How did the authors of the New Testament: -know what Jesus' thoughts were -know what Jesus said while alone?
480770
How does a writer make up dialogue for his characters? He makes them up, just like the writers of the Bible did.
543701
I assume you mean which book of the New Testament was written first, because there are no existing original manuscripts as far as we know.\n\nThe general consensus is that some of Paul's letters are the oldest known manuscripts. There are speculations of earlier ones (e.g., "Q") but they are just that: speculations.
755585
you would think that Jesus own people would know if he was the Messiah or not ;)\n\nmaybe they were on to something?
346698
Most of the "Gospels" that were not included in the Bible have been dated to about the second century. The books of the New Testament were all written either by eyewitnesses to the events or people who spoke with those eyewitnesses. Many of the books refer to other books of the New Testament as scripture. It certainly wasn't one person who "got to pick what would go into the Bible."\n\nAdded:\nThe language and content of the Gospel of Thomas is consistend with the second century, not the first. It was written after all the eyewitnesses were dead. It's pretty easy to write a book about events that happened two hundred years ago, since no eyewitnesses are around to refute it. Also, some of the things in the Gospel of Thomas don't line up with the rest of the Bible. The gospels (and other New Testament books) that are included in the Bible were written at a time when eyewitnesses to the events were still around to refute it. Luke, for instance, was most likely written within 30 years of Jesus' death. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, actually lists names of eyewitnesses and tells the church in Corinth that most of the eyewitnesses were still alive when he was writing.
277618
When I was in elementary and high school I learned hundreds of Bible verses as part of a yearly Bible Memory program all the kids in our family used (with some nice incentives every few weeks if you did it).  I certainly don't regret that (thanks Mom & Dad), but I went on to discover that it's equally important to understand the overall CONTENT of large sections, and how those verses fit in their original CONTEXT.    (I have often witnessed people citing some memorized verses to prove some idea, but they had no idea of how those verses fit into the chapter of book they came from-- their interpretation might be pretty reasonable or way off base, but without the context there is no check.)\n\nSo, I began to try to learn how various books of the Bible are put together -- to memorize an outline of the contents of a book.   That way if someone mentions or I'm thinking of something like "where did Jesus say. . . ?" I have a pretty good idea not only of what he said and where to find the chapter but I'll know what was going on just before and after he said it (the context).\n\nI still think it's important to learn verse and short passages --especially key ones (such as highpoints and turning points in a book)-- and if you can memorize much longer sections, that's great!   But now I have a better idea of the MEANING of the verses that I've memorized or that others mention and can more easily put my hands on related passages (for my own studies or in a discussion).\n\n(By the way, you don't need to have the "perfect" or fullest outline to benefit from this.  I have fairly sketchy outlines for some books, starting with the biggest pieces and major turning points.  For others that I've spent a lot of time in I've come up with more detailed outlines.)
364722
yes, but you must understand that these weren't original thoughts of jesus\n\nthese thoughts were the prevailing winds in the ancient eastern world for centuries before christ arrived on the scene\n\nbuddhism, hiduism and some of the other nature worshipping religions had already come up with pacifcism, forgiveness, and so on\n\njesus was late to the table
35391
I am not sure if he was, but our current bible is missing several books.  Each of the 11 disciples wrote a book (all but Judas), but we only have 4.  Also, bear in mind that the Catholic Bible and Protestant Bible have different books.  However, although I am sure he probably wrote "something" about Christ, I can not say for sure it was a "book," and that his book was rejected.
1002325
Are you speaking of Jesus Christ? I don't remember anywhere in the New Testament where He made a statement that was similar to that one... where did you see that?
337962
Only what is needed to know regarding the 40 days is written. Even John complained that if all that Jesus said and did was written, all the books in the world could not hold it.
