Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen in Prime Shop now

Customer Reviews

4.0 out of 5 stars24
4.0 out of 5 stars
Format: Hardcover|Change
Price:£20.00+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 11 February 2014
Overall I would describe this as the best book about the life of Jesus since Jim Bishop's THE DAY CHRIST DIED . Like Bishop's book, it vividly describes the world into which Jesus was born, grew up, taught his important lessons, was exalted then betrayed, unjustly convicted and executed, dying a horrible death on a cross. It does not hold back describing in graphic detail the extreme punishments the Romans used to keep their conquered people under absolute and total control. Sometimes the lengths the Romans took to exert their power on an oppressed people were truly shocking reminding me about the horrific way the Soviet Russians treated occupied Eastern European people following World War II.

Similary to Bishop's book, the chapters in KILLING JEUS are titled according to time and place i.e. the first chapter is captioned "Bethlehem, Judea March, 5 B.C. Morning" and the final chapter (before the Afterward) is "Jesus' Tomb, Sunday, April 9, A.D. 30, Dawn). There are three books within KILLING JESUS entitled Book I The World of Jesus; Book II Behold the Man; and Book III If You Are the Son of God, Take Yourself off This Cross. There are also a few black-and-white drawings, maps and pictures of famous portraits as well as an Index. It is obvious quite a bit of research was done to write this book and, as a Catholic, I appreciate the fact that Bill O'Reilley, also a Catholic, was the principal author.

If I have any heartburn at all about this book is that Mary Magdalene is again erroneously identified as a prostitute (as she was in Joyce Meyer's book APPROVAL ADDICTION:OVERCOMING YOUR NEED TO PLEASE EVERYONE). In fact, as noted in an issue of U.S. News and World Report: "Few characters in the New Testament have been so sorely miscast as Mary Magdalene, whose reputation as a fallen woman originated not in the Bible but in a sixth-century sermon by Pope Gregory the Great. Not only is she misidentified as the repentant fallen prostitute of legend, meditating and levitating in a cave, but she was not necessarily even a notable sinner. Being possessed by "seven demons" that were exorcised by Jesus, she was arguably more victim than sinner." There is NO evidence of her EVER having been a prostitute in any of the four gospels of the New Testament. Nevertheless the misidentification of St. Mary Magdalene as a repentant prostitute has continued on by many writers and artists including Bill O'Reilley and his co-author, Martin Dugard. This was truly disappointing.

Otherwise I really liked this book and would recommend it as good historical reading.
11 comment|5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 3 May 2016
“We had to separate fact from myth "
Really ??
A pity more research was not done into Mary Magdalene , the authors continue to foster the belief that the 3 different women called Mary are the same person - Mary Magdalene , Mary the prostitute and Mary the servant ,a myth that has been encouraged by the church as a means of demeaning women and diminishing their roles in the early church ,wake up gentlemen ,Mary Magdalene was one of the most important people in the early church ,this myth ( of her been a prostitute ) has been used to suppress women and confine their roles to that of mere helpers
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
VINE VOICEon 6 February 2016
Offers a very different take on the Jesus story but not being biased it is very graphic in the details, especially concerning the Romans Empire. If you are interested in this life it is a good read.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 13 December 2013
I doubt I can finish this book, the book was okay up to the point I read the sentence that calls Marc Antony a Pedophile without substantiating it all. It just felt like such a bizarre and out of context description of him that I couldn't get much further after that chapter. This gave me the feeling that the book was written by a sensationalist daily tabloid. It's a pity as the first two chapters were not too bad, though I felt it lacked sources.
0Comment|12 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 12 January 2014
This author is confused concerning the biblical vs. the historical record of the gospels. The most fundamental error is that O'Reilly assumes the Gospel of Matthew was the first written. He is misled because modern bibles begin with Matthew because the Gospel of Matthew begins with the Virgin Birth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Every history book in the world is consistent as to when the gospels were written: Mark = no earlier than 70AD; Matthew = no earlier than 85AD; Luke = no earlier than 85AD; John = no earlier than 95AD.

