Killing Jesus - Bill O'Reilly

[pnewton]

no one is saying anything anti-Semitic here so I hope you are not accusing anyone of that.

No. I am only saying that I see why KSU took offense. Words carry meaning. We should never use stronger rhetoric against someone than we think would be suitable to be used against us. That Golden Rule thing. I have no opinion as to the complexity of fault of the crucifixion that Mr. O’Reilly presents. I do not mind commenting on something easy, like the fact that Jesus really did say seven things from the cross, but the complexity of the political situation would take a full reading of the book before I could have an opinion on his stance. I only know my own opinion, in concert with the Church.

 

[KSU]

what does that mean? I hope ksu does not stand for Kansas state university.

It means that it was inappropriate to address your question to poor pnewton when it was LisaA who brought in the entirely inappropriate issue of antisemitism.

You said earlier, “I agree with LisaA”, and then inappropriately echoed her false accusation against me as “hairsplitting.” I don’t consider siding with the Gospels over you, her and O’Reilly as hairsplitting.

And, no, KSU does not stand for Kansas State University. BTW, do they still play football over there?

 

[Starrsmother]

Thanks, p, but don’t waste your time with these good folks. It is blatantly obvious that those who have placed O’Reilly’s version of Crucifixion history above the Gospels have painted themselves into a corner.

The only topic at issue in this debate is: Did Pilate agree with the Jews’ demand to crucify Christ because he feared potential insurrection by the Jews, as put forth in the Gospels, or because he actually believed the Jews’ charges of insurrection, etc. against Jesus, as alleged by O’Reilly?

Instead of their addressing the topic at issue, I am charged with “hairsplitting”, “refusal to include the Romans as agents in Christ’s crucifixion”, and refusal to provide historical documentation to prove a negative, i.e., that the Crucifixion Gospels are wrong.

So, it’s an old dodge to change the subject; in this case,to possible antisemitism.

It really is funny to watch them dance around the issue.

You totally get it! LOL!

 

[KSU]

You totally get it! LOL!

I don’t understand your comment.

 

[oneofmany]

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!

That is wonderful and I think many others will come away after reading the book with the same feelings and thoughts. I pray they do anyway. Why Catholics argue over this is beyond me.

 

[KSU]

That is wonderful and I think many others will come away after reading the book with the same feelings and thoughts. I pray they do anyway. Why Catholics argue over this is beyond me.

Catholics to my knowledge have never argued over the issue being debated here. This thread is, to the best of my knowledge, the first time Catholics (and only three or so at that) have sided with the very un-Catholic assertion of Bill O’Reilly. According to LisaA, O’Reilly wrote that Christ was crucified because Pilate believed the lies that the Jews were telling him, i.e., that Christ really was a trouble-making insurrectionist, was telling the Jewish people not to pay taxes to the Romans, etc.

I and other Catholics on this board say that O’Reilly’s assertion is absurd on its face, is not what the Church teaches and is flatly contradicted by the HISTORICAL Gospel account of the Crucifixion.

So, oneofmany, because the argument was not included in the post to which you responded, I’m asking you now if you even knew what the argument was about before you posted? I hope your answer is “no.”

Please understand; I am asking simply because I can’t believe you really pray that some age-old teachings of the Church (which are based primarily on the Gospel account of the Crucifixion) are wrong, and that O’Reilly and his followers are right.

Note that this is no small matter of hairsplitting. If the Church/Gospel of the Crucifixion is wrong on this issue, what else are the Church/Gospels wrong about? I think you know how the enemies of the Church would dance with joy if, after centuries oy trying, it could be shown that Church doctrine is wrong on even one point.

Attention Lisa et al. No one thinks you are enemies of the Church. I know that you love the Church and are arguing in good faith (with maybe just a little liberty here and there)

 

[Starrsmother]

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.)

Okay:

1. If you haven’t, read the ENTIRE translated writings of Josphus–the secular historian who lived and wrote about Roman history at that time–which is the time he actually lived. I don’t mean just the paragraph you find on line–read his entire transcribed and translated works.

