the jews had been conquered by Rome and that to understand what happened at the time of Jesus’ public life and crucifixion, you simply have to understand what kind of people Tiberius, Herod, Pilate and Caiphas were as well as what all of their vested interests were in being rid of Jesus–because each of them definitley had vested interests! You are the one who needs to research history–and the church certainly does NOT deny the politics of the time being involved in Jesus being sentenced to death! PULL-EASE!!! Pilate was only too happy to oblige Caiphas and the high priests when they brought Jesus before him–the only real rub was the degree of punishment to meet out, to hopefully not upset his wife who had apparently had a dream about Jesus but even MORE important to Pilate ultimately, to not cause a jewish revolt as Tiberius didn’t want that–and Tiberius was a man to be feared–greatly feared. Pilate would have probably only beaten and tortured Jesus but spared the death sentence if Caiphas hadn’t pushed for it–AND if Jesus had not stood right in front of him and upon being asked if he were the Christ (ie the king promised in scripture to the jewish people whom they assumed would lead them out from Roman rule)–basically said “Yup–that’s me!” That statement by Jesus was a very problematic one for Pilate–and of course Caiphas knew it and certainly used it to get what he wanted–ie kill Jesus. True history is not everyone’s bag–and I realize that–but I spent a lot of time on this issue for my own personal reasons as I mentioned earlier. I could explain it to you, but me-thinks you wouldn’t believe me if I did. Read about the Roman empire at that time and then do some research on Caiphas and the priesthood. This is a little like the Kennedy assassination interactions in a way. YES, the high priests definitely wanted Jesus dead–but the Romans had reasons to want to keep the high priests happy–especially Caiphas–and on top of that, they were a little afraid that Jesus might actually be claiming to be the “messiah”, a true dissident and threat–which Herod feared meant he’d be out of a job! Obviously, the greater truth is that this was not what Jesus was about at all–but the political environment of that time made Jesus appear to be a threat to more than just one group of rich and powerful big shots at the time. And, what I see in all this: the BIG picture, I guess–is the amazing majesty that God uses to incorporate mankind’s own flaws and sinful natures sometimes to achieve his will and purpose. Frankly, if Jesus had come to earth even 100 years later–or 100 years earlier, I don’t think He’d have ended up crucified–or if He did–if that was God’s plan–it would have certainly happened but differently. Like I said, I could recite the history of Rome at the time and the jews at that time–but I think you’d only argue–and it’s a lengthy tale. Nobody–least of all me–questions in any way that Jesus came to earth to teach us how to live and to die for us, be resurrected and institute a new covenant with mankind. And that is the point! God allowed a “perfect storm” to be occurring at the exact time Jesus was born! Frankly, to me–it just awes me all the more!

 

[LisaA]

I believe that you have to understand that the jews had been conquered by Rome and that to understand what happened at the time of Jesus’ public life and crucifixion, you simply have to understand what kind of people Tiberius, Herod, Pilate and Caiphas were as well as what all of their vested interests were in being rid of Jesus–because each of them definitley had vested interests! You are the one who needs to research history–and the church certainly does NOT deny the politics of the time being involved in Jesus being sentenced to death! PULL-EASE!!! Pilate was only too happy to oblige Caiphas and the high priests when they brought Jesus before him–the only real rub was the degree of punishment to meet out, to hopefully not upset his wife who had apparently had a dream about Jesus but even MORE important to Pilate ultimately, to not cause a jewish revolt as Tiberius didn’t want that–and Tiberius was a man to be feared–greatly feared. Pilate would have probably only beaten and tortured Jesus but spared the death sentence if Caiphas hadn’t pushed for it–AND if Jesus had not stood right in front of him and upon being asked if he were the Christ (ie the king promised in scripture to the jewish people whom they assumed would lead them out from Roman rule)–basically said “Yup–that’s me!” That statement by Jesus was a very problematic one for Pilate–and of course Caiphas knew it and certainly used it to get what he wanted–ie kill Jesus. True history is not everyone’s bag–and I realize that–but I spent a lot of time on this issue for my own personal reasons as I mentioned earlier. I could explain it to you, but me-thinks you wouldn’t believe me if I did. Read about the Roman empire at that time and then do some research on Caiphas and the priesthood. This is a little like the Kennedy assassination interactions in a way. YES, the high priests definitely wanted Jesus dead–but the Romans had reasons to want to keep the high priests happy–especially Caiphas–and on top of that, they were a little afraid that Jesus might actually be claiming to be the “messiah”, a true dissident and threat–which Herod feared meant he’d be out of a job! Obviously, the greater truth is that this was not what Jesus was about at all–but the political environment of that time made Jesus appear to be a threat to more than just one group of rich and powerful big shots at the time. And, what I see in all this: the BIG picture, I guess–is the amazing majesty that God uses to incorporate mankind’s own flaws and sinful natures sometimes to achieve his will and purpose. Frankly, if Jesus had come to earth even 100 years later–or 100 years earlier, I don’t think He’d have ended up crucified–or if He did–if that was God’s plan–it would have certainly happened but differently. Like I said, I could recite the history of Rome at the time and the jews at that time–but I think you’d only argue–and it’s a lengthy tale. Nobody–least of all me–questions in any way that Jesus came to earth to teach us how to live and to die for us, be resurrected and institute a new covenant with mankind. And that is the point! God allowed a “perfect storm” to be occurring at the exact time Jesus was born! Frankly, to me–it just awes me all the more!

