Discussion:
"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God"
(too old to reply)
Padraic Brown
2007-01-19 02:29:19 UTC
Permalink
The Bible is nonsense. It goes directly against our God-given reason, it
can't be from God. In fact, it was voted to be the word of God about 300
years after Jesus died. Here's an interesting article about the unholy
origins of the Bible http://www.deism.com/counterrebuttal2.htm
One of the great saints of Deism and the fundamental place of reason
in faith might disagree with at least your thesis statement. Mr
Jefferson quite clearly thought there was considerable sense behind
studying the teachings of Jesus: "There will be found remaining [after
having "par[ed] off the amphibologisms"] the most sublime and
benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man." A
reasonable man wouldn't cut-n-paste the gospels, in order to glean out
the "diamonds in a dunghill" if it were utter nonsense.

Padraic
Progress! Bob
http://www.deism.com
http://www.divinelove.org/revnt/Rev-10.htm
REVELATION 10
Jesus' Meeting with Nicodemus
I have already spoken to you about my meeting with Nicodemus, son of Gurion,
the Pharisee, when I was teaching in Palestine. Nicodemus was the son of a
rabbi who held religious discussions with groups, as was the custom of those
days and before. He was not a priest and held no services in the Temple. As
a matter of fact, the Pharisees were the ones who were most interested in
the law, not only the written laws of the Scriptures, but the
interpretations which the centuries and circumstances made necessary in
those laws, and these interpretations were known as the Oral Law. They were
discussed mainly by the Pharisees, the common people of Jerusalem, because
they were the ones most interested in the religion of the Hebrews; they were
poor; they were the artisans and tradesman, downtrodden by the rich and the
aristocratic priests who cared nothing for the scriptures except as their
own interests were therein protected. These Pharisees were deeply concerned
with immortality of the soul, inasmuch as their own plight on earth made
them seek for justice in an ideal world beyond the grave and they felt that
God's righteousness had to, of necessity, embrace that Kingdom where justice
and righteousness would be the established order. That is why the Pharisees
were willing to listen to me and my mission -- the availability of
immortality of the soul through prayer to the Father for His Love.
While they were intrigued, then, by my affirmation that the Kingdom of God
had come with my appearance -- that is, that soul immortality was a fact and
could be achieved, yet they were not capable of understanding the principle
of the Divine Love and Salvation through the Divine Love. For some centuries
they had battled stubbornly against the Saducees' denial of immortality, and
had clung to the faith of man's entry into Paradise through keeping of the
Ten Commandments and the Torah (the 5 Books of Moses) and the decrees,
precepts and interpretations which stemmed from these Holy works, so that
Divine Love and Salvation from it were alien to their thoughts and
fundamental concepts of religion. This then, very briefly, is the background
of their initial sympathy with me and later disagreements.
Nicodemus, however, had an intuitive feeling that I was right and since he
was not able to fully understand my meaning, he came secretly one night to
hear from me in private what he had only been able to glimpse in my public
sermons in the market place. He felt, also, that my miracles of healing
among the people must be due to great piety and that, therefore, I must be a
man of God. He wanted to know about the Kingdom of God, and how to enter
therein. Since he could not, as I saw, understand Divine Love, nor
transformation of the soul from the human into the divine through the
Father's Love, I had recourse to a parable, as I usually had in speaking to
the people, "EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN AGAIN, HE CANNOT SEE THE KINGDOM OF GOD."
Nicodemus could understand a spiritual rebirth only through obedience to the
laws of God, the doing of good, the practicing of mercy and charity,
righteousness in conduct and piety for the widow and the orphan; in short,
he understood repentence from evil and a return to God in the prophetic
sense of the term, and thought this gave immortality of the soul. I had to
show him that his practicing of the virtues purified the soul, and made it a
perfect human soul in the eyes of God, but that to enter the Kingdom of God,
the soul had to be transformed into a divine soul, through God's Nature,
Love.
To his query, I showed that being born of the flesh was the work of the
womb, and that here there was no possibility of rebirth, but that
spiritually, the soul could be reborn; it was born as the human soul, but
