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 #20]

Person A: "No Christian will doubt that Jesus has spoken to me."
Christian to Person A: Why, what exactly did Jesus speak to you, and how?

"He spoke to me that all the teachings that we put into practice are audibly uttered [to us] by him, who is our [Christians’] only Pastor and Teacher across all generations."

Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Christian, and Jesus spoke something completely different to him."
Christian to Person B: Can you tell what that something different the Lord tells him?

"He told Uncle Angus that he speaks and teaches through the words of the Bible."

[OneJack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #20]

Person A: "No Christian will doubt that Jesus has spoken to me."
Christian to Person A: Why, what exactly did Jesus speak to you, and how?

"He spoke to me that all the teachings that we put into practice are audibly uttered [to us] by him, who is our [Christians’] only Pastor and Teacher across all generations."

Why would he speak to you [again] about things he already uttered to your group, which he told you (your group) to put into practice? This makes no sense since the Lord Jesus has already uttered them to you.

For non-Christians, the best narrative would be, 'He spoke to me that all the teachings that we put into practice are in accordance with His teachings to His sheep, across all generations,' though we are not under His shepherding yet.

For Christians, He taught us the essential things we need to put into practice until the end to maintain in us the salvation and eternal life that He bestowed on us.

Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Christian, and Jesus spoke something completely different to him."
Christian to Person B: Can you tell what that something different the Lord tells him?
"He told Uncle Angus that he speaks and teaches through the words of the Bible."

Never in the history of mankind did the Lord Jesus Christ speak and teach through the words of the bible, but He speaks to and teaches mankind by Himself through various manifestations. The Lord Jesus Christ taught us that the bible is not God.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to OneJack in post #22]

Never in the history of mankind did the Lord Jesus Christ speak and teach through the words of the bible

"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach"
(Acts of the Apostles 1:1)

Was the author of Acts wrong?


If Jesus taught the Beatitudes, how would you know them except for their being in the Christian Bible?

He speaks to and teaches mankind by Himself through various manifestations.

Then what, in your opinion, is the Bible for?

[OneJack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #22]

Never in the history of mankind did the Lord Jesus Christ speak and teach through the words of the bible

"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach"
(Acts of the Apostles 1:1)
Was the author of Acts wrong?

Wrong in what sense? Seemed it was Luke who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, and he did that of his own volition, saying, 'In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach.' I think the word 'all' in the verse refers to the deeds and teachings of the Lord Jesus that he witnessed firsthand; he is long gone, but Jesus is still teaching to this day. What I mean to say with my phrase, 'Never in the history of mankind did the Lord Jesus Christ speak and teach through the words of the Bible,' is that the Lord Jesus personally speaks and teaches mankind across all ages by Himself, not through the Bible, where people will come to and talk to God through its pages.

If Jesus taught the Beatitudes, how would you know them except for their being in the Christian Bible?

Is that so? Are you saying the Bible is the Lord Jesus Christ? What is Jesus to you, by the way? Jesus is the forever-living God, and we can know the truth behind those beatitudes through Him if we come to and call on Him.

He speaks to and teaches mankind by Himself through various manifestations.

Then what, in your opinion, is the Bible for?

The Bible and other scriptures, along with the latest revelations from the Lord Jesus Christ around the globe, are all testimonies to His existence that God truly exists; people may come to Him at any time to know God rightfully, and the things that they need for the salvation of their souls.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to OneJack in post #24]

Was the author of Acts wrong?

Wrong in what sense? Seemed it was Luke who wrote the Acts of the Apostles

It actually seems that it wasn't Luke who wrote Acts, because it wasn't Luke who wrote the gospel of Luke.

"Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed."
(Luke 1:1-4)


If Jesus taught the Beatitudes, how would you know them except for their being in the Christian Bible?

Is that so? Are you saying the Bible is the Lord Jesus Christ?

You're not answering the question. If Jesus taught the Beatitudes, how would you know them except for their being in the Christian Bible?

In the Christian Bible, authors wrote down words attributed to Jesus. Do you dismiss those words as not being the words of Jesus just because someone else wrote them down?

And again, if two Christians sincerely believe that Jesus uttered something to them and the utterances they believe they received were mutually incompatible (such differences are how denominations split), is either of them correct and how could you know which?

[OneJack]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #25]

Was the author of Acts wrong?
Wrong in what sense? Seemed it was Luke who wrote the Acts of the Apostles
It actually seems that it wasn't Luke who wrote Acts, because it wasn't Luke who wrote the gospel of Luke.

"Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed."
(Luke 1:1-4)

Read this version and tell me which part here tells us that 'it actually seems that it wasn't Luke who wrote Acts, because it wasn't Luke who wrote the gospel of Luke?'

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.

If Jesus taught the Beatitudes, how would you know them except for their being in the Christian Bible?

Is that so? Are you saying the Bible is the Lord Jesus Christ?

You're not answering the question. If Jesus taught the Beatitudes, how would you know them except for their being in the Christian Bible?

What???? If Jesus taught the Beatitudes, we would know them only from the Lord Jesus, who is the Teacher Himself; Jesus is Immanuel, who is God with us. The bible is not Jesus; how can we know the Beatitudes [in the Bible] are exactly the Beatitudes Jesus taught the apostles if we rely only on the bible, which cannot give us the truth in this regard?

Let me give you an example of what the Lord taught us regarding errors in the bible.

Genesis 2:17 presents one of the most discussed and theologically weighty statements in Scripture: “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.”

The Lord taught us that this verse is wrongly worded with respect to what He said to Adam. The Lord taught us that the actual words He uttered to Adam were, 'For in the day that you eat of it, you shall be clothed in sin.'

In the Christian Bible, authors wrote down words attributed to Jesus. Do you dismiss those words as not being the words of Jesus just because someone else wrote them down?

I don't have to dismiss or take them at face value since I don't need them, as far as my salvation and eternal life are at stake. The role of the bible in my life is to testify only to Jesus so that I may know Jesus truly exists, not to teach me anything about God and Jesus, which is the sole job of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And again, if two Christians sincerely believe that Jesus uttered something to them and the utterances they believe they received were mutually incompatible (such differences are how denominations split), is either of them correct and how could you know which

Before I respond to this, could you please tell me your personal take on Christians, what meterstick do you use in identifying Christians?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to OneJack in post #26]

Read this version and tell me which part here tells us that 'it actually seems that it wasn't Luke who wrote Acts, because it wasn't Luke who wrote the gospel of Luke?'

"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."

Jesus is Immanuel, who is God with us. The bible is not Jesus; how can we know the Beatitudes [in the Bible] are exactly the Beatitudes Jesus taught the apostles if we rely only on the bible, which cannot give us the truth in this regard?

Then likewise, how can you know that Jesus is Immanuel if you rely on the Bible? Can it give you the truth in that regard?

Genesis 2:17 presents one of the most discussed and theologically weighty statements in Scripture: “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.”

The Lord taught us that this verse is wrongly worded with respect to what He said to Adam. The Lord taught us that the actual words He uttered to Adam were, 'For in the day that you eat of it, you shall be clothed in sin.'

If the text of the Bible is "wrongly worded", what becomes of the declaration in 2 Timothy 3:16 that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"? Is that wrongly worded as well?

Is it possible that you found a discrepancy in the Bible and are trying to rationalize it as best you can?


In the Christian Bible, authors wrote down words attributed to Jesus. Do you dismiss those words as not being the words of Jesus just because someone else wrote them down?

I don't have to dismiss or take them at face value since I don't need them, as far as my salvation and eternal life are at stake. The role of the bible in my life is to testify only to Jesus so that I may know Jesus truly exists, not to teach me anything about God and Jesus, which is the sole job of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Then if you believe that Jesus is Immanuel and a Hindu believes that Jesus was the tenth incarnation of Vishnu and you can't rely on the Bible to settle the matter, who's right?


And again, if two Christians sincerely believe that Jesus uttered something to them and the utterances they believe they received were mutually incompatible (such differences are how denominations split), is either of them correct and how could you know which?

Before I respond to this, could you please tell me your personal take on Christians, what meterstick do you use in identifying Christians?

It isn't by whether or not they put sugar on their porridge.

[OneJack]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #27]

"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."

The shaded texts are my basis for believing Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.

Then likewise, how can you know that Jesus is Immanuel if you rely on the Bible?

That's the dilemma of relying on the bible, you can't know who Jesus is in the reality of His existence. The only right way to know Jesus is to come to and call on Him, and listen to Him when He responds.

Can it give you the truth in that regard?

No, it can't give me the truth in any manner.

If the text of the Bible is "wrongly worded", what becomes of the declaration in 2 Timothy 3:16 that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable T?

That's under Paul's teaching, which the Lord Jesus did not teach to the apostles, verbatim. The Lord said that the scriptures are testimonies to Him, so that we may come to Him and have life. I don't see any big deal in the phrase 'given by inspiration of God' or 'God-breathed'; the Lord taught us that the said phrase means 'allowed by God to be written.' If salvation and eternal life are the issue, the scriptures have nothing to do with them, nor are they essential as a board pass to heaven.

