(Who, as a group, defy easy classification, and had beliefs and adherence to different orthodoxies and faithfulness levels all over the map, especially when you consider how their expressed — privately and publicly — beliefs changed over the years.)
But he loved the teachings of Jesus, as much as he hated what he considered the Greek philosophy and priestly superstition that had been layered on top of them over the centuries. He wrote to John Adams in 1814 (http://goo.gl/c2ZFWQ):
'The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ leveled to every understanding, and too plain to need explanation, saw in the mysticism of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system, which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child ; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them; and for this obvious reason, that nonsense can never be explained.'
And to Mrs. Samuel T. Smith in 1816 (http://goo.gl/dxyv6B):
'My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.'
And to Adams again in 1823 (http://goo.gl/lqvfVA):
'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 may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.'
One of his pet projects was creating what he considered a purified New Testament, consolidating the Gospels and conveying the life of Jesus and his teachings without any of those "fables" he thought had been latched onto it. And now one of those New Testaments, as Jefferson (literally) cut and pasted it, can be read online.
Very cool.
(I've previously written about the Jefferson Bible: https://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2012/01/09/jeffersons-bible-and-david-barton.html and https://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2012/07/14/david-barton-is-a-dolt-no-im-a-historian-edition.html)
(h/t +Les Jenkins)
Reshared post from +Michael Sauers
Read the Jefferson Bible online
In 1820 — six years before his death at the age of 83 — Jefferson produced a leather-bound, 84-page volume titled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, Extracted Textually From the Gospels in G…
[T]here would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest.
Ooh, I like that! Yeah, I think we would pretty much have reached the conclusion that good is better than evil had there been no organized religions.
To the extent that the priestly role is (was) to define who's a sinner / evil / infidel, I tend to agree. To the extent that priests are (were) self-serving in their position, I also agree.
I think organized religions can serve a purpose. There is some value in corporate worship, and priests can (and do) serve in a pastoral, vs. princely, role.
But it's a purpose that can, as history attests (up through the present day) be badly abused.
I’m currently reading “Zealot” by Reza Aslan. I find it very helpful to put Jesus into an historical context. I find that, far from destroying my faith, it makes the message clearer and gives many things deeper meaning. I get where Jefferson was coming from, even if I’m not quite ready to give up my Presbyterian church.
@Solonor, I’d also recommend Bart Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist? as a great placement of Jesus, and the stories about him, in historic context.