LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,
You may have forgotten to check the Douay-Rheims Bible before you made such an accusation. Here is a refresher from that translation:

yes, that is quoted from the NAB…you should realize Catholics aren’t all stuck on using a single translation, as English speaking mormons are. I’m perfectly comfortable using more than one.

14 “He is Elias”… Not in person, but in spirit. St. Luke 1. 17.

Not a problem for me, why is it for you? Are you quoting commentary as scripture?

But I suppose when you stand before the judge at the day of judgment, you can let Him know that the translation of the Bible you were given by the people you trusted and upheld had the kinds of changes that you preferred over the original text, and so you went with those changes and felt justified in every particular belief the changes supported, never mind the original teaching of Christ.

I suppose you can explain why you followed a false prophet. One that has taught you false teachings and put you far outside of Truth.

Repent and be baptized.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I can see why that conclusion is drawn by using only the text in Matthew 11, but John the Baptist himself said he was not Elias or “that prophet” (John 1:21-23). Luke 1:17 conveys that John the Baptist would have the “spirit and power of Elias” but not that he would be the actual return of Elijah the Prophet who had been taken up into heaven on a chariot.

For the Jews at the time of Christ it was an absolute necessity. Even today, you will not find a Jewish person who would accept anyone as the Messiah unless it can be shown they were preceded by Elijah…the one who makes way for the Lord. Why do you think this point is made so many times in the NT? It isn’t for the benefit of your mormon theology, it is for the benefit of the Jews, of who Jesus was claiming to be their Messiah.

The Jews have no person in their Hebrew scripture named ‘Elias’.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Malachi 3-4 is talking primarily about the Second Coming of Christ when it speaks of the “day of his coming” and the “day of the Lord”. That is why it is referred to as a day that “shall burn them up” (4:1) and a day of “judgment” (3:5).

Malachi is prophesying of the coming of the Messiah.

All of Christianity understands the passage you have here as linked to the prophecy of Matthew 24:1-2, Luke 13:34-35 (whichever translation you favor). Which, has been fulfilled.

 

[TheosisM]

okay…what is the origin of the name “Elias”, and if Elias is different from Elijah (noting again that Elias is the Greek form of the name Elijah), who is Elias?

Also, why do the KJV and DR give the name as “Elias” throughout the NT, and as “Elijah” throughout the OT? This fact shows that the NAB (and all other translations) has not changed anything, but are using the Hebrew to give the name. The KJV and DR use the Hebrew form throughout the OT and the Greek form throughout the NT. In fact, this naming convention seems to be specific to just the KJV (and the DR). No other Bible translation does this. So, if one is making a distinction between Elias and Elijah, this seems to be based, not on the “original text”, but on the naming peculiarity of the KJV (and the DR), using the Hebrew in the OT and the Greek in the NT.

If there is a change from the “original text”, please demonstrate it.

 

[zach_dunn]

Malachi 3.

Try Malachi 3:19

Malachi 3:19
For lo, the day is coming, blazing like an oven, when all the proud and all evildoers will be stubble, And the day that is coming will set them on fire, leaving them neither root nor branch, says the LORD of hosts.

 

[ParkerD]

okay…what is the origin of the name “Elias”, and if Elias is different from Elijah (noting again that Elias is the Greek form of the name Elijah), who is Elias?

Also, why do the KJV and DR give the name as “Elias” throughout the NT, and as “Elijah” throughout the OT? This fact shows that the NAB (and all other translations) has not changed anything, but are using the Hebrew to give the name. The KJV and DR use the Hebrew form throughout the OT and the Greek form throughout the NT. In fact, this naming convention seems to be specific to just the KJV (and the DR). No other Bible translation does this. So, if one is making a distinction between Elias and Elijah, this seems to be based, not on the “original text”, but on the naming peculiarity of the KJV (and the DR), using the Hebrew in the OT and the Greek in the NT.

If there is a change from the “original text”, please demonstrate it.

