Bill O'Reilly's Killing Jesus debunked as FICTION!!

JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 700
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Bill O'Reilly's Killing Jesus debunked as FICTION!!

That hateful right wing moron Bill O'Reilly has been pushing his delusional fictional book Killing Jesus yet below is a great summmary on how the book is a total fairytale! 

 

But the only real controversy stems from the fact that Bill O’Reilly has demonstrated the unmitigated nerve to call his work a history book when all he does is regurgitate selected portions of the biblical stories found in the Gospels of the New Testament, and embellishes them with some accurate history of the Roman Empire, together with his own entirely speculative narrative of the“events.” There is absolutely nothing original here. So, in the final analysis, Killing Jesus: A History is, in reality, nothing more than fiction dressed up as history. Bill O’Reilly knows better. 

He knows that there are billions of his fellow Christians out there desperately clinging to faith that Jesus Christ was a real human being, the son of God, born of a virgin and sent by the Father to show the faithful the way to eternal life with God in heaven. These people already believe in their hearts that Jesus is an historical figure. O’Reilly is cynically capitalizing on that religious belief to dress the fictional Gospel stories up as legitimate history. As such, O’Reilly’s book represents not only unethical and irresponsible authorship; it is downright fraudulent, deceptive and dishonest. It is full of inaccuracies, anachronisms and outright non-existent historical falsehoods. Anachronisms, such as calling John the Baptizer (or, as they call him later in the book, John the Baptist) a young man at 40, abound.They call the Apostle Paul a “former Pharisee who became a convert to Christianity.” This is impossible due to the fact that Christianity was still very much Jewish while Paul walked the earth. 

The undeniable truth of the matter is that the Jesus of Nazareth, referred to in the Gospels, is NOT an historical figure. Outside of the New Testament of the Holy Bible, there exists not a shred of credible contemporary evidence whatsoever in book, inscription, or monument, archaeological or otherwise, supporting the existence of an historical Jesus or any of the apostles for that matter, and Bill O’Reilly’s book fails dismally show otherwise. The Gospels, upon which O’Reilly completely relies for his “history,” contain historical falsehoods – “events” that never happened” – far too numerous to mention fully and in context here; mythological “events” which were never documented or recorded by any of the known historians who lived during the relevant periods of time. Thousands of criminals, for example, were crucified by the Romans and documented in historical records, but there is no record of Jesus.

 http://authoritycon.blogspot.com/2013/10/killing-jesus-fiction-dressed-up-as.html?m=1 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
JesusNEVERexisted

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

Thousands of criminals, for example, were crucified by the Romans and documented in historical records

really?  we have the execution records of literally thousands of criminals from first-century rome?  i was a classical studies major and that's news to me.  where can i find them?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
oh, and let's not blame poor

oh, and let's not blame poor bill too much for the flaws of this book.  i guarantee you the extent of o'reilly's involvement in any of his killing books was picking up the phone and calling martin dugard with the idea.

and obviously even the ideas weren't terribly original...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 700
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek

iwbiek wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

Thousands of criminals, for example, were crucified by the Romans and documented in historical records

really?  we have the execution records of literally thousands of criminals from first-century rome?  i was a classical studies major and that's news to me.  where can i find them?

 

Not a single historical figure in the Roman Empire ever said that Jesus existed nor did they ever see any Jesus. If Jesus even did half the things that the bible claims EVERYONE would have heard of him! Josephus and Tacitus are a total joke because not only did they never see any earthly Jesus but Tacitus actually mentioned Hercules more than Jesus and Josephus mentions Hercules too!

There is also not a shred of evidence that the apostles ever existed! Any dummy could have made those references to a character that doesn't exist in any historical documents!

The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus... The library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of contemporary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life. -Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907] (Modern Thought)

 It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was considered that Jesus does not belong to history at all.-J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs)

We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The Gnostic Gospels)

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
JesusNEVERexisted

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

 

Not a single historical figure in the Roman Empire ever said that Jesus existed nor did they ever see any Jesus. If Jesus even did half the things that the bible claims EVERYONE would have heard of him! Josephus and Tacitus are a total joke because not only did they never see any earthly Jesus but Tacitus actually mentioned Hercules more than Jesus and Josephus mentions Hercules too!

There is also not a shred of evidence that the apostles ever existed! Any dummy could have made those references to a character that doesn't exist in any historical documents!

The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus... The library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of contemporary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life. -Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907] (Modern Thought)

 It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was considered that Jesus does not belong to history at all.-J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs)

We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The Gnostic Gospels)

that didn't answer my question...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4054
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
JesusNEVERexisted wrote:That

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

That hateful right wing moron Bill O'Reilly has been pushing his delusional fictional book Killing Jesus...

