All the words and teachings of Jesus?

[Revelations won]

Does the Bible contain all the teachings and words of Jesus Christ ?

Does the Bible give indication or evidence that there are more of his teachings that we do not currently have?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to OneJack in post #30]

How does this suggest that Luke himself authored the gospel when Luke would have experienced the events directly and wouldn't have to "investigate" them?

The texts shaded in red clearly suggest that Luke himself wrote the gospel.

This is a naked assertion which ignores the context of the highlighted section. The indication is that a third party looked into the matter and decided to write an account of it.


Would God allow untrue things to be written in what's supposed to be a testimony?

Ask God, He is alive and real.

If you were to ask God this question, what answer would you expect God to give?


What if his name is also Vishnu?

The Almighty God has already proven Himself to us beyond a reasonable doubt; do I need to ask more from Him? I don't think so. But Vishnu till today remains an illusion.

How do you know that Vishnu hasn't proven himself to Hindus beyond a reasonable doubt?


how can you know if some unscrupulous party is only claiming to have been given an utterance by Jesus for their own personal gain?

The things that they claim came from Jesus would be the basis for knowing the truth if they were only for personal gains.

So 1 John 4:1 does have something to teach.

[OneJack]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #31]
Since many have undertaken to compile a history of the events that took place among us, in accordance with what was handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, I too have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, and have decided to write it to you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

This is a naked assertion which ignores the context of the highlighted section. The indication is that a third party looked into the matter and decided to write an account of it.

Did Luke witness nothing about the things that the Lord Jesus did, and plainly copied what was handed down to them by those who from the beginning were witnesses and ministers of the word? If that were the case, that would be plain copying of the works of others, which would make no sense at all. How would he investigate things he is not privy to? By the way, the issue is whether Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts of the Apostles; whether he copied from someone else's works is not relevant to this issue.

If you were to ask God this question, what answer would you expect God to give?

I'll share with you a teaching from the Lord Jesus to give you an idea of what happened in the past regarding your query.

The Lord said: Seventeen people wrote the holy scriptures, and all of them added to what they wrote because even then, their thoughts were already different.

How do you know that Vishnu hasn't proven himself to Hindus beyond a reasonable doubt?

I know by the assertion made to us by the Lord, saying to all today, to wit:

'I am the one true God existing in heaven, earth, or the universe. I created all things, and I gave you life. Where will you go? If not to Me, you have nowhere else to go.'

You/I/They can see the reality of this statement, whether we have somewhere else to go or not, when you/I/they cross the Great Divide.

So 1 John 4:1 does have something to teach.

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

This in itself is an unambiguous teaching. How would you test every spirit if you heard nothing yet from the Lord Jesus? Also, this teaching is not addressed to all people across all generations.

The bible teaches no one; its readers are the ones who interpret/assume/presume/teach them into doctrines and notions for the people to put into practice.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to OneJack in post #32]

Did Luke witness nothing about the things that the Lord Jesus did, and plainly copied what was handed down to them by those who from the beginning were witnesses and ministers of the word? If that were the case, that would be plain copying of the works of others, which would make no sense at all. How would he investigate things he is not privy to? By the way, the issue is whether Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts of the Apostles; whether he copied from someone else's works is not relevant to this issue.

You don't seem to be understanding this. The indication in the text is that the author of the "Gospel of Luke" was not Luke the apostle, but another individual who investigated things he was not privy to by interviewing those who were privy to them.

The Lord said: Seventeen people wrote the holy scriptures, and all of them added to what they wrote because even then, their thoughts were already different.

Did he tell you the names of those seventeen people?


How do you know that Vishnu hasn't proven himself to Hindus beyond a reasonable doubt?

I know by the assertion made to us by the Lord, saying to all today, to wit:

'I am the one true God existing in heaven, earth, or the universe. I created all things, and I gave you life. Where will you go? If not to Me, you have nowhere else to go.'

So you believe in a personal experience? Why couldn't a Hindu believe just as strongly in personal experiences with Hindu deities?

How would you test every spirit if you heard nothing yet from the Lord Jesus?

Do you believe in Jesus manifesting the truth of the Book of Mormon to LDS, or apparitions of the Virgin Mary to Catholics? If you don't, how can you refute those experiences to those who do believe in them?

[OneJack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #32]

You don't seem to be understanding this. The indication in the text is that the author of the "Gospel of Luke" was not Luke the apostle, but another individual who investigated things he was not privy to by interviewing those who were privy to them.

