The Shocking IGNORANCE About Mormonism: It’s Worse Than You Think (Ft Luke Hanson)

[teddyaware]

11 hours ago, Zosimus said:

If you go back to our first interaction it's clear I have been talking about "the Christianity of Jesus and the 12 apostles". My response to your first comment was that while Jesus was alive, all of his apostles and followers were Jews. They all followed the Law of Moses and they all encouraged each other to continue to follow the Law of Moses. Before Paul was even a Christian, Jesus taught his followers:

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Again, Paul was right to condemn those early Jewish converts that wanted to force the gentile converts to get circumcised, but that didn't come from Jesus and the 12 apostles. Jesus and the 12 apostles all followed the Law of Moses, and they taught their Jewish disciples to continue following the Law of Moses. In the earliest days of the gospel there was nothing proud or bullheaded or insubordinate about choosing to follow the Law of Moses. It was encouraged

I’m guessing you’re not all that familiar with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints because the Book of Mormon makes it perfectly clear that though the Law of Moses was still practiced among the believers in Christ in the Holy Land Christ and the Americas prior to his atoning sacrifice and resurrection, nevertheless afterward the inferior Law of Moses was totally ended and replaced by the infinitely superior new testament of the Law of the Gospel. It may have taken some time for the saints in the Holy Land to get used to and adjust to the commandment that the practice of the Law of Moses was no longer binding nor lawfully expedient, but eventually the true believers got the message that Moses’ law had been fulfilled and was no longer in effect. The gospel law brought the Law of Moses to an end. Because of clarifying Latter-Day Saints scriptures, like the selection that follows, we don’t have to be confused or incorrectly persuaded on this issue. The Book of Mormon upholds the teachings of Paul as the true doctrine of the true church of Christ.

 

1 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had ended these sayings he cast his eyes round about on the multitude, and said unto them: Behold, ye have heard the things which I taught before I ascended to my Father; therefore, whoso remembereth these sayings of mine and doeth them, him will I raise up at the last day.

2 And it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he perceived that there were some among them who marveled, and wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses; for they understood not the saying that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new.

3 And he said unto them: Marvel not that I said unto you that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new.

4 Behold, I say unto you that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses.

5 Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end.

6 Behold, I do not destroy the prophets, for as many as have not been fulfilled in me, verily I say unto you, shall all be fulfilled.

7 And because I said unto you that old things have passed away, I do not destroy that which hath been spoken concerning things which are to come.

8 For behold, the covenant which I have made with my people is not all fulfilled; but the law which was given unto Moses hath an end in me. (3 Nephi 15)

 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Okay.  How about this one:  

 

Needs to either be true or have a more believable protagonist.

[Zosimus]

10 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’m guessing you’re not all that familiar with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

I’ve already explained two or three times. I’m talking about the period of Christ’s earthly ministry and the 12 apostles. The teachings and practices of Christ and the 12 apostles are closer to Islam and Judaism than they are to Mormonism and 21st century Protestant Christianity 

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’m guessing you’re not all that familiar with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints because the Book of Mormon makes it perfectly clear that though the Law of Moses was still practiced among the believers in Christ in the Holy Land Christ and the Americas prior to his atoning sacrifice and resurrection, nevertheless afterward the inferior Law of Moses was totally ended and replaced by the infinitely superior new testament of the Law of the Gospel. It may have taken some time for the saints in the Holy Land to get used to and adjust to the commandment that the practice of the Law of Moses was no longer binding nor lawfully expedient, but eventually the true believers got the message that Moses’ law had been fulfilled and was no longer in effect. The gospel law brought the Law of Moses to an end. Because of clarifying Latter-Day Saints scriptures, like the selection that follows, we don’t have to be confused or incorrectly persuaded on this issue. The Book of Mormon upholds the teachings of Paul as the true doctrine of the true church of Christ.

You are trying to use the Book of Mormon to argue about what happened in the Old World? That is a bold move.

[Zosimus]

On 5/2/2025 at 8:55 PM, Nofear said:

Several early Church fathers were quite explicit in their teaching Jesus was Jehovah.

The video you linked to starts off discussing Bart Ehrman's criticism of claims of the early Church fathers that Jesus was Yahweh. I agree with Ehrman on this.

"I simply don’t think it’s right that Christian theology understands Jesus as Yahweh. Well, I guess some Christians do, since that appears to be what they think! I wonder when they started thinking about it…."

https://ehrmanblog.org/nope-jesus-is-not-yahweh/

Quote

Many of the pre-Christian apocryphal records are also explicit in their High Christology. Given these two bookends the idea that the early Jewish Christian converts didn't hold these ideas as well seems less than plausible to me. Not that I particularly fault Zosimus's position. It's the traditional one.