 

  I just wanted to interject that there are plenty of politically liberal Christians who also believe Jesus was an historical figure.   The United Church Of Christ is just such a left-leaning ( support for gay rights, pro-choice, etc ) denomination and I guarantee they believe Jesus was a historical figure just like Billy Boy does, politics notwithstanding.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:oh, and let's

iwbiek wrote:

oh, and let's not blame poor bill too much for the flaws of this book.  i guarantee you the extent of o'reilly's involvement in any of his killing books was picking up the phone and calling martin dugard with the idea.

and obviously even the ideas weren't terribly original...

 

Hey now, I thought you were not into criticizing religion and here you are doing it.

 

You do realize that O'Reilly has a huge audience of gullible people who listen to him and vote? You don't even realize you are doing exactly what you should be doing and then claiming it isn't the same as what Harris and Dawkins say we should do in calling them out.

 

Don't complain about me when you are doing the exact same thing. Which BTW is the right thing to do.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Hey now, I

Brian37 wrote:

Hey now, I thought you were not into criticizing religion and here you are doing it.

Do you agree there are more options for criticizing religion than "not criticizing any religion in any way" and "criticizing every religion in every way"?

Brian, I'd really appreciate it if you were to devote at least part of your response to directly addressing the above question. I apologize in advance if the previous sentence comes across as condescending.

 


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 700
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

That hateful right wing moron Bill O'Reilly has been pushing his delusional fictional book Killing Jesus...

 

  I just wanted to interject that there are plenty of politically liberal Christians who also believe Jesus was an historical figure.   The United Church Of Christ is just such a left-leaning ( support for gay rights, pro-choice, etc ) denomination and I guarantee they believe Jesus was a historical figure just like Billy Boy does, politics notwithstanding.

And the Morons...err Mormons believe we all get our own planet after we die! Who cares! I'm just saying there is no objective historical corroboration of Jesus, Moses, the Exodus, adam & eve, Noah's ark, etc. The crazy Christians simply say "the bible says so" which is not evidence by any stretch! There are plenty of other scriptures about other gods and supernatural events and it certainly isn't evidence there either!

Remember Christianity was spread by FORCE and BRIBERY and they never gave a shred of evidence that any of this Middle Eastern fairy tale was real!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:  Hey now, I

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

Hey now, I thought you were not into criticizing religion

 

you thought that because you're a fucking retard with no reading comprehension skills.  i'm not "not into criticizing religion," i'm into criticizing ignorance, which is just as likely to pop up in the atheist community as in the religious community, and you're living proof.

now why don't you answer blacklight's questions?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Brian37

blacklight915 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Hey now, I thought you were not into criticizing religion and here you are doing it.

Do you agree there are more options for criticizing religion than "not criticizing any religion in any way" and "criticizing every religion in every way"?

Brian, I'd really appreciate it if you were to devote at least part of your response to directly addressing the above question. I apologize in advance if the previous sentence comes across as condescending.

 

"In every way"? In what context? The bottom line is that blasphemy is NOT a crime, when religion gets a taboo, IN ANY WAY, that undue and undeserved pedestal sets that group up to a future of fascism. People are falsely accusing me of saying "you must always cuss out religion", when I am simply saying that human priorities are fucked up if people care more about their religion getting criticized or name called, than the actual harm people do in the name of their religion.

 

When you can point out where I said you must do what I do in every setting all the time 100% of the time, then I will concede.  All I have said and will continue to say is that religion DOES NOT deserve a pass.

 

We don't kill theists for saying stupid and ignorant things like "Burn in hell atheists" nor would any of us say "Ban theists if they say "fuck atheists". We get trashed all the time for not believing. I care more about WHY they say what they say and not their word choice.

 

If someone gets in my face that offends me, I have a choice. I can say "fuck you" back, debate them, or ignore them. But I am not entitled to force them to only say nice things about atheists.

 

Where you get the idea that simply because I blaspheme religion here means I do it all the time in every context is patiently absurd.

And "you're being a dick" tactic also does a disservice to humanity by assuming all theists are thin skinned and will crumble at the site of blasphemy. I've been at this for 12 years and I value more the theist who doesn't run away like an insecure wimp who has a glass jaw.

 

If my mom can listen to me and understand it is NOT personal, so can theists and so can you. There are places in the world where you can be murdered WITHOUT even cussing, but merely leaving a religion or belonging to the wrong religion. I have no sympathy for those who live in the west who can go to bed at night without fear.

 

The world would be a much more peaceful place if a "fuck you" was the worst any of us had to worry about.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: "In every

Brian37 wrote:

 

"In every way"? In what context? The bottom line is that blasphemy is NOT a crime, when religion gets a taboo, IN ANY WAY, that undue and undeserved pedestal sets that group up to a future of fascism. People are falsely accusing me of saying "you must always cuss out religion", when I am simply saying that human priorities are fucked up if people care more about their religion getting criticized or name called, than the actual harm people do in the name of their religion.

 

When you can point out where I said you must do what I do in every setting all the time 100% of the time, then I will concede.  All I have said and will continue to say is that religion DOES NOT deserve a pass.