Well stated and thank you for weighing in. Along with the historical perspective your statement (bolded) above is so essential to understanding the course of events. Ironically I grew up hearing about “the glory that was Rome” and indeed the Romans had many great achievements. But the brutality of their leaders and their warlike nature along with the grotesque sexual practices (Loved the analogy of SFO without penicillin!) perverted what God wanted for His creation. It took Jesus to demonstrate how God wanted us to live.

Again thank you.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

While we’ve been picking on the Romans quite a bit, as I read, the Jewish priestly class is being outed as corrupt, greedy and power hungry, thus also complicit in Christ’s crucifixion. As I recall when The Passion of the Christ was released there was great angst over Christians rising up to attack Jews over their role in Jesus’ death. Although I always found this utterly laugable in our city various Christian leaders were place on high alert. Panels were formed to deflect the ire of the masses by fielding questions. I recall a very high profile group formed to coincide with the release of the Passion that provided a public forum. It consisted of one of the city’s most prominient Rabbis, the Dean of the Episcopal Cathedral and the assistant to the Archbishop of the Archdiocese.

Remember the old cartoon about “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came…” which was exactly the response to The Passion. I find it interesting that so far I have not heard Jewish leaders complaining about Killing Jesus in the same way as The Passion was marginalized. I don’t know if they are not worried about any backlash (they shouldn’t be) or if the experience of The Passion has made them realize that a) most people can distinguish between the faults of individuals and that of a religion and b) there is no gain in fighting past wars.

Any other readers wonder about the “bad press” for Jewish causes from this book? I’m delighted no one has ginned this up but so many rabble rousers hate to let a crisis go to waste and O’Reilly does tend to controversy.

Lisa

 

[Larry1700]

I believe that you have to understand that the jews had been conquered by Rome and that to understand what happened at the time of Jesus’ public life and crucifixion, you simply have to understand what kind of people Tiberius, Herod, Pilate and Caiphas were as well as what all of their vested interests were in being rid of Jesus…

… And, what I see in all this: the BIG picture, I guess–is the amazing majesty that God uses to incorporate mankind’s own flaws and sinful natures sometimes to achieve his will and purpose. Frankly, if Jesus had come to earth even 100 years later–or 100 years earlier, I don’t think He’d have ended up crucified–or if He did–if that was God’s plan–it would have certainly happened but differently.

… God allowed a “perfect storm” to be occurring at the exact time Jesus was born! Frankly, to me–it just awes me all the more!

All very well put, Starrsmother.

I am only halfway through the book, and like it so far. Like O’Reilly’s “Killing Lincoln,” there is a LOT of context thrown in, and all of it very interesting. For example, there is a great deal of background provided to show what made Caesar Augustus and Tiberius the kind of people they were.

And as for the kind of people they were–they were absolutely horrific, in their sexual perversion, their lust for absolute power, and their utter disdain for the value of human life. Like another poster said, we often hear of how great the Roman Empire was, but I had never understood how barbaric and otherwise immoral the leaders were, until reading this book.

