"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

On what that Paul wrote did Thomas Jefferson base this conclusion?

Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian nor a Historian.

He in fact rewrote the entire new testament on what he felt was accurate based on his "feelings"... despite his lack of knowledge of texts, writings of the Church Fathers, etc.

So to answer your question: Nothing.

Yes, This is in fact merely one of many things Thomas Jefferson and his writings were said or used to attack Christianity, It is also a letter, not any government document that supported the separation of Church and State ( with actually this suppose to be protecting the Church from the State)

So the statement as note is false and has no value what so ever.

Jefferson did remain loyal to his Anglican\Episcopal upbringing and had an Episcopal minister at his bedside before he died. But the issue is not whether he was a Christian or not.

There were several aspects of Christian teachings that not only Jefferson did not accept but also many others who would deny that they are not Christians…the divinity of Christ comes to my mind.

I agree that Paul took the early church in a different direction than the one Jesus started it in. But, like Jefferson, I base my opinion on intuition rather than expertise.

As I see it, Jesus taught that the whole idea of a "Chosen People" was bogus. Paul missed this point and taught that followers of Jesus were the new "Chosen Ones". Also, he borrowed the "Sacrificial Lamb" model of atonement from the Jewish culture in a misguided attempt to sell Jesus to the Jews. This view casts God as a stern Judge, rather than the loving Father that Jesus sought to reveal.

There are many opinions of bibical teachings, But those that deny the bible as the word of God are not Christian, does not matter what church they claim to be members of. And Jeffersons views denied Jesus virgin birth, which even Muslims accept and is not only in Pauls writings but also all throughout the new testement.

Matthew 24:24
For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.


Many proclaimed Christians say that Churches that deny the trinity are not Christian either, but cult churches.

Jefferson believed in the institution of the church and contributed to the building of Episcopal, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches; he also believed that the church could err in its teachings …To say that he was not a Christian is quite a “Judgment”.

See "Death on the cross a must" post 19. Relates to Paul and his gospel.

he also believed that the church could err in its teachings …THis is very true. I am a Christian and yet I can readily acknowledge that many churches' teachings are partially or totally erroneous.

Matthew 24:24
For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.


Many proclaimed Christians say that Churches that deny the trinity are not Christian either, but cult churches.

Jefferson believed in the institution of the church and contributed to the building of Episcopal, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches; he also believed that the church could err in its teachings …To say that he was not a Christian is quite a “Judgment”.

As a political person he did many things for his benefit but things such as the virgin birth which he was suppose to talk against is one of the major issues that define a persons faith, since it is not part of pauls teachings but part of the four main gospels.

There were cult groups even during the first several centuries after Christ that did follow a line that Jesus was not God and did not die on the Cross, from those teachings ,we see included into the Quran.

But there is a easy to define a Christian, those that believe and follow the teachings of Christ, those that do not and will not follow his teachings are not. They may do a lot of good, they may help a lot of groups, but they are known by their beleifs.

THis is very true. I am a Christian and yet I can readily acknowledge that many churches' teachings are partially or totally erroneous.

And I will even go that all denominations have some incorrect teachings, this is because man and their customs get included over years by all of them. But the defining line is their belief on Christ.

I will wonder here a bit, but this is why as a nation which is mostly christian, we as christians should want to be sure we keep a political leader who represents our faith,

as a nation which is mostly christian, we as christians should want to be sure we keep a political leader who represents our faith,
Yeah, and you could do it too, except for that pesky Constitution (Article VI, section 3):

"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Doh!

Yeah, and you could do it too, except for that pesky Constitution (Article VI, section 3):

"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Doh!!


Well some changes to it, would not hurt either, that right to bear arms need to be a lot clearer also, so the supreme court would stop messing with that. And that part where churches were suppose to be protected from the government, ( not government from the church) need to be written a little more clear also. Most likely the early writters did not expect the courts to rewrite what they were saying though case laws.

But if christians all voted as a block, there would be no need, there is no problem with christians voting their religion, which they should. They should look at the candidates who represent the most moral and most christian view points.

But all that does say is that the government can not require it, but the voters can demand it if they are going to vote for them, If anyone who did not have the right moral values would not get a single christian vote, they would be wasting their time running.

And that part where churches were suppose to be protected from the government, ( not government from the church) need to be written alittle more clear also.
Which part is that, exactly?

Which part is that, exactly?

The part not really in there but everyone calls it the separation of Church and State.

Saul(St. Paul) was a Pharisee who never met the man called Jesus. He was a highly educated man, educated in Greece and having lived in Greece, and on the road to Damascus he was struck with the idea of blending the teachings of Jesus with the Greek Mysteries and the hopes for Jewish Messiah!

Paul took the teachings of a simple Jewish rabbi, teachings that stressed love over anger, helping the poor by sharing the wealth, not to worry about one's future, to be humble, and so on, and changed that peaceful message into a nightmare of focusing on sin and death, homosexuality, and oppressing females, among other negative things.

Saul founded the religion called Christianity and promoted it first to the Jews then all over the Mediterranean world. Saul was a very ambitious fellow and first corrupter of the teachings of Jesus.

