David Barton's defamation lawsuit win against politicians

NightHawkeye said:

Noting that I said many of his critics ... and that fact remains true.

I accept your statement that Howard Zinn has documented his work as thoroughly as David Barton has his.
David Barton's conclusion, as I understand it, was that Jefferson was not the radical atheist some have erroneously portrayed him as.
I have heard David Barton speak multiple times on "Original Intent" and not once have I heard him suggest that the founders were establishing a theocracy in the sense you speak of.

Noting also that the whole matter of income taxes in the US comes from secular progressivism. Just sayin ...
Please do make the case, directly from Barton's work. Quotations please. Thanks in advance.
Barton's contention is that the founders were heavily influenced by Christianity, and advocated for the accompanying moral principles being present throughout the United States government.

As disturbing as that may seem to some atheists, it's really not a difficult concept to grasp and not difficult to infer from documents provided by the founders.

Click to expand...

I accept your noting that his critics are as readily substantiated in their work.

I have a copy of David Barton's "Original Intent" next to me right now. I'm reading on page 24 of "Original Intent" where Barton makes reference to a "noted commentator", no name provided nor any actual reference to credentials of this commentator regarding the 14th Amendment so it might as well be you or me, that the 14th Amendment, in granting State protection among the citizenry the Bill of Rights, mentions anything about religion.

But David Barton ignores the basic writings at the time of the writing of the Constitution of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and others. That is why I mention Madison, the man considered one of the basic authors of the Constitution, in argument against Barton because Barton in writing "Original Intent", take that name in mind, completely ignores the writings of the authors of our Constitution. James Madison wrote extensively against the idea of State religions and providing economy to religious groups based upon taxation of the peoples never mind his own strong religious beliefs. He saw prior to the revolution and the taxes the colonies placed upon individuals of varying denominations the problem of tying into any government, federal or state, of religion and government. His remonstrance against religion and the same attitude that other early Presidents took as well as early legislatures who were a part of the revolution and claiming that they envisioned a Christian nation in which the citizenry was beholden to Christiandom as Barton claims is absolutely ahistorical and ludicrous.

edit: David Barton's "Original Intent" is full of Biblical allusions never mind that the United States is based upon English Common law that has little to do with Biblical law and the fact that Islamic nations exerted an influence upon Western societies such concepts as trial by jury and civil law which translated from the Muslim Sicilians through the Templars and onto English common law. The timing is too circumstantial to be ignored.

Yet Barton touches on none of these things. In Barton's world Christianity came forth and somehow America became the promised land and all other influences from the pagan Greeks, the Muslim scholars of the Middle Ages and any other non-Christian influence is to be ignored. No matter that such a thing is ahistorical nonsense.

gnomon said:

No, David Barton has not documented his works any more than his critics. His critics include Howard Zinn who have heavily documented their works from first hand sources.

Click to expand...

I found it quite funny that you criticize Barton, yet seem to take Zinn seriously.

"It's a mystery how A People's History of the United States, which has sold over a million copies and currently sits at number fourteen on the Amazon bestseller list, has become so popular with students, Hollywood types, and academics. It is a book of no original research and no original ideas; a tedious aggregation of American crimes (both real and imagined) and deliberate elisions of inconvenient facts and historical events.

Much of the criticism of Zinn has come from dissenters on the left. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. once remarked that "I don't take him very seriously. He's a polemicist, not a historian." Last year, the liberal historian Sean Wilentz referred to the "balefully influential works of Howard Zinn." Reviewing A People's History in The American Scholar, Harvard University professor Oscar Handlin denounced "the deranged quality of his fairy tale, in which the incidents are made to fit the legend, no matter how intractable the evidence of American history." Socialist historian Michael Kazin judged Zinn's most famous work "bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions."