Satan rejoices in such behavior; therefore the dichotomy between the Roman leaders and Jesus was an absolutely distinct juxtaposition between good and evil.

As for O’Reilly himself, since I do watch him almost every night, I am aware of some things he has said which aren’t perfectly in line with Catholic teaching. He seems to have gotten most of his understanding from his upbringing in Catholic school, and, in my opinion, needs to “research” the Catechism and various other Church documents before making statements about our faith to his 2.5 million viewers per episode of “The O’Reilly Factor.” That being said, he is far, far, more in line with Catholic teaching than Pelosi and Biden. Maybe if enough of us send such a statement to his new “Mad As Hell” email address (I think it’s madashell@oreilly.com, but I’m not certain), he will do better in the future.

Since I am only up to the point where Jesus begins his ministry, I can’t speak to whether the book says anything about Jesus which contradicts Church teaching. I do know, however, that Father Jonathan Morris said he liked it.

With any religious-related book that is not written by the Church itself, or does not bear an Imprimatur, we must read it with caution, using Church teachings as our touchstone from which to properly understand those books. Don’t religious historians use non-Biblical/non-Church writings (such as the oft-referenced writings of Josephus) to help better understand what was going in in Jesus’ time? We can certainly open ourselves up to those writings, with the caveat that they are not authoritative regarding matters related to Church teachings.

I’m doing that with O’Reilly’s “Killing Jesus,” and so far (as I have not yet finished it), I recommend it to others, as well.

With that being said, so far I recommend it, in order to deepen your understanding about

 

[prodigalson2011]

I believe that you have to understand that the jews had been conquered by Rome and that to understand what happened at the time of Jesus’ public life and crucifixion, you simply have to understand what kind of people Tiberius, Herod, Pilate and Caiphas were as well as what all of their vested interests were in being rid of Jesus–because each of them definitley had vested interests! You are the one who needs to research history–and the church certainly does NOT deny the politics of the time being involved in Jesus being sentenced to death! PULL-EASE!!! Pilate was only too happy to oblige Caiphas and the high priests when they brought Jesus before him–the only real rub was the degree of punishment to meet out, to hopefully not upset his wife who had apparently had a dream about Jesus but even MORE important to Pilate ultimately, to not cause a jewish revolt as Tiberius didn’t want that–and Tiberius was a man to be feared–greatly feared. Pilate would have probably only beaten and tortured Jesus but spared the death sentence if Caiphas hadn’t pushed for it–AND if Jesus had not stood right in front of him and upon being asked if he were the Christ (ie the king promised in scripture to the jewish people whom they assumed would lead them out from Roman rule)–basically said “Yup–that’s me!” That statement by Jesus was a very problematic one for Pilate–and of course Caiphas knew it and certainly used it to get what he wanted–ie kill Jesus. True history is not everyone’s bag–and I realize that–but I spent a lot of time on this issue for my own personal reasons as I mentioned earlier. I could explain it to you, but me-thinks you wouldn’t believe me if I did. Read about the Roman empire at that time and then do some research on Caiphas and the priesthood. This is a little like the Kennedy assassination interactions in a way. YES, the high priests definitely wanted Jesus dead–but the Romans had reasons to want to keep the high priests happy–especially Caiphas–and on top of that, they were a little afraid that Jesus might actually be claiming to be the “messiah”, a true dissident and threat–which Herod feared meant he’d be out of a job! Obviously, the greater truth is that this was not what Jesus was about at all–but the political environment of that time made Jesus appear to be a threat to more than just one group of rich and powerful big shots at the time. And, what I see in all this: the BIG picture, I guess–is the amazing majesty that God uses to incorporate mankind’s own flaws and sinful natures sometimes to achieve his will and purpose. Frankly, if Jesus had come to earth even 100 years later–or 100 years earlier, I don’t think He’d have ended up crucified–or if He did–if that was God’s plan–it would have certainly happened but differently. Like I said, I could recite the history of Rome at the time and the jews at that time–but I think you’d only argue–and it’s a lengthy tale. Nobody–least of all me–questions in any way that Jesus came to earth to teach us how to live and to die for us, be resurrected and institute a new covenant with mankind. And that is the point! God allowed a “perfect storm” to be occurring at the exact time Jesus was born! Frankly, to me–it just awes me all the more!