The phrase, ‘another insividual’ is not mentioned in the texts of the verse, it’s only your perception, as an indication [you think] he was another individual. Therefore, people have different perceptions in this issue, e.g.,

The Gospel of Luke does not explicitly name its author within the text. However, ancient Christian tradition uniformly attributes it—along with the Book of Acts—to Luke the Evangelist.Key details about the traditional author:Identity: He is widely identified as a physician and a traveling companion of the Apostle Paul.Background: Scholars and church tradition suggest Luke was a Gentile (non-Jewish) convert, making him the only non-Jewish author of a New Testament book.Historical Evidence: The earliest manuscript ascriptions (like Papyrus 75, dating to around AD 200) and early church writers (such as Irenaeus, c. AD 180) credit the text to him.Scholarly Consensus: While modern critical scholars debate whether the author was an eyewitness or directly associated with Paul, the text itself demonstrates advanced, literary Greek and careful historical research.

We all cannot absolutely determine the truth whether Luke himself wrote them or not; different perceptions in this matter are what we have today.

The Lord said: Seventeen people wrote the holy scriptures, and all of them added to what they wrote because even then, their thoughts were already different.

Did he tell you the names of those seventeen people?

The Lord didn’t mentioned their names.

How do you know that Vishnu hasn't proven himself to Hindus beyond a reasonable doubt?

I know by the assertion made to us by the Lord, saying to all today, to wit:

'I am the one true God existing in heaven, earth, or the universe. I created all things, and I gave you life. Where will you go? If not to Me, you have nowhere else to go.'

So you believe in a personal experience? Why couldn't a Hindu believe just as strongly in personal experiences with Hindu deities?

Yes, I believe in direct and personal encounter/experience with God. I don’t say a Hindu could’t believe in a personal experience with Hindu deities; he can by all means, but I don’t have to meddle with them in this issue since my salvation and eternal life reside only in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind and all His creations.

How would you test every spirit if you heard nothing yet from the Lord Jesus?

Do you believe in Jesus manifesting the truth of the Book of Mormon to LDS, or apparitions of the Virgin Mary to Catholics? If you don't, how can you refute those experiences to those who do believe in them?

I don’t have to refute them; my task is to share to all/them the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Savior to whom all of us must come to, call on, and listen to when He responds to attain the salvation and eternal life of our souls.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to OneJack in post #34]

The phrase, ‘another insividual’ is not mentioned in the texts of the verse, it’s only your perception, as an indication [you think] he was another individual.

The words "another individual" don't have to be in the text for it to have been written by another individual.

ancient Christian tradition uniformly attributes it—along with the Book of Acts—to Luke the Evangelist.

What ancient tradition says about it doesn't matter. The author refers to his text as an account of "what was handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (Lk. 1:2), clearly distinguishing himself from those who were eyewitnesses.


Did he tell you the names of those seventeen people?

The Lord didn’t mentioned their names.

Then how is anyone else to know that seventeen people wrote scripture? Do you know of anyone outside of your acquaintance being told that?

I don’t say a Hindu could’t believe in a personal experience with Hindu deities; he can by all means, but I don’t have to meddle with them in this issue since my salvation and eternal life reside only in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind and all His creations.

If you're not saying that a Hindu couldn't believe in a personal experience with Hindu deities, are you saying that the Hindu's personal experience couldn't be genuine?


Do you believe in Jesus manifesting the truth of the Book of Mormon to LDS, or apparitions of the Virgin Mary to Catholics? If you don't, how can you refute those experiences to those who do believe in them?

I don’t have to refute them; my task is to share to all/them the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Savior to whom all of us must come to, call on, and listen to when He responds to attain the salvation and eternal life of our souls.

Then why wouldn't it be their task to share their experiences with you? And how could you demonstrate that their task was any less valid than yours?

[OneJack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #34]

The phrase, ‘another insividual’ is not mentioned in the texts of the verse, it’s only your perception, as an indication [you think] he was another individual.

The words "another individual" don't have to be in the text for it to have been written by another individual.

In your perception, it would appear that way since you believed Luke was not the author of the two books in the bible - the gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts of the Apostles. But to others, like me, we believe Luke himself authored those two books.

ancient Christian tradition uniformly attributes it—along with the Book of Acts—to Luke the Evangelist.

What ancient tradition says about it doesn't matter. The author refers to his text as an account of "what was handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (Lk. 1:2), clearly distinguishing himself from those who were eyewitnesses.

That's why I'm asking you, 'Did Luke witness nothing about Jesus?' Saying, ' I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ' gives us a hint that Luke, too, had accounts on par with those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the world, which he investigated using his own accounts as his basis.

Did he tell you the names of those seventeen people?

The Lord didn’t mentioned their names.

Then how is anyone else to know that seventeen people wrote scripture?

Anyone may know them through a sharing method, like I'm doing right now. Or you can ignore what I said and come straight to the Lord and ask Him for the truth.

Do you know of anyone outside of your acquaintance being told that?

NO

I don’t say a Hindu couldn’t believe in a personal experience with Hindu deities; he can by all means, but I don’t have to meddle with them in this issue since my salvation and eternal life reside only in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind and all His creations.

If you're not saying that a Hindu couldn't believe in a personal experience with Hindu deities, are you saying that the Hindu's personal experience couldn't be genuine?

