Jesus Christ was "crushed" for our sins in Gethsemane.

[telnetd]

On 2/28/2026 at 2:10 PM, Pyreaux said:

The Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of Barnabas have almost nothing in common besides the name. The Epistle of Barnabas was in roughly 70–132 AD. It was highly respected by the early Church (found in the Codex Sinaiticus). It is pro-Jesus as Divine. 

The Gospel of Barnabas dates to the 14th–16th century AD. It is Islamic in nature.

Thanks. I didn't know.

On 2/28/2026 at 2:10 PM, Pyreaux said:

But is the agony of Gethsemane a fear of suffering and death on a cross, or is the agony of Gethsemane itself a part of the suffering?

There is no indication of fear on Christ's part.

I see no reason for the three disciples to be sore amazed, or heavy, or having a
reason to complain. They were clueless as to what was going on.

On 2/28/2026 at 2:10 PM, Pyreaux said:

Isaiah depicts suffering no whip or cross can deliver. No Roman torture can make a man feel all sorrow, sicknesses and sin of all people, or transfer the guilt for abominations of his people on himself, or produce an agony so great that he bled from every pour.

teddyaware quoted from Doctrine and Covenants 19:15-19. 

Is that suffering for those in the spirit world too? 

"But if they would not repent they must suffer EVEN AS I; Which suffering caused 
myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed 
at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit".

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, telnetd said:

So you're saying they would bleed in the spirit world.

No, I doubt he is saying that.

The emotional and spiritual suffering caused Christ to bleed because he had a physical body that responded to suffering in that way.  Someone else might have a different pain response depending on the characteristics of their body while spirits lacking a physical body wouldn’t have a physical response to the emotional and spiritual pain.

Different people experience the same emotion in different ways physically.

[Pyreaux]

On 3/2/2026 at 11:22 AM, telnetd said:

Thanks. I didn't know.

There is no indication of fear on Christ's part.

I see no reason for the three disciples to be sore amazed, or heavy, or having a
reason to complain. They were clueless as to what was going on.

teddyaware quoted from Doctrine and Covenants 19:15-19. 

Is that suffering for those in the spirit world too? 

"But if they would not repent they must suffer EVEN AS I; Which suffering caused 
myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed 
at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit".

I see no particular reason why you should agree with it without being LDS. Is the incomplete JST supposed to be a literal restoration of ancient parchment? Or are we looking at a prophetic midrash, an expanded commentary on the verses intended to teach a specific theological truth?

Midrash isn’t necessarily concerned with what actually happened in a historical vacuum, it is concerned with what does this text mean for us today? Midrash often fills in the narrative gaps, resolves contradictions, and brings moral clarity to the text. Large portions of the Bible are actually inspired rewrites of earlier materials.

The most famous example is the author of Chronicles took the earlier books of the Kings and "rewrote" them. It removes many of the embarrassing parts of King David’s life, adding a focus on the Temple and the Covenant. Many scholars believe the Book of Job is a midrashic expansion of an older, shorter story. The complex dialogue between Job and his friends were likely added later to explore the problem of evil and suffering. Matthew and Luke appear to rewrite Mark as their primary source and expanding on Mark's shorter narrative to include Birth Narratives and such. Matthew specifically rewrites a "midrashic" Gospel to prove to Jews that Jesus fulfills the Old Testament.

The New Testament writers frequently cited oral Midrashic traditions as if they were established facts. Jude contains perhaps the most striking example of Midrash portrayed as valid: "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation..." (Jude 1:9) This event is completely absent from the Hebrew Bible.

Joseph Smith may have been "adjusting" the text to highlight a different set of priorities than traditionally attributed to them, as it was traditionally thought that Jesus is terrified and cowering and thus proves he is 100% human. While the JST portrays Jesus as a steady, resolute, and all-knowing figure. He isn't the one wondering if he is the Messiah; the disciples are. If Joseph Smith's intent was to provide a commentary, he seems to be saying Jesus wasn't shocked, scared, or bewildered; he was suffering a calculated, intense, and literal payment for sin.

I guess you may not be a Baptist. Many Evangelicals prefer other terms, like "anguish" or "dread" rather than fear.

