Jefferson’s revolutionary take on the Bible reissued
He was one of the men who laid the foundations for God’s own country, but Thomas Jefferson had his own revolutionary ideas about the Bible.
The third US president’s unwillingness to swallow miracles such as the virgin birth led him to cut out parts of the Gospels he did not agree with and compile his own version.
The result, known informally as The Jefferson Bible, has been published in a new edition by Tarcher, part of Penguin USA, this month.
The original, which has been painstakingly restored by the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, where it is on display, was created by Jefferson in 1820 by cutting out passages from six other volumes with razors. He then pasted them into a book of his own, which he had bound.
During Jefferson’s life the book’s existence was known only to his friends and family. His great-granddaughter sold it to the Smithsonian Institution in 1895 and it was finally published in 1904, 78 years after his death.
Continue reading at www.guardian.co.uk
"That Freemasons and antichrists, such as Washington and Jefferson (who cut the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and ascension of Christ – what he described as a “dunghill” – out of his cut-and-paste New Testament [Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 24 January 1814, Lester J. Cappon, ed., "The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams" (Williamsburg, VA: Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1988) p. 384.]), could be elected President speaks volumes of the non-Christian character of the Constitution.
'The Framers at the Constitutional Convention issued a death warrant against Christianity, but for tactical reasons, they and their spiritual heirs refused for several generations to deliver it to the intended victims. They covered this covenantal death sentence with a lot of platitudes about the hand of Providence, the need for Morality, the grand design of the universe, and similar Masonic shibboleths.' (Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) p. 691.]
"Even if some of the framers were genuine Christians, they doomed their divided house to eventual destruction when they unequally yoked themselves with those who were not Christians."
For more, see "Executive Usurpation" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitut….
Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to Yahweh's moral law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments). Take our Constitution Survey at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/constitutionsurvey… and receive a free copy of the "Primer" (an 85 page book, normally $7 plus shipping) of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective."
-TedRWeilandYou appear to be a very religious man and entitled to his own opinion as am I.
-CraigI would suggest to you the writings of David Barton at "Wallbuilders.com", for a different opinion on this subject.
If you read history from the period and not currently revised by the new enlightened ones you will find that a majority of the Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were graduates of Seminary or Bible College.
You would also find that the Capital Building was used for church services during the eighteen hundreds, that the Bible was used as a primer in schools, and God was honored and glorified until the beginning of the 20th century, when the likes of Wilson and the Progressive movement thought themselves above or at least equal to God and that is when are form of government started to decay.
Our decay is not because of our Founders but because of the Courts denial of religion in our schools, etc.
The "Separation of Church and State" is not found in the Constitution but in a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church. The new enlightened ones have embrassed this to mean Secularism, which will be our down-fall.
A return to our Founders faith in God is our only hope for our country.
Craig, thank you for your kind response. I am very familiar with all that you wrote and Barton's ministry. But none of this changes what I shared about and from Jefferson. I provided the documentation, check it out for yourself. Actually, what I shared about Washington and Jefferson is widely known and only those who have not looked at the primary source documentation (readily available) would question this information.
Regardless any Christian statement the framers may have made, that they held church services in the Capital Building, that they printed Bibles for schools, etc., doesn't change the fact that nearly every article and amendment of the Constitution is antithetical to Yahweh's morality and some are hostile to His sovereignty. There is only one standard by which everything (including the framers and the Constitution) must be tested – that is, Yahweh's morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments; and, by that standard, the Constitution falls flat on its face. The fact is, we've been lied to (and have been parroting that lie for far too long) – that is, that the Constitution is a Biblical and Christian document.
This is easy enough to prove for yourself – do as I have done in "Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/blvc-index.php and examine every article and amendment by Yahweh's morality as found in His Word , and it will become quite evident that I'm speaking the truth.
-TedRWeilandBeware of Barton. He has been shown to have published alleged "quotations" from the founding fathers that have later been shown to be false or, at best, dubious and unverified. Barton is the prime propagandist among the pseudo-scholars of constitutional law and interpretation who believe that by arraying a host of anecdotal quotations from the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution, they thereby "prove" what the constitution "actually means." That is not how it is done. The Constitution is the constitution and the Constitution says what it means and means what it says. It is not subject to the latter-day glosses imposed by the wishful thinking of theocrats such as Barton and his all-too-numerous ilk.
-bighossDavid Barton effectively demonstrates that modern school textbooks attempt to hide the huge influence of Christianity on the founding fathers. Don't know where you are coming from, bighoss, or why.
-VladimirHe is correctly pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of Barton.
-Jeff DixonIt's clear that Jefferson (and the other founders) feared God, as their work, works, the founding documents (Declaration, Constitution) and correspondence all serve to show.
It's sad, though, that Jefferson, for all his fear of God, could not find it in himself to believe what God has said.
Remembering where these men came from – a country where the king had replaced the Pope (who himself had replaced Christ) as head of the "church"; a country where an English translation was made to support the fallacy of the clergy-laity that the catholic and episcopal/anglican desperately needed in order to keep a monarch in total
-Paulpower over the people – it's not too difficult to understand why Jefferson would want to shun a book that, because of the evil intent of its translators, he felt he couldn't trust. If he had pursued his Greek (lover of knowledge as he was) he could have settled the matter once and for all, by examining the Greek New Testament. Christ upheld, and oft quoted the Old Testament as historical truth. His apostles and disciples who wrote the epistles and the final book of Revelation did the same under guidance of God's Holy Spirit.
Sorry Paul, the Pope does not "replace" Christ. He is the Vicar of Christ on earth. Vicar means "an administrative deputy." You probably won't like this either, but George Washington, the father of our country, died a Catholic!
Amen, brother George!
-HurricaneThere is only one standard by which everything (including the framers and the Constitution) must be tested – that is, Yahweh's morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments; and, by that standard, the Constitution falls flat on its face. The fact is, we've been lied to (and have been parroting that lie for far too long) – that is, that the Constitution is a Biblical and Christian document.
This is easy enough to prove for yourself – do as I have done in "Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/blvc-index.php and examine every article and amendment by Yahweh's morality as found in His Word , and it will become quite evident that I'm speaking the truth.
-TedRWeilandTed, I doubt if anyone is going to pursue your line of reasoning. First of all, I know of no one, not even my mother-in-law who believes the Constitution is a Christian document. It is a temporal document written by great men who were influenced by their strongly held Christian values. They considered this country Christian and sought divine help in creating the founding documents. If it doesn't meet up to your interpretation of what God wants for us, work to change it. The Constitution has provision for that. Ted, of late you seem to strain at the gnat and swallow the camel.
-VladimirVladimir, as difficult as it may be for you to believe, nearly everything most of us would agree has gone wrong in this country, can be traced back to this secular humanistic (the Preamble), anti-Christian (Article 6), polytheistic promoting (Amendment 1) document. Consequently, amendment (which is next to impossible) is not the answer. But first American Christians need to be awakened that they have been lied to about it about its compatibility with the Bible and Christianity.
-TedRWeilandPaul, Please show me *one* religious reference in our Constitution, aside from recognizing that few people worked on Sundays and the "pro forma" date at the end.
Jefferson should have "pursued his Greek?" Have you ever googled "Jefferson Bible?" It contains four columns of Biblical text side-by-side: one in Greek, one in Latin, one in French and one in English.
It's obvious from your post that you know even less about American history than david barton, a feat I here-to-fore had not imagined possible.
BTW, I now own a copy of the Smithsonian Edition of Jefferson's Bible. It's fascinating reading. You should check it out sometime.
-Rezon1In his letter from Paris of Jan. 15th, 1787, to St. John De Crevècoeur, he wrote about how "to make the wheel of one peice [sic]. The Jersey farmers did it by cutting a young sapling, and bending it, while green and juicy, into a circle; and leaving it so till it became perfectly seasoned." And he means "New Jersey". He goes on to say "The writer in the paper supposes the English workman got his idea from Homer. But it is more likely that the Jersey farmer got the idea from thence, because ours are the only farmers who can read Homer" and then he quotes the passage where "Homer's words are (comparing a young hero killed by Ajax to a poplar felled by a workman) —
ὃ δ᾽ ἐν κονίῃςι [sic] χαμαὶ πέσεν αἴγειρος ὣς ἥ ῥά τ᾽ ἐν εἱαμενῇ ἕλεος μεγάλοιο πεφύκει λείη, ἀτάρ τέ οἱ ὄζοι ἐπ᾽ ἀκροτάτῃ πεφύασι: τὴν μέν θ᾽ ἁρματοπηγὸς ἀνὴρ αἴθωνι σιδήρῳ ἐξέταμ᾽, ὄφρα ἴτυν κάμψῃ περικαλλέϊ δίφρῳ: ἣ μέν τ᾽ ἀζομένη κεῖται ποταμοῖο παρ᾽ ὄχθας.
literally thus 'he fell on the ground, like a poplar, which has grown, smooth, in the wet part of a great meadow; with it's [sic, as ff.] branches shooting from it's summit. But the Chariot-maker with his sharp axe, has felled it, that he may bend a wheel for a beautiful chariot. It lies drying on the banks of the river.' Observe the circumstances which coincide with the Jersey practice. 1. It is a tree growing in a moist place, full of juices, and easily bent. 2. It is cut while green. 3. It is bent into the circumference of a wheel. 4. It is left to dry in that form. You, who write French well and readily, should write a line for the Journal to reclaim the honour of our farmers. Adieu. Your's affectionately,
-ProudPrimateTh: Jefferson
ProudPrimate,
My bad! “Oops!”
Yes, I was confused by whatever post I responded to. After reading your reply to me, yes, we are on the same page.
I get frustrated with some of these people who just don’t “get” our Constitution. They claim that because many Founders and Convention Delegates left us many religiously oriented quotes that means they intended a “Christian Nation” in spite of the “Godless” Secular Constitution they created. At the same time, they claim Jefferson's Danbury Letter has no relevance to the prohibition on establishment because the “Wall of Separation” is not explicitly in the document. They throw out what they don’t like and put in what they wish was there but isn’t.
Rezon1
-Rezon1Paul,
;I repeat my earlier challenge, still unanswered: "Paul, Please show me *one* religious reference in our Constitution, aside from recognizing that few people worked on Sundays and the "pro forma" date at the end.
-Rezon1It might surprise you to learn that, whereas the account of Jesus' life and ministry passed through many hands before it reached our eyes, including the many Councils of august fathers, who felt themselves adequate to the task of deciding which of the very many books extant were The Word Of GOD and which fell short of that mark, that some in this modern age (which I mean to have included Jefferson's generation) suspect that not all of what we have, the Textus Receptus Omnibus, was really a flawless faithful recording of events as they actually took place. Where Jefferson had never seen snails melt [Ps. 58:8], he may have been skeptical of David's zoology, and as to rising from the dead, knowledge of Greek scarcely makes one equal to the task.
-ProudPrimateProudPrimate,
1) Psalm 58:8 is *poetry* as are all the Psalms. Reading them any other way actually detracts from their true meaning. To understand what I mean read the entire Psalm. It's full of figurative language, 58:8 speaks of the snails "melting" away from the sunlight, which they do in the sense of disappearing from heated areas. Jefferson, as a botanist among many other things, surely knew this. I can see a snail "melt" anytime I sprinkle salt on one.
