How Can We Know When We Hear

[Zakuska]

Even in Bible times not every word or action of God was written down. I believe I already gave the last two verses of John for an example.

John 20:30-31 â??Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.â?

As I have said, personal revelation to someone that is already stated in the Bible (love your neighbor) is unnecessary. So I must assume that what you are really asking is if God can say something new.

My God does not change. Any â??newâ? revelation canâ??t present a different God. Your new revelation does present a different God - Mormons have explained this by saying that your God is not different, that He was just misrepresented in the â??alteredâ? Biblical text. However, there is no evidence that the text was altered in revelation. There is also no evidence that JS heard from God. And Ehrmanâ??s writings arenâ??t helping.

Hmm... 8 and 11 and whole congregations heard from God too. (Saw heavenly visions etc). And you call that no Evidence? Theres no Evidence that Stephen Saw Christ standing on the right hand of God either, besides Lukes writings.

How many times does a prophet need to be right to be a true prophet? How many times can he be wrong?

Well... Jonah was wrong... Nineveh was not destroyed. Isaiah Said king hezekiah wa going to die and he lived an aditional 15 years.Ezekiel said Tyrus would be a blad rock forever. Didn't happen. Nathan said David would build the temple but then had to change his mind becuase God said it would be Solomon.

And speaking of Changes... Didn't the whole temple format change at the crucifiction of Christ?

Heb. 7: 12

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Now what I cant understand is Why God is making all these changes? I thought God said the Law of Moses was for ever.

[Paul Ray]

How many times does a prophet need to be right to be a true prophet?

Just once.

How many times can he be wrong?

No matter how many times a true prophet was, or is, or will be wrong, if he received a message from God, he did.

[Zakuska]

Can a true prophet lie? I know of several in the Bible that did.

FIT, Can God Change his decrees?

[TrashcanMan79]

What little I have read of the Mormon attitude toward Smith's version of the Bible does not reflect that it is considered solely a restoration of the Bible's 'original text'....

Is there an authoritative statement, binding on the LDS, which would make the above views inconsistent with 'official' Mormon doctrine on the matter of the JST? (There may well be, I'm not asking rhetorically.)

D&C 35 - Introduction - "At this time the Prophet was engaged almost daily in making a translation of the Bible. The translation was begun as early as June 1830, and both Oliver Cowdery and John Whitmer had served as scribes. Since they had now been called to other duties, Sidney Rigdon was called by divine appointment to serve as the Prophetâ??s scribe in this work (verse 20)."

Says nothing about the JST being a restoration of the autographs.

D&C 35:20 - "And a commandment I give unto theeâ??that thou shalt write for him; and the scriptures shall be given, even as they are in mine own bosom, to the salvation of mine own elect;"

Says nothing about the JST being a restoration of the autographs.

D&C 73:3-4 - "Now, verily I say unto you my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Sidney Rigdon, saith the Lord, it is expedient to translate again; And, inasmuch as it is practicable, to preach in the regions round about until conference; and after that it is expedient to continue the work of translation until it be finished."

Says nothing about the JST being a restoration of the autographs.

D&C 124:89 - "If he will do my will let him from henceforth hearken to the counsel of my servant Joseph, and with his interest support the cause of the poor, and publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the earth."

Says nothing about the JST being a restoration of the autographs.

In the History of the Church, under the date of February 2, 1833, we find this statement by Joseph Smith: "I completed the translation and review of the New Testament, on the 2nd of February, 1833, and sealed it up, no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion" (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.324).

Says nothing about the JST being a restoration of the autographs. History of the Church is not doctrinally binding on Mormons.

In a letter dated July 2, 1833, signed by Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and F. G. Williams, the following statement is found: "We this day finished the translation of the Scriptures [Old Testament], for which we return gratitude to our Heavenly Father ..." (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.368).

Says nothing about the JST being a restoration of the autographs. History of the Church is not doctrinally binding on Mormons.