Just how poor is Zinn's history? After hearing of his death, I opened one of his books to a random page (Failure to Quit, p. 118) and was informed that there was "no evidence" that Muammar Qaddafi's Libya was behind the 1986 bombing of La Belle Discotheque in Berlin. Whatever one thinks of the Reagan administration's response, it is flat wrong, bordering on dishonest, to argue that the plot wasn't masterminded in Tripoli. Nor is it correct to write that the American government, which funded the Afghan mujahadeen in the 1980s, "train[ed] Osama bin Laden," a myth conclusively debunked by Washington Post correspondent Steve Coll in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Ghost Wars.

The People's Historian? - Reason.com

brewmama said:

I found it quite funny that you criticize Barton, yet seem to take Zinn seriously.

"It's a mystery how A People's History of the United States, which has sold over a million copies and currently sits at number fourteen on the Amazon bestseller list, has become so popular with students, Hollywood types, and academics. It is a book of no original research and no original ideas; a tedious aggregation of American crimes (both real and imagined) and deliberate elisions of inconvenient facts and historical events.

Much of the criticism of Zinn has come from dissenters on the left. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. once remarked that "I don't take him very seriously. He's a polemicist, not a historian." Last year, the liberal historian Sean Wilentz referred to the "balefully influential works of Howard Zinn." Reviewing A People's History in The American Scholar, Harvard University professor Oscar Handlin denounced "the deranged quality of his fairy tale, in which the incidents are made to fit the legend, no matter how intractable the evidence of American history." Socialist historian Michael Kazin judged Zinn's most famous work "bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions."

Just how poor is Zinn's history? After hearing of his death, I opened one of his books to a random page (Failure to Quit, p. 118) and was informed that there was "no evidence" that Muammar Qaddafi's Libya was behind the 1986 bombing of La Belle Discotheque in Berlin. Whatever one thinks of the Reagan administration's response, it is flat wrong, bordering on dishonest, to argue that the plot wasn't masterminded in Tripoli. Nor is it correct to write that the American government, which funded the Afghan mujahadeen in the 1980s, "train[ed] Osama bin Laden," a myth conclusively debunked by Washington Post correspondent Steve Coll in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Ghost Wars.

The People's Historian? - Reason.com

Click to expand...

Where did I say I take Zinn seriously.

You mean the one sentence in which I stated that Zinn provides as much reference as Barton.

Good on you.

Another member who can't read.

Last I recall I made mention that Barton's critics are as substantiated in their works as Barton.

But you didn't read that. You latched onto something insubstantial. Actually made something up. Welcome.

gnomon said:

I accept your noting that his critics are as readily substantiated in their work.

I have a copy of David Barton's "Original Intent" next to me right now. I'm reading on page 24 of "Original Intent" where Barton makes reference to a "noted commentator", no name provided nor any actual reference to credentials of this commentator regarding the 14th Amendment so it might as well be you or me, that the 14th Amendment, in granting State protection among the citizenry the Bill of Rights, mentions anything about religion.

But David Barton ignores the basic writings at the time of the writing of the Constitution of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and others. That is why I mention Madison, the man considered one of the basic authors of the Constitution, in argument against Barton because Barton in writing "Original Intent", take that name in mind, completely ignores the writings of the authors of our Constitution. James Madison wrote extensively against the idea of State religions and providing economy to religious groups based upon taxation of the peoples never mind his own strong religious beliefs. He saw prior to the revolution and the taxes the colonies placed upon individuals of varying denominations the problem of tying into any government, federal or state, of religion and government. His remonstrance against religion and the same attitude that other early Presidents took as well as early legislatures who were a part of the revolution and claiming that they envisioned a Christian nation in which the citizenry was beholden to Christiandom as Barton claims is absolutely ahistorical and ludicrous.

edit: David Barton's "Original Intent" is full of Biblical allusions never mind that the United States is based upon English Common law that has little to do with Biblical law and the fact that Islamic nations exerted an influence upon Western societies such concepts as trial by jury and civil law which translated from the Muslim Sicilians through the Templars and onto English common law. The timing is too circumstantial to be ignored.