More current historical references:

1. “Rome and Jerusalem” by Martin Goodman
2. “Rubicon” by Tom Holland
   4.“The Complete Roman Legions” by Nigel Pollard and J. Berry
3. “The Roman Army” by McNab
   6.“The Joy of Sexus” by V. Leon (discusses Roman sexual practices–and yes this explains what was going on too–it’s not a dirty book)
   7.“Pontius Pilate in History” by Helen Bond
4. “Caiaphas: Friend of Rome and Judge of Jesus” also by Bond–and she is considered to be one of, if not THE most eminent historians who have studied and written of of that time period.
   9.“Herod” by P. Richardson–another brilliant and accurate historian
   10.“The Crucifixion of Jesus–A Forensic Inquiry” by Gibson
5. “The Shroud of Turin- A Forensic Study”

That will get you started. These historians are looking at it from a secular historical view. If the 4 gospels are true then others who lived in that time period had to have known and written about it. Moreover–just as anthropologists tell us much about the pyramids and Egyptian life and politics, there are biblical historians who can and have enlightened us about Roman and Jewish history of biblical times. The last 10 sources I listed are dealing with the politics, cultures, traditions and political intrigues surrounding Jesus–as well as the subject of crucifixions, laws and customs surrounding it, methods of doing so and so on. I have 3 or 4 more suggested readings that were suggested to me and which I read then— while looking for information—and if you read these and still have sincere questions, I’ll be glad to provide the names of these other works to you as well.

As I said earlier, I had fallen away from the church for over 30 years. As I contemplated the truth of religion–any religion–I wanted the TRUTH–even if that had meant that Jesus were only a myth. So I began to study historically that time period. What I discovered, not only brought me crawling back to the Catholic church, but shook my understanding of how what happened happened–what was going on in the big picture around Jesus. Nothing in these historical studies contradicts any Catholic doctrine–nor does O’Reilly’s book for that matter. The references I provide, simply “flesh it out” in a matter of speaking.

 

[Starrsmother]

That is wonderful and I think many others will come away after reading the book with the same feelings and thoughts. I pray they do anyway. Why Catholics argue over this is beyond me.

I don’t understand why they argue about historical facts either–it’s a little like what Pope Francis advises when he basically warns us to quit splitting hairs and truly evangelize. Bill O’Reilly wrote a very interesting historical book. Some things are straight from Roman/Jewish First Century History 101. A few things, O’Reilly CAN’T be sure of (nobody could–such as what color robe someone wore on a given day)–and are based only on the known history and culture of the times–and in those cases, O’Reilly readily admits that he is speculating. There is no heresy involved. The 4 accepted gospels don’t even agree word for word! SO, because in one gospel it says that Jesus fed the crowds with loaves and fishes only once–but in another gospel it says that He did so on two separate occasions, should we toss at least one gospel? OR, do we accept both gospels and simply acknowledge that if it happened once it was a great miracle–and it must’ve happened at least once to be mentioned in multiple gospels-- but if it did happen twice–well DOUBLE wow! In one gospel, Peter cuts off the centurion’s ear when they came to take Jesus into custody–in the others, no such event was mention. So should we toss the gospel where it is mentioned as being inaccurate–or maybe the other 3 are wrong?

The point is that Jesus came to earth at a specific time in history. He was a practicing Jew and was raised as a practicing Jew of that time. Rome had captured the Jews and their “king” was Herod. Tiberius–who considered himself to be a divinity–was the ruler over all. The Jewish people were taxed so heavily that many of them lost their land and had to sell themselves into a form of slavery–or sell one of their kids into the same–to pay taxes. High priests like Caiaphas and Annas his father in law were also bleeding the Jews dry and splitting moneys obtained with Rome to keep their position. And the Jews were expecting a messiah–just not the one that Jesus turned out to be! For the record, about 60 years later (after Jesus’ life on earth), the Jews did revolt under another man who claimed to be the messiah–and he and thousands of Jews were executed by the Romans then too–and BRUTALLY, just like Jesus was! So yes, the Romans knew that the Jews were fervently expecting a savior who was supposed to come to them as their king and free them–they thought from Rome–and yes, the Romans were certainly VERY aware of the OT prophecies and what the Jews thought the messiah would do and YES, they worried about what Jesus’ “big plan” was–and feared that he planned sedition. How does the simple, factual truth in history in ANY way become heresy? It’s almost silly!:banghead:

 

[pnewton]

And, no, KSU does not stand for Kansas State University. BTW, do they still play football over there?