â??The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written. These restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural understanding.â? (JST introduction on lds.org)

This could be interpreted as likening the JST as a restoration of the autographs. Couldn't find this phrase on lds.org. Could you provide the link, please? And I hasten to add that the contents of lds.org are probably not on par with canonized scripture, and that is what I had in mind when I asked you to provide "an authoritative statement, binding on the LDS, which would make the above views (JST not solely a restoration of the autographs) inconsistent with 'official' Mormon doctrine on the matter of the JST").

â??A revision or translation of the King James Version of the Bible begun by the Prophet Joseph Smith in June 1830. He was divinely commissioned to make the translation and regarded it as â??a branch of his callingâ? as a prophet. Although the major portion of the work was completed by July 1833, he continued to make modifications while preparing a manuscript for the press until his death in 1844, and it is possible that some additional modifications would have been made had he lived to publish the entire work.â? (under JST, Bible Dictionary, lds.org)

Says nothing about the JST being a restoration of the autographs. Source non-binding.

"In consequence, at the command of the Lord and while acting under the spirit of revelation, the Prophet corrected, revised, altered, added to, and deleted from the King James Version of the Bible to form what is now commonly referred to as the Inspired Version of the Bibleâ?¦. The first 151 verses of the Old Testament, down to Genesis 6:13, are published as the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price. But as restored by the Prophet the true rendition contains about 400 verses and a wealth of new doctrinal knowledge and historical data.... the marvelous flood of light and knowledge revealed through the Inspired Version of the Bible is one of the great evidences of the divine mission of Joseph Smith." (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, p. 383-84)

Says nothing about the JST being a restoration of the autographs (and actually seems to share a position not unlike the ones cited in my earlier post). Source non-binding.

Apostle John A. Widtsoe affirms: â??It is a remarkable evidence of the prophetic power of Joseph Smith. Hundreds of changes make clear many a disputed textâ? (Joseph Smithâ??Seeker After Truth, p.251). (some of the above quotes from utlm.org)

Says nothing about the JST being a restoration of the autographs. Source non-binding.

It appears to me that Mormons can consider the JST to be something other than solely a restoration of the autographs. (Unless you are holding back on that "authoritative statement, binding on the LDS, which would make the above views [JST not solely a restoration of the autographs] inconsistent with 'official' Mormon doctrine on the matter of the JST.") Actually, it seems to me that you were not trying to cite an authorative statement that indicates that "JST = autographs" is doctrine. Which is confusing to me, since that is what my question was. But maybe since you are posting to so many people here, you got your wires crossed when posting to me.

If it is not Mormon doctrine to consider the JST as exactly equalling a restoration of the autographs, then your repeated demonstrations of the JST not being a restoration of the autographs would be something of a straw man (unless, of course, there are Mormons who post in here who do hold that every change JS made was a restoration to the autographs - if so, I would love to hear from you on this!)

[freakin a man]

If it is not Mormon doctrine to consider the JST as exactly equalling a restoration of the autographs, then your repeated demonstrations of the JST not being a restoration of the autographs would be something of a straw man (unless, of course, there are Mormons who post in here who do hold that every change JS made was a restoration to the autographs - if so, I would love to hear from you on this!)

This might be true. I do think that some JST portions are restorations, some might be alternate translations and some might be truths that simple where omitted for some reason from the autographs. When the JST has the apostles saying something, there is really two options to conclude. They either said it or they did not. (Yes I know they did not say it in English.) If they did say it either its a restoration to the autographs or adding something that was not in the autographs but should have been but was omitted for some reason. If they did not say it then it was never said and the JST would be wrongly putting words in the mouths of the Apostles when they never said it.

I think we have to look at every JST issue on a case by case basis and make decisions from that but I would agree, not every single change that Joseph made in the JST should be called a restoration to the autographs.

[Hammer]

Even in Bible times not every word or action of God was written down. I believe I already gave the last two verses of John for an example.

John 20:30-31 â??Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.â?

As I have said, personal revelation to someone that is already stated in the Bible (love your neighbor) is unnecessary. So I must assume that what you are really asking is if God can say something new.