Yet Barton touches on none of these things. In Barton's world Christianity came forth and somehow America became the promised land and all other influences from the pagan Greeks, the Muslim scholars of the Middle Ages and any other non-Christian influence is to be ignored. No matter that such a thing is ahistorical nonsense.

Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that the founders were acting to protect government from religion, rather than religion from government. That just isn't true. Your post isn't real clear to me, perhaps that isn't what you are saying?

And Muslims gave us trial by jury? Seriously? Now I really wonder about your sources.

gnomon said:

Where did I say I take Zinn seriously.

You mean the one sentence in which I stated that Zinn provides as much reference as Barton.

Good on you.

Another member who can't read.

Last I recall I made mention that Barton's critics are as substantiated in their works as Barton.

But you didn't read that. You latched onto something insubstantial. Actually made something up. Welcome.

Click to expand...

Ok, if you don't take Zinn seriously (why use him as a comparison then?) I take it back. Sheesh.

gnomon said:

No, David Barton has not documented his works any more than his critics. His critics include Howard Zinn who have heavily documented their works from first hand sources.

David Barton made a clear mistake from original documentation based upon the first amendment by discounting the works of both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. James Madison especially because Madison was a religious man who worked to show that the Constitutions of the United States made a clear separation of government influence upon the religious nature of the government's subjects.

This can be seen as early as Madison's writings on the memorial and remonstrance against religious instruction in public life by a centralized government. This former President, a devout Christian and not a deist, fighting against the idea that taxes should be paid to established churches speaks harshly against the ideas David Barton put's forth in his idiotic book "Original Intent". Solely because David Barton believes and wishes to miscontrue the wisdom of the founders in that the United States should be a theocracy paying forth taxes to an established Church much like the failed European Western Nations did to a defunct Vatican.

Seriously, anyone should pick up Barton's book and compare it to Supreme Court declarations. In a Barton world any misbehavance towards the flag would be somehow called out as unpatriotic never mind that Supreme Court cases over decades have found such actions to protected speech.

The biggest slam against Barton is his inability to read into what Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Church. That religion is a natural right, in that the sense that no government has the right to declare how people worship as long as it does not infringe upon the natural rights of human existence, into Barton's reading that Jefferson was implying that only a God could grant natural rights and that it is the God of a specific denomination which grants those rights. A complete twisting of the interpretation of the First Amendment in order for Barton to assert that Christianity is the law of the land of the United States never mind that the writers of the Constitution and proceeding legal commentaries have continually ignored the religious institution of Christianity in defining rights in this country.

Click to expand...

we understand your opinions, but we can't verify what you are saying unless you quote some source material.

I personally, from my experience remember Barton as nearly quoting source material 80-90% of the time, maybe in fact 99% of the time. But I am hedging my bets because I haven't listened to his stuff in probably 5 years.

But from what I remember, I was pretty impressed with the amount of hours of laborious research He must have done to get that huge amount of source material.

So, again, without evidence, all this is heresay

I believe He was a Heretic, but was He saved?

It all depends on his views of Jesus.

Most sites on the views of Jefferson's Jesus, are negative. And suggest He definitely did not believe.

Such as this one:
Thomas Jefferson—Unbeliever

but in reply (brief reply post, not exhaustive one, which I will read tomorrow) Barton says this:

"For example, I show that even though modern scholars repeatedly claim that Jefferson omitted everything related to the Divine and the supernatural from his so-called “Jefferson Bible,” that he actually included Jesus raising the dead, healing the sick, casting out demons, calling Himself the Son of God, speaking of His Second Coming, etc. 16 Jenkinson admits that Jefferson did include these passages but then dismisses them as unimportant"

16. David Barton, The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012), pp. 73, 80.

So in the very book they are questioning, it states in fact that the Jefferson Bible, (in my opinion heretical), actually contains facts of Jesus deity, raising the Dead, healing the sick, casting out demons, calling Himself the Son of God, etc. It seems in a work that Jefferson deemed as "pure" that he would include things that were impure. I find that strange. This was the first observation, I am not done yet with my studies on this. But I thought I would mention this. It could be that Jefferson did not agree with Christ calling Himself the Son of God, in essence believe Christ was a liar. But that is unlikely, seeing He still wrote a misplaced and really badly put together Bible attempt.