D&C 19 shifts from psychological dread, or fear of what's coming, to physical/spiritual agony, the actual process of the Atonement. Jesus describes Gethsemane in D&C 19, caused him to "tremble because of pain" and "bleed at every pore." To "Suffer even as I" described in D&C 19 is what awaits anyone who does not repent. The Atonement is "infinite," meaning it covers all people in all states of existence, provided they accept it. If they don't, they must suffer even as He did.

Edited March 3 by Pyreaux

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

"Suffer even as I" described in D&C 19 is what awaits anyone who does not repent. The Atonement is "infinite," meaning it covers all people in all states of existence, provided they accept it. If they don't, they must suffer even as He did.

And why must they suffer?

Because the cosmos is a horrible horrific place.

[Pyreaux]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And why must they suffer?

Because the cosmos is a horrible horrific place.

Don't ask me how spirits suffer, or why they wear cloths.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

And why must they suffer?

Because the cosmos is a horrible horrific place.

It is, and there’s absolutely nothing at all God can do about it without tampering with the delicate balance of diametric opposition in all things that allows all things to exist. Like it or not, there is no possibility for a realm of heavenly joy to exist without it having to uneasily coexist with an opposing realm of perfectly hellish misery. Wasting time and energy caterwauling and wishing it were otherwise is as useless as using a child’s plastic hammer to break down an infinitely deep and wide steel wall.

 

 

Edited March 3 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Don't ask me how spirits suffer, or why they wear cloths.

Because they want to look good.

4 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It is, and there’s absolutely nothing at all God can do about it without tampering with the delicate balance of diametric opposition in all things that allows all things to exist. Like it or not, there is no possibility for a realm of heavenly joy to exist without it having to uneasily coexist with an opposing realm of perfectly hellish misery. Wasting time and energy caterwauling and wishing it were otherwise is as useless as using a child’s plastic hammer to break down an infinitely deep and wide steel wall.

Poor God. At the mercy of the laws of the Universe so even He has to practice child sacrifice to get anything done at all.

[manol]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And why must they suffer?

Because the cosmos is a horrible horrific place.

 

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Poor God. At the mercy of the laws of the Universe so even He has to practice child sacrifice to get anything done at all.

Bingo!

If a set of premises are followed to their logical conclusion, and that conclusion is absurd, then one or more of those premises must be also have been absurd. 

To put it another way, there is "new wine" out there which is delicious to the soul, but it will burst the old wineskins, or the old paradigms; it does not include the old fear-based premises, and so it does not arrive at fearful conclusions. 

Or to use a different metaphor:  There is an alternative "radio station" we can tune in to, and it does not broadcast on the frequency of fear.  It does not ask us to accept the absurd.  It forgives everyone of everything.  It does not impose itself on anyone, as infinite patience is among its attributes.  It proceeds forth from The Presence and fills the immensity of space. 

We have been told many times to "Seek, and you shall find", as well as to "Be of good cheer (or words to that effect)", which would be absurd if what we're supposed to seek and find is not actually Good News after all.

In my opinion.

[teddyaware]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Because they want to look good.

Poor God. At the mercy of the laws of the Universe so even He has to practice child sacrifice to get anything done at all.

God is the law; he’s not a slave to the law. Although you appear unwilling to grasp the concept, what you’re presently existing in is a creation ruled over by a God of infinite and eternal love. He is our all-benevolent Heavenly King who wisely who rules over his creation by assuring that the laws of justice and mercy are always kept in a state of perfect equilibrium.

In the end, when the mysteries of God’s motivations and will are fully revealed, all but the sons of perdition will shout unrestrained praises to their God and King, for it will then be perfectly understood by all that he rules over a creation that he perfectly designed to maximize human joy by bringing to pass the very best of happy endings. It’s going to be most interesting to observe the facial expressions of the crotchety naysayers when they inevitably awaken to the realization that God really did know what he was doing and that all things really did work out for the best in the end! 

9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. (3 Nephi 15)

and…

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. (Revelation 21)

Edited March 3 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, teddyaware said:

God is the law; he’s not a slave to the law. Although you appear unwilling to grasp the concept, what you’re presently existing in is a creation ruled over by a God of infinite and eternal love. He is our all-benevolent Heavenly King who wisely who rules over his creation by assuring that the laws of justice and mercy are always kept in a state of perfect equilibrium.

And the mechanism God uses to maintain that equilibrium is *checks notes* killing his children.

