The most abusive Christian phrase ...

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

What your quotes do provide is the reason why Jefferson, the main writer of the early documents that provided the foundation of our American experiment, was so anti-religion.

“It [the Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

[Jan 9, 1816 Letter to Charles Thomson]

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]

A man doesn't have to go to church to be religious. Jefferson was religious. Specifically, he was a Christian.

You obviously haven't read the Jefferson Bible. If you believed as Jefferson I would have little problem with your views. You are ignoring the fact that the god and the Jesus Jefferson was referring to are not the god and Jesus of the Bible. He was severely redefining what it meant to be a Christian.

When He was referring to god's justice, he was referring to a justice that was found through reason and observation. If you would read the material of Deism you would understand this.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

It's kind of strange how you do this free association with the Bible and then present it as fact.

Presenting the Word as fact seems more logical than the posits of those who disbelieve the Word.

This has nothing to do with logic or fact. By your own statement you refer to it as belief.

[John317]

I have a very good friend who's atheist and despises all religion, and he makes fun of Christians as "do-gooders." He thinks it's a waste of time to help people. If I stop to help some one or give them money, he just thinks it's foolish. Why? Because he doesn't see people as do. I see people as those whom God loves and for whom Jesus Christ gave his life. I see them as candidates for heaven and eternal life. I see them as of infinite worth because that's how God sees us. I don't know exactly how my friend sees them, but I know he doesn't view them as being of great inherent value. I didn't used to see them that way, either, but I do now, and the only reason for it is that I study and believe the Bible.

[Overaged]

My point is that we need special revelation. Apart from it we would have no certain knowledge of God. Logic or even worldly knowledge won't bring you understanding of God, certainly nothing about a God who loves you enough to give you the hope in the gospel. Through nature alone, no one would have any understanding of the creation of the world by a personal God who answers the prayers of those who put their faith in him. The only way, then, that we can really know Him and know His plans for this world and for us is through the Bible.

Your thoughts?

One book of the Bible starts out calling itself "the revelation of Jesus Christ," not as in just from Jesus, but also as in about Jesus. This means that "nature alone" cannot tell us all there is for us to know about God; however, it does not follow that the only way we can really know God is the Bible. The Bible supports the idea that we can learn of God through the things He has created. Faith is the evidence of things not seen; and it is easy to see this "evidence" in nature.

[cardw]

Have you ever compared the books of Moses with the Code of Hammurabi? Which laws would you rather under-- the Torah or the Code of Hammurabi?

What God was doing was leading people slowly along to the right ways. God doesn't come to you and tell you that you have to stop doing everything you're doing and eat differently than you're used to. He doesn't come and uproot your whole life. He works with us at the level where we are, just as a good parent does with small children.

In the case of Israel, they came out of Egypt and didn't have any knowledge of God. They were used to slavery and brutality. That's what they expected. What you seem to expect is that God would come to them and force upon them things and ideas they wouldn't have had the slightest understanding of. Our God isn't like that. He respects our individuality and our freedom. He respects our choices and takes them seriously.

[John317]

Quote:

Bravus: I've posted the slavery texts from Leviticus twice already and am now posting from my phone which makes searching back pages difficult. Maybe someone else could dig up and repost. It's true that part of the purpose was to mitigate Israelites owning Israelite slaves, but there are instructions about slavery throughout the OT, and they're not all mitigating, by all means. Perhaps I was overzealous in saying God 'commanded' it...

OK thanks, Bravus. God gave them rules to put a limit on the evil that would have been far greater if he hadn't given those rules. If you compare the OT with the laws of the people around them-- such as in Hammarabi's code-- you'll see how brutal and cruel those people were. They all had slavery. So God allowed them to have slavery but he gave them rules to help make the conditions better, and also to give slaves hope of freedom.

It would be kind of like a parent making a rule for a teen-age son who smokes that he can only have half a pack of cigarettes rather than letting him have a whole carton. You know he's going to get it anyway, and if you're not involved in his life, he will smoke himself to death, so you do what you can.

But you will notice that nowhere does God command people to have slaves. What He says is that if they are going to have them, the slave-owners must do such and such.

God did make laws that if obeyed would make the life of slaves much improved. And if the people really understood and accepted what God told them, they would soon see that owning slaves was contrary to God's plan and ideal for humanity. Abraham had servants but as you can tell from reading Genesis, Abraham treated his servants very well, as part of his family.

By the way, even though Paul tells servants to work hard for their Christian masters, Ellen White taught that owning slaves was a very great evil. So while God "winked" at certain evils, He won't always. He doesn't expect us to return to the sins of the past. He doesn't keep "winking."

Any of this make any sense?

[John317]

Quote:

Overaged: This means that "nature alone" cannot tell us all there is for us to know about God; however, it does not follow that the only way we can really know God is the Bible. The Bible supports the idea that we can learn of God through the things He has created. Faith is the evidence of things not seen; and it is easy to see this "evidence" in nature.

What exacttly can you learn of God solely through the things He has made? Could you be sure there is a personal God who has love for human beings and for the animals? If so, can you name anyone who came to that conclusion strictly on the basis of observing nature? Did Geronimo, for instance? Have you ever compared his life before he became a Christian with what he was like after he was a Christian. (His remarkable autobiography is online, at least it was.)

I think without the Bible we would have no way of knowing what is true and what is false about God. Think of all the vaious ways that people have viewed God throughout history on the basis only of nature. Some were very cruel, offering thousands of human sacrifices every year because they thought God liked them. When you look closely at nature, you see lots of death and violence. What does this say about God-- that is, apart from the Bible?

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

Have you ever compared the books of Moses with the Code of Hammurabi? Which laws would you rather under-- the Torah or the Code of Hammurabi?

What God was doing was leading people slowly along to the right ways. God doesn't come to you and tell you that you have to stop doing everything you're doing and eat differently than you're used to. He doesn't come and uproot your whole life. He works with us at the level where we are, just as a good parent does with small children.

In the case of Israel, they came out of Egypt and didn't have any knowledge of God. They were used to slavery and brutality. That's what they expected. What you seem to expect is that God would come to them and force upon them things and ideas they wouldn't have had the slightest understanding of. Our God isn't like that. He respects our individuality and our freedom. He respects our choices and takes them seriously.

Quote:

cardw: OH come on, this has no basis in reason or logic. They were SLAVES and would know what it meant to be a slave. What better time to remove slavery from the culture!!!

You're forgetting perhaps that all the ones who had been slaves died off in the desert. None of them except Joshua and Calab crossed the Jordan. So when they got into Palestine, they didn't have the personal experience of having been slaves. But they were surrounded by nations that had slavery, and they began to practice it too. But God set limits on their slavery and on how they could treat them.

Quote:

cardw: As far as codes go you are forgetting Jainism, a religion of non-violence that has existed even before Israel. Humans were capable of understanding much higher ethical codes.

Not sure where you got your information but Jainism didn't exist before Israel. Parshvanatha, the beginning teacher of Jainism, probably lived in the 9th Century BC. On the other hand, Israel came out of Egypt between 1445 and about 1200 BC.

But in any case, no one is saying those humans weren't intelligent. As far as pure intelligence (not information) is concerned, they were more intelligent (had more brain power) than we are. So it is not a question of whether they could "understand" something. It is a question of what they were accustomed to and what they wanted.

Even if we assume that a religion of non-violence was in existence before the Jews, I don't think it does much good to say that there was this religion before the Hebrews and therefore we can judge the Hebrews by that standard. That would like judging the indians of South America by the standards of the United States simply because they are human and live about the same time as we do.

Quote:

cardw: We actually have the book of the dead and the book of life from ancient Egypt and it's religion was at least equal or better than ancient Israel.

Personally, having studied those ancient religions, I would much prefer living under the Torah and God's rule than under the false religons of Egypt and India. Egypt worshipped the dead. Their religion was obsessed with death. My ideas are much more in line with the Jewish religon than with Jaisism and the Egyptians of that time. Jainism is all about the soul progressing up the ladder of spiritual consciousness. I simply do not believe in it any more than I believe in the Egyptian religion. I believe in the God of Israel, the God of the Old Testament and the New.

[Neil D]

If I didn't know we don't agree on everything, this thread would have got the job done (but I did so it didn't). Clear?

[karl]

You are ignoring the fact that the god and the Jesus Jefferson was referring to are not the god and Jesus of the Bible. He was severely redefining what it meant to be a Christian.

When He was referring to god's justice, he was referring to a justice that was found through reason and observation. If you would read the material of Deism you would understand this.

Didn't you say you were an agnostic, Rich? Why are you extolling a man that believed in a God of rewards and punishments? He was anti-Calvinist and anti-Trinitarian, but that does NOT mean he disbelieved the Bible or that he worshipped some other Christ than the Christ of the Bible.

It is preposterous to propose that Jefferson had made up his own Jesus.

----- Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June 26, 1822

Dear Sir,- I have received and read with thankfulness and pleasure your denunciation of the abuses of tobacco and wine. Yet, however sound in its principles, I expect it will be but a sermon to the wind. You will find it as difficult to inculcate these sanative precepts on the sensualities of the present day, as to convince an Athanasian that there is but one God. I wish success to both attempts, and am happy to learn from you that the latter, at least, is making progress, and the more rapidly in proportion as our Platonizing Christians make more stir and noise about it. The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.

2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.

3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.

These are the great points on which he endeavored to reform the religion of the Jews. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.

1. That there are three Gods.

2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, are nothing.

3 That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit in its faith.

4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.

5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save.

Now, which of these is the true and charitable Christian? He who believes and acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus? Or the impious dogmatists, as Athanasius and Calvin?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

You are ignoring the fact that the god and the Jesus Jefferson was referring to are not the god and Jesus of the Bible. He was severely redefining what it meant to be a Christian.

When He was referring to god's justice, he was referring to a justice that was found through reason and observation. If you would read the material of Deism you would understand this.

Didn't you say you were an agnostic, Rich? Why are you extolling a man that believed in a God of rewards and punishments? He was anti-Calvinist and anti-Trinitarian, but that does NOT mean he disbelieved the Bible or that he worshipped some other Christ than the Christ of the Bible.

It is preposterous to propose that Jefferson had made up his own Jesus.

Red Herring Karl. Talk about willful ignorance. It takes just a summary reading to figure out that Jefferson was a Deist.

Jefferson so completely redefined Jesus and Christianity that he wrote his own Bible.

Link on Jefferson Bible.

Link on Deism

[cardw]

Quote:

You're forgetting perhaps that all the ones who had been slaves died off in the desert.

Oh and god was incapable of instituting a anti-slavery policy before this. If god's instruction was so great how come Buddha figured out that blessed are the meek for they will inherit the earth 500 years before Jesus shows up?

If god's program was so great how come Jainists figured out non-violence in the 9th century and the Jews still hadn't figured that even when Jesus showed up?

If god's program was so great how come Jainists figured out that women had equal access to god 300 years before Jesus and Christians still haven't figured that out?

John, you just keep making up stuff simply because there is no amount of evidence that will convince you that the Bible is simply an ancient book written about ancient ethics. You keep avoiding the hard questions. That is why most Christian apologetics are completely unconvincing. They simply ignore what they can't explain.

[cardw]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

cardw: We actually have the book of the dead and the book of life from ancient Egypt and it's religion was at least equal or better than ancient Israel.

Personally, having studied those ancient religions, I would much prefer living under the Torah and God's rule than under the false religons of Egypt and India. Egypt worshipped the dead. Their religion was obsessed with death.

And having the death penalty for almost every infraction wasn't being obsessed with death? At least the Egyptians obsessed with death after you were dead.

Totalitarianism was expressed under Russian communism by having a rule for everything. You had to think a certain way, act a certain way, work a certain way, raise your family a certain way, listen to the right music, create the right art, etc. etc. It was oppressive and drained the life out of everything.

Living in ancient Israel under those laws would have drained the life out of almost everything. It would be much like living in Iran under Islamic law and much like living in communist Russia.

Growing up in the SDA church in my generation was totalitarian because with the volumes of "council" coming from Ellen White there was a rule guiding every thought and action. In addition to Ellen White's actual books and articles, there was the multitude of interpretations and obsessive application to perfect everyone's character.

Instead of a death penalty hovering over everyone, there was the threat of the close of probation which could have happened at anytime because the world was going to hell in a hand basket. Everyone outside the SDA church was really really bad to the bone, controlled by Satan and everyone who was a loyal SDA was really really good as long as they kept saying they were really really bad and sinful and prayed to god to help perfect their characters.

All of these are essentially brain washing and operant conditioning. It takes years to undo because even though your brain figures out that it's ridiculous, your body still reacts in fear because of the conditioning. It simply takes the trigger phrases to create the response. And in Adventism there are a lot of trigger phrases.

So this idea that god had this great totalitarian system for the ancient Israelites really bears no resemblance to the facts.

[abelisle]

Quote:

John3:17: Do you believe we can know anything about God apart from Scripture? If God didn't reveal Himself to us in the Bible, could we come to know Him by any other means?

Quote:

abelisle: Read the first few paragraphs in Steps to Christ. Nature mysticism has been around for a l-o-n-g time!

Yes, I know the book well. But you'll notice that she doesn't say we can learn the truth about God by looking at nature alone. We need God's guide book. As we study the world religions and the primitive cultures, we notice people have arrived at all kinds of wrong concepts of God on the basis of what they believe they learn from nature. The basic problem with nature is that it is fallen and perverted by sin, and man's entire nature and mind are also fallen. There is lots of killing going on in nature. Without the Bible, then, you would draw the wrong conclusions concerning nature and concerning nature's God. In fact, you might even conclude that nature and God are one and the same. For instance, millions have concluded from nature that God is pleased with human sacrifices and with all sorts of other evil things. There is good reason, therefore, to believe that nature per se is not a reliable guide to understanding God.

My point is that we need special revelation. Apart from it we would have no certain knowledge of God. Logic or even worldly knowledge won't bring you understanding of God, certainly nothing about a God who loves you enough to give you the hope in the gospel. Through nature alone, no one would have any understanding of the creation of the world by a personal God who answers the prayers of those who put their faith in him. The only way, then, that we can really know Him and know His plans for this world and for us is through the Bible.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are 1) you are correct in stipulating that EGW didn't say we can learn about God from nature alone 2) before there was a Bible, how did people know God? 3) is God dependent on the Bible? if there were no Bible, would God even exist? 4) what are the characteristecs of "special revelation"? does this imply an ineffable, mysterious preternatural power to make the Bible work? 5) isn't this very line of questioning anthropomorphic, assuming God has limitations as to how He can reveal himself

Alex

[cardw]

Quote:

On the contrary, the Isrealites DID take the virgins for themselves...Just that the 'vengence' that God had in mind was different than what the leaders spoke/insisted upon....

And what loving vengeance did god have in mind?

[Overaged]

Quote:

On the contrary, the Isrealites DID take the virgins for themselves...Just that the 'vengence' that God had in mind was different than what the leaders spoke/insisted upon....

And what loving vengeance did god have in mind?

It's called "tough love" - giving people what they want; what they themselves have chosen.

[Overaged]

Overaged: This means that "nature alone" cannot tell us all there is for us to know about God; however, it does not follow that the only way we can really know God is the Bible. The Bible supports the idea that we can learn of God through the things He has created. Faith is the evidence of things not seen; and it is easy to see this "evidence" in nature.

