Skip to comments.Bill O’Reilly is Killing Jesus
Posted on 09/21/2013 10:14:52 AM PDT by rhema
Im researching Killing Jesus, do you know why Jesus was killed, by the Romans? You dont know and you shouldnt know because it was about taxes, taxes! Bill OReilly, The OReilly Factor, March 2013 (see here: Jesus killed over taxes)
Now, I am no expert on Jesus Christ or the Roman occupation of Judea in the first century A.D., but I am a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and once, on the way to visit my in-laws, I slept in a Holiday Inn Express. But it wasnt until that statement, from the renowned theologian Bill OReilly of Fox News, that I realized the true reason that Jesus Christ was killed was not atonement, redemption, propitiation or reconciliation, but Taxes! It was taxes!
I know, right! Those Romans are brutal! I mean, the IRS raided Willie Nelson and jailed Wesley Snipes, but crucifixion? Thats just medieval!
On Tuesday, the 24th of September, Killing Jesus: A History by BILL OREILLY (in big bold all caps and the same font size as the words KILLING JESUS) and Martin Dugard (you better be wearing your bi-focals to see his name, but hes the guy who does all the work and gets none of the credit; well, in this case none of the blame) will arrive in bookstores and on e-shelves.
And according to the prophet of the No spin zone, the guy who said, render unto Caesar and who miraculously summoned a fish with a silver coin to pay, not only his own taxes but also that of his servant Peter, was somehow the spearhead of a tax revolt against the Romans.
The history of the Greeks, the Romans, the Christians and the Jews deny this, as does Christ himself, who, in a less than Simon bar Kokhba moment, told Pilate to the face that his kingdom was not of this world else his servants would fight. But then again maybe Foxs own Ron Burgundy and his ghostwriter have discovered something that thousands of scholars, billions of words, and history itself have overlooked?
The write-up of the book promises to take readers inside Jesuss life, recounting the seismic political and historical events that made his death inevitable and changed the world forever. Now, Im all for tax revolts, but has the death of any tax revolutionary really changed the world forever?
And Im pretty confident that the death of Jesus was inevitable because God decreed it and prophecy declared it:
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. (Acts 2:23)
The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. (Acts 4:26-28)
After all, wasnt Pontius Pilate reluctant to the last minute? Do you really think that a Roman Procurator would pause for reflection in the face of a tax revolt? A man renowned for his cruelty?
As a student with intellectual curiosity and somewhere around 3,000 theological volumes in my library, I appreciate the diversity among the scholars that appear there. I have the early church fathers, the great minds of the Reformation, Catholics, Calvinists, skeptics, scoffers and even atheists; though I must admit that OReilly will be the first theologian to grace my shelves that has been sued by a former producer for offering to introduce a falafel into her nether regions. But as a Christian who believes in redemption, I was excited to hear that the trouble-making Roman Catholic kid who was the bane of his Catholic school had grown up to write a book about Jesus. What an opportunity for a man who has truly been blessed with a magnificent platform and millions of viewers. How sad that he wasted such a golden opportunity. How truly tragic.
As nutty as Louis Farrakhan sounds when he claims that a Jew of the house of David and the tribe of Judah was black, as loopy as those in Queer Nation who claim that Jesus was a gay man, extraordinarily gay, steeped in gayness, nothing quite compares to the complete denial of thousands of years of Jewish prophecy and two millennia of Christian tradition. Not even Dan Brown had the chutzpah to write his anti-Christian screed as a work of non-fiction. Thats right folks, you dont see this kind of pride and prejudice outside of the major cults or the halls of Pandemonium.
The fresh, bold piece of humanity has revealed himself as the hot steaming pile of vanity that both Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh have warned us about by implication for years. OReillys wacky, unhinged conjectures promise to make Oliver Stone seem like St. Augustine. Imagine the ego that went into his decision to straighten out God, history, tradition and even the skeptics about the life and death of Jesus Christ? Imagine the arrogant naiveté to suggest that a history of the death of Jesus belongs on the same shelf as Lincolns and JFKs?
And the irony of a man who boasts, The Factor has stood up for Christmas for fifteen years, defending the holiday from secular progressives. I guess its all right to have Christ in Christmas but lets revisit that whole Easter Sunday thing. So, we have been wrong all along with the Christ died for your sins confession; actually we should revise that to Jesus died for your deductions!
But will the Factor-heads bail him out on this one? You betcha! OReilly could ralph into the Holy Grail and there would be a bidding war on ebay. He still lives off the fumes of the average persons middle finger to the media in their disdain of mainstream propaganda and their appreciation of Fox as a reliable news source. As for me, I would rather have him sign my loofah than toss him thirty pieces of silver like the Fox lemmings that will buy anything that bears his name and visage. Hows that for pithy?
The question that we must ask, that even fans of The Factor must demand, is why? Why would he write this book and why should we continue to pretend that Bill OReilly hasnt morphed into the media version of the perpetual thumb in the eye that is John McCain? If Im wrong about his following, and I hope that I am, then the title of his next book will be, KILLING RATINGS!
I leave you, my dear reader, to your own better discretion on whether to buy this book or support this man but let me just point out a question that should make the folks uncomfortable. When is MSNBC more reliable than Fox News? The answer is when Martin Bashir has to correct Bill OReilly about the true reason for the death of Christ.
You dont know and you shouldnt know because it was about taxes? Well, as anyone with a modicum of Biblical history will tell you, the death of Christ was an act of substitutionary atonement for the sins of the world. He neither lived nor died for taxes, in fact he simply said that one should discharge ones responsibilities to the state by rendering unto Caesar that which was Caesars. But the purpose and meaning of his death is spelled out by the prophet Isaiah: He was pierced for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. Isaiah 53:5
He died for the sins of the world, continued Bashir, including the lies and the misappropriation of his life by those whose sole purpose is to make money at his expense.
Watch Martin Bashirs Commentary here: Bashir on OReillys Killing Jesus
O’Reilly IS god, don’t you know that? Therefore, as god, he knows exactly why Jesus was killed, and obviously that was because of taxes. Don’t question god.
I haven’t read it, but I do remember Matthew the tax collector, and tax collectors got a percentage of the taxes they collected for the Romans. And Jesus did say “render unto Caesar that which is Caeser’s”—wars have been started over taxes. I don’t think it’s blasphemy in any case to discuss this about the time of Christ.
Bill seems to be the kind of guy who exaggerates in a "nothing but" kind of way, leaving out the details to give what he thinks is the essence of the story, and what he thinks is the "essence" of the story may be the hook -- the thing that starts people talking -- not what the story actually boils down to.
BOR stepped into it this time. He should have written Killing McKindley or Killing Napoleon or even Killing Breitbard—But Not Jesus. Reminds me of the day when the Beatles said they were more popular than Jesus and all the trouble that got them into.
His priest needs to have a loooong talk with that boy.
He sure did.
“How can a Catholic not understand Jesus death.?<<
How can they not understand who Jesus is?
God’s Chosen One, One with God the Father, second person of the Holy Trinity, one and only necessary and sufficient divine mediator of the ineffable mercies of the Godhead.
Yet deeming it necessary to invent an hierarchy, an imperium complete with a supreme prelate and an array of lesser princes, modeled after the monarchies devised by man to impose order on human societies, placed between man and God as an agency of mediation, Christ apparently not quite up to the job.
Some scholars believe that Roman soldiers were converted in such great numbers that they were largely responsible for the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire.
And Pilate said to the chief priests and to the multitudes: I find no cause in this man.
In the conversation between Christ and the Roman centurion who was asking to have his servant healed, the centurion points out that he has the power to give orders to the men in his charge, and he recognizes that Christ has the power to command the forces of nature the same way.
I read his “Killing Lincoln.” It had some interesting stuff in it. This book will probably have some interesting facts, too, even if one doesn’t completely buy into whatever his conclusions are.
Everybody should calm down.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
While it’s true the crowd claimed Christ opposed payment of taxes to Caesar, Pilate subsequently says he finds no guilt in Christ. So that’s hardly evidence that Christ was killed over taxes.
Alberta’s Child: “...a complete sense of detachment by Pontius Pilate in his conversation with Christ.”
I agree. That’s always struck me as strange, but it was probably normal for the times. Pilate was probably used to punishing people and didn’t think Christ was anyone special. You can almost hear him thinking, “Oh, great. Here come the Jews with another problem. What can I do to get rid of them quickly?”
As a former military guy, a gentile, and a Christian, I’ve always particularly loved the story about the centurion. Christ clearly spoke with authority. The centurion recognized it and believed. It’s almost as though gentiles had an easier time believing Christ than the Jews.
Where would he go, or his “co-author” go, to research his book? The only source are the Gospels. And I’ve read those over and over so what “truth” could he possible say that I haven’t already read?
I’ve always loved the fact that He forgave those who did it to him. All of them. That includes Pilate.
There are historical sources for events contemporaneous with the life and death of Christ. Flavius Josephus is the most commonly cited; whether he’s believable is a separate question.
From Matthew 27:13-14 ...
Then Pilate saith to him: Dost not thou hear how great testimonies they allege against thee? And he answered him to never a word; so that the governor wondered exceedingly.
Even Pilate's wife called him a "just man."
Exactly -- which was clearly part of the Divine plan.
I’m not arguing that Jesus was killed over the question of taxes, just that there is something there in the N.T. about the topic. I think the reader is expected to take the accusation as a false one, made in hopes of winning Pilate’s sympathies to their side.
“Only those that hate GOD or do not believe in HIM could doubt HIM. There is just no other way to explain it... at least none that I can think of.”
Those with the poison of spiritual or intellectual pride think they know just as much as Him.
“I dont know of any scripture that supports a claim that the Romans killed Jesus over taxes. Thats what OReilly is claiming.”
The Sanhedrin claimed that Jesus opposed Jews paying taxes to Caesar but there is no evidence that Pilate or any other Roman believed their accusation.
In Luke 22 the Sanhedrin find Jesus guilty of blasphemy and they want him put to death, something they haven’t the power to do.
In Luke 23 the Sanhedrin approach Pilate and tell him that Jesus was promoting sedition by forbidding Jews to pay taxes to Caesar.
Pilate questions Jesus and isn’t impressed by the Sanhedrin’s accusations. He sends Jesus to Herod for more questioning, and when Jesus returns Pilate intends to release him. But the Sanhedrin demand that Jesus be crucified and Pilate eventually gives in to their demands.
AC: “I think it was pretty clear to Pilate that he wasn’t dealing with an ordinary man.”
Agreed. While Pilate was probably used to judging all sorts of criminals, he was apparently surprised by Jesus. I’m sure the typical criminal was eager to plead innocence and/or beg for mercy. When Christ failed to defend himself, it was quite unusual. Regardless, I don’t think there’s any evidence that Pilate actually believed Christ was the King of Jews or the Son of God. Christ must have been unusual, but Pilate still had Christ executed. That went, of course, according to God’s will.
Ironically, Pilate was probably blind to Christ's mission and identity for the same reason that many of the Jews at the time didn't accept Him. They probably all figured there was no way the Son of God would come to earth through humble beginnings and wouldn't have any interest in assuming temporal powers.
Tax-chick: “Everybody should calm down.”
O’Reilly’s point about Christ being executed because of taxes is simply wrong. That doesn’t necessarily mean O’Reilly’s book won’t cover the divine aspects, but he starts by making a statement that’s entirely false. Christ was not killed over taxes. Pilate himself said as much when he admitted there was no cause for killing Jesus.
I think scripture supports the view that Pilate had Christ killed to appease Jewish leadership. Frankly, a simple, Jewish man simple wasn’t worth much in the Roman Empire, and Pilate was willing to give the Jews what they wanted in order to maintain peace. There doesn’t appear to be any evidence that Pilate thought Jesus was the Son of God, even though—as one poster pointed out—Christ was exceptional in that He didn’t defend himself. A normal man would have likely begged for mercy and/or claimed to be innocent.
AC: “...many of the Jews at the time didn’t accept Him.”
Which was also prophesied. The stone the builders rejected...
BTW, this is an excellent discussion. I wish we had more like it on Free Republic.
I agree. There are plenty of smart folks here on FR -- Christians and non-Christians alike -- who can probably contribute a lot to this sort of discussion.
I don’t think O’Reilly’s is the most defensible view, either ... but everyone can still calm down.
I read both of his earlier books, each of which did indeed have some interesting facts. The thing is, when O'Reilly starts pontificating about religious matters, he's his own self-styled authority. Kick that Bible to the curb. He doesn't want to take any flak for being viewed as too "fundamentalist Christian." I think Jesus had something to say about that: "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in His glory. . ." O'Reilly might want to look it up. Luke 9:28.
Excellent points. Like Sean Hannity, O’Reilly is positioned as Christian-ish, (but not like those unsophisticated people who take it too seriously).
From what I’ve heard on his radio and TV programs, Hannity is much more unapologetically Bible-believing and willing to espouse Christian positions on hot-button issues (abortion, same-sex “marriage”) than O’Reilly.
Oh, okay. I don’t come across O’Reilly as much because he’s not on Sirius Radio!
BOR has had the chutzpah to be snearing down his nose at Rosen and Hume whenever they appear on his show.
Now those two gentlemen are journalists AND intellectuals.
O’Reilly is neither.
Another thing — I know Dennis Miller hates hypocrites, so why does he hang out with O’Reilly?
Thank you. It sounds pretty much like what I expected: a lot of interesting facts, but missing the crux of the matter (pun intended ;-).
Lost with the rest of Rome