My God does not change. Any â??newâ? revelation canâ??t present a different God. Your new revelation does present a different God - Mormons have explained this by saying that your God is not different, that He was just misrepresented in the â??alteredâ? Biblical text. However, there is no evidence that the text was altered in revelation. There is also no evidence that JS heard from God. And Ehrmanâ??s writings arenâ??t helping.

God doesn't change His principles, but He does give and take more and less to different ones. He gives according to needs and worthiness. He also changes application of principles. For instance we know He changed the sacrificing of animals when His Son was made the ultimate sacrifice.

Do you deny this?

[TrashcanMan79]

My God does not change. Any â??newâ? revelation canâ??t present a different God. Your new revelation does present a different God.

First of all, it's not my new revelation. I have received no revelation. I reject all 'revelation', I reject that there is a God who gives 'revelation'. But you believe the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament? The New Testament didn't alter understanding of him?

Mormons have explained this by saying that your God is not different, that He was just misrepresented in the â??alteredâ? Biblical text.

Call for sources.

However, there is no evidence that the text was altered in revelation.

You keep insisting that even though/if the Bible contains contradictions, errors, forgeries, additions, deletions, anachronisms, (shall I go on?) that its 'revelation' remains exactly as God gave it. This means nothing to me. Sounds to me like it just gives you an out any time a contradiction, error, forgery, addition, deletion, anachronism (shall I go on?) is pointed out to you.

If you're up to it, please start a new thread demonstrating God's 'revelation' in the Bible (wherever it may lie among all those contradictions, errors, forgeries, additions, deletions, anachronisms (shall I go on?)). Let's see how it holds up under closer examination.

There is also no evidence that JS heard from God.

As opposed to the mountains of evidence that Peter, John, Paul, Moses, Mohammad (oops, wrong mythology), Isaiah, etc heard from God? Please, thrill me with this 'evidence'.

And Ehrmanâ??s writings arenâ??t helping.

But dang are they interesting!

[Neighbor]

Can a true prophet lie? I know of several in the Bible that did.

FIT, Can God Change his decrees?

I've never see where one lied, not prophets of God. False prophets did.

You know of several true prophets that lied? Care to point them out to me Zakuska?

Thanks!

[thesometimesaint]

Neighbor:

To paraphrase Zakuska.

"Well... Jonah was wrong... Nineveh was not destroyed. Isaiah Said king Hezekiah was going to die and he lived an additional 15 years.Ezekiel said Tyrus would be a bald rock forever. Didn't happen. Nathan said David would build the temple but then had to change his mind because God said it would be Solomon."

[Neighbor]

I think your question is an excellent one. How can I know that what I hear is not deception?

I would answer that I have a witness of the Holy Ghost that what I believe is true, and get over it if you can.

Now it is your turn: How do you know that what you hear is not deception?

I would also say that I think that nobody has the same gospel that Jesus, Peter, John, James, Paul and Jude taught, because they did not all teach the "same gospel." That is why there are so many contradictions amongst the teachings of these various authors. And technically, it is hard to say at this point what gospel Jesus taught inasmuch as we have none of his writings.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

They did teach the same gospel. It is 'we' who don't hear them. Who was it that said to let the words of Christ Jesus dwell in us richly? The gospel is Jesus Christ and what He taught that was the 'prophetic word made sure'. Granted, Jesus didn't found His gospel on 'faith alone' or 'grace alone'. Those are human interpretations and objects of contention. When we abide in Jesus and whatsoever He taught we are in the same gospel in word, deed and purpose.

I agree that it is by the power of God working through the Holy Spirit that we are called and that we gain our faith, which to a large, or shall I say HUGE extent is of and from Him to start with. We simply come to the light or avoid the light. It is God in us doing the rest... if we let Him.

[Neighbor]

Neighbor:

To paraphrase Zakuska.

"Well... Jonah was wrong... Nineveh was not destroyed. Isaiah Said king Hezekiah was going to die and he lived an additional 15 years.Ezekiel said Tyrus would be a bald rock forever. Didn't happen. Nathan said David would build the temple but then had to change his mind because God said it would be Solomon."