At times.

 

[LisaA]

I don’t understand why they argue about historical facts either–it’s a little like what Pope Francis advises when he basically warns us to quit splitting hairs and truly evangelize. Bill O’Reilly wrote a very interesting historical book. Some things are straight from Roman/Jewish First Century History 101. A few things, O’Reilly CAN’T be sure of (nobody could–such as what color robe someone wore on a given day)–and are based only on the known history and culture of the times–and in those cases, O’Reilly readily admits that he is speculating. There is no heresy involved. The 4 accepted gospels don’t even agree word for word! SO, because in one gospel it says that Jesus fed the crowds with loaves and fishes only once–but in another gospel it says that He did so on two separate occasions, should we toss at least one gospel? OR, do we accept both gospels and simply acknowledge that if it happened once it was a great miracle–and it must’ve happened at least once to be mentioned in multiple gospels-- but if it did happen twice–well DOUBLE wow! In one gospel, Peter cuts off the centurion’s ear when they came to take Jesus into custody–in the others, no such event was mention. So should we toss the gospel where it is mentioned as being inaccurate–or maybe the other 3 are wrong?

The point is that Jesus came to earth at a specific time in history. He was a practicing Jew and was raised as a practicing Jew of that time. Rome had captured the Jews and their “king” was Herod. Tiberius–who considered himself to be a divinity–was the ruler over all. The Jewish people were taxed so heavily that many of them lost their land and had to sell themselves into a form of slavery–or sell one of their kids into the same–to pay taxes. High priests like Caiaphas and Annas his father in law were also bleeding the Jews dry and splitting moneys obtained with Rome to keep their position. And the Jews were expecting a messiah–just not the one that Jesus turned out to be! For the record, about 60 years later (after Jesus’ life on earth), the Jews did revolt under another man who claimed to be the messiah–and he and thousands of Jews were executed by the Romans then too–and BRUTALLY, just like Jesus was! So yes, the Romans knew that the Jews were fervently expecting a savior who was supposed to come to them as their king and free them–they thought from Rome–and yes, the Romans were certainly VERY aware of the OT prophecies and what the Jews thought the messiah would do and YES, they worried about what Jesus’ “big plan” was–and feared that he planned sedition. How does the simple, factual truth in history in ANY way become heresy? It’s almost silly!:banghead:

Again thank you for providing information and rational analysis. To various posters who dispute the book (they have not read), there are no “followers” of Bill O’Reilly on this forum. There are those who read the book and are trying to discuss the book rather than debate Catholic teaching. Although O’Reilly is a Catholic, he has stated repeatedly that this book was not meant to be theological, much less a book about Chuch teaching on the subject of Jesus’ life and death.

I was able to finish the book, which truly is a page turner and was impressed by the level of detail regarding the courts at the time and most particularly the very precision demonstrated by the Romans regarding the scourging and crucifixion. While we focus on Christ’s crucifixion, he was certainly not the only one suffering this fate and the Romans literally had the procedure down to a science. The size of the team assigned to crucify, the role of each man, the specific number of blows struck and the instruments used were standardized. In fact certain subsequent Jewish uprisings required so many crucifixions that they literally ran out of trees and had to range far and wide to get the lumber needed.
As noted above there were previous and subsequent uprisings and while we might split hairs and say the Romans didn’t fear the Jews as a military force, they did fear the uprisings would divert the attention of Rome to what was frankly a remote backwater. The Romans eventually crushed the Jews by trapping them in Jerusalem and destroying the Temple.