2) Now you and Paul want it both ways. Paul wrote that Jefferson," could have settled the matter once and for all, by examining the Greek New Testament." When I point out that Jefferson did read Greek and included a Greek New testament in his Bible, you write that knowledge of Greek is not enough. You both keep setting the bar higher and Jefferson vaults over with ease.
3) We don't know exactly what the original texts of the New Testament, or the Old testament, actually said since there are no originals to compare to current texts. This is yet another reason to reject Biblical Inerrancy; it simply cannot be proven. Yet another example of something that must be accepted on faith. As someone said, "Strong faith in a weak bridge is dangerous."
-Rezon1I just laid a straight-edge on the thread and confirmed my recollection that the post of mine which you contest was a reply to Paul [the one beginning, "It's clear that Jefferson (and the other founders) . . ."], not to you, although it is rather unclear in this website, unlike others that mention the antecedent poster.
I was intending to bolster your opinion contrary to Paul, meaning to say that if he thinks better Greek can prove that miracles are realistic, he's not thinking at all. I'm with TJ — a "post-Christian" who greatly admires the classy class-warfare of Jesus and his contempt for the rich powerful and heartless Pharisees, but there's no way those miracles happened. They are accretions to any real history that may or may not be found in those pages.
Thanks for asking. You may or may not have noticed my other reply to you, where I offered evidence from TJ's letters where he quotes at length (in Greek) from Homer to prove the sagacity of New Jersey farmers.
Did you see that? I had assumed we were on the same page, especially with your pointing out the scrupulous absence of any mention of God in the Constitution. I might add that the Declaration, which is mostly TJ's hand, does mention the "Creator", but what does that say? Just as "creature" is a functional term, as in "the president is a creature of the Constitution", so is "creator" a term that applies to anything that leads to existence, whether a process of evolution as is clear to me, or a guy with a long white beard riding on a four-faced cherub. TJ was discreet in that regard, not alarming the gentry by outright denial, but avoiding naming any particular traditional deity. Clinically sanitary.
-ProudPrimateProudPrimate,
My bad! “Oops!”
Yes, I was confused by whatever post I responded to. After reading your reply to me, yes, we are on the same page.
I get frustrated with some of these people who just don’t “get” our Constitution. They claim that because many Founders and Convention Delegates left us many religiously oriented quotes that means they intended a “Christian Nation” in spite of the “Godless” Secular Constitution they created. At the same time, they claim Jefferson's Danbury Letter has no relevance to the prohibition on establishment because the “Wall of Separation” is not explicitly in the document. They throw out what they don’t like and put in what they wish was there but isn’t.
Rezon1
-Rezon1Ted, once again we meet as I suspected would be the case. In a previous encounter I stated that you were deriving much of your information from revisionist “historians” secular humanist agenda. Your cited references further confirm my previously stated claims. Virtually any “history book” written since the turn of the 20th century – as stated by Mr Craig – and especially written in the last 40 years has secular humanism as its ultimate agenda. I call it “education by omission”. And I see that both of your cited references fall into that category.
Your claim of George Washington being a “Freemason and antichrist” is a perfect example selectively taken by you to confirm your preformed view that our founders were nothing more than a bunch of atheists or anti-Christians at best. I counter your claims with the following. First, you will find – on line – a site listing the names of famous Freemasons. You will find George Washington's name distinctly absent from that list. Surely, for the sake of advertising one would think that if it were true than they would want the name of the man considered the Father of our Nation on their list.
Next, I suggest you find out where that claim originated from. I suspect that if you do a little tracing of references – if they have any – you will find that it is rooted in a book written in 1926 called “George Washington: The Image and the Man” by William Woodward. This book was written for the specific purpose of denigrating the name of George Washington and has not one single reference to substantiate his claims. Yet much of the lies about Washington present in our history books today originated from this book.
I would also like to recommend that you read the unabridged version of “The Maxims of George Washington” written in 1855. In the section regarding religion you will find a variety of approximately 8 testimonies ranging from clergy to men who served in his army to fellow founders all proclaiming and testifying to the profound and unquestionable Christian faith of this man. However, just as an example of how revisionism has taken over with their education by omission, examine of an abridged version republished and placed in our school libraries today, you will find all testimonies removed with an inserted preface claiming George Washington was a deist. (omit the facts and insert the revisionist opinion)
Next, regarding your claim of framers of the Constitution making “death warrants” against Christianity and that “some” may have been genuine Christians. I could go on and on here. But, to try to keep this short it is just another secular humanistic attempt to undermine our founders, our Constitution and the Christian faith. If you will examine all of the state constitutions written in the 10 year time frame between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention, you will find a requirement made by the states that to be a representative of that state you must have a profound adherence to the Christian faith. I highly question any logic which claims these men would create death threats against Christianity. Furthermore, if you examine the Biographies of the signers you will find that over 50 of the 55 were – what we would call today – “evangelical Christians”. In addition, as stated by Mr. Craig, a vast majority had seminary training and over 50% went into some kind of missionary service after signing the Constitution. That is a heck of a lot more than “a few” or “some” as the secularists like to use to downplay the facts. You will also find that during the Constitutional Convention, the single most quoted reference was the Bible and next to that was Blackstone's Book of Law.
-GordonGordon: "Your [meaning my] claim of George Washington being a 'Freemason and antichrist'…." If you read my statement again, you will see that I was identifying Washington as a Freemason and Jefferson as the antichrist – which, he emphatically was. And anyone who supports Jefferson is guilty of 2 John 1:7-11.
As for your claim that I have derived much of your information from revisionist “historians." How would you know this, unless you've read the 37 online chapters of "Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective," which I doubt you have. All quotations are documented and prove the absurdity of your claim.
As for sites listing famous Freemasons, perhaps you should examine the following (and others as well): http://www.masonicinfo.com/famous2.htm#W and http://whale.to/b/33.html.
You claims about Washington only go to prove what shoddy research you have done on the subject, and reveal your prejudice. Idols die hard.
Once again, the Constitution stands or falls on whether it comports with Yahweh's morality as found in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. Like Dagon of old, it, and it's god WE THE PEOPLE, have fallen off its pedestal and lies "broken" – that is, at least, with those who reverence Yahweh and His morality as the supreme standard.
-TedRWeilandActually I made no comment nor reference to Jefferson. However since you mention it again, I would just like to say that after reading much of his writings I would have to conclude that he, in fact, was a deist. However, calling him the antichrist is a bit far fetched since according to the book of Revelation, the antichrist is yet to come.
-GordonGordon, I know you didn't mention Jefferson, that's my point. You attributed my statement about him to Washington.
One of the descriptions of AN antichrist is found in 2 John 1:7-11, which Jefferson fits perfectly.
-TedRWeilandTed,
Are you a Seventh Day Adventist?
-DespevilleNo, I'm not.
-TedRWeilandYou have strikingly similar agenda and views to them…
-DespevileGordon/Ted,
More soon on this topic but for now this:
You and many of your "Christianist" posters on this thread make a serious mistake:
You confuse "Neutrality" with "Antagonism." Creating a system of government by writing a Constitution that makes no mention of Christianity or any other religion, as ours clearly does, is not anti-religion. It takes no position on religion for the very common-sense reason that the Delegates wanted Americans to have complete freedom of conscience. They, Madison in particular, reasoned that religion would flourish if they took a free-market approach. Every belief and non-belief would be able to compete for followers on an equal basis if the government was prohibited from favoring any belief or non-belief over others.
Any free market capitalists among us should be especially fond of a system that does not allow government interference in religion and prevents government from choosing denominational winners and losers.
Paraphrasing Madison, any denomination that required government support to thrive didn't deserve to continue.
-Rezon1Rezon, anything antithetical and/or hostile to Yahweh's morality (as I have proven by Yahweh's word and law in "Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution" that the Constitution is in nearly every article and amendment) is NOT a neutral document.
-TedRWeilandTed, Ted, Ted,
Please tell me (us) what it is that you want. You seem to be against our Constitution because it is not a carbon copy of your chosen interpretation of your chosen Holy Scriptures.
Are you demanding a return to OT theocracy? If so could you please point us to the chapters and verses that describe when and where your dream of your perfect system of government actually existed and was practiced?
FYI, I do not intend to read 17 chapters of your book to obtain this information. Surely someone of your erudition could capsulize your concepts and present them here.
-Rezon1Rezon, I would think that by now it should be quite clear where I stand. Regardless, thank you for the opportunity to stand again for my God, King, Judge, Lawgiver, Lord and Savior and to stand against anything opposed to Him!
As I've pointed out on many occasions, there is no escaping theocracy. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?
With this being said, I (as all Christians should) believe that Yahweh (the God of the Bible) is absolutely perfect! If we agree upon this then we must also agree that His righteousness or morality is also perfect. And if we agree upon this, then we must also agree that His commandments, statutes, and judgments (which reflect His morality) are also perfect. To deny the latter two conclusions is to deny that Yahweh is perfectly righteous.
Consequently, I literally believe Psalm 19:7-11 – that is, that (along with everything else contained therein) His law is perfect and His judgments altogether righteous and, therefore, provide the one and only standard for our lives in every sphere of life. (Note, I did not say it provides justification, which is only available through Christ's blood atoning sacrifice and resurrection from the grave.) With these inescapable conclusions, as Yahweh's ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20), our job while here on earth is to do whatever we can to advance our God's will (his perfect righteous and morality) in every sphere of life over all surrogates.
With this said, we are instructed in Matthew 5:48 and 1 Peter 1:15-16 to be as perfect and holy as is our God. So let me ask you, can you provide me with anyone at any time (besides Christ) who has accomplished this in this life? The answer is, of course, no you cannot. But this does that alter the fact that His perfection and holiness remains the standard. The point being, man's inability to perfectly reach His standard in any aspect of life (including collectively, as it pertains to government) does not allow us to settle for lower standards, as if doing so is going to give us the ability to better achieve Yahweh's will and standard.
-TedRWeilandJust because you say there is no escaping theocracy does not make it a true statement. Until it can be proven that any god exists, let alone the god of the bible, your comments are simply opinions. Even if it is possible to prove that a god exists, that does not mean it must be the god of the bible either.
It is impossible for morality to flow from any concept that states that killing children for taunting a bald man is a moral idea. It is impossible for morality to flow from the concept that killing all the people in the world except for 8 flawed individuals is a morally perfect idea.
-Jeff DixonJeff, you've been lying to everyone all along – you actually do believe in a god! You make yourself your own god when you attempt to judge Yahweh and His moral standards. Furthermore, why should anyone think you can understand, let alone, judge the standards of someone you don't believe in? It is impossible for you to correctly ascertain Yahweh and His Word. Consequently, no one is ever going to take you serious when you attempt to interpret "mail" for whom you're not the intended recipient.
-TedRWeilandThese are posts on a open forum. Many people comment on posts where they are not the person addressed. Your comment is absurd.