Even allowing for historical evidence of some kind of “uneasy alliance” between the Jewish priesthood and the Roman authorities, the fact is there is simply NO actual historical evidence that would suggest Christ was considered a political threat by the Romans. Zero. You will find exactly zero historical documents stating anything to that effect. The only detailed historical documents of his life and death are the Gospels (and, yes, the Gospels are considered valid history.) To claim otherwise is simply historical revisionism. It is a fallacy akin to, though not nearly as egregious, as that committed by Reza Aslan in his recent book on Jesus. The error is simply this: one cannot infer from the prevailing circumstances of a particular time and place that a certain event must have happened or that certain persons must have behaved in a way that strictly adheres to those circumstances. This is called overgeneralizing.

And that is what O’Reilly seems to be doing. Because I have read my Gospels thoroughly, and I have researched the extra-Biblical references to Christ, and none of the latter offer anything in the way of detail, while the former, being the only real accounts of Christ’s life, trial and execution, explicitly contradict these claims. Regardless of whether it’s bad theology, it’s bad history and it makes Our Lord out to be someone He was not (a political insurrectionist, as another poster put it.)

 

[LisaA]

Even allowing for historical evidence of some kind of “uneasy alliance” between the Jewish priesthood and the Roman authorities, the fact is there is simply NO actual historical evidence that would suggest Christ was considered a political threat by the Romans. Zero. You will find exactly zero historical documents stating anything to that effect. The only detailed historical documents of his life and death are the Gospels (and, yes, the Gospels are considered valid history.) To claim otherwise is simply historical revisionism. It is a fallacy akin to, though not nearly as egregious, as that committed by Reza Aslan in his recent book on Jesus. The error is simply this: one cannot infer from the prevailing circumstances of a particular time and place that a certain event must have happened or that certain persons must have behaved in a way that strictly adheres to those circumstances. This is called overgeneralizing.

And that is what O’Reilly seems to be doing. Because I have read my Gospels thoroughly, and I have researched the extra-Biblical references to Christ, and none of the latter offer anything in the way of detail, while the former, being the only real accounts of Christ’s life, trial and execution, explicitly contradict these claims. Regardless of whether it’s bad theology, it’s bad history and it makes Our Lord out to be someone He was not (a political insurrectionist, as another poster put it.)

It seems you and another poster are obsessed with hairsplitting. Here is a fact, Jesus was condemned by the Roman hierarchy and the crucifixion was carried out by Roman soldiers. This is in the Gospel.

The Romans were an enormous power who used brutality to maintain order. Crucifixion was used by the Romans both to punish and to warn the masses not to step out of line.
The Romans were obsessed with maintaining order. Although armed and powerful they were small in absolute numbers. Were the locals to turn against them, not only did they risk loss of their franchise in Palestine, those in power knew that they would be punished by Rome once word got back.

So to claim that the Romans did not consider Jesus and his followers a threat requiring action is to ignore reality. Whom else do you credit with Jesus crucifixion? The Jews? Is that what this is about? I am starting to wonder if the real agenda is to promote the Jew as Christ Killer mantra. Am I correct?

Lisa

 

[KSU]

It seems you and another poster are obsessed with hairsplitting. Here is a fact, Jesus was condemned by the Roman hierarchy and the crucifixion was carried out by Roman soldiers. This is in the Gospel.

The Romans were an enormous power who used brutality to maintain order. Crucifixion was used by the Romans both to punish and to warn the masses not to step out of line.
The Romans were obsessed with maintaining order. Although armed and powerful they were small in absolute numbers. Were the locals to turn against them, not only did they risk loss of their franchise in Palestine, those in power knew that they would be punished by Rome once word got back.

So to claim that the Romans did not consider Jesus and his followers a threat requiring action is to ignore reality. Whom else do you credit with Jesus crucifixion? The Jews? Is that what this is about? I am starting to wonder if the real agenda is to promote the Jew as Christ Killer mantra. Am I correct?

Lisa

Shame on you, my friend. It’s one thing to refuse to admit through invincible ignorance that you are wrong (i.e., that Catholic teaching and the Bible about why Jesus was crucified is correct), but it’s a far different thing to imply strongly that those who disagree with you are anti-Jewish bigots.