What did Jesus teach his Apostles that is not in the Bible?

[Traveler]

After Jesus was resurrected he taught his Apostles “things pertaining to the kingdom of G-d”. This is recorded in a quiet little verse in Acts Chapter 1 verse 3. These teachings lasted for 40 days.

There are a few things I would like to point out:

1. There are not 40 days worth of teachings from Jesus recorded in the gospels. We have bits and pieces here and there but nothing along the line of 40 days worth of teachings

2. I do not know of any references in the Bible to any of the teachings from Jesus to his Apostles during these 40 days.

3. Non Biblical sources (mostly Gnostic) claim that these teachings were “kept secret” among the Apostles and generally were not taught to the rank and file members of the new church.

It could be argued that these were not new teachings but can be found elsewhere in scripture, this is a nice theory but I find no such explanation or any such reference in scripture. It is interesting to me in all the documents we have not a single writer of the New Testament ever makes reference to anything taught during those 40 days. No one says anything like – “pay close attention this because what I am telling you I learned from Jesus during the 40 days of his teachings before he was taken to heaven.”

I think we can conclude that anything taught by Jesus is quite important. Since the LDS believe in a restoration of all things taught to the ancient Apostles – I believe the LDS have access to these important teachings. My concern in posting this is that important teachings are missing and many “Christians” do not know and perhaps do not care what Jesus taught his Apostles during those 40 days.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

The tradition is that Jesus taught the secrets during those 40 days in a cave on the Mount of Olives opposite the Garden of Gethsemane. If they were just regular teachings, why teach them in a cave or secretive place?

The current Biblical Archaeological Review discusses the Secret Book of Mark, which definitely suggests secret rites being done by Jesus. Read about it: Bible History & Archaeology Published by the Biblical Archaeology Society | Biblical Archaeology Review

[Traveler]

The tradition is that Jesus taught the secrets during those 40 days in a cave on the Mount of Olives opposite the Garden of Gethsemane. If they were just regular teachings, why teach them in a cave or secretive place?

The current Biblical Archaeological Review discusses the Secret Book of Mark, which definitely suggests secret rites being done by Jesus. Read about it: Bible History & Archaeology Published by the Biblical Archaeology Society | Biblical Archaeology Review

Thank you for your input. I did a quick review of Secret Mark on the internet. It is interesting but I have not been able to find any reference to the 40 day teachings. There are references to things present in Secret Mark not in the Biblical Mark. It looks like most scholars think Mark to be an abrigment of Secret Mark.

The Traveler

[deseretgov]

Well it must have been much easier to keep secret things secret back then. The Apocrypha was formed of book considered too sacred for regular people to read. That how the word Apocrypha came to mean "not as good as the rest of the Bible". People who hadn't been part of the group that could read apochryphal books became leader of the church and looked down on the books.

The Secret Book of Mark sounds interesting. I love Non-Biblical stuff.

[Moksha]

There has to be many teaching that never made the Bible. Probably there were stories whose meaning was never understood.

[Traveler]

A few points: There is nothing in Acts that tell us that what Jesus taught his apostles were "secrets". We also know that what he was teaching during that time were not nifty stories to warm people’s hearts. He was teaching doctrines specific to the Kingdom of G-d.

I would think that salvation is directly linked to the Kingdom of G-d. There are two points that I think are important.

1. That Jesus taught these things at a particular important time of his ministry. Perhaps the most important time that he was on the earth to teach mankind.

2. That traditional Christianity does not have access to these teachings and from all that I can gather really do not care or desire access to this doctrine.

I wonder if it is possible that these teachings may be in part the oil in the lamps of the 5 wise virgins awaiting his coming?

The Traveler

[Maxel]

Interesting train of thought, Traveler. As Christ was a resurrected being during the 40 days, anything He taught the Apostles would be considered direct revelation from a glorified being. Perhaps this is analogous to the way members nowadays learn doctrine like this- through direct revelation from the Holy Ghost or ministering angels.

