The Declaration of Independence and Unalienable Rights

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Jefferson even produced his own "bible" by including portions of the NT but extracting everything that was supernatural e.g. miracles, Jesus' birth and His resurrection. He called it "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." The Jefferson Bible (uuhouston.org)

Yes, it's actually a severe redaction of the Gospels. Too much to approve.

Still, Jefferson lets slip just about everything except Jesus being raised from the dead, and God's reason for his crucifixion.

Jesus is a healer and is the Christ. Jesus has a kingdom not of this world and is even the Son of God. No man ever spoke like Jesus. Jesus speaks like prophet, but greater. Herod is still hoping to see him perform a miracle. The cross is according to God's will.

I suspect Jefferson himself was too weak on these points, yet he doesn't completely omit them. God, sin, judgment, and hell are all very much a part of the picture. The grave mistake, one not Jefferson's alone, is imagining one can truly live up to the morality Jesus taught.

However, if one earnestly prays for the Holy Spirit until granted, then what? Just read the NT and you'll find out. In fact, such an earnest prayer is certain to lead you there, to Jesus Christ and life in his name.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

As far as Locke, he goes into detail in the sources provided (he explains his position very well). We have to remember that we have been enjoying all our lives a type of government that was novel when our nation was founded. The idea is in context of appropriate governance of a people (and the purpose a government exists) and constraints on government rather than people.

Regarding Locke, the quote I asked about was taken out of context. It is not concerned with politics or government but human understanding and essentially irrelevant. Its context is discussion of mind, will, volition, liberty, necessity, agency, etc. I'll offer two related excerpts but no discussion, as it would be better done in another thread, if anyone is interested.

Here is a more specific reference: AN ESSAY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING (1690) , BOOK II (Of Ideas), Chapter XXI (Of Power):

12. Liberty, what. … A waking man, being under the necessity of having some ideas constantly in his mind, is not at liberty to think or not to think; no more than he is at liberty, whether his body shall touch any other or no: but whether he will remove his contemplation from one idea to another is many times in his choice; and then he is, in respect of his ideas, as much at liberty as he is in respect of bodies he rests on; he can at pleasure remove himself from one to another. …

14. Liberty belongs not to the will. If this be so, (as I imagine it is,) I leave it to be considered, whether it may not help to put an end to that long agitated, and, I think, unreasonable, because unintelligible question, viz. Whether man’s will be free or no? For if I mistake not, it follows from what I have said, that the question itself is altogether improper; and it is as insignificant to ask whether man’s will be free, as to ask whether his sleep be swift, or his virtue square: liberty being as little applicable to the will, as swiftness of motion is to sleep, or squareness to virtue.​

Your quote came from section 52 of that chapter.

 

[JonC]

Regarding Locke, the quote I asked about was taken out of context. It is not concerned with politics or government but human understanding and essentially irrelevant. Its context is discussion of mind, will, volition, liberty, necessity, agency, etc. I'll offer two related excerpts but no discussion, as it would be better done in another thread, if anyone is interested.

Here is a more specific reference: AN ESSAY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING (1690) , BOOK II (Of Ideas), Chapter XXI (Of Power):

12. Liberty, what. … A waking man, being under the necessity of having some ideas constantly in his mind, is not at liberty to think or not to think; no more than he is at liberty, whether his body shall touch any other or no: but whether he will remove his contemplation from one idea to another is many times in his choice; and then he is, in respect of his ideas, as much at liberty as he is in respect of bodies he rests on; he can at pleasure remove himself from one to another. …

14. Liberty belongs not to the will. If this be so, (as I imagine it is,) I leave it to be considered, whether it may not help to put an end to that long agitated, and, I think, unreasonable, because unintelligible question, viz. Whether man’s will be free or no? For if I mistake not, it follows from what I have said, that the question itself is altogether improper; and it is as insignificant to ask whether man’s will be free, as to ask whether his sleep be swift, or his virtue square: liberty being as little applicable to the will, as swiftness of motion is to sleep, or squareness to virtue.​

Your quote came from section 52 of that chapter.

I was not referring to that essay, but it is interesting. As the "father of liberalism" he can offer insights to the way we, as Americans, think about rights.

I was particularly dealing with "Two Treasties of Government", which I assure you deals government the governed.

