Does the New Testament contain every word that Jesus ever uttered?

[Scott Lloyd]

On another thread, johnnie cake challenged me to find a quotation of Jesus in the New Testament condemning homosexual behavior and stated that if I couldn't that meant Jesus "was silent" on the subject.

I and others countered that it is fallacious to assume that the New Testament contains every word Jesus ever uttered, or that if something is not in the New Testament, that means Jesus never said it.

So I wonder how others feel about this. If the New Testament doesn't have record of Jesus saying something about a subject, does that mean it can be assumed that Jesus was "silent" on that subject? And if you agree that it does, and you profess to be a believing Mormon, how does such a notion square in your mind with Church doctrine on continuing revelation, an open canon, Jesus being Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, and so forth?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On another thread, johnnie cake challenged me to find a quotation of Jesus in the New Testament condemning homosexual behavior and stated that if I couldn't that meant Jesus "was silent" on the subject.

I and others countered that it is fallacious to assume that the New Testament contains every word Jesus ever uttered, or that if something is not in the New Testament, that means Jesus never said it.

So I wonder how others feel about this. If the New Testament doesn't have record of Jesus saying something about a subject, does that mean it can be assumed that Jesus was "silent" on that subject? And if you agree that it does, and you profess to be a believing Mormon, how does such a notion square in your mind with Church doctrine on continuing revelation, an open canon, Jesus being Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, and so forth?

 

To further inform this discussion, I will cite the very last verse in the gospel of John in the New Testament:

Quote

 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be ^awritten every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the ^bbooks that should be written. Amen.

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

Jesus was also silent on which breakfast cereal was best. It's Corn Pops of course.

[JLHPROF]

Not even close.
 

But there is far more alluded to in his recorded words and actions than is spelled out in his explicit teachings.

[JAHS]

The reason why such people make this argument is perhaps more important than what Jesus did or didn't say. Of course it's not all Jesus said but people will argue that what is contained in the Bible is all the doctrine and gospel we need to know to be saved. If it's not in there it's not important.  These people of course do not believe in latter-day revelation through prophets. Therefore, since there is no record of Jesus condemning homosexual behavior in the New Testament; it must not be a sin (of course He did mention it in the Old Testament).  

[JAHS]

19 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Jesus was also silent on which breakfast cereal was best. It's Corn Pops of course.

Crispix

[Duncan]

24 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Jesus was also silent on which breakfast cereal was best. It's Corn Pops of course.

not Froot Loops?!

[Storm Rider]

I have often heard the refrain that if Jesus did not say it then it must not be important or significant and therefore the doors are open to do whatever is not mentioned specifically by Jesus.  It appears that those with itching ears will find any degree of rationalization necessary to meet their own ends or the desires of their heart.  

Many liberal religionists enjoy recounting the story of the woman taken in adultery.  Yet, they often forget that Jesus commanded her "go, and sin no more".  He did not condemn her for her sins because all sin. However, the command to sin no more is directed to her personally.  Surely it was not a command to be utterly perfect, to not sin again, but to stop committing adultery.  Her accusers were not wrong; she was caught in a grievous sin, but the manner in which the Pharisees wanted to persecute her was not acceptable to Jesus.  

Finding fault with others by the nature of their sin is unacceptable; however, assuming that because "you" (all of us) or your sins are not mentioned specifically does not mean the command to "sin no more" is something to be forgotten.  We each know our sins.  Some of us want to argue and talk as if our sins are not really sins because Jesus did not condemn our sin of choice or preference (whatever it is that we individually like to do that is contrary to the God's will), but I believe in our heart of hearts we know what is sin and what is not regardless of how many times our mouth denies it. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The reason why such people make this argument is perhaps more important than what Jesus did or didn't say. Of course it's not all Jesus said but people will argue that what is contained in the Bible is all the doctrine and gospel we need to know to be saved. If it's not in there it's not important.  These people of course do not believe in latter-day revelation through prophets. Therefore, since there is no record of Jesus condemning homosexual behavior in the New Testament; it must not be a sin (of course He did mention it in the Old Testament).  

And the apostle Paul, who presumably taught the gospel of Jesus, spoke very disparagingly of homosexual sin. 

[3DOP]

44 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Jesus was also silent on which breakfast cereal was best. It's Corn Pops of course.

Hey young man, they used to call those Sugar Pops. I haven't had them with the corrected nomenclature. A pop by any other name will taste as sweet?

[Damien the Leper]

Sigh.

We don't know that Jesus said any of the things attributed to him in the Gospels.

[3DOP]

It seems like St. Paul wasn't that crazy about homosexual acts. Even without continuing revelation, most Christians have always held that the Apostles faithfully transmitted the teachings of Christ. If Catholics argued for homosexuality because there is no written record from Jesus, it would be more alarming that the apostle could be so ignored, than that homosexuality was supposed to be good. You seem to be suggesting Scott, that LDS tradition is incompatible with limiting the teachings of Christ to the words recorded in the Gospels. Same for Catholics.