9 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In the end, when the mysteries of God’s motivations and will are fully revealed, all but the sons of perdition will shout unrestrained praises to their God and King, for it will then be perfectly understood by all that he rules over a creation that he perfectly designed to maximize human joy by bringing to pass the very best of happy endings. It’s going to be most interesting to observe the facial expressions of the crotchety naysayers when they inevitably awaken to the realization that God really did know what he was doing and that all things really did work out for the best in the end! 

Even if this is true I am not going to judge my past self for judging as best it can with the facts in evidence. That we don’t know why God is doing all this stuff is because God won’t tell us. That is really on God. Your approach to this is that God will vindicate Himself and then scorn will be heaped on those who didn’t understand because God *checks notes* didn’t tell them what was going on.

Why does God play with His cards close to his chest and just expect us to trust him that all the pain and misery his game inflicted will be worth it when he could just, you know, tell us how it will be worth it now.

9 hours ago, teddyaware said:

9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. (3 Nephi 15)

So God created the laws that require people be sacrificed? That is not a good look.

9 hours ago, teddyaware said:

and…

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. (Revelation 21)

The Book of Revelation only barely made it into the Bible due to some shenanigans. Even then the Church fathers could see that it was a thinly veiled revenge fantasy where God will finally deal with all those horrible people hurting the Christians. Don’t get me wrong. Some Christians suffered a lot but this kind of triumphal gloating is unseemly at best and malicious and devilish at worst.

9 hours ago, teddyaware said:

In the end, when the mysteries of God’s motivations and will are fully revealed, all but the sons of perdition will shout unrestrained praises to their God and King, for it will then be perfectly understood by all that he rules over a creation that he perfectly designed to maximize human joy by bringing to pass the very best of happy endings. It’s going to be most interesting to observe the facial expressions of the crotchety naysayers when they inevitably awaken to the realization that God really did know what he was doing and that all things really did work out for the best in the end! 

And yet it is still incredibly popular!

[telnetd]

On 3/2/2026 at 5:18 PM, Pyreaux said:

Is the incomplete JST supposed to be a literal restoration of ancient parchment?

Why do you consider it incomplete?
 

On 3/2/2026 at 5:18 PM, Pyreaux said:

Joseph Smith may have been "adjusting" the text to highlight a different set of priorities than traditionally attributed to them

Why would the disciples begin to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy, and to complain
in their hearts, wondering if Christ was the Messiah"?

[Pyreaux]

58 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Why do you consider it incomplete?
 

Why would the disciples begin to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy, and to complain
in their hearts, wondering if Christ was the Messiah"?

Generally, it's obvious when studying it when one verse is changed but the surrounding verses and scaffolding of the chapter is left in its original form, shows an unpolished quality, and is a central part of the debate over what the JST is. LDS scholars have noted that Joseph Smith never finished the JST in the sense of a final, polished publication. He simply continued to tinker with it and make revisions until his death in 1844.

One belief is the JST functioned as a pedagogical tool. Joseph was "translating" as a way to receive revelations like for the D&C. Once the specific doctrinal point was made, he moved on, even if the surrounding text wasn't fully smoothed out.

Another notion is it's a midrash, so it doesn't have to be perfectly consistent with the source text; it just has to highlight a "new" truth.

If the disciples were clueless as the Bible suggests, why would they suddenly feel heavy amazement? An LDS perspective might suggest the amazement of the disciples wasn't about the Atonement they didn't understand, but about the usurping of their other expectations. Their would-be King was talking about his blood being shed and being betrayed by one of their own. Their amazement was the shock at the mere suggestion their political hopes for him was about to end. It implies they weren't just tired; they were becoming disillusioned.

Edited March 4 by Pyreaux

[teddyaware]

On 3/3/2026 at 8:10 PM, The Nehor said:

And the mechanism God uses to maintain that equilibrium is *checks notes* killing his children.

Even if this is true I am not going to judge my past self for judging as best it can with the facts in evidence. That we don’t know why God is doing all this stuff is because God won’t tell us. That is really on God. Your approach to this is that God will vindicate Himself and then scorn will be heaped on those who didn’t understand because God *checks notes* didn’t tell them what was going on.

Why does God play with His cards close to his chest and just expect us to trust him that all the pain and misery his game inflicted will be worth it when he could just, you know, tell us how it will be worth it now.

