After reading my assessment of the book “Killing Jesus,” I felt that I could finally put this author’s work to rest and go on to more serious criticism, such as the works published by persons whose theological roots are stronger. o’reilly continues to respond to those who are concerned enough to send him emails about the final words spoken by Christ on the cross, and he insists that the biblical record must be wrong because there is no other record besides the biblical record that speaks to the subject. This is because no other record besides the biblical record speaks to the subject. o’reilly has stated that because he is catholic it must have been the holy spirit that prompted him to write his book; however, unless he was appointed as the new modern or last day’s apostle, he is skirting the realm of high pride and pretentiousness. o’reilly has said that because he is catholic it must have been the holy spirit that prompted him to write his book. We do not know for certain whether or not O’Reilly was selected to examine the record of the apostles, but we do know for certain that the apostles were selected to be eyewitnesses to every word and action that Jesus Christ spoke or did for a period of at least three years. We also know that neither he nor Martin Dugard were there at the time of the events, and that the historians they chose to offer as authority on the topic were not there as eyewitnesses to the actions that took place. If the twelve were selected specifically to be eyewitnesses, then it stands to reason that they were also earwitnesses, doesn’t it? Did god pass up on this opportunity? Had he just forgotten that these selected individuals were all deaf or prone to exaggeration and hyperbole, which could only be remedied when o’reilly and dugard arrived on the scene at the appropriate moment to put the record straight? Let’s take a look at Bill O’Reilly’s record on other topics before we bring up the biblical record to refute his allegations. During the first two years of the Obama administration, o’reilly often referred to Barack Obama as a “very brilliant guy,” and he said this throughout those two years. Who should we trust, history or o’reilly, given that five years have passed with irs scandals, benghazi, botched bailouts, solyndra, and the rest of the whopping enormous snafus of the obama legacy along with the renowned failed launch of obama’s flagship law, obamacare? Why would o’reilly take the risk of correcting twelve hand-picked apostolic messengers who lived two millennia before he and dugard drew their first breaths if he could be so incorrect about obama? If o’reilly could be so mistaken about obama, why would he go out to correct them? Should we feel lucky that o’reilly has finally reached the heights and is now able to see that god himself made a bit of a mistake in choosing these “liars” or bombastic fools given to exaggeration and fibbing, to follow his son around and set the record straight? Has the harvard education gone to his head? Has the holy spirit decided to contradict himself? Did these simple guys take it upon themselves to change the record, as if they were some aspiring authors for a great tale that they knew would endure the test of time and become the story that is told the most often on the face of the earth? Why is it that whenever we think of O’Reilly’s remarks, the term ‘pompous’ keeps popping into our heads? The foundations of heaven provide evidence that contradicts o’reilly’s claims that the book of revelation provides a description of heaven. the very same book that, on its own, bears a stern warning that anybody who alters it in any way, whether by removing or adding content, will be damned for all of eternity. To your own detriment, you may term it metaphor, figurative language, or wishful thinking. (Revelation 22:18) The book of revelation has a depiction of the ultimate resting place for all of the redeemed people on earth. It is not the type of fifth-dimensional paradise that consists of spirits and angels aimlessly floating about clouds with nothing to do. Rather, it is a magnificent metropolis that is located on a new world where Christ rules as king and the light of his father shines in lieu of the sun. Revelation 21:12 says that God gives special respect to those individuals who stood with him and represented him to the world throughout the time of the giving of the law and during the age of grace. According to the book of Revelation chapter 21, verse 14, the names of the leaders of Israel’s twelve tribes are engraved on each of the city’s twelve gates. At long last, the names of the twelve apostles have been discovered engraved into the foundations of the city. Because it is obvious that the names Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard are not found on the foundations, we are left to wonder: if God chose to honor the twelve apostles, then shouldn’t we ask the question of whose writing, record, and testimony about the events that occurred during the life of Christ He would honor? Does it seem to anyone, other than Bill O’Reilly, that the god of truth would be likely to do something like permanently etching the names of poor mistaken or overly emotional apostles, or outright liars, on the foundations of the city? Does this seem like something the god of truth would be likely to do? Mr. O’Reily, today’s term is pretentious; if you don’t know what it means, I ask that you check it up. How many times does God have to repeat himself before anything he says becomes real? O’Reily claims that the account of Christ forgiving his crucifiers is called into question since it is only contained in one gospel and not in all four synoptic gospels. O’Reily bases this contention on the fact that the record is only found in the Gospel of John. In point of fact, the synoptic gospels do not include many of the sayings attributed to Christ. This line of thinking is so absurd that it’s almost funny; it’s like stating that something can’t be believed until it’s mentioned in the Bible on at least two separate occasions. If the fact that God only provided the Ten Commandments once, once he offered the message of Salvation, and once he sent his only born Son, then the fault lies with O’Reily and his trusted historians, and not with the biblical record. christ’s last breath contrasted with o’reilly’s heated air: a question of caring for one’s mother bill It’s possible that o’reilly doesn’t want to examine the biblical record against the historians he relied on to write “killing Jesus,” but doing so would have been his first and worst error. Despite the fact that the history of the new testament exceeds all other historical records of the events in issue by a wide margin, nt history is also used to correct a great deal of incorrect historical statements originating from the same time period. What neither o’reilly nor dugard noticed was that when Jesus prayed, “father, pardon them; for they know not what they do,” (Luke 23:34), it was not even close to being the final thing he spoke before he died. After that, he addressed his father and commended his soul into the hands of his father (Luke 23:43). After that, Jesus proceeded to promise one of the thieves who was crucified with him that he would arrive in paradise that very same day. (lu 23: 46) But that’s not the end of it. Jesus took care of his mother to the very end, using his every breath to do so. He looked down from the cross, and in accordance with his role as a servant and his loving nature, he entrusted the apostle John with the responsibility of taking care of his mother until the day she passed away – with his very last breath. “When then Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he said to his mother, ‘woman, behold thy son!'” Then Jesus said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother,” and the disciple was shocked. And at that same hour, the disciple brought her into his own house. (jn 19: 26, 27) It is stated that he subsequently “gave up the ghost” in the verses immediately following the text that you just read. (jn 19: 30) I’m sorry, Mr. Reilly. According to the biblical record, you are making a lot of noise about nothing. In conclusion, as a general narrative of events, killing Jesus is not a bad thing; however, I would strongly advise that you do not trust your theological underpinnings to haggling, hacking historians or the nascent noodling of newsmen. Instead, you should trust the bible because that is the only part of god’s plan. Coupled with news and reviews, the articles and reports of journalist Rev. Michael Bresciani have been included on americanprophet.org since 2005. These features, along with the site’s reputation as the website for insight, have contributed to the site’s success. His timely reports and essays have been published in online journals and print media all throughout the country and the world, and they have been read by millions of people. Keep up with us by following us on Twitter and Facebook. ,/p”,!– /wp:paragraph –“
I love myBlogd
