Jefferson's Bible

[Lek]

You probably should.  Even though when you dismiss all the jesus miracle shit what you are left with is standard-fare Hellenistic philosophy common at the time.

I don't dismiss the miracles, fulfilled prophesies or eyewitness testimonies from Peter and John.

[Joods]

You mean Jesus, right? As for your Christ, you might want to acquaint yourself with Jefferson's dim view of your boy, Paul.

I am well aware of Jeffersons thoughts on Christ as an Anglican. He followed what Anglicans believed. There is commentary concerning the 'jefferson bible.' that Jefferson cut out parts that could not otherwise be supported.. but again that is just commentary to try and push the atheism angle of Thomas Jefferson that He Himself spent much time and effort refuting. To the point of abandoning his efforts compiling his own literary work "the Philosphy/and the morals of Jesus Christ." recently renamed the "Jefferson bible".

pot = kettle right?

I mean, isn't that what theists do when their precious holy book is challenged for it's inconsistencies, barbaric laws and imaginary fairy tales? You all make commentary on every part that cannot otherwise be supported. Just commentary to try and push the christian agenda of getting more people brainwashed into believing in a magical sky daddy who refuses to show his face to "his people".

God is the undefeated champion of hide and seek.

[Crossless2.0]

You probably should.  Even though when you dismiss all the jesus miracle shit what you are left with is standard-fare Hellenistic philosophy common at the time.

I don't dismiss the alleged miracles, alleged fulfilled prophesies or alleged eyewitness testimonies from "Peter" and "John".

Fixed that for you.

[The Grand Nudger]

You probably should.  Even though when you dismiss all the jesus miracle shit what you are left with is standard-fare Hellenistic philosophy common at the time.

I don't dismiss the miracles, fulfilled prophesies or eyewitness testimonies from Peter and John.

"Peter" and "John" didn't write your gospels...so it hardly matters whether or not you believe they were eye-witnesses to whatever you think they saw. You believe, more accurately, in whatever it is that later, anonymous authors happened to scribble into the page at their masters behest...masters which you don't...as a point of fact, believe in today.

@Drich, obviously not....if he were an anglican he probably wouldn't have stated that he was in a sect all his own. If it makes you feel better to imagine that Jefferson had beliefs as retarded as yours..have at it, he did...just not about jesus.

[Lek]

"Peter" and "John" didn't write your gospels...so it hardly matters whether or not you believe they were eye-witnesses to whatever you think they saw.  You believe, more accurately, in whatever it is that later, anonymous authors happened to scribble into the page at their masters behest...masters which you don't...as a point of fact, believe in today.

Depends on which experts you listen to. John did write one of the gospels. Peter testified to what was in the gospels.

[Faith No More]

From Drich's first link, because apparently, he doesn't read them...

Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." In correspondence, he sometimes expressed confidence that the whole country would be Unitarian3, but he recognized the novelty of his own religious beliefs. On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles Ely, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

[dyresand]

Why do you do anything, Lek?  You believe in a dead jew coming back to life for your sins but Thomas Jefferson is too much for you?

Maybe you start with a mirror and figure yourself out?

He's not too much for me.  I think he was a good president and a great founding father.  I just don't look to him to determine my interpretation of the bible.

Even back then with Jefferson that should be a big hint to any believer that guy didn't believe in magic miracles or even jesus for that matter
he completely stripped the bible apart ripping out all the bullshit some people actually take as literal history. Even back then the founding fathers 
knew the bible itself was not a real written account or even plausible. Like with noahs ark see how much machinery and time and effort it makes
to build a ship of that size in the amount of time it is taken for ken hams ark to be built noah and his family would have been dead by now 
and his ark is still not even completed.

[The Grand Nudger]

Depends on which experts you listen to.  John did write one of the gospels.  Peter testified to what was in the gospels.

No, it doesn't.

[Esquilax]

"Peter" and "John" didn't write your gospels...so it hardly matters whether or not you believe they were eye-witnesses to whatever you think they saw.  You believe, more accurately, in whatever it is that later, anonymous authors happened to scribble into the page at their masters behest...masters which you don't...as a point of fact, believe in today.

Depends on which experts you listen to.  John did write one of the gospels.  Peter testified to what was in the gospels.

Just a hint: you should listen to the experts able to support their views, not the ones whose views align with what you want to be supported. The fact that you're taking this like it's all up to interpretation suggests you're attempting the latter.

[GrandizerII]

"Peter" and "John" didn't write your gospels...so it hardly matters whether or not you believe they were eye-witnesses to whatever you think they saw.  You believe, more accurately, in whatever it is that later, anonymous authors happened to scribble into the page at their masters behest...masters which you don't...as a point of fact, believe in today.

Depends on which experts you listen to.  John did write one of the gospels.  Peter testified to what was in the gospels.

Which experts tell you the beloved John actually wrong the Gospel of John? And based on what evidence, knowing that it wasn't ascribed to John until at least the second century?