"The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible, is one of two religious works constructed by Thomas Jefferson. The first, The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1804, but no copies exist today. The second, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1820 by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition excludes all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine."
https://uuhouston.org/files/The_Jefferson_Bible.pdf Free here
Reading it I couldn't help but see Jesus as something of a troll. Like in this passage:
JESUS went unto the mount of Olives.
And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
And the scribes and Pharisees brought in a woman caught committing adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto him, Master, this woman was caught committing adultery, in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, to test him, that they might have cause to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, began going out one by one, beginning at the eldest: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, he said unto her, Woman, whither are they gone? hath no man condemned thee?
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Another great example of his trolling was when he was cornered by a bunch of people wanting to stone him to death:
>31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' 33 We are not stoning you for any good work,' they replied, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.' 34 Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are 'gods''? (He's quoting the 82nd Psalm of the Old Testament here)[1] 35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be set aside-- 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? 37
[1]82 Psalm if the Old Testament: I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’
I said we are gods on this Earth because of our power to initiate the creation of a new life and the power to end a life.
There are a number of more esoteric quotes attributed to jesus like the one I posted above which make this case quite compelling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2DbsuzTt6g
There are many quotes where Jesus spoke about the union of all people within him and within god. This is basically the same as the Buddhist concept of Indra's Net: the divine unity and mutual interpenetration of all things.
>"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"
>"I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me."
>"For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ."
This idea seems to be the logical basis for many of his more commonly known teachings:
>"Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you."
>“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
>"whatsoever you do to the least of your brothers and sisters, you do unto me"
This last quote seems to indicate that when people realized all of the above, they would also realize their equality with jesus as children of god; which is essentially blasphemy to the modern day mainstream interpretation of the King James translation.
>"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."
Great quote.
To be clear, I think Jesus is trolling the right way. :-)
"Blessed are the meek; for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven." Except there is no kingdom of heaven, after all; and the meek are not blessed but oppressed. The supernatural stuff was there to show that the oppressive nature of the world and its cruelty was not the only thing; there was hope beyond it in the world to come, which gave the strength to believe in something absurd.
Otherwise its just John the Baptist; a person preaching who ended up dead on the whims of the powerful.
It is exactly the selfish and prideful that decide to leverage select words/passages/ideas out of context for their own power over others rather than their inward correction of self.
Lastly, I’d add that many of the passages/letters written were to the audience of CHRISTIANS. I bible doesn’t really demand that non-Christians apply any of this to their lives until the first foundational stone is set. Paul even writes to this effect in 1st Corinthians.
Women: Jesus' ministry was financially supported by women. Jesus explicitly did not condemn the woman caught in adultery like the Pharisees did although he did not condone her conduct, either. Jesus taught to women (e.g. Mary, Martha's sister) while the rabbis forbid it; one rabbi said he would rather burn the Torah than teach to a woman, and the Torah was so sacred that they put old unusable Torah scrolls in the walls of the synagogue rather than the trash. A woman dealing in purple cloth hosted one of the early churches (and probably led it after Paul left). A woman is mentioned with the title apostle.
Homosexuality: nowhere does the Bible hate homosexuals. It says that it is a harmful behavior and is not to be tolerated in God's people because it leads to death. It is not "hate" to consider someone's behavior unhealthy, or even to disapprove of someone's behavior. We don't "hate" thieves because we disapprove of thievery. In fact, most people hate thievery and think it is so harmful to society that it should be repressed, but it does not mean we must hate thieves. American LGBTQetc seem to require love to look like complete acceptance and consider anything else as "intolerance", but that is a false dichotomy.
> A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
The problem is that people are applying the morality of the Bible in the modern era when it's clearly outdated. Biblical morality is clearly not correct now on a number of issues (divorce, gay rights, etc, etc).
As you point out, we are intolerant of theivery as a society; treating homosexuals analogous to how we treat thieves is probably intolerant.
But I think your degree of fundamentalism-ness is defined by your relationship to that book. If you see it as completely inerrant, then yeah, you're instantly in trouble because it can be trivially shown to be in self-conflict.
If you're willing to examine the book critically and in context, you do a lot better. Obviously the risk with this is that those doing that interpretation are entrusted with a lot of power over what people believe. But I think there's a middle ground here between the medieval Catholicism that the reformation reacted against (where the Word is obscured to the point that even the secondary texts like the liturgies weren't given in the vernacular) and the rugged individualism of modern evangelicals (where it's Bible-or-bust and writers like Rob Bell are excommunicated for daring to suggest that universalism might actually be consistent with the character of Jesus).