Good question, Crow!

I get a kick out of it when I hear talk of a 'Untied Christian voting Block'. In view of things like this:

Conservative Pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel, endorsed John McCain.

Conservative William Donohue, president of the Catholic League called Hagee a "bigot," and said the right-wing pastor has waged "an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church" by "calling it 'The Great Whore,' an 'apostate church,' the 'anti-Christ,' and a 'false cult system.'"

Jefferson did remain loyal to his Anglican\Episcopal upbringing and had an Episcopal minister at his bedside before he died. But the issue is not whether he was a Christian or not.

I disagree wholeheartedly. The fact that he was not a Christian - along with the fact that he would discount most of the New Testament as myth, fable and/or innacurate is good reason to not take his comments seriously.

... so to answer the direct question: No, Paul did not "corrupt" the teaching of Jesus.

I disagree wholeheartedly. The fact that he was not a Christian - along with the fact that he would discount most of the New Testament as myth, fable and/or innacurate is good reason to not take his comments seriously.

...so to answer the direct question: No, Paul did not "corrupt" the teaching of Jesus.
I agree, he was a Deist with Christian underpinnings:) …unlike Paine whose beliefs did not have Christian underpinnings. Among other Bible readers that might be mentioned are the foes of the Bible, those who approach it with a critical eye, as often do the agnostic, the skeptic, the infidel, and the atheist.

While purporting to have an objective attitude toward the Bible, more often than not they read for the purpose of finding fault with it, scanning its pages with eagle eye to find instances in which the Bible appears to contradict itself, science or secular history. Thus these hope to discredit the Bible in the eyes of others. The extremes to which these go prove that they are anything but what they make their boast to be—objective. However, Bible scholarship, science and archaeology more and more bring forth evidence refuting all such attacks. Obviously, all such Bible reading is futile.

Saul(St. Paul) was a Pharisee who never met the man called Jesus. He was a highly educated man, educated in Greece and having lived in Greece, and on the road to Damascus he was struck with the idea of blending the teachings of Jesus with the Greek Mysteries and the hopes for Jewish Messiah!

Paul took the teachings of a simple Jewish rabbi, teachings that stressed love over anger, helping the poor by sharing the wealth, not to worry about one's future, to be humble, and so on, and changed that peaceful message into a nightmare of focusing on sin and death, homosexuality, and oppressing females, among other negative things.

Saul founded the religion called Christianity and promoted it first to the Jews then all over the Mediterranean world. Saul was a very ambitious fellow and first corrupter of the teachings of Jesus.

Good question, Crow!

All four Gospels talk of SIN, REPENTANCE, FORGIVENESS. St Paul is consistent with this theme.

Read Romans in its entirety, especially 7, 8, 12 . Also 1 Corinthians 13 on love, Galatians 5 ""the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love" His message of God's love is consistent with the Gospels.

I don't see any of the candidates that really should be supported by a Christian voting block *** I am avaiable for nomination of course***

And actually while I don't see a lot of the christian values I would like Obama is one of the best "Church" members of the bunch, has regular attendance and so on. I do laugh when his religious faith is attacked, since he looks the more religious of the bunch.

And by the way, I think the topic ( if we want to go back to it) is great, I am pushing the limit on them some, love to do that esp in the discussion areas. But I don't see a lot of change even if we threw out Pauls teachings, since still just the Gospel into itself, along with matching OT teachings of Christ would still give us our faith.

I think it should be rightly pointed out that God used such men as John, Luke, Paul, and Peter to write portions of the Bible. But they were only writers; God is the Author. God instructed Jeremiah to introduce proclamations by saying: “Hear the word of God.” (Jer. 7:2; 17:20; 19:3; 22:2)

Here is what the apostle Paul wrote the Christian overseer Timothy about the beneficialness of the Holy Scriptures: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17)

As Paul said “all Scripture,” he meant the whole Bible, not just the so-called New Testament, which some religionists of Christendom say is all that is necessary for Christians, and not just the inspired Hebrew Scriptures, which the Jews say is all that is necessary for gaining a blessed life in the future world. We need the whole Bible, the pre-Christian part and the Christian part, for both parts are “inspired of God,” and we dare not ignore anything that God inspires. All of it is beneficial to seekers of everlasting life in happiness

Then why do you deny the Quran which is God's word? Did Jesus (pbuh) ever preach trinity!

As a political person he did many things for his benifit but things such as the virgin birth which he was suppose to talk against is one of the major issues that define a persons faith, since it is not part of pauls teachings but part of the four main gospels.

There were cult groups even during the first several centuries after Christ that did follow a line that Jesus was not God and did not die on the Cross, from those teachings ,we see included into the Quran.

But there is a easy to define a Christian, those that believe and follow the teachings of Christ, those that do not and will not follow his teachings are not. They may do alot of good, they may help alot of groups, but they are known by thier beleifs.