could be born again into a divine soul, the transformation -- or rebirth --
taking place as the individual sought the Father's Love through prayer and
obtained that Love, which permeated the human soul and made it divine. It
was this divinity of soul that rendered it immortal, and enabled one to see
the Kingdom of God, and not the perfection of the human soul resulting from
the doing of good works and practicing charity and righteousness.
If Peter and John, my most advanced disciples, could not readily understand
the significance of Divine Love, then neither could Nicodemus ben Gurion in
the talk I had with him, for I saw the conflict which Divine Love raised in
his mind with his deep seated doctrines of the law and the precepts of the
Torah, and his inability to accept my glad tidings immediately.
He asked, "HOW COULD THESE THINGS BE?" and so I told him that, inasmuch as
there were many earthly things he could not understand, like the wind, and
its movements, it was not strange that he should not understand these things
of the spirit: "THE WIND BLOWS WHERE IT LISTS, AND THOU HEAREST THE SOUND
THEREOF, BUT CANST NOT TELL WHENCE IT COMES, AND WHITHER IT GOES; SO IT IS
WITH THE SPIRITUAL REBIRTH." (St. John, Chapter 3, verse 8).
Since he could not understand the workings of the wind, a material
phenomenon, neither could he understand an operation of a spiritual thing,
the rebirth. And since Rauch (wind), also means spirit in Hebrew, I used
this play on words and tried to show him that as both were of the Father,
the Rebirth as well as the existence of the wind could be believed in and
accepted.
I did not say, or mean, that Nicodemus had to be born of the spirit in the
sense that Christians usually interpret the words attributed to John, that
is, the Holy Spirit, for the soul is not reborn of the Holy Spirit, but of
God's Love, which comes into the soul conveyed by the Holy Spirit, that
manifestation of God which has as its function this great mission. Neither
did I say that he had to be born of water, for this is simply a much later
interpolation referring to baptism. This is all wrong, for baptism has no
efficacy in the soul's obtention of the Divine Love. Certainly, Nicodemus
would have understood these Christian interpretations much less than he did
the Divine Love, which I insisted was now available to mankind because it
was present in me.
Nicodemus left with an inkling of the Father's Love and heard me explain
several times that the Kingdom of God had come; he was confused, because of
the new concept of soul transformation and his ideas of a Messiah ushering
in a new ideal Kingdom on earth, but he understood later at Pentecost, when
mental concept was replaced by emotion, for Nicodemus greatly respected me,
and his reverence was turned into love and sorrow, and brought into his soul
the Divine Love. Nicodemus finally understood with his soul, and he now
stands by me in the Celestial Heavens, eager with his love and influence to
bring mankind into At-onement with the Father.
Jesus of the Bible
and
Master of the Celestial Heavens
www.divinelove.org
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
SouthernHospitality
2007-02-14 07:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Padraic Brown
One of the great saints of Deism and the fundamental place of reason
in faith might disagree with at least your thesis statement. Mr
Jefferson quite clearly thought there was considerable sense behind
studying the teachings of Jesus: "There will be found remaining [after
having "par[ed] off the amphibologisms"] the most sublime and
benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man." A
reasonable man wouldn't cut-n-paste the gospels, in order to glean out
the "diamonds in a dunghill" if it were utter nonsense.
Ahhh and this Gentleman is going to wholeheartedly disagree with that.
The Jefferson bible was his attempt to pacify the multitude of
Christians around him due to his involvement with Deism and more
importantly the speedy decline of the reputation of his friend, Thomas
Paine. Benjamin Franklin was also a friend of Paine who gradually moved
away from his radical views in order to pacify his new "friends" the
Christians. The growing influence of those christian ideals upon men in
power made Paine rage against it with everything he had.

If you look only at the acts that Jesus made against the pharisee's you
would have no other option but to think he was a deist. In a society
where religion held the control of life or death, to have someone like
Jesus repeatedly cause them to publicly eat their words will eventually
find enough reason to just kill him. Jesus knew that the first time he
challenged the ways that were being taught AND enforced, he would find
himself to be a dead man. It doesn't take divine inspiration to see that.

