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 #40]

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

Yes, since it's a hypothetical question.

A question can't be given a Yes or No answer just because it's hypothetical?


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.

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God"
(1 John 4:1)

Do you believe that it was wrong of Lucy Harris to hide pages from the Book of Mormon to see if Joseph Smith could reproduce them?


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.

Based on his account of his personal experience.....or based on your preconceived notion of his personal experience?

[OneJack]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #41]

A question can't be given a Yes or No answer just because it's hypothetical?

It can be given a Yes or No answer, why not, but since we're talking about God's actions in the past, giving a Yes or No answer would give us nothing for the benefit of our souls.

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God"
(1 John 4:1)

John was talking here to his brethren in Christ, to whom the teachings of the Lord were shared and taught, as Christ instructed them to do. This verse does not apply to bible readers alone. And on top of this, putting to the test any individual who claims to have spoken to God is not a sin against God, unlike putting God himself to the test, like your premise of experimenting, which is the gravest sin against God.

Do you believe that it was wrong of Lucy Harris to hide pages from the Book of Mormon to see if Joseph Smith could reproduce them?

I believe she's not wrong, since Joseph Smith is a man like us. He is not God. Putting him to the test is not a sin against God.

Based on his account of his personal experience.....or based on your preconceived notion of his personal experience?

My meterstick in determining if his personal experience is genuine is exactly what we've heard and learned from the Lord.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to OneJack in post #42]

A question can't be given a Yes or No answer just because it's hypothetical?

It can be given a Yes or No answer, why not, but since we're talking about God's actions in the past, giving a Yes or No answer would give us nothing for the benefit of our souls.

It might give us something of benefit concerning what actually happened in the past, mightn't it?


Do you believe that it was wrong of Lucy Harris to hide pages from the Book of Mormon to see if Joseph Smith could reproduce them?

I believe she's not wrong, since Joseph Smith is a man like us. He is not God. Putting him to the test is not a sin against God.

Two people independently asking for lists of names would be men like us. How can you know if the answers they get are genuine without testing the answers against each other?

My meterstick in determining if his personal experience is genuine is exactly what we've heard and learned from the Lord.

And you believe that has to be uniquely and exclusively genuine?

If you and someone else asked the same question of God and the answers you each respectively believed you got were different, why would the other person have to be the one who was mistaken? Couldn't you just as easily be mistaken as the other person could?

[OneJack]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #43]

It might give us something of benefit concerning what actually happened in the past, mightn't it?

What benefit would it be if it might give us something of benefit concerning what actually happened in the past? However, whatever benefit it would be, we both have it now that you know God commanded 17 people to write scriptures.

Two people independently asking for lists of names would be men like us. How can you know if the answers they get are genuine without testing the answers against each other?

If God is the direct addressee of the queries, the act will be putting God to the test. Knowing that God is the one who gave each questor the answer, why would they have to determine if the answer given to each of them is genuine or not? That's not the way how it goes to the Christians way of living with the Lord Jesus, where absolute trust and confidence in Him are essential to maintain salvation.

And you believe that has to be uniquely and exclusively genuine?

Not exactly that way, but the Lord Himself, He is the one who is uniquely and exclusively genuine Lord of all.

If you and someone else asked the same question of God and the answers you each respectively believed you got were different, why would the other person have to be the one who was mistaken?

That would only be true if I were you, but since I am not Athetotheist, your premise doesn't hold water. Trial, as I have said, would be the best way to look at it to resolve any misunderstanding/misconception.

Couldn't you just as easily be mistaken as the other person could?

It depends on the situations....

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to OneJack in post #44]

What benefit would it be if it might give us something of benefit concerning what actually happened in the past? However, whatever benefit it would be, we both have it now that you know God commanded 17 people to write scriptures.

How do I "know" that? By your saying so? If the Bible isn't infallible because it isn't God, how are you infallible?

Knowing that God is the one who gave each questor the answer, why would they have to determine if the answer given to each of them is genuine or not?

In order to find out if the answers match. If they don't, it means that at least one answer isn't genuine.

If two individuals claimed to be true prophets, would you just assume that they were both true prophets even if their prophecies were mutually incompatible?


If you and someone else asked the same question of God and the answers you each respectively believed you got were different, why would the other person have to be the one who was mistaken?

That would only be true if I were you, but since I am not Athetotheist, your premise doesn't hold water.

Why would it have to be me? Why couldn't it be another individual?

Trial, as I have said, would be the best way to look at it to resolve any misunderstanding/misconception.

Could it be that you simply find "trial" a more comfortable conclusion than one [or possibly both] of the questioners being wrong?


Couldn't you just as easily be mistaken as the other person could?

It depends on the situations....

How does it depend on the situation?