Killing Jesus book. Read reviews from the world's largest community for readers. Millions of readers have thrilled to bestselling authors Bill O'Re. Killing Jesus will take readers inside Jesus's life, recounting the seismic political and historical events that made his Listen to an excerpt from the audio book. Both were bestsellers, and Killing Jesus is already number three on the believes that he was inspired to write the book by the Holy Ghost.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Portuguese|
|Genre:||Health & Fitness|
|ePub File Size:||22.72 MB|
|PDF File Size:||11.51 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
Killing Jesus: A History is a book by Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard about the life and crucifixion of Jesus, referred to in the book as Jesus of Nazareth. Editorial Reviews. Review. “O'Reilly is the natural choice to narrate this work he carries the Similar books to Killing Jesus: A History (Bill O'Reilly's Killing Series); Due to its large file size, this book may take longer to download. This is now the third “Killing” book written by these authors (future possibilities are almost limitless). The first two were Killing Lincoln and Killing.
Photograph: The National Gallery, London Everyone creates God in their own image, so it's not surprising that Fox television's aggressively conservative down-home-let's-hear-it-for-the-ordinary-guy talk show host should have created a Tea Party son of God. Jesus, the little guy, is an enemy of the big corrupt tax-oppressing Roman empire, which is itself just a version of Washington, only even more venal and sexually depraved. This Jesus is a tax-liberating rebel who incurs the wrath of the Jewish and Roman powers by threatening their joint fleecing of the people. As a member of the populist right, he is not, of course, in favour of redistribution: Bill O'Reilly 's Jesus does not tell the rich to give away their money to the poor. To give them their due, O'Reilly and his co-author Martin Dugard, who one presumes did most of the research, are right that the taxation imposed by the Romans was indeed a major cause of resentment and rebellion across the empire. But the Jews had a uniquely tense relationship with Rome — not because of taxation but because of their monotheistic religion. The authors acknowledge that Jesus was not put to death by the Romans because of his economic protests though they do make him overturn the moneylenders' tables at the temple not once but twice.
AU October 31st, A very succinct and timely review. I saw the book advertised on the site website last night, but I had no intention of downloading it.
Wayne T. Dogmatism does not sit well in either camp. Lita Cosner November 1st, Wayne, you're right. I should have defended my view a little more vigorously than that. John suddenly switches to past tense, describing what in terms of the narrative is still in the future. Also, Jesus very rarely calls God theos in John, and the only other appearance of monogenes is in John 1, also clearly John's words. GB October 31st, The biggest error is in the title.
Jesus was not killed. He said "No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again. For this is what my Father has commanded. Damien S. Obviously, the producers of the NIV bible also failed to consult a biblical scholar. I wonder how many people are under the mistaken impression that John are the words of Jesus? I was. I certainly would not have picked up that so called error. Apart from that, good review.
Lita Cosner November 1st, Damien, if you look at John , it suddenly switches to past tense describing what is in terms of the narrative still in the future.
The quote marks, and needless to say the red text, are not inspired features of Scripture, but involve interpretation on the part of the translator. James L. US October 31st, Thank you for this review. It is helpful. Also, whether there were one or two cleansings of the temple does not change the fact that Mr. O'Reilly obviously has set himself up as the judge of what is the historical truth about Jesus Christ.
He accepts what he wants to about Jesus as written in the Gospels, and rejects what he feels is not historically accurate. Pretty similar to those who "demythologize" the Bible. Bruce K.
US October 31st, You said that the authors made an error saying that John were the words of Jesus. I thought they were and every pastor I know attributes those words to Jesus.
Lita Cosner October 31st, The Greek text does not have quote marks or other ways of differentiating John's comments from Jesus' words. And of course, the text is authoritative and inspired either way we read it.
But in my analysis, it makes more sense to see as a comment by John on what Jesus has just said. Some responsible conservative commentators agree with me, and some disagree. People are welcome to draw their own conclusions. Jared R. I'm not a historian so I can't comment on how accurate the portrayal of Lincoln or Kennedy was, though I found them to be entertaining. However, I do know from watching some of his past shows with Pastors or other religious guests, that when it comes to Genesis, O'Reilly does not take it to be literal.