I would see this wide middle ground as a place where we agree on a very short list of actual fundamentals (something like the Nicene Creed, basically), and other than that people are free to study and believe what they want, as long as it isn't hurting others.
Yeah, but in that case you have to concede that the Bible is not miraculous inspired, so why is it any better than other books such as the Vedas or the Iliad? This is the whole problem in the foundation of religion.
It also shows the blindsight of progressive Christians: they're following a religion that at the foundation goes against things they believe. For example, new testament writers say that Jesus came to save from the sin of Adam, but if no Adam and Eve existed, the explanation does't work anymore.
In any case, the Bible can absolutely be miraculously inspired and still be subject to critical examination. Looking at the history of how the individual books have been studied, translated, and selected, it's obvious that the text itself had always been very much interwoven with academia and tradition.
Edit. I’m not challenging or arguing any point. I was genuinely curious.
Cor 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.
34 Women[a] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
Tim 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet.
I think those constitute clear sexism and/or misogyny?
For example: Ephesians 6 goes on from what you clipped: 25 For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her 26 to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word. 27 He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. 28 In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself. 29 No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cares for the church. 30 And we are members of his body.
This seems to me to indicate that husbands should be self-sacrificing and putting their wives' needs above their own. All the submission indicated here is similar to the way that Christ (the Son) submits to God the Father. These would have been very strong and shocking words in that culture, that normally would have allowed for husbands to have complete "rule" over their wives, and instead is urging husbands to self-sacrifice for their wives. So if anything, it would have been improving the standing of women rather than "keeping them down."
If you're married, have you ever willingly given up on your own desires, instead following your spouse's needs/wants? Have they ever done the same for you? This seems to be what this passage is encouraging.
Your interpretation is well and dandy but perhaps as a society we need to stop holding text that's so dated in such high regard, where many peoples interpretation is far less optimistic and charitable than yours.
Mind you I'm an atheist, albeit with an amateur interest in biblical scholarship and archaeology. I just find that period interesting. And I think there is plenty of bad things Jesus actually said or did to point to. But I do believe the most egregious moral flaws of the New Testament are in the epistles, not the the gospels.
Yes, the scriptures include things that are problematic, especially in the context of today's mores. But in so many cases, understanding the norms of the times really helps understand the "why", which is important.
In the case of Abraham Lincoln, he deserves credit for being progressive for his time in his pursuit of abolition. Does that mean we should follow his views on the inequality of white and black people, because he was progressive then? No, we've come a long way since then.
For Lincoln, celebrate his accomplishments and how he helped us progress. For the difficult things, understand they are artifacts of his time. They are important to understanding him and can further help color who he was.
Reasonable Christians do the same with the Bible.
If we're meant to update for modern morality maybe we need a Newer Testament. Until then, the ambiguity of the words of long dead shepherds leave quite a lot to be misinterpreted, as well-intentioned your interpretation may be.
And considering we have the old testament which was full of, let's be honest here, barbaric teachings but apparently were appropriate for the time. You would think by now we would have the New Testament V.96 that would contain teachings that are relevant today, not forcing you to pick and choose just the good parts.
In large part, the story of Jesus demonstrates how we should reject those archaic rules of our ancestors and act according to very simple principles; nonviolence, love for God, and love for all humans.
[1] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+9&version=...
[2] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians...
[3] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202&v...
[4] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter+3&ver...
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.1 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 o“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
won't get into the others, i'm quite sure there are cohesive rebukes / contextualization elsewhere
The text unequivocally gives different instructions for men and women, and the instructions given to men imply having the power in a relationship. Your interpretation doesn't sway my reading of the text as it is.
This is not by far the most problematic Pauline passage in terms of male/female roles. Taken at face value this is some pretty deep advice for how to have a functioning marriage where two people need to make decisions for their family and don't necessarily see eye-to-eye on everything.
Your interpretation of this being advice for a family to function even when they don't see eye to eye everything makes no sense to me. So if a man and woman in a marriage don't see eye to eye on an issue, the man makes the decision as long as he's kind to his wife? A wife may have her opinion, but really she has to submit in all things to their husband?
I'm all for husbands loving their wives, but maybe text that clearly says that men have the power of decision making in a household could be interpreted as meaning...men have the power in a relationship.
"hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny
Where does power come into it exactly?
> And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Mark 10:42-45
To read Ephesians 5 without this in the background is totally misconstruing the text.
For clarity, I in no way rule over my wife, and am in no way of more value than her. The Bible makes it clear that all people are of the utmost value because they are made in the image of God.
For additional context, yes my wife submits to me, but I make no decisions without her consent. I don't even buy a $5 item off Amazon without talking to her. My Biblical role is to serve my wife and family which I'm thrilled to do each day, just as we see Jesus serve his disciples when he washes their feet.