But one does not have to be a god to be able to judge stories in a book. It does not make one a god to question the attributes of Allah, Zeus or Quetzalcoatl. It also does not make one a god to question the myths of Christianity. It is simply a fable as all religious beliefs are.
-Jeff DixonAs explained to you, at least, three times before, the "mail" I'm writing about is not the posts on this forum but the Bible, much of which were letters written to believing individuals, groups, and churches, and, therefore, not meant for you. Hopefully, we will not have to go through this same exercise again. In fact, if you keep your nose out of our Book, I would never have need again to point out that it is impossible for you to discern correctly "mail" not intended for you.
As for your second paragraph, my impression of you is that you are intelligent enough to discern the deity principle I employed and that your comment is, therefore, an intentional evasion of the same, what's otherwise known as a diversion tactic.
-TedRWeilandWell, I guess you will continue to be disappointed then.
-Jeff DixonTed,
The Bible tells, "By their fruits you shall know them."
Therefore, all one has to do is look at the "fruits" of the Christian God to know Him.
Some of those "fruits" are: killing children for taunting a bald man and killing all the people in the world except for 8 flawed individuals.
As one of my ministers said, "We shouldn't judge, but we can be fruit inspectors."
-Rezon1Ted,
Thank you for being open and honest about your agenda for America.
Your answers beg these important questions:
1) How do we get there?
2) The Constitution must re-written. How will this be done?
3 Who will do it?
4) Who will choose those individuals who will accomplish this?
5) Who, on earth, will lead this country?
6) How will leaders be chosen?
7) How will this theocracy be governed?
Will OT law simply be transcribed into actual laws.
9) Will the entire Biblical cannon be utilized including dietary laws, Sabbath laws, laws requiring stoning of rebellious teen-age sons, laws prohibiting mixing of different fabrics in clothing, laws regarding treatment of slaves and Jubilee Years when all debts are forgiven? I could go on but you get my point.
10) If some of these laws are discarded as impractical (I could buy a car in the sixth year and own it outright the next year) which laws and who decides?
Please understand these are serious questions that must be answered before you can make all this a reality. Surely, someone as thoughtful as you has foreseen these questions and has considered possible answers.
What say you?
-Rezon1You're welcome. Most of your questions are addressed in the 37 online chapters (and in what, Lord willing, will be published as book next month). If you're truly interested in my answers to these questions, you'll have to read the book.
In the meantime, you avoided addressing, what I believe, are inescapable conclusions, regarding the perfection of Yahweh, thus His morality, and thus His laws for every sphere of life.
-TedRWeilandHow is "your perfection" Ted? Seems that it is stil way off particularly in your misuse and abuse of YHVH for the sake of your made up "Yahweh"…
-DespevileTed,
Please forgive (as I know you will) my impertinence, but I must ask: Without compromising your integrity, and in the interest of satisfying my curiosity, and as an enticement to get me to read your book, would you please just select one question of your choosing from my list and give me a brief answer?
So far, I have only seen generalized answers and exhortations to read your book in your posts, but nothing specific. I have seen nothing that motivates me to go to the effort of finding your book and reading it. As long as you refuse to provide even one answer, I will not be reading it.
-Rezon1Answer my second paragraph and I'll decided if it's worth the time to proceed.
-TedRWeilandted,
I assume you mean this question:
"The question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?"
You present a false dichotomy: if not your god then which god?
There are other choices, including the distinct possibility that there are no supernatural entities whatsoever. In which case it is up to us to find ways of living together in peace and harmony by developing a moral system based on reason (or Rezon) with no need to resort to mythology. This is what the Convention Delegates did when they began our Constitution with the phrase, "We the people…"
Consider this question: Is something good because God examines it and decides it is good or does He examine something and recognize it as good? If it's the former, God is arbitrary. If its the latter, God is superfluous.
To put it another way: Name something good that a Christian can do that a non-believer cannot do. Then name something evil that a Christian can do that has not been commanded by God in the Bible.
Now we're back to inspecting fruit. Even being the most devout Christian in history is no guarantee of moral behavior. So much for your vaunted "Christian Morality."
-Rezon1No, that is not the paragraph I was referring to. However, now that I know that you're in the same sinking boat as Jeff, I realize I've spent enough time on this. When you and Jeff are ready for a life line to be thrown to you, let me know and I'll be the first to send it your way.
-TedRWeilandNo sinking ship here. But it is customary for you to run away when you are unable to refute the arguments presented.
-Jeff DixonTed,
A little patience, please.
Since you know which paragraph and I don't, would you please cut and paste the actual paragraph to which you are referring. I really thought I had the right one.
-Rezon1Well put.
-Jeff DixonThey are not inescapable conclusions. As I continue to point out, the stories of your god reflect nothing of perfection. They merely point out your desperate desire for them to be such.
-Jeff Dixon"..The point being, man's inability to perfectly reach His standard in any aspect of life (including collectively, as it pertains to government) does not allow us to settle for lower standards, as if doing so is going to give us the ability to better achieve Yahweh's will and standard."
So your assertion is that God's will is not realized or achieved unless men try better and harder? That might be the case with your "Yahweh" but One Triune God reveled is perfectly capable to realize and achieve His goals and purposes through his will without depending on quality of the effort of man…
-DespevileHas anyone looked at the reverse side of a $1.00 bill? The left third contains a drawing of an Egyptian pyramid with a human eye at the top. This is a Masonic symbol.
-Rezon1Gordon,
Be afraid, be very afraid of quoting anything from david barton, the source of part of your post.
Follow this link to a critique of barton's "scholarship:"
http://www.bjconline.org/index.php?option=com_con…
and read this quote from the Baptist Joint Committee:
J. Brent Walker, Executive Director
Baptist Joint Committee
April 2005
1
Barton claims that 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were "orthodox" Christians and many were "evangelical Christians."
Barton does not cite any authority to support this assertion. Indeed, the weight of scholarly opinion is to the contrary.
For example, Professor Clinton Rossiter has written:
"Although it had its share of strenuous Christians … the gathering at Philadelphia was largely made up of men in whom the old fires were under control or had even flickered out. Most were nominally members of one of the traditional churches in their part of the country… and most were men who could take their religion or leave it alone. Although no one in this sober gathering would have dreamed of invoking the Goddess of Reason, neither would anyone have dared to proclaim his opinions had the support of the God of Abraham and Paul. The Convention of 1787 was highly rationalist and even secular in spirit." (Clinton Rossiter, 1787: The Grand Convention, pp. 147-148.)
-Rezon1Much has been made of Benjamin Franklin's suggestion that the Convention open its morning sessions with prayer. His motion was turned down, however, and not again taken up. Franklin himself noted that "with the exception of 3 or 4, most thought prayers unnecessary." (Ferrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, rev. ed., Vol. 1, p.452.)
I like David Barton. He is quite the scholar and owns the largest collection of documents written by the founding fathers. I can't understand why anyone who hasn't read and seen his work can take issue with him. His criticism of modern school text books is right on the mark. They do steer us away from the Christian beliefs of the founding fathers. Barton has opened my eyes to further study and I'm uncovering a lot and discovering a troubling bias in the history textbook cabal.
-VladimirVladimir,
And where is this vast "collection of documents written by the founding fathers?" Why aren't they on public display in a museum where everyone can see them, authenticate them, test them, use them for research and verify their provenance? As it stands now all we have is his word for their existence and contents.
It's no wonder barton has no credibility among professional historians.
I still return to my earlier statement. It doesn't matter what anyone wrote or said about religion. What matters is what's in the Constitution. Show me any indication in the Constitution of the Delegates' intention to construct a "Christian Nation." That's where the rubber hits the road and it just ain't there.
-Rezon1"So-called Christians’ propensity for defending polytheism is not a modern phenomenon. It was prevalent immediately before, during, and soon after the ratification of the Constitution, as evidenced in many early legislative declarations and judicial decisions. Some judges went so far as to attribute the freedom of religion, or polytheism, to Christianity:
'What gave to us this noble safeguard of religious toleration? It was Christianity.' (City of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin (1846))
Barton appeared to relish and even promote this heresy:
'…Christian principles had produced America’s toleration for other religions; and while America did legislate according to Christian standards of conduct for social behavior, it did not tell other religions how, where, when, or even whether to worship. The only restraints placed on those religions were that their religious practices not be licentious or subversive of public morality or safety. Aside from these stipulations, America granted broad religious toleration to other religions not in spite of, but because of its Christian beliefs."….
"Where did Barton, Federer, and McDowell come up with the sophistic and heretical idea of attributing polytheism to Christianity? Not from the Bible, but from Amendment 1 of the Constitution."
For more, see "Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitut….
-TedRWeilandAlthough I have heard some of Barton's interviews and read some articles by him, your statement that I quoted him is 100% incorrect. I did make a statement regarding approximately 50 of the signers being devout Christians. That is my summary coming from a composite of pre-revisionist sources such as founders biographies that used to be taught in our schools along with the "primer" and other sources such as "The Maxims of George Washington".
-GordonAs for Franklin's motion for prayer, I am very much aware of that. I likewise respect your reference. My only position on Franklin is that the jury is still out and I will leave that up to God (and so should we all). I do know that in the early years of his life, he virtually declared himself a deist. However I am also aware (and most of today's historians ignore) that in his later years 1) he was strongly influenced by and was close friends with the evangelist George Whitefield 2) His petition for prayer in the Constitutional Convention made strong and deep reference to God's hand of intervention and his belief that their independence was God's answer to their prayers (in contract to deism which is reliance on self and self reason). 3) And finally in the last two years of his life he wrote a letter professing his beliefs – deeper than those of deism. Do these make him a "Christian"? No, but it certainly leaves room for the possibility. Only God knew his heart. And, I get overly frustrated with these secular, revisionist historians – in their zealous effort to undermine the character of our founders by trying to act as god casting judgment upon all our founders by declaring them deists.
Gordon,
I have heard that phrase about the 50 out of 55 word-for-word from barton himself on several of his TV appearances. Interesting coincidence, don't you think?
What's more important is that according to the Baptist Joint Committee link I supplied in my post, he has provided no documentation for his assertion. If you have such information, perhaps you will send it to him and post it here?
As far as Franklin's religiosity is concerned, it is irrelevant to our discussion of supposed "Christian Nation" status. Notice, Franklin's request for prayer was ignored, never commented upon, never brought to a vote and never mentioned again in the Convention.
-Rezon1Rezon1 says: "Barton does not cite any authority to support this assertion. Indeed, the weight of scholarly opinion is to the contrary. "
-keyboardsharkScholarly OPINION? So in other words, it's one set of opinions against another. How can you claim that this means that Barton is wrong and these 'scholars' are right? The quote you offer is one man's opinion, which I notice is not backed up by any documentation to 'prove' his case. You say Barton does not cite any authority to support his assertion, but then you want to give these 'scholars' a free pass so that THEY do not have to cite any authority for THEIR assertion.
Gordon,
As far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, it matters not at all that some state constitutions contained religious requirements for public office, especially if they were written before our Federal Constitution was drafted and ratified.
If you had ever bothered yourself to actually read the document you claim to know so much about you would find this in Article VI: "…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
The fact that you will never hear this from david barton is all the evidence anyone needs that he is either a liar or ignorant of our founding document. Either way, shame on him and I pity whoever believes him.