What exacttly can you learn of God solely through the things He has made? Could you be sure there is a personal God who has love for human beings and for the animals? If so, can you name anyone who came to that conclusion strictly on the basis of observing nature? Did Geronimo, for instance? Have you ever compared his life before he became a Christian with what he was like after he was a Christian. (His remarkable autobiography is online, at least it was.)

I think without the Bible we would have no way of knowing what is true and what is false about God. Think of all the vaious ways that people have viewed God throughout history on the basis only of nature. Some were very cruel, offering thousands of human sacrifices every year because they thought God liked them. When you look closely at nature, you see lots of death and violence. What does this say about God-- that is, apart from the Bible?

You talk about "looking closely at nature" yet only mention "death and violence." Do you also subscribe to the insurance company label "act of God?" Some will see thorns - some will see roses. All I know is that when ever I go for a walk into nature; I see signs of our Creator in all that He has made. Even if it's Wednesday; I still feel like it is Sabbath when I get out into the woods. Doesn't the Bible say we can learn about God through the things He has made? Take Isaiah 40:31 for one of hundreds of examples. I once stood on a mountain top and watched a great eagle soaring amongst the peaks and valleys during a mountain storm. And then that verse literally came alive; Christ spoke to me through something He made - even in the storm. (part of the death and violence you mention). Of course, it goes without saying that where available, and possible, the Bible is to be used to validate our experiences.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

On the contrary, the Isrealites DID take the virgins for themselves...Just that the 'vengence' that God had in mind was different than what the leaders spoke/insisted upon....

And what loving vengeance did god have in mind?It's called "tough love" - giving people what they want; what they themselves have chosen.

That's pretty creative redefining vengeance as tough love. It's dishonest, but creative.

According to the story, the Israelites didn't want to kill the non-combatants at first. It was god through his prophet that ordered everyone except for the virgins be killed. So I'm not sure what god is giving here that they wanted.

This really wise god seems to think that having people participate in genocidal violence is going to really teach them a lesson.

I guess my parents were remiss in their training of me because they didn't order me to beat the [censored] out of my brother when I wanted to. LOL

[karl]

Jefferson so completely redefined Jesus and Christianity that he wrote his own Bible.

Thomas Jefferson believed that the pure-principled teachings of Jesus should have been separated from the dogma and abuse of organized religion of the day.

I agree with him that religion pure and undefiled is more based on the red letters than on any other part of the Bible.

EGW did, too, when she wrote "Desire of Ages."

When Jefferson wrote "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" (the Jefferson Bible) he did not redefine Christianity. He simply rearranged the narrative by cutting and pasting to underline what he believed to be principles of true Christianity.

He was opposed to stuff in organized religions of the day that I am opposed to, as well. This does not make him a non-Christian.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Jefferson so completely redefined Jesus and Christianity that he wrote his own Bible.

Thomas Jefferson believed that the pure-principled teachings of Jesus should have been separated from the dogma and abuse of organized religion of the day.

When Jefferson wrote "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" (the Jefferson Bible) he did not redefine Christianity. He simply rearranged the narrative by cutting and pasting to underline what he believed to be principles of true Christianity.

He was opposed to stuff in organized religions of the day that I am opposed to, as well. This does not make him a non-Christian.

Well, Jefferson removed the miracle stories because he did not believe them to be true and he certainly did not believe that Jesus was the Savior of the World or god.

He saw the morality of Jesus as the essential truth. So if that is still Christian to you then fine.

[John317]

Quote:

abelisle:

My thoughts are 1) you are correct in stipulating that EGW didn't say we can learn about God from nature alone 2) before there was a Bible, how did people know God?

The book of Genesis tells the answer. God spoke directly to Adam and Eve, to Cain, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses.

