brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
lojbab at lojban.org
Wed Aug 14 21:28:45 EST 2002
"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
>You are completely and totally delusional, Shallow Dunce. St. Paul's
>teachings were 100% consistent with Jesus Christ, the Old Testament, and the
>Twelve Disciples, and you have not a SHRED of evidence that Mr. Jefferson
>rejected a single word St. Paul ever spoke or wrote.
You lose again nincompoop.
>Thomas Jefferson to William Short, April 13, 1820
>Your favor of Mar. 27 is received and my grandaughter Ellen has
> undertaken to copy the Syllabus, which will therefore be inclosed. It
> was originally written to Dr. Rush on his death, fearing that the
> inquisition of the public might get hold of it, I asked the return to
> it from the family, which they kindly complied with. At the request
> of another friend, I had given him a copy. He lent it to his friend
> to read, who copied it, and in a few months it appeared in the
> theological magazine of London. Happily that repository is scarecly
> known in this country, and the Syllabus therefore is still a secret,
> and in your hands I am sure it will continue so.
>But while this Syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in
> it's true and high light, as no imposter himself but a great Reformer
> of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am
> with him in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist, he takes the side
> of spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward
> forgiveness of sin. I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem
> it &c. &c. It is the innocence of his character, the purity &
> sublimity of his moral precepts, the eloquence of his inculcations,
> the beauty of the apologias in which he conveys them, that I so much
> admire; sometimes indeed needing indulgence to Eastern hyperbolism.
> My eulogies too may be founded on a postulate which all may not be
> ready to grant. Among the sayings & discourses imputed to him by his
> biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct
> morality, and of the most lovely benevolence: and others again of so
> much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and
> imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions
> should have proceeded from the same being. I seperate therefore the
> gold from the dross; restore to him the former & leave the latter to
> the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. Of
> this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and
> firm corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable
> interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to
> sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that his part
> composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given
> to us by man. The Syllabus is therefore of his doctrines, not all of
> mine. I read them as I do those of other antient and modern
> moralists, with a mixture of approbation and disent.
And you see in the plainest English that Jefferson rejected Paul as a
dupe, an imposter, and a "firm corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus".
So he "sifted them apart" and created the Jefferson Bible (his
wee-little book) and omitted ALL THE WORDS OF PAUL
Now tell us again how we don't have a shred of evidence that Mr.
Jefferson rejected a single word that St. Paul ever spoke or wrote.
He rejected not merely a single word but EVERY WORD, and he said so,
and he said why in completely plain English.
>A "Platonist" is a student of Plato, and Mr. Jefferson rightly rejected them
>because they WERE contradictory to the Words of Jesus Christ and the Holy
But what you seem unable to understand is that the "Platonists" he is
rejecting were named Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, as in
"Saint". He accepts only quotations direct from Christ, and he even
rejects some of them as well.
>What Mr. Jefferson did then is much easier to do today, which is to compare
>the original Greek and Hebrew to the King James English translations. He
>was concerned about the "translational errors" which are due mainly to the
>way the meaning of English words changed.
That is NOT what he said, and that is NOT what he did in the Jefferson
>FOR EXAMPLE, the word "bastard"
>in "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his
>tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD",
>Deuteronomy 23:2 used to mean "mongrel", not "illegitimate child".
He did not include ANY of Deuteronomy in the Jefferson Bible
[long completely irrelevant quote from his website, on all manner of
things like bastards and mongrels, Reagan, etc., having nothing to do
with the words he was supposedly responding too, or with ideas of
Jefferson, which the nincompoop displays not a shred of comprehension
More information about the Neur-sci