The Jefferson Bible: Inspirational work or heresy...

I wonder if Jefferson ever read the Zohar?

It is unlikely, though Pike seemed to know about Kabbalah so it's possible.

Anyway I got my Tishby Wisdom of the Zohar today and am psyched, I read 30 pages before I had to go but I will be reading it all night.

And I think I made the best decision going with Tishby.

As for all you followers of Paul the false prophet, you who go by the name Christians and believe you are following the teachings of Christ, you are not.

Jefferson was right about Paul, he corrupted Christs teachings and Christians have been decieved for almost 2000 years.

a reply to: dfnj2015

The Bible actually was used by the founding fathers.

To justify slavery per Paul.

Of course it was a sham, but it happened, and the Bible justified it.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: dfnj2015
"The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible, was a book constructed by Thomas Jefferson in the later years of his life by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine."

en.wikipedia.org...

"In an 1803 letter to Joseph Priestley, Jefferson stated that he conceived the idea of writing his view of the "Christian System" in a conversation with Dr. Benjamin Rush during 1798–99. He proposes beginning with a review of the morals of the ancient philosophers, moving on to the "deism and ethics of the Jews," and concluding with the "principles of a pure deism" taught by Jesus, "omitting the question of his deity." Jefferson explains that he does not have the time, and urges the task on Priestley as the person best equipped to accomplish the task"

"Jefferson wrote that “Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God.” He called the writers of the New Testament “ignorant, unlettered men” who produced “superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications.” He called the Apostle Paul the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.” He dismissed the concept of the Trinity as “mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” He believed that the clergy used religion as a “mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves” and that “in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.” And he wrote in a letter to John Adams that “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.”

"Therefore, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth begins with an account of Jesus’s birth without references to angels (at that time), genealogy, or prophecy. Miracles, references to the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, and Jesus' resurrection are also absent from his collection."

"Rejecting the resurrection of Jesus, the work ends with the words: "Now, in the place where He was crucified, there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus. And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed." "

Jefferson was a metaphysical naturalist. "Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, and scientific materialism is a worldview, which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences. That is, those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modelling. In contrast, methodological naturalism is an assumption of naturalism as a methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions."

deism - belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

I don't think Jefferson was a born-again type Christian.

Imagine a newspaper with no articles, only advertisements.

Imagine a Bible without the supernatural.

Not heretical, simply a waste of time.

It could be said the Bible is a waste of time with or without the supernatural myths.

Depends on your personal tastes and opinions. Some people prefer reason to superstition.

Which is not a waste of time. The only really good thing about the Bible is the WORDS of Jesus, not his legend, which is not historical.

I guess TJ thought superstition was a waste of time.

Poor analogy btw. Comparing a newspaper to the Bible?

Waste of time, apples and oranges.

Jesus words would be the articles, not the advertisements. The myths would be the advertisements.

Logic is a foreign language in Christianity, I know, but still.

Drudge report today -11/14/16 had this article that was most interesting.

Source
Cavaliers Daily

NEWS
Professors ask Sullivan to stop quoting Jefferson
Many student groups believe Jefferson shouldn't be included in emails
by Kate Bellows | Nov 13 2016 | 17 hours ago --

Celina Hu | Cavalier Daily
The letter requested that Sullivan stop using Jefferson quotes in emails as they may be offensive to some students.
________________________________________
Several groups on Grounds collaborated to write a letter to University President Teresa Sullivan against the inclusion of a Thomas Jefferson quote in her post-election email Nov. 9.
In the email, Sullivan encouraged students to unite in the wake of contentious results, arguing that University students have the responsibility of creating the future they want for themselves.

“Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that University of Virginia students ‘are not of ordinary significance only: they are exactly the persons who are to succeed to the government of our country, and to rule its future enmities, its friendships and fortunes,’” Sullivan said in the email. “I encourage today’s U.Va. students to embrace that responsibility.”
Some professors from the Psychology Department — and other academic departments — did not agree with the use of this quote. Their letter to Sullivan argued that in light of Jefferson’s owning of slaves and other racist beliefs, she should refrain from quoting Jefferson in email communications.

“We would like for our administration to understand that although some members of this community may have come to this university because of Thomas Jefferson's legacy, others of us came here in spite of it,” the letter read. “For many of us, the inclusion of Jefferson quotations in these e-mails undermines the message of unity, equality and civility that you are attempting to convey.”
The letter garnered 469 signatures — from both students and professors — before being sent out via email Nov. 11. Signees included Politics Prof. Nicholas Winter, Psychology Prof. Chad Dodson, Women, Gender and Sexuality Prof. Corinne Field, College Assistant Dean Shilpa Davé, Politics Prof. Lynn Sanders and many more. Asst. Psychology Prof. Noelle Hurd drafted the letter.