The ancient peoples living before the Flood were able to talk to Adam until his death, and then to people who had talked to Adam, so they had direct sources if they were interested. But notice that this didn't necessarily make things better, as they went on rebelling and disbelieving. See the consequences in Gen. 5 to 9. In Patriarch and Prophets, Ellen White talks about what the people did in those times. They got all kinds of false ideas from nature because they rejected the knowledge of God that they had through witnesses like Adam, Enoch, Methusala, and Noah. People do the same thing when they rejected special revelation, i.e. the Scriptures.

Quote:

abelisle: 3) is God dependent on the Bible?

God could do anything He wants in terms of communicating with us, but He won't violate our freedom of choice, or force us to believe in Him or accept Him. He could choose to communicate vocally and individually with every person alive, but that would force people to believe in Him when they don't want Him.

He chooses to use the Bible, although there are times when He still communicates with people through dreams. See the answer to the last question as well, since it's related to this one.

Quote:

abelisle: if there were no Bible, would God even exist?

If He exists at all, He would exist whether a Bible exists or not. Also, if He exists, He's always existed, and that necessarily means He's existed for an eternity before the Bible was written. It also means that He will go on existing throughout eternity after the Bible is no longer needed. The Bible is only needed during the time between Gen. 3 and Rev. 20, when human beings are separated from God due to the Fall. Once humans are restored to Eden, we won't need to communicate through the Bible because the Creator Himself will live with us.

Quote:

abelisle: 4) what are the characteristecs of "special revelation"?

Special revelation is basically what we know today as the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy, i.e., the writings of Ellen White on the basis of the dreams and visions that God gave to her and which the Spirit was given to her in order to record them.

Much the same kind of process was used in the writing of the Bible as Ellen White used.

Check out 1 Selected Messages 25 to 45, which discuss inspiration. Also see Isaiah 6; Jeremiah 43-45; and the books of Daniel and Revelation. These are examples of how God revealed Himself to various individuals and of how they wrote down what God had shown them.

Quote:

abelisle: does this imply an ineffable, mysterious preternatural power to make the Bible work?

Not sure what you mean by "make the Bible work." Are you talking about what occurs in the process of writing or what happens to make the Bible "work" for readers after it's written?

The short answer is that the Holy Spirit is needed for both processes. Anyone can open the Bible and read it, of course, but in order to understand it and have its messages affective in the life, one needs the Holy Spirit. Both are supernatural works. It's important to realize we're dependant on God for understanding and accepting it. The Holy Spirit in our lives is the only reason we have a desire to study it and a desire for God to teach us.

Quote:

abelisle: 5) isn't this very line of questioning anthropomorphic, assuming God has limitations as to how He can reveal himself

He can reveal Himself in any way He chooses, so the "limitations" we're talking about are self-imposed and are due primarily to our limitations, i.e., the fact that we are sinful. He does reveal Himself in nature by the things that He has made but we have to remember that those things are not as they were when He made them, and our minds are also imperfect and sinful. All this means that without the Bible and the Holy Spirit guiding our minds, humans can't interpret nature in the right way so as to get an accurate and true picture of God's character. That's why it was necessary for God to reveal Himself through special revelation.

Hope this helps a little. :-)

[karl]

Well, Jefferson removed the miracle stories because he did not believe them to be true and he certainly did not believe that Jesus was the Savior of the World or god.

"Our Saviour... has taught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and to leave motives to Him who can alone see into them." --Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 1824. ME 16:55

Rich, how can you be so incorrect on your assertions about the beliefs of Jefferson? Maybe you've got too much faith in your fellow atheists' perceptions?

[Overaged]

quote=Overaged]I'm not sure how accurate it is to label someone "dishonest" because you don't like what they say. What you mentioned re your brother would not have been "tough love" in fact it would not have been "love" of any kind.

[LifeHiscost]

I think without the Bible we would have no way of knowing what is true and what is false about God. Think of all the vaious ways that people have viewed God throughout history on the basis only of nature. Some were very cruel, offering thousands of human sacrifices every year because they thought God liked them. When you look closely at nature, you see lots of death and violence. What does this say about God-- that is, apart from the Bible?

