Maybe the Jesus Seminar folks should call themselves the Council of Nice-to-seeya. (Okay, that was really wretched. My name is John, and Iām a pun-aholic.)
As far as what the actual teachings of Jesus are, I donāt like the Jesus Seminar and I donāt like the Council of Nicea. I donāt like any church dogma or stance or theology telling me what they are. I donāt like anything or anybody who isnāt Jesus (including the Bible) telling me what Jesus says. All a person has to do to know for sure is to ask Jesus. He will answer you. Itās not that difficult if you try persistantly.
Thatās why I find Quakerism so appealing. Thereās very little or no church, ministers, priests or popes, dogmas, creeds, no silly rituals, no outward symbols. All that matters is a personās direct experience with God through the Inner Light of Christ, which all people have in them because weāre all made in the image of God.
Itās almost shocking to think that you can give up ministers, popes, church teachings, offical positions, and all that. Those things are so deeply ingrained into our cultures. But once you realise that you can in fact give it all up for a pure, unpolluted two-way dialogue and relationship with Jesus, you look back and realise how trapping and silly it all is.
Absolutely not. Youāre my friend and I donāt make friends with fundamentalists (kidding, of course). I donāt think youāre fundamentalist at all, though. Seriously. Jerry Falwell is fundamentalist. Youāre not. I donāt know my exact criteriaā¦itās sort of a āknow it when you see itā type of thing. One can take the Bible literally, in my eyes, and still not be fundamentalist.
See, thereās a good example of how a historian can be of assistance to a theologian. 
I donāt mind a group of specialists voting, but I like to know if they were elected or appointed, and by whom. The church has actually come a long way since the days of pentecost. Remember the method used by the early disciples to replace Judas? They prayed and then tossed theā¦
You must realize that as a follower you are a victim of, and subject to a degree, whatever the original editors and elders say is truth. Itās only in the absence of God that youād need to vote on such matters. And, what you are saying may well be what the councils were saying (and doing). BTW, if all you have to do is ask Jesus, there would have been no need for all the research it took to uncover the various interpolations of the NT. What it took was the discovery of ancient manuscriptsā¦IOW, historians.
Umm, unless Iām mistaken, that is exactly what Cran is saying. He believes that there is no need for the NT, dogma, liturgy, etc. He believes the way to understand Jesus is to speak with Jesus directly and listen to the response.
All the Best, Tom
Which is what Neale Donald Walsch purports to do, only he refers to God rather than Jesus.
(definition #2 of purportāintends to do, and says he is doing.)
Youāre correct. Thatās what Iām saying. We donāt need a New Testament, an Old Testament, a Book Of Mormon, a Tanak, a Septuagint, a Quāran, a Gita, or any of those other volumes in order to have a relationship with God. Iām not saying that theyāre all absolutely completely utterly useless - Iām studying the New Testament academically because I believe itās good to know history and why certain bodies and organizations act the way they do, etc.
I donāt think, though, that any knowledge of the New Testament (or any other book or political-religious office) is necessary to have a fufilling, perfect (as humanly perfect can be, of course) relationship with Jesus.
There are peoples on this earth who have never heard of the person Jesus Christ and in whose languages the Bible has never been translated. These people are not excluded from having a relationship with Jesus simply because they donāt go to a church building with priests and āholy booksā and have a little bit of water sprinkled on their heads. When God made us in his(her/it, etc) image, that means we are made in the image of God and have God inside us and direct access to God.
I talk to Jesus all the time and I know that Jesus is directly available to all people just as sure as I know my name.
In the most basic sense, I would describe myself as a primitive Christian. I really donāt like clergy, books, and church rulings. Thereās no need for it. A positive relationship with Jesus cannot and will not be regulated like that.
Yikes, Iām starting to understand you, Cranberry! Should I be concerned for my mental state??? 
:roll: 
All the Best, Tom
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I donāt think āthe actual teachings of Jesusā are subject to what is revealed to every different praying person within the last 2,000 years. Prayer might give a person direction, or a feeling about what is right or wrong in certain situations, but not the truth about which of Jesusā historic teachings are authentic and which are not.
I do. No two people are the same, so why should Jesus give us all the same teachings and insights?
Youāre thinking in terms of Jesus as a historical person, and Iām not. For me, Jesus is still here, in our hearts, minds and souls. His teachings that he may or may not have told his original followers are different than those he tells me or you.
Before itās said, I think I should say that I agree that on the surface it seems that each person having a highly individual relationship with Jesus could be dangerous - after all, what if somebody says Jesus told them to blow up a building or murder children, right? Well, to that I would say that I have faith in Jesus. I know his love and I know he would never do that. People may claim it, but the onus is on the person who claims it, not Jesus.
As skeptical as I am about the authenticity of early Christianity, I would never substitute the word āteachingsā for āimpressions.ā Teachings, when used in context with the Jesus Seminar or the Council of Nicea (as in above), means the historical sermons, lessons, and recorded conversations of Jesus as reported in the oldest, most reliable, and original manuscripts. The Jesus Seminar and the Council of Nicea did not meet to vote over personal impressions received though prayer.
They should have.
The Jesus Seminar, from the same people who brought you Showgirls!
Thatās very interesting. I wonder why he (Paul Verhoeven) was in that particular thinktank?
I was just talking with Jesus this afternoon and he told me that my wife is pregnant with Elvis Presleyās child via the intervention of the Holy Spirit. He also told me to direct traffic in the nude. He told me that Black people are to be kept segregated from white people. He told me that it is ok to beat children as long as youāre trying to get them to conform to Christian principles of behavior. He told me that breakdancing is the key to salvation. He told me that I have substances in my blood that will lead to a cure for AIDS. He told me that people around me, even strangers, are able to hear all of my thoughts by some kind of ābrain broadcast.ā
Now, this could all be some of my silly parody except everyone of these has been said to me, personally, in my role as a psychologist in some of the last 25 years. This leads me to be a little wary of putting too much confidence in those direct conversations with Jesus.
Yeah. I had heard that one. Thatās a weird little twist, isnāt it?
And, STARSHIP TROOPERS, too. That movie was even stranger than Showgirls. AND I DIDNāT EVEN SEE SHOWGIRLS!! REALLY! Not the cut or the uncut versions!! Not four times or even three times, even.
Dale
Do you think those were direct conversations with Jesus?
I donāt.
I am thinking of something that Mother Teresa saidā¦that we all belong to each other. We tend to forget that. We should take care of one another and make sure weāre ok. This involves, I think, discussing our relationships with Jesus and our conversations with him with other people. If we do our job in taking care of each other because we belong to each other, somebody who thinks that Jesus said breakdancing is the key to salvation will be taken care of, mentally, instead of be used as an argument against talking with and listening to Jesus.
I think Iām pretty much with you on this one Cranā¦I just think in terms of God, rather than being Jesus-centric.
Is it because youāve been burnt out on Jesus? I know many people who cringe when the word āJesusā is brought up but have no objection to the word āGodā. God is a more abstractā¦concept, I guessā¦than is Jesus. I think itās terribly terribly sad how commercial and white Anglo-Saxon Protestant weāve made Jesus in America. Jesus has become a name brand, like Coke or McDonalds. The Jesus of unconditional unfaltering unpolluted love, the Jesus whoās inner light is within us is almost unknown in general, and laughed at all the time.
Or is it because youāre more universalist? Iāve never really fully understood the concept and definition of universalism. I think I am universalist to a certain extent, but in other ways Iām not. I have a hard time defining universalismishes to myself, actually, but it doesnāt matter that much to me. I think Jesus is above universalism and non-universalism.