I would agree that the apocrypha has a more explicit Christology than the OT. But Barnes will eventually need to get serious about the dating of the apocryphal texts he references. He waves such things off with comments such as, "this is not an academic book". The foreword makes it clear that the book is more a combative snarky challenge that isn't worried about footnotes or "discussion about the details of dating" the apocryphal texts he uses to support his arguments. That, IMO, is primary. You can't make the claims that these texts pre-date the NT without first getting into the pesky details of dating

[Nofear]

15 hours ago, Zosimus said:

I would agree that the apocrypha has a more explicit Christology than the OT. But Barnes will eventually need to get serious about the dating of the apocryphal texts he references. He waves such things off with comments such as, "this is not an academic book". The foreword makes it clear that the book is more a combative snarky challenge that isn't worried about footnotes or "discussion about the details of dating" the apocryphal texts he uses to support his arguments. That, IMO, is primary. You can't make the claims that these texts pre-date the NT without first getting into the pesky details of dating

I entirely agree that Barne's book is snarky and not academic. Though, if that were the criteria for correct then nothing on this board would be of value.... [uh oh, after long moments of reflection, I just realized my whole internet worldview has just been shattered, what have I been doing all this time?! Say it isn't so tiktok, say it isn't so!!!!]

[Zosimus]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

I entirely agree that Barne's book is snarky and not academic. Though, if that were the criteria for correct then nothing on this board would be of value.... [uh oh, after long moments of reflection, I just realized my whole internet worldview has just been shattered, what have I been doing all this time?! Say it isn't so tiktok, say it isn't so!!!!]

don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the book. But even on this forum, you have to back up your claims. If Barnes is making a claim such as a text like the Book of Jasher being "definitely" a candidate for a text that was on the brass plates? OKaaaaay, but as we often do on this forum, CFR

Barnes says Moses Samuel translated the latter in 1840, but that's incorrect. Moses Samuel had translated a Book of Jasher of contested provenance and had it published in 1828. There was even another Book of Jasher, also of contested provenance, published in the same month. We know that Joseph Smith and the Saints knew of the heated discussion about the dating and provenance of these two Books of Jasher because Joseph Smith commented on them in 1833, as documented by Thomas Wayment:

"But despite the questionable basis of the Samuel text and dubious claims for its antiquity, the publication was well received and caused quite a stir. It appears that a letter written by Joseph Smith, Sidney Ridgon, and Frederick G. Williams to the Saints in Missouri on June 25, 1833, was an attempt to address some of the public concerns regarding the questions being raised in England over competing claims to having found the original Book of Jasher. The letter reads in part, “We have not found the Book of Jasher, nor any other of the lost books mentioned in the Bible as yet; nor will we obtain them at present." (source)

So Barnes has it wrong, two different Books of Jasher were published two years before the Book of Mormon. Since neither of the texts is ancient, they cannot convincingly support the claim that either of these Books of Jasher was among the texts on the brass plates. That kinda claim wouldn't go unchallenged on this forum so why should it in a book?

Edited May 5, 2025 by Zosimus

[Pyreaux]

I'm in the camp that many pseudepigrapha is older than "scholars" will admit. As Margaret Barker says, "They aren't being called frauds because they are frauds, they are calling them frauds because they don't like what it's telling them." The old Protestant claim that all the books in the Bible are older than the books outside of it is plainly false, Dead Sea Scrolls showed us there are other books alongside these, and these are the oldest we have. (1 Enoch, etc.)

Edited May 5, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Nofear]

Zosimus, before I can respond to a cfr, might you clarify what exactly you understand my claim to be?

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I'm in the camp that many pseudepigrapha is older than "scholars" will admit. As Margaret Barker says, "They aren't being called frauds because they are frauds, they are calling them frauds because they don't like what it's telling them." The old Protestant claim that all the books in the Bible are older than the books outside of it is plainly false, Dead Sea Scrolls showed us there are other books alongside these, and these are the oldest we have. (1 Enoch, etc.)

Those evil “scholars”!

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Those evil “scholars”!

Non-objective scholars. Under such erroneous notions that if any Christology is in a book, it is considered an anachronism and rejected as a modern forgery. The Dead Sea Scrolls alone show that Jews were systematically editing Christian prooftexts out of the Old Testament and burning all Hebrew copies of other books because of their Christ-figures and Great Angel characters. Evil book burning Jews and evil biased scholars! What in their eyes was a defense of orthodoxy is intrigue and villainy to my eyes.

Edited May 5, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

The Dead Sea Scrolls alone show that Jews were systematically editing Christian prooftexts out of the Old Testament and burning all Hebrew copies of other books because of their Christ-figures and Great Angel characters. Evil book burning Jews and evil biased scholars! Their dutiful defense of God is intrigue and villainy to me.

This is all nonsense.