-Rezon1Sorry, Rezon1, David Barton HAS mentioned Article VI. So now where is all your evidence that he is a liar or ignorant?
-VladimirI can't prove a negative, but I have never heard or read this from him. Perhaps you will supply documentation for your assertion. Suppose he has mentioned it, so what? He never acts, speaks or writes anything that indicates he is familiar with it. I suspect that most of the time he ignores it because it undermines most of what he propagandizes as to his totally false and silly notion of "Christian Nationhood."
-Rezon1As a matter of fact, Rezon1, I am very much aware of that statement for which I went into great detail approximately one week ago arguing how it's application has been twisted today. You can find a very interesting definition for religion in Websters dictionary, and as well as what we call religions today referred to as "impostor" religions. In addition you will find that, although not exclusively, most frequently religion was used interchangeably with Christianity so as to prevent elevating any one denomination above another. I will not go into all the details mentioned one week ago, but I will refer you to the quote I made from Benjamin Franklin's letter regarding Removing to America as an example. Note that he starts the quite using the word religion and follows it with "various denominations." Also use the example of the Tennessee state constitution which states Christianity as a qualification for office followed by a statement of "no further religious test". These are just a few.
-GordonGordon,
Are you promoting the (mistaken) idea that when the men who drafted the Bill of Rights were talking about "Freedom of Religion" they were applying it only to the Christian religion? Therefore Americans could choose any religion they wanted as long as it was "Christian."
Are you serious?
I hope you realize you have just created a huge problem for yourself. Who decides if a religion is "Christian?" I'm sure you would be quick to state that followers of the Buddha, Confucius, Baal, Zoroaster, Hindu Gods, Native American religions, Muhammad and Satan aren't Christians.
Are you saying American citizens are not allowed to practice these religious beliefs?
What about Jews? They obviously aren't Christians, or are you willing to make an exception for them?
What about Mormons? Seventh Day Adventists? Quakers? Unitarians. What about "Liberal" Christians? What about any Christian religion that differs in any degree from your own?
All this leads to such questions as:
Who decides what is a "Christian" religion? Does government decide? By what standards?
Gordon, these are serious questions which must be answered by anyone who says what you seem to be saying.
What say you?
-Rezon1And continuing Ted,
One further comment on your statement about the existence of “some” genuine Christians can be found in a quote made by Benjamin Franklin to France approximately 2 years before the Constitutional Convention in his tract called “Information for those Who Would Remove to America” He said: “… serious Religion, under its various Denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great Age in that Country, without having their Piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel.” That in itself should say volumes regarding the serious nature of Christianity in America and the nature of those framing our Constitution. It was not formed by a bunch of Atheists and Deists as revisionists like to claim because they didn't exist.
I would also like to bring your attention to a founder named James Wilson. He was one of six signers of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution: the second most frequented speaker at the Constitutional Convention; one of the first appointees to the supreme court; and founder of America's first law school and with it published a book. In that book he made a statement also expressed in similar manner by fellow signers Alexander Hamilton, Rufus King and John Jay (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) which in essence said that when civil law conflicts with divine law, the divine law takes precedence and the civil law should be over ruled. (The Works of the Honorable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), Vol. I, pp. 103-105, "Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation.")
One final reference I would like to make is that the Northwest Ordinance, made by the same Congress that ratified the Constitution and created the first amendment, was not only created for defining territorial boundaries but to establish civil law. A quote from Article 3 states: “religion, morality and knowledge ….. shall forever be encouraged.” In other words, this could be considered a basic mandate requiring teaching religion for statehood. Four of the territories considered this statement so important that they copied it almost verbatim into their original state constitutions.
All examples profoundly oppose any idea of the founders creating “death warrants against Christianity”
Again I suggest you study and cite the original and early documents, founders writings and books for your true history rather than the last 30 years publications made some 200 years after the fact with a specific political agenda in mind.
-GordonI'm familiar with all of this and none of it changes the fact that Constitution is antithetical to Yahweh's morality and hostile to His sovereignty.
Wilson was, of course, correct! Consequently, he was either a lying politician or when he signed the Constitution was so ignorant of Yahweh's laws (as most men at that time and at this time were and are) that he was clueless of his own sedition against the God of the Bible.
The framer's Christian sounding quotations mean nothing in comparison to what they did:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." (Matthew 7:21-27)
-TedRWeilandFortunately for the citizens of the USA, the Constitution is antithetical to the mythical morality of your god.
-Jeff DixonI find it very interesting that you can claim you are familiar with these matters yet discount the facts "straight from the horses mouth" as “shoddy research” relative to your indoctrinated mindset causing you to declare secular bias starting with the early 1900's as gospel. Something you should think about is that history doesn't change. But with pollution of the facts over time, we change history to create whatever we want. And that is precisely what the secular revisionists are doing and you have fallen for it “Hook – line – and sinker”. You are taking the drivel from revisionist “historians” writings and declaring them as gospel over and above the very recordings of and by the founders. From your view, the founders were all liars. Try reading some books that pre-date Woodrow Wilson's era of Progressivism like:
-Gordon“Christianity and the American Commonwealth” Provided as lectures to the college of Oxford, Georgia in 1898 by Charles Galloway.
“Life of Washington”, by Anna C. Reed, 1842
“The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States” by Benjamin Morris, 1856.
I did not discount your "straight from the horses mouth" information at all. Go back and read what I wrote and you will see that I, instead, minimized it because it accounts for little because of the Biblically antithetical Constitution they wrote – something you have yet to address.
Instead, Gordon, I think it is you who have either never done any thing close to an exhaustive study of the framers' statements and associations (such as that with Freemasonry, Judaism, etc.) or you have discounted anything not agreement with your desire (like most Christians today) to make these men Christian heroes.
You are not the only one who has "straight from the horse's mouth" documentation. You will find that I quote many primary source documents in "Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective." Why don't you take our Constitutional Survey at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/constitutionsurvey… by which you will receive the 85 page "Primer" to the complete book? That way, you will at least have a better idea where I'm coming from.
-TedRWeilandDear Ted, you said [the] "Constitution is antithetical to Yahweh's morality and hostile to His sovereignty". That screams "hidden agenda". Why do you want to tear down the U.S. Constitution. A document that has brought more freedom to more people than any other temporal document. Perhaps you believe that Christ wants us to live in slavery to a despot or king. Come out of your high religious haze and look around you. What other country allows us to exercise our God given rights and even acknowledges they are bestowed by God. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the founding documents of our nation and until you can prove otherwise, they were inspired by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
-VladimirI've proven otherwise – take our survey and I'll send you a copy of the "Primer" (85 pages) or if you prefer a 1,000 pages (approximately), you can read the 37 online chapters of the complete book, which examines every article and amendment by Yahweh's morality as found in His commandments, statutes, and judgments.
The only agenda I have is to promote my God and King's kingdom and perfect laws and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11) and real liberty and prosperity found therein. In John 8:32, Christ declared that "truth will set you free" – this is true even as concerns the Constitution.
-TedRWeilandGordon,
Once again, I repeat my earlier challenge, still unanswered: "Please show me *one* religious reference in our Constitution, aside from recognizing that few people worked on Sundays and the "pro forma" date at the end."
Everything you write and every quote you cite falls in front of that simple question. In fact the more quotes you bring to the table, the weaker your case becomes. In fact the Founders and Drafters rejected every one of those sentiments and created a Secular and Godless Constitution and there is nothing you can do about it but accept it and move on.
-Rezon1Gordon,
david barton (please stop using material from him – you're only making things worse for yourself) neglects (lies/is ignorant of the facts) to tell you that John Jay was an anti-Catholic religious bigot. He is not the kind of source anyone should be using on religious behavior in early American history. I doubt you would consider him an exemplar of Christian behavior.
-Rezon1Rezon1 says: "david barton (please stop using material from him – you're only making things worse for yourself) neglects (lies/is ignorant of the facts)to tell you that John Jay was an anti-Catholic religious bigot. "
And your proof of this assertion is….?
BTW, what is your definition of a "religious bigot"? It appears that it may mean anyone who does not buy into the dogma of another religion which he believes to be false. Sounds a lot like the charge being leveled against those who speak out against Islam today.
-keyboardsharkBazinga, Keyboardshark. You not only know computers but have a good verbal garbage detector. BTY thanks for the computer solution the other day on another thread.
-VladimirNo problem, Vlad. Just two of the many fine services I provide to the online community… And no charge to boot, heh heh!
-keyboardsharkBazinga, Vladimir!
Quoting from the link I posted recently, which you obviously didn't check out:
http://www.bjconline.org/index.php?option=com_con…
"John Jay was Chief Justice for only six years and then left to be the governor of New York. Jay was an anti-Catholic bigot and, while governor, led an unsuccessful movement to banish Catholics from New York. (Thomas J. Curry, The First Freedoms, p. 162.)"
Please notice that the document I've linked to is compiled by a Baptist organization.
http://www.bjconline.org/index.php?option=com_con…
Bigot: "A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."
Prejudice: "An irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics."
A "religious bigot," therefore, would be one who is bigoted toward a person, or persons because of their religion.
"Not buy(ing) into the dogma of another religion which he believes to be false." is not religious bigotry. That is exercising one's freedom of religion to choose a different religious belief or no belief.
A religious bigot is someone like John Jay who, not only does not recognize that the Bill of Rights guarantees the freedom of all Americans to practice the belief or non-belief of their choice, but also seeks to use the power of government to discriminate against those whose beliefs differ from his.
It is frightening to realize that a man with so little understanding of, or devotion to, our Constitution and Bill of Rights would be appointed to serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It is sad that david barton, or anyone else, would quote this man as an exemplar of America's Christian heritage, especially without telling us "the rest of the story."
Here is yet another reason to question barton's qualifications and reliability as a "historian." A true Historian would be dedicated to telling "The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing but The Truth." As usual, barton fails on all three counts.
-Rezon1PART 1
Rezon1; A bigot is anyone who is intolerant of any creed, belief or race that is not his or her own (Random House dictionary). One can disagree with the tenants of a false, pseudo-Christian religion without being intolerant of such. The key word is "intolerant", which means "unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intoler…
Here is the entire quote from John Jay in its context: "In a letter addressed to Pennsylvania House of Representatives member John Murray, dated October 12, 1816, Jay wrote, "Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war. Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay
-keyboardsharkPART 2
Notice he says that Christians will not violate the rights of others, and that our people have the CHOICE of their rulers, contrary to your claim, and the 'opinion' of your so-called Baptist link, that he somehow wishes to stop Catholics from holding their own beliefs. To "prefer" Christians as our rulers certainly does not violate the rights of Catholics. They can certainly "prefer" to elect Catholics if they so desire just as Christians can prefer Christians.
Nowhere does he say that Catholics are not permitted to vote as their conscience dictates, nor that they are not permitted to practice their religion. If you want to see real, live bigotry in action, go to any muslim majority country and tell them you are any other religion than Islam. See how 'tolerant' they will be to you. Good luck with that one.