[rameumptom]

There are hints of secret teachings in the Bible. The Mount of Transfiguration is a very clear one. The three apostles were told not to share it with anyone at the time. And we still do not know what occurred there, except that Moses, Elias and Elijah showed up. LDS would think temple rites occurred there, including the passing on of priesthood keys. But most Christians really do not know, as it is way out of their liturgy.

Here are some websites discussing Christ's teachings in the cave on the Mt of Olives:

Church on the Mount of Olives (Eleona) - OrthodoxWiki

Christians and the Holy Places (see the quote on page 147 from Demonstratio Evangelica)

Jerusalem - Beyond the Old City Walls (search for the word 'caves')

[Vort]

What did Jesus teach his Apostles that is not in the Bible?

What parts of the restored gospel and of the kingdom of God do we enjoy today that are not taught (overtly) in the scriptures?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Joseph Smith said "That is the great secret... It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us. Here, then, is eternal life--to know that only wise and true God, and you have got to learn how to become Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you. .. God himself, the father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ."

[prisonchaplain]

It's pretty clear that the references to "secret" (Gnosticism = secret knowledge, btw) teachings, and missing teachings relates to the LDS belief that the Bible is missing important truths. IMHO, the Bible contains what it is supposed to. The continuing revelations that we receive from prophets does not contradict biblical truth, nor do they fill in large gaps. Rather, they tend to explicate already revealed truths with particulars for a congregation and time period.

Pursuing extrabiblical teachings etc. can be dangerous.

[Traveler]

What parts of the restored gospel and of the kingdom of God do we enjoy today that are not taught (overtly) in the scriptures?

Things taught at the temple, although not foreign to other teachings does introduce things in a manner that is not found in other places. For example that families are the foundation of divine or heavenly society (Kingdom). But since there is not a direct link to the 40 day teachings without something that so indicates there is no means to know for certain.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

It's pretty clear that the references to "secret" (Gnosticism = secret knowledge, btw) teachings, and missing teachings relates to the LDS belief that the Bible is missing important truths. IMHO, the Bible contains what it is supposed to. The continuing revelations that we receive from prophets does not contradict biblical truth, nor do they fill in large gaps. Rather, they tend to explicate already revealed truths with particulars for a congregation and time period.

Pursuing extrabiblical teachings etc. can be dangerous.

Interesting post. The Bible most certainly contains what someone wants it to contain. The question is – if that someone is G-d or if man has had any input at all. My concern is that if it is G-d only – why did he not say so somewhere in the Bible. Since the Bible is the direct result of human editing we know that it was man (through their collective opinions) that determined what to include and what to exclude. And so with your method (see if the idea of men deciding on their own to determine what is scripture - contradicts the Bible) we must look to the Bible to see if that was ever the means (and how often it was the means) to determine such things – the problem I have is that I find no such method anywhere in the Bible. I find no method anywhere in scripture to determine what is scripture, especially a group of men deciding such a thing without an angel or some one or something directing (like in the Book of Revelation).

Maybe one of the things Jesus taught during those 40 days was what to include in the Bible and what is scripture. We do know he thought things about the kingdom of G-d and what is scripture the Kingdom of G-d would use would fit into that category. I am sure that Jesus realized all of the doctrine issues that would divide believers into various sects and may have taught something to prevent divisions within the Kingdom of G-d. That fits the description in Acts.

So my question is – If Jesus wanted someone 2000 years ago to know something – why was it not written down. But we do not know if it was or was not written down. So why is it not in the Bible? Your answer is – because it was not meant for us to have? Or if there is some way that we do have it in other scripture – that we were not meant to know we have it?

My question is concerning that – what teachings from the Bible does that agree with?

The Traveler

Edited October 30, 2009 by Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Interesting post. The Bible most certainly contains what someone wants it to contain. The question is – if that someone is G-d or if man has had any input at all. My concern is that if it is G-d only – why did he not say so somewhere in the Bible. Since the Bible is the direct result of human editing we know that it was man (through their collective opinions) that determined what to include and what to exclude.

I'm trying to discern if you've just attempted to discredit one of the four Sacred Works in your canon? We are indeed told that all Scripture is inspired by God, in Timothy's letter. Of course, that begs the question, which Scripture. We Protestants agree with your church that the 66 books of the Bible are certainly qualified. And yet, you say they are the opinions of men, heavily edited, etc.? Perhaps your response is more interesting than my post???