So God created the laws that require people be sacrificed? That is not a good look.

The Book of Revelation only barely made it into the Bible due to some shenanigans. Even then the Church fathers could see that it was a thinly veiled revenge fantasy where God will finally deal with all those horrible people hurting the Christians. Don’t get me wrong. Some Christians suffered a lot but this kind of triumphal gloating is unseemly at best and malicious and devilish at worst.

And yet it is still incredibly popular!

Because I have perfect confidence that God is perfectly just and merciful, and because I have perfect confidence that his love for his children is infinite and eternal, I’m certain that he has no other choice in righteousness but to administer his kingdom on earth in the way he’s been doing since the beginning. For most, it may presently seem that life on this earth is far too brutal, chaotic and unfair to imagine that anything good could possibly come out of it, but I have unshakable confidence that the way in which the Lord rules over this world is going to produce the best possible salvative outcomes for the vast majority of his children.

And I’m also certain that when all the facts pertaining to the economy of God are fully known that all men (the exception being the sons of perdition) will realize and acknowledge without any reservation that the Lord has ruled his kingdom with perfect righteousness. And the Lord Jesus Christ is living proof that God doesn’t just talk the talk when it comes to the absolute necessity of having to be tested in the crucible of adversity before being able to obtain perfect heavenly freedom and happiness, for even he had to encounter and overcome the worst of it all before he was able to obtain the crown of over the kingdom.

You and I have to deal with exactly the same unpleasant realities that we see all around us on this fallen world. But while I choose to have strong faith that all the challenges, injustices and sufferings we encounter in this life will paradoxically end up being enormous blessings in disguise — even heavenly portals that will ultimately lead to eternal life and endless joy — you conversely choose to believe existence is a total screwup and that there’s no logical reason for exercising any faith and hope in the possibility of good things to come. But even while you’ve apparently given up hope, I’m sure you’re generous enough to indulge me as I choose to believe in a loving and righteous God whose ultimate joy is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. 

Edited March 5 by teddyaware

[telnetd]

On 3/4/2026 at 1:54 PM, Pyreaux said:

If the disciples were clueless as the Bible suggests, why would they suddenly feel heavy amazement? An LDS perspective might suggest the amazement of the disciples wasn't about the Atonement they didn't understand, but about the usurping of their other expectations. Their would-be King was talking about his blood being shed and being betrayed by one of their own. Their amazement was the shock at the mere suggestion their political hopes for him was about to end. It implies they weren't just tired; they were becoming disillusioned.

The JST flips the biblical account of who is sore amazed and heavy in sorrow (the
disciples in Mark 14:36 JST vs. Jesus in Mar 14:33-34).

There is no reason for the 11 disciples to "complain in their hearts, wondering if 
this be the Messiah" as it records. He gave them no reason to think that during or 
after the meal. The disciples expected political power but Jesus dispelled that 
hope by teaching that leaders must be servants (Luke 22), by washing their feet 
(John 13), and informing them of his suffering and death prior to the over meal.

While the JST records the eleven complaining and wondering if he was the Messiah, 
Jesus only rebukes Peter, James, and John.

Later, it flips the biblical account of who says "the spirit is willing but the flesh is
weak" (Jesus in Matthew 26:41, Mark 14:38 KJV vs. the three disciples in the JST 
version).

When Jesus was arrested later, he explicitly stopped his disciples from fighting, 
which strongly undercut any remaining expectation that he would lead a political or 
military uprising.

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, telnetd said:

There is no reason for the 11 disciples to "complain in their hearts, wondering if 
this be the Messiah" as it records. He gave them no reason to think that during or 
after the meal. The disciples expected political power but Jesus dispelled that 
hope by teaching that leaders must be servants (Luke 22), by washing their feet 
(John 13), and informing them of his suffering and death prior to the over meal.

 

Isn’t the bold doing what you claim didn’t occur, giving them a reason to wonder because his teaching was contrary to their expectations?  Why do you think they would be able to immediately process and accept that teaching without questions?

[Pyreaux]

9 hours ago, telnetd said:

The JST flips the biblical account of who is sore amazed and heavy in sorrow (the
disciples in Mark 14:36 JST vs. Jesus in Mar 14:33-34).