The fates of the various individuals in this drama were noted when available as well as the eventual martyrdom of most of the Disciples. Again much is historical and documented. The Romans particularly kept very good records! At the end, O’Reilly notes that the many prophecies (one of Jesus supposed crimes) of Jesus regarding Jerusalem and the Temple did in fact materialize.

Overall it’s a good read and filled in some of the details I’d either missed or were not included in Scripture. But just as the Bible is not meant to be simply a historical rendition of events of that time, Killing Jesus is not a substitute for Scripture nor is anyone suggesting that it is.

Lisa

 

[KSU]

… To various posters who dispute the book (they have not read), there are no “followers” of Bill O’Reilly on this forum… Killing Jesus is not a substitute for Scripture nor is anyone suggesting that it is.
Lisa

And if you like your Doctor and your plan (wherein you don’t have to buy or provide coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients) you can keep them. And your cost will be reduced by $2,500 for the average family of four.

 

[oneofmany]

Catholics to my knowledge have never argued over the issue being debated here. This thread is, to the best of my knowledge, the first time Catholics (and only three or so at that) have sided with the very un-Catholic assertion of Bill O’Reilly. According to LisaA, O’Reilly wrote that Christ was crucified because Pilate believed the lies that the Jews were telling him, i.e., that Christ really was a trouble-making insurrectionist, was telling the Jewish people not to pay taxes to the Romans, etc.

I and other Catholics on this board say that O’Reilly’s assertion is absurd on its face, is not what the Church teaches and is flatly contradicted by the HISTORICAL Gospel account of the Crucifixion.

So, oneofmany, because the argument was not included in the post to which you responded, I’m asking you now if you even knew what the argument was about before you posted? I hope your answer is “no.”

Please understand; I am asking simply because I can’t believe you really pray that some age-old teachings of the Church (which are based primarily on the Gospel account of the Crucifixion) are wrong, and that O’Reilly and his followers are right.

Note that this is no small matter of hairsplitting. If the Church/Gospel of the Crucifixion is wrong on this issue, what else are the Church/Gospels wrong about? I think you know how the enemies of the Church would dance with joy if, after centuries oy trying, it could be shown that Church doctrine is wrong on even one point.

Attention Lisa et al. No one thinks you are enemies of the Church. I know that you love the Church and are arguing in good faith (with maybe just a little liberty here and there)

Well splitting hairs is about right. I heard O’Reilly say on his show that the Romans got mad at Jesus because of how He acted in the temple, throwing over the tables of the money makers and throwing them out. That is believible since when did the Romans care if the Jews thought Jesus was the Messiah? It was when Jesus threatened their money stream that they got upset. We know governments do not like that, even today.

As far as O’Reilly’s book, I am glad he wrote it. There is a professor out there now that put out a book saying Jesus never even existed. We need a historical book to refute that rediculous claim. Split hairs all you want but I am glad his book is number 1, better than having the professor’s book being number 1. Talk about enimies dancing for joy, that would be it. There are bigger fish than the reason the Roman’s crucified Jesus.

Why don’t you read the book than come back with your criticisms.

 

[Starrsmother]

Well splitting hairs is about right. I heard O’Reilly say on his show that the Romans got mad at Jesus because of how He acted in the temple, throwing over the tables of the money makers and throwing them out. That is believible since when did the Romans care if the Jews thought Jesus was the Messiah? It was when Jesus threatened their money stream that they got upset. We know governments do not like that, even today.

As far as O’Reilly’s book, I am glad he wrote it. There is a professor out there now that put out a book saying Jesus never even existed. We need a historical book to refute that rediculous claim. Split hairs all you want but I am glad his book is number 1, better than having the professor’s book being number 1. Talk about enimies dancing for joy, that would be it. There are bigger fish than the reason the Roman’s crucified Jesus.

Why don’t you read the book than come back with your criticisms.

