HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Aug 14, 2003 The recently written article about Bill O'Reilly and Josephus has touched a nerve with me. I must say that I agree with the author wholeheartedly and I am writing this article to bolster what he has said. First of all, one must realize that Bill O'Reilly, for all intents and porpuses is one of the biggest fence sitters that exists. Let me tell you why. It has become abundantly clear to me that anyone who lables themselves as an "Independent" in the political world is really saying that they don't have conviction enough to call themselves a conservative and they are not quite cray enough to call themselves a liberal. Sitting on the fence does not mean that you do not have any strong beliefs. Sitting on the fence means that you refuse to identify yourself with any one group. It means that, in order to maintain open lines of communication with all groups, you decide to not be a part of any of them. In fact, O'Reilly has made his living out of picking and choosing pet topics from each camp and making them his own. That is where O'Reilly is. Hardly what one would call enlightened. Now, on to the Historical veracity of the Gospels. The fact that O'Reilly would admit that there is a great secular battle out there is to be commended. Spiritualism is under attack. Unfortunately, O'Reilly feeds the secular side by refusing the historical veracity of the gospels. One of the greatest books ever written on the subject was Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". Anyone truly interested in the subject should get this book. In it McDowell directly answers the question about the Gospels. He says, "There is one obvious difference between these things applied to Christ and these things applied to Greek Mythology that is usually overlooked. The similar events, such as the resurrection, etc, of Greek mythology were not applied to real, flesh and blood individuals, but rather to mythological characters. But, when it comes to Christianity, these events are attached to a person the writers knew in time-space dimension history, the historic Jesus of Nazareth whom they knew personally." The problem is that intellectualls refuse to look at the New Testament in the correct light of history. Unlike there dealings with all other historical texts, they veiw the New Testament with a preconceived notion that it must be a myth. McDowell says, "The strongest argument against historical skepticism...is this: the man who doubts the possibility of correct historical evidence and tradition cannot accept his own evidence, judgement, combination and interpretation. He cannot limit his doubt to his historical criticism, but is required to let it operate on his own life." In other words, O'Reilly, by deeming the Gospels non-historical, has opened a Pandora's Box that will affect his judgement in all areas. One cannot simply discount the Gospels veracity because they don't think that what they say is possible. To do this would mean that one would have to veiw all history with this preconception. To not do so would set a double standard that even the largest amount of spin would not and could not help. ------------ About the author: Wesley Mills is a full time student and writing instructor at Empire State College in Rochester N.Y. He also does freelance editing and writing and has his own company, "Writng Resources" which helps writers of all genres to write better and also does "book doctoring" and editing of all types. Email Wesley Mills: wmills1@rochester.rr.com Comment on this column in the forum. Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