Anyway, this topic is likely dead but I wanted to spout on it since the
newsgroups are sooooo alive these days.
Padraic Brown
2007-02-14 13:12:54 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:47:59 GMT, SouthernHospitality
Post by SouthernHospitality
Post by Padraic Brown
One of the great saints of Deism and the fundamental place of reason
in faith might disagree with at least your thesis statement. Mr
Jefferson quite clearly thought there was considerable sense behind
studying the teachings of Jesus: "There will be found remaining [after
having "par[ed] off the amphibologisms"] the most sublime and
benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man." A
reasonable man wouldn't cut-n-paste the gospels, in order to glean out
the "diamonds in a dunghill" if it were utter nonsense.
Ahhh and this Gentleman is going to wholeheartedly disagree with that.
The Jefferson bible was his attempt to pacify the multitude of
Christians around him due to his involvement with Deism and more
importantly the speedy decline of the reputation of his friend, Thomas
Paine. Benjamin Franklin was also a friend of Paine who gradually moved
away from his radical views in order to pacify his new "friends" the
Christians. The growing influence of those christian ideals upon men in
power made Paine rage against it with everything he had.
If you look only at the acts that Jesus made against the pharisee's you
would have no other option but to think he was a deist. In a society
where religion held the control of life or death, to have someone like
Jesus repeatedly cause them to publicly eat their words will eventually
find enough reason to just kill him. Jesus knew that the first time he
challenged the ways that were being taught AND enforced, he would find
himself to be a dead man. It doesn't take divine inspiration to see that.
Anyway, this topic is likely dead but I wanted to spout on it since the
newsgroups are sooooo alive these days.
Spout away! I really don't think Jefferson was trying to pacify
anyone, Christian or otherwise, with his cut-n-paste Gospel. I don't
claim to be an expert by any means, but what I have read about the
history of that book of his does not lead me to believe that was his
goal. Comparing the Bible to a pile of shit won't gain him many
friends among the (especially Bible believing) Christians! His general
perspective of Christianity as a religion couldn't have won him many
friends either.

Padraic
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
SouthernHospitality
2007-02-14 13:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Padraic Brown
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:47:59 GMT, SouthernHospitality
Post by SouthernHospitality
Post by Padraic Brown
One of the great saints of Deism and the fundamental place of reason
in faith might disagree with at least your thesis statement. Mr
Jefferson quite clearly thought there was considerable sense behind
studying the teachings of Jesus: "There will be found remaining [after
having "par[ed] off the amphibologisms"] the most sublime and
benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man." A
reasonable man wouldn't cut-n-paste the gospels, in order to glean out
the "diamonds in a dunghill" if it were utter nonsense.
Ahhh and this Gentleman is going to wholeheartedly disagree with that.
The Jefferson bible was his attempt to pacify the multitude of
Christians around him due to his involvement with Deism and more
importantly the speedy decline of the reputation of his friend, Thomas
Paine. Benjamin Franklin was also a friend of Paine who gradually moved
away from his radical views in order to pacify his new "friends" the
Christians. The growing influence of those christian ideals upon men in
power made Paine rage against it with everything he had.
If you look only at the acts that Jesus made against the pharisee's you
would have no other option but to think he was a deist. In a society
where religion held the control of life or death, to have someone like
Jesus repeatedly cause them to publicly eat their words will eventually
find enough reason to just kill him. Jesus knew that the first time he
challenged the ways that were being taught AND enforced, he would find
himself to be a dead man. It doesn't take divine inspiration to see that.
Anyway, this topic is likely dead but I wanted to spout on it since the
newsgroups are sooooo alive these days.
Spout away! I really don't think Jefferson was trying to pacify
anyone, Christian or otherwise, with his cut-n-paste Gospel. I don't
claim to be an expert by any means, but what I have read about the
history of that book of his does not lead me to believe that was his
goal. Comparing the Bible to a pile of shit won't gain him many
friends among the (especially Bible believing) Christians! His general
perspective of Christianity as a religion couldn't have won him many
friends either.
Padraic
No I can't imagine calling the bible a 'dunghill' as being very passive,
but he did wish to wait until his death for it to become a published
piece of writing. Personally, I don't think he cut out enough as there
are still concepts inside that lean towards the magical and mythical.
However, those Christians in his circle of friends had to be at least a
little impressed that he could quote scripture to them. That had to
have been a card he'd played before in order to gain their respect.

