Oh dear. Please. Just. Don’t.

Bill O’Reilly threatens to write Killing Jesus as follow up to Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy.

My head hurts.

  • Esther

    I wish patheos comments would allow us to post reaction gifs.
    http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_masw32z0qD1qjpjmt.gif

    • Clare Krishan

      ……………………………………..________
      ………………………………,.-’”……………….“~.,
      ………………………..,.-”……………………………..”-.,
      …………………….,/………………………………………..”:,
      …………………,?………………………………………………,
      ………………./…………………………………………………..,}
      ……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}
      ……………/……………………………………………,:”………/
      …………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../
      …………./__.(…..”~-,_…………………………,:`………./
      ………../(_….”~,_……..”~,_………………..,:`…….._/
      ……….{.._$;_……”=,_…….”-,_…….,.-~-,},.~”;/….}
      ………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……”;,,./`…./”…………../
      …,,,___.`~,……”~.,………………..`…..}…………../
      …………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-”
      …………/.`~,……`-………………………………./
      ………….`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..,__
      ,,_……….}.>-._……………………………..|…………..`=~-,
      …..`=~-,__……`,……………………………
      ……………….`=~-,,.,………………………….
      …………………………..`:,,………………………`…………..__
      ……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“
      …………………………………._……….._,-%…….`
      ……………………………..,

  • JB

    I can imagine almost nothing more split-minded than a self-described Catholic and anti-Communist using this kind of Marxian historical determinism:

    “…the seismic political and historical events” that made the death of the “beloved and controversial young revolutionary” known as Jesus of Nazareth inevitable.”

    Calling Jesus a “revolutionary” is wrong (if anything He was a reactionary against Satan’s rebellion), but it’s not the worst part. The worst and most non-Christian part is implying that Jesus’ crucifixion was determined by historical events, and furthermore calling it “inevitable” when in fact it was the most totally free act ever done by any Man, and is the source of all freedom in the universe.

    Those lines by O’Reilly describe an anti-Christ.

    • The Deuce

      Well said. The “controversial young revolutionary” revisionism sounds like something straight out of a Jesus Seminar bull session.

      Also:

      “Jesus Christ has not walked among us physically for more than 2,000 years, yet his presence today is felt the world over and his spirit is worshipped by more than 2.2 billion people”

      Um, no, he’s worshiped in body and spirit. There was this little thing called the Resurrection, you see.

      “His teachings, his legacy, his life as a flesh-and-blood man and his death created the world in which we live.”

      Pretty sure there was something else significant that belongs between “death” and “created” that also had a pretty big impact on the world in which we live.

  • Rosemarie

    +J.M.J+

    Yeah, that was pretty much my reaction when I heard about it. O’Reilly’s take on the Bible and Christianity is “off” too often for me to be comfortable with the prospect of him writing a book about Our Lord’s death. He should stick with modern assassinations. I’m sure a “Killing RFK” or MLK book would sell millions as well. The Crucifixion has a profound spiritual dimension; a mere political and historical look at it will be sorely wanting.

  • JB

    Further re ““Jesus Christ has not walked among us physically for more than 2,000 years…”

    “Walking” is literally immaterial to the fact that He is materially present among us in the Eucharist.

    And “Killing Jesus” is literally what Satan perversely enjoyed doing. It’s a rotten title for a book.

  • RC

    A sensible reaction. After all, authors always write the publicity material for their books that haven’t been written yet.

  • Chris

    To be a revolutionary is to be revolting. Since all power comes from God, all revolutionaries are, by definition, acting against God. Even our own “revolutionaries” (deists at best) illicitly defied King George. Barabbas was a revolutionary. Jesus was a counter-revolutionary.

    • Mark Shea

      The July 20 plot to kill Hitler was “acting against God”? Really? *All* revolutionaries are acting against God?

      “He who kills a tyrant to free his country is praised and rewarded” (St. Thomas Aquinas 2 Sentences, 44.2.2).