Well said. There is NOTHING even slightly un-Catholic about admitting that the Romans as well as the Jewish hierarchy had a part in the crucifixion of Jesus. MANY Catholic writers over MANY centuries have discussed these things. Moreover, you pointed out an even greater truth: here is a book about Jesus, written in a favorable and historically correct light by a Catholic author who donates proceeds from the sales to charity–as opposed to recent “Catholic inspired” bunk like the DaVinci Code which IS truly speculative at best and insulting at worst to Catholics–and still there are Catholics out there so mired in nit-picking and pseudo-theology that they can’t see the sun for the glare of the light bulb in their own small eye!! This is exactly what Pope Francis is trying to get across to us in my opinion!

 

[KSU]

Well splitting hairs is about right. I heard O’Reilly say on his show that the Romans got mad at Jesus because of how He acted in the temple, throwing over the tables of the money makers and throwing them out. That is believible since when did the Romans care if the Jews thought Jesus was the Messiah? It was when Jesus threatened their money stream that they got upset. We know governments do not like that, even today.

As far as O’Reilly’s book, I am glad he wrote it. There is a professor out there now that put out a book saying Jesus never even existed. We need a historical book to refute that rediculous claim. Split hairs all you want but I am glad his book is number 1, better than having the professor’s book being number 1. Talk about enimies dancing for joy, that would be it. There are bigger fish than the reason the Roman’s crucified Jesus.

Why don’t you read the book than come back with your criticisms.

oneofmany, people who say Jesus never existed are looked upon as agenda-driven embarrassments, even by non-Christian historians.

I am not sorry that the book was written; it will do some good, but not as totally reliable history in all detail. And I don’t have to read it to criticize it regarding the reason O’Reilly gives for the Crucifixion, i.e., I have no reason to doubt Lisa’s report about that detail.

I assume you have no intention of answering my question, but that in itself is an answer.

 

[KSU]

Well said. There is NOTHING even slightly un-Catholic about admitting that the Romans as well as the Jewish hierarchy had a part in the crucifixion of Jesus. MANY Catholic writers over MANY centuries have discussed these things. Moreover, you pointed out an even greater truth: here is a book about Jesus, written in a favorable and historically correct light by a Catholic author who donates proceeds from the sales to charity–as opposed to recent “Catholic inspired” bunk like the DaVinci Code which IS truly speculative at best and insulting at worst to Catholics–and still there are Catholics out there so mired in nit-picking and pseudo-theology that they can’t see the sun for the glare of the light bulb in their own small eye!! This is exactly what Pope Francis is trying to get across to us in my opinion!

No one here has even hinted that only the Jews were responsible for the Crucifixion. Nevertheless, there was this implication in post # 77, viz: “I am starting to wonder if the real agenda is to promote the Jew as Christ Killer mantra. Am I correct?”

So now you throw gasoline on that fire: " There is NOTHING even slightly un-Catholic about admitting that the Romans as well as the Jewish hierarchy had a part in the crucifixion of Jesus." You know very well that no one here believes only the Jews killed Christ; it is a false accusation and an absurdity meant only to change the subject. Knock it off!

And then to top it off, you say this:" there are Catholics out there so mired in nit-picking and pseudo-theology that they can’t see the sun for the glare of the light bulb in their own small eye!!"

Starrsmother, what does that add to the discussion of O’Reilly’s position on the reason for the Crucifixion? Are you really that angry at me for pointing out that his position contradicts the Gospels? Seriously, why are you acting this way?

The following is reiterated on this thread without ever giving even one link to it: “MANY Catholic writers over MANY centuries have discussed these things.”

Really? What Catholic writers over many centuries agree that Pilate killed Jesus because he believed the lies told to him by the Jews? It should be a snap to cite just one. Cite one or stop attacking my position.

 

[Starrsmother]

No one here has even hinted that only the Jews were responsible for the Crucifixion. Nevertheless, there was this implication in post # 77, viz: “I am starting to wonder if the real agenda is to promote the Jew as Christ Killer mantra. Am I correct?”

So now you throw gasoline on that fire: " There is NOTHING even slightly un-Catholic about admitting that the Romans as well as the Jewish hierarchy had a part in the crucifixion of Jesus." You know very well that no one here believes only the Jews killed Christ; it is a false accusation and an absurdity meant only to change the subject. Knock it off!

