How Can We Know When We Hear

[Freedom in Truth]

Hmmm. How does Mark 6:3 read in your Bible?

Origen stated â??. . . in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.â? Do you consider this a quote of the NT?

The NT really doesnâ??t say Jesus was a carpenter. The Greek word â??tektonâ? means â??artisan, craftsman, builder, etc.â? Jesus could have learned stonemasonry from Joseph.

[Freedom in Truth]

Yes, I think the love of God got lost somewhere in Joshua.

Some verses -

Joshua 23:14b - â??You know with all your heart and soul that not one of all the good promises the LORD your God gave you has failed. Every promise has been fulfilled; not one has failed.â?

Judges 2:18 - â??Whenever the LORD raised up a judge for them, he was with the judge and saved them out of the hands of their enemies as long as the judge lived; for the LORD had compassion on them as they groaned under those who oppressed and afflicted them.â?

Ruth 2:12b - â??May you be richly rewarded by the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge."

1 Samuel 9:16 - â??"About this time tomorrow I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin. Anoint him leader over my people Israel; he will deliver my people from the hand of the Philistines. I have looked upon my people, for their cry has reached me."â??

2 Samuel 12:24b - â??The LORD loved himâ?

1 Kings 10:9b - â??Because of the LORD's eternal love for Israel, he has made you king, to maintain justice and righteousness."

2 Kings 13:23a - â??But the LORD was gracious to them and had compassion and showed concern for them because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.â?

1 Chronicles 16:34 - â??Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever.â?

2 Chronicles 6:14 - â??He said: â??O LORD, God of Israel, there is no God like you in heaven or on earthâ??you who keep your covenant of love with your servants who continue wholeheartedly in your way.â??â?

Ezra 3:11a - â??With praise and thanksgiving they sang to the LORD : â??He is good; his love to Israel endures forever.â??"

Nehemiah 9:17 - â??They refused to listen and failed to remember the miracles you performed among them. They became stiff-necked and in their rebellion appointed a leader in order to return to their slavery. But you are a forgiving God, gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love. Therefore you did not desert them,â?

Esther - The book is a story of Godâ??s deliverance.

Job 37:13 - â??He brings the clouds to punish men, or to water his earth and show his love.â?

Psalms - Godâ??s love, compassion, mercy, deliverance, redemption are overwhelmingly represented in the Psalms. Psalm 33:5 - â??The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.â?

Proverbs 3:12 - â??because the LORD disciplines those he loves, as a father the son he delights in.â?

Ecclesiastes - The bookâ??s message is life is meaningless apart from God. 2:24-25 - â??A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment?â?

Song of Solomon - A picture of Godâ??s love for His people, His bride. 8:6-7a - â??Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. Many waters cannot quench love; rivers cannot wash it away.â?

Isaiah 54:10 - â??â??Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,â?? says the LORD, who has compassion on you.â?

Jeremiah 31:3 - â??The LORD appeared to us in the past, saying: â??I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness.â??â?

Lamentations 3:22 - â??Because of the LORD's great love we are not consumed, for his compassions never fail.â?

Ezekiel 16:8 - " 'Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine.â??â? Chapter 16 is an allegory of Godâ??s love for His people.

Daniel 9:4 - â??I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed: â??O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands,â??â?

Hosea 3:1 - â??The LORD said to me, â??Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes.â??" Chapter 1-3:5 shows the parallels between Hosea and his wayward wife, Gomer - and God and Israel.

Joel 2:13b - â??Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love,â?

Amos 9:14a - â??I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.â?

Obadiah 1:17a - â??But on Mount Zion will be deliverance;â?

Jonah 4:2b - â??I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.â?

Micah 7:19 - â??You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.â?

Nahum 1:7 - â??The LORD is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in him.â?

Habakkuk 3:13 - â??You came out to deliver your people, to save your anointed one. You crushed the leader of the land of wickedness, you stripped him from head to foot.â?

Zephaniah 3:17 - â??The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing."

Haggai 2:4b-5 - â??â??Be strong, all you people of the land,' declares the LORD, 'and work. For I am with you,' declares the LORD Almighty. 'This is what I covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt. And my Spirit remains among you. Do not fear.'â??

Zechariah 10:6a - â??I will strengthen the house of Judah and save the house of Joseph. I will restore them because I have compassion on them.â?

Malachi 1:2a - â??"I have loved you," says the LORD.â?

I think the Christology of the OT is debatable. I see the OT and the BoM as having markedly different messages. The BoM more closely resembles 2nd Century BCE Jewish pseudepigrapha than the OT proper.

There are manifestations of Christ and prophecies. 2nd Century BCE - when the Jews developed much oral law and commentaries on Godâ??s Law . . . interpretations Jesus came to correct?

[Freedom in Truth]

But did you know, Freedom in Truth, that if we used the early church fathers to do the reconstructing of the New Testament, that many of the verses would read differently than we have them now?

And when I say this, I am referring specifically to the Apostolic Fathers, who were the closest in time to the authors of the New Testament.

We would also have some nice verses to add to the New Testament that are nowhere found in the New Testament as we currently have it.

Does this do anything to your theory?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

No, it does not do anything to my theory. (Though I would be honored to accept credit for this â??theoryâ? I must admit that it was developed before my time.) And, yes, I am aware that the early church fathers did not always quote â??word for wordâ?. I am also aware that their writings included alterations and commentaries.

The point is the writings of the early church fathers can provide earlier support of the NT text. Their writings quoted all 27 books of the NT and reproduced the substantial content of the NT. Dalrymple said â??. . . as I possessed all the existing works of the Fathers of the second and third centuries, I commenced to search, and found the entire New Testament, except eleven verses.â? (Our Bible, How We Got It - Leach)

The content of my NT (revelation, message) has been around since the early church fathers. Though manuscripts have variants, they do not change major doctrines. So the message of my NT hasnâ??t changed as far as we are able to go back (early manuscripts and early church). Now, you can argue that other versions of truth existed, and you can argue that the early church picked the wrong revelation to canonize. Those are separate issues from the point I was making.

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?

[Freedom in Truth]

Your understanding is wrong. The Ninth Article of Faith (authored by Smith) states:

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

I think I have cited this AoF to you twice before, and each time to correct a notion not unlike the one you have expressed here. Mormonism considers itself a restorative faith, but one that holds that God will reveal things He has not before.

Do you accept that this is the Mormon understanding of its faith?

Yes I do. Would you please accept that I am not concerned with variants that do not change revelation? You keep giving me variants, and I am beginning to think that you do not hear me when I say that I know there are variants, that I accept them, and that I still believe the message of the Bible is not changed.

However, any change in the JST should be â??restoring truthâ?, correct?

[Freedom in Truth]

TCM - The KJV has been shown to include many variants - maybe even many questionable verses, correct? Isnâ??t this what Dr. Steussâ?? post showed (my post # 174)? Do these variants bother you?

The JST had all the variants in Dr. Steussâ?? list as well. And though JS didnâ??t do a perfect job restoring the original Biblical text, isnâ??t it still better than the also imperfect KJV?

Why would you include the KJV Bible in your quad and not the JST? Are you saying that the KJV, with all its imperfections, is still better than the JST, with its added restorations? Wasnâ??t the time JS put into the JST and the revelations he did receive from God worth anything to you?

[Paul Ray]

Why would you include the KJV Bible in your quad and not the JST? Are you saying that the KJV, with all its imperfections, is still better than the JST, with its added restorations? Wasnâ??t the time JS put into the JST and the revelations he did receive from God worth anything to you?

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.

JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION

SELECTIONS FROM

THE JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE

AND

EXCERPTS TOO LENGTHY FOR INCLUSION IN FOOTNOTES

Following are selected portions of the Joseph Smith Translation of the King James Version of the Bible (JST). 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. The passages selected for the Guide should help improve your understanding of the scriptures regardless of the language into which they are translated.

Because the Lord revealed to Joseph certain truths that the original authors had once recorded, the Joseph Smith Translation is unlike any other Bible translation in the world. In this sense, the word translation is used in a broader and different way than usual, for Josephâ??s translation was more revelation than literal translation from one language into another. For more information about the JST, see â??Joseph Smith Translation (JST)â? in the Guide to the Scriptures. - JST

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.

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

[structurecop]

Some verses -

Joshua 23:14b - â??You know with all your heart and soul that not one of all the good promises the LORD your God gave you has failed. Every promise has been fulfilled; not one has failed.â?

Joshua

6:20 So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.

6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ***, with the edge of the sword.

8:23 And the king of Ai they took alive, and brought him to Joshua.

8:24 And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword.

8:25 And so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai.

8:26 For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.

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.

[Hammer]

No, it does not do anything to my theory. (Though I would be honored to accept credit for this â??theoryâ? I must admit that it was developed before my time.) And, yes, I am aware that the early church fathers did not always quote â??word for wordâ?. I am also aware that their writings included alterations and commentaries.

The point is the writings of the early church fathers can provide earlier support of the NT text. Their writings quoted all 27 books of the NT and reproduced the substantial content of the NT. Dalrymple said â??. . . as I possessed all the existing works of the Fathers of the second and third centuries, I commenced to search, and found the entire New Testament, except eleven verses.â? (Our Bible, How We Got It - Leach)

The content of my NT (revelation, message) has been around since the early church fathers. Though manuscripts have variants, they do not change major doctrines. So the message of my NT hasnâ??t changed as far as we are able to go back (early manuscripts and early church). Now, you can argue that other versions of truth existed, and you can argue that the early church picked the wrong revelation to canonize. Those are separate issues from the point I was making.

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.

[Freedom in Truth]

The verses that Ehrman mentions as being possible additions, alterations, or having variants that affect meaning are:

I looked at every item on the list myself. Many were footnoted in my Bible - the longer sections were notated in the text. Some we have already discussed.

From http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000 - â??Three of these passages have been considered inauthentic by most NT scholarsâ??including most evangelical NT scholarsâ??for well over a century (Mark 16.9â??20; John 7.53â??8.11; and 1 John 5:7â?? 8 ). Yet Ehrman writes as though the excision of such texts could shake up our theological convictions. Such is hardly the case.â?

(Notes on Matthew 24:36, Mark 1:41, John 1:18, Hebrews 2:8-9.)

â??Unfortunately, as careful a scholar as Ehrman is, his treatment of major theological changes in the text of the NT tends to fall under one of two criticisms: Either his textual decisions are wrong, or his interpretation is wrong. These criticisms were made of his earlier work, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, which Misquoting Jesus has drawn from extensively. For example, Gordon Fee said of this work that 'nfortunately, Ehrman too often turns mere possibility into probability, and probability into certainty, where other equally viable reasons for corruption exist.' Yet, the conclusions that Ehrman put forth in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture are still offered in Misquoting Jesus without recognition of some of the severe criticisms of his work the first go-around. For a book geared toward a lay audience, one would think that he would want to have his discussion nuanced a bit more, especially with all the theological weight that he says is on the line. One almost gets the impression that he is encouraging the Chicken Littles in the Christian community to panic at data that they are simply not prepared to wrestle with. Time and time again in the book, highly charged statements are put forth that the untrained person simply cannot sift through. And that approach resembles more an alarmist mentality than what a mature, master teacher is able to offer. Regarding the evidence, suffice it to say that significant textual variants that alter core doctrines of the NT have not yet been produced.â?

Also http://aspire2.blogspot.com/2006/01/misquoting-jesus.html - Matthew 24:36, Mark 1:41.

(I ordered the list for convenience and reformatted to save space.)

Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 17:12-13

Matthew 24:36 - â??but what is not disputed is the wording in the parallel in Mark 13:32â??â??But as for that day or hour no one knows itâ??neither the angels in heaven, nor the Sonâ??except the Father.â?? Thus, there can be no doubt that Jesus spoke of his own prophetic ignorance in the Olivet Discourse.â?

Matthew 27:26, Matthew 27:34, Mark 1:2

Mark 1:41 - â??a few ancient manuscripts speak of Jesus as being angry in Mark 1:41 while most others speak of him as having compassion. But in Mark 3:5 Jesus is said to be angryâ??wording that is indisputably in the original text of Mark.â? (also 10:14)

Mark 6:3 (You never told me how this verse reads in your Bible. In doing so, perhaps we could test your assertion that 'Origenâ??s quotes match what we have today as the NT.') - Already addressed in previous post

Mark 9:29, Mark 14:62, Mark 15:34

Last 12 verses of Mark's Gospel (separated and noted in my Bible)

Luke 2:33, Luke 3:22, Luke 5:38-39

Luke 6:1-4, Luke 11:2-4, Luke 12:8-9

Luke 22:17-19, Luke 22:43-44, Luke 23:32

Luke 23:33-34, Luke 24:12, Luke 24:51-52

John 1:3

John 1:18 Ehrmanâ??s Greek incorrect

John 4:22, John 5:3-4, John 5:39

John 7:53-8:12 (separated and noted in my Bible)

John 17:15, John 21 (entire chapter)

Acts 17:4, Acts 20:28

Romans 5:1, Romans 12:11, Romans 16:7

1 Corinthians 5:8, 1 Corinthians 12:13, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

1 Timothy 3:16 (important to note that most scholars doubt Paul wrote this epistle at all)

Hebrews 1:3

Hebrews 2:8-9 questionable interpretation by Ehrman

1 John 4:2-3

1 John 5:7-8 Johannine Comma - 1522 - already discussed

Revelation 1:5

This list does not include the hack job Matthew and Luke did on Mark's Gospel when writing their own.

All the gospels are based on eye-witness accounts. Eye-witness accounts never perfectly agree. You understand this, correct?

What did JS do to these gospels?

Since one's opinion of which Biblical verses contain 'revelation' is rather arbitrary and subjective, I will let you decide which of the above verses bear on your understanding of 'revelation'.

The answer is none.

Iâ??m sorry, but I think it is so silly when the content of a â??questionableâ? verse on a list like this is repeated in another verse (not on the list). The above is filled with such verses. What is the point of this?

You donâ??t seem to understand that no belief of mine is based on one verse. In fact, it would be dangerous to base a doctrine on one verse. It would be helpful if you could look at the big picture here - at the general, consistent revelation/message behind the verses and words. Wallace said, â??The Bible is true in what it teaches.â?

Itâ??s like I am showing you a beautiful ballerina, and you miss the dance and grace and beauty because you are looking at an imperfect tutu. Forget the tutu!

Doesn't look like your God is faring any better. In fact, God's failure to preserve His word directly contributed to Ehrman's loss of faith.

I am sorry Ehrman lost his faith, but I do wonder what his faith was based on in the first place. Was it based on his idea that every word in the Bible needed to be uttered by God, or could he look past that and see the revelation God gave to us?

So far I see no evidence that my God did not protect His revelation/message.

Actually, there have been well over 100,000 changes to the Book of Mormon. But I share your desire for Ehrman to write about it. I think it would be wonderful. (Though I wonder if you would accept his criticism of the Book of Mormon more readily than you accept his critique of the Bible.)

Ehrman seems emotionally involved in his writing. Maybe he was so hurt when he lost his faith he wants others to be hurt as well. He doesnâ??t seem totally objective. Maybe he could be more objective with the BoM.

â??Almost 4,000â? changes to the BoM must be just counting those more substantial than misspelled words, etc. But in any case, there have been a lot of changes to a printed book not 200 years old. Your explanations might work for you, but you still have the issue of changing and contradicting revelation. What you know and argue today might not be true tomorrow.

[Freedom in Truth]

Ehrmanâ??s list contained 47 verses/passages. Dr. Steussâ?? list had 9 items. One item was on both lists - so I looked at 55 verses/passages. JS had the content of 50 out of 55 items.

Here are JSâ??s changes -

Luke 23:33-34 - JS added meaning the soldiers who crucified him (JST v. 35)

John 1:18 - JS took out about 3/4 of verse 18 (JST v. 19)

1 Corinthians 12:13 - JS took out about

[structurecop]

Maybe Erhman would be a better prophet.

Maybe.

[Freedom in Truth]

This reverses the suggested theory that JS tried to 'change' the Bible to fit his doctrines in the BoM and D&C.

So now we know that according to you, authority amongst us, that JS was right on all along.

JS changed some of the Bible to go along with his doctrines. Look at the passages he did change - do the majority of them have nothing to do with his doctrines? But I will say JS apparently did a very incomplete job.

However, he did manage to find time to add himself into Genesis. Any manuscript support for this?

[consiglieri]

Let's see . . . Neighbor? . . . Neighbor? . . . nope, no Neighbor!

Neighbor still hasn't responded to my Moby Richard analysis.

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

[Hammer]

â??Almost 4,000â? changes to the BoM must be just counting those more substantial than misspelled words, etc. But in any case, there have been a lot of changes to a printed book not 200 years old. Your explanations might work for you, but you still have the issue of changing and contradicting revelation. What you know and argue today might not be true tomorrow.

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.

[Neighbor]

Let's see . . . Neighbor? . . . Neighbor? . . . nope, no Neighbor!

Neighbor still hasn't responded to my Moby Richard analysis.

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've been out of town a while, just got back - need to go back and search for your post.

For thought: What about Jude's teaching? Is Jude truth?

[TrashcanMan79]

Origen stated â??. . . in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.â? Do you consider this a quote of the NT?

The NT really doesnâ??t say Jesus was a carpenter. The Greek word â??tektonâ? means â??artisan, craftsman, builder, etc.â? Jesus could have learned stonemasonry from Joseph.

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)

[Neighbor]

Okay, here we go matey!

The following is from John Tvedtnes' review of Drosnin's the Bible Code, and was published in the FARMS review of Books 14/1 (2002):

Well then, why wait any longer to find out? How do you, Neighbor, as an Evangelical Christian who has "bought into the Bible Code business," react to this kind of information?

Now, anybody else want a piece of me?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Found it:-) Drosnin made huge errors in the significance of the code from almost every perspective. Please note that my 'anti-proof' would be for items of a name of significance repeating throughout the book as the name of the Messiah was chained from one end of the book to the other. The review you posted doesn't touch that at all:-), so your response is negated by the challenge. Try again Consiglieri:-)

[Neighbor]

Getting back to the point of the thread:

How can you know what you hear is not deception? How can you know you are not one of the elect who are deceived?

As Jude says, the gospel was given once for all - not time after time after time. In the fulness of time Jesus came to reveal the mystery of the kingdom of God - the very gospel of God. How can you have the same gospel that Jesus, Peter, John, James, Paul and Jude taught if you cannot fully support it objectively by what they taught as the gospel?

[Hammer]

I've been out of town a while, just got back - need to go back and search for your post.

For thought: What about Jude's teaching? Is Jude 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.

[Neighbor]

Interesting post Trashcanman. I'd heard some say Jesus may have been a stone mason, but didn't know where they got that information from. If He chose humble Himself to be found in the form of man, it isn't a supprise that He was a construction worker. What is remarkable is that a construction worker could live a life in which no man could accuse Him of ever sinning!!!:-)

[Zakuska]

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

Rev 10

4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

Theres a whole chapter missing!

[Neighbor]

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.

I really don't think that is it. In reading the introduction it would seem that only those "who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ" would grasp what Jude was saying. (Verse 1)

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

Theres a whole chapter missing!

So why didn't JS give that chapter in his JST?:-)

[Zakuska]

I really don't think that is it. In reading the introduction it would seem that only those "who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ" would grasp what Jude was saying. (Verse 1)

And in verse 14 he quotes scripture that isnt in the Bible. Perhaps those who were "preserved in Jesus Chirst" had a bigger bible than we do right now.

So why didn't JS give that chapter in his JST?:-)

Because it wasn't for him to reveal. Its for the seven Thunders. Of course now you have some splanin to do because Apparently Jesus didn't reveal the entire Mystery "once and for all" as you claimed. Got anything more than a unsubstantiated one liner?

[TrashcanMan79]

I am sorry Ehrman lost his faith, but I do wonder what his faith was based on in the first place. Was it based on his idea that every word in the Bible needed to be uttered by God, or could he look past that and see the revelation God gave to us?

You seem to have come close. From Ehrman:

The New Testament as we actually have it, I knew, was the product of human hands, the hands of the scribes who transmitted it. Then I began to see that not just the scribal text but the original text itself was a very human book. This stood very much at odds with how I had regarded the text in my late teens as a newly minted "born-again" Christian, convinced that the Bible was the inerrant Word of God and that the biblical words themselves had come to us by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As I realized already in graduate school, even if God had inspired the original words, we don't have the original words. So the doctrine of inspiration was in a sense irrelevant to the Bible as we have it, since the words God reputedly inspired had been changed and, in some cases, lost. Moreover, I came to think that my earlier views of inspiration were not only irrelevant, they were probably wrong. For the only reason (I came to think) for God to inspire the Bible would be so that his people would have his actual words; but if he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place. Given the circumstances that he didn't preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable that he hadn't gone to the trouble of inspiring them.

[erichard]

LDS and non-LDS alike use the scripture to warn against 'doctrines of demons' being taught and believed.

How do you determine if what someone says or does is a 'doctrine of demons'?

We know this:

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. --1 Timothy 4

Thus, it is a doctrine of devils to forbid to marry (does this include forbidding a married man to marry a righteous widow when necessary?) and it is a doctrine of devils to forbid eating meat.

Why would devils want to teach such doctrine? Both seem so pious and righteous. Maybe we can learn about "doctrines of devils or demons" be reflecting on this example we do know.

In my faith, it has also been revealed that those who teach that sex in marriage is only to be for procreation are also teaching a "doctrine of devils". Again, this seems strange that evil would teach such pious things.

Richard