-keyboardsharkkeyboardshark,
Please tell me how the documented *fact* that John Jay, " while governor, led an unsuccessful movement to banish Catholics from New York. (Thomas J. Curry, The First Freedoms, p. 162.)" doesn't, "violate the rights of others."
It seems obvious to me that Jay does wish, "to stop Catholics from holding their own beliefs." If Jay wants to banish Catholics from New York, Catholics have two choices: 1) Leave New York or 2) stop being Catholics.
Is that really the America you want to live in – an America where the majority religion can ban minority religions from their state? If that isn't somehow an attempt "to stop Catholics from holding their own beliefs, " I don't know what is.
It is also a blatant violation of the "Establishment Clause," since, for all practical purposes, it makes your version of "Christianity" the preferred – Established – version of "Christianity" and makes adherents of all other versions of "Christianity" and all other beliefs and non-beliefs, second-class citizens. Again, this is not the America I want to live in and I will fight, with every ounce of strength I have, to prevent your vision of America from taking over my country. If that's the kind of country you want to live in, I suggest you convert to Islam and move to Iran.
Equally disturbing is your subtle inference that Catholics are not "Christians." This is an interesting position. Many fundamentalist "Christians" like to claim that an overwhelming number of Americans are "Christians" and therefore "Christians" should have favored status. Their problem is, they then become discriminating and exclusionary by declaring that (in your case) Catholics aren't Christians. Further, Mormons aren't Christians, Unitarians aren't Christians, Liberal Christians aren't Christians and denomination after denomination isn't Christian. But that's not enough. Many fundamentalists claim that even some other fundamentalists aren't Christians! So your much trumpeted majority keeps getting smaller and smaller. Finally, the number of "True Christians" dwindles down to me and you and I'm not that sure about you.
You should be cautious of this approach. If the majority religion should rule and your "True Believers" are a tiny minority, according to your own statements, you are in big trouble.
-Rezon1PART 1
Here is the accurate account of the John Jay incident in its context:
For example, in 1788, John Jay urged the New York Legislature to require office-holders to renounce foreign authorities "in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil.".[25] Thomas Jefferson wrote, "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government,"[26] and that "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism
It was a matter of office holders renouncing allegience to foreign authorities. He wasn't trying to "banish catholics from New York" as you claim. You are reading something into it that is simply not there. Jefferson's statement also backs up the fact that this was of a concern for national sovereignty.
-keyboardsharkkbs,
You just won't give up will you?
The statement couldn't be more clear or more documented.
I'll quote it again, just in case you have managed to confuse anyone.
This is what happened:
John Jay, while governor, led an unsuccessful movement to banish Catholics from New York. (Thomas J. Curry, The First Freedoms, p. 162.)"
You can dress it up in red, white and blue all day long but that's what happened. And let me say again, whatever nuance you want to put on it, it's unConstitutional.
Don't confuse your Jay quote with your Jefferson quotes. Jefferson wasn't talking about Catholics giving allegiance to the Vatican and the Pope. He was talking about the relationship between any religious authority and liberty. Remember, TJ was decidedly against the institutionalized church in all forms.
BTW, Your Jefferson quote is beautiful. I hope you realize that when TJ said, "in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty." he wasn't only talking about Catholics. He was also talking about Old Testament priests. Further, if you listen to what TJ is saying, he is using the word "priest" to include any ecclesiastical authority, Protestant or Catholic.
-Rezon1"John Jay, while governor, led an unsuccessful movement to banish Catholics from New York." That is not a direct quote from John Jay. That is a quote from the author of your source. I think you're intelligent enough to see the difference.
Christians do not profess faith or allegiance to any man that holds himself out to be a priest or ecclesiastical authority. They profess faith in Jesus Christ alone and His Word, which also states that we are to be subject to higher powers, as they are ordained of God: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." (Romans 13:1)
-keyboardsharkPART 2
This is the same reason we require our Presidents to be natural-born citizens (although our impostor prez BHO managed to bypass this requirement with the help of the liberal media)–so they will not be influenced by external allegiances to foreign powers.
All we need do is look back in history to the middle ages when the Roman Catholic church headed many of the governments in Europe. Much evil was perpetrated upon Protestant Christians simply for their beliefs. Anyone who dared to own a Bible, much less print one, would usually be burned at the stake. Doesn't sound very 'tolerant' nor 'Christian' to me.
-keyboardsharkkbs,
You need to check your European history. You will discover that it wasn't one-sided at all. It wasn't just Catholics warring on Protestants and committing all sorts of unspeakable evil on them. It was also Protestants who waged wars on Catholics and persecuted them.
Maybe my standards are higher than yours but I certainly wouldn't call either side "Christian" or tolerant.
-Rezon1PART 1
No, YOU need to check your European history.
One example: "The slaughter of Huguenots (French Protestants) by Catholics at Sens, Burgundy, in 1562 occurred at the beginning of more than thirty years of religious strife between French Protestants and Catholics. These wars produced numerous atrocities. The worst was the notorious St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in Paris on August 24, 1572. Thousands of Huguenots were butchered by Roman Catholic mobs. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_modern_Europe
Another: "Approximately one hundred Protestants from Loughgall Parish, County Armagh, were executed by mobs at the bridge over the River Bann near Portadown, Ulster. This atrocity occurred at the beginning of the Irish Rebellion of 1641. Having held the Protestants as prisoners and tortured them, the Catholics drove them to the bridge, where they were stripped naked and forced into the water below at swordpoint. Survivors of the plunge were shot." (same ref)
-keyboardsharkPART 2
Also: "Many Protestant Christians were burnt at the stake or otherwise killed in the reign of Queen Mary I of England, including Thomas Cranmer and two bishops Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley, the Oxford Martyrs.[5] (same)
And many, many others…
-keyboardsharkkbs,
You're still stuck in the "birther" camp? How sad. Our president released his birth certificate. He's a "Natural-Born Citizen" of the USA.
Barack Obama was legally elected President. Get over it. Move on. If you oppose his policies, then oppose his policies and work for whatever candidate you support but it's time to end your silly little game.
-Rezon1Rezon1 sez: "You're still stuck in the "birther" camp?" Yes, I am, and with good reason. The so-called 'birth certificate' was an obvious phony with easily detectable flaws. http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/322389/
-keyboardsharkhttp://www.westernjournalism.com/layered-colors-s…
kbs,
Here it is. Refuted again:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertifi…
The salient point being, do you really believe someone wanting to be president would do such a bad job of faking a birth certificate that it would be so easily detected?
And how do you explain birth announcements in two competing newspapers?
Once again, Move on.
-Rezon1PART 1
-keyboardsharkThat's interesting, considering the liberal-leaning Snopes has been implicated in the fraud:
In 2007 Dr. Polland, a computer graphics expert, created a short form Certificate of Live Birth with Barack Obama's name on it, just to show how easily a forgery could be made. He stored this example in an open, online photo sharing program called "photobucket" under the screen name "Polarik". In 2008, the White House claimed they had received an official copy of Barry's short form birth certificate, scanned it and posted the image online. Here's the catch; the link the White House provided to view the document was sourced through Snopes.com, a self-described "myth busting" website. Snopes.com proudly claimed THE certificate was ‘The real McCoy'. But incredibly – the image Snopes provided actually linked back to Pollard's concocted copy stored in his photobucket file. In fact, when you highlighted the image Snopes and the White House posted, the source came up as
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/…
PART 2
Ask yourself, if the White House had received the short form Certificate of Live Birth directly from the State of Hawaii, had scanned and posted it themselves as they claimed, why would their supposedly authentic image link to Polarik's "photobucket " image? Why was there no White House server or government data source as the original hosting site for this "document" image?
If Snopes.com really were the fact checkers and myth busters they claim to be, why would they have "validated" Pollard's "Polarik" forgery?
Here's a fun little fact about the Internet – it is almost impossible to completely "scrub", i.e. remove, something from the web. It is after all a computer program. And as such, it documents everything… including Snopes.com's apparent incompetence and Barack Hussein Obama's fraud.
-keyboardsharkPART 3
I can make the statement that Catholics are not Christians because many of their beliefs, such as the Pope speaking infallibility (or even the idea of a 'Pope' at all), Mary being a sinless co-redemptrix with Christ, purgatory, and many others, are totally contrary to the Bible. No wonder they did not want anyone owning one.
But am I saying to banish Catholics from the USA? By no means! As long as they obey the law, and, as Mr Jay pointed out, do not hold to any foreign allegiances, such as the Vatican, as being of higher priority than their loyalty to the USA, they are perfectly welcome in my book. I can certainly disagree with their doctrines, history, and ideas without being a bigot. It's fanatics like muslims, who cannot even co-exist with other religions, who are not only bigots, but murders.
-keyboardsharkAnd the Catholics says that the Protestants are not Christians because they have fallen away from the one true Christian church. And the beat goes on.
Given how many of the Christian sects are discounted by others, Christianity is not the largest religion in the world, but one of the smallest.
-Jeff DixonJeff,
Correct! All the more reason for creating a system of government based on a Secular Constitution with a Bill of Rights mandating separation of Church and State. This is the only way to guarantee freedom of religion to all citizens of all beliefs and no beliefs.
-Rezon1"The constitutional principle of separation of church and state has given Americans more religious freedom than any people in world history. Around the globe, those suffering under the heavy heel of government-sponsored religious oppression look to America's church-state model with longing. The "wall of separation between church and state" is America's bulwark of true religious liberty."
-Jeff Dixon-Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Yea Jeff! Always great to meet another Americans United supporter. Rob Boston is the best.
-Rezon1Glad to have you around.
-Jeff DixonJeff, It's my pleasure. They will never agree with us but it's fun blowing holes in their arguments.
-Rezon1PART 1
Jeff sez: "Christianity is not the largest religion in the world, but one of the smallest."
Unfortunately, what you say is pretty close to the truth, Jeff. The Bible clearly says that there are many who proclaim the name of Christ, but are not actually His saved children: "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (my emphasis) (Matthew 7:22-23)
And also that there are few that will be saved, and many that go to destruction: "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)
-keyboardsharkkbs,
Here's a quote for you:
Satan, the Antichrist and the False Prophet walk into a bar. Satan orders three beers and says to the bartender, "Hey, we're about to fight the Lord's Army at Armageddon. How about something to eat?"
So the bartender puts out some peanuts, and just as the Antichrist is about to eat one, the bowl of peanuts says, "Hey, I really like that 666 birthmark."
The Antichrist says, "What's up with these peanuts?" and the bartender says, "They're complimentary!"
-Rezon1That's pretty good, Rezon1. Reminds me of the (in)famous priest, rabbi and monk (or minister) jokes. Here's one:
A Priest, a Rabbi & a Buddhist Monk are flying in a Cessna when suddenly the plane is going to crash. There is only one parachute available. What happens?
-keyboardsharkThe priest says, "One of you, take the parachute my brothers. I will take my place in the kingdom of heaven." The buddhist monk says, "It is my time to become once again part of nature, please learned Rabbi, take the parachute." The Rabbi says, "Would you two shut the #*&@* up and get out of my way so I can fly this thing!"