[rameumptom]

I think that the Bible contains writings that are mostly inspired, but were given to us via God's transmission through humans. Humans make errors on occasion, and receive revelation and guidance through their own world-view and perceptions. For this reason, the Bible mentions the 4 corners of the earth (some thought the earth was flat), etc.

It isn't quite as Traveler suggests that it was a creation wholly fabricated via the machinations of man. Instead, God gives instruction, and man implements it to the best of his knowledge and understand (and willingness of accept truth). For this reason, even modern LDS scripture is not perfect, because it is still received through an imperfect media: prophets. And then each of us must imperfectly try to understand the teachings via our own inspiration and imperfections.

Have evil men attempted to corrupt it in the past? Undoubtedly. Jeremiah condemns those in his day who tried to corrupt the sacred writ. And the apostle John ends the Revelation with a warning and a curse to any who would tamper with his apocalypse. Still, God's hand is on the writings enough to ensure they contain a "fullness of the gospel." What does that mean? It means there's enough good stuff to save mankind, and in the instance of LDS teachings, to also exalt them.

[Traveler]

I'm trying to discern if you've just attempted to discredit one of the four Sacred Works in your canon? We are indeed told that all Scripture is inspired by God, in Timothy's letter. Of course, that begs the question, which Scripture. We Protestants agree with your church that the 66 books of the Bible are certainly qualified. And yet, you say they are the opinions of men, heavily edited, etc.? Perhaps your response is more interesting than my post???

There are a number of considerations when dealing with ancient scriptural Biblical text. We know that there are variations in the ancient manuscripts. Some variations scholars believe to have been accidental whereas others are believed to be deliberate. I have yet to find anyone knowledgeable of ancient “Biblical” manuscripts that believe that it was impossible that errors (invalid concepts) were introduced into any of the ancient manuscripts used to create any currently published Bible or that we can be sure which variant text G-d intends that we believe and maintain as “canon”.

Therefore there is one method currently being used and that is to “create” a version of a specific text or book of scripture by means of “editing” ancient manuscripts that were previously held sacred. Thus we know that of the 66 books currently used by most Christians there is not one that has not been subject to human editing and to what extent we do not even know for sure. All of this is done in a manner that I cannot find consistent with any method anciently used and recorded in scripture as the “sure or pure word of G-d”.

The Second level of human editing comes from decisions as to what “books” should be included and which books should be excluded especially if a document previously unknown in our generation is discovered. I would point out that there is in Biblical narrative situations when “forgotten” or lost scripture text were discovered and were added to the existing cannon. In our generation there are a number of texts that have been discovered but the “Biblical” method of adding to cannot is refused.

My point is not to debase Biblical scripture but only to insure that false doctrine is not created based on “creative” interpretations of isolated concepts that are not stable in the scriptures we do have. For all that I can understand and see the statement that any “new” doctrine must be validated with the Bible in its current form cannot possibly be true doctrine because even the establishment of the Bible with its various translations cannot withstand such scrutiny. So when you say the Bible contains what it should? I simply ask – let’s examine if that concept is Biblical or not. I question if this doctrine can pass your test of being Biblical. And so I ask – where does that doctrine come from?

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

It's very simple. Once you learn how to tap into the Spirit, you simply read everything with the Spirit, and the Spirit lets you know what is right, what has been altered - it's that simple. No fancy degrees needed.

.

This is only partially correct. The Spirit still teaches us within the confines of our own perceptions and understanding (Alma 29:8). So, if we are ignorant and believe the earth is only 6000 years old, or that it is flat, the Spirit isn't necessarily going to correct that wrong assumption. Why? Because the Spirit teaches us what we are ready to receive, and then teaches us the things that are necessary in the moment.

Just look at how Joseph Smith was taught via revelation. It wasn't all dumped on him in one moment. For him, Zion initially was a congregation. Then it became a gathering place in Kirtland, Ohio. Then it became a specific location in Missouri. Later, Joseph stated that all of North and South America constitute Zion.