There is also the trouble of the entire 4 gospels themselves being
authored no earlier than 50 years after his death. That alone makes the
NT extremely difficult to swallow as factual instead of fiction. Not to
mention that no documents exist from any of the key people like, say,
Jesus or his mother and father.

Um, actually, what was this thread about in the first place? I only
just arrive...

SH
Padraic Brown
2007-02-14 14:59:04 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:45:26 GMT, SouthernHospitality
Post by SouthernHospitality
Post by Padraic Brown
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:47:59 GMT, SouthernHospitality
Post by SouthernHospitality
Post by Padraic Brown
One of the great saints of Deism and the fundamental place of reason
in faith might disagree with at least your thesis statement. Mr
Jefferson quite clearly thought there was considerable sense behind
studying the teachings of Jesus: "There will be found remaining [after
having "par[ed] off the amphibologisms"] the most sublime and
benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man." A
reasonable man wouldn't cut-n-paste the gospels, in order to glean out
the "diamonds in a dunghill" if it were utter nonsense.
Ahhh and this Gentleman is going to wholeheartedly disagree with that.
The Jefferson bible was his attempt to pacify the multitude of
Christians around him due to his involvement with Deism and more
importantly the speedy decline of the reputation of his friend, Thomas
Paine. Benjamin Franklin was also a friend of Paine who gradually moved
away from his radical views in order to pacify his new "friends" the
Christians. The growing influence of those christian ideals upon men in
power made Paine rage against it with everything he had.
If you look only at the acts that Jesus made against the pharisee's you
would have no other option but to think he was a deist. In a society
where religion held the control of life or death, to have someone like
Jesus repeatedly cause them to publicly eat their words will eventually
find enough reason to just kill him. Jesus knew that the first time he
challenged the ways that were being taught AND enforced, he would find
himself to be a dead man. It doesn't take divine inspiration to see that.
Anyway, this topic is likely dead but I wanted to spout on it since the
newsgroups are sooooo alive these days.
Spout away! I really don't think Jefferson was trying to pacify
anyone, Christian or otherwise, with his cut-n-paste Gospel. I don't
claim to be an expert by any means, but what I have read about the
history of that book of his does not lead me to believe that was his
goal. Comparing the Bible to a pile of shit won't gain him many
friends among the (especially Bible believing) Christians! His general
perspective of Christianity as a religion couldn't have won him many
friends either.
Padraic
No I can't imagine calling the bible a 'dunghill' as being very passive,
but he did wish to wait until his death for it to become a published
piece of writing.
There is that. On the other hand, he may have viewed one's
relationship with God as a private matter, not one for the (free)
press to bandy about!
Post by SouthernHospitality
Personally, I don't think he cut out enough as there
are still concepts inside that lean towards the magical and mythical.
What do you think is left that still leans to the magical?
Post by SouthernHospitality
However, those Christians in his circle of friends had to be at least a
little impressed that he could quote scripture to them. That had to
have been a card he'd played before in order to gain their respect.
There is also the trouble of the entire 4 gospels themselves being
authored no earlier than 50 years after his death. That alone makes the
NT extremely difficult to swallow as factual instead of fiction.
True. Keeping in mind that the four (canonical) Gospels are almost
certainly based on earlier sources. If you read a Gospel like Thomas,
even though its contents are at times mystical, reads much more
factually. That is, I think it might be easier to accept as factual
(if factuality is what were truly important!) that he taught those
things rather than that he turned water into wine or fed hundreds of
people with a couple loaves of bread.
Post by SouthernHospitality
Not to
mention that no documents exist from any of the key people like, say,
Jesus or his mother and father.
Indeed. That the early Christian Church had nothing directly from the
hand of its founder is interesting. Though I really don't think that
should necessarily count against. Not a whole lot survives from that
time anyway. Even a quick perusal of lists of lost works from
antiquity should suffice! I don't know how literate the average Hebrew
was in those days, so it might be too much to expect a simple
carpenter turned mystic and rabbi to have left a written record.
Post by SouthernHospitality
Um, actually, what was this thread about in the first place? I only
just arrive...
Someone called "Ssam" had written a long message, apparently about the
Book of Revelation, to the other Deism group. Bob said that scripture
is nonsense and goes contrary to reason. Obviously, this last part
isn't true, as Jefferson himself made great efforts to study the
Bible; and obviously took the time to sift through the bits, seeking
out what he thought was most reasonable and discarding what he thought
was most mystical or magical.