There is no reason for the 11 disciples to "complain in their hearts, wondering if 
this be the Messiah" as it records. He gave them no reason to think that during or 
after the meal. The disciples expected political power but Jesus dispelled that 
hope by teaching that leaders must be servants (Luke 22), by washing their feet 
(John 13), and informing them of his suffering and death prior to the over meal.

While the JST records the eleven complaining and wondering if he was the Messiah, 
Jesus only rebukes Peter, James, and John.

Later, it flips the biblical account of who says "the spirit is willing but the flesh is
weak" (Jesus in Matthew 26:41, Mark 14:38 KJV vs. the three disciples in the JST 
version).

When Jesus was arrested later, he explicitly stopped his disciples from fighting, 
which strongly undercut any remaining expectation that he would lead a political or 
military uprising.

For a Jew in the Second Temple period, the Messiah was the Davidic King who would crush the Romans. Some of the Twelve had Zealot backgrounds, like "Simon the Zealot", Judas Iscario, a corruption of Sicarii (the "dagger-men" or assassins). And Peter, in his behavior in the Garden drawing a sword and cutting off an ear is the classic signature of a Zealot who was ready for a violent uprising.

We are simply supposing Jesus had already dispelled their political hopes. However, the Gospels show that the disciples were notoriously slow to believe Him. Even after the Resurrection, their first question was: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6).

The Triumvirate of Peter, James, and John held a higher position than the others, they were the First Presidency of the ancient Church. Jesus expected more from those with more light. The eleven might all be amazed and complaining, but Jesus specifically pulls aside the Presidency to join Him, to watch. Their failure to stay awake is a greater betrayal of their specific office than the general confusion of the other eight. The JST highlights that even the Chief Apostles were susceptible to the weakness of the flesh. it might be Joseph Smith was highlighting a theme of Apostasy, that even those closest to Jesus had complained and doubted when things got hard.

Edited March 7 by Pyreaux

[telnetd]

On 3/6/2026 at 2:33 PM, Calm said:

Isn’t the bold doing what you claim didn’t occur, giving them a reason to wonder because his teaching was contrary to their expectations?  Why do you think they would be able to immediately process and accept that teaching without questions?

They did have questions, doubts, and were confused about some of his teachings but 
they did not express a lack of faith he was the Messiah in the garden of Gethsemane.
Peter, who was later rebuked by Jesus (Mark 14:38 JST), had already declared he was
the Messiah (Matthew 16:16, Mark 8:29, Luke 9:20). This was also expressed earlier by
Andrew and a few unnamed disciples (John 1:41).

[telnetd]

On 3/6/2026 at 11:07 PM, Pyreaux said:

The JST highlights that even the Chief Apostles were susceptible to the weakness of the flesh. it might be Joseph Smith was highlighting a theme of Apostasy, that even those closest to Jesus had complained and doubted when things got hard.

This doubting of His Messiah-ship is not in the Greek manuscripts. Why would Joseph
Smith feel the need to introduce it so late in Christ's ministry when the disciples had
already viewed him as the Messiah (Matthew 16:16, Mark 8:29, Luke 9:20, John 1:41)?

[Pyreaux]

On 3/9/2026 at 12:18 PM, telnetd said:

This doubting of His Messiah-ship is not in the Greek manuscripts. Why would Joseph
Smith feel the need to introduce it so late in Christ's ministry when the disciples had
already viewed him as the Messiah (Matthew 16:16, Mark 8:29, Luke 9:20, John 1:41)?

Your idea that their conversion was static, the idea that once the disciples confessed Jesus as the Messiah, like Peter at Caesarea Philippi, the matter was settled is not so. Both the Bible and JST suggests that knowing someone is the Messiah in the good times is very different from believing it in your darkest hour. "Thou art the Christ" (Matthew 16:16) he says but consider the immediate context of that same chapter. Just moments after calling Jesus the Christ, Peter then tries to stop Jesus from going to the cross. Jesus responds, "Get thee behind me, Satan" (Matthew 16:23). So, even Peter who confessed the Messiah, then rejects the idea of a Messiah that is supposed to die. 

Matthew was supposedly written in Aramaic and it is now lost. That creates a "gap" where the JST could theoretically be restoring things that the later Greek translations missed. Papias of Hierapolis around 125 AD wrote, "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language [Aramaic/Hebrew], and each interpreted them as best he could." Irenaeus, Origen, and Jerome echoed this, claiming Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience in their native tongue before a Greek version was circulated.