 

[JonC]

Worded that way, we hardly disagree here. (See my upcoming comment about Jefferson's "Gospel" redaction which FTW posted as a link.)

I do not disagree with Locke either. All I am saying is that the DOI and Constitution are not theological documents. Their point is not to emphasize that there is a God, or whose idea of God is correct, but rather that our creation itself testifies that we transcend human government.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I was not referring to that essay, but it is interesting. As the "father of liberalism" he can offer insights to the way we, as Americans, think about rights. ...

O S U R. Highlighted in the "style" of John Hancock.

… Also, the unalienable right to happiness does not mean (in the DOI) that men have a right to seek after their happiness but rather that the "necessity of pursuing happiness is the foundation of liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good, and which, as such, our desires always follow, the more we are free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action. (Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding). …

 

[FollowTheWay]

Yes, it's actually a severe redaction of the Gospels. Too much to approve.

Still, Jefferson lets slip just about everything except Jesus being raised from the dead, and God's reason for his crucifixion.

Jesus is a healer and is the Christ. Jesus has a kingdom not of this world and is even the Son of God. No man ever spoke like Jesus. Jesus speaks like prophet, but greater. Herod is still hoping to see him perform a miracle. The cross is according to God's will.

I suspect Jefferson himself was too weak on these points, yet he doesn't completely omit them. God, sin, judgment, and hell are all very much a part of the picture. The grave mistake, one not Jefferson's alone, is imagining one can truly live up to the morality Jesus taught.

However, if one earnestly prays for the Holy Spirit until granted, then what? Just read the NT and you'll find out. In fact, such an earnest prayer is certain to lead you there, to Jesus Christ and life in his name.

Jesus is not presented as the Son of God in Jefferson's bible. There is no virgin birth, no healing of the sick or crippled, no presentation of the gospel message. Lazurus was not brought back from the dead. Jesus didn't cast out any demons or forgive sins. He simply presented a standard of morality by which to live. Ghandi did that too as did Mohammed. Jesus died just like everyone else the Romans crucified and was placed in a tomb. The end. Jesus had some excellent moral suggestions but that's not why He came to earth. In no way can Jefferson's beliefs be regarded as Christian.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Jesus is not presented as the Son of God in Jefferson's bible. There is no virgin birth, no healing of the sick or crippled, no presentation of the gospel message. Lazurus was not brought back from the dead. Jesus didn't cast out any demons or forgive sins. He simply presented a standard of morality by which to live. Ghandi did that too as did Mohammed. Jesus died just like everyone else the Romans crucified and was placed in a tomb. The end. Jesus had some excellent moral suggestions but that's not why He came to earth. In no way can Jefferson's beliefs be regarded as Christian.

That reveals a miserable failure to comprehend what was posted, as is your wont. This has nothing to do with personal beliefs. The point was that Jefferson "let slip" certain things. He did not excise every mention of those things that set Jesus apart as the Son of God. His redaction couldn't entirely suppress the message.

Furthermore, what of the link you yourself posted? Did you even read it? Forgiveness of sins is front and center. Even with Jefferson's "version," Napoleon's famous observation stands:

“I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of people would die for Him.”

 

[JonC]

That reveals a miserable failure to comprehend what was posted, as is your wont. This has nothing to do with personal beliefs. The point was that Jefferson "let slip" certain things. He did not excise every mention of those things that set Jesus apart as the Son of God. His redaction couldn't entirely suppress the message.

Furthermore, what of the link you yourself posted? Did you even read it? Forgiveness of sins is front and center. Even with Jefferson's "version," Napoleon's famous observation stands:

“I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of people would die for Him.”

The problem is Paul placed our faith (Christian faith) in the bodily resurrection of Christ, something (along with Jesus' miracles, divinity, Virginia birth, ect.) that Jackson rejected.

A lot of non-Christians (to include atheists) believe Jesus was not ordinary because of His focus on love. Martin Luther King Jr. denied the bodily resurrection of Christ. Their faith (or lack there of) does not take away from their accomplishments.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The problem is Paul placed our faith (Christian faith) in the bodily resurrection of Christ, something (along with Jesus' miracles, divinity, Virginia birth, ect.) that Jackson rejected.

A lot of non-Christians (to include atheists) believe Jesus was not ordinary because of His focus on love. Martin Luther King Jr. denied the bodily resurrection of Christ. Their faith (or lack there of) does not take away from their accomplishments.