Though we don't know when the gospels were written, we know they could not have been written before these times as each of the gospels mentions historical events which had not happened until these dates. For example, the Gospel of Mark could not possibly--barring the paranormal--been written before 70AD because it speaks of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in past tense, an event which occurred in 70AD.

That O'Reilly claims to be an authority on the history of the gospels and does not know the order in which they were written tells one he has only read the gospels. He has never read the history books.

There are scores of this kind of historical vs. biblical inaccuracies in `Killing Jesus'. O'Reilly claims the Gospel of John was written by the disciple John who walked by Christ's side. According to the gospel he is correct. John describes himself in the first line of his gospel as `the disciple who Jesus loved.' Yet, as a matter of fact, O'Reilly is wrong.

The gospels place Jesus' death prox 30AD (his ministry beginning in the 14th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar or 28AD). If the disciple John wrote the Gospel of John he would be a hundred years old at a time average life expectancy was short of forty. Even if he wrote the gospel at such a remarkable age one would question why he waited three-quarters of century to write of this remarkable man? John lies in the first line of his gospel. Why would one believe anything else he has to say? It follows, why would one believe anything else O'Reilly has to say?

No history book in the world claims the disciple John wrote the Gospel of John. Mark, Matthew and Luke by their own testimony admit not one of them witnessed any part of Christ's life let alone His ministry. What's more, none of them claim to have gathered their information from anyone who witnessed any part of Christ's life. The historical record is clear. None of those who wrote of Christ's life witnessed any part of Christ's life or ministry.

Concerning Christ's lifespan O'Reilly comes a bit closer. According to the gospels Christ was born during Herod's reign. Herod died in 4BC. Allowing 2 years for the killing of the newborns, Christ was born in 6BC but only if Herod died in the year Christ was born. Not known. Christ was likely born before that time. We don't know how long Christ lived but we know he lived at least 36 years (6BC-30AD) and most likely longer.

Too, O'Reilly misses the boat concerning the virgin birth: Christ was conceived in 7BC or earlier - a century before Mathew and Luke came up with the Virgin Birth. They added the virgin birth because Mark - who wrote the first gospel - speaks of Christ as `Son of David' and three times Mark denies Christ is God. `Virgin Birth' defines Christ's divinity: `Son of God.' A century after the conception of Christ, Matthew and Luke suddenly discover God in the form of a ghost - the Holy Ghost - had impregnated Mary. The idea of a virgin birth was first conceived in Greek Mythology (British Museum 2045BC tablet) in the story of Dionysius `Son of the God Zeus' born free of sexual intercourse. From there it migrated into Greek folklore - e.g. Alexander the Great and other prominent Greeks were believed to have born of virgins (Sons of God) and from there into the Book of Isaiah and from there to Matthew and Luke.

This is the kind of analysis I had hoped this book would bring to me. Yet, there is not a hint of this anywhere in 'Killing Jesus'. Instead of materializing Jesus, O'Reilly reduces Jesus to sheer myth.

The most comprehensive book I have found analyzing the historical vs. biblical gospels is a bio of John Paul I The Vatican Murders: The Life and Death of John Paul I a pope who wanted to be honest with his people and educated them on these differences. Those I mention above are just a few of scores of much more striking historical vs. biblical disparities discussed in this biography about a pope who spent his life struggling for equal human rights and dignity for women, homosexuals and the poor. No wonder they killed him.

`Killing Jesus' is pulling the wool over the eyes. `Killing a Pope is something else!
0Comment|26 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 13 February 2016
It was good to have such a detailed description of what life was like under the Romans etc
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 10 August 2015
Excellent, thank you
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 3 February 2014
Another excellent Bill O'Reilly book giving an insight into the historical facts about the life of Jesus. Couldnt put it down.
0Comment|2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 1 July 2014
I learned a few things but disappointed that authors based their "fact" finding mainly on the bible. I don't personally consider this
a basis for historical truth.
0Comment|3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 26 March 2015
O'Really has picked out a number of interesting sources for his book, including 'Cleopatra to Christ', and used these sources to great effect. It is nice to see someone giving the Romo-Egyptian background to the biblical story, instead of pretending that this was purely a local Judaean affair.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)