PART 2
-keyboardsharkSo in the sense that there are few TRUE believers, then yes, the number is relatively small. And no, Catholics are not Christians because there doctrines depart far from God's Word, so it is not one group's word against another group's word, it is God's Word alone that is the standard.
Given that no one can agree on what gods words actually is, to claim that there is one group that has determined the correct interpretation is amusing.
It is also amusing since there are no original texts to base an actual interpretation.
It is further amusing given that gods word keeps changing.
The fact that the books of the bible, both the Old and New Testament, have undergone change throughout the centuries, is undeniable. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove this. The Scrolls, dating to about the first century C.E., demonstrate that there were several versions of scripture in distribution– some that are claimed by scholars to be even more extensive, and of better quality, than those found in our modern bibles.
Most Christians seem to think that the bible (as it is now, with its sixty-six or so books, divided into chapters and verses) has existed for thousands of years. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the bible that most Christians are familiar with is a fairly recent contrivance. The religious term "canon" refers to the divinity of a specific set of writings. Just which books are canonical and which are not has been the subject of debate among Judeo-Christian leaders for the last two thousand years. The Protestant Church did not agree on which books should be contained in the bible until as late as 1647, at the Assembly of Westminster.
-Jeff DixonNot only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later-much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, and many thousands of places . . . Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts and there are words in the New Testament.
-Jeff Dixonhttp://dangerousintersection.org/2006/10/22/who-c…
We don't have to "interpret" what God's Word says, we simply have to read it and compare what we are reading with its immediate context and the context of the rest of the Bible.
The Dead Sea scroll do just the opposite of waht you claim–they verify the accuracy of the Scriptures. How do they "demonstrate that there were several versions of scripture in distribution"? True, there were a few different manuscripts that have been found, but the differences are very minor and do not change the meaning of the passage.
The 'canon' merely refers to compiling the individual books written by the different writers into one volume which we now call The Bible. The individual books themselves are very ancient, not recent as you imply. The Catholic church attempted to insert some books (the Apocripha) that were not divinely inspired, which is where the dissent arose.
-keyboardsharkOf course you have to interpret the bible. When you are reading it in English, it is because someone has made an interpretation.
What the dead sea scrolls showed is that there were many different versions of the gospels two thousand years ago. I have no idea what you think you have read on the tiopic, but it clearly shows that there is not one version.
-Jeff DixonYou're confusing interpretation with translation. They are two different things. Translating a text from one language to another does not require interpretation, only a knowledge of each language.
The Dead Sea scrolls were a collection of 972 texts from the Hebrew Bible and extra-biblical documents found between 1947 and 1956. The Dead Sea Scrolls are traditionally divided into three groups: "Biblical" manuscripts (copies of texts from the Hebrew Bible), which comprise roughly 40% of the identified scrolls; "Apocryphal" or "Pseudepigraphical" manuscripts (known documents from the Second Temple Period like Enoch, Jubilees, Tobit, Sirach, non-canonical psalms, etc., that were not ultimately canonized in the Hebrew Bible), which comprise roughly 30% of the identified scrolls; and "Sectarian" manuscripts (previously unknown documents that speak to the rules and beliefs of a particular group or groups within greater Judaism) like the Community Rule, War Scroll, Pesher on Habakkuk (Hebrew: פשר pesher = "Commentary"), and the Rule of the Blessing, which comprise roughly 30% of the identified scrolls.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls
-keyboardsharkkbs,
Check out the Amplified Bible if you want to learn how difficult it is to make a translation from one language to another. It's not a matter of just knowing both languages. Every language has words that do not simply translate into others. This is where interpretation must play a role.
-Rezon1The Amplified Bible is a paraphrase, not a word-for-word translation. The King James version, on the other hand, is as close to a word-for-word translation we have available in English. You are correct that some words do not translate easily, but those instances rarely if ever change the meaning of a passage.
For example, in English we have only one word for "kill" but in the Hebrew there are two words–'ratsach', which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context) and 'nakah', which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing.
When the Ten Commandments say, "Thou shalt not kill" it uses the word 'ratsach', whereas when it refers to specific cities which were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution, the Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but 'nakah'. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill….
-keyboardsharkPART 2
-keyboardsharkSince only 40% of the scrolls were directly associated with the Biblical texts, don't confuse those with the non-biblical writings in arriving at your conclusion that there were different versions of the Gospels. In fact, all the Biblical scrolls found were portions of the Old Testament only, so they would neither refute nor prove the accuracy of the New Testament Gospels themselves, other than where the New Testament quotes directly from the Old.
kbs,
Please tell me why there are two conflicting "inerrant" creation myths in your "inerrant" scriptures.
-Rezon1Huh? Two conflicting creation accounts? Where?
-keyboardsharkkbs,
How fortunate you are to be in the right place at the right time with the one true God, with the only true holy scriptures, with the only true interpretation and with the only true teaching. How terrifying for everyone else who didn't have your luck and is now facing eternal damnation because they weren't accidentally as fortunate as you.
You must be so proud! Too bad about all the others, but what can you do? You do serve a great God.
Reminds me of the story of the new arrival in heaven getting the guided tour by the long-time resident. The newcomer is appropriately impressed and complimentary. The old-timer has one final stop on the tour which he introduces by saying, "Yes, heaven is a wonderful place but the best part is that if you stand right here you can smell the burning flesh and hear the screams of those who didn't make it."
-Rezon1Yes, we are very blessed to be living in a Christian nation where the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been proclaimed for hundreds of years. We should be very thankful we live in this nation, but unfortunately, the enemies of the Gospel are doing everything they can to eliminate it.
Instead of blaming God for not giving everyone free access to the Gospel, why not blame the evil men, such as Mohammad, that dreamed up false religions out of their own minds and have blinded the eyes of billions through false teachings such as Islam? They, not God, are to blame for the billions of lost souls.
As I've said before, just try standing on a street corner in a muslim majority nation and read from the Bible, and see how long it takes before you're hauled off to the executioner. Shame on you for blaming God for man's evil! Yes, I do serve a great God, who has been scorned by the sinful mankind He created, yet has offered the free gift of salvation by offering His Son to die in our place.
-keyboardsharkkbs,
Please re-read my post with the understanding that I was being sarcastic in my first two paragraphs.
It is an accident of birth that you were born in the USA instead of Iran and yet you will be eternally in heaven enjoying God's blessings while another human being who was accidentally born in Iran will suffer eternal damnation. The poor soul born in Iran through no fault of his own will be punished for circumstances completely out of his control. And the fact is, God is allowing that to happen.
Does that really make sense to you?
Then you callously say it's the fault of evil men like Mohammed that innocent Iranians will be damned but seem quite unconcerned about their eternal pain and suffering.
It seems to me that God created us the way we are and then stands ready to punish us for acting the way he created us to act.
And you seem to be OK with that. That's creepy.
-Rezon1PART 1
You may conclude that it was "an accident of birth" as to where someone is born, but not to God. He chose those who He would save from the foundation of the earth, and divine providence has allowed the Gospel to be freely proclaimed in the USA, thereby offering a much better chance for someone to hear the Gospel & be saved, at least from a human vantage point.
Does that mean someone in Iran cannot be saved? Absolutely not! If God chose a particular person in Iran to be saved, He is certainly capable of ensuring that that person will hear the Gospel somehow, somewhere. Maybe he secretly owns a short wave radio hidden in his house, hears the Gospel, and becomes saved. But if he has been chosen, he WILL hear the Gospel.
Now, of course, with the darkness of Islam holding a death grip on countries like Iran, of course there will be much less opportunity to hear the Gospel, for fear of death from the evil authorities. The blame for this rests with man, not God. But nothing is too hard for God to overcome.
-keyboardsharkPART 2
God DID NOT create us to act the way we do. He created us perfectly, but man chose, by his own volition, to deliberately disobey God, thereby bringing a curse upon the earth. Now, no one is immune to sin. But God did not leave us to our own devices to simply perish. No, He sent His Son to die in our place. This grace is freely offered to us, the very corrupt sinners who have deliberately defied God's Law, but yet it cost God much.
If someone raped your daughter, and killed her in the process, and then the murderer was to be executed, would you send your only son (assuming you had one) to die in the murderer's place so he could walk free? I doubt it. Yet this is the equivalent of what God has done for us.
You claim I am unconcerned about the eternal fate of the lost (which BTW, I do not believe that they will spend eternity in suffering, but will perish eternally, never to live again), but I'm not sure where you get that idea. If I was unconcerned, then why would I keep repeating the message of the Gospel on these pages?
-keyboardsharkkbs:
You wrote, as long as they "do not hold to any foreign allegiances, such as the Vatican, as being of higher priority than their loyalty to the USA."
Are we back to HUAC loyalty oaths now? "All Catholics will report to City hall at 9:00AM tomorrow to swear an oath of loyalty to the USA and disavow any higher loyalty to the Vatican. Any Catholic refusing to appear and/or refusing to swear allegiance in a convincing fashon will be immediately deported.
You also say, "It's fanatics like muslims, who cannot even co-exist with other religions, who are not only bigots, but murders." That is about as bigoted and prejudicial a statement as I have ever heard. Are you seriously speaking of *all* Muslims, including those millions who live peacefully in America, obeying all laws, volunteering to serve in our military, serving as police officers and firefighters, doctors and nurses and now in Congress and the innocent Muslims killed in the World Trade Center?"
If you aren't, a clarification is in order. If you are, shame on you!
-Rezon1Rezon1: I thought I made myself clear that I was referring to muslim majority nations:
"If you want to see real, live bigotry in action, go to any muslim majority country and tell them you are any other religion than Islam. See how 'tolerant' they will be to you. Good luck with that one. " (My post 8 hours ago)
The fact remains, however uncomfortable it may be, that our nation's political leaders cannot have any allegiance to a foreign nation or power, including the Vatican. We can see what destruction has occurred from disregarding this principle in the case of BHO, who has trampled our Constitutional rights numerous times already.
-keyboardsharkkbs,
You spend entirely too much time with Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity and all the others. Give me one documented instance of our president trampling on our Constitutional rights.
The fact that you're still clinging to the right wing conspiracy-mongering mythology about our president is sad. and tired. He's president. Get over it.
-Rezon1"Give me one documented instance of our president trampling on our Constitutional rights."
I'll give you one that just happened recently. National Defense Authorization Act, 2011. Signed by President Obama on Saturday, December 31st with little fanfare when hardly anyone was looking, NDAA is the latest gem in a long line of liberty-destroying legislation that authorizes indefinite military detention (without trial) of suspected terrorists.
You need to wake up and quit drinking the liberal media/socialist democrat/hollywood koolaid.
-keyboardsharkkbs,
Interesting example. I didn't use that one because the only thing our current president did was *continue* the policy begun under the previous republican president.
That provision was attached to the defense bill by Congress as a challenge to the president to either veto the entire bill or pass it.
Since the policy you protest was inherited from the previous republican administration and passed by a republican House and agreed to by republicans in the Senate, I find your accusation against our current president disingenuous.