[Teancum]

On 5/1/2025 at 12:11 PM, rpn said:

What struck me is how little time it took from Jesus leaving to getting the Church really messed up (200 years later they were talking about Jesus not as the Savior, Redeemer, Son of God but as a great man who was favored of God ---if I got the clip correct).  We clearly need a prophet and an orderly administration throughout the world.   (Of course I got that testimony a really long time ago when I read the "Left Behind" series.

That is because Jesus really did not start a church nor did he likely claim to be God.  All that came later and the doctrine was developed as the various sects started to grow and take hold.  Paul was the most successful missionary to the gentiles and Paul's ideas seems to take hold.  The proto-orthodox church eventually became the winner and the other sects tended to fall by the way side. Read Bart Ehrman's book How Jesus Became God. The LDS view that Jesus organized a church that Mormonism mirrors to day is total nonsense.  What you and @teddyawareare doing is reading back Mormonism into early Christianity then you claim an apostasy. Even the Former Farms does not agree with that any more based on a book  they published a few years ago.

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This is all nonsense.

Really? So, is it nonsense the First Book of Enoch was a Hebrew scripture but St. Jerome couldn't substantiate the historicity of the book because after 70 AD the Jews had already purposely burned all ancient Hebrew copies of Enoch? Enoch was only later rediscovered in Ethiopia in 1770, but by then it was already an established idea that it was late "Christian Pseudepigrapha", but once we found a fragment of First Enoch in Hebrew in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and containing the same quote in Jude, it is now apparent that Enoch is not a late Christian book at all, it was a Pre-Christian Jewish Scripture just as old as the oldest books we have. It was only saved by Christian refugees from Syria to Ethiopia.

Was it not saved by Christians and burned by Post-Christian Jews because it was utilized as a proof-text for Christianity? The Book of Enoch’s first parable contains a Christ-like angelic figure, referred to as the “Son of Man”, the “Anointed One”, and other Christ-like, titles also found in Isaiah’s Servant Songs and Daniel. In the Parable, the “Righteous One” uses his blood to take up to a heavenly temple to meet the “Lord of Spirits”, a title Enoch uses to refer to God the Father, the Most High God (1 Enoch 47). Post-Christian Jews did not like books with named angel characters, angel “sons of God”, or angels that preformed works alongside of God. It would support the claims that Christ was a pre-incarnated Son of God, a creative agent of God the Father.

Edited May 5, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Non-objective scholars. Under such erroneous notions that if any Christology is in a book, it is considered an anachronism and rejected as a modern forgery. The Dead Sea Scrolls alone show that Jews were systematically editing Christian prooftexts out of the Old Testament and burning all Hebrew copies of other books because of their Christ-figures and Great Angel characters. Evil book burning Jews and evil biased scholars! Their dutiful defense of God is intrigue and villainy to me.

CFR (references, not summaries)

Edited May 5, 2025 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

It's nonsense because the Dead Sea Scrolls do not "show that Jews were systematically editing Christian prooftexts out of the Old Testament and burning all Hebrew copies of other books because of their Christ-figures and Great Angel characters."

That is what is nonsense.

But to get to what you just posted:

3 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

So, is it nonsense the First Book of Enoch was a Hebrew scripture

So here is the problem that you have. The Dead Sea Scrolls contained a lot of sectarian documents. Perhaps these were considered scripture by the group that used them. But, it seems unlikely - they were not held up to that level of authority that the well known and widely circulated scriptural texts were given. So I think that it is reasonable to argue that the First Book of Enoch was not Hebrew scripture - that it was never Hebrew scripture - even if it was given some status in certain circles. Of course, it's easy to make arguments from negative evidence. Clearly, there is no evidence that it was in the Hebrew Scriptures, because, as you claim, the "Jews were ... systematically editing [it] out". The challenge is that the couple of references in the New Testament aren't that helpful. We don't, after all, think that Epimenides or Menander were considered Hebrew Scriptures either - and yet there they are. The Dead Sea Scrolls also contained fifteen copies of Jubilees. Like First Enoch, Jubilees was considered commentary - it was never given the status of Hebrew scripture. It's existence as Qumran doesn't give it that status either. The fact that these texts aren't popular isn't a result of some sort of grand plot. Enoch has challenges that made it popular for the Qumran community but not for other groups of Jews - and the biggest of these was the calendar problem. Enoch's calendar had 12 months which added up to exactly 364 days a year. The traditional Jewish calendar used a cycle of 12 month years with an occasional 13 month year. This created political and religious problems for the community at Qumran when their holy feasts were on a different schedule from the rest of the Jewish community. The Book of Enoch's lack of popularity is much more attributable to this issue than to any differences over messianic figures.

44 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Was it not saved by Christians and burned by Post-Christian Jews because it was utilized as a proof-text for Christianity?