These Greek manuscripts are a record of what survived, but not necessarily a pure or complete record. I could stand on that alone, as many LDS do, but I'm not doing that. I'm just saying what Joseph Smith is "restoring" is possibly entirely new information. Joseph Smith restores the doubt not to make the disciples look bad, but to make the Savior look more Kingly. He stayed faithful even when his own Handpicked Presidency was "complaining" and "wondering" if they had backed the wrong guy.

[telnetd]

19 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

So, even Peter who confessed the Messiah, then rejects the idea of a Messiah that is supposed to die.

Peter's rejection of what the Messiah would do or be like is not the same as the JST 
reporting him, and the others, lacking faith in Jesus being the Messiah. The others, at
the original confession of Peter, are not recorded as rejecting what Jesus was about 
to to.

[Pyreaux]

11 hours ago, telnetd said:

Peter's rejection of what the Messiah would do or be like is not the same as the JST 
reporting him, and the others, lacking faith in Jesus being the Messiah. The others, at
the original confession of Peter, are not recorded as rejecting what Jesus was about 
to to.

When the JST says they were "wondering if this be the Messiah," it isn't saying they forgot who Jesus was, it’s saying they were experiencing cognitive dissonance. If for some of these ex-Zealots, a "Messiah" by definition is a Conquering King, and Jesus is currently a Sufferer, then their logic dictates, "Either our definition of Messiah is wrong, or this man isn't the Messiah." The JST suggests they questioned the latter in that moment of darkness.

In the KJV, the disciples simply fall asleep because they are tired. In the JST, their sleep is portrayed as disloyalty. If they are confused-but-loyal, Jesus’ rebuke "Could ye not watch with me one hour?" seems harsh reaction to an innocent nap. But if they were doubting his very identity, his rebuke isn't just asking them to stay awake; he’s asking them to stay faithful as he is being "crushed." The JST then flips to the disciples saying "the spirit is ready, the flesh is weak" is the disciples admitting their lack of faith.

So be clear, because you don't seem to be picking it up, I'm suggesting to you, Joseph Smith’s JST may not be intended to be a restoration of the original text, it may not even be "true" in the sense that is what they actually said, did, or recorded, rather what the JST "restored" wasn't there before. He's reading the Bible, gets a question. gets a revealed answer, he adds it to D&C or something, but then also tries to force fit the reply into the text, with some creative license, like prophetic midrash might do. If something was or wasn't in the manuscripts is a bit unfalsifiable, we can't really know for sure without an original manuscript. It seems more straight forward to simply determine whether Joseph Smith was or wasn't a Prophet by personal revelations first and then concede to the JST is a revelation of some sort, as opposed to going backwards, starting with trying to validate the JST to prove Joseph was a Prophet.

What is true, is their dreams of a Messiah died in the Garden, the disciples' faith could have died with it, only to be "reborn" at the Resurrection. Peter’s three-fold denial in the courtyard is the historical anchor for the JST’s narrative. Peter literally swore oaths that he did not know the man. But if JST’s Gethsemane happened, Peter’s denial becomes a logical outcome rather than a sudden, out-of-character lapse.

Edited March 12 by Pyreaux

[telnetd]

On 3/11/2026 at 6:03 PM, Pyreaux said:

In the KJV, the disciples simply fall asleep because they are tired. In the JST, their sleep is portrayed as disloyalty

Where?

[The Nehor]

On 3/10/2026 at 4:19 PM, Pyreaux said:

Matthew was supposedly written in Aramaic and it is now lost. That creates a "gap" where the JST could theoretically be restoring things that the later Greek translations missed. Papias of Hierapolis around 125 AD wrote, "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language [Aramaic/Hebrew], and each interpreted them as best he could." Irenaeus, Origen, and Jerome echoed this, claiming Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience in their native tongue before a Greek version was circulated.

These Greek manuscripts are a record of what survived, but not necessarily a pure or complete record. I could stand on that alone, as many LDS do, but I'm not doing that. I'm just saying what Joseph Smith is "restoring" is possibly entirely new information. Joseph Smith restores the doubt not to make the disciples look bad, but to make the Savior look more Kingly. He stayed faithful even when his own Handpicked Presidency was "complaining" and "wondering" if they had backed the wrong guy.