And then to top it off, you say this:" there are Catholics out there so mired in nit-picking and pseudo-theology that they can’t see the sun for the glare of the light bulb in their own small eye!!"

Starrsmother, what does that add to the discussion of O’Reilly’s position on the reason for the Crucifixion? Are you really that angry at me for pointing out that his position contradicts the Gospels? Seriously, why are you acting this way?

The following is reiterated on this thread without ever giving even one link to it: “MANY Catholic writers over MANY centuries have discussed these things.”

Really? What Catholic writers over many centuries agree that Pilate killed Jesus because he believed the lies told to him by the Jews? It should be a snap to cite just one. Cite one or stop attacking my position.

I’m not angry at all at you. You haven’t read the book or apparently even researched the historical links that I think I provided you with at your request—something like 11 of–so I just don’t consider that you HAVE an opinion–only an attitude! History does nothing BUT prove the basic tenets of the Catholic faith! Praise God for allowing us written history to study and learn from! It’s a wonderful tool to have on your side when speaking with non-believers I have found! O’Reillys book–which some folks might enjoy and others not care for–is in no way a contradiction to any church teaching though it may be a contradiction to what some Catholics have chosen to think for years. There’s a difference between a disagreement over whether Jesus is the Son of God, for instance–a church doctrine-- and whether the church has taught that the nails were driven through Jesus’ palms or His wrists–which the church does not NOW nor ever has–had a doctrine about–and wisely so! People who are afraid to even look at the truth or search for it because it might shake their faith if any little detail isn’t exactly how their kindergarten CCE teacher described it-- seldom find the truth. Fear is the greatest obstacle to the truth that exists–in my humble opinion. OH, and just for a real faith- shocker for you: the picture Michelangelo painted of God on the Sistine Chapel ceiling isn’t a Catholic approved doctrine of what God looks like either! OH HERESY of HERESIES! LOL!

 

[KSU]

I’m not angry at all at you. You haven’t read the book or apparently even researched the historical links that I think I provided you with at your request—something like 11 of–so I just don’t consider that you HAVE an opinion–only an attitude! History does nothing BUT prove the basic tenets of the Catholic faith! Praise God for allowing us written history to study and learn from! It’s a wonderful tool to have on your side when speaking with non-believers I have found! O’Reillys book–which some folks might enjoy and others not care for–is in no way a contradiction to any church teaching though it may be a contradiction to what some Catholics have chosen to think for years. There’s a difference between a disagreement over whether Jesus is the Son of God, for instance–a church doctrine-- and whether the church has taught that the nails were driven through Jesus’ palms or His wrists–which the church does not NOW nor ever has–had a doctrine about–and wisely so! People who are afraid to even look at the truth or search for it because it might shake their faith if any little detail isn’t exactly how their kindergarten CCE teacher described it-- seldom find the truth. Fear is the greatest obstacle to the truth that exists–in my humble opinion. OH, and just for a real faith- shocker for you: the picture Michelangelo painted of God on the Sistine Chapel ceiling isn’t a Catholic approved doctrine of what God looks like either! OH HERESY of HERESIES! LOL!

O’Reilly and John (18:28 through 19:22) can’t both be right. You side with O’Reilly ( i.e., Pilate killed Christ because he believed the lies the Jews told him) but refuse to give me even one Catholic source to dispute John’s words.

Go back through your posts; you’ll see I’m correct. In fact, you don’t quote ANY source. And neither does O’Reilly because there is no such source.

Please prove me wrong-- give me O’Reilly’s authoritative source for disputing John. If you say just one more time that the source is “the known history and culture of the times”, I will know for certain that debate with you is meaningless. I have no more stomach for your insults such as this one:
“People who are afraid to even look at the truth or search for it because it might shake their faith if any little detail isn’t exactly how their kindergarten CCE teacher described it-- seldom find the truth.”

