Freethought & Rationalism Archive

No Robots · 03-14-2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Refusing to see any advances in understanding the Bible in the past few centuries and clinging to Jefferson's views might be characterized as a pathetic attempt to hang on to a dying creed.

My position is that the only thing missing from Jefferson is knowledge of Judaism. This is what Brunner supplies.

Toto · 03-14-2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Oh, yeah, and I'm hardly the only guy around here to be talking about Jefferson.

ETA - that search will disappear soon. You appear to have searched for Jefferson in the title of threads, and found 30 threads, mostly in in CSS and PD, but none in BCH, although two of the threads involved the Jefferson Bible.

But these thread include "Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address" "The Republican Party: Party of Jefferson Davis" "The Jefferson Memorial" "What was William Jefferson Clinton?" "Remove Jefferson and Lincoln from money!"

And I am not sure why you think that Jefferson knew nothing about Judaism. The Hebrew Bible was part of the standard eduction of the day.

No Robots · 03-14-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And I am not sure why you think that Jefferson knew nothing about Judaism. The Hebrew Bible was part of the standard eduction of the day.

I mean the derivation of the word "Jahve", the nature of the amme haaretz, and the distinction between mystical/prophetic Judaism and priestly/pharisaic/rabbinical Judaism. You really should look at that copy of Brunner that you bought.

judge · 03-14-2006, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

So did death camps, enforced sterilization of the retarded, and colonialism on a global scale. Therefore............

Vorkosigan

I'm sorry, this kind of dodging wont work with me.

You may be right in your suggestion here there may be a correlation between these things and the christian religion.

I'm not here to defend or oppose the christian religion.

However the difference between the views here and say those of Jaki are that Jaki, a recognised scholar, has written many books with his arguments clearly detailed.

You may disagree with his conclusions but until the actual arguments are refuted it does not count for much.

Buster Daily · 03-14-2006, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Jefferson's views on Jesus were interesting and advanced for his time. (Jefferson wrote before the grammar of Koine Greek was fully understood, before most modern Biblical criticism, at a time when finding naturalistic explanations for events in the Bible was cutting edge theology.)

What was not understood about Koine Greek at the time of Jefferson and how has this new knowledge advanced our understanding of scripture? I am questioning you from a position of ignorance.

On a side note, I am thoroughly convinced that were it not for the internet, I would still be a bible thumping protestant...with a few handfuls of unorthodox beliefs. I'm also thoroughly convinced that if Jefferson were alive today he would not be holding on to his deism...but that's just my speculation.

Buster Daily · 03-14-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster Daily

I'm also thoroughly convinced that if Jefferson were alive today he would not be holding on to his deism

Ummm, Let me clarify. I mean the theism part of deism. My point is that he had already abandoned almost all traditional beliefs and was only hanging on to a deism based god that essentially was unwilling or unable to mess in the affairs of men.

Toto · 03-14-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster Daily

What was not understood about Koine Greek at the time of Jefferson and how has this new knowledge advanced our understanding of scripture? I am questioning you from a position of ignorance.

Koine Greek

Quote:

For over a thousand years, up until 1895, the language of the Bible’s New Contract Writings ("New Testament") was known as "Tired Greek," "Bad Greek," "Jewish Greek," "Biblical Greek," "New Testament Greek," and "Holy Ghost language," because it was different from Classical Greek.

Biblical Languages

Quote:

The Greek of the New Testament (Koine) was somewhat different from classical and literary Greek. It was the language of the common people, spoken in everyday language. We have learned much more about this form since the discovery of the papyri in Egypt about 150 years ago. Tens of thousands of manuscripts consisting of common writings which contained everything from grocery lists to personal letters to receipts were discovered at this time. Because of the extremely dry climate in Egypt, they were preserved and they have proven to be invaluable. It is hard to underestimate what these discoveries have contributed to our knowledge of New Testament Greek today, which was not known merely 150 years ago. For this reason, commentaries and lexicons written before this time were written with a lesser understanding of the language and we should keep this in mind when using them.

Buster Daily · 03-14-2006, 04:41 PM

Thanks for the info!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

For over a thousand years, up until 1895, the language of the Bible’s New Contract Writings ("New Testament") was known as "Tired Greek," "Bad Greek," "Jewish Greek," "Biblical Greek," "New Testament Greek," and "Holy Ghost language," because it was different from Classical Greek.

LOL "Tired Greek" and "Holy Ghost language" are the best.

No Robots · 03-15-2006, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster Daily

I'm also thoroughly convinced that if Jefferson were alive today he would not be holding on to his deism...but that's just my speculation.

Jefferson adhered to the argument from design:

It is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms.

To John Adams, April 11, 1823

He opposed to his position that of Spinoza, which he explained as follows:

They say then that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existance of the world, as it is now going on, and may for ever go on by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or Creator of the world, a being whom we see not, and know not, of whose form substance and mode or place of existence, or of action no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend.

ibid.

We know that in our day the argument from design holds sway over many men of discernment. We also know that the partisans of Spinoza's position are still very much in the minority. What would Jefferson do? That is not answerable. What do you do?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.