“The intention of the email was to start a conversation with our administration regarding ways to be more inclusive,” Hurd said in an email statement. “In the current climate, we must seize every opportunity to communicate that this university welcomes individuals from all backgrounds.”

Politics Prof. Lawrie Balfour said she believes everyone who signed the letter, including herself, was grateful that Sullivan responded to anxiety following the election — however, many felt it was the wrong moment to turn to Jefferson, following incidents of identity-related hate speech.
“I’ve been here 15 years,” Balfour said. “Again and again, I have found that at moments when the community needs reassurance and Jefferson appears, it undoes I think the really important work that administrators and others are trying to do.”

Hurd said she believes the University should consider ways to better express inclusion.
“I drafted the e-mail because when Jefferson was referenced in emails related to the election, it communicated to me a message of exclusion,” Hurd said.

Both Hurd and Balfour said they hope this issue encourages conversation about Jefferson’s place at the University.
“I think that Jefferson is often celebrated for his accomplishments with little or no acknowledgment of the atrocities he committed against hundreds of human beings,” Hurd said. “This is a complex issue but members of our community are intelligent and compassionate enough to be able to wrestle with this history and decide how we want to move forward as an institution that welcomes all.”

Sullivan did not respond to a request for comment as of press time, and this article will be updated with her response. Winter, Dodson, Anthropology Prof. Kath Weston, Psychology Profs. Joseph Allen and Beverly Adams, and Diana Wilson, president of the Memorialization of Enslaved Laborers — all letter signees — did not respond to requests for comment.
________________________________________
Published November 13, 2016 in News

Simply because this racist slave master became president does not make him a Christian. Perhaps cultish but certainly not Christian.

I agree with professors Balfour and Hurd and my opinion is that those who embrace people such as this slaver do have a mental disorder.

a reply to: Malocchio

As for all you followers of Paul the false prophet, you who go by the name Christians and believe you are following the teachings of Christ, you are not. Jefferson was right about Paul, he corrupted Christs teachings and Christians have been decieved for almost 2000 years.

"As for all you followers of Paul the false prophet, you who go by the name Christians and believe you are following the teachings of Christ, you are not."

Never a source. Simply mad rantings -- No intelligent dialogue. Simply deranged hatred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jefferson was right about Paul, he corrupted Christs teachings and Christians have been decieved for almost 2000 years."

More hatred in honoring a slaver. To be expected from this type of mental disorder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proves my point exactly. Even the insane are well read even though they misunderstand that of the authors.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Malocchio

As for all you followers of Paul the false prophet, you who go by the name Christians and believe you are following the teachings of Christ, you are not. Jefferson was right about Paul, he corrupted Christs teachings and Christians have been decieved for almost 2000 years.

"As for all you followers of Paul the false prophet, you who go by the name Christians and believe you are following the teachings of Christ, you are not."

Never a source. Simply mad rantings -- No intelligent dialogue. Simply deranged hatred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jefferson was right about Paul, he corrupted Christs teachings and Christians have been decieved for almost 2000 years."

More hatred in honoring a slaver. To be expected from this type of mental disorder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proves my point exactly. Even the insane are well read even though they misunderstand that of the authors.

Your accusation that I honored Jefferson are not accurate I merely said he was correct that Paul corrupted Jesus teachings, as well as said having owned slaves made him a bad person and said it was despicable.

I am getting less shocked even though your accusations and insults are getting worse and more hateful.

Ignoring my previous denouncement of Jefferson and stated refusal to admire him you claim I am honoring him when I am doing the opposite.

Intellectually I can separate the fact that he owned people from a quote when it is an accurate quote and astute observation.

Paul did corrupt the teachings of Christ and teach an entirely different thing from Jesus, James and the Apostles.

He boasted of doing this and pretended to receive secret revelations from Jesus in Heaven.

But Matthew 24 has a prophecy of Jesus telling the Apostles and disciples ''Do not believe them." about anyone who claims anything of the sort and warns that it will happen.

Paul was one of the false prophets prophecied about in Matthew 24.

And Paul's teachings are contrary and opposed to what Jesus taught. Paul did corrupt the teachings of Christ by claiming his own teachings were from Christ through revelations.

I agree with him on one thing that I know of, but don't honor a slave owner who is not wrong about something because he was bad, a true statement is a true statement.

You are getting increasingly hostile, why don't you take a deep breath and learn to live with the fact that not everyone is duped by Pauline theology.

Paul actually told slaves to treat their masters as Christ and the Lord and not as men or women.

I am looking up the verse right now.

attention Seede.

Ephesians 6:5

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. Render service with enthusiasm,as to the Lord and not to men and women.

Not only is this an endorsement of slavery and call to obedience to slaves masters, but he says to obey them "as you obey Christ" and says slavery is fulfilling the will of God before saying that slave masters should render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women.

To simplify things, Paul:



1. Endorsed slavery and demanded obedience of slaves to their masters.

2. Said to obey them as they would Christ, to treat them as though they were Jesus.

3. Declared that the same enthusiasm due the Lord was due to slaves masters.

4. Declared slavery the will of God and fulfilling the will of God.

So Seede, before you claim (incorrectly) that someone honored a slave owner, don't try defending Paul at the same time, because that is hypocritical.

Paul was clearly an advocate of slavery and claimed it was God's will to boot, and dehumanized slaves by making them treat a human as a god.

Paul was a false prophet.

a reply to: Seede

I so enjoyed that. Thanks for the opportunity.

a reply to: Malocchio

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. Render service with enthusiasm,as to the Lord and not to men and women.

1611 KJV
Eph 6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Eph 6:6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
Eph 6:7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:

"Servants" G1401 Strong's concordance -- You might want to do a little more study on this. You do not seem to understand what the entire thought is. One can be a servant (indentured by permission) and be a Christian. That is far different than Jefferson buying slaves against their will and mistreating them as sub humans. No comparison whatsoever. Whenever anyone seeks employment the employer is the master. Same today as yesterday.

I am also very glad that you have acknowledged Jesus as the Christ. The Christ is the begotten Son of God and that pleases me that you have come to realize this fact.

a reply to: Malocchio

a reply to: Seede I so enjoyed that. Thanks for the opportunity.

That is quite alright and I am very glad that you did enjoy that. Did you realize what you have done? You used the CEPHER EPH'SIYM which is the Pseudepigraphal Cepher to the Ephesians which is the directive of St. Pauls work. Written from Rome unto the Eph'siym by Tychicus--

Tychicus was the scribe of Paul and wrote Paul's accounts in the letter to Ephesians as Paul dictated. You have simply unwittingly used the bad guy, Paul's work, in trying to prove your misconstrued understanding. And you are pleased with the result of what Paul taught you. I told you Paul was great and now you have shown how great he was.

a reply to: Seede

It appears the words have broad meanings, which probably by design, notate the current stations of life and that "Those Rulers" carry the same weight as "Servants" to the Lord. Your earthly station or status in the flesh is irrelevant to God.

οἵ δοῦλοι hoi douloi. The word used here denotes one who is bound to render service to another, whether that service be free or voluntary, and may denote, therefore, either a slave, or one who binds himself to render service to another.

τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα] to those, who in a merely human relation are your rulers, i.e. your human masters, whose slaves you are as regards outward temporal position in life.

a reply to: Seede

I would have to say it's you who doesn't understand, I submit you are only trying to implement a false interpretation of a clearly pro slavery passage in the Pauline epistles.

In modern terms he is lobbying for the slave industry Rome depended on.

On the one hand you denounce TJ for being a slave owner, appropriate, certainly.

But when it comes to Paul, despite the plainest of English portraying Paul as encouraging slaves to be as obedient to their masters (who aren't Christs) as they would obey Christ and serve them with the same enthusiasm as they would the Lord, you do mental gymnastics and incorporate alternate, older and less accurate translation to argue against the facts that even your crappy KJV can't obscure beyond recognition.

That Paul was an advocate of slavery.

A more perfect example of hypocrisy doesn't exist.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Seede

It appears the words have broad meanings, which probably by design, notate the current stations of life and that "Those Rulers" carry the same weight as "Servants" to the Lord. Your earthly station or status in the flesh is irrelevant to God.

οἵ δοῦλοι hoi douloi. The word used here denotes one who is bound to render service to another, whether that service be free or voluntary, and may denote, therefore, either a slave, or one who binds himself to render service to another.

τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα] to those, who in a merely human relation are your rulers, i.e. your human masters, whose slaves you are as regards outward temporal position in life.