Padraic
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
C. H. C.
2007-02-15 03:11:06 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:59:04 -0500, Padraic Brown
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
No I can't imagine calling the bible a 'dunghill' as being very passive,
but he did wish to wait until his death for it to become a published
piece of writing.
There is that. On the other hand, he may have viewed one's
relationship with God as a private matter, not one for the (free)
press to bandy about!
I found Jefferson's Bible to be a lot less interesting than it
actually was.
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
Personally, I don't think he cut out enough as there
are still concepts inside that lean towards the magical and mythical.
What do you think is left that still leans to the magical?
I was under the impression that Jefferson removed all of what others
said about Jesus and left just what Jesus himself said. It sure makes
for a shorter read.
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
However, those Christians in his circle of friends had to be at least a
little impressed that he could quote scripture to them. That had to
have been a card he'd played before in order to gain their respect.
There is also the trouble of the entire 4 gospels themselves being
authored no earlier than 50 years after his death. That alone makes the
NT extremely difficult to swallow as factual instead of fiction.
True. Keeping in mind that the four (canonical) Gospels are almost
certainly based on earlier sources. If you read a Gospel like Thomas,
even though its contents are at times mystical, reads much more
factually. That is, I think it might be easier to accept as factual
(if factuality is what were truly important!) that he taught those
things rather than that he turned water into wine or fed hundreds of
people with a couple loaves of bread.
Ah, yes. What was included in and what was included out. And more was
probably destroyed than survived.
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
Not to
mention that no documents exist from any of the key people like, say,
Jesus or his mother and father.
Indeed. That the early Christian Church had nothing directly from the
hand of its founder is interesting. Though I really don't think that
should necessarily count against. Not a whole lot survives from that
time anyway. Even a quick perusal of lists of lost works from
antiquity should suffice! I don't know how literate the average Hebrew
was in those days, so it might be too much to expect a simple
carpenter turned mystic and rabbi to have left a written record.
Hey, many (most) religions have even stranger origins and even less of
a paper trail.
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
Um, actually, what was this thread about in the first place? I only
just arrive...
Someone called "Ssam" had written a long message, apparently about the
Book of Revelation, to the other Deism group. Bob said that scripture
is nonsense and goes contrary to reason. Obviously, this last part
isn't true, as Jefferson himself made great efforts to study the
Bible; and obviously took the time to sift through the bits, seeking
out what he thought was most reasonable and discarding what he thought
was most mystical or magical.
Padraic
Jefferson studied the Bible and found its moral code excellent. It is
interesting that you say he discarded what was mystical or magical. I
was not aware that those were the criteria he used. Can you cite a
source? I would like to read more.
--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Padraic Brown
2007-02-16 02:52:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by C. H. C.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:59:04 -0500, Padraic Brown
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
No I can't imagine calling the bible a 'dunghill' as being very passive,
but he did wish to wait until his death for it to become a published
piece of writing.
There is that. On the other hand, he may have viewed one's
relationship with God as a private matter, not one for the (free)
press to bandy about!
I found Jefferson's Bible to be a lot less interesting than it
actually was.
I think what makes it interesting is not so much the resulting text
but the idea behind the project.
Post by C. H. C.
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
Personally, I don't think he cut out enough as there
are still concepts inside that lean towards the magical and mythical.
What do you think is left that still leans to the magical?
I was under the impression that Jefferson removed all of what others
said about Jesus and left just what Jesus himself said. It sure makes
for a shorter read.
It is certainly that. I think his intention was to remove all the
mysitcal and mythical stuff, not so much to showcase what Jesus
actually said.
Post by C. H. C.
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
However, those Christians in his circle of friends had to be at least a
little impressed that he could quote scripture to them. That had to
have been a card he'd played before in order to gain their respect.
There is also the trouble of the entire 4 gospels themselves being
authored no earlier than 50 years after his death. That alone makes the
NT extremely difficult to swallow as factual instead of fiction.
True. Keeping in mind that the four (canonical) Gospels are almost
certainly based on earlier sources. If you read a Gospel like Thomas,
even though its contents are at times mystical, reads much more
factually. That is, I think it might be easier to accept as factual
(if factuality is what were truly important!) that he taught those
things rather than that he turned water into wine or fed hundreds of
people with a couple loaves of bread.
Ah, yes. What was included in and what was included out. And more was
probably destroyed than survived.
Most likely. Time plays havoc on materials like papyrus and vellum!
Post by C. H. C.
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
Not to
mention that no documents exist from any of the key people like, say,
Jesus or his mother and father.
Indeed. That the early Christian Church had nothing directly from the
hand of its founder is interesting. Though I really don't think that
should necessarily count against. Not a whole lot survives from that
time anyway. Even a quick perusal of lists of lost works from
antiquity should suffice! I don't know how literate the average Hebrew
was in those days, so it might be too much to expect a simple
carpenter turned mystic and rabbi to have left a written record.
Hey, many (most) religions have even stranger origins and even less of
a paper trail.
True that. Most of the other chief religions are also older, so that's
not too much of a surprise.
Post by C. H. C.
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
Um, actually, what was this thread about in the first place? I only
just arrive...
Someone called "Ssam" had written a long message, apparently about the
Book of Revelation, to the other Deism group. Bob said that scripture
is nonsense and goes contrary to reason. Obviously, this last part
isn't true, as Jefferson himself made great efforts to study the
Bible; and obviously took the time to sift through the bits, seeking
out what he thought was most reasonable and discarding what he thought
was most mystical or magical.
Padraic
Jefferson studied the Bible and found its moral code excellent. It is
interesting that you say he discarded what was mystical or magical. I
was not aware that those were the criteria he used. Can you cite a
source? I would like to read more.
Start with his own words on the matter: "In extracting the pure
principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial
vestments in which they have been muffled by priests..." There are
several sites devoted to the Jefferson Bible, and most also reproduce
his letters to friends concerning religion and Jesus and the like.
Interesting stuff!

The book is also available in print form with discussion.

Padraic
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
C. H. C.
2007-02-17 03:52:28 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:52:35 -0500, Padraic Brown
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

...
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by C. H. C.
I found Jefferson's Bible to be a lot less interesting than it
actually was.
I think what makes it interesting is not so much the resulting text
but the idea behind the project.
Thank you for being so kind as to respond to what I meant (as opposed
to the gibberish I actually typed). I wholeheartedly agree. I found
the idea much more interesting than the actual result.
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by C. H. C.
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
Personally, I don't think he cut out enough as there
are still concepts inside that lean towards the magical and mythical.
What do you think is left that still leans to the magical?
I was under the impression that Jefferson removed all of what others
said about Jesus and left just what Jesus himself said. It sure makes
for a shorter read.
It is certainly that. I think his intention was to remove all the
mysitcal and mythical stuff, not so much to showcase what Jesus
actually said.
But by removing the mystical and mystical, did he remove anything that
was directly attributed to Jesus himself? Or does the "Bible" exclude
direct quotes from Jesus that he judged to be mystical?

...
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by C. H. C.
Ah, yes. What was included in and what was included out. And more was
probably destroyed than survived.
Most likely. Time plays havoc on materials like papyrus and vellum!
And here I had considered the Gospels to all be Ante-vellum!
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by C. H. C.
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
Not to
mention that no documents exist from any of the key people like, say,
Jesus or his mother and father.
Indeed. That the early Christian Church had nothing directly from the
hand of its founder is interesting. Though I really don't think that
should necessarily count against. Not a whole lot survives from that
time anyway. Even a quick perusal of lists of lost works from
antiquity should suffice! I don't know how literate the average Hebrew
was in those days, so it might be too much to expect a simple
carpenter turned mystic and rabbi to have left a written record.
Hey, many (most) religions have even stranger origins and even less of
a paper trail.
True that. Most of the other chief religions are also older, so that's
not too much of a surprise.
Post by C. H. C.
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
Um, actually, what was this thread about in the first place? I only
just arrive...
Someone called "Ssam" had written a long message, apparently about the
Book of Revelation, to the other Deism group. Bob said that scripture
is nonsense and goes contrary to reason. Obviously, this last part
isn't true, as Jefferson himself made great efforts to study the
Bible; and obviously took the time to sift through the bits, seeking
out what he thought was most reasonable and discarding what he thought
was most mystical or magical.
Padraic
Jefferson studied the Bible and found its moral code excellent. It is
interesting that you say he discarded what was mystical or magical. I
was not aware that those were the criteria he used. Can you cite a
source? I would like to read more.
Start with his own words on the matter: "In extracting the pure
principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial
vestments in which they have been muffled by priests..." There are
several sites devoted to the Jefferson Bible, and most also reproduce
his letters to friends concerning religion and Jesus and the like.
Interesting stuff!
The book is also available in print form with discussion.
Padraic
--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Padraic Brown
2007-03-04 13:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by C. H. C.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:52:35 -0500, Padraic Brown
...
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by C. H. C.
I found Jefferson's Bible to be a lot less interesting than it
actually was.
I think what makes it interesting is not so much the resulting text
but the idea behind the project.
Thank you for being so kind as to respond to what I meant (as opposed
to the gibberish I actually typed). I wholeheartedly agree. I found
the idea much more interesting than the actual result.
It was certainly an interesting project, and a forshadowing of various
other scholarly projects that would (in later decades) involve finding
the "historical Jesus" and sorting out what this Jesus was most likely
to have said.

I am reminded in particular of "The Five Gospels", not only a
scholarly translation of the five chief gospels (the four canonical
ones plus Thomas), but also a considered opinion and sliding scale of
likelihood of what Jesus is thought to have said.

While Jefferson either accepted or rejected any given saying, the
authors of this book placed any given saying on a five point scale
from almost certainly Jesus's words to almost certainly not Jesus's
words. And they leave everything in so we can look and compare for
ourselves.

I personally found Jefferson's experiment interesting because I had
thought of doing similar. Reinventing the wheel, as it turns out!
Post by C. H. C.
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by C. H. C.
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
Personally, I don't think he cut out enough as there
are still concepts inside that lean towards the magical and mythical.
What do you think is left that still leans to the magical?
I was under the impression that Jefferson removed all of what others
said about Jesus and left just what Jesus himself said. It sure makes
for a shorter read.
It is certainly that. I think his intention was to remove all the
mysitcal and mythical stuff, not so much to showcase what Jesus
actually said.
But by removing the mystical and mystical, did he remove anything that
was directly attributed to Jesus himself? Or does the "Bible" exclude
direct quotes from Jesus that he judged to be mystical?
Well, there are many early Christian scripture that are not in the
Bible -- that the Bible has excluded -- so I don't think Mr Jefferson
would have had ready access to them. And if he did have access to, for
example Thomas, I wonder if he would have accepted these other books
at face value or would he have ignored them (and thus accepting a load
of fancied up priests' opinions as fact)?

To answer your question would require a whole new project. We would
have to acquire a parallel edition of the gospels (for preference, as
such an edition lines up similar sayings and episodes across four
columns). We'd then have to create a nother column or two. I would
create a fifth column for Thomas and then a sixth for Jefferson. Given
that it is known where in the gospels Jefferson cut his snippets from,
it would be easy as you please to paste them in their appropriate
places.

Off hand, I would wager that he probably left out at least some
mystical material. After all, Jesus wasn't _just_ a font of worldy
advice. But I think Jefferson's main aim was to excise the obviously
"miraculous". It should be noted that his gospel ends with Jesus's
burial -- no mention is made of any of the episodes following, such as
the resurrexion or the meeting in the upper room, etc.

Padraic
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
C. H. C.
2007-02-17 03:53:22 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:52:35 -0500, Padraic Brown
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by C. H. C.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:59:04 -0500, Padraic Brown
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
No I can't imagine calling the bible a 'dunghill' as being very passive,
but he did wish to wait until his death for it to become a published
piece of writing.
There is that. On the other hand, he may have viewed one's
relationship with God as a private matter, not one for the (free)
press to bandy about!
I found Jefferson's Bible to be a lot less interesting than it
actually was.
I think what makes it interesting is not so much the resulting text
but the idea behind the project.
Post by C. H. C.
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
Personally, I don't think he cut out enough as there
are still concepts inside that lean towards the magical and mythical.
What do you think is left that still leans to the magical?
I was under the impression that Jefferson removed all of what others
said about Jesus and left just what Jesus himself said. It sure makes
for a shorter read.
It is certainly that. I think his intention was to remove all the
mysitcal and mythical stuff, not so much to showcase what Jesus
actually said.
Post by C. H. C.
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
However, those Christians in his circle of friends had to be at least a
little impressed that he could quote scripture to them. That had to
have been a card he'd played before in order to gain their respect.
There is also the trouble of the entire 4 gospels themselves being
authored no earlier than 50 years after his death. That alone makes the
NT extremely difficult to swallow as factual instead of fiction.
True. Keeping in mind that the four (canonical) Gospels are almost
certainly based on earlier sources. If you read a Gospel like Thomas,
even though its contents are at times mystical, reads much more
factually. That is, I think it might be easier to accept as factual
(if factuality is what were truly important!) that he taught those
things rather than that he turned water into wine or fed hundreds of
people with a couple loaves of bread.
Ah, yes. What was included in and what was included out. And more was
probably destroyed than survived.
Most likely. Time plays havoc on materials like papyrus and vellum!
Post by C. H. C.
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
Not to
mention that no documents exist from any of the key people like, say,
Jesus or his mother and father.
Indeed. That the early Christian Church had nothing directly from the
hand of its founder is interesting. Though I really don't think that
should necessarily count against. Not a whole lot survives from that
time anyway. Even a quick perusal of lists of lost works from
antiquity should suffice! I don't know how literate the average Hebrew
was in those days, so it might be too much to expect a simple
carpenter turned mystic and rabbi to have left a written record.
Hey, many (most) religions have even stranger origins and even less of
a paper trail.
True that. Most of the other chief religions are also older, so that's
not too much of a surprise.
Post by C. H. C.
Post by Padraic Brown
Post by SouthernHospitality
Um, actually, what was this thread about in the first place? I only
just arrive...
Someone called "Ssam" had written a long message, apparently about the
Book of Revelation, to the other Deism group. Bob said that scripture
is nonsense and goes contrary to reason. Obviously, this last part
isn't true, as Jefferson himself made great efforts to study the
Bible; and obviously took the time to sift through the bits, seeking
out what he thought was most reasonable and discarding what he thought
was most mystical or magical.
Padraic
Jefferson studied the Bible and found its moral code excellent. It is
interesting that you say he discarded what was mystical or magical. I
was not aware that those were the criteria he used. Can you cite a
source? I would like to read more.
Start with his own words on the matter: "In extracting the pure
principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial
vestments in which they have been muffled by priests..." There are
several sites devoted to the Jefferson Bible, and most also reproduce
his letters to friends concerning religion and Jesus and the like.
Interesting stuff!
The book is also available in print form with discussion.
Padraic
--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...