is the Christian concept of the One from a philosophical point of view true?

[Immanuel Can]

The Jesus Seminar,...

Seriously?

The so-called "Jesus Seminar" was a bunch of liberal theologians who made their decisions based on popular vote. If they "didn't like" what Jesus said, they just dismissed it as "inauthentic." Their procedure was really no more sophisticated than that. They actually used coloured beads in a jar to decide whether or not they liked particular sayings.

No textual critic accepts the pronouncements of "The Jesus Seminar," and their pronouncements have been taken seriously by no reputable scholarship. Today, they are a kind of anecdotal joke about how silly liberal theologians can be.

[Gary Childress]

The Jesus Seminar,...

Seriously?

The so-called "Jesus Seminar" was a bunch of liberal theologians who made their decisions based on popular vote. If they "didn't like" what Jesus said, they just dismissed it as "inauthentic." Their procedure was really no more sophisticated than that. They actually used coloured beads in a jar to decide whether or not they liked particular sayings.

No textual critic accepts the pronouncements of "The Jesus Seminar," and their pronouncements have been taken seriously by no reputable scholarship. Today, they are a kind of anecdotal joke about how silly liberal theologians can be.

And what do you think the Roman clerics did when they adopted the writings of the Hebrews, including some and excluding others? Were priests of the Roman empire more benevolent than "liberal theologians"?

[Immanuel Can]

Christ had a lot of good in him.

People say that, and then go on to deny everything he said.

Interesting. Why do they call him "good" when they don't believe His words, or anything about Him? And how do they know who He really was, so as to pronounce Him good, when they also claim they can't trust the historical records about Him?

It's almost as if they KNOW He is good, and want to borrow His moral credibility, but don't want to have to believe Him or to obey anything He said at all...

[Immanuel Can]

And what do you think the Roman clerics did when they adopted the writings of the Hebrews, including some and excluding others? Were priests of the Roman empire more benevolent than "liberal theologians"?

You're talking about the Roman Catholics, I presume. I'm not one of them. I'll let them answer for themselves.

[Gary Childress]

Christ had a lot of good in him.

People say that, and then go on to deny everything he said.

Interesting. Why do they call him "good" when they don't believe His words, or anything about Him? And how do they know who He really was, so as to pronounce Him good, when they also claim they can't trust the historical records about Him?

It's almost as if they KNOW He is good, and want to borrow His moral credibility, but don't want to have to believe Him or to obey anything He said at all...

Who calls him "good" and then doesn't believe his words?

[Gary Childress]

And what do you think the Roman clerics did when they adopted the writings of the Hebrews, including some and excluding others? Were priests of the Roman empire more benevolent than "liberal theologians"?

You're talking about the Roman Catholics, I presume. I'm not one of them. I'll let them answer for themselves.

You're reading a book they edited. Maybe you should read Pravda to get the real story on the Ukraine war?

[Immanuel Can]

Christ had a lot of good in him.

People say that, and then go on to deny everything he said.

Interesting. Why do they call him "good" when they don't believe His words, or anything about Him? And how do they know who He really was, so as to pronounce Him good, when they also claim they can't trust the historical records about Him?

It's almost as if they KNOW He is good, and want to borrow His moral credibility, but don't want to have to believe Him or to obey anything He said at all...

Who calls him "good" and then doesn't believe his words?

Everybody who isn't His disciple but calls Him "good." Why would you call somebody "good" and then refuse everything they say?

[Gary Childress]

People say that, and then go on to deny everything he said.

Interesting. Why do they call him "good" when they don't believe His words, or anything about Him? And how do they know who He really was, so as to pronounce Him good, when they also claim they can't trust the historical records about Him?

It's almost as if they KNOW He is good, and want to borrow His moral credibility, but don't want to have to believe Him or to obey anything He said at all...

Who calls him "good" and then doesn't believe his words?

Everybody who isn't His disciple but calls Him "good." Why would you call somebody "good" and then refuse everything they say?

Do you think Martin Luther King was good? Do you not believe many of his words were good without believing he's the second incarnation of Jesus?

[Immanuel Can]

You're reading a book they edited.

You need a basic primer on Biblical textual criticism. It's actually probably the most serious and rigorous body of textual scholarship done in human history.

Check that: it IS the most serious and rigorous body of textual scholarship performed in history, bar none. It's a far cry from coloured beads in a jar.

[Gary Childress]

You're reading a book they edited.

You need a basic primer on Biblical textual criticism. It's actually probably the most serious and rigorous body of textual scholarship done in human history.

Check that: it IS the most serious and rigorous body of textual scholarship performed in history, bar none. It's a far cry from coloured beads in a jar.

If the Roman clerics didn't use "colored beads" to vote on what each of them thought was the right text to include and which was the wrong, then how did they arrive at their decisions?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you think Martin Luther King was good?

MLK was a mere man. He did some good things; his biographers also say he did some bad things, particularly in his personal life. https://medium.com/lessons-from-history ... 93f19db839.

On the whole, I'm glad the man existed, because of his effect on civil rights -- but I don't call him personally "good." I leave that assessment to the Judge.

[Immanuel Can]

If the Roman clerics didn't use "colored beads" to vote on what each of them thought was the right text to include and which was the wrong, then how did they arrive at their decisions?

Textual criticism is a big subject. It involves knowledge of the manuscripts, understanding of the various councils, an understanding of proper theology, and information about the sordid history of Romanism and phony clericalism.

What it doesn't involve is coloured beads.

[Gary Childress]

Do you think Martin Luther King was good?

MLK was a mere man. He did some good things; his biographers also say he did some bad things, particularly in his personal life. https://medium.com/lessons-from-history ... 93f19db839.

On the whole, I'm glad the man existed, because of his effect on civil rights -- but I don't call him personally "good." I leave that assessment to the Judge.

There you go. I feel much the same way about Jesus. Jesus had his perspective, the Buddha had his perspective, MLK had his perspective and together they all helped piece together a larger puzzle. Again, only one of them allegedly said that it was "only" through him that one comes to know the divine. Are we to just take his word for it? And if so, then what is anyone supposed to do who doubts Jesus' authenticity? Do we go to hell or do we go to Church, dunk our heads in a bowl, and lie to the pastor there?

[Gary Childress]

If the Roman clerics didn't use "colored beads" to vote on what each of them thought was the right text to include and which was the wrong, then how did they arrive at their decisions?

Textual criticism is a big subject. It involves knowledge of the manuscripts, understanding of the various councils, an understanding of proper theology, and information about the sordid history of Romanism and phony clericalism.

What it doesn't involve is coloured beads.

And it is somehow evident to you that the clerics in LA did not possess any of those skills or knowledge. And if so, what do you base your evaluation on? Do you know something they don't? Do you know for certain not accepting Jesus will send one to hell and they on the other hand are ignorant of that?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you think Martin Luther King was good?

MLK was a mere man. He did some good things; his biographers also say he did some bad things, particularly in his personal life. https://medium.com/lessons-from-history ... 93f19db839.

On the whole, I'm glad the man existed, because of his effect on civil rights -- but I don't call him personally "good." I leave that assessment to the Judge.

There you go. I feel much the same way about Jesus.

Okay. But I don't call MLK "good." Why did you call Jesus "good," and then not believe what He says?