And in response to the link above, and the quotes there. They don't provide context, so we don't know exactly what is being said. Much of his disdain for Christianity could be the so called "false" christianity that HE fealt he needed to write this new revelation for? Heresy? Yes! But we can't say that all heretics are unsaved. Then much of the ammilenialists, evolutionists, rapture theorists, those who believe in tongues, etc. woudl all be cross condemned by each other! Translations of the bible today are not much better than the Jefferson Bible, the paraphrase translations (IMO not translations at all), the Gender neutral NIV, The Message, and many many others that change the original to a point in which it really is no longer a translation, but a paraphrase. So are they all not saved that work on these types of Bibles? Secondly, yesterday I saw a link (that looked legit) that argues the sinaiticus was a forgery. This implies that all New Translations: even the literal ones that typically are more trustworthy, NASB, ESV, NIV etc are based on forgery, and the only ones ( based on TR/Byzantine/Majority Text) are not. Sinaiticus/vaticanus/westcott/hort- would thus all be considered forgery. Here is the link if you want to check it out:
http://kjvonly2.blogspot.com/2011/09/sinaiticus-may-really-be-forgery-after.html
http://wherearethejews.blogspot.com/

Anyway, I don't know how valid the study is. I have heard of the sketchiness of the MSS behind the wescott/hort, but then again, that is just an opinion. I am not a scholar. But the link may be valid, or may not. It really doesn't matter accept to say this: Are all of those involved in translations of new versions of forgery... therefore not saved?
Are these works the efforts of unsaved people? No, not necessarily. Are they heresy? Well it depends on who you ask. So was Jefferson saved, even though He had a partial view of the Bible? It really depends on His view of Christ at the time of death. Did He believe in Him as the son of God? Did He trust Him to save Him from His sin? Did He repent from sin? If none of these things happened then He was not saved. but we simply don't know, He lived a long time ago, so we only can know a little.

It seems the critics of Barton, are quoting false samples of his work, to put of strawman arguments, to weaken the position of a typically strong Historian:

"When Jefferson compiled that work, he wrote out the list of verses he planned to
include and then began to cut them from the Bible in order to assemble them in a simple abridgment of the Gospels for the use of native peoples. But as his work progressed,
Jefferson ended up snipping sixteen additional Bible passages for inclusion that he had not listed in his handwritten draft. So in 1983 when Dickinson Adams reconstructed
Jefferson’s work, he included all the passages Jefferson listed but struggled over what to
do with the additional sixteen Jefferson had clipped. Should he include them or not? Adams finally decided to use only eleven-and-a-half of those passages, excluding the
four-and-a-half that included (in Adams’ words):
M[atthew] 8:9-10 (the cure of the centurion’s servant); M[atthew] 9:33-34 (the casting out of a demon); M[atthew] 10:3-4 (the call of the Apostles); M[atthew]
11:2-9 (Jesus and John the Baptist); and a duplicate of M[atthew] 11:9.146
Why did Adams decide to exclude these passages that Jefferson himself had clipped for inclusion? He admitted that he did so “because of their miraculous or supernatural
content,”147 explaining that in his view, “The remaining four and a half clippings, however, consist of verses Jefferson is unlikely to have used and are thus excluded from
the reconstructed text.”148

-above quote from:
Defending The Jefferson Lies: David Barton Responds to his Conservative Critics (PDF from Wallbuilders, complete version)
http://www.wallbuilders.com/downloa...vidBartonRespondstohisConservativeCritics.pdf

I view Barton as a Historian not on the basis of His degrees, but on the Basis of what I have experienced Him saying regarding History.