I'm fully aware of the problem. Paul's is not a problem. But yes, the failure of others to accept the truth is their own, and the same for those who follow their beliefs instead of Paul's.

However, Jefferson's redaction, as opposed to his personal beliefs, does not fully suppress the truth. That was all in Jefferson's mind. Let it never be suggested that his redaction presents the Gospel in full. But those wanting to know will find it even so.

Napoleon's observation is that "Jesus Christ is no mere man." It is left to those interested in truth to pursue what and who Jesus was, if not merely human. The honest conclusion is that he was and is who he claimed to be, the Son of God and Savior of all who believe on him.

 

[JonC]

I'm fully aware of the problem. Paul's is not a problem. But yes, the failure of others to accept the truth is their own, and the same for those who follow their beliefs instead of Paul's.

However, Jefferson's redaction, as opposed to his personal beliefs, does not fully suppress the truth. That was all in Jefferson's mind. Let it never be suggested that his redaction presents the Gospel in full. But those wanting to know will find it even so.

Napoleon's observation is that "Jesus Christ is no mere man." It is left to those interested in truth to pursue what and who Jesus was, if not merely human. The honest conclusion is that he was and is who he claimed to be, the Son of God and Savior of all who believe on him.

You are reaching. Muslims believe Christ no mere man. Yet that has not brought them to the conclusion He is who He claimed to be. Jehovah Witnesses do likewise. As do Mormons. Yet they do not come to the conclusion Jesus is who he claimed.

Sure, God can use the witness of a Mormon. God made a donkey talk, after all. But let's not be too quick to praise those who have set themselves against Christ. Many could, and have, been led astray by false doctrines.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

You are reaching. Muslims believe Christ no mere man. Yet that has not brought them to the conclusion He is who He claimed to be. Jehovah Witnesses do likewise. As do Mormons. Yet they do not come to the conclusion Jesus is who he claimed.

Sure, God can use the witness of a Mormon. God made a donkey talk, after all. But let's not be too quick to praise those who have set themselves against Christ. Many could, and have, been led astray by false doctrines.

That entirely misses the point, that is, has it exactly backward. One starts with where people are and works from there. If someone has read Jefferson's redaction and is open to discussion, it is worth starting there, if they are unwilling to start with the full NT.

Same for any Muslim, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, etc., who is open to honest dialog. Start with where they are. And yes, such do come to the conclusion that Jesus is who he claimed to be. There is no suggestion here that people not so influenced should first learn those systems before venturing into the NT.

 

[FollowTheWay]

That reveals a miserable failure to comprehend what was posted, as is your wont. This has nothing to do with personal beliefs. The point was that Jefferson "let slip" certain things. He did not excise every mention of those things that set Jesus apart as the Son of God. His redaction couldn't entirely suppress the message.

Furthermore, what of the link you yourself posted? Did you even read it? Forgiveness of sins is front and center. Even with Jefferson's "version," Napoleon's famous observation stands:

“I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of people would die for Him.”

Go ahead and use Jefferson's bible if you're convinced he promoted Christianity. I'll pass.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Go ahead and use Jefferson's bible if you're convinced he promoted Christianity. I'll pass.

No one here said anything of the sort, but your penchant for misunderstanding and subsequent non sequitur posts is infamous here.

What will you do next, accuse the apostle Paul of believing that his quotes of secular poets was from the Bible (cf. Acts 17:28)? Or will you accuse Jesus of equating weather sayings with God’s Word (cf. Matt 16:2f)?

 

[FollowTheWay]

No one here said anything of the sort, but your penchant for misunderstanding and subsequent non sequitur posts is infamous here.

What will you do next, accuse the apostle Paul of believing that his quotes of secular poets was from the Bible (cf. Acts 17:28)? Or will you accuse Jesus of equating weather sayings with God’s Word (cf. Matt 16:2f)?

You seem to want to support Jefferson's faith. Why?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

You seem to want to support Jefferson's faith. Why?

You seem intent on misunderstanding virtually everything written. Why?

 

[FollowTheWay]

The point I'm making is the same as the point jonC made. Our nation was not founded completely based on Christianity. Christian ideals were used as well as Locke's liberal philosophy and deist beliefs. Also, no one has mentioned the impact of the Magna Carta which in 1015 defined English common law.