The general scholarly consensus is that Matthew was not written in Hebrew or Aramaic first. Eusebius quotes Papias as saying that Matthew wrote a “sayings” of Jesus in Hebrew but Eusebius also didn’t trust Papias much.

It is also unlikely that the writer of Matthew was Matthew the apostle/disciple. The names ascribed to be the writers of the gospels came later.

[Pyreaux]

On 3/13/2026 at 11:17 AM, telnetd said:

Where?

Mark 14:36–38. The JST adds specific verbs and internal motivations that aren't in the Greek manuscripts we have. "And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping...", becomes "And he cometh and findeth them asleep, and they said unto him..." they aren't just caught sleeping, they have an excuse. Jesus says, "the spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak" becomes the Disciples say, "The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak." "...and they began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy, and to complain in their hearts, wondering if this be the Messiah."

Complaining in one's heart against a leader is called disloyalty. In the Old Testament, the Israelites complained in their hearts against Moses. God treated this as a rebellion. By "complaining," the disciples are essentially saying Jesus is spoiling their expectations of an anointed King. It's not unreasonable to say with Peter's previous rebuke, then the garden, then Peter’s violent outburst with the sword cutting off the ear of Malchus, where Peter is again rebuked for interfering with the plan. Whatever reason you give him, this is technically disloyalty.

If there were doubt that there was doubt in Peter, there is Peter’s external denial in the courtyard. You can't say "I know him not" unless you have already "wondered if he be the Messiah" in your heart, as the JST suggests.

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The general scholarly consensus is that Matthew was not written in Hebrew or Aramaic first. Eusebius quotes Papias as saying that Matthew wrote a “sayings” of Jesus in Hebrew but Eusebius also didn’t trust Papias much.

It is also unlikely that the writer of Matthew was Matthew the apostle/disciple. The names ascribed to be the writers of the gospels came later.

I am aware, the thought is the other Gospels lean on Mark, and Mark was in Greek, and also Matthew has Greek word play, the Peter/Petra pun in Matthew 16, not suggestive of being a translation into Greek, if there was an Aramaic original, it'd be a complete rewrite into Greek. It was just a segway to suggesting we don't actually have original manuscripts or autographs. Certainly, the quotes of the disciples weren't originally spoken in Greek. Greek is not just a different set of words, it’s a different way of thinking. Greek is precise and philosophical, Aramaic is earthy. There will be idioms lost in translation, being written anonymously, the 150–200 year gap, and I'm not sure telnetd is ready to understand or acknowledge how a "telephone game" effect can happen with oral traditions.

Edited March 14 by Pyreaux

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I am aware, the thought is the other Gospels lean on Mark, and Mark was in Greek, and also Matthew has Greek word play, the Peter/Petra pun in Matthew 16, not suggestive of being a translation into Greek, if there was an Aramaic original, it'd be a complete rewrite into Greek. It was just a segway to suggesting we don't actually have original manuscripts or autographs. Certainly, the quotes of the disciples weren't originally spoken in Greek. Greek is not just a different set of words, it’s a different way of thinking. Greek is precise and philosophical, Aramaic is earthy. There will be idioms lost in translation, being written anonymously, the 150–200 year gap, and I'm not sure telnetd is ready to understand or acknowledge how a "telephone game" effect can happen with oral traditions.

Yep. In addition there are misreadings of the Septuagint that lead to some weird episodes where prophecy was supposed to be being fulfilled where the words of Zechariah suggested a person would ride on a donkey and a colt at the same time somehow which Matthew says happened. In the Hebrew it is poetry and it is talking about the same animal twice. If Matthew wrote it in Hebrew or Aramaic originally it is much more likely he would have used a Hebrew language version of the Hebrew bible and not made that error.

The biggest evidence (to me anyways) that Matthew didn’t write the Gospel of Matthew is that the Gospel of Mark records Jesus calling Matthew to follow him. The Gospel of Matthew just copies that part verbatim. No switch to the first person. No addendum sharing more of how Matthew felt about being called. I find it incredibly unlikely that someone wouldn’t editorialize or add details if you were there for the actual events especially when it is literally about a life changing moment in your own life.

Edited March 15 by The Nehor