      Your argument gives absolute carte blanche and divine blessing to tyrants. Rethink.

      • Chris

        The revolutionary acts against the right order of things intended by God. Such a person may be described as “revolting”. The counter-revolutionary attempts to set things back into right order with God.

        Thus, Hitler was a revolutionary — he did not use his power to set his nation into right order with God. And those who sought to depose him were counter-revolutionaries because they sought to prevent further disorder.

        Barack Obama is a revolutionary. His actions have revealed a radical desire to disorder our society with regard to God’s will. Those who stand against his tyranny for the sake of re-ordering things to God, are counter-revolutionaries. However, those who stand against his tyranny for the sake of doing harm to the illegal immigrant or having a fatter paycheck — without regard to right order — are revolutionaries, themselves. Just different kinds of revolutionaries.

        The Israelites wanted a revolutionary to drive out Rome. They wanted everything re-ordered to the Davidic monarchy. Jesus was a counter-revolutionary. He came to re-order everything to God. And so He was crucified as a “false” Messiah.

        • Chris

          And thus, our own founders were revolutionaries. They did not set up our nation to be ordered to the right will of God. They set up our nation to be ordered to the retention of property and money. They stole land, turned a blind eye to slavery and many of the architects were not Christians, per se.

          History has proven that a society built on revolution cannot survive in the long run. Only one society has been built from the ground-up as a counter-revolutionary movement — and that’s the universal Church led by Peter. And unlike revolutionary movements, the Church will never be destroyed. All other societies will.

      • John Triolo

        I think there is a critical distinction to be made between tyrants by oppression and tyrants by usurpation. Tyrants by usurpation may be subject to rebellion (though they may also be offered oaths of loyalty, that is people may voluntarily subject themselves to them–its is a question of prudence rather than of some obligation to rebel). Of course their are also question about what constitutes a usurpation–can oppression be ipso facto usurpation? It would seem that in certain system of governance, it can but that in others it cannot. The real question is about the nature and transmission of legitimacy–this is a highly nuanced subject which requires serious, sober and deliberate thought. Usually some form of casuistry applied to a specific situation rather than some general rule about “tyrants.”

        It would seem that mere injustice is an insufficient reason for rebellion. After all, even the best governments will have acted unjustly to someone. Are all governments therefore of doubtful legitimacy? Are all governments subject to a just rebellion? Perhaps there is some “critical mass of oppression” which once reached signals the population that the hour is nigh. What about of injustice or oppression is acceptable? How long does it stay active? Must the injustice be directed at me or is injustice to others sufficient cause for me too rebel?

        A good rule of thumb: If you are convinced that your government is legitimate (and this question must be contextual, rather than general. That is, your government legitimacy will largely determined by the laws and customs of the community, in addition to ideals of right order.) you are obliged to submit to it in anything it requires of you that 1) does not violate the existing laws of the state and 2) does not require you to violate God’s laws.

        St Paul told us to honor the emperor.

  • Chris

    Bill O’Reilly: “Joseph of Aramathea writes in to ‘The Factor’, “Dear Bill, please stop referring to Our Lord Jesus as a revolutionary.” Thanks Joseph, but it’s my book not the Lord’s, but we’ll be sending you a copy of “Killing Jesus”, nonetheless.

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      Heh heh.

  • Stu

    Pontius Pilate…you are about to enter The No-Spin Zone.

  • Mark R

    The Romans called revolution res nova, a new thing. Nothing necessarily rebarbative against the Almighty need accompany the concept.

  • SouthCoast

    Silly man to write silly book to be read by silly audience. Eheu.

    • Stu

      That’s just silly talk.

  • Kirt Higdon

    Can I be the only one who suspects that O’Reilly’s co-authors write these books and he just lends his name for marketing purposes? Does anyone imagine that billious Billo is a historian, let alone a Biblical scholar?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X