For a guy who claims to do a lot of research to give both sides, he has fallen way short on this subject. For that reason I will save my self the aggravation of reading this particular book. Thank you for the review. Thomas B.
CA October 31st, This may be a nit-picky thing, but the context John 2 suggests that the temple cleansing scene he describes took place after Jesus had gone to Capernaum for a few days, just after the wedding at Cana. This, of course, is early in his ministry, as opposed to the temple cleansing during Passion Week.
Chapters Seventeen through Nineteen describe Jesus's trial , crucifixion , and burial. Chapter Twenty-One has the account of the women at the tomb.
The "Afterward" describes non-Christian mentions of Jesus , the fates of the Apostles according to Catholic tradition , as well as what happened to Tiberius, Caligula , Caiaphas , Herod Antipas , Jerusalem, and the early Christian movement. Publication and sales[ edit ] Upon its publication, Killing Jesus debuted at number one on The New York Times bestseller list,  and was on the list for 52 weeks. This is the third in their spectacularly successful assassination series, following Killing Kennedy and Killing Lincoln.
Even in Washington. Price , an atheist theologian and self-identified fan of Bill O'Reilly, labels Killing Jesus a work of complete fiction comparable to The Da Vinci Code  and states, There is no sign whatsoever that the authors of "Killing Jesus" have even begun to do their homework here.
Candida Moss criticizes the book for accepting this portrayal of Mary, which is not supported by the Bible or other early Christian writings. One of many recurring criticisms of the book is its portrayal of the Pharisees as what Moss calls "self-righteous bloviators", a view which is no longer supported by mainstream scholars.
We hear the thoughts of Herod as he orders the execution of the male children of Bethlehem, for instance. It's entertaining, but it's historical fan fiction, not history.
Watts, author of Mimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark, calls Killing Jesus nothing more than "an attempt at agenda-driven drivel produced for the lowest common denominator. But they underplay the real reason: Jesus's name had become fatally associated with that of the Messiah, the Christ, a longed-for figure who had become increasingly politicised: he would be not just the anointed king but the ruler who would liberate the Jews from the Romans before ushering in God's rule.
As far as the Romans were concerned, Jesus, one of many would-be Messiahs at the time, was therefore a seditious rebel whose crime was punishable by death. It's easy to be snooty about this kind of bodice-ripping treatment of history, where a preoccupied Herod sighs and looks anxiously out of the window, where Mary and Joseph "gasp in shock" to see their young son holding his own among the temple elders, the son whose "destiny must be fulfilled, even if his worried parents have no idea how horrific that destiny might be" actually, as the authors themselves make clear, crucifixion was the usual fate of traitors and criminals across the Roman empire.
As a revved-up journalese version of the gospels, plumped up with historical detail — which though not always accurate gives the reader a good sense of what life was like at the end of the first century BC; how soldiers were trained, how taxation worked, what the temple looked like and, of course, how soldiers crucified a man — Killing Jesus is fine.
Indeed the authors used the same stylistic formula for their two previous books Killing Kennedy and Killing Lincoln. Both were bestsellers, and Killing Jesus is already number three on the New York Times bestsellers list. Because they are fabulously easy to read: because there are good guys and bad guys, with very little in between; because there is lots of journalistically juicy, salacious gossip; and because, as with some historical fiction, you learn quite a bit about a particular era without having to think too much.
Despite the subtitle, Killing Jesus is not "A History".
It is a breathy retelling of the gospel stories by two conservative Catholics, one of whom, O'Reilly, believes that he was inspired to write the book by the Holy Ghost. Although the authors proclaim in their introduction that they have manfully succeeded in separating fact from legend and will alert the reader if the evidence is not set in stone, they signally fail to do so. Killing Jesus relies almost exclusively on the gospels, discounting two centuries of ongoing scholarly scepticism about their historical accuracy with a breezy footnote that there is "growing acceptance of their overall historicity".