TheosisM,
It appears to me based on the fact that John the Baptist was referred to by Christ with the title of “Elias” but yet that John the Baptist himself said that he was not “Elias” or “that prophet” (and John the Baptist knew that he himself was fulfilling Isaiah 40:3), that the title of “Elias” is a title that means something more than the particular name of the prophet who was known in the Old Testament as Elijah the Tishbite. When the “spirit of Elijah” fell upon Elisha after Elijah had been taken into heaven, then it would seem to be a clue that the “spirit of Elias” as used in the language of the New Testament, is a power and an authority, and that John the Baptist had the “spirit of Elias”, or in other words that power and authority as did Elisha. I think when the translators of the Greek saw that John the Baptist did not say he was Elijah the prophet and in fact said that he was not Elias the prophet, that they wanted to preserve the distinction between Elijah the prophet (a specific person) and the title of the “spirit of Elias”.

But moving from what I believe based on what John the Baptist and the Savior said, to what you believe–to make sure I have not misunderstood, are you saying you believe and know that John the Baptist, although born to Elizabeth and thus clearly not the resurrected Elijah the prophet, is the person specifically prophesied by Malachi in the second to last verse of the Old Testament? (This question specifically to TheosisM.)

And am I also correct in understanding that Catholics believe, one and all or some or many, that Malachi 3 and 4 refer only to Christ’s first coming and not to His Second Coming? (This will baffle me that such a group could misunderstand such a plain text, but I’ve been surprised before.)

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavierlives,
Since Rinnie felt impressed to revive this thread for a bit more, then I suppose I should respond to your earlier comment about Malachi 4 and Elijah the Prophet.

John the Baptist (a Jew) was “an Elias” in that he fulfilled Isaiah 40:3 and prepared the way for Christ to teach the new covenant gospel, which included the concepts of repentance and baptism which John also taught. But John was not Elijah resurrected, and never implied that he was that prophet, Elijah, nor the Elias who lived at the time of Elijah. (see John 1:21)

Anyone who does not see the conditions described and prophesied in Malachi 3 and 4 as those attendant the Second Coming of Christ is simply not conversant with the Biblical prophesies of the conditions that will prevail at the time of His Second Coming. The Second Coming is the “great and dreadful day of the Lord.” It will be great for those who are prepared and looking for His coming, and dreadful for those who fear His coming. See Matthew 24 for a good summary of the conditions that we should be looking for in order that we all may be among those who “be ye also ready; for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.” (v. 44)

Peace to all, and may it be so for each of you.

Well, it does seem that the Mormon church does pick and choose what prophesies have been fulfilled. I would say your interpretion here is wrong. Just because John the Baptist said, “I am not Elijah” you make the assumption it is unfulfilled. Of course John the Baptist is not Elijah, he is John. If he were Elijah, then we would have some reincarnation aspect of our faith. But in Luke 1, we see that John is going in the spirit and power of Elijah. Jesus confirms we are talking about him in Matt. 17:10-12. This had to be the case of Christ’s coming would be false.

Also, the destruction of the root and branch is a direct link to the splitting of the veil and no longer having a need for the lineage. I find this to be a huge problem for the Jews still awaiting the Messiah. Where the opportunity was obvious and present, they chose to ignore the lineage and now there is no way to tell. Anyone could make claim to be a priest or messiah without the validation of the line.

*Sorry for the duplication. I should have read the entire thread. I started with Parker’s message to me w/out thinking others would answer.

 

[Xavierlives]

TheosisM,
I respectfully disagree about whether the change from the word “Elias” to the word “Elijah” in Matthew 11:14 “says the same thing”. (The NAB has the word as “Elijah”). The change, if one is unfamiliar with the earlier DR text and if one does not do research about the subject of Elijah and Elias and the potential confusion because of the Greek being the same word for the two names, can lead to the conclusion that John the Baptist completely fulfilled the prophesy of Malachi in Malachi 4:5 (or in other words, the second to last verse in the Old Testament).