No. It wasn't used as a proof text for Christianity. And it certainly didn't last very long in Christianity as a whole - even though its use in the New Testament (of very small pieces) gave it some longevity, it never had wide-scale popularity or support in early Christianity, and was effectively removed in the fourth century.

47 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

It was saved by Christian refugees from Syria to Ethiopia.

This is another one of those modern myths, isn't it. We are now up to more than 150 manuscripts (mostly fragmentary) of First Enoch. The most complete are Ethiopic - but interestingly enough, the oldest of these manuscripts only dates back to the 14th century. When we look at the Greek and Aramaic texts, what we see if often quite different from the Ethiopic text - and what we can with some certainty is that the Ethiopic version of First Enoch is not particularly representative of the text of First Enoch that would have existed in the Second Temple period. That they are based on the same textual tradition is undisputed. But the Aramaic is in places radically different. The Parables/Similitudes section of First Enoch has no known Aramaic or early Greek version at all. So, was it saved? It's not as simple as you suggest.

57 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Was it not saved by Christians and burned by Post-Christian Jews because it was utilized as a proof-text for Christianity?

No. It wasn't. The idea that the Jews repressed First Enoch is an unsubstantiated claim first made by R.H. Charlesworth in 1912, who wrote this: "Its suppression by the Jews was owing to its Messianic character." However, there is no mention made of First Enoch in any Talmudic or Rabbinic writing that mentions First Enoch in connection with burning texts. The reality is that Rabbinic Judaism rejected it because of its non-messianic content - the idea of angels having sex with women, its calendar (which I already mentioned) and so on. We cannot find anything that would work as evidence for Charlesworth's claim - and so generally, his suggestion is largely rejected by academics today.

What is fascinating to me is the way that this can be juxtaposed with other actual proof-texts used by early Christians - Isaiah, for example. The Jews certainly didn't repress Isaiah because it was utilized as a proof-text for Christianity, did they ...

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

The Book of Enoch’s first parable contains a Christ-like angelic figure, referred to as the “Son of Man”, the “Anointed One”, and other Christ-like, titles also found in Isaiah’s Servant Songs and Daniel. In the Parable, the “Righteous One” uses his blood to take up to a heavenly temple to meet the “Lord of Spirits”, a title Enoch uses to refer to God the Father, the Most High God (1 Enoch 47). Post-Christian Jews did not like books with named angel characters, angel “sons of God”, or sons that preformed works alongside of God. It would support the claims that Christ was a pre-incarnated Son of God, a creative agent of God the Father.

There are no Greek or Aramaic fragments that cover this section of the text. None. While there may have been earlier versions (there may have been an Aramaic original with a Greek intermediary) there is nothing there. The Dead Sea Scrolls cannot help here - because we would expect (if it had existed) for bits of it to have been found in Qumran. They weren't. As Larry Hurtado noted a few years ago, referencing the work of Loren Stuckenbruck:

Quote

In the case of those portions of 1 Enoch for which no Aramaic or Greek fragments survive, we have a particular difficulty in establishing what the text may have looked like in the first century CE.  The section called the Parables/Similitudes of 1 Enoch (chaps. 37-71 of the standard editions) is a prime example.  And given the enormous scholarly attention directed to this material, especially among NT scholars, Stuckenbruck’s cautionary words should be noted.  In other portions of 1 Enoch where we can make comparisons with the Aramaic or Greek fragments, we can see “how far removed from the important Aramaic Dead Sea evidence any edition starting with the Ge‘ez version as a point of departure may be, and it is up to textual work and to processes of interpretation to determine the plausibility of anchoring this or that text within a Second Temple context.”

I think that there is a real risk in trying to make the unpopularity of a text into some sort of concerted effort to get rid of it.

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, Zosimus said:

don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the book. But even on this forum, you have to back up your claims. If Barnes is making a claim such as a text like the Book of Jasher being "definitely" a candidate for a text that was on the brass plates? OKaaaaay, but as we often do on this forum, CFR

Barnes says Moses Samuel translated the latter in 1840, but that's incorrect. Moses Samuel had translated a Book of Jasher of contested provenance and had it published in 1828. There was even another Book of Jasher, also of contested provenance, published in the same month. We know that Joseph Smith and the Saints knew of the heated discussion about the dating and provenance of these two Books of Jasher because Joseph Smith commented on them in 1833, as documented by Thomas Wayment:

"But despite the questionable basis of the Samuel text and dubious claims for its antiquity, the publication was well received and caused quite a stir. It appears that a letter written by Joseph Smith, Sidney Ridgon, and Frederick G. Williams to the Saints in Missouri on June 25, 1833, was an attempt to address some of the public concerns regarding the questions being raised in England over competing claims to having found the original Book of Jasher. The letter reads in part, “We have not found the Book of Jasher, nor any other of the lost books mentioned in the Bible as yet; nor will we obtain them at present." (source)

So Barnes has it wrong, two different Books of Jasher were published two years before the Book of Mormon. Since neither of the texts is ancient, they cannot convincingly support the claim that either of these Books of Jasher was among the texts on the brass plates. That kinda claim wouldn't go unchallenged on this forum so why should it in a book?

