Killing Jesus of Nazareth

O'Reilly seems determined to let us know that he does not trust the trustworthiness of the Bible. It is sad to see that a conservative (politically) has swallowed the liberal view of Scripture hook, line and sinker. At the same time he seems to dismiss those who do take the Scriptures seriously as being out of touch with reality. I only wish he would read some of the scholarly works defending the reliability of the documents and their contents. I know he wants to be considered politically correct, which also seems a contradiction of his basic world view. It will be absolutely impossible to write an accurate account of the killing of Jesus from either a politically correct position or even from an attempt to be neutral. This is a clear cut case of evil versus good, of right versus wrong. It requires the ability to recognize right from the wrong and to state the case clearly, no matter who may be offended. One does not need to go out of the way to assess blame and guilt; they are an integral part of the story. But the attempt to avoid such assessment is undermining the credibility of the author, as well as presenting falsehood as being as acceptable as the truth.

When you are writing about something that actually happened, the details are what they are. You can't change those. The differences, and this is key, will be in the interpretations of those facts. O'Reilly is trying to write his book from a totally secular, historical perspective. Reed is writing from a spiritual perspective. Yes, Jesus lived in a historical place and time, and His story was told by secular historians of the day. But Jesus was spiritual. He was and is God Himself. So it would be an injustice to ignore the spiritual aspects of His life and death. You can never understand His story otherwise. --Paula Rodriguez --from The Introduction, Killing Jesus of Nazareth