Gods principles and truth were not violated in any of these, nor were His prophets. God allows for repentance and must abide by His word even if the prophet's record doesn't record the whole of it. "The sum of Thy word is truth".

Where's the Nathan/David exchange?

[Hammer]

I've never see where one lied, not prophets of God. False prophets did.

You know of several true prophets that lied? Care to point them out to me Zakuska?

Thanks!

Moses murdered. Is that worse than lying? According to Isaiah is an interesting one.

Isa. 6: 5-10

5

[TrashcanMan79]

Would it be ONLY what God commanded man to write or speak?

What if God spoke to a man and that man wrote what God said or inspired that man to think, without commanding the man to write it down?

Difficult for me to answer, inasmuch as I doubt the existence of God and wholly reject that, if he exists, he speaks to man in such a way that he could be quoted. But even when I was a believer, deciding exactly what constituted scripture and what its exact nature is was something I never fully fleshed out in this pea brain of mine. I don't know that I've ever seen a consistent idea of WHAT scripture is and HOW we are to assess it as such. If anyone's got anything on that, please start a new thread and direct me to it.

[consiglieri]

Moses murdered. Is that worse than lying?

I don't know, but it certainly isn't worse that Mormonism!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Freedom in Truth]

The Holy Bible is a record of history from people who wrote what God inspired them to write.

... just as the Book of Mormon is a record of history from people who wrote what God inspired them to write.

I am not convinced of this.

QUOTE - Freedom in Truth

The Bible was written by over 40 writers - witnesses. Then there are witnesses within the text. How many witnesses do we need?

One, personally, if our personal witness is God. But I also like to hear from all people who are prophets... including yourself, if you are a true prophet of God.

It is interesting to hear how God speaks to others, but we must determine whether or not the person did hear from God. We also have to confirm whether or not we have heard from God . . . which is what this thread is all about! I believe there is a difference between someone hearing from God and a â??prophetâ?.

QUOTE - freedom in Truth

Traditional Christians throughout the centuries were witnesses as well.

Yes, I agree. The more the merrier.

Sometimes the more the â??muddier the watersâ?. Everything must be confirmed.

QUOTE - Freedom in Truth

The BoM, I have now found, does have some different teachings/understandings than the Bible.

Yes, just as each prophet in the Bible adds some different teachings/ understandings.

Try imagining the Holy Bible without any of the writings in the book of _____ (pick any book), and then imagine those writings in the Book of Mormon instead.

Godâ??s teachings/message/revelation is consistent in the Bible among all the writers. The different teachings/understandings in the BoM are not consistent with the Biblical message.

I guess the writing of Isaiah would be easy to imagine in the BoM!

QUOTE - Freedom in Truth

JS is not witnessing to the same Truth.

I believe he is. He is just adding some more details that you won't find in the Bible... as all other prophets have added to the scriptures.

Adding details shouldnâ??t change who God is or who we are.

I have found a way to harmonize just about everything that is written in those records, without contradicting anything written in those records. You might think they are "off", but I testify that they're not. And God has assured me that my understanding of those issues is correct.

How do you know it was God who assured you? Perhaps it was just yourself.

I define scripture as anything written while using inspiration from God.

If someone said the same thing while simply using other words, they would simply be writing a translation.

I agree.

I define scripture as specific writings considered sacred by a specific group of people. I personally believe God inspired some of what C. S. Lewis wrote, but his writings are not scripture.

A translation is â??a written communication in a second language having the same meaning as the written communication in a first languageâ?. The Parable of the Lost Sheep and the Parable of the Lost Coin are not translations of each other, though they communicate the same message.

The Book of Mormon is either another record of scripture or it is a book that was written by mere men.

God's inspiration is necessary for the writing of scripture. Without that, it is writings of only mere men.

If the Bible were written by mere men it would be impossible to explain how they wrote a consistent message. People in themselves donâ??t consistently agree - especially over 40 people who lived during a 1500 year span, etc.

The Bible was either written by mere men, without God, or it was written with inspiration from God... just as the Book of Mormon was either written by mere men, without God, or it was written with inspiration from God.