I cannot begin to express my appreciation for the personal testimony you have in how God has met your needs at times in your life when the one's who see themselves as "good enough to get into heaven" on their own righteousness, would more often than not have passed by on the other side and left you to die in the bed you had made for yourself.

I hope I haven't ruined the gratefulness I truly feel, by trying to put too much into that last sentence I wrote, for I see a perfect example of the glory of God being evident in your life as He used His servants, dedicated to Him, to bring His body of believers to the fullness of perfection through the enemies best efforts to destroy God's chosen.

I speak not just of Adventists but all who put their trust in the God Who is Love, despite the best efforts of those who have joined the enemy of His righteousness.

I am extremely saddened to see many despising the joy of Jesus as expressed in His efforts to save all Who depend upon Him alone for entrance into eternal habitations.

"“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing." John 15:5 NKJV

"‘ And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions,Your old men shall dream dreams."Acts 2:17 NKJV

"For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God." Romans 10:3 NKJV

It remains up to us whom we will choose to glorify, whether the God of all peace or of man's own efforts.

"But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all" Acts 10:35,36 NKJV

Blessings!!

[John317]

Quote:

cardw: Well, Jefferson removed the miracle stories because he did not believe them to be true and he certainly did not believe that Jesus was the Savior of the World or god.

He saw the morality of Jesus as the essential truth. So if that is still Christian to you then fine.

There are Christians who don't believe the miracles were literal or that Jesus was actually God. Many of the foremost thought-leaders in 20th century Christianity did not believe these things, or at least were skeptical. I don't believe they are "Christian" in the NT sense but they considered/consider themselves as Christians and they are part of the history of the church.

We have to remember that while Jefferson was a obviously a highly intelligent man, he was not a biblical scholar and didn't have access to all the biblical evidence, i.e., linguistic tools and ancient manuscripts, that we have today. Whether that additional knowledge would have changed his viewpoint, I can't be certain, but I suspect it would have, since some of the NT manuscripts are dated to the time of the Apostle John. Jefferson believed some things about the New Testament and about Jesus that he no doubt wouldn't believe today if took into consideration all that we have learned in the last 100 years or so.

It's obvious that Jefferson considered the NT to be of great importance and that he admired Jesus of Nazareth. Her said of Jesus that "his system of morality was the most benevolent and sublime probably that has ever been taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the ancient philosophers... [Jesus was] the most innocent, the most benevolent, the most eloquent and sublime character that ever has been exhibited to man." See Jefferson's letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly, April 9, 1803.

Jefferson said, "I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other... He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of only one God, and giving them juster notions of his attributes and government." Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, With Syllabus, April 21, 1803.

I think if he were living today, Jefferson would either have to believe what Jesus taught about Himself or else Jefferson would have to say Jesus was a liar and not a good man. Christ can't be both an innocent and benevolent man as well as just another human like any other. That doesn't harmonize with what we know about Him.

There's no reason that I've seen to believe Jefferson doubted the existence of the man Jesus.

Question: Why did Jefferson believe what Jesus said about "the only God" and about God's attributes and government, but reject the other words and acts of Jesus?

Do you believe a good, innocent, and benevolent man taught lies about God? Was the man who taught the most benevolent and submlime system of morality that has ever been taught, more perfect than those of any of the ancient philosophers and the most innocent, the most eloquent and sublime character that ever has been exhibited"--- was this man, the most outstanding in all history, simply mistaken in what He said about God and about Himself?

Also, on what basis can it be stated categorically that Jesus never claimed to be anything but a mere human being? Jefferson said that he believes this, but he doesn't explain why he believes it. Is it because he simply did not believe it could be true, in the same way that he believed the miracles could not be true?

Is it possible that Jefferson was wrong and Jesus right?