He provides a unique perspective.

His site, has authentic downloads of Historic Documents, war poster downloads, and other articles that are by far the most exhaustive I have seen in the genre on the internet.

He is a very valuable source for Christianity, and conservativism.

Most will not relinquish this without a fight.

gnomon said:

the United States is based upon English Common law that has little to do with Biblical law

Click to expand...

William Blackstone, John Locke, Montesquieu, Joseph Story, Samuel Rutherford, etc, disagree with you.

Each of them, in their respective works, detail the influence of Christianity on the founding of our republic.

NightHawkeye said:

I am reminded of one of Jefferson's most famous quotes: Jefferson's Religious Beliefs « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
​

I happen to agree with the sentiment. It seems supported by writings in Revelation.

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
​

Click to expand...

--------------

Lastly, Let’s look at some quotes of Jefferson Himself on Jesus:

JESUS AND THE GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

"There are, I acknowledge, passages [in the Bible] not free from objection, which we may, with probability, ascribe to Jesus himself; but claiming indulgence from the circumstances under which he acted. His object was the reformation of some articles in the religion of the Jews, as taught by Moses. That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust. Jesus, taking for his type the best qualities of the human head and heart, wisdom, justice, goodness, and adding to them power, ascribed all of these, but in infinite perfection, to the Supreme Being, and formed him really worthy of their adoration. Moses had either not believed in a future state of existence, or had not thought it essential to be explicitly taught to his people. Jesus inculcated that doctrine with emphasis and precision. Moses had bound the Jews to many idle ceremonies, mummeries and observances, of no effect towards producing the social utilities which constitute the essence of virtue; Jesus exposed their futility and insignificance. The one (i.e. Moses) instilled into his people the most anti-social spirit towards other nations; the other preached philanthropy and universal charity and benevolence. The office of reformer of the superstitions of a nation, is ever dangerous. Jesus had to walk on the perilous confines of reason and religion: and a step to right or left might place him within the grip of the priests of the superstition, a blood thirsty race, as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel."

Source of Jefferson Quote: http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Religion/Jefferson.htm



we all must also consider Bartons qualifications- I looked for this stuff on wallbuilders, but could not find it. It was in my files from at least 5 years ago. I think He stepped down from the public service to do his business at wallbuilders full time, and removed his prior experience. I dont' know for sure but here is his job experience:

"The Texas State Board of Education appointed David to help develop the History/Social Studies standards for Texas students (TEKS; 1997). David was selected by the California Academic Standards Commission to help develop History/Social Science Standards for California students (1998) and was also involved in the review process for history standards in several other states. Additionally, David has testified at several legislative proceedings on public policies for teaching history in the classroom. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Oral Roberts University and an Honorary Doctorate of Letters from Pensacola Christian College.

David is the recipient of several national and international awards, including the Daughters of the American Revolution Medal of Honor; the George Washington Medal of Honor; several Angel Awards, and a Telly Award for excellence in media and educational medium; Who’s Who in America (1997, 1999); Who’s Who in the World (1996, 1999); Who’s Who in American Education (1996, 1997); International Who’s Who of Professionals (1996); Two Thousand Notable American Men Hall of Fame (1995); Who’s Who in the South and Southwest (1995, 1999); Who’s Who Among Outstanding Americans (1994); Outstanding Young Men in America (1990); and numerous other awards.

David has authored numerous books on historical, legal, and educational issues. Each of his videos are recommended family entertainment by the Dove Foundation. He speaks at conference across the nation, is a frequent consultant to state and federal legislators, and is involved in several cases at the U. S. Supreme Court."

-quote originally from Wallbuilders, although I could not find a link to in on their site, it may exist if we do a word search, not sure.

NightHawkeye said:

Near his death, Thomas Jefferson wrote this to John Adams: Jefferson's Religious Beliefs « Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

1823 April 11. (Jefferson to John Adams). "The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."​

Sure sounds like a man possessing a solid Christian belief.