Interesting stuff. I don't think it is possible to deny, honestly, that the words in Ephesians 6:5 are everything I displayed they were.

Paul literally is telling those who are slaves to treat their masters ''not as men and women" but "as the Lord" and obey "as you obey Christ."

Your ability to produce the accurate Greek letters and translation is admirable, I think it shows my NRSV translation to be accurate and honest despite the disturbing contents, which is also admirable.

Thanks.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Malocchio

a reply to: Seede I so enjoyed that. Thanks for the opportunity.

That is quite alright and I am very glad that you did enjoy that. Did you realize what you have done? You used the CEPHER EPH'SIYM which is the Pseudepigraphal Cepher to the Ephesians which is the directive of St. Pauls work. Written from Rome unto the Eph'siym by Tychicus--

Tychicus was the scribe of Paul and wrote Paul's accounts in the letter to Ephesians as Paul dictated. You have simply unwittingly used the bad guy, Paul's work, in trying to prove your misconstrued understanding. And you are pleased with the result of what Paul taught you. I told you Paul was great and now you have shown how great he was.

You consider lobbying on behalf of the slave industry admirable?

originally posted by: Malocchio
attention Seede.

Ephesians 6:5

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. Render service with enthusiasm,as to the Lord and not to men and women.

I quote this to point out the fact that Paul dehumanized the slaves he told to obey as Christ with the same enthusiasm as they would for the Lord.

He has placed the master in the position of Lord and due the obedience Christ would be due if it were him.

Only masters are not Messiahs or the Lord and don't represent the will of God but their own, they don't have the authority of Christ or his benevolence.

It's a flawed doctrine that any disciple of Christ should abhor.

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: infolurker

Please come down off your high and mighty horse.

Jesus is the Son Of God.

Everyone has the power to become children of God. That was his message, not the patriarchal crap mens societies been slinging since the dark ages.

No.

Nobody comes to the father but through him.

Jesus is a false idol. There is only one true all-powerful all-loving God. That God is God.

originally posted by: Malocchio

originally posted by: Malocchio
attention Seede.

Ephesians 6:5

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. Render service with enthusiasm,as to the Lord and not to men and women.

I quote this to point out the fact that Paul dehumanized the slaves he told to obey as Christ with the same enthusiasm as they would for the Lord.

He has placed the master in the position of Lord and due the obedience Christ would be due if it were him.

Only masters are not Messiahs or the Lord and don't represent the will of God but their own, they don't have the authority of Christ or his benevolence.

It's a flawed doctrine that any disciple of Christ should abhor.

I agree with your point of view. Christ talked about God. The disciples talk about Jesus talking about God. At some point the religion is more about worshiping the disciples words about Jesus than it is about God. It's not a religion. It's authority worship for the sake of creating authority. King James believed in the divine rights of kings. Is it really any surprise that his version of the Bible, translated from hidden texts, is exactly in alignment with his form of government. The Bible is medieval propaganda designed to teach the peasant slaves is how to bend a knee to the local lord in authority.

It seems to me even though it is barely present the ghost of Jesus' teachings are about salvation doesn't have to come from giving power away or paying for it from the temple. But Jesus was teaching salvation is freely available to whoever seeks it. I really do not think Jesus' was telling the people worship him is the only path to salvation. How is that any different than going to the temple for paying for salvation? Unless you say the words exactly like you are supposed to you are not saved? Pure nonsense. An omnipotent God needs nothing from us. An omnipotent God would use His infinite powers of forgiveness to allow everyone through the gates of heaven to experience eternal bliss regardless of our earthly sins or how we practiced our religion.

But that's okay. The people who worship words will never understand what true faith God's infinite forgiveness really means. But it's all good because everyone is save regardless. Even people who claim other people will not saved are saved.

originally posted by: Malocchio

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: dfnj2015
"The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible, was a book constructed by Thomas Jefferson in the later years of his life by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine."

en.wikipedia.org...

"In an 1803 letter to Joseph Priestley, Jefferson stated that he conceived the idea of writing his view of the "Christian System" in a conversation with Dr. Benjamin Rush during 1798–99. He proposes beginning with a review of the morals of the ancient philosophers, moving on to the "deism and ethics of the Jews," and concluding with the "principles of a pure deism" taught by Jesus, "omitting the question of his deity." Jefferson explains that he does not have the time, and urges the task on Priestley as the person best equipped to accomplish the task"

"Jefferson wrote that “Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God.” He called the writers of the New Testament “ignorant, unlettered men” who produced “superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications.” He called the Apostle Paul the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.” He dismissed the concept of the Trinity as “mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” He believed that the clergy used religion as a “mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves” and that “in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.” And he wrote in a letter to John Adams that “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.”

