You’re saying Jefferson didn’t interpret it that way. That’s fine. I’ll say you’re probably even right. It’s probably intended as a defense of “salvation by works,” contra Calvin. That’s a principled conjecture.

But you can’t hang David Barton for not seeing it that way. Peace, out.

May 20, 2012 at 5:05 pm

“What I am saying is that the Second Coming is in the “Jefferson Bible” and David Barton is correct on that.”

And what I’m saying is I don’t find your evidence to support this claim very convincing.

What I am saying is that the Second Coming is in the “Jefferson Bible” and David Barton is correct on that.

In his post-presidential papers, Jefferson definitely comes to reject any unique supernatural role for Jesus whatsoever.

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/05/jefferson-letter-on-purpose-and.html

May 20, 2012 at 12:47 pm

“Mebbe you’re right, Ken, but that seems an obtuse interpretation to me. Man comes to judge man, accompanied by angels? ”

Not so obtuse if you consider the context of what Jefferson was doing (at least according to Warren’s theory). Jefferson was “re-writing” the bible by excerpting the text he believed and leaving out the supernatural parts he didn’t believe (and the parts about the divinity of Jesus). However, Jefferson wasn’t changing the words, just cutting and pasting the text. That puts some significant constraints on his re-write.

It is reasonable to assume that Jefferson included the passage you quoted to say that man will be judged , in the afterlife based on his deeds. You are assuming he was trying to say Jesus would do the judging, but it is also possible, this was the only passage that fit, so he used it, (and deliberately left out parts of the christian bible that clarify it is Jesus doing the judging). Now if there were another biblical passage that describes the judgment in the afterlife without any reference to Jesus that Jefferson could have used in place of the one you quoted, then you might have an argument that Jefferson was trying to say Jesus would do the judging.

You’re saying Jefferson didn’t interpret it that way. That’s fine. I’ll say you’re probably even right. It’s probably intended as a defense of “salvation by works,” contra Calvin. That’s a principled conjecture.

But you can’t hang David Barton for not seeing it that way. Peace, out.