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

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, cdowis said:

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

And this one:
John 16:12
"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." 

He was crucified shortly after saying this. I wonder what those many things were?

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

And this one:
John 16:12
"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." 

He was crucified shortly after saying this. I wonder what those many things were?

We still can't bear them.

Joseph Smith had the same lament.  Sometimes I wonder if our leaders today bite their tongue on revealing further truths to us.

[rodheadlee]

2 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Sigh.

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

You are  correct. We can only know this through a manifestation  of the Holy Ghost that Christ actually said those things in the Gospels.

Edited May 1, 2016 by rodheadlee

[VideoGameJunkie]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We still can't bear them.

Joseph Smith had the same lament.  Sometimes I wonder if our leaders today bite their tongue on revealing further truths to us.

They always give us the line milk before meat.

[Freedom]

What is more telling is that homosexuals were being put to death in Jesus' day and he made no efforts to stop the practice. He spoke out about that which was wrong. There was not a rampant problem with homosexuality in his time because if you were found out your life generally came to an end. He advocated for a lot of the downtrodden but for some reason he never spoke out for the gay community. This is we need to look for. 

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

They always give us the line milk before meat.

It is a Biblical concept (1 Cor 3:2, Heb 5:12)

Then there's also the old "line upon line" scriptures (Isa 28: 13)

[Damien the Leper]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

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

No goal. Just stating the obvious.

[Damien the Leper]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

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. 

People want to always quote Jesus, an apocalyptic obscure Jew, and cite an obscure authoritarian oligarchy as an authoritative source on the matter. It's an exhausted methodology bearing no fruit.

[Damien the Leper]

59 minutes ago, JAHS said:

And this one:
John 16:12
"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." 

He was crucified shortly after saying this. I wonder what those many things were?

Not worth speculating on. We'll never know.

[Damien the Leper]

38 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

You are  correct. We can only know this through a manifestation  of the Holy Ghost that Christ actually said those things in the Gospels.

Such mysticism does nothing for me.

[Damien the Leper]

35 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

They always give us the line milk before meat.

Which is as worthless as a bad pick up line a guy uses on a woman. Laughable at best.

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Freedom said:

What is more telling is that homosexuals were being put to death in Jesus' day and he made no efforts to stop the practice. He spoke out about that which was wrong. There was not a rampant problem with homosexuality in his time because if you were found out your life generally came to an end. He advocated for a lot of the downtrodden but for some reason he never spoke out for the gay community. This is we need to look for. 

Clarification requested:  Are you suggesting Christ was okay with those engaging in homosexual practices being put to death?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours 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.

Of course the scribes accompanying Jesus were taking verbatim Aramaic dictation, which was later edited, translated into Latin, and codified into Roman res gestae -- which were somehow lost, along with most such documents -- but which were summarized in Greek translation for the benefit of local congregations long after the deaths of the apostles.  

[Robert F. Smith]

53 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

They always give us the line milk before meat.

Yes, but only because yokels continue to claim that a baby should be given meat before milk -- metaphorically speaking, of course.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

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.

That the teachings of Jesus could be so limited is beyond absurd within a Mormon doctrinal framework. 

That's why I was so taken aback that this would be viewed as a viable argument. 

Edited May 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[3DOP]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That the teachings of Jesus could be so limited is beyond absurd within a Mormon doctrinal framework. 

That's why I was so taken aback that this would be viewed as a viable argument. 

Right. We must reject Restoration theology, Catholic theology, and Reformation theology to arrive at permission to disregard teachings except those found in the Gospels. Who cares about so called Christian homosexuality if it requires that Christianity be gutted?

[Jim Stiles]

4 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Sigh.

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

Yes, we do.  Reject the Bible, and one has to reject all of ancient history.

[Damien the Leper]

35 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

Yes, we do.  Reject the Bible, and one has to reject all of ancient history.

Very naive. The scriptures are not a historical text or chronology of historical events. 

[Abulafia]

My take on this this,  fwiw, is that Jesus, through a canon that was fought for and argued over, was and had to be portrayed through the eyes of men of their times.  Just as LDS sdripture is filtered mostly through Joseph Smith's mind.

It's probably why Papias can say that he preferred to talk to people rather than read words, to find out what Jesus and the early groups taught.

I wish there had been more written about gender issues like intersex which must have occurred at the time, just as it occurs now.  How were these people treated?   

In a way I think it is silly to concentrate on one aspect of sexuality.  Whatever Jesus felt, he seems to honour those who had made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom. Celibacy makes sense within an apocalyptic worldview.

“

Quote

So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what Elohim has joined together, let man not separate.”7They said to Him, “Why then did Mosheh command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”8He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts, Mosheh allowed you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.9“And I say to you, whoever puts away his wife, except on the ground of whoring, and marries another, commits adultery.a And whoever marries her who has been put away commits adultery.”b10His taught ones said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is good not to marry.”11And He said to them, “Not all receive this word, but only those to whom it has been given,12for there are eunuchs who were so born from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the reign of the heavens. He who is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

Had those men had a greater understanding of gender and the complexity of sexuality which wasn't based in pederasty or rape or sheer promiscuity I am pretty certain there would have been a loving and understanding approach.  

[Storm Rider]

7 hours ago, Valentinus said:

People want to always quote Jesus, an apocalyptic obscure Jew, and cite an obscure authoritarian oligarchy as an authoritative source on the matter. It's an exhausted methodology bearing no fruit.

I was under the impression that you remained a Christian; a member of the Orthodox Church.  Was I mistaken?  Your comments seem inconsistent with Christianity's most fundamental beliefs.  You need to provide some context for me to understand your comments. 

[JulieM]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course the scribes accompanying Jesus were taking verbatim Aramaic dictation, which was later edited, translated into Latin, and codified into Roman res gestae -- which were somehow lost, along with most such documents -- but which were summarized in Greek translation for the benefit of local congregations long after the deaths of the apostles.  

I admit this is a topic I'm not very familiar with, but I've never heard that we know scribes were with Christ "taking verbatim Aramaic dictation" of all that he said.  

Do you a source for that as I'd love to read more about this?  

[california boy]

12 hours 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?

 

If God is responsible for what is found in the scriptures then every important message that Christ wanted us to learn are found in his words. If men are writing the scriptures then what they contain really doesn't matter much 

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Freedom said:

What is more telling is that homosexuals were being put to death in Jesus' day and he made no efforts to stop the practice. He spoke out about that which was wrong. There was not a rampant problem with homosexuality in his time because if you were found out your life generally came to an end. He advocated for a lot of the downtrodden but for some reason he never spoke out for the gay community. This is we need to look for. 

The Jews were living under Roman law. They could not kill whoever they wanted to. That is why the church leaders had to go to Pilot and have the Romans kill Christ. So CF R that Romans were going around killing homosexuals. 

[theplains]

12 hours ago, JAHS said:

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. 

Knowing and having faith in the atonement of Christ is all that is needed for salvation. But 
seeing that there are at least seven definitions of salvation in LDS theology, I can understand 
the point you are trying to make.

Thanks,
Jim

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That the teachings of Jesus could be so limited is beyond absurd within a Mormon doctrinal framework. 

That's why I was so taken aback that this would be viewed as a viable argument. 

The truth is we have no record of Christ addressing homosexuality.  You can make assumptions and guesses regarding what he believed and whether or not he taught anything on this topic, but we simply do not know.  It is very feasible or possible that Christ never did speak about or condemn homosexuality.  It is at least something to consider when discussing this topic, IMO, but no conclusions can be made one way or the other just on this fact alone. 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2016 by ALarson