....These authors err far to the side of his humanity. It becomes quickly apparent they will not focus on Jesus’ miracles. While they mention a few of the wonders he performed, and especially the ones involving healings, they do not commit all the way and tend to present these as events Jesus’ followers believed had happened as much as events that had actually taken place. The authors primarily portray Jesus as a rebel against Rome who threatened to destabilize the region and who, therefore, suffered the inevitable wrath of the empire. They show that through his life Jesus believed he was the Son of God and even suggest this must mean he was either a liar, a lunatic, or that he really was who he said he was. As the book comes to a close they state that Jesus’ followers soon claimed he had been raised from the dead and that his followers believed this to such an extent that they willingly gave up their own lives to his cause.
But O’Reilly and Dugard do not ever explain what happened there at the cross between Jesus and God the Father. Of all Jesus said on the cross, each word laden with meaning and significance, they mention only two. They do not explain the cross as substitution, where Jesus went to the cross in place of people he loved; they do not explain the cross as justice, where Jesus was punished as a law-breaker; they do not explain the cross as propitiation, where Jesus faced and emptied the Father’s wrath against sin; they do not explain the cross as redemption, where we now need only put our faith in Jesus in order to receive all the benefits of what he accomplished. Killing Jesus is not a bad book as much as it is an incomplete book. As history it is compelling, but of all historical events, none has greater spiritual significance than the life and death of Jesus Christ. And this is the story they miss.
See the related thread Going to Hell (Without a Handbasket).
“In the meantime, it will take Jesus out of the realm of fantasy and place him squarely in history, ..... “
If it achieves that, that’s a step in the right direction. Hopefully more people will become interested to learn more about Jesus.
That Bible series that was just done had a ton of errors in it. So we can expect the same from this effort.
Could it be that BOR helped to plant seeds of “evangelization” simply by writing this book?
“They do not explain the cross as substitution, where Jesus went to the cross in place of people he loved; they do not explain the cross as justice, where Jesus was punished as a law-breaker; they do not explain the cross as propitiation, where Jesus faced and emptied the Father’s wrath against sin; they do not explain the cross as redemption, where we now need only put our faith in Jesus in order to receive all the benefits of what he accomplished.”
In other words they missed the whole story, the part that’s valuable to hopeless sinners in desperate straits before a righteous and thrice holy God “who will by no means clear the guilty.”
John 19:33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
I always presumed this was some sort of miraculous sign but I recently read that it is not.
A medical examiner stated that when the heart has ceased while maintaining an upright position, the blood and the plasma separate in the sac that surrounds the heart.
When the Roman soldier stabbed Jesus in the heart producing (what appeared to their eyes as) blood and water, this was actually the separated plasma and blood. It proved two things: first that Jesus' body was truly dead as this separation does not happen without the heart stopping and, secondly, that the soldier hit the intended mark.
All the soldier was trying to do was see if Jesus' reacted to the pain of a stab in the heart. Since he didn't, the people of his time could surmise Jesus was dead.
But for those who claim that Jesus didn't actually die but merely fainted and was revived in the cool air of the tomb, this test proved the theory was not possible. There are other tidbits about the way the first century Jews were prepared for burial that also eliminate the "fainting" theory yet it still persists among some deniers.
When I was flipping channels the other night, I came across O’Reilly talking about some interview he did in connection with this book. He showed a clip in which he said Jesus was just a regular guy who really didn’t want to get up on that cross.
Back in APR 2013, I think it was Sean Hannity on his FOX news show, interviewed author Stephen Mansfield about his upcoming book, also entitled Killing Jesus. It was published 5/07/2013. I read it and was absolutely transfixed by it. It really brought a deeper understanding of the events surrounding Jesus during that 1st Holy Week. I cannot recommend this book enough. Of the 2, my mother thought Mansfield's book was better.
Curiously, when I did the Amazon search, I found a 3rd book entitled Killing Jesus. It was written by Paul Marano and published in its paperback edtion on 2/23/2013.
Isn’t there already a book out about this.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
*The authors primarily portray Jesus as a rebel against Rome who threatened to destabilize the region and who, therefore, suffered the inevitable wrath of the empire.*
Must be some other Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth never threatened the rule of Rome. Pilate would have released him in a minute if he’d dared.
C.S. Lewis's trilemma is an argument intended to prove the divinity of Jesus. C. S. Lewis was an Oxford medieval historian, popular writer, and Christian apologist. He used the trilemma argument in a series of BBC radio talks later published as the book Mere Christianity. It is sometimes summarized either as "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord", or as "Mad, Bad, or God".
... A frequent criticism is the claim that the statements and actions referred to by Lewis were an invention of the early Christian movement, seeking to glorify Jesus. According to Bart Ehrman, 'there could be a fourth option – legend'. Lewis himself denied the accounts of Jesus were legends: "I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing". N. T. Wright, a leading New Testament scholar, comments that Lewis's argument "doesn't work as history, and it backfires dangerously when historical critics question his reading of the Gospels."