Being a poster on the publisher's Discord server, I tried to entice Barnes to come to this forum to discuss his book, but obviously failed because he hasn't shown up, nor did he answer my message. Sigh. I don't even know if he read it.

[Teancum]

On 5/3/2025 at 10:13 AM, teddyaware said:

I’m guessing you’re not all that familiar with the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints because the Book of Mormon makes it perfectly clear that though the Law of Moses was still practiced among the believers in Christ in the Holy Land Christ and the Americas prior to his atoning sacrifice and resurrection, nevertheless afterward the inferior Law of Moses was totally ended and replaced by the infinitely superior new testament of the Law of the Gospel. It may have taken some time for the saints in the Holy Land to get used to and adjust to the commandment that the practice of the Law of Moses was no longer binding nor lawfully expedient, but eventually the true believers got the message that Moses’ law had been fulfilled and was no longer in effect. The gospel law brought the Law of Moses to an end. Because of clarifying Latter-Day Saints scriptures, like the selection that follows, we don’t have to be confused or incorrectly persuaded on this issue. The Book of Mormon upholds the teachings of Paul as the true doctrine of the true church of Christ.

 

 

1 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had ended these sayings he cast his eyes round about on the multitude, and said unto them: Behold, ye have heard the things which I taught before I ascended to my Father; therefore, whoso remembereth these sayings of mine and doeth them, him will I raise up at the last day.

2 And it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he perceived that there were some among them who marveled, and wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses; for they understood not the saying that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new.

3 And he said unto them: Marvel not that I said unto you that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new.

4 Behold, I say unto you that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses.

5 Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end.

6 Behold, I do not destroy the prophets, for as many as have not been fulfilled in me, verily I say unto you, shall all be fulfilled.

7 And because I said unto you that old things have passed away, I do not destroy that which hath been spoken concerning things which are to come.

8 For behold, the covenant which I have made with my people is not all fulfilled; but the law which was given unto Moses hath an end in me. (3 Nephi 15)

 

You do not seem to understand that your testimony about what Mormonism says about early Christianity does not hold water when looking at the evidence we have. There was nothing at all the reflected Joseph's so called restoration in early Christianity.  You start with the premise that Mormonism is true and thus attempt to fit into early Christianity something that simply did not exist. Even when I was a teen and a missionary I thouight the picture flip chart that showed the LDS FP and q of 12 and showed that Jesus had the same set up was silly. There was no first presidency of Peter, James and John and it seems pretty clear even from the NT that James, the brother of Jesus, ran the Jerusalem church.  Try studying something outside your confirmation bias world of LDS resources and read something scholarly about early Christianity. Start with the Mawell institute recent book on the Apostasy if you really need an LDS source.

[Teancum]

On 5/3/2025 at 9:19 PM, Zosimus said:

I’ve already explained two or three times. I’m talking about the period of Christ’s earthly ministry and the 12 apostles. The teachings and practices of Christ and the 12 apostles are closer to Islam and Judaism than they are to Mormonism and 21st century Protestant Christianity 

You won't get anywhere with Teddy. See he knows and his personal testimony trumps anything or  any evidence you can share. You cannot discuss things with someone like this.

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR (references, not summaries)

Most of my sources here came from my Maragret Barker book The Great High Priest. She says with the DSS, it was a shock to modern Christians that in the time of Christ, these other texts even existed alongside the Bible's texts, removing all certainty over exactly which canon of scriptures Christ used, how many books they contained, and the exact wording in those books. Some of these other books we still have, but they've been long thought of as “Pseudo” (false) books written long after the time of Christ. Now all these books are getting a second look,

R.A. Kraft, 'Christian Transmission of Jewish Scriptures,' in Paganisme, Judaisme, Christianisme, Melanges offerts a Marcel Simon 1978 p 207-226 "Our supposition about what is or is not possible or probable in Pre-Christian and non-Christian Jewish circles needs to be carefully re-evaluated... For the topic at hand, overly Christian influences or the transmission of Jewish Scriptures, most of the older claims can be dismissed because the assumptions on which they are based are no longer convincing..."

Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1, Rabbi Akiva forbid anyone to read the "outside books" (sefarim ḥitzonim). The term is generally understood to refer to texts outside the accepted Hebrew canon. Works like Ben Sira (Sirach) and other apocryphal or pseudepigraphal writings.

Talmud Gittin 45b, concerned the burning of books, about whether scrolls written by heretics (minim) should be burned even if they contain the Divine Name. 

Origen, Psalms Homily 1, Origen accused Jews of hiding, burning, and replacing documents that supported Christian claims, whom they hated above all other pagans.