You are trying to blame President Obama alone and avoid putting any blame on the republican administration that began the policy or the republicans who wrote the legislation. You can't admit that, of course, because the facts would conflict with your Fox-Limbaugh-Hanity-Blame-Obama-for-Everything Narrative.
And since you know so much about this legislation, you must also know (although you apparently forgot to tell us) that President Obama also wrote and signed a "Signing Statement" making it clear to all (except you) that he wouldn't enforce that part of the law.
I realize I have just given you a gift. I have found a way for you to blame President Obama for signing unConstitutional legislation and then promising to not follow the Constitution by not enforcing the unConstitutional law he just signed.
If President Obama had honored the Constitution and vetoed the defense bill, would you then blame him for putting our military forces at risk? Just asking.
It's not me drinking the liberal media koolaid that's the problem. The problem is you refusing to drink the Koolaid of *fact."
-Rezon1The bill Obama signed was not the same as under Bush. Mind you, I'm no fan of Bush either, as he certainly opened the door to the destruction of our Constitutional rights, but this bill allows indefinite detention of American citizens on American soil. If Obama really believed that it was an infringement on our Constitutional rights (which it is) all he had to do was simply not sign it until the offending portion was removed. No need to put any troops at risk.
So you want us to just "trust" Obama's signed statement, that could be easily changed by him or his predecessor? Yeah, right. And promising to not uphold a law that he just signed? Yep, that sounds like King Obama, socialist-in-chief.
-keyboardsharkkbs,
BTW, Protestants have there own doctrinal inventions. The word "Rapture" does not appear anywhere in the Bible. Neither does "Trinity."
-Rezon1I fully agree that those words themselves do not appear in the Bible. The doctines, however, do:
Rapture: "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." (I Thessalonians 4:15-17)
Trinity: " Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." (Luke 3:21-22) (Jesus=Son, Voice from heaven=Father, Holy Ghost=Holy Spirit)
-keyboardsharkSince Jesus is supposedly god and part of this trinity, in what way could the father god not be pleased with him? That would actually mean he was not pleased with himself.
However, Jesus, who is god and part of this trinity, was seemingly separated from himself at one point. Matt. 27:46, about the 9th hour that Jesus was on the cross, He "cried with a loud voice, saying, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' That is to say, 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?'"
How can an omnipresent god ever be separated from another aspect of an omnipresent god? How can one aspect of a god forsake another aspect of this same god? Was Jesus ever removed from the Trinity? If not, then in what way can it be said that he was separated from god, who is himself?
-Jeff DixonSame ol' trash from Jeff.
-Joe AnzilottiSame old nothing from you
-Jeff DixonJoe,
I am overwhelmed by your superb debating skills, your erudition, your ability to communicate great ideas with fact-filled conversation.
Do you give lessons in debate tactics?
-Rezon1That was actually one of his better replies.
-Jeff DixonWhere did you get the idea that the Father was not pleased with the Son? He said, "this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Matthew 3:17).
Yes, Jesus was seemingly separated from the FATHER (not Himself). I don't claim to understand fully how this could be either, but since God is eternal and all powerful, and exists as three distinct personalities, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we have to accept that it DID happen, whether we understand it or not.
-keyboardsharkI did not say he was not pleased. I said in what way could he not be pleased with him. It is himself after all.
You cannot understand it because it is nonsensical.
-Jeff DixonThere is no way that God could not be pleased with Himself. God exists as three separate personalities, yet God is one. So He speaks of the Son pleasing the Father in the sense that the Son is carrying out the work of the Father on earth during the time Jesus took on a human form.
Yes, I admit, it is difficult to understand, because we can only reason in finite terms since we are finite beings. God is infinite so we cannot expect to understand all there is to know about Him, nor do I presume to do so.
-keyboardsharkIf a concept is nonsensical, it is not a matter of not being able to understand it. It is that the idea cannot be understood. It is like the idea of a round square. It does not matter what is not understood about the concept, the reality is that the object cannot exist.
-Jeff DixonI never said the concept of God existing as three personalities or being pleased with the Son was nonsensical. I said it was difficult to understand.
For example, I'm sure you've heard of black holes, a region of spacetime from which nothing, not even light, can escape. Black holes of stellar mass are expected to form when very massive stars collapse at the end of their life cycle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
Is this easy to understand? No, yet scientists tell us it is a true phenomena. Is it nonsensical? Well, not if you're a scientist, I would guess.
-keyboardsharkThere is nothing nonsensical about the concept of a black hole. Nonsensical means that the idea is absurd. A black hole is not an absurd idea. It is a gravitational force, and gravity is a normal part of the universe.
However, the trinity is an absurd idea. It is claiming that an all powerful and perfect god is actually divided into three equal parts. It makes this claim while pretending to be a monotheistic religion. It makes this claim even thou Jesus states that the god father is superior to himself.
Mark 10:18
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God
Jesus as god is supposedly all knowing. However, there are things he does not know. He does not know when he will return.
Matthew 24:36
36“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
As a child he grew in wisdom.
Luke 2:52
New International Version (NIV)
52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.
If he grew in wisdom that means he learned new information, information that he was unaware of previously.
The property of being all-knowing also conflicts with the moral attributes usually attributed to God. For if God is omniscient, He has knowledge by acquaintance of all aspects of lust and envy. Now one aspect of lust is the feeling of lust and one aspect of envy is the feeling of envy. However, part of the concept of God is that He is morally perfect and being morally perfect excludes these feelings. Consequently, the concept of God is incoherent.
In addition, God's omniscience conflicts with God's omnipotence. Since God is omnipotent He cannot experience fear, frustration, and despair. In order to have these experiences one must believe that one is limited in power, but since God is all-knowing and all-powerful, He knows that He is not limited in power. Consequently, He cannot have complete knowledge by acquaintance of all aspects of fear, frustration and despair. On the other hand, since God is omniscient He must have this knowledge. Again the concept of God is shown to be absurd.
-Jeff DixonPART 1 (still don't have Google Chrome yet)
There is one God but He reveals Himself as three persons. In Genesis 1:1, where it says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." the word used for ' is 'God' is 'elohiym', which is a plural word, and this word is used hundreds of times throughout the New Testament. Right in the very first verse of the Bible we can already see the trinity.
The problem is you are thinking in physical terms. Of course it would be absurd for a single human being to actually be 3 separate persons (not thinking they were, as in schizophrenia), but the eternal God of the Bible does not exist in a limited, physical form but rather as a spirit.
-keyboardsharkPART 2
When the Father sent the Son to earth, He temporarily took on the form of a human, so it can seem that He ceased being God because He was born as an infant and still had to learn things from His parents, which would make sense from a human standpoint. A baby is not born with the ability to speak fluently as an adult, for example, and Jesus being constrained by His temporary humanity would have had to 'learn' thaing that any infant would.
However, as God, Jesus could not sin as ordinary humans would, but would still carry out the ordinary functions of a human, such as eating, sleeping, etc. There is nothing inherently sinful about ordinary activities of living.
-keyboardsharkPART 3
You claim the verse you quote, "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God" is equivalent to Jesus saying the Father is superior to Himself. You must really be reading between the lines to come up with that one. He is simply saying that God is good, not that He Himself isn't.
Asking the question, "Why callest thou me good? " doesn't mean He thinks He isn't good. You are reading that implication into it. He is asking the reason why they say that, not that there is some question as to whether He is good. Nor does it imply that He is not God, as some claim. He is simply saying that no one is good except God.
As for your analysis of god's omniscience, we seem to be back to the circular argument that since there are things that God cannot do, like sin or experience fear, because of limits He places on Himself, then He cannot be omniscient. The better question to ask is, Is God limited by anything external to Himself? The answer is no, so therefore He is omniscient.
-keyboardsharkSanity is not free. It must be bought with a considerable price. Jefferson's one request for his tombstone is that he founded the (free) University of Virginia. No mention of his having been president, because learning about reality was his #1 ambition, and providing the same for others. He wrote to British scientist Joseph Priestley: "We wish to establish in the upper country of Virginia, and more centrally for the State, a University on a plan so broad and liberal and modern, as to be worth patronizing with the public support, and be a temptation to the youth of other States to come and drink of the cup of knowledge and fraternize with us."
-ProudPrimatePretty awesome, wasn't he?
-davesWe need to carry his burden for America and for Freedom every day of our lives. He surely belongs there on Mt. Rushmore. Freedom — of the mind. Do you know his quote from a letter written to Benjamin Rush in 1800 in response to Rush's warning about the Philadelphia clergy attacking Jefferson (Jefferson was seen as an infidel by his enemies during his election for President)? The complete statement reads as follows:
"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . ."
Funny to see a small, incomplete truncated clip of this quote first on Google hits, at Pat Robertson's website! LOL
-ProudPrimateWas that really "the cup of knowledge", or was it only "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"??? When Jefferson cut all the miracles out of the Bible, he sealed his own fate.
-NoreenFear of God is the beginning (pre-requisite) of knowledge…
Jefferson struggled with his belief, probably because he did not trust the monarch or the translators that were hired to make the then common English translation. However, he did not espouse it in his life, nor teach it outside his own family. While plagued with his doubts about what was and wasn't God's word in the bible he held in his hands, his actions, his decisions, his governing showed that he still desired to honor the God of the Bible. God alone can discern Jefferson's heart.
-PaulThat tree you refer to — was it an evergreen or a deciduous tree? Are there any still growing in the world, do you know? Or if not, is there any fossil record of it? LOL
I think if you will be objective, you will see that it is, by the very structure of its name, obviously an allegorical tree. And if you study primitive people and their religions, you will find that their religious beginnings are widely known to have their "roots" in the flora of the forest, i.e., plants and especially fungi. It is extremely likely that the origins of the religious experience are almost universally (back in the shadows of prehistory, of course, in the cases of major religions of today, but still observable in the jungles of South America, Pacific islands and Central Asia) shamanistic and predicated on pharmacology, the experience of which challenges the mind's ability to think rationally, and is an excellent breeding ground for elaborate fantastic visions. The greatest likelihood is the "the tree of knowledge" was about 4 inches high, red in color, and speckled with the flecks of the volva that burst as it grew out of the ground. http://www.ambrosiasociety.org/the_fruit_of_the_t…
-ProudPrimateI thought Washington said he hadn't darkend the door of a masonic lodge for decades…the painting of him in masonic garb was unauthorized.
-Dale"Washington was indisputably a Freemason:
'Washington had served as Grand Master [actually Worshipful Master7] of the Alexandria [Virginia] lodge in 1788 and 1789. When he was inaugurated President of the U.S., he was therefore a Grand [Worshipful] Master, the only Mason to be inaugurated President while serving as a Grand [Worshipful] Master….
'As President, he … never wavered in his attachment to Masonry. …Washington wrote: “Being persuaded that a just application of the principles, on which the Masonic Fraternity is founded, must be promotive of private virtue and public prosperity, I shall always be happy to advance the interests of the Society, and to be considered by them as a deserving brother.”….
'John Eidsmoe, in his book-length attempt to defend the Constitution as a Christian document, takes seriously Washington’s outright lie – it can be nothing else – in a letter to G.W. Snyder in 1798, that he had not been in a Masonic lodge “more than once or twice in the last thirty years.” One does not become the Grand [Worshipful] Master of a lodge by attending services once or twice over thirty years, but one can certainly fool two centuries of Christian critics by lying through one’s wooden teeth about it.' (Gary North, "Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism" (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) pp. 422-24.)