597844
Without a doubt, you have often heard the claim that Jesus is God, the second person in the "Holy Trinity". However, the very Bible which is used as a basis for knowledge about Jesus and as the basis for doctrine within Christianity clearly belies this claim. We urge you to consult your own Bible and verify that the following conclusions are not drawn out of context: \n\n1. God is All Knowing... but Jesus was not.\n\nWhen speaking of the Day of Judgment, Jesus clearly gave evidence of a limitation on his knowledge when he said, "but of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32 and Matt 24:36) But God knows all. His knowledge is without any limitations. That Jesus, of his own admission, did not know when the Day of Judgment would be, is clear proof that Jesus is not all-knowing, and that Jesus is therefore not God.\n\n2. God is All-Powerful... but Jesus was not.\n\nWhile Jesus performed many miracles, he himself admitted that the power he had was not his own, but derived from God. He said, "Verily I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do..." (John 5:19) Again he said, "I can of mine own self do nothing: As I hear I judge, and my judgment is just because I seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which has sent me." (John 5:30) But God is not only all-powerful, He is also the source of all power and authority. That Jesus, of his own admission, could do nothing on his own is clear proof that Jesus is not all-powerful, and that therefore Jesus is not God.\n\n3. God does not have a God... but Jesus did have a God.\n\nGod is the ultimate judge and refuge for all, and He does not call upon nor pray to any others. But Jesus acknowledged that there was one whom he worshipped and to whom he prayed when he said, "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." (John 20:17) He is also reported to have cried out while on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt 27:46) If Jesus were God, then couldn't this be read "Myself, myself, why hast thou forsaken me?" Would that not be pure nonsense? When Jesus prayed the Lord's prayer (Luke 11:2-4) was he praying to himself? When in the garden of Gethsemane he prayed, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: Nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt." (Matt 26:36-39) Was Jesus praying to himself? That Jesus, of his own admission, and by his own actions, acknowledged, worshipped and prayed to another being as God, is clear proof that Jesus himself is not God.\n\n4. According to the Bible, God is invisible to humans... but Jesus was flesh and blood.\n\nWhile thousands saw Jesus and heard his voice, Jesus himself said that this could not be done with God when he said, " No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18) "Ye have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His shape." (John 5:37) He also said in John 4:24, "God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." That Jesus would say that no one had seen or heard God ant any time, while his followers both saw and heard him, is clear proof that Jesus was not God.\n\n5. No one is greater than God and no one can direct Him... but Jesus acknowledged someone greater than himself whose will was distinct from his own.\n\nPerhaps the clearest indication we have that Jesus and God are not equal, and therefore not one and the same, come again from the mouth of Jesus himself who said in John 14:28, "My Father is greater than I." When someone referred to him as a "good master" in Luke 18:19, Jesus responded, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God..." Further more, Jesus drew clear distinctions between himself and God when he said, "I proceeded forth and cam
574551
The whole New testament was written in Greek and some Aramaic. \nSometimes you need to look at how they translated words to understand better. We use a book called a Lexicon which gives us the greek word and how they translated it. \nOld English words are still used sometimes such as Jesus said I won't leave you comfortless. The word comfortless didn't mean the Holy Spirit it meant I won't leave you as an Orphan. \nThere have been many translations into English. The King James was translated 1611. Probably the most accepted. \nThe New King James version was in 1982 a more American form of English.\nThe first known is John Wycliffe and Oxford scholar 1380's.\nUp until 1880's the bible had 80 books instead of 66. The books that are not in there now is called the apocrypha.
401564
Jesus is the main figure of the New Testament and claims to be the main figure of the Old Testament as well by fulfilling their prophecies.  He claimed he has yet to fulfill ALL prophecy concerning him.  He is in no way a "prophet" as followers of Islam claim.  He claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of God.  In doing that he went way beyond being a prophet.  He said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father but through me!"  The New Testament authors bear witness to his claims and give accounts to support them as well.  \nAny given church may or may not teach you more about Jesus. Jehovah Witnesses in particular (Watchtower publications) do not view Jesus as God incarnate, but A God and have their own unique version of the Old and New Testaments for this reason with alterations to the original manuscript. \nBy getting your own version of the New Testament and reading it yourself you will be better able to determine errant Christianity from biblical Christianity. I suggest NIV, New King James, or NAS versions for accuracy and readability.  Call help lines or whatever to get answers to things you don't get while READING specifically so you are not easily misled.
1080723
I know and to be a gospel it had to be written by one of the disciples or their assistant.  The gos[pel of Thomas, Judas etc, were NOT written by them.  The stuff that people will believe!
766114
Christian do have a mind to think otherwise God wouldn't have gievn us one, but my thoughts have over the years being influenced by the bible, Nevertheless I do make a point to paraphrase it to my experience so it is more at human level for someone like you to understand. Check my previous answers, I seldom use bible quotes straight off unless demanded.
671238
BlackFedora wrote:\n"all of the new testament was written after Jesus' death"\n\n...and none of it by anybody who lived when jesus was alive.  It's all second-hand.  You can't prove it's credibility.
1104360
I'm not sure when that originated.  It's just in some editions, not all of them and it's just to make finding what Jesus said a little easier.\n\nI think there are some people who actually believe that the only parts of the Bible that are important are Jesus' words.  Maybe that's how it started.
451994
Romans 1-2 discusses this issue, and so does 2 Peter 3.  Jesus addresses it in John 6 and a number of other passages.  The New Testament doesn't 'almost' accuse people of being willfully blind.  It *does* accuse people of being willfully blind...but not just those that aren't Christians.  More on that in a second.  \n\nYour idea that people might ignore small truths but not great ones is simply not true to human nature.  The more we want one thing to be true, the more we ignore anything that might convince us otherwise.  Psychologists call it 'confirmation bias.'  It's self-deception (i.e., willful ignorance) by any name, and we're more likely to employ it on things that really matter than we are on trivial things.\n\nSince there is nothing that could possibly have a greater impact on how you live your life than your beliefs about your ultimate origin, nature, and destiny (and the moral implications involved in thoes issues), it's safe to conclude that on precisely those issues, the human tendency to self-deception is greatest.\n\nIf it makes you feel any better, James 1:21ff applies the same concept of willful amnesia/self-deception to Christians who aren't living the way they should, so it's not like the New Testament only applies the concept to non-Christians.