That's what Christianity boils down to. If one follows what is in the Bible and believes that Jesus is Son of God, he is true a Christian. Very recently I have come to realize that two things are there which would save us from being thrown in the Hell. One is our good deeds and second faith on Lord Jesus. If we fail in either of these, our salvation is at stake and that stake is very high. After believing in Lord Jesus if one still carries on the way of sin, he is definitely not bound for Heaven, unless God steers his way away from Devil's kingdom. And if someone keeps doing all the good things in the world and rejects Jesus when he is told about HIM, all good deeds would not save him. However, I still not have forgotten that grace of God can bring even the greatest sinner home.

There had been lots of anti-Jesus and anti-Christian talks in the past for centuries and is still on these days. People had been and are twisting the scriptures to live an easy life. There is tons of stuff in media which does not favour Christians. Word of God is still existing on this earth in spite of so many attempts to bring Christianity down. These attempts are stronger and more frequent these days. . Alongwith this there are other things happening in the world which reminds me that we are in the end times about which Jesus mentioned. We should get ready and be prepared because HIS second coming could be anytime and may be in our generation, who knows.

I MUST agree with Fr_Chuck on wjhat he said about Jefferson' Christian ideas.
In other cases I am an admirer of Jefferson regarding much of what he said and did.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

then why do you deny the Quran which is God's word? Did Jesus (pbuh) ever preach trinity!

I can give you too many Scriptures to list in this post where Jesus talked about the Father and the Holy Ghost. Here are just a few.

John 14:28
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
(KJV)

Matt 7:21
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(KJV)

Matt 11:27
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
(KJV)

Matt 20:23
23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
(KJV)

In theabove verses, Jesus is talking about His Father, plainly a different person than Himself

Luke 12:11-12
11 And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:
12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.
(KJV)

John 14:26
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(KJV)

In the above verses, Jesus talks about the Person of the Holy Ghost as being different from both Himself and the Father

I will be glad to provide more references if you want them.

Saul(St. Paul) was a Pharisee who never met the man called Jesus. He was a highly educated man, educated in Greece and having lived in Greece, and on the road to Damascus he was struck with the idea of blending the teachings of Jesus with the Greek Mysteries and the hopes for Jewish Messiah!

Paul took the teachings of a simple Jewish rabbi, teachings that stressed love over anger, helping the poor by sharing the wealth, not to worry about one's future, to be humble, and so on, and changed that peaceful message into a nightmare of focusing on sin and death, homosexuality, and oppressing females, among other negative things.

Saul founded the religion called Christianity and promoted it first to the Jews then all over the Mediterranean world. Saul was a very ambitious fellow and first corrupter of the teachings of Jesus.

Good question, Crow!

1 Cor 15:3-8
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
(KJV)

Unless you are willing to go on record as calling Paul a liar, you are going to have to concede that Paul DID meet Jesus.

I believe that the apostle Paul was very much guided by the Holy Spirit.
Therefore I also believe the he did NOT corrupt any of Jesus Christ's teachings.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

then why do you deny the Quran which is God's word? Did Jesus (pbuh) ever preach trinity!

Jesus has talked about Father, Himself and Holy Spirit while HE walked on this earth.

Listen to attached link and would come to know why Word of God in the Bible is more acceptable. And if you know the Bible and have read Quran, you would know why more people are embracing Jesus without any pressure on them. YouTube - Is the Koran Accurate? Ravi Zacharias explains (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqtISZJ1A9s)

Triund,
Yes Jesus often talked about the Holy Spirit and The father.
The documents which were compiled into the Holy Bible were written long before and Muslim literature was ever written and it does mention Jesus and Mary in a way that inticates the author had read some of the early Chrsitian documents.
There is no way that I can be brought to believe that any Muslim writings could be inspired by God.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

There is no way that I can be brought to believe that any Muslim writings could be inspired by God.

That is so sad, especially if you approach the scriptures of all non-Christian religious traditions in a similar way. You are much the poorer for your choice.

That is so sad, especially if you approach the scriptures of all non-Christian religious traditions in a similar way. You are much the poorer for your choice.

If I understand correctly, the Koran is just a re-written (edited) record of Bible history with the additiion of Muhammed's ideas.

Why should we give credence to every author that ever had a religious idea? The New Testament clearly follows the struture of those records and prophecies given in the Old Testament. The NT takes nothing away from the OT but rather explains those things contained in the OT.

Fred and I do agree sometimes.:)

If I understand correctly, the Koran is just a re-written (edited) record of Bible history with the additiion of Muhammed's ideas.

Why should we give credence to every author that ever had a religious idea? The New Testament clearly follows the struture of those records and prophecies given in the Old Testament. The NT takes nothing away from the OT but rather explains those things contained in the OT.

Fred and I do agree sometimes.:)

I just want to add one thing here to what has been said and I have already said in another thread that it is only the Bible which is true word of God. And we have solid proof to believe this. Let people say that the Bible was complied by Constantine and he made few men sit down and write the books in the Bible. Even if that is the case, how did the authors know what is going to happen after 1700 years? We are living in the times when prophecies in the Bible are coming true. This tells us that God has a plan for HIS creation and HE is true to HIS word. Unfortunately conversation of God with man is not available in other religious books.

I do very much agree with Galveston and Triund.
I do believe that only the bible contains the true word of God.
Peace and kindness,
Fred