Posted on 04/06/2013 7:51:02 AM PDT by xzins
I have heard and read a couple of comments by O'Reilly regarding his "Killing Jesus" book.
He calls Jesus a revolutionary. He says that his new book in his "Killing" series will present the story in terms of historic and political events that changed the world.
This tracks with the interview he had with Downey and husband on "The O'Reilly Factor" prior to the Bible episodes beginning. He asked Downey their take on the Bible. She replied to the effect that they just wanted to present the stories.
OReilly's reply related to his own book and said something along the line that, as opposed to Downey's version, his retelling would focus on the facts. (My paraphrase after nearly a month, and from memory.)
The first question, given those statements from O'Reilly, would be the extent to which O'Reilly relied on modern, liberal, biblical scholarship for his facts.
The problem with liberal biblical scholarship is that it truly begins with the assumption that "miraculous is impossible." Rudolf Bultmann, for many the star founder of skeptical biblical criticism, was famous precisely for rejecting anything miraculous in the Bible.
Bultmann was also famous, of course, for his dismissal of the miraculous. His famous notions that we who today use electricity to flick on a light switch cannot believe in miracles is often repeated as a microcosm as his thought. Elsewhere he implies that to believe in the miraculous is ridiculous, for we do not read in our newspapers about how demons affect the political or economic scene. [Bult.JM, 37] http://www.tektonics.org/af/bultmann01.html
Obviously, that changes the entire biblical story and requires (1) a search for alternative "non-miraculous" explanations OR (2) a rejection of a story if an alternative "non-miraculous" explanation can't be found. Throwing out the material is the Jesus Seminar's claim to fame with their voting on whether a story is authentic or not, most of which they've found to be "not". If not found by them to be authentic, then they toss it out.
NatGeo teaming with O'Reilly worries me. If they are televising O'Reilly's work for other than pure ratings reasons, then it means that O'Reilly's writing might lean toward the "explain away Jesus" approach.
I've read another item that worries me, and I've heard O'Reilly say essentially the same thing on his program. He is reported to have said that Christians worship "the spirit of Jesus."
Depending on how one interprets that, it is worrisome. If it is a comment akin to O'Reilly's many comments about "the philosophy of Christianity", then I wonder if O'Reilly views Christianity as an Aesop's Fables type Morality Play, or if O'Reilly actually thinks there was an actual physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead in real space, time, and history. I've also long been surprised at O'Reilly's inability to invite the many stellar conservative Christian scholars to his "debates". More often he manages to arrange his debates on moral or biblical issues with unschooled biblical conservatives mismatched against major spokespersons for liberal causes.
What do I fear will be the direction of "Killing Jesus" by Bill O'Reilly?
Just this: the story of a peace-loving revolutionary killed by people trapped in a foment of political turmoil; a Jesus who, after the fact, had the rumor of a resurrection told about Him. From this we are all to draw a moral of the story somewhat on the lines of "don't give up even when life seems the darkest" because "there's light at the end of the tunnel." Therefore, we all should look for "the spirit of goodness" in any situation.
I hope I'm wrong.
“Killing Kennedy” wasn’t much of a revelation at all. Rehashing old stuff and ignoring the controversial stuff...unless bedding Marilyn was controversial.
In “Killing Lincoln”, though, he did a fine job with the information on John Wilkes Booth. That was put together well and was engaging.
He’s not the historian (his ghost writer?) that others are, but he is fairly engaging. (He’s no Allen Eckert or Jeff Shaara.)
Moreover, his sales can be directly tied to the fact that his books get hawked endlessly each weekday evening before millions of Americans. Grisham should be so lucky.
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.
My concern is that he reaches into millions of homes. So, if he reaches in with a neo-Jesus, as a chaplain, I would like those families prepared for that kind of subtle faithlessness ahead of time.
Why do the nations conspirea and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
“Let us break their chains and throw off their shackles.”
The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.
He rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
“I have installed my king on Zion, my holy mountain.”
Psalm 2:1-6
Probably.
:>)
he went to Harvard
The way O’Reilly has talked about Jesus and Christianity makes me think he’s not a believer. I think he likes being Catholic because of the social aspect of it but as far as believing Jesus is the son of God or God being real, he acts like they don’t exist.
You can use your remote to execute your own version of “Killing O’Reily”.
Couldn’t have described him any better, I quit watching him years ago after I figured out his schtick. His dance around the middle is simply to secure ratings, he absolutely is no Conservative nor a friend thereof.
Why do conservatives continue to watch this foul-mouthed bloviator? Why?
[[Why do conservatives continue to watch this foul-mouthed bloviator? Why?]]
I don’t- I refuse to- IF I accidently hear him I regret it- as in the case where he berated laura ingrahm for a whole segment because she tried to call him to the carpet for calling Christians bible thumpers- when I tuyrned aroudn and saw spittle flyign from his mouth- and saw him morphing into Chris matthews- I quickly changed channels
On his show, at least, he isn’t foul-mouthed. He definitely bloviates. And his attack last week on Laura Ingraham was definitely over-the-top.
My concern, though, is the presence he has in so many homes, and potentially many Christian homes with his book on Jesus.
I prefer it be approached with great skepticism until proven unnecessary.
[[I think he likes being Catholic because of the social aspect of it]]
Bingo- He loves walking in the middle- and what better way than to pretend he’s a Christian- just like dear leader who also claims to be Christian BUT refuses to obey God- and who thinks there are ‘many ways to God- (ie meaning all religions have a path to God DESPITE the bible clearly stating Christ is the ONLY way) oreally loves calling himself religious simply because it keeps the middle of lien ‘christians’ on his side and viewign his show-
Have someone like a R.C. Sproul or Michael Horton from the theologically conservative side on his show and then he’ll gain some credibility.
‘Nevertheless, if a lot of the “low information voter” types are reading these books, that’s a good thing.’
Exactly my thoughts! I have a BA in History (European) and would like my grandkids turned on to history by whatever means.
From the comments I heard OReilly say, killing Jesus had something to do with taxes.
When I heard him say that I thought OH NO!
He is really off, But then again I am just a Bible Thumper!!
When you do not have the Holy Spirit open your eyes, you get guys like O’Reilly!
I agree. The one good story O R had was exposing the muslim jihadi at a fla school. He is a pompous ass. He invites guests and then talks over them and takes his opinion as fact and beats them over the head with it. His recent bible thumper comment about how the bible is not a basis to refute the homo, pediphile, beastiality crowd is an example. Bill is perfect in every way and a legend in his own mind. i would like to see Miller replace him or Cavuto or Mc Guirk...
Mc Guirk is a Pompous Ass and is not even funny, he just thinks he is funny which really makes him PAINFUL to watch!
Very recently, on the Factor, BOR denied the miracles of the Bible, calling them "allegorical". He further mocked the miracles by referring to Jonah's experience with the comment "the story of the whale is a tale."
When he had the two producers of "The Bible" TV series on his show, he not surprisingly began their segment by stating that their series "highlights fundamentalist Christian beliefs".
O'Reilly INTENTIONALLY inserted the totally unnecessary "fundamentalist" word, of course. This is a standard liberal media ploy right out of Alinsky tactics when it's denigrating Christians as bible-thumping, whacko right-wing, archaic, hillbilly, out-of-date dinosaurs.
O'Reilly definitely wants everyone to know he's not one of "those".....he's an "enlightened" Christian, albeit one who cherry-picks Biblical miracles to embrace the ones he is intellectually comfortable with.
O'Reilly may be some folks' idea of a "devout Christian"....but in that category he's emphatically not my cup of heavenly nectar.
Leni
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.