O'Reilly and "Killing Jesus": Cause for Concern for Conservative Christians

Freeper Editorial ^ | 6 Apr 13 | Xzins

[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.

[corlorde]

I think Bill’s soon to be ex should write a book. She could call it, “killing O’Reilly’s Career”

[katana]

O’Reilly and Joe Biden share a few things in common. One, they’re both of Irish extraction. Two, they’re both nominal Roman Catholics. And three, they both have IQ’s in the room temperature range and compensate for that disability with arrogance, condescension, and interruption whenever someone brighter comes along and shows them for the morons they are.

[FR_addict]

“I believe that BOR is a devout Christian and will do nothing but present the ‘history’ as he can document it.”

Devout Christians don’t usually engage in phone sex, especially when they have a family.

He settled the case out of court. She supposedly had tapes of the conversations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7578-2004Oct28.html

[who knows what evil?]

He has been caught on tape using foul language. That is all I need.

[wmfights]

Thanks for the observations.

I did catch a little bit of his "looking down his nose" at the producers of the series The Bible. Not much to say about him. I do pity him because he is probably among the lost and if he believes Jesus was just a political figure and not the resurrected Son of God then you can drop the "probably".

I share my faith with as many people as will allow me. The majority I encounter have that arrogant attitude that the Scriptures are just stories. All I can feel is pity for them. When they discover how wrong they are it will be too late.

[Jean S]

Bump!

[onyx]

BOR failed at his marriage. This has caused him the greatest grief of all. His former wife has remarried, and he hates that he is a divorced man in the eyes of the Church, due to an adulterous former wife. I've read that he is seeking an annulment.

To your concerns about his book. When asked by Don Imus if he thought Jesus was the Son of God, BOR said, "YES!" He added that he is convinced for several reasons.

He was dirt poor. He had no money men backing him, no promoters, yet he amassed thousands of followers, which was unheard of in those days. He faulted the money changers at the Holy Temple and was spreading the true word of God.

[xzins]

Sorry to hear about his marriage breaking up. That notwithstanding, I’m still concerned about what he considers to be “facts” regarding Jesus.

I do not consider the opinion of a liberal scholar (or anyone’s ‘opinion’, for that matter) to be a fact other than it being factual that it is someone’s opinion.

But, that’s one way propaganda operates. You cite an expert’s opinion as if it is factual.

[xzins]

Yes, his “the bible contradicts itself” suggests the direction he goes in his search for facts about the bible.

If a supposed contradiction can be reconciled, then it is not a contradiction. Some reject any effort at reconciliation, because it disrupts their agenda of claiming that “the bible contradicts itself.”

[stephenjohnbanker]

” He’s equally terrible about reporting just about everything......I haven’t watched the guy in over a decade.”

I was about to post this almost verbatim : )

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

His ego is as big as all outdoors, therefore he is an expert in nearly everything. He is bigger than God in his own mind and can call people Bible thumpers if they believe scripture.

[onyx]

His claim is that he's going to present a historian's, factual, documented view.

He said his researcher was given access into Israel's vault of information, whatever that means or entails.

He knows damn well that his book will race to the top of the best seller's list, so it's my hope and prayer that he treats it with due care and caution. I took some comfort hearing his interview with Imus, for whatever that was worth....

[xzins]

The 2 killing books I’ve read were fine. As I stated elsewhere, he doesn’t have the historian’s touch of historian/author Alan Eckert or the writer’s flair of historian/author Jeff Shaara. But, they were decent books.

However, if O’Reilly had been just another author, they would not have been runaway bestsellers, in my humble opinion.

That is the direct result of their receiving nightly free advertising at every opportunity on a major media broadcast.

I will grant that they could not be unacceptable or trash books to garner acclaim, but the extent of the acclaim is attributable to 24/7 non-stop plugging of those books on the Fox News network.

[xzins]

Just as an additional thought, we should not be shy in stating that the primary, eyewitness views are recorded in the gospels.

[onyx]

I’m not a premium member, but he’s going to host a “forum” for his premium members later this month or next month, to discuss KILLING JESUS.

If anyone here is a premium member, (doubtfully) maybe we could get a report!

[onyx]

PRECISELY!

[Colonel_Flagg]

I can understand that line of reasoning. I trust that the faithful will not be swayed by such a blowhard. We’re really the last line of defense now, sad to say.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Agreed. 2 pts higher on their IQ and they could have been bricks.

[wmfights]

Some reject any effort at reconciliation, because it disrupts their agenda of claiming that “the bible contradicts itself.”

My pastor gave a great sermon on Resurrection Sunday. In it he talked about honest doubt and dishonest doubt. The difference being an honest doubter will see the truth and accept it. Thomas is the best example of this. The dishonest doubter will never accept the truth. They will just come up with more questions, or reasons not to believe.

It's pretty easy to tell the difference. If we are talking with a doubter who thinks the Scriptures are just a collection of moral stories, or have contradictions, they will admit their error as they study and see the fulfillment of prophesy, historical accuracy and objective historical record that confirms facts. The dishonest doubter will ignore all that.

I think the size of the viewership for the series The Bible is a good indicator that there are a lot of people who would like to know the truth. The problem is the media believe their PC lies and wouldn't know the truth if it hit them on the head.

[wmfights]

Just as an additional thought, we should not be shy in stating that the primary, eyewitness views are recorded in the gospels.

FWIW, if BOR wants to present a historical record he should copy the Books of Luke and Acts.