Kris Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Anybody get a gander at Bill O'Reilly's new book-- Killing Jesus? I thumbed through it at Target and found it pretty obnoxious--- it claims to use history to tell the story why jesus was put to death-- but it appeared that he used the same apologetic material-- the gospels, Josephus, Tacitus, etc. I was mildly surprised he used 30ad as his date for the crucifixion-- I figured he would have gone with 33 ad instead. He said the Holy Ghost led him to write the book--- but I think the holy dollar was the one really doing the talking!! He had also written book on the killing of Lincoln and Kennedy. Uggh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 *Springy G rummages around on Her desk for the Apologetics Calculator (Patent Pending)* Let's see if this all adds up. "Holy Spirit" told O'Reilly to write the book. *tap tap tap* Mentions Josephus, probably the discredited Testimonium Flavianum, plus other non-eye witness sources. *clickety click* So that means that O'Reilly has associated the Holy Spirit with a bunch of lies... *subtotal* ...and the Father of Lies is Satan... *multiply* *total* Congratulations, Bill -- You've committed the unforgivable sin. See you in Hell. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Great. Another fan-fiction story about some dude named Jesus. Let me guess. He dies on a cross in this one too. *yawn* mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenaissanceWoman Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 It's too bad really, because I was sort of interested in getting the Lincoln and Kennedy books one day from the library. Now that this one is out (the Jesus one), and not even knowing what's in it except what you have pointed out here and what I have assumed... the other two books suddenly have lost credibility too. Yes, I suppose the other two books have more recent and verifiable sources, but I'm not interested in chasing all that down to see if it's legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Posted October 7, 2013 Author Share Posted October 7, 2013 Yeah-- I was not impressed-- at the back of the book, he mentioned that Jesus lived in a time when there was no you-tube or newspapers-- so he had to go with what information he could find-- mainly the gospels. Then he cited Josephus, Tacitus, Phlegon and thallus, Pliny the younger---all people reporting events after jesus' time if even reporting them at all-- each of the sources have been debunked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/429485/october-02-2013/blood-in-the-water---bill-o-reilly-s--killing-jesus- Bill O'Reilly's book is more accurate than the Bible. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 O'Reilly fancies himself to be a T-WARRIOR (tradition warrior) so I'm not surprised he would pump out rancid apologetic frosted flakes, i.e. junk food and serve it to his fans. Ironically, if he lived during the time Jesus allegedly lived, he would have slammed and pummeled Jesus as being "progressive" and a left wing loon. His yearly "war on Christmas" campaign is starting up again too. O'Reilly is as phony as it gets. A complete hypocrite and fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenaissanceWoman Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/429485/october-02-2013/blood-in-the-water---bill-o-reilly-s--killing-jesus- Bill O'Reilly's book is more accurate that the Bible. That gave me some laugh-out-loud moments. Thanks! "Bill O-Reiyah." "Rule #1: No forgiveness, mother f-er!" "OMU..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Candida Moss' review is pretty good: The Gospel According to Bill O'Reilly's new Book 'Killing Jesus' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenaissanceWoman Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Candida Moss' review is pretty good: The Gospel According to Bill O'Reilly's new Book 'Killing Jesus' That was a scary read. Really... he still says Mary Magdalene was a prostitute? That was a mistake codified by Pope Gregory and since debunked -- does he not know his own history? Besides, she's my favorite character in the whole bible (if I had to choose). His whole book just lost all credibility with me, based on that one simple thing. The reviewer also makes this good point: "The single most consistent social teaching in the New Testament is that Christians must support the poor, widows, and orphans, but this hardly gets a mention in ‘Killing Jesus.’" Yep. Christians can't be bothered with love and compassion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/429485/october-02-2013/blood-in-the-water---bill-o-reilly-s--killing-jesus- Bill O'Reilly's book is more accurate than the Bible. That was fun. High level mockery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jds22 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Interesting article