Monday, December 30, 2013

Bill O’ Reilly, Reza Aslan, Bart Erhman, and Killing Jesus

billo killing jesus a history
Bill O’ Reilly, author of Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy, declared that Jesus merely started “a philosophy”1 and much of the biblical narratives are allegorical and symbolic—not in fact real history. He also suggested that Christians do not worship Jesus Christ but they worship the “spirit of Jesus.”2 He’s convinced that Christ’s main undertaking was to teach men how to live properly. I have no doubt that Christ’s moral teaching is as important as it is profound, yet His primary mission was to die to set men free. Many other skeptics and liberals have mounted quests for the historical Jesus and have landed not so far from where O’ Reilly takes his readers. In the end, the Bible holds, as the skeptics have found nothing. But skeptics will continue to publish books about their new theories on the life and death of Christ even though we have an infallible account of Him in the New Testament.

Beyond Bill O’ Reilly, few disbelieving sleuths believe that Jesus Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 4:5) and rose from the grave in victory (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). I do. And not only that, I know with full certainty. Some contend Christ was a good teacher who died because of a tragic set of accidents. Still a few others say that Christ never existed, thus He never died.

Of course, theories abound in cases of history where evidence is scarce. But, there exists not only deep layers of historical data for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, there are also potent logical reasons why such must be the case.[see book that defends the Biblical view of Christ's death HERE]

The theories suggested by skeptics (O’ Reilly, Aslan, Ehrman, etc.) not only have several faults, but what they pen, especially when it is inconsistent with the scriptural accounts of Christ, cannot possibly be true. I maintain:  

  1. God is.
  1. His word has been revealed.
  1. Scripture reveals the truth about Christ’s arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection; the contrary is plainly impossible.
Indeed, Jesus Christ died. He was crucified. Nevertheless, His illegal execution was merely the beginning of a comprehensive transformation in history. Since Jesus’ death and resurrection, it often appears that the kingdom of man and the kingdom of God have traded places. Christ's outlook, however, was a bold and challenging assurance. The kingdom Jesus launched is the one we still see expanding today.

refute killing jesus oreilly


1 comment:

  1. Any treatment of the historical Jesus is bound to be controversial. With a few notable exceptions, I found O'Reilly's account of the historical Jesus was a pulp non-fiction version that was very much in line with the canonical Gospel accounts. Aslan was more skeptical, but still made very clear the demarcation between historical fact and belief. I am re-reading John Dominic Crossan's The Birth of Christianity, as a prelude to reading his The Historical Jesus. Crossan is probably the best writer about the historical Jesus, in that he is very careful to lay out his assumptions - something that few writers do with his alacrity.

    Here is my reader's guide to O'Reilly's Killing Jesus, I hope your readers will consider it when discussing O'Reilly's rather weak discussion: