Do you have references? Im interested if you do. I don't think either of will progress beyond our points of view. We're both rocking some bias too...I'm biased via a faith based point of view that scripture is true...your biased that it's all myths and fables. Likely a topic we're going to agree to disagree on.
1. The Jefferson Bible is basically the teachings of Jesus stripped of all supernatural inferences and references. Save ypur money. I'm positive it's available online.
2. Why do I need references but the Bible doesn't? Evidence that I am wrong would change my mind. Why declare before researching that it would not change yours?
1. The Jefferson Bible is basically the teachings of Jesus stripped of all supernatural inferences and references. Save ypur money. I'm positive it's available online.
Why do I need references but the Bible doesn't? Evidence that I am wrong would change my mind. Why declare before researching that it would not change yours?
Thx, but just ordered one from Amazon for 5 bucks.
ah, ok. i'll post links when I get to a computer rather than my phone.
But I think you mistook my point for antagonism. You asked about the value of corroborating sources for the Bible's claims, then demonstrated the value by asking me for references. That's the point I was trying to make.
For simplicity's sake I would just plug the keywords into wikipedia and see what pops up. Here's Joshua and Ai:
Context: we're talking about religion compelling people to believe the unprovable, not why people read the Bible.
Excellent question, OldSkool.
The answer is: to an extent. It really depends on the claim being made.
It should be noted that historicity is crucial to the truth claims of Christianity. If these things didn't happen, then Christianity is false regardless of the morals and priciples it teaches. Take the good and cherish it. Take the silliness and trash it.
Homework: Read the preceding paragraph. Then read the Jefferson Bible. Then read the preceding paragraph again. Repeat until it hits you.
Anyway, where were we? Oh yeah:
I would not expect independent verification of some things. Others, yeah, there'd better be corroboration.
For example, we know King David existed. We also know the size and influence of his kingdom was a wee bit exaggerated.
We know Nebuchadnezzar existed. We know Daniel did not. The book of Daniel claims Belshazar was king and that he was Nebuchadnezzar's son. Neither is true. Daniel is no more real than the Kent family in the John Jakes novels: a fictional character interacting with real people from history to tell a compelling tale.
Moses? No more real than Perseus. Egypt kept records, man.
...
I got interrupted and you posted again while I was writing, so I'll stop here and read and respond if necessary.
Okay I’m hung up here on your comment about “historicity”. That is not in my common vocabulary so I searched out some terms.
As a conclusion I would state I do not agree that historicity is crucial to truth claims about Christianity.
Also you state the book of Daniel is proven not to exist. However it seems like you missed a source referred to in the following article:
The Jefferson Bible was an abridgment of the gospels for his personal use. I wouldn't call it atheist in any sense, but it is certainly rationalist.
Jefferson, like many Freemasons/Deists/etc liked what they quantify as Jesus morals, and they extol his moral character: which is no doubt noteworthy. But they also reject the notion of most supernatural events recorded in scripture including the concept of the blood of Jesus, etc.
I think the Destin Log article is, to put it delicately, laughable. It's on par with Wierwille's history of the Trinity in JCING. It will take some time to unpack.
I think the Destin Log article is, to put it delicately, laughable. It's on par with Wierwille's history of the Trinity in JCING. It will take some time to unpack.
Emotional terms like “laughable” don’t contribute to your position of science and fact very effectively.
Point out the correct source then for comparison sake.
I concur RAF that this archeological thread and logic is not simple. But to claim it is proven not to exist is not intellectually honest IMO.
I am trying to find more info on this thread. The essence of it as I am understanding is that there was a discovery of a tablet by a 19th century historian that is presumed to be a journal entry explaining the last part of the kings reign corresponding to the illness described in Daniel 4. Was it part of the prophecy and repentance the Bible claims in the book of Daniel? Or not?
The Jefferson Bible was an abridgment of the gospels for his personal use. I wouldn't call it atheist in any sense, but it is certainly rationalist.
Yes. Your mention of Jefferson motivated me to retrieve a book that I had in the house but haven't read in years, "In God We Trust -- the religious beliefs and ideas of the American Founding Fathers." In it contains quite a chapter on Jefferson... a little over 100 pages. Another Chapter is devoted solely to the Jefferson - Adams letters. Here's a nice quote among many about Jefferson:
"To his good friend Benjamin Rush he wrote that his religious beliefs were the "result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and are very different from the Anti-Christian system attributed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, but I am a Christian in the only sense in which I believe Jesus wished anyone to be, sincerely attached to his doctrine in preference to all others; ascribing to him all human excellence, and believing that he never claimed any other."
Yes. Your mention of Jefferson motivated me to retrieve a book that I had in the house but haven't read in years, "In God We Trust -- the religious beliefs and ideas of the American Founding Fathers." In it contains quite a chapter on Jefferson... a little over 100 pages. Another Chapter is devoted solely to the Jefferson - Adams letters. Here's a nice quote among many about Jefferson:
"To his good friend Benjamin Rush he wrote that his religious beliefs were the "result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and are very different from the Anti-Christian system attributed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, but I am a Christian in the only sense in which I believe Jesus wished anyone to be, sincerely attached to his doctrine in preference to all others; ascribing to him all human excellence, and believing that he never claimed any other."
Thomas Jefferson was a deep thinker and planner. I have been on his home tour in Monticello. He was so far ahead of his time in engineering plans on that place it’s crazy.
I’m sure his views on philosophy religion and Christ were nuanced. I would have loved to have a conversation with that guy.
Thomas Jefferson was a deep thinker and planner. I have been on his home tour in Monticello. He was so far ahead of his time in engineering plans on that place it’s crazy.
I’m sure his views on philosophy religion and Christ were nuanced. I would have loved to have a conversation with that guy.
Partway through Thomas Paine and recognizing how dangerously close to political content we are. I opened the door by talking about the Jefferson Bible in the context of this thread topic. But careful.
Partway through Thomas Paine and recognizing how dangerously close to political content we are. I opened the door by talking about the Jefferson Bible in the context of this thread topic. But careful.
Yeah...I'm not into politics. I have no feelings for the founding fathers one way or another, but I do recognize what I opened the door for, so my apologies in advance: not my intent.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
10
12
12
Popular Days
Mar 4
22
Feb 24
15
Mar 3
9
Mar 1
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 18 posts
oldiesman 10 posts
chockfull 12 posts
OldSkool 12 posts
Popular Days
Mar 4 2023
22 posts
Feb 24 2023
15 posts
Mar 3 2023
9 posts
Mar 1 2023
9 posts
Popular Posts
Stayed Too Long
I recall VPW saying something to the affect that the bible was not written for unbelievers, agnostics, or god rejectors. Assuming no one is born with a knowledge of god, then somewhere during their de
T-Bone
Give me a little time and I could come up with some correlation Learned behavior is probably the easiest to find similarities with this thread. As the thread title states, religion demands accep
T-Bone
I think you’re right…and oddly enough our cat is or rather was a feral cat. We adopted him 3 years ago. First 3 days I thought he was a mute. Then while I’m cleaning out his litter box he got on a cha
OldSkool
Do you have references? Im interested if you do. I don't think either of will progress beyond our points of view. We're both rocking some bias too...I'm biased via a faith based point of view that scripture is true...your biased that it's all myths and fables. Likely a topic we're going to agree to disagree on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
1. The Jefferson Bible is basically the teachings of Jesus stripped of all supernatural inferences and references. Save ypur money. I'm positive it's available online.
2. Why do I need references but the Bible doesn't? Evidence that I am wrong would change my mind. Why declare before researching that it would not change yours?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Thx, but just ordered one from Amazon for 5 bucks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
As a courtesy to me who is having a friedly conversation with you so I can look at specifically what you are studying. Look, Im out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
ah, ok. i'll post links when I get to a computer rather than my phone.
But I think you mistook my point for antagonism. You asked about the value of corroborating sources for the Bible's claims, then demonstrated the value by asking me for references. That's the point I was trying to make.
For simplicity's sake I would just plug the keywords into wikipedia and see what pops up. Here's Joshua and Ai:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ai_(Canaan)#:~:text=The Ai (Hebrew%3A הָעַי%2C,day archeological site Et-Tell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I did, my apologies. Sometimes intent get's mangled over cyberspace. Ill check it out. Thx.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Happens
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Okay I’m hung up here on your comment about “historicity”. That is not in my common vocabulary so I searched out some terms.
As a conclusion I would state I do not agree that historicity is crucial to truth claims about Christianity.
Also you state the book of Daniel is proven not to exist. However it seems like you missed a source referred to in the following article:
https://www.thedestinlog.com/story/lifestyle/faith/2017/06/15/have-you-wondered-is-bible-historically-accurate/985681007/
That author seems to have an exact opposite perspective you do on historicity.
This again seems to be a fundamentalist thought pattern source of a problem.
So I would conclude my faith is not based on either your version or that authors version of “historicity”.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Also, VPWs “historicity” versions of harmony of the gospel which he didn’t write in JCOP are pretty much snake oil too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Is the Jefferson Bible the translation for fundamentalist atheists?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What do you mean by "fundamentalist atheist"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The Jefferson Bible was an abridgment of the gospels for his personal use. I wouldn't call it atheist in any sense, but it is certainly rationalist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Jefferson, like many Freemasons/Deists/etc liked what they quantify as Jesus morals, and they extol his moral character: which is no doubt noteworthy. But they also reject the notion of most supernatural events recorded in scripture including the concept of the blood of Jesus, etc.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think the Destin Log article is, to put it delicately, laughable. It's on par with Wierwille's history of the Trinity in JCING. It will take some time to unpack.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
A person who wants to hold the Bible to fundamentalist standards while not believing in God at all ?
Thats how the translation description comes off removing any supernatural references.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Emotional terms like “laughable” don’t contribute to your position of science and fact very effectively.
Point out the correct source then for comparison sake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Here’s more on Daniel
https://www.julianspriggs.co.uk/pages/Daniel_4
I concur RAF that this archeological thread and logic is not simple. But to claim it is proven not to exist is not intellectually honest IMO.
I am trying to find more info on this thread. The essence of it as I am understanding is that there was a discovery of a tablet by a 19th century historian that is presumed to be a journal entry explaining the last part of the kings reign corresponding to the illness described in Daniel 4. Was it part of the prophecy and repentance the Bible claims in the book of Daniel? Or not?
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh trust me that is exactly where I am going.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Cool interested to read. I’m searching more also.
To clarify I do think religion or most of them requires a belief in the unprovable to an extent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Yes. Your mention of Jefferson motivated me to retrieve a book that I had in the house but haven't read in years, "In God We Trust -- the religious beliefs and ideas of the American Founding Fathers." In it contains quite a chapter on Jefferson... a little over 100 pages. Another Chapter is devoted solely to the Jefferson - Adams letters. Here's a nice quote among many about Jefferson:
"To his good friend Benjamin Rush he wrote that his religious beliefs were the "result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and are very different from the Anti-Christian system attributed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, but I am a Christian in the only sense in which I believe Jesus wished anyone to be, sincerely attached to his doctrine in preference to all others; ascribing to him all human excellence, and believing that he never claimed any other."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Thomas Jefferson was a deep thinker and planner. I have been on his home tour in Monticello. He was so far ahead of his time in engineering plans on that place it’s crazy.
I’m sure his views on philosophy religion and Christ were nuanced. I would have loved to have a conversation with that guy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Long video but goes in depth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Going to watch before commenting this time.
Partway through Thomas Paine and recognizing how dangerously close to political content we are. I opened the door by talking about the Jefferson Bible in the context of this thread topic. But careful.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yeah...I'm not into politics. I have no feelings for the founding fathers one way or another, but I do recognize what I opened the door for, so my apologies in advance: not my intent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.