I can see why that conclusion is drawn by using only the text in Matthew 11, but John the Baptist himself said he was not Elias or “that prophet” (John 1:21-23). Luke 1:17 conveys that John the Baptist would have the “spirit and power of Elias” but not that he would be the actual return of Elijah the Prophet who had been taken up into heaven on a chariot.

The Jews understood that the prophesy about Elijah’s return was intended to mean a literal fulfillment of the return of that prophet, Elijah, who was taken into heaven (2 Kings 2:11-12). They have consistently maintained this understanding over the centuries.

And this is why the Jews missed the boat.

Malachi 3-4 is talking primarily about the Second Coming of Christ when it speaks of the “day of his coming” and the “day of the Lord”. That is why it is referred to as a day that “shall burn them up” (4:1) and a day of “judgment” (3:5).

Err… you know that Jesus is quoting from the Greek, right?

 

[Xavierlives]

TheosisM,
It appears to me based on the fact that John the Baptist was referred to by Christ with the title of “Elias” but yet that John the Baptist himself said that he was not “Elias” or “that prophet” (and John the Baptist knew that he himself was fulfilling Isaiah 40:3), that the title of “Elias” is a title that means something more than the particular name of the prophet who was known in the Old Testament as Elijah the Tishbite. When the “spirit of Elijah” fell upon Elisha after Elijah had been taken into heaven, then it would seem to be a clue that the “spirit of Elias” as used in the language of the New Testament, is a power and an authority, and that John the Baptist had the “spirit of Elias”, or in other words that power and authority as did Elisha. I think when the translators of the Greek saw that John the Baptist did not say he was Elijah the prophet and in fact said that he was not Elias the prophet, that they wanted to preserve the distinction between Elijah the prophet (a specific person) and the title of the “spirit of Elias”.

But moving from what I believe based on what John the Baptist and the Savior said, to what you believe–to make sure I have not misunderstood, are you saying you believe and know that John the Baptist, although born to Elizabeth and thus clearly not the resurrected Elijah the prophet, is the person specifically prophesied by Malachi in the second to last verse of the Old Testament? (This question specifically to TheosisM.)

And am I also correct in understanding that Catholics believe, one and all or some or many, that Malachi 3 and 4 refer only to Christ’s first coming and not to His Second Coming? (This will baffle me that such a group could misunderstand such a plain text, but I’ve been surprised before.)

And I believe most Protestant thinkers believe this as well. Looks like this is another example of the Mormons standing alone.

 

[ParkerD]

And I believe most Protestant thinkers believe this as well. Looks like this is another example of the Mormons standing alone.

Xavierlives,
Thanks for adding your perspective. At least someone named “Matthew Henry” (in a commentary I found by a search link) thinks Malachi 4 is talking about both the first coming and the Second Coming of Christ.

But I suppose the Mormons do “stand alone” in understanding that Elijah the prophet really was prophesied to return to the earth, just as the Jews have believed over the centuries, and that John the Baptist did not fully fulfill that prophecy but had a designation as an “Elias”, being the forerunner and messenger and “preparer of the way” for Christ’s first coming; yet there would be another fulfillment through the very person Elijah the Tishbite coming again to the earth before the Second Coming of Christ.

Thanks again. It has been an unfolding for me to learn about the point of view of people such as yourself and TheosisM on what I had thought were straightforward prophecies in Malachi about the mission of Christ and His deliverance at the time of His Second Coming.

 

[TheosisM]

TheosisM,
It appears to me based on the fact that John the Baptist was referred to by Christ with the title of “Elias” but yet that John the Baptist himself said that he was not “Elias” or “that prophet” (and John the Baptist knew that he himself was fulfilling Isaiah 40:3), that the title of “Elias” is a title that means something more than the particular name of the prophet who was known in the Old Testament as Elijah the Tishbite. When the “spirit of Elijah” fell upon Elisha after Elijah had been taken into heaven, then it would seem to be a clue that the “spirit of Elias” as used in the language of the New Testament, is a power and an authority, and that John the Baptist had the “spirit of Elias”, or in other words that power and authority as did Elisha. I think when the translators of the Greek saw that John the Baptist did not say he was Elijah the prophet and in fact said that he was not Elias the prophet, that they wanted to preserve the distinction between Elijah the prophet (a specific person) and the title of the “spirit of Elias”.