I'm not saying anything about whether a Hindu's personal experience with Vishnu is genuine or not, since it is neither relevant nor prerequisite to my salvation and eternal life. And on top of this, ignoring it totally does not incur sin against God on my part.

Do you believe in Jesus manifesting the truth of the Book of Mormon to LDS, or apparitions of the Virgin Mary to Catholics? If you don't, how can you refute those experiences to those who do believe in them?

I don’t have to refute them; my task is to share with all/them the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Savior to whom all of us must come to, call on, and listen to when He responds to attain the salvation and eternal life of our souls.

Then why wouldn't it be their task to share their experiences with you?

I'm not saying it wouldn't be their task to share their experiences with me; by all means, they can.

And how could you demonstrate that their task was any less valid than yours?

I don't have to demonstrate anything to discredit them; doing so does not give my soul a pass to Heaven.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to OneJack in post #36]

That's why I'm asking you, 'Did Luke witness nothing about Jesus?' Saying, ' I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ' gives us a hint that Luke, too, had accounts on par with those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the world, which he investigated using his own accounts as his basis.

As one of the apostles himself, Luke would have been one of those eyewitnesses and therefore wouldn't have to "investigate" using his own accounts. He could have just relayed his own accounts.

The author still distinguishes between himself and "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word," who would have included Luke.


Then how is anyone else to know that seventeen people wrote scripture?

Anyone may know them through a sharing method, like I'm doing right now. Or you can ignore what I said and come straight to the Lord and ask Him for the truth.

If anyone can know that there were seventeen of them, can anyone know their names? Would two people asking independently be given two lists which they could compare?


If you're not saying that a Hindu couldn't believe in a personal experience with Hindu deities, are you saying that the Hindu's personal experience couldn't be genuine?

I'm not saying anything about whether a Hindu's personal experience with Vishnu is genuine or not, since it is neither relevant nor prerequisite to my salvation and eternal life. And on top of this, ignoring it totally does not incur sin against God on my part.

Are you admitting that you can't know that a Hindu's experience isn't genuine?

[OneJack]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #37]

As one of the apostles himself, Luke would have been one of those eyewitnesses and therefore wouldn't have to "investigate" using his own accounts. He could have just relayed his own accounts.

What Luke had investigated, using his own accounts, were those accounts that were handed down to them by many, who had undertaken to draw up an account of the things that had been fulfilled among them. Luke was not an apostle of Jesus; he was a physician who was with Paul.

The author still distinguishes between himself and "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word," who would have included Luke.

As I have said, Luke was not an apostle of Jesus; hence, the Lord did not command him to write scriptures, nor was he a minister of the word.

If anyone can know that there were seventeen of them, can anyone know their names?

The fact that it did not happen that anyone knew their names, your hypothetical question is now water under the bridge.

Would two people asking independently be given two lists which they could compare?

Based on personal experience with the Lord, I say yes, provided those two people did not talk with each other before they queried the Lord.

Are you admitting that you can't know that a Hindu's experience isn't genuine?

Of course, I can know it if it is genuine or not, but I see no reason why I have to meddle with that sect, which does nothing against my belief in God.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to OneJack in post #38]

What Luke had investigated, using his own accounts, were those accounts that were handed down to them by many, who had undertaken to draw up an account of the things that had been fulfilled among them.

He wouldn't have to use accounts of his own to investigate anyone else's account. And he identifies others as "eyewitnesses".

Luke was not an apostle of Jesus; he was a physician who was with Paul.

If Jesus had no Apostle Luke, who was the eleventh member of "the eleven" who were left after the death of Judas?


If anyone can know that there were seventeen of them, can anyone know their names?

The fact that it did not happen that anyone knew their names, your hypothetical question is now water under the bridge.

Meaning that you can't give the question a Yes or No answer?


Would two people asking independently be given two lists which they could compare?

Based on personal experience with the Lord, I say yes, provided those two people did not talk with each other before they queried the Lord.

It would have to be tightly controlled, but it would be an interesting experiment to conduct.


Are you admitting that you can't know that a Hindu's experience isn't genuine?

Of course, I can know it if it is genuine or not, but I see no reason why I have to meddle with that sect, which does nothing against my belief in God.

So you can know the nature of the Hindu's experience, but you can't prove that you know it?

[OneJack]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #39]

If Jesus had no Apostle Luke, who was the eleventh member of "the eleven" who were left after the death of Judas?

The 12 Apostles of Jesus were Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddeus (Jude), Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot.

Meaning that you can't give the question a Yes or No answer?

Yes, since it's a hypothetical question.

It would have to be tightly controlled, but it would be an interesting experiment to conduct.

No way, if the intention were to experiment, that would be putting the Lord to a test, which is the gravest sin against God.

So you can know the nature of the Hindu's experience, but you can't prove that you know it?

I can tell whether it's genuine or not based on a Hindu's account of his personal experience.