 

We don't kill theists for saying stupid and ignorant things like "Burn in hell atheists" nor would any of us say "Ban theists if they say "fuck atheists". We get trashed all the time for not believing. I care more about WHY they say what they say and not their word choice.

 

If someone gets in my face that offends me, I have a choice. I can say "fuck you" back, debate them, or ignore them. But I am not entitled to force them to only say nice things about atheists.

 

Where you get the idea that simply because I blaspheme religion here means I do it all the time in every context is patiently absurd.

And "you're being a dick" tactic also does a disservice to humanity by assuming all theists are thin skinned and will crumble at the site of blasphemy. I've been at this for 12 years and I value more the theist who doesn't run away like an insecure wimp who has a glass jaw.

 

If my mom can listen to me and understand it is NOT personal, so can theists and so can you. There are places in the world where you can be murdered WITHOUT even cussing, but merely leaving a religion or belonging to the wrong religion. I have no sympathy for those who live in the west who can go to bed at night without fear.

 

The world would be a much more peaceful place if a "fuck you" was the worst any of us had to worry about.

 

 

 

great fuckin' coked-up god in heaven, this motherfucker literally understands not a single fucking thing i've said, and i've explained it 10 different ways at least.  it's like he's talking right past me.

WHERE DO I CALL FOR TABOO STATUS???

WHERE DO I SAY NOT TO CRITICIZE RELIGION???

WHERE, BRIAN????

QUOTE ME!!!!!!!!

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Okay, I think I worded my

Okay, I think I worded my question incorrectly. I did not mean to imply that you "blaspheme religion...all the time in every context". Nor did I mean to imply that religion should get special treatment.

If you were to label the target of your criticism "dogmatic belief systems" instead of "religion", I think what you say in criticism would make a lot more sense. I'm almost certain some versions of some religions could be accurately described as "dogmatic belief systems".

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:I'm

blacklight915 wrote:

I'm almost certain some versions of some religions could be accurately described as "dogmatic belief systems".

 

they certainly could be.  pretty much any "prophetic religion," including the greatest part of the abrahamic religions, are just that.  i will exempt judaism, however, since judaism makes no universal claims for all of humanity, only jews.

that's precisely why i find the modern conception of avatars and gurus in hinduism so repulsive, because it begins to bring elements of prophetic religion into a religion that was never prophetic.  imo, the hare krishnas make this transition almost complete, which is one of the reasons i abhor them (but not the chief reason).

on the buddhist front, i would assign the negative traits of dogmatism to much of tibetan lamaism, especially the gelugspa of the dalai lama and his lackeys, as well as some of the more disturbing devotional and "socially engaged" sects of japanese buddhism, especially those inspired by the fanaticism of nichiren (soka gakkai, for example).

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Brian37 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

"In every way"? In what context? The bottom line is that blasphemy is NOT a crime, when religion gets a taboo, IN ANY WAY, that undue and undeserved pedestal sets that group up to a future of fascism. People are falsely accusing me of saying "you must always cuss out religion", when I am simply saying that human priorities are fucked up if people care more about their religion getting criticized or name called, than the actual harm people do in the name of their religion.

 

When you can point out where I said you must do what I do in every setting all the time 100% of the time, then I will concede.  All I have said and will continue to say is that religion DOES NOT deserve a pass.

 

We don't kill theists for saying stupid and ignorant things like "Burn in hell atheists" nor would any of us say "Ban theists if they say "fuck atheists". We get trashed all the time for not believing. I care more about WHY they say what they say and not their word choice.

 

If someone gets in my face that offends me, I have a choice. I can say "fuck you" back, debate them, or ignore them. But I am not entitled to force them to only say nice things about atheists.

 

Where you get the idea that simply because I blaspheme religion here means I do it all the time in every context is patiently absurd.

And "you're being a dick" tactic also does a disservice to humanity by assuming all theists are thin skinned and will crumble at the site of blasphemy. I've been at this for 12 years and I value more the theist who doesn't run away like an insecure wimp who has a glass jaw.

 

If my mom can listen to me and understand it is NOT personal, so can theists and so can you. There are places in the world where you can be murdered WITHOUT even cussing, but merely leaving a religion or belonging to the wrong religion. I have no sympathy for those who live in the west who can go to bed at night without fear.

 

The world would be a much more peaceful place if a "fuck you" was the worst any of us had to worry about.

 

 

 

great fuckin' coked-up god in heaven, this motherfucker literally understands not a single fucking thing i've said, and i've explained it 10 different ways at least.  it's like he's talking right past me.

WHERE DO I CALL FOR TABOO STATUS???

WHERE DO I SAY NOT TO CRITICIZE RELIGION???

WHERE, BRIAN????

QUOTE ME!!!!!!!!

 

Then dont get your panties in a fucking bunch when I blast religion.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:  Then dont

Brian37 wrote:

 

 

Then dont get your panties in a fucking bunch when I blast religion.

and hello, dodge.  surprise fucking surprise.

you don't criticize, brian.  criticism takes knowledge and logic.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)