[Damien the Leper]

never mind

Edited May 1, 2016 by Valentinus

[carbon dioxide]

My thought is that if one reads all the words contained in the New Testament that Jesus said, one could read all of his words in a day or so.  Many of his words are repeated over again with some variation in the 4 gospels.  So if Jesus went for about 3 years teaching there is only one of two conclusions I come up with.  Either the vast majority of the teachings of Jesus are not found in the New Testament or Jesus during those three years did not speak much.  He fired off a sermon or two and took 3 or 4 weeks off before he taught again.

[JAHS]

19 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Sigh.

We don't know that Jesus said any of the things attributed to him in the Gospels.

What goal do you hope to accomplish by saying such a thing in a very pro-Bible board?

[Traela]

5 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

My thought is that if one reads all the words contained in the New Testament that Jesus said, one could read all of his words in a day or so.  Many of his words are repeated over again with some variation in the 4 gospels.  So if Jesus went for about 3 years teaching there is only one of two conclusions I come up with.  Either the vast majority of the teachings of Jesus are not found in the New Testament or Jesus during those three years did not speak much.  He fired off a sermon or two and took 3 or 4 weeks off before he taught again.

 

I would assume that most of what was written down was new, or newly explained, doctrine.  If Jesus said, "By the way, homosexual acts are bad," His scribes would have reacted, "well, duh," and not bothered to record it.

 

[igonzals]

When people demand literalism in Jesus's words about his view on homosexuality we couldn't explicitly find it. But at the same time we find all the necessary frame to get what was Jesus position about the topic: we find Jesus setting heterosexual relationship as his rule, we find that Evangelist's intentions were not encapsulate all Jesus's words in their books and finnally find that transitivity about Apostle's teachings respect Jesus position is a valid paradigm.

Firstly, Jesus spoke of relationships in heterosexual terms when he said:

Quote

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Mt. 19:4-6)

Secondly, Evangelists tought they couldn't write all Savior's words (John 21:25) because there were great in number and their labor were show Jesus as Messiah. In addition of this point we would point to one specific example, of many, in wich Jesus was refering some of his words we are not able to find in the Gospels:

Quote

Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. (Mt. 11:21-22)

Where are thouse words that Jesus pronounced in Chorazin, BethSaida?

In third place, transitivity (a->b->c then a->c) related to see Jesus teachings in the Apostles's teachings is valid because Jesus mentioned it in the Apostolic Comission when we said to the Apostles:

Quote

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you (Mt. 28:20)

At that place were Peter and Judas. In their apostolic letters we find strong warnings against homosexuality (2 Pe. 2:6; Judas 1:7). And in the case of Paul, his learning of the Gospel came directly from Jesus, we have a lot of quotes condemning homosexual relationships that is no necessary to mention becasue are widely known.

To sum up there is no place to doubt that Jesus was not agree with homosexual relationships.

 

[smac97]

On 5/1/2016 at 5:34 PM, VideoGameJunkie said:

Jesus was also silent on which breakfast cereal was best. It's Corn Pops of course.

Sorry.  It's warm Grape Nuts.  Microwaved in milk with a small pat of butter, then brown sugar to taste.  Yummers!

-Smac

[smac97]

On 5/1/2016 at 6:33 PM, Valentinus said:

Sigh.

We don't know that Jesus said any of the things attributed to him in the Gospels.

Agreed.  We accept these sayings on faith, and with the understanding that The Bible as we now have it is not a perfect and pristine historical record.

This is one of the reasons I am grateful for modern prophets and apostles.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Jesus was also silent on which breakfast cereal was best. It's Corn Pops of course.

Jesus Himself told us what cereal to eat;

"Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat"  (Matt 6: 25)

And where it comes from:

"I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." (John 10:10)

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

Sigh.

We don't know that Jesus said any of the things attributed to him in the Gospels.

Val, what does this mean or what is your objective in highlighting such a position?  You obviously know that this would cause conflict given LDS teaching that the Bible is scripture.  Just curious. 

[3DOP]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sorry.  It's warm Grape Nuts.  Microwaved in milk with a small pat of butter, then brown sugar to taste.  Yummers!

-Smac

Wow...that sounds not so bad.

[Calm]

If you like GrapeNuts, I suggest using them instead of Rice Krispies in RK treats.  Lot more flavour.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, Traela said:

 

I would assume that most of what was written down was new, or newly explained, doctrine.  If Jesus said, "By the way, homosexual acts are bad," His scribes would have reacted, "well, duh," and not bothered to record it.

 

I would agree with that.  There is no reason to cover an issue if Jesus and the people had general agreement on it.  His teachings tend to reveal new things or explain or correct wrong ideas.  Not on a rant about all the things the people were doing right or correctly believed. 

[cdowis]

See Acts 1:3 which gives a direct answer to this question.