Kahle, The Cairo Genzia 86, 108, 118, 127, every Jewish copy of the Septuagint was being systematically destroyed, while they toiled to fix a Hebrew text for the Christians. Jewish texts underwent constant charge in response to Christianity at the hands of copyists, until there was a Christian demand for a pure text, they manufactured a new fixed text for them, claiming to be from "old manuscripts saved from the Temple of Jerusalem", the Masora (Traditional) texts became the new standardized canon, and it disagreed with the Septuagint in several places, and so the Septuagint "was declared to be the work of Satan" (Kahle, The Cairo Genzia 138-139). 

Edited May 5, 2025 by Pyreaux

[teddyaware]

On 5/3/2025 at 9:19 PM, Zosimus said:

I’ve already explained two or three times. I’m talking about the period of Christ’s earthly ministry and the 12 apostles. The teachings and practices of Christ and the 12 apostles are closer to Islam and Judaism than they are to Mormonism and 21st century Protestant Christianity 

That’s what you think..In the Book of Mormon, Jesus Christ clearly testifies that his true followers understand that the need to adhere to the law of Moses had come to a full and complete end with his sacrificial death and glorious resurrection. While the New Testament does indeed indicate that there were false Judaizing quasi-Christians in that day, the fact is that the 12 Apostles knew and fully understood that the Judaizers were teaching a counterfeit gospel. It’s obvious from his epistles that the APOSTLE Paul knew the Judaizers were false Christians, but it’s also clear that the Apostle Peter also knew the requirement to obey the law of Moses had come to an end with the death and resurrection of Christ, as the following verses from Acts reveal. Just because Judaizing semi-Christians existed doesn’t mean that the apostles of the church approved of their anti-Christ heresy. It appears you are relying too much on uninspired scholars instead of on the inspired word of God.

9 ¶ On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. (Acts 10)

and…

25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius (a non-Jew) met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. (Acts 10)

From the above, it’s clear that Peter came to know by means of a thrice repeated revelation from heaven that the law of Moses no longer applied. Unlike the Apostles Peter and Paul, the Judaizers never “got the message” and never accepted the revealed truth from heaven that law of Moses had come to an end. In fact, you make it sound like none of the twelve apostles ever got the message that the law of Moses had come to an end, but that they remained diehard adherents to an obsolete inferior law that “could make nothing perfect” until end of their days. 

Edited May 5, 2025 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Non-objective scholars. Under such erroneous notions that if any Christology is in a book, it is considered an anachronism and rejected as a modern forgery. The Dead Sea Scrolls alone show that Jews were systematically editing Christian prooftexts out of the Old Testament and burning all Hebrew copies of other books because of their Christ-figures and Great Angel characters. Evil book burning Jews and evil biased scholars! What in their eyes was a defense of orthodoxy is intrigue and villainy to my eyes.

That didn’t happen. Also the Jews were not anti-messiah at the time. They just didn’t think Jesus was the messiah because Jesus didn’t fulfill the expected signs. The Christians accepted this too. Hence the whole Second Coming thing.

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Most of my sources here came from my Maragret Barker book The Great High Priest. She says with the DSS, it was a shock to modern Christians that in the time of Christ, these other texts even existed alongside the Bible's texts, removing all certainty over exactly which canon of scriptures Christ used, how many books they contained, and the exact wording in those books. Some of these other books we still have, but they've been long thought of as “Pseudo” (false) books written long after the time of Christ. Now all these books are getting a second look,

R.A. Kraft, 'Christian Transmission of Jewish Scriptures,' in Paganisme, Judaisme, Christianisme, Melanges offerts a Marcel Simon 1978 p 207-226 "Our supposition about what is or is not possible or probable in Pre-Christian and non-Christian Jewish circles needs to be carefully re-evaluated... For the topic at hand, overly Christian influences or the transmission of Jewish Scriptures, most of the older claims can be dismissed because the assumptions on which they are based are no longer convincing..."

Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1, Rabbi Akiva forbid anyone to read the "outside books" (sefarim ḥitzonim). The term is generally understood to refer to texts outside the accepted Hebrew canon. Works like Ben Sira (Sirach) and other apocryphal or pseudepigraphal writings.

Talmud Gittin 45b, concerned the burning of books, about whether scrolls written by heretics (minim) should be burned even if they contain the Divine Name. 

Origen, Psalms Homily 1, Origen accused Jews of hiding, burning, and replacing documents that supported Christian claims, whom they hated above all other pagans.

Kahle, The Cairo Genzia 86, 108, 118, 127, every Jewish copy of the Septuagint was being systematically destroyed, while they toiled to fix a Hebrew text for the Christians. Jewish texts underwent constant charge in response to Christianity at the hands of copyists, until there was a Christian demand for a pure text, they manufactured a new fixed text for them, claiming to be from "old manuscripts saved from the Temple of Jerusalem", the Masora (Traditional) texts became the new standardized canon, and it disagreed with the Septuagint in several places, and so the Septuagint "was declared to be the work of Satan" (Kahle, The Cairo Genzia 138-139). 

The danger of quoting the Mishnah and the Talmud is that they are a bunch of Jewish authorities arguing throughout it. Saying the Mishnah says or the Talmud says with one quote can lead to all kinds of aberrant takes on Judaism. A special credit to one of my college professors who taught me that anyone using a Mishnah or Talmud quote to bash Jews is treating it like a scriptural proof-text which is not how the Jews used them.

The Mishnah Sanhedrin quote is attributed to a specific rabbi (Akiva) and is not in any way binding.

The Talmud quote is from an argument primarily on whether you can use copies of the Torah created by a Gentile or heretic or that was owned by a either at some point.

I don’t have access to the other texts but considering the bad faith approach about the Mishnah and the Talmud I am not inclined to trust other sources that you probably got from the same place. It also doesn’t sound like Origen to me but it has been a long time since I read any of him (and only in translation).

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

R.A. Kraft, 'Christian Transmission of Jewish Scriptures,' in Paganisme, Judaisme, Christianisme, Melanges offerts a Marcel Simon 1978 p 207-226 "Our supposition about what is or is not possible or probable in Pre-Christian and non-Christian Jewish circles needs to be carefully re-evaluated... For the topic at hand, overly Christian influences or the transmission of Jewish Scriptures, most of the older claims can be dismissed because the assumptions on which they are based are no longer convincing..."

For those who are interested, Kraft republished the essay as Chapter 3 of his Exploring the Scripturesque: Jewish Texts and their Christian Contexts (Brill, 2009). This is the copy that I have. Of course, the article, as you note, was published in 1978. And it probably would be more useful - particularly when we discuss a text like First Enoch, to address the current scholarship (of which there is certainly plenty), instead of something nearly 50 years old. My personal collection is extensive. The stuff that comes out of Enoch isn't exactly earth shaking. Yes, Enoch discusses the Son of Man (but so does Daniel, right?). The thing is, though, in Enoch, the Son of Man is Enoch himself.

Probably the best current text dealing with these ideas with regard to First Enoch is the 2013 Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift. It has two chapters dating that section of the text. And in Chapter 4, the argument is made that this section was likely authored during the lifetime of Jesus. It makes 7 points in the conclusion:

Quote

(1) a variety of points urge us not to expect to find the Parables of Enoch at Qumran. (a) it was a late addition to the Books of Enoch. (b) it held to a different calendar than the Qumran Community. (c) the righteous teacher is more important to the Community than enoch, so it would not welcome a document in which enoch becomes the key eschatological figure.
(2) the best date for the Parthian invasion discussed in 1 Enoch 56 is 40 BCe. although this connection is not certain, it seems the best candidate, especially given the nature of pattern fulfillment in eschatological texts and the lack of connection to an enemy like rome in this material. one thing can be said. if the invasion is stereotyped, it is not foreseen as coming from rome and the west but from older historical opponents that lie to the east. this is part of the rationale for seeing a historic backdrop that takes the reference to the Parthians as concrete and not merely stereotypical.
(3) one should not expect to see the Parables of Enoch cited by Christians because Jesus is the son of Man for them, not enoch.
(4) the relegation of Jews behind the Parables of Enoch best fits the herodian period with potential allusions to Calirrhoe.
(5) the making of Jews into “tenant farmers” on what was their land and the reference to being pushed off of dry land makes sense only after herod the Great.
(6) the Wirkungsgechichte of the Parables of Enoch helps fit the time of 4 Ezra which as stone has shown has pre-70 traditions in it, as does 2 Baruch.
(7) the Parables of Enoch does not mention the fall of Jerusalem and the burning of the temple in 70 Ce which makes best sense if this text predates this event.

The early complaints about this literature and the way that it gets read are really not as valid as they were fifty years ago. These issues are being taken into consideration. The challenge is that what we don't get is this sense of a deliberate removal of material from Jewish scripture over the whole Christian thing. Most of the claims about this happening that were made by early Christians themselves seem to be hyperbolic. When we look at the texts in context, it shows that early Christian literature (including the scriptural texts) fit well into the late second temple period. But the question of how Christianity uses these texts is also becoming clearer. Your quote from Kraft (as found in Barker) just presents the first half of Kraft's argument - here is the rest of it:

Quote

Our suppositions about what is or is not possible or probable in pre-Christian and non-Christian Jewish circles need to be carefully re-evaluated and reformulated. Similarly, our appreciation for what motivated Christians to transmit, embellish, reshape and transform various Jewish materials throughout the ages needs to be increased if we are to attempt to draw the shadowy line between what may be called “Jewish” and what is clearly “Christian.”

