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

[Immanuel Can]

So who adopted the Bible? And why did they adopt the verses they did?

The Bible was not originally in "verses." The verse and chapter divisions were added much later. It was originally in whole manuscripts. But all this is available to anybody who is interested in textual criticism. You can find it out for yourself.

OK. Then who adopted the "chapter divisions" that were adopted or were ALL the writings of the Hebrew scholars incorporated into the text. It's still the same question, feel free to answer it.

All the known cannonical writings were included. But as for the divisions, they were a mere convenience. https://www.gotquestions.org/divided-Bi ... erses.html

[Gary Childress]

I'm not a Bible scholar and I don't want to be. I'm not interested.

Then don't ask.

I'm not asking to be a Bible scholar. I'm asking for truth. If you're not going to provide it then keep it hidden to yourself. I'm not interested in truths that others hide.

[Gary Childress]

The Bible was not originally in "verses." The verse and chapter divisions were added much later. It was originally in whole manuscripts. But all this is available to anybody who is interested in textual criticism. You can find it out for yourself.

OK. Then who adopted the "chapter divisions" that were adopted or were ALL the writings of the Hebrew scholars incorporated into the text. It's still the same question, feel free to answer it.

All the known cannonical writings were included. But as for the divisions, they were a mere convenience. https://www.gotquestions.org/divided-Bi ... erses.html

What are "all known CANNONICAL writings"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_ ... ks_of_Eden

[Alexis Jacobi]

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.

The method they used aimed at determining what was most likely, and least likely, to have been spoken by Jesus. Years back I studied the material and found it sound.

What you are doing here is typical of your intellectual dishonesty and deviousness. You have already dismissed that “bunch of liberal theologians” who voted with “colored beads”, but as a Bible extreme-literalist what else could be expected?

The Gospel of John is a late liturgical compendium of early Christian belief.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The Seminar asserts — fairly, rationally — that these types of statements were interpolated into belief-documents for the faithful.

But you will naturally believe all that you desire to believe.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not a Bible scholar and I don't want to be. I'm not interested.

Then don't ask.

I'm not asking to be a Bible scholar.

I wasn't making you one. I was just telling you the truth -- that textual criticism isn't a lightweight game. If you're going to take your own questions seriously, you're going to have to do some research.

And if you don't take your own questions seriously, how do you expect anybody else to?

[Immanuel Can]

What are "all known CANNONICAL writings"?

All which are consistent with the background of historical and textual research that grounds the Biblical canon. In other words, not something Uncle Phil wrote yesterday.

[Gary Childress]

What are "all known CANNONICAL writings"?

All which are consistent with the background of historical and textual research that grounds the Biblical canon. In other words, not something Uncle Phil wrote yesterday.

OK. Perhaps "Uncle Phil" might form his own tribe and get his writings "canonized" by them. How different is that from what the Hebrews did with respect to the gods and whatnot of other tribes around them?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

The method they used aimed at determining what was most likely, and least likely, to have been spoken by Jesus.

...as determined by nothing more than their own liberal prejudices, and using the coloured-bead voting method. See here: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdrobe ... s-seminar/

[Gary Childress]

And if you don't take your own questions seriously, how do you expect anybody else to?

My questions are all "serious" by me. If you wish to take them as a "joke" then take them as such. I can't stop you. Perhaps you have never faced a determined questioner before? Is that why you blow them off as "not serious"?

[Immanuel Can]

What are "all known CANNONICAL writings"?

All which are consistent with the background of historical and textual research that grounds the Biblical canon. In other words, not something Uncle Phil wrote yesterday.

OK. Perhaps "Uncle Phil" might form his own tribe and get his writings "canonized" by them. How different is that from what the Hebrews did with respect to the gods and whatnot of other tribes around them?

You're going to have to do some research. You're asking questions premised on false assumptions, just as you did when you thought the manuscripts were "Roman." It's tiresome to have to explain things at such a rudimentary level...especially since you insist you're "not interested" anyway.

[Immanuel Can]

And if you don't take your own questions seriously, how do you expect anybody else to?

Perhaps you have never faced a determined questioner before?

You're not so "determined." You didn't even do any research, say you won't, and say you aren't really interested.

I run into more difficult and "determined" questions every day.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes. They didn't use any of the credible methods of textual criticism. They completely departed the entire discipline, and went out on their own speculative limb. And if you read some stuff about textual criticism, you'll find out that's exactly what they were doing.

According to you, Immanuel, a fanatic religious believer caught in a loop of absolute Bible literalism!

It should be obvious to all who read here that “credible methods of textual criticism” can only conclude what you conclude! If they concluded anything different — their conclusions would be false!

Your religious fanaticism renders you an intellectual fraud. You are incapable of discerning truth. For all that you desire to assert truth, you stumble — the downside of fanaticism!

[Lacewing]

Absolute systems have advantages. They are like containers in which all energies are self-focussed. Opposition is taken as a challenge! “I am absolutely sure I am right” therefore “I am absolutely sure that you are wrong” — this is the core formula he works with.

Some theists might also view their own rigidity/resistance to all opposition as a courageous and holy demonstration of their commitment to their god... in the face of all that might aim to 'tear them down'. For some, it's their own wonderful epic story in which they, themselves, are on a cross for their god as the throngs of sinners yell and throw things at them.

It's such a twisted view to those who consider divine energy to be pulsing through all of life... with the capability of manifesting in so many ways, independent of small human stories that serve a select group.

[Gary Childress]

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.

The method they used aimed at determining what was most likely, and least likely, to have been spoken by Jesus.

...as determined by nothing more than their own liberal prejudices, and using the coloured-bead voting method. See here: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdrobe ... s-seminar/

OK. Why did they have those "prejudices"? Do you have "prejudices"? Did the early editors of the Bible have "prejudices"? And if so, what were those prejudices and why did they feel the need to have them?

Are the verses that were deleted something that should not be deleted? Should it not be deleted that anyone who does not "accept Jesus" will go to hell? Why or why not?

Is that verse objectively correct (matches reality) or is it just what a very nice and astute mystic carpenter (who possessed no greater "godliness" than the Buddha or other great "mystics", "shamen" and such) told others around him.

[Immanuel Can]

The method they used aimed at determining what was most likely, and least likely, to have been spoken by Jesus.

...as determined by nothing more than their own liberal prejudices, and using the coloured-bead voting method. See here: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdrobe ... s-seminar/

OK. Why did they have those "prejudices"?

Ask them.