"Washington, although hardly a Christian, was a Freemason of the rankest sort. 'Testimony given by Timothy Bigelow in a eulogy before the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts two months after Washington’s death indicates that Washington’s Masonic experience was more than perfunctory.' (Robert Heironimus, "Founding Fathers, Secret Societies: Freemasons, Illuminati, Rosicrucians, and the Decoding of the Great Seal" (Rochester, VT: Destiny Books, 2006) p. 44.)
'The information received from our Brethren who had the happiness to be members of the Lodge over which he presided for many years, and of which he died the Master, furnishes abundant proof of his persevering zeal for the prosperity of the Institution. Constant and punctual in his attendance, scrupulous in his observance of the regulations of the Lodge, and solicitous, at all times, to communicate light and instruction, he discharged the duties of the chair with uncommon dignity and intelligence in all the mysteries of our art.' (Albert G. Mackey, "Revised Encyclopedia of Freemasonry" 3 vols. (New York: Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply, 1966) vol. 2, p. 1095, quoted in Robert Heironimus, "Founding Fathers, Secret Societies: Freemasons, Illuminati, Rosicrucians, and the Decoding of the Great Seal" (Rochester, VT: Destiny Books, 2006) p. 44.)"
Excerpted from "Article 2: Executive Usurpation" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitut….
-TedRWeilandGeorge Washington, as a young man, was very ambitious. He was told that becoming a Mason might help him achieve his goals of enlarging his land ownership and possibly becoming an officer in the British army. Dale is correct in saying that GW did not attend meetings. In fact, he basically ignored his membership. After becoming famous, the Masons played up his membership, and even built a large Masonic monument to him in northern Virginia. But Washington was no Mason.
-JimDidn't he make statements renouncing them in later life, based on what he learned in the meantime?
-ProudPrimateMany who are members of the Masons didn't know what they were getting into, and joined as young, ambitious men. Little did they know they would pledge allegience to the demonic trinity of Jah, Baal, and Osiris. However, they did take a "blood oath" of terrible consequences when they joined, and only God knows whether they will be damned as a result. If not renounced publicly, the spiritual implications of that blood oath will affect them all their lives. I've known several practicing Masons, and each one suffered a premature, gruesome death.
-believeOf course, no Christian has ever suffered a premature, gruesome death. Only believers in false gods suffer that.
-Jeff DixonI didn't mean to imply that only Masons are open to judgment. God is the Judge of ALL….even Christians. It's not for us to determine why bad things happen to seemingly good people. God is the "discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." However, God's judgment is not without mercy. He judges us so that we may not be condemned at the great judgment day. "He who has suffered in the flesh has stopped sinning", and God "delivers some to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the soul may be saved"….. God judges us so that we can examine ourselves, repent, turn back to Him, and be saved for Eternity!
-believeWashington joined the Masons just as men today join the Masons, not out of any particular religious motivation, but as a means to gain an advantage in employment or social standing or as an "adult" carryover from the secret little boys' clubs of their youth.
-bighossAnybody every read a promise book. It has many verses cut and pasted into a document arranged by topic. How would someone have done it in the past. Jefferson's Bible is a concise read of principals he thought important. Sounds like he applied the Bible to his life.
-westo proud premate your absolutley correct these people who try there best to Discradit the true American Founders of thin U S A will stop at nothing Only Because they Know the Founding Fathers Are Dead and gone and Can not DEfend themselves and if they were not Dead the Cowards in The White house wold Have the trouthers Assanated like they Did The Two Kinnedys John and Robert as well as Jonn John.with the Kinnedys in office we woldent Have the comunist Gun Controol Fanatics trying to Take the Guns From the American People so they Can Controol the People Like they Did to the Jews Under the Controol Of Hitler onlu this is Now Tacking Place Under the Obama Adminastration in America today Wake Up America.
-robertDo you speak English? You certainly cannot write it!
-MargaretWhat?! Jefferson took verses out of the bible he didn't like? Hmm, sounds familiar.
-HurricaneAre you talking about Constantine and the church?
-davesAn institute, founded on Hitler’s command, rewrote Bible texts, eliminating all mentions of the special role of the Jewish people. According to Hitler’s version, Christ was an advocate of Aryan ideas. Sections from the Nazi Bible will be published by German publication Bild on Thursday.
In May 1939, on the Furher’s command, a theological institute was founded in Eisenach with the purpose of contributing to “dejewification”. Its employees edited biblical texts, removing non-Aryan passages. Dozens of works printed by the institute were published in over 100 thousand copies of the new Holy Scripture. It was assumed that this work would become a standard household book amongst Germans.
http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/10-08-2006/…
Many Protestant scholars have questioned or denied the correctness of the Protestant canon. John Calvin, founder of Presbyterianism, doubted Second and Third John and Revelation. Erasmus doubted Hebrews, Second and Third John, and Revelation. Davidson thinks that Esther should be excluded from the canon, Eichorn rejected Daniel and Jonah in the Old Testament, and Second Timothy and Titus in the New.
Dr. Whiston excluded the Song of Solomon, and accepted as canonical more than twenty books not found in the Bible. He says: "Can anyone be so weak as to imagine Mark, and Luke, and James, and Jude, who were none of them more than companions of the Apostles, to be our sacred and unerring guides, while Barnabas, Thaddeus, Clement, Timothy, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who were equally companions of the same Apostles, to be of no authority at all?" (Exact Time, p. 28).
The Rev. James Martineau, of England, says: "If we could recover the Gospel of the Hebrews, and that of the Egyptians, it would be difficult to give a reason why they should not form a part of the New Testament; and an epistle by Clement, the fellow laborer of Paul, which has as good a claim to stand there as the Epistle to the Hebrews, or the Gospel of Luke." (Rationale of Religious Enquiry).
Archbishop Wake pronounces the writings of the Apostolic Fathers "inspired," and says that they contain "an authoritative declaration of the Gospel of Christ" (Apostolic Fathers).
The Church of Latter Day Saints, numbering one half million adherents, and including some able Bible scholars, believe that the modern Book of Mormon is a part of God’s Word, equal in authority and importance to the Pentateuch or the Four Gospels.
Martin Luther
The greatest name in the records of the Protestant church is Martin Luther. He is generally recognized as its founder; he is considered one of the highest authorities on the Bible; he devoted a large portion of his life to its study; he made a translation of it for his people, a work which is accepted as one of the classics of German literature. With Luther the Bible superseded the church as a divine authority. And yet this greatest of Protestants rejected no less than six of the sixty-six books composing the Protestant Bible.
Luther rejected the book of Esther. He says: "I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist." In his "Bondage of the Will," he severely criticises the book.
He rejected the book of Jonah. He says: "The history of Jonah is so monstrous as to be absolutely incredible." (Colloquia, Chap. LX., Sec. 10).
He rejected Hebrews: "The Epistle to the Hebrews is not by St. Paul; nor, indeed, by any apostle." (Standing Preface to Luther’s New Testament).
He rejected the Epistle of James: "St. James' Epistle is truly an epistle of straw." (Preface to Edition of 1524).
He rejected Jude. “The Epistle of Jude,” he says, “allegeth stories and sayings which have no place in Scripture." (Standing Preface).
He rejected Revelation. He says: "I can discover no trace that it is established by the Holy Spirit." (Preface to Edition of 1622).
-Jeff Dixonhttp://freethought.mbdojo.com/canon.html
Jeff,
You should know that Martin Luther was a raging Anti-Semite. He wrote and believed that one could do anything one wanted to Jews and it was all right including entering their homes and taking any property one wanted and beating them senseless. He got his ideas from the New Testament: "perfidious Jews," "Let His blood be upon our heads" and other anti-Semitic passages. Based on Luther's anti-Semitism it's no wonder he rejected Paul's letter to the Hebrews.
-Rezon1I am very aware of that. Much of Hitler's hatred can be traced to Luther's writings as well.
However, that does not change my point that the bible is often rewritten.
Contrary to the often expressed view that the bible never changes, the reality is that it is changed all the time.
-Jeff DixonJeff,
Correct. Few modern Christianists know that there was great division in the early church. There were more "sects" of Christianity then than now. The authors of Matthew and Luke were trying to replace Mark and destroy every copy they could find. We know Paul and Peter had a huge disagreement.
-Rezon1Jeff, one minor correction from your long post. What you copied is quite old. The "Church of Latter Day Saints" (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) is no longer 1/2 million. It is over 28 times that today and growing.
-VladimirThere is no lack of gullible people in the world.
-Jeff DixonJefferson did nothing more than many people do today. He opened up his Bible and erased the things he didn't like and penciled in what he wanted to keep. That is Satan's device also and nothing more than symptoms of a rebellious heart.
-John J FlanaganUnfortunately Mr. Flanagan is right in that most people today pick and choose what they wish to believe from the Bible, but the Bible says that the people that do this and change anything in His word are flirting with destruction. It is sad that there will be NO atheists in hell; by then they will have been forced to believe the truth–too bad it will be too late for them to be saved. That being said it is still incumbant on us to continue to spread His love and truth with the aim of changing as many minds as possible.
-nursepatnursepat,
If you are a nurse, Thank You! You are doing important work and I honor your commitment and actions.
I have a similar though opposite thought. Suppose at the moment right after death there was a way to show believers that this life is all they ever had and they should have made the most of it rather than worshiping non-existent "gods" and investing all their hopes and dreams in a mythical eternity. The fact is, if I'm right, no one will ever know.
-Rezon1To change a mind is to change a life.
-believePART 1
They are not separate accounts. The Genesis 1:1-2:3 passage is a synopsis of the creation on a day-by-day account. Notice it starts with day one: "And the evening and the morning were the first day. " And the evening and the morning were the second day." ….."And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made;"
The Genesis 2:4-25 passage is merely giving us additional details. Genesis 2:4 is an obvious clue that it is talking about the same account just described in the previous verses: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created" (my emphasis)
-keyboardsharkThey are not just giving additional details. They are relaying the sequence of events in a different order.
-Jeff DixonThe second passage was not intended to be a chronological recounting of the creation, but rather an expansion of additional details that were not explained in the first passage. Just because the descriptions do not follow along in the same exact sequence as the actual days of creation does not mean it is a separate account.
In the second account, for example, it tells how man was formed, then describes the Garden of Eden. The order of mention does not mean that man was created before the plants, it is simply developing the chronological account from Genesis 1:1-2:3.
-keyboardsharkPART 2
Notice in the Genesis 1:1-2:3 passages, God is speaking in the present tense. In the second set of passages, God is not speaking in the present tense, but additional details about plants, rain, trees, etc. are given and it also gives us additional information as to how man was formed ("of the dust of the ground") which were not given in Gen. 1:1-2:3.
If they were separate accounts, God would also be speaking in the present tense and a day-by-day synopsis would be given in the second set of verses, but this is not the case. Giving additional details is not the equivalent of a 'separate account'.
-keyboardshark