Is it possible that you found a discrepancy in the Bible and are trying to rationalize it as best you can?

Not unless you were God, but as a human being, there is absolutely no way for us today to do it.

In the Christian Bible, authors wrote down words attributed to Jesus. Do you dismiss those words as not being the words of Jesus just because someone else wrote them down?

NO, I don't dismiss them on the demerit that someone wrote them down, but what I dismiss are only those that the Lord taught us as wrongly worded, or those that He didn't actually utter.

Then if you believe that Jesus is Immanuel and a Hindu believes that Jesus was the tenth incarnation of Vishnu and you can't rely on the Bible to settle the matter, who's right?

Since truth resides only in the Almighty God, whose name is Jesus, He is the one who is right forever, not me as myself, and not a Hindu believer too. The truth about our individual beliefs will come to all of us when we cross the Great Divide.

And again, if two Christians sincerely believe that Jesus uttered something to them and the utterances they believe they received were mutually incompatible (such differences are how denominations split),

Granting you were in the right perception about Christians, the phrases [you made] would read, 'When two Christians heard an utterance from Jesus, and the utterances they've heard were mutually incompatible (such differences are how denominations split), [/quote]
I doubt that a denominational split would arise in this instance, since Christians are well aware of the Lord's way of giving them trials to face and overcome with faithful and steadfast trust in the Lord. I see your focus here is not on Christians but on denominational believers (self-proclaimed Christians) whose only source of their faith in God is the bible alone, not the real and forever living Christ Jesus Himself.

is either of them correct and how could you know which?

Since, in your premise, they were both Christians, your question doesn't apply to them because they both heard utterances from the Lord Jesus, though, as you stated, mutually incompatible, which, to them, said utterances of Jesus are not to be classified as right or wrong, falsity or not, but trials that they have to face and overcome with firm faith in Him.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to OneJack in post #28]

I too have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, and have decided to write it to you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus

The shaded texts are my basis for believing Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.

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?

I don't see any big deal in the phrase 'given by inspiration of God' or 'God-breathed'; the Lord taught us that the said phrase means 'allowed by God to be written.'

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


Then if you believe that Jesus is Immanuel and a Hindu believes that Jesus was the tenth incarnation of Vishnu and you can't rely on the Bible to settle the matter, who's right?

Since truth resides only in the Almighty God, whose name is Jesus

What if his name is also Vishnu?

Since, in your premise, they were both Christians, your question doesn't apply to them because they both heard utterances from the Lord Jesus, though, as you stated, mutually incompatible, which, to them, said utterances of Jesus are not to be classified as right or wrong, falsity or not, but trials that they have to face and overcome with firm faith in Him.

They have to have firm faith in him while not assuming that his utterances are right or true? If a falsehood is simply a "trial" depending on who tells it, how can you know if some unscrupulous party is only claiming to have been given an utterance by Jesus for their own personal gain? How can you "test the spirits" (1 John 4:1) if anyone can claim to be a Christian and claim to have gotten incompatible utterances and you have to assume that Jesus is engaging in ambiguous messaging as a "trial"?

[OneJack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #28]

I too have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, and have decided to write it to you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus[

The shaded texts are my basis for believing Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.

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.

I don't see any big deal in the phrase 'given by inspiration of God' or 'God-breathed'; the Lord taught us that the said phrase means 'allowed by God to be written.'

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

Ask God, He is alive and real.

Then if you believe that Jesus is Immanuel and a Hindu believes that Jesus was the tenth incarnation of Vishnu and you can't rely on the Bible to settle the matter, who's right?

Since truth resides only in the Almighty God, whose name is Jesus

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.

Since, in your premise, they were both Christians, your question doesn't apply to them because they both heard utterances from the Lord Jesus, though, as you stated, mutually incompatible, which, to them, said utterances of Jesus are not to be classified as right or wrong, falsity or not, but trials that they have to face and overcome with firm faith in Him.

They have to have firm faith in him while not assuming that his utterances are right or true? If a falsehood is simply a "trial" depending on who tells it,

The Lord Jesus alone is the Savior; hence, He is the only one who gives trials when salvation and eternal life are the issues.

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.

How can you "test the spirits" (1 John 4:1) if anyone can claim to be a Christian and claim to have gotten incompatible utterances and you have to assume that Jesus is engaging in ambiguous messaging as a "trial"?

You are speaking outside of the Christian world; hence, your kind of question, which does not exist in the Christian world.