What I'm trying to get to is that please do not mistake a fundamental view of the Bible as misogyny. Any teaching or text can be cherry picked without context to make any view look evil and cruel.
Irrespective of those contradictions however, a social dynamic in which the woman must axiomatically submit to the man is always inherently misogynistic no matter the justifications, be they religious or not.
First, neither of us make purchasing nor time commitment decisions without checking with each other, my last comment made it appear there's a large imbalance in the relationship with her making all decisions.
Our natural dynamics are that I operate on a system of respect, and she operates on a system of love. Yet the Bible calls us to do the opposite, I am to act in love, and she in respect (basically showing each other care in the way we best receive it).
Earlier in our marriage, I was really bad at showing her love as she received it (acts of service and giving her verbal feedback to her opinions and thoughts --- sometimes I still fail, but I get better as we grow). She was bad at showing respect (when she didn't feel loved/heard she would yell).
Regarding her choosing to submit, it's a motivation/outlook more than anything. When we are discussing a decision, she most always asks what I think we should do first. She will then give her thoughts on the topic and then leaves the decision up to me. There have of course been times where I end up making decisions that don't end up being the best in hindsight, but she never comes back and throws it in my face, because she chose to submit to my decision.
Since it's easy to say something that is misconstrued in text, I do want to be clear I never lord over my wife. I never demand that she submit to me, she chooses to do that on her own.
Hopefully that helps a little, I'm sure it's still probably unclear, my mom (who is quite left leaning and a feminist) doesn't grasp the Biblical concept of submission (thinking it means being weak and timid) and doesn't feel women should submit. Although she admires my wife's and my relationship, even though it differs from her views and has zero concern that both my daughters are raised in a household where the wife submits because the leadership is carried out with love and patience.
That's great for your family, does that mean a family where the wife makes all the decisions and controls the power is immoral?
It's interesting to observe the ways various Christian groups try to navigate their way around gender roles in their communities. You have a full spectrum here. From some fundamentalist US churches that will take everything super-literally, through groups like Jehovah's Witnesses[1] who sort-of take this literally, but make reasonable exceptions[2], through Catholics in Western countries, where most believers probably haven't even heard or thought about these passages, and any semblance of adhering to them is likely seen as more traditional than religious - all the way to lenient Christian groups that allow women priests.
In my experience, all Christianity is like this. Every group in every location[3] has their own specific understanding of which words are to be taken literally, which ones figuratively (and to what degree), and which ones to be completely ignored.
--
[0] - E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Timothy_2:12, https://www.openbible.info/topics/head_coverings and related references - literally, women should not teach, not usurp authority of a man, should wear head covering when performing the subset of religious functions they're allowed to, etc.
[1] - If I seem to focus on JWs too much in this thread, that's because I spent 20 years being one.
[2] - E.g. over at Jehovah's Witnesses, there's a lot that would technically qualify as "praying or prophesising" where women are't required to cover their heads, and men are not required to uncover theirs. Also definition of "cover" is "with a hat or similar", probably not what the authors had in mind.
[3] - As I understand it, Catholics in the West and in Africa are essentially two different religions. The former, having lived with it for centuries, ignore or pay lip service to all the rules that the latter obey to the letter.
It reflects the mores of the times, which were different than ours. People 2000 years from now will certainly look at us and be aghast at some of our norms.
My denomination has had woman pastors since the mid 1800s.
Homosexuality is unnatural: https://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/1-27.html
Um, have you actually read them? They are miles apart. Can you find me the reams of legal codes or origin stories in the New Testament, for example?
It's not just content that differs either - the literary style of the NT also deviates greatly, since it borrows much more from hellenized culture than the OT. Especially the synoptic gospels. For example, John, was composed using a layered "onion" type narrative structure which was popular in other greek texts.
They're even so different, that one form of heresy that was more common back in the day (Gnosticism), would sometimes claim that the OT deity was a false-god (the demiurge), because how else do you explain such a personality change?
I take it that "last straw" means the "straw that broke the camel's back". I just hope that stories like that won't be conflated with healthy practice of Christianity in people's minds.
You have a point. The definition of Christian is flexible, so how do you define "true"-ness? In my denomination, you'll find a wide variance of views on whether Mormons are Christian, for example.
> all my other interactions have been with the fundamenlist caricatures described elsewhere here
Like what you later intimated and what someone else said, I'll bet significant money that it's because they are so vocal. They are called capital-E evangelicals for a reason. The United Methodist church is lowercase-E evangelical; very much not in your face.