 

[KSU]

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965

PREFACE

1. Hearing the word of God with reverence and proclaiming it with faith, the sacred synod takes its direction from these words of St. John: “We announce to you the eternal life which dwelt with the Father and was made visible to us. What we have seen and heard we announce to you…” (1 John 1:2-3)…

THE NEW TESTAMENT

1. It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence…

The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

1. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1)…

---

But wait…O’Reilly’s book says something different than what John says about the reason for the Crucifixion?

OK, then, forget the above. After all, the Church doesn’t have O’Reillys sources.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In the meantime, no one has yet provided a single source that refutes my objections. If I'm wrong, show me where there is some historical record that demonstrates it. That's all I ask.

ProdigalSon,

I’ve read this entire thread and have to remark that you’ve made consistently valid points. I wouldn’t read Mr. O’Reilly’s book precisely because its defenders on this thread, for the most part, have not understood nor answered your points and, thereby, show a woeful lack of understanding the issues in question. Apparently - and I am waiting for the hornets to come out their nest - Mr. O’Reilly’s book could not have been as instructive concerning the historical record as has been touted by its readers, or they would have been better equipped to answer your points.

The real issue is whether it is worthwhile to read a presentation of the historical record, ostensibly intended to be an accurate historical record, when it is clearly a substandard (in terms of accuracy and depth) depiction of that record though, perhaps, to its credit, a readable and entertaining one.

Your point, I take it, is: Why bother reading a clearly specious work for historical accuracy when there are better (in the sense of well-argued, intensively-researched and scholarly) works available? It would seem wiser to gain a more accurate and complete grounding in the best available portrayal of history before allowing yourself (speaking generally) to be exposed to erroneous, though, perhaps, mildly enchanting, semi-accurate narratives.

If truth is important - and it is - why waste time being beguiled - even if the profits DO go to charity?

Just drawing some fire away from you - thought you needed a break

 

[Peter_Plato]

Please cite references or substantive evidence for the accuracy of the following “impressions” of the historical records that, I assume, you have gleaned from O’Reilly’s book:

Note: I have added (in red) some reasons to be skeptical of the “simple, factual truth” presented.

[1] Rome had captured the Jews and their “king” was Herod…

Herod was an Edomite, not a Jew, from an area south of Judea and a puppet king installed by the Romans. The Jews did not consider him a Jew nor their rightful king. Herod also knew of Balaam’s prophecy (Numbers 24:17) concerning the Edomite (Moabite) king being deposed by the Messiah, which is the reason he called for those babies under the age of two to be killed. He feared he would be dethroned by the Messiah.

[2] The Jewish people were taxed so heavily that many of them lost their land and had to sell themselves into a form of slavery–or sell one of their kids into the same–to pay taxes. High priests like Caiaphas and Annas his father in law were also bleeding the Jews dry and splitting moneys obtained with Rome to keep their position.

Source please, in particular for the high priests “bleeding the Jews dry.”

[3] So yes, the Romans knew that the Jews were fervently expecting a savior who was supposed to come to them as their king and free them–they thought from Rome–and yes, the Romans were certainly VERY aware of the OT prophecies

It is certainly not clear that “the Romans” were aware of OT prophecies. Herod was, but where is there any proof that “the Romans” knew, took the slightest interest in or were particularly convinced about OT prophecies?.

[4] and what the Jews thought the messiah would do and YES, they worried about what Jesus’ “big plan” was–and feared that he planned sedition.

The problem with this is that the Jews themselves had a variety of different conceptions of the Messiah that were not consistent with each other, so it is not clear why the Romans would take seriously or fear what wasn’t even a clear notion among the Jews themselves.

The Romans did not fear Jesus’ “big plan” and he gave them no reason to do so, He preached “render unto Caesar” and “turn the other cheek.” By posting “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” on the cross, Pilate was clearly being confrontational with the Sanhedran who denounced Jesus as not being consistent with orthodox Jewish beliefs. Clearly that the mobs called for Jesus’ crucifixion would mean he was not representative of Jewish aspirations and no one to be feared.

[5] How does the simple, factual truth in history in ANY way become heresy?

When what is “simple, factual truth” is more consistent with heresy than Church teaching, there are good reasons to raise flags concerning what constitutes “simple, factual truth.”