Salvation? Joseph's view was consistent with orthodox Christianity at first. Then he found out that Alvin, his brother, was saved, meaning baptism in this life wasn't necessarily needed. Then he learned of the three degrees of glory. Later, he learned about baptism for the dead.

Joseph had no problem going back to previous revelations and updating them with new information, as the Spirit dictated. Why? Because it was an open canon.

This required Joseph not just to listen to the Spirit, but to be engaged in learning new things continually. He studied the Bible and became an expert on it. He studied Hebrew. He studied to become a Master Mason. The list goes on.

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler asks me to explain and justify the soundness of belief that Scripture is the ultimate authority. The belief in Scripture alone having final authority comes out of the Protestant break from Catholicism. Seeing the corruption that power bread in the Catholic Church, Protestants determined that it would be preferable to rely on the objective truth of Scripture, rather than the whims of men. And indeed, Paul's letter to Timothy informs us that Scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness--the Scriptures proclaim themselves to be authoritative.

While wikipedia is an uneven source, there does seem to be a good overview at the following: Sola scriptura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Traveler]

Traveler asks me to explain and justify the soundness of belief that Scripture is the ultimate authority. The belief in Scripture alone having final authority comes out of the Protestant break from Catholicism. Seeing the corruption that power bread in the Catholic Church, Protestants determined that it would be preferable to rely on the objective truth of Scripture, rather than the whims of men. And indeed, Paul's letter to Timothy informs us that Scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness--the Scriptures proclaim themselves to be authoritative.

While wikipedia is an uneven source, there does seem to be a good overview at the following: Sola scriptura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In many ways your opinions are helpful and interesting. Without the Protestant efforts to reform there most likely could not have been a "restoration". Thus the LDS believe in the Protestant reformation - we see it as inspired of G-d.

I think the point where we part in doctrine is my personal belief that the scriptures are a means of inspiration and enlightenment but have little if any authority as to the doctrines and ordinances of salvation. That by themselves, scriptures are no more authority now than they were for the Scribes and Pharisees at the time of Jesus; that claimed authority was by scripture and not by someone sent in G-d’s name.

In the parable of the L-rd’s vineyard Jesus tells us that servants sent by the L-rd have authority but ultimate authority is in Jesus Christ. Thus I believe the first authority is Jesus, and the second is those that Jesus has chosen and ordained in a direct line. Then comes scripture.

The problem I have with scripture as the first authority is many fold. But most important is that hand man has had in changing what scripture we have and determining what scripture is canon by tradition.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, if nothing else, these discussions inform me that LDS spirituality cannot be pigeon-holed. You have Catholic, evangelical, even Baptist elements. At times I hear pentecostal undertones, and, on one thread, we're discussing Gnostic elements. And yet, it is none of these. A colleague of mine (Catholic) describes your theology as "Beautiful." He doesn't agree with it, but he does see the appeal.

[prisonchaplain]

And yet, all scripture is given by inspiration from God, profitable for instruction, rebuking...and yet we're told to study to show ourselves approved, workers who rightly divide the word of God, and yet the Hebrews were commanded to post scriptures on the doorposts, and to discuss them frequently...and yet the longest chapter in the Bible (Psalm 119) is dedicated to the value of the scriptures. Without insight from the Holy Spirit, scripture is just words...but with that direction...tremendous power!

Edited November 4, 2009 by prisonchaplain
emphasis by bolding

[prisonchaplain]

Changed, I went back and bolded the last sentence of my last post--we do agree on the necessity of the Holy Spirit's direction--after all, He is the inspirer of scripture.

[rameumptom]

I think PC's view of scripture isn't far off from LDS view. Scripture is the foundation for our spiritual connection. Yet the Spirit guides us on how to understand the scripture.

The main difference is that LDS also believe in continuing revelation and that the canon is not finished. We have revelation guide us daily, even though most of it does not make it into the official scriptures. But then, PC believes that is true in his life, also.

The issue isn't whether one or the other receives inspiration. Both definitely do. The issue is what level of inspiration each receives.