So, we are still at that problem with your assertion:

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The Dead Sea Scrolls alone show that Jews were systematically editing Christian prooftexts out of the Old Testament and burning all Hebrew copies of other books because of their Christ-figures and Great Angel characters.

It's just not there - and your references don't put it in there. The reality is that Enoch is a relatively late Jewish text. And it isn't widely adopted because it wasn't created in the thought of rabbinic Judaism. As Kraft also notes:

A couple of decades earlier, in North Africa, Tertullian had revealed similar reticence in citing the book of Enoch regarding fallen angels, in full recognition that some Christians rejected it because it was not included by the Jews in their scriptural collection (Cult Fem 1.3). Tertullian writes this in 197 CE. This means that the Book of Mormon has been around longer now than the complete First Enoch had been when Tertullian wrote. The Jewish Canon was developed in stages. First was the effective canonization of the Pentateuch (the Torah). By 200 BCE, the Prophets had reached its effectively final list (the Nevi'im). First Enoch wasn't included here in any form - and its something we wouldn't have expected - it was simply too new (and as I note, it wasn't completed unto sometime between 40 BCE and 70 CE). So, along with the issues discussed, it shouldn't surprise us that mainstream Judaism generally ignored it - and not because of the fact that early Christians, who were looking for apocalyptic literature grabbed a hold of it, and began to reinterpret it in their own context.

One final note on this comment:

3 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Kahle, The Cairo Genzia 86, 108, 118, 127, every Jewish copy of the Septuagint was being systematically destroyed, while they toiled to fix a Hebrew text for the Christians. Jewish texts underwent constant charge in response to Christianity at the hands of copyists, until there was a Christian demand for a pure text, they manufactured a new fixed text for them, claiming to be from "old manuscripts saved from the Temple of Jerusalem", the Masora (Traditional) texts became the new standardized canon, and it disagreed with the Septuagint in several places, and so the Septuagint "was declared to be the work of Satan" (Kahle, The Cairo Genzia 138-139). 

The problem here is that your arguments about the Dead Sea Scrolls actually undermine this position. I'll explain what I mean. I can't verify the quotes here. I only have a second edition of Kahle's text. The text that you provide here comes from Hugh Nibley's Mormonism and Early Christianity - and he references the first edition. What I can say, with absolute certainty, is that none of Nibley's quotes appear in the second edition. And, citing the Dead Sea Scrolls, Kahle, assuming that he wrote the things that Nibley quotes, has walked them all back. He does write this - and this is an early assessment:

Quote

 

There can hardly be any doubt that the fragments of the Greek Bible found in Qumran Cave 4 are of Jewish origin, and that it is very likely that they should also be regarded as pre-Christian, so that we have at our disposal fragments of six manuscripts of the Greek Bible written by Jews for Jews (223-224)

To date this scroll with Barthelemy or Milik at the end of the first or the beginning of the 2nd century A.D. seems to me impossible as long as other evidence is not forthcoming. In other words
the scroll has to be regarded as a manuscript of the Greek Bible which was written by a Jew for Jews. must try to understand it on this presupposition. (227)

 

No one questions this anymore - it is consistently believed that the LXX was a Greek translation of the Old Testament that pre-dates Christianity. Using Nibley (who is using a badly dated source) is problematic. The Cario Geniza itself is a bad context in which to deal with this - it was a place to dispose of old texts - and it operated between the 9th and 12 centuries CE (some of the texts go back as far as 600 CE) - and there are a few scraps that are much later into the 19th century). So the ideas that are drawn from this collection if we try to move it too far into the past. What we can also say (to connect this to the above comments) is that while lots of copies of Jubilees are found there (a much more mainstream interpretation of scripture), and there are a batch of texts from Qumran that find there way into the Cairo Geniza, there are zero fragments of Enoch.

At any rate, I think that Mormonism as a whole tends to have problems with late Jewish and early Christian writings and a certain tendency to engage in parallelomania. They try to reinterpret those texts in light of present day speculation - and then they try to suggest that those speculations are what the texts originally meant ...

[Zosimus]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

From the above, it’s clear that Peter came to know by means of a thrice repeated revelation from heaven that the law of Moses no longer applied.

Also from the above, it's clear that Peter felt compelled to follow the Law of Moses until after the death of Jesus. This confirms that Peter was not considered a semi-quasi Christian heretic for his adherence to the Law. This also confirms what I've been saying all along, the teachings and practices of Christ and the 12 apostles are closer to Islam and Judaism than they are to Mormonism and 21st century Protestant Christianity. 

we're going in circles, if you respond with yet more verses from Acts or Galatians, or anything after the death and resurrection of Christ and the day of pentecost, a response from me is already above

Edited May 6, 2025 by Zosimus