http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/04/five-things-bill-oreilly-gets-wrong-in-killing-jesus/?hpt=hp_t3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 Anybody get a gander at Bill O'Reilly's new book-- Killing Jesus? I thumbed through it at Target and found it pretty obnoxious--- it claims to use history to tell the story why jesus was put to death-- but it appeared that he used the same apologetic material-- the gospels, Josephus, Tacitus, etc. I was mildly surprised he used 30ad as his date for the crucifixion-- I figured he would have gone with 33 ad instead. He said the Holy Ghost led him to write the book--- but I think the holy dollar was the one really doing the talking!! He had also written book on the killing of Lincoln and Kennedy. Uggh It's so dismaying whenever I hear them dredge up the tired, old, numerously refuted sources. I mean Josephus for Krissakes? An insertion by a church scribe years after the author died and people think that is a source? In fact, when I was a Christian and read the sentence which refers to a wise man, Christ, I KNEW it smelled because that would have been blasphemous for an orthodox Jew, Josephus, to even use the word, Christ. The complete rebuttal of all sources is as follows: The alleged secular sources sources include: Barker, Ehrman, Moss, Arnheim, Doherty, etc. ALL serious scholars say that the Josephus quote is a fraud, put in by possibly Eusebius decades after Josephus died. Tacitus offers a vague reference to a Chrestus which was a name for something OTHER than the mythical Christos. Regarding any followers, Tacitus claimed a christ ( I say 'a' christ because many deluded prophets were going around during that time claiming to be a christ) was put to death as criminal, nothing about a magical comeback. Tacitus went on to CRITICIZE the followers for 'their hatred of the human race' and being PROSECUTED for their crimes such as their 'depravity and filth'. Nothing about a Jesus or resurrection or miracles, etc. Pliny reference - In 112AD Pliny, the younger wrote, christians were singing a hymn to christ as to a god. Nothing about a jesus, etc. No different than saying hari kristnas were singing to lord kristna. And Pliny may have been referring to the other false christs going around claiming to be THE one and only. Why would they write unconfirmed things? EVERYONE in a religious cult, xtian or otherwise, did that but the xtians were notorious for lying. Both Pliny and Tacitus say NOTHING about a specific jesus. Celsius derided them for fabricating crap out of thin air and even Origen, a Christian, admitted to incredibly sloppy transcribing from one manuscript to another. Philo Judaeus, ancient historian who lived at the SAME time that a jesus allegedly lived and even lived in the same area said SQUAT about him or even his alleged followers even though other events of that time were judiciously recorded by him. Justus of Tiberius, a Galilean, was another contemporary of that time and also wrote NOTHING about their lord or his supplicants. In fact, a 9th century xtian, named Photius verified the lack of historical writings by complaining about Philo and others not mentioning anything about the cult - a tacit admission of sorts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Bill O'Reilly... "No. Jesus couldn't have said... 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing' ...on the cross." Why? Because the medical facts about death by crucifixion tell us that this would have been... impossible. Really? So, was it also... impossible ...for Jesus to say these things? "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43) "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." (Luke 23:46) "Woman, here is your son." "Here is your mother." (John 19:26 & 27) "I am thirsty." (John 19:28.) "It is finished." (John 19:30) . . . Own goal of the decade, Bill! You've made it 'medically impossible' for Jesus to have said anything on the cross! And if his lungs were finished, how could he have cried out in... A LOUD VOICE ...(as reported by Matthew, Mark and Luke) just before he died? Oy vey! BAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenaissanceWoman Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Yes, and as Colbert pointed out... walking on water was no problem, but uttering words from the cross was beyond the power of this son of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenaissanceWoman Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Wait wait wait a second... If the Bible says that Jesus said that, but O'Reilly says he couldn't have, does that mean he's saying that the Bible is wrong, i.e. not inerrant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Wait wait wait a second... If the Bible says that Jesus said that, but O'Reilly says he couldn't have, does that mean he's saying that the Bible is wrong, i.e. not inerrant? You win the prize, RW!!! YaaaaaaaaY!! BAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts