elias being a multiple foreunner.

[jadams_4242]

In Matthew mount of transfiguration. {chap 17} Moses, Elias. and Jesus appeared to ,Peter,James, and John... then fast forward a couple verses... while still talking to Jesus they asked of him "why say the scribes Elias must first come"? jesus said Elias truely must first come and restore all things..and he has already come.so then they knew he spake of john the baptist...

sevearl questions mainstream christians need to ask..; if john the baptist was the "ONLY" Elias,; then why did Peter,James,John not regonize him just moments before?;,.and if he has alleady come; {in finality} then why does he need to come again to restore all things?.;

i beleive this group of verses very clearly and undisputably shows that the name title "ELIAS" represents more than one person.

[TAO]

Some did not know that Jesus was the Christ until he told them... I think the same case applies here. Peter, James, and John didn't know he was the one qualifying as Elias... though they knew of him as John the Baptist.

[Zakuska]

Not to throw a fly in the ointment... but...

In Johns Gospel John the Baptist denies being the forerunner who would come and restore all things.

John 1

21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

I think this gives even better support for 2 Elias'

[consiglieri]

I will just throw out there an observation that when somebody starts running into theological trouble with conflicting statements, the first refuge is to create multiple individuals with the same name.

(See Elden Watson's Two-Adam Theory.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[jadams_4242]

Some did not know that Jesus was the Christ until he told them... I think the same case applies here. Peter, James, and John didn't know he was the one qualifying as Elias... though they knew of him as John the Baptist.

Then just how has he allready come, but will yet come and restore all things? and how is that elias spoken of in the verses quoted in matt are reffering to "elijah" of the old testament? ssso we have jhon, as elias, we have elijah as elias, we have jesus as elias e;t;c... my entire point is why do mainstream christians refuse to acknowledge this?.

[TAO]

Then just how has he allready come, but will yet come and restore all things?

I do not know if you are LDS or not but, if you are, one of the best resources out there is the JST. It says:

Matthew 17:10-14 10 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things, as the prophets have written.

11 And again I say unto you that Elias has come already, concerning whom it is written, Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and they knew him not, and have done unto him, whatsoever they listed.

12 Likewise shall also the Son of Man suffer of them.

13 But I say unto you, Who is Elias? Behold, this is Elias, whom I send to prepare the way before me.

14 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist, and also of another who should come and restore all things, as it is written by the prophets.

So apparently Elias does mean multiple people. But if one who is Elias meets with the other who is Elias, it would only appear to be one person in that instance. A quote from the Bible dictionary, which helps clarify things somewhat (not scripture, but helps in understanding):

Elias is also a title for one who is a forerunner, for example, John the Baptist, as in JST Matt. 11:13

[Palerider]

Then just how has he allready come, but will yet come and restore all things? and how is that elias spoken of in the verses quoted in matt are reffering to "elijah" of the old testament? ssso we have jhon, as elias, we have elijah as elias, we have jesus as elias e;t;c... my entire point is why do mainstream christians refuse to acknowledge this?.

Is this scenario a possibility?

Regarding the forerunner "mission of Elias/Elijah" the angel spoke of John the baptist;

Luke1:16-17

1:16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.

1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Pretty close to Malachi's prophecy. Was he (John) literally Elijah? No he was coming in the spirit of Elijah's mission as a reformer, thus when asked if he actually was Elias/Elijah he answered "No".

The Savior re-inforces this mission of John as has previously been pointed out:

Matt. 11:14

11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

11:14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

11:15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

But the actual prophet Elias (Elijah) did come at the Mount of transfiguration before the Lord came to His temple and taught there in his rightful place as King and Messiah.

Is there a possibility Elias will come again? It is a distinct possibility that he and Moses are the two witnesses spoken of in Revelations that will come and testify before the "great and dreadful day of the Lord". As transfigured beings they would still be able to be martyred and then finally be resurrected after 3 1/2 days.

This is just how I read this issue. I can't speak to how other Christians view this.

For those of you who may not be able to resist the need to inform me, I'm already very aware of D&C 110:13.

[stYro]

There is another possibility... "if ye will receive it" (to borrow a phrase Jesus used in this context in Matthew 1:14):

Maybe John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elias (Elijah), which is one interpretation of Jesus' statement that "this is Elias".

Joseph Smith adds evidence to this theory: In the Joseph Smith Translation of the events on the Mount of Transfiguration, he amends "Moses and Elias" to be "or, Moses and John the Baptist". Now we have Jesus and Joseph Smith both saying, or at least very strongly implying, that the Elias and John the Baptist are the same being.

This line of thinking gains momentum when we remember Moroni's rendering of the last verses of Malachai to Joseph: "I will reveal unto you the Priesthood by the hand of Elijah the prophet...". Who was it that first revealed and restored priesthood to Joseph Smith? Yup - our old friend, John the Baptist!

Let us also consider a strange remark Jesus made about John the Baptist: "Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist." Based on the record we have of John, that sounds like an exaggeration (especially since John apparently didn't even realize that he was "Elias"). But Jesus has already told us that John the Baptist is indeed Elias (if we will receive it). So maybe this advanced being played other great roles as well. Maybe the role of fore-runner and restorer is a role played more than once by the second most advanced being to work among us, the one of whom Jesus said there was no greater prophet born of women. Maybe this is the same being whom John Taylor said had done more than anyone, save Jesus only, for the salvation of mankind (see the parallel with Jesus' statement about John the Baptist??)

And, maybe he isn't done yet.

[volgadon]

I will just throw out there an observation that when somebody starts running into theological trouble with conflicting statements, the first refuge is to create multiple individuals with the same name.

(See Elden Watson's Two-Adam Theory.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I'll balance that statement with the observation that anciently a name was as much a title reflecting the power and mission of the bearer as anything. In this case it makes sense that we have both the real Elijah, and John the Baptist serving as an Elijah, and in an LDS context, the prophet known as Elias as well.

[ElderDarionBevan]

elias is a title, there were many "Eliases" for instance John the baptist was and "Elias" and also the prophet joseph smith. there is a however a prophet named Elias which is not just a title but an actual name

[stYro]

elias is a title, there were many "Eliases" for instance John the baptist was and "Elias" and also the prophet joseph smith. there is a however a prophet named Elias which is not just a title but an actual name

Let's look at the wording Jesus used:

"And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Okay here we have not one but two code-phrases bracketing a statement and telling us that there is a deep hidden truth being taught here, which is more advanced than most people can handle. The phrases are "if ye will receive it" and "he that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

In other words, "this [John] is Elias, which was for to come" is one of those statements that conceals something great but hard-to-handle behind something that's pretty tame.

"Elias" being a title is hardly some great, hard-to-handle, deep hidden truth.

You may not agree with my theory as to what that deep hidden truth is, but I think the text justifies being open to the likelihoood of something beyond the easy answer from the lesson manual.

[volgadon]

elias is a title, there were many "Eliases" for instance John the baptist was and "Elias" and also the prophet joseph smith. there is a however a prophet named Elias which is not just a title but an actual name

Yes, it is the Greek form of Elijah. THe actual prophet's name would not have been Elias, but Elijah also. That English inherited both forms in its translations of the scriptures makes it convenient for telling Elijah apart from Elias.

[jadams_4242]

I do not know if you are LDS or not but, if you are, one of the best resources out there is the JST. It says:

So apparently Elias does mean multiple people. But if one who is Elias meets with the other who is Elias, it would only appear to be one person in that instance. A quote from the Bible dictionary, which helps clarify things somewhat (not scripture, but helps in understanding):

That is one instance of how they are used. Bible Dictionary again helps clarify:

Again, Bible Dictionary isn't scripture, but it extraordinarily helpful =D!

I don't know why they do not XD. You'd have to ask someone who is mainstream Christian... there are a few around here.

yes of course i am l.d.s!! and i have had this discussion with a number of non l.d.s people over the years; yes i am aware of the "j,s,t"; but do not use it because i dont need to be proven anything; its the people whom dont comprehend that need verification and using the "j,s,t" wont help them because they dont beleive his stuff anyway, so i try to stick entirely to the k.j.v when discussing stuff like this. thank you . for your input..

[jadams_4242]

Not to throw a fly in the ointment... but...

In Johns Gospel John the Baptist denies being the forerunner who would come and restore all things.

John 1

21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

I think this gives even better support for 2 Elias'

[TAO]

yes of course i am l.d.s!! and i have had this discussion with a number of non l.d.s people over the years; yes i am aware of the "j,s,t"; but do not use it because i dont need to be proven anything; its the people whom dont comprehend that need verification and using the "j,s,t" wont help them because they dont beleive his stuff anyway, so i try to stick entirely to the k.j.v when discussing stuff like this. thank you . for your input..

Ok good! XD Wasn't sure whether I was talking to an LDS or not... hmm... I'll take a look around though... there might be something Elias related I can serve up =).

[Mortal Man]

Yes, it is the Greek form of Elijah.

Joseph's failure to grasp this simple fact has spawned a rich tapestry of "Elias theurgy" in LDS hermeneutics.

[volgadon]

Joseph's failure to grasp this simple fact has spawned a rich tapestry of "Elias theurgy" in LDS hermeneutics.

Really? That sounds an awful lot like the worlds of cultural and anti-Mormonism, with their rich tapestries of "this isn't how we would do it so Joseph is obviously mistaken and there is no need to take his statements and see if the concepts fit an acient world view."

[Robert F. Smith]

You'all might want to consider why it was that some people at the Crucifixion heard Jesus reciting the opening line of Psalm 22, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? (Matthew 27:46-49, Mark 15:34-36) They apparently thought that he had called for Elias to come and rescue him. Why would they expect a long-ago, 9th-century B.C. prophet to return?

Such Jewish tradition persists into modern times, and Jews still believe that Elijah is the forerunner of the Messiah. Indeed, they expect him to return at Passover someday, leaving the door ajar, an empty chair, and a glass of wine for him at the Passover Seder table.

They don't realize that Elijah has returned several times already, including Easter Sunday April 3, 1836, the second official night of Passover (for those living outside of the Land of Israel), when he came to the Kirtland Temple (D&C 109-110). He came following the passing of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper by the Presidency and Twelve. That Sacrament is a reenactment of Jesus' Passover meal. See Stephen D. Ricks,

[Robert F. Smith]

Joseph's failure to grasp this simple fact has spawned a rich tapestry of "Elias theurgy" in LDS hermeneutics.

Joseph's ignorance of such things makes the actual story all the more astonishing, as I point out immediately above. Joseph was a mere mortal man and (despite the excuses made by Dan Vogel -- assuming his vast scholarship) could not have arranged things with such cleverness. Indeed, we only realize some of the amazing implications all these years after the fact. Mere theurgy doesn't go far enough.

[Joseph Antley]

Joseph Smith's apparent "confusion" over the KJV names "Elijah" and "Elias" is interesting. From context in the KJV it should seem apparent to readers that Elias is the Greek form of the name Elijah -- just like Esaias is transliterated form of Isaiah and Jeremias is the form of Jeremiah. So why didn't it seem to click in Joseph Smith's head?

Joseph Smith wasn't stupid, clearly. He later prided himself on being able to read the Scriptures in different languages, and that in itself should have made the Elias=Elijah connection more clear. So what was the problem?

The most reasonable answer I've been able to come up with is that Joseph Smith realized that there was some meaning to Elijah/Elias being a title, and as Volgadon said, he conveniently drew on the King James Version's different spellings as a way to distinguish between the man Elijah and the title bearing his name. I attribute this to inspiration.

[volgadon]

Joseph Smith's apparent "confusion" over the KJV names "Elijah" and "Elias" is interesting. From context in the KJV it should seem apparent to readers that Elias is the Greek form of the name Elijah -- just like Esaias is transliterated form of Isaiah and Jeremias is the form of Jeremiah. So why didn't it seem to click in Joseph Smith's head?

Joseph Smith wasn't stupid, clearly. He later prided himself on being able to read the Scriptures in different languages, and that in itself should have made the Elias=Elijah connection more clear. So what was the problem?

Especially considering that we have evidence that he put some thought into biblical names, after all, he called upon the German converts to support his claim that the name James is not in the Bible.

The most reasonable answer I've been able to come up with is that Joseph Smith realized that there was some meaning to Elijah/Elias being a title, and as Volgadon said, he conveniently drew on the King James Version's different spellings as a way to distinguish between the man Elijah and the title bearing his name. I attribute this to inspiration.

Very nicely put. BTW, david Daube suggested that during the 2nd Temple period, Elijah's chair might reasonably be seen as the hope of parents that their son would be the Elijah, the foreruner to the Messiah. As the idea of reincarnation was not introduced yet into Judaism, Elijah was obviously seen as a title and role.

[Dan Vogel]

Joseph's ignorance of such things makes the actual story all the more astonishing, as I point out immediately above. Joseph was a mere mortal man and (despite the excuses made by Dan Vogel -- assuming his vast scholarship) could not have arranged things with such cleverness. Indeed, we only realize some of the amazing implications all these years after the fact. Mere theurgy doesn't go far enough.

It is possible to have the right answer for the wrong reasons just as Kepler and Voltaire had correctly surmised Mars had two moons before such could be verified. This was, of course, based on the false premise that planets furthest from the sun had increasingly more moons. There is also the danger that the

[SkepticTheist]

I will just throw out there an observation that when somebody starts running into theological trouble with conflicting statements, the first refuge is to create multiple individuals with the same name.

(See Elden Watson's Two-Adam Theory.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I find the two-Adam theory useful theologically, not that I necessarily believe that one can establish without question that that was what Brigham Young meant. Now, if I apply the roles that Brigham Young was talking about to two separate individuals myself, then I find what he was saying useful. So I don't particularly care that much what Brigham Young himself meant. But I think the way I apply what he said to either the roles occupied by the personages of Elohim or Michael for me is useful theologically. So I don't have to apologetically explain away Brigham Young's statements to make use of the concept of two Adams in my personal theology.

Similarly, I don't necessarily think that the name Elias started out having multiple incarnations of more than one individual. But it is the scriptures that teach this is so by applying the name to John the Baptist to begin with. Because Elias is simply the Greek rendering of the name Elijah. It was the new testament that applied that name Elijah to John the Baptist. therefore it was the scriptures that introduced the idea that the name-title Elijah was useful to describe symbolically two separate individuals who mirrored each other.

Ed Goble

[Robert F. Smith]

It is possible to have the right answer for the wrong reasons just as Kepler and Voltaire had correctly surmised Mars had two moons before such could be verified. This was, of course, based on the false premise that planets furthest from the sun had increasingly more moons. There is also the danger that the

[Dan Vogel]

It is quite true that we are all affected by bias of one sort or another, and the fallacy of begging the question seems to be the order of the day. True scholarship attempts to overcome such tendencies (at least in part) through peer review and dialogue with a wide community of opinion. This Board if merely one such forum for dialogue.

However, there may be a limit to the assertion of the fully accidental nature of history on the one hand, or of the vast scholarship of some individual (whose words and acts appear to go beyond purely random chance in corresponding to reality). In the absence of hard evidence, either approach seems to me to border on the absurd. How often do you imagine that Joseph can have gotten the right answer for the wrong reasons before you begin to doubt the utility of that facile explanation? There are several people out there who believe Joseph Smith to have been a charlatan who do not share your views on this matter -- being unwilling to assert Joseph's vast scholarship, as you seem to have done.

Of course, I don