Correct. And we need more than what we believe we spiritually feel and hear to determine what is of God and what is of mere men.

Do you have any gum?

Nope - sorry! I seldom chew gum. It loses its flavor too fast and them itâ??s just a tasteless wad!

[Freedom in Truth]

I know you didn't ask me, but...

I think of the JST as a study aid to help me see ideas better, by seeing them differently, than I would see them in another translation of the Bible, including the KJV. And in fact it is listed as a Study Help on our (LDS) official scripture website.

JS was commissioned by God to write the JST. The JST was revealed to JS by God. God instructed JS to print the JST so everyone could read it. Yet this is not important to you? Revelations from God are â??study aidsâ?? How is it that some of JSâ??s revelations are crucial scripture and some are tossed aside?

And while it would be kinda nice if we (the Church) added the complete version to our Quad, or at least give the link to it on our website, there are lots of other good books and reference materials that would be nice to have in one place... and on paper, at least, I would prefer to carry as little weight as I possibly can.

Is JSâ??s revelation from God no more important than other good books? Is this the way you feel about all of JSâ??s revelations?

And btw, here's the link to the complete version of the JST, or what is known as the 'Inspired Version' of the Bible, at the RLDS website... who still owns the copyright, I believe.

http://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv/about.htm

Thanks - I have found this link.

[Freedom in Truth]

Joshua

10:7 So Joshua ascended from Gilgal, he, and all the people of war with him, and all the mighty men of valour.

10:8 And the LORD said unto Joshua, Fear them not: for I have delivered them into thine hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee.

10:9 Joshua therefore came unto them suddenly, and went up from Gilgal all night.

10:10 And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.

(above post edited for length)

Yes, God HATES sin. He hates it because it destroys us and all that is good. Could He be abundantly loving if evil were O-K with Him? No - because of His great love He hates evil/sin.

Romans 1:18-26a â??The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ??his eternal power and divine natureâ??have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over [permitted them to choose] in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorâ??who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.â?

Romans 1:28-30a â??Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to [permitted them to choose] a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil;â?

God had a purpose in Joshua - to create a nation of people who would know Him and bring Him to all peoples. He desired to give Israel a place with no outside evil temptations. He knew the hearts of the Canaanites and in His omniscience knew they were not going to choose Him. But remember Rahab and her family? Anyone whose heart chose God would have been spared.

Donâ??t you believe the â??apostate churchâ? will be annihilated (or whatever term you use) in the end times? Is your God loving?

1 Nephi 14:17 â??And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his covenants, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel.â?

1 Nephi 22:14 â??And every nation which shall war against thee, O house of Israel, shall be turned one against another, and they shall fall into the pit which they digged to ensnare the people of the Lord. And all that fight against Zion shall be destroyed, and that great whore, who hath perverted the right ways of the Lord, yea, that great and abominable church, shall tumble to the dust and great shall be the fall of it.â?

2 Nephi 10:16 â??Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.â?

[Freedom in Truth]

Freedom in Truth - Can you show that everything JS added to the NT was a variant of any early manuscript? Can you show JSâ??s corrections and additions in the writings of the early church fathers?

Yet the church was almost totally apostate at this time of the Fathers.

Your evidence for your statement? Do you have answers for my questions?

So the church was almost totally apostate within 100-200 years, and they all agreed to remove all references to certain truths. It is amazing they could be so unified without Godâ??s power. Is Satan more powerful than God?

[Freedom in Truth]

And by the way, FreedominTruth (FIT), you might want to run over to Joseph Smith Bull's-Eye thread where we are discussing the JST of Matthew 5:22 where Joseph Smith corrected the passage to correspond with what the overhelming majority of New Testament scholars agree was the original language.

It's really quite remarkable.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I understand that this is important to you because it is something you have, but do you honestly think one verse will be convincing to me when there are so many other verses JS failed to see? After all, even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

Right. Putting commas in different places constitutes most of those changes. Very dramatic. Now if we started a count on the revision made on the Bible in the NIV, and we aren't talking commas, we would really have significant numbers wouldn't we?

This is the most pethy attempt I have seen todate to try and validate those who have broken their covenants and those who have jealously sought to destroy the Lord's church.

â??If one counts every difference in every punctuation mark in every edition of the Book of Mormon, the result is well over 100,000 changes.â? http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_...textual_changes

â??Almost 4,000 changesâ? wouldnâ??t seem to be counting â??commas in different placesâ??.

[Hammer]

â??If one counts every difference in every punctuation mark in every edition of the Book of Mormon, the result is well over 100,000 changes.â? http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_...textual_changes

â??Almost 4,000 changesâ? wouldnâ??t seem to be counting â??commas in different placesâ??.

Really. Put up at least references where these 100,000 significant changes could be examined to prove it made any difference in doctrine.

I notice you didn't have the *****s to answer this statement: Very dramatic. Now if we started a count on the revision made on the Bible in the NIV, and we aren't talking commas, we would really have significant numbers wouldn't we?

And these would be complete personalized interpretations of these scriptures. Why don't you complain or make negative statements about them?

[structurecop]

Yes, God HATES sin. He hates it because it destroys us and all that is good. Could He be abundantly loving if evil were O-K with Him? No - because of His great love He hates evil/sin.

God had a purpose in Joshua - to create a nation of people who would know Him and bring Him to all peoples.

Then why doesn't God destroy all the "evil" nations today? Where is the divine Commander-in-Chief, the angel of the Lord with sword in hand? And are all those innocent people -- undoubtedly infants and young kids included going to be saved too?

The God of the OT is not a being of moral superiority. He is a tribal deity possessing all the passions and desires of stereotypical ANE tribal deities.

He desired to give Israel a place with no outside evil temptations. He knew the hearts of the Canaanites and in His omniscience knew they were not going to choose Him.

The archaeological evidence shows the Hebrews are most likely Canaanites anyway.

Donâ??t you believe the â??apostate churchâ? will be annihilated (or whatever term you use) in the end times? Is your God loving?

No, Joseph Smith foresaw an ecumenical millenium composed of many churches.

[Freedom in Truth]

QUOTE(Freedom in Truth @ Feb 22 2007, 04:05 PM)

Maybe Erhman would be a better prophet.

Maybe.

What is a prophet, structurecop?

[Freedom in Truth]

From Ehrman:

In Mark's Gospel [there is] a well-known account in which Jesus's own townsfolk wonder how he could deliver such spectacular teachings and perform such spectacular deeds. As they put it, in their astonishment, "Isn't this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon, and aren't his sisters here with us?" (Mark 6:3). How, they wondered, could someone who grew up as one of them, whose family they all knew, be able to do such things?

This is the one and only passage in the New Testament in which Jesus is called a carpenter. The word used, TEKTON, is typically applied in other Greek texts to anyone who makes things with his hands; in later Christian writings, for example, Jesus is said to have made "yokes and gates." We should not think of him as someone who made fine cabinetry. Probably the best way to get a "feel" for this term is to liken it to something more in our experience; it would be like calling Jesus a construction worker. How could someone with that background be the Son of God?

This was a question that the pagan opponents of Christianity took quite seriously; in fact, they understood the question to be rhetorical: Jesus obviously could not be a son of God if he was a mere TEKTON. The pagan critic Celsus particularly mocked Christians on this point, tying the claim that Jesus was a "woodworker" into the fact that he was crucified (on a stake of wood) and the Christian belief in the "tree" of life.

And everywhere they speak in their writings of the tree of life... I imaging because their master was nailed to a cross and was a carpenter by trade. So that if he happened to be thrown off a cliff or pushed into a pit or suffocated by strangling, or if he had been a cobbler or stonemason or blacksmith, there would have been a cliff of life above the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or a rope of immortality, or a blessed stone, or an iron of love, or a holy hide of leather. Would not an old woman who sings a story to lull a little child to sleep have been ashamed to whisper tales such as these?

(Against Celsus

6, 34

)

Celsus's Christian opponent, Origen, had to take seriously this charge that Jesus was a mere "carpenter," but oddly enough he dealt with it not by explaining it away (his normal procedure), but by denying it altogether: "[Celsus is] blind also to this, that in none of the Gospels current in the Chruches is Jesus himself ever described as being a carpenter" (Against Celsus 6, 36).

What are we to make of this denial? Either Origen had forgotten about Mark 6:3 or else he had a version of the text that did not indicate that Jesus was a carpenter. And as it turns out, we have manuscripts with just such an alternative version. In our earliest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel, called P45, which dates to the early third century (the time of Origen), and in several later witnesses, the verse reads differently. Here Jesus's townsfolk ask, "Is this not the son of the carpenter?" Now rather than being a carpenter himself, Jesus is merely the carpenter's son.

Just as Origen had apologetically motivated reasons for denying that Jesus is anywhere called a carpenter, it is conceivable that a scribe modified the text - making it conform more closely with the parallel in Matthew 13:55 - in order to counteract the pagan charge that Jesus could not be the Son of God because he was, after all, a mere lower-class TEKTON. (emphasis in original)

TCM, I am sure that Origenâ??s writings and even quotes do not all line up with the NT text we have. That was not the point. The point is that quotes from the early church fathers show that the NT text existed during their time, which means we have earlier dates for the text. Yes, there are variants. I have not denied variants. I also believe I read that it is possible that Origen himself changed some verses. If this is true, then why is he criticizing others whom he believed did the same?

In this particular case, I donâ??t find that it matters much if Jesus was a carpenter, stonemason, or whatever. (â??Yokes and gatesâ? is in even later Christian writings I believe.) I think it is reasonable that Jesus learned whatever his father did and probably helped him at times. After all, Jesus didnâ??t start His ministry until around 30 - what was he doing before then? But in my opinion, the charge of the townsfolk could have happened even if Jesus himself didn't share his father's trade. They could have been saying, â??How can this guy be saying and doing these things - heâ??s just a carpenterâ??s son!â? And I think the townsfolk would have also complained if Jesusâ?? father was wealthy. I think the point here is that the townsfolk didnâ??t see Jesus as a holy man, a famous rabbi. Or maybe the townspeople just couldnâ??t accept change - they had never seen Jesus like this before.

But the main point for our discussion is - approx. all but 11 verses of the NT are found in the early church fathersâ?? writings. The text of the NT was around very early. Yes, some variants were around very early. So it seems that the discussion must be - do the variants matter?

[Freedom in Truth]

I'll answer that. Jude's teachings were truth. Did he teach in a conceptual way all could understand? No. But then he had access to writings of men we do not.

Jude's book is "to those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ." Not everything has been revealed to us by God, and we do not have access to the information Jude was addressing in verse 9, but this does not mean that God has "secret information" He gives to a few select individuals (Gnosticism). Anyone can go "further up and further in".

What is important is what Jude is saying about the false teachers, not the specific information about the body of Moses.

It would be very dangerous to base a doctrine on just one verse, like verse 9.

[Freedom in Truth]

The problem is... Christ didn't reveal the whole Mystery... "Once and for all".

Theres a whole chapter missing!

God did not choose to reveal everything about everything to us. He revealed what we needed to know and what was good for us to know, and what we could potentially understand (considering that it is impossible to fully understand God). Each day is a blessing from God and an opportunity to walk with Him. That is abundantly enough. (If you need to prove you are worthy enough to earn something after death you seem to miss out on the blessings each day brings . . . and your focus becomes yourself and not God.)

1 Corinthians 13:12 - â??Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.â?

Paul said we donâ??t know everything and canâ??t know until we are face to face with God.

If Godâ??s revelation is â??a poor reflection as in a mirrorâ? and He is (for example) revealing a skyscraper to us, then further revelation shouldnâ??t reveal that the skyscraper was really a bicycle. Mormons came up with a bicycle.

Jesus came to correctly interpret the OT - not to change it or to add. The NT clarifies the OT - our â??poor reflectionâ? is made a little better. But we donâ??t have bicycles for skyscrapers - we have the same God, the same human nature, the same redemption and relationship.

The issue is your bicycle.