Click to expand...

You seem to be reading something different than I am. Granted, at first glance it sounds good. But then you start to realize he is comparing the virgin birth to Minerava being born out of Jupiter's brain, that both are nothing more than fables.

In essence, he appears to say he wants Christianity to focus strictly on the teachings of Jesus and realize that Christ's miracles and divinity are "the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible".

NightHawkeye said:

It is good.
Perhaps.

Click to expand...

No perhaps about it, he is clearly comparing the Virgin Virth with Minerva's birth.

NightHawkeye said:

Indeed you are reading it differently than I do.

I read Jefferson's criticisms as akin to those of many reformers of that era who were hugely skeptical of the complex traditions and rituals which had grown to surround the simple teachings of Christ.

Click to expand...

Which might make sense if you don't include the context of the next line, where he talks of the Virgin Birth being a fable. By that context, the "reform" needed is to get rid of the "fables" and go back solely to what Christ himself taught. Realize, even taken your way, he is saying to go back to what Christ himself taught -- meaning throwing away most of the New Testament, particularly Paul, whose teachings "traditional" Christianity is based on.

NightHawkeye said:

Noting that a lot of people have been and are skeptical of the virgin birth concept. Simply put, it doesn't fit with the concept of reason.

Claiming that such skepticism precludes Jefferson having other Christian beliefs would be nonsense.

Click to expand...

Disbelieving in the Virgin Birth/ miracles of the Bible would put Jefferson, if he considered himself a follower of Jesus (which I haven't researched), within the category of Liberal Christianity (as a descriptive term), though not within Nicene (or "orthodox") Christianity (the old CF standard). I doubt Barton's fans would consider that any sort of meaningful Christianity; it puts him close enough to Bishop Spong as makes no difference.

Maren said:

You seem to be reading something different than I am. Granted, at first glance it sounds good. But then you start to realize he is comparing the virgin birth to Minerava being born out of Jupiter's brain, that both are nothing more than fables.

In essence, he appears to say he wants Christianity to focus strictly on the teachings of Jesus and realize that Christ's miracles and divinity are "the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible".

Click to expand...

the jupiter part threw me off too, you have to take it in light of everything else He said.

Granted He was a heretic, trying to cut and paste his own Bible, without the calling or the Gifting of God to do so, and also some things such as this: Jupiter. Sounds new agey.

But regardless, there are many Christians on the outer perimeter of the Faith, who actually make it to heaven.

The Bible Calls them "carnal Christians"

Now, if He denied the diety of Christ outright, or the resurrection, or the miracles of Christ, then that would be one thing. But to be confused or unsure of those things does not disqualify necessarily due to naivety of the subject. It doesn't matter soteriologically what ones view is of the modern church, or the modern churches Bible, or Jupiter for that matter, what matters is one's view of the main premises of the gospel, and the nature of Who Christ is. And if one accepts, or rejects Christs message or person.

(it also has to do with repenting of idolatry and known sin, and at least being willing to surrender to God.)

(it's the heart, and the will, God respects.)

Once one forfeits the doctrine of Christ, through time, or the moral requirements of Christianity through time (I mean proud and blatant sinning), then salvation would at that time become in question.

We do not know enough of Jeffersons life to disqualify His salvation on a wickedness level, we do know that He believed in Christ due to the many quotations about it. The next step would be to find where He rejects an aspect of Christ that is considered a fundamental salvific fact, to be saved. And a lose in faith in those definitions of terms would forfeit the salvation, once aquired. (Hebrews 6).

But again I don't personally see that in Jefferson, I see someone confused over the hypocrisy of the church in any age, and confusion over bibliogy, and possible other doctrines. But Christology He seems to have intact. At least the salvific doctrines of christology.

NightHawkeye said:

Noting that similar such condemnation was also liberally heaped upon Jesus Christ. Just sayin ...

Thomas Jefferson questioned BOLDLY.

Click to expand...

As does Spong.