How do we know that the New Testament, which Christ never mentions, is the word of God?

Question

and how do we know it is complete?

No one has answered my question, and, by "complete," I mean how do we know these gospels are the only gospels?

Answer 1

The NT was written decades after Jesus was killed by the Romans, and its' authors were primarily men who never even met Jesus.

It was written largely for a Roman audience, which is why the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus was shifted away from the Romans, who did do it, and onto the Jews, who ever practised crucifixion and who had no authority to order anyone's death.

Jesus could not have ever mentioned the NT, as it was not written during his lifetime!

Answer 2

The problem is that you want a historical, or at the very least, factual answer to your question. But since you are asking it in a spiritual context it is, by definition, impossible to answer.

Since Revelations never mentions Christ, and the writings of Paul talks about a spiritual, not historic Christ, there is little historical evidence outside of the Gospels for a historic Christ.

There are a large number of Gospels that are not in the NT. In fact Pope Athanasius I defined the NT as we know it today (he once said there has to be 4 Gospels, no more, no less, since 4 was a holy number)

Answer 3

As the books of the New Testament were written after the time of Jesus, it would have been difficult for him to have mentioned from them, as it did the already existing Old Testament books.

The only thing he could have done was to authorize the future writing of the books. These he did when he told his disciples to take his message to all of the world and to the end of time. Both means are found in his command to take the message to the "ends of the earth" in Matthew 28.

As it was impossible for his disciples to live into the 21st century (and probably beyond), the only way to preserve their teachings and his would be through written books. So his commandment would authorize such material.

How do we know it is complete? The last book (both in order, chronologial, and when it was authored) is the book of Revelation. You will notice, if you read the book, that much of the material is directly dictated by Jesus himself. He waiting until all the other material needed had been wirtten, and them close the canon of scripture with his own dictated book. At that point he shows that the mateiral was complete. Any gnostic or other writings which followed that are not to be included.

Answer 4

The New Testament did not exist when Christ was on earth. The New Testament was not written until years after Christ ascended into heaven. Therefore, Christ never mentioned the New Testament. The self-authenticating, God-breathed Word contained in the Old and New Testaments is sufficient for faith and practice.

Answer 5

That is like saying Abraham Lincoln never mentioned which of his speeches would go in a Doubleday history book.

According to Gospels not everything Jesus did was written down but many events were written in order for those who didn't know Jesus personally, or were not alive during that time, would know what He said and what He did. It is, afterall, the inspired Word of God.

Answer 6

Jesus would have never added to the Law of his day or traditions, unless it was an oral tradition that may have been written down later. The best evidence of this would have been the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7. This seems to be a cohesive message.

The only difference is that all of what Jesus said can be found in the Jewish contemporaries of his day, or days that predated him. Nothing of what he said was original. Instead it was a part of a long and proud tradition of an oratory nature. Only those things which became a part of a movement were usually recorded.

Jesus' message, of course, is not complete. It could never be (sorry Christians). Also, it is a fact that Jesus penned nothing himself so all rely on second-hand knowledge (sorry Christians) of what has been written.

Answer 7

Well, you can study the history of Christianity and the Bible. You can sift through all the different denominational clutter-and you can find the real truth. Its there-but if you are not searching for it-you probably will not find it.
I could tell you 'because of this or that', but you would not believe me. There is a lot of information to dig through. It takes a long time. The shortest way is to pay attention to what you read-who says what and "why" they say it, eventually you learn "who" you can trust. You learn who speaks from some denominational bias, and who shoots straight. There are some scholars who can be trusted in some areas but not in others. Every major denomination has some Bible scholars that are good and do not seem to have an ax to grind.

Answer 8

The question of completeness is a valid one. At the time the Epistles were exactly that - letters copied and passed from hand to hand. The verse near the end of Revelations commanding not to add or subtract from "that" revelation also occurs twice in Deuteronomy but I rarely hear those verses quoted to advocate ending the record there.

Answer 9

evidently by way of your question which you recognize that the call Jehovah seems interior the previous testomony. So a extra suitable question may be. because of the fact the call of Jehovah appeared interior the previous testomony and Jesus and his Apostles quoted returned and returned from it. Why did different Bible Translators that translated the Bible from Hebrew or Greek to English ? Why did they bypass over,from the hot testomony, the call of Jehovah whilst Jesus and his Apostles quoted immediately from specific passages that contained the call Jehovah ?

Answer 10

We know the NT is the word of god because Christians say it is the word of god - no other evidence is required.

We know it is complete because that was the decision reached at the Council of Nicea in 324AD.