"Therefore, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth begins with an account of Jesus’s birth without references to angels (at that time), genealogy, or prophecy. Miracles, references to the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, and Jesus' resurrection are also absent from his collection."

"Rejecting the resurrection of Jesus, the work ends with the words: "Now, in the place where He was crucified, there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus. And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed." "

Jefferson was a metaphysical naturalist. "Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, and scientific materialism is a worldview, which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences. That is, those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modelling. In contrast, methodological naturalism is an assumption of naturalism as a methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions."

deism - belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

I don't think Jefferson was a born-again type Christian.

Imagine a newspaper with no articles, only advertisements.

Imagine a Bible without the supernatural.

Not heretical, simply a waste of time.

It could be said the Bible is a waste of time with or without the supernatural myths.

Depends on your personal tastes and opinions. Some people prefer reason to superstition.

Which is not a waste of time. The only really good thing about the Bible is the WORDS of Jesus, not his legend, which is not historical.

I guess TJ thought superstition was a waste of time.

Poor analogy btw. Comparing a newspaper to the Bible?

Waste of time, apples and oranges.

Jesus words would be the articles, not the advertisements. The myths would be the advertisements.

Logic is a foreign language in Christianity, I know, but still.

If the record is just mythology, so are Jesus' words. Jesus spoke a lot about supernatural things. What He said and what He did, integrate. When He performed a miracle, He usually had a comment or parable that went along with it, specifically about the supernatural source of the miracle and its implications spiritually.

If you are going to reject the accounts as mythical and legendary, then reject them totally. It makes no sense to cherry pick the bits that you personally like. Someone else might choose to excise different bits.

Where do you draw the line?

Definitely, science has moved on from Jefferson's time and things once thought of as supernatural now have natural explanantions.

It comes down to this, a God who could not perform miracles because He is restrained by natural physics, is no God. The Bible is the record of specific human interactions with God, particularly as those interactions relate to agreements (covenants) on conduct.

If you take the supernatural out of it, you remove God and therefore the entire work would be a deception that references agreements with 'nothing'.

originally posted by: chr0naut
It could be said the Bible is a waste of time with or without the supernatural myths.
Depends on your personal tastes and opinions. Some people prefer reason to superstition.
Which is not a waste of time. The only really good thing about the Bible is the WORDS of Jesus, not his legend, which is not historical.
I guess TJ thought superstition was a waste of time.
Poor analogy btw. Comparing a newspaper to the Bible?
Waste of time, apples and oranges.
Jesus words would be the articles, not the advertisements. The myths would be the advertisements.
Logic is a foreign language in Christianity, I know, but still.

If the record is just mythology, so are Jesus' words. Jesus spoke a lot about supernatural things. What He said and what He did, integrate. When He performed a miracle, He usually had a comment or parable that went along with it, specifically about the supernatural source of the miracle and its implications spiritually.
If you are going to reject the accounts as mythical and legendary, then reject them totally. It makes no sense to cherry pick the bits that you personally like. Someone else might choose to excise different bits.
Where do you draw the line?
Definitely, science has moved on from Jefferson's time and things once thought of as supernatural now have natural explanantions.
It comes down to this, a God who could not perform miracles because He is restrained by natural physics, is no God. The Bible is the record of specific human interactions with God, particularly as those interactions relate to agreements (covenants) on conduct.
If you take the supernatural out of it, you remove God and therefore the entire work would be a deception that references agreements with 'nothing'.

Or....you can choose to have faith in God as Jesus intended without the supernatural. Jesus doesn't have be God for you to have faith in God. You only choose to half faith in God this way. You idol worship the "Jesus" words in the Bible above God. You are so obsessed with the words that God is not even in the conversation. The Bible is the words of the disciples. We have no idea even if the words in the Bible are accurate. And even if they were, the disciples used words and made interpretations based on their personal life experiences and the historical context of their lives.

For example, 1 Peter 2:18-20

"18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God."

I'm sorry, how can I take any words like this to be the word of God? No God of love would consider slavery to be moral. No God would of love find it commendable to be beaten by a master. The Bible was written by men to preserve their own corrupt and immoral authority of kings and lords over subjects and slaves. King James believed in the divine rights of kings. The Bible is not the word of God. The Bible is the word of King James twisted to serve his ideas about monarchy.