ParkerD, you stated that there was a change from the “original text”, and I would appreciate it if you could demonstrate this change from the “original text”. I think this will get to the heart of the matter on what the translators of the KJV/DR were doing, and what the translators of all other versions (that I am aware of) were doing.

But moving from what I believe based on what John the Baptist and the Savior said, to what you believe–to make sure I have not misunderstood, are you saying you believe and know that John the Baptist, although born to Elizabeth and thus clearly not the resurrected Elijah the prophet, is the person specifically prophesied by Malachi in the second to last verse of the Old Testament? (This question specifically to TheosisM.)

To be perfectly honest, this is not something that I really think about. It peaked my interest because I am aware that LDS make a distinction between Elias and Elijah (perhaps also based on an event recorded in the D&C), while traditional Christians do not. I was also interested to know how Catholics apparently changed the “original text” of a passage.

And am I also correct in understanding that Catholics believe, one and all or some or many, that Malachi 3 and 4 refer only to Christ’s first coming and not to His Second Coming? (This will baffle me that such a group could misunderstand such a plain text, but I’ve been surprised before.)

From what I am aware of (other Catholics correct me if I am wrong), Catholics and other traditional Christians view these passages as referring to Christ’s “first coming”. I really don’t think it should surprise anyone that participates in apologetic discussions how “plain texts” are interpreted by others, since Catholics wonder the same thing about things that are “plain” to Catholics, yet are not believed by non-Catholics.

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavierlives,
Thanks for adding your perspective. At least someone named “Matthew Henry” (in a commentary I found by a search link) thinks Malachi 4 is talking about both the first coming and the Second Coming of Christ.

But I suppose the Mormons do “stand alone” in understanding that Elijah the prophet really was prophesied to return to the earth, just as the Jews have believed over the centuries, and that John the Baptist did not fully fulfill that prophecy but had a designation as an “Elias”, being the forerunner and messenger and “preparer of the way” for Christ’s first coming; yet there would be another fulfillment through the very person Elijah the Tishbite coming again to the earth before the Second Coming of Christ.

Thanks again. It has been an unfolding for me to learn about the point of view of people such as yourself and TheosisM on what I had thought were straightforward prophecies in Malachi about the mission of Christ and His deliverance at the time of His Second Coming.

Well I would not disagree that a truth in prophecy could be used twice. Even more the sting. I would not be surprised if upon the second coming there were those heralding his arrival. Unfortunately, every herald so far has been wrong and still spawned followers in the wake who then try to spin the false prophecy.

I sure wouldn’t want to be that herald. Although I have had some doozies of dreams which involve what appears to be the second coming. I remember one in particular showed me the month and it was May and I was looking SOO hard for the year and I just could find it anywhere. I was so disappointed when I woke up. I attribute these dreams to reading too much Isaiah.

Overall, I think people don’t view the Bible as a fluid word, they view it as static, which fails to show the attributes of a living God. The prophetic verses show the absence of time for God and his ability to communicate with his faithful to prepare their hearts for the upcoming events.

 

[TheosisM]

I think this article sums up the LDS view of the Elias/Elijah/John the Baptist/Malachi prophecy issue:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ac29307e3584b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

 

[Xavierlives]

I think this article sums up the LDS view of the Elias/Elijah/John the Baptist/Malachi prophecy issue:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ac29307e3584b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Yeah, I think my problem with their logic is what everyone sees: If we consider the Bible two halves. The name Elijah does not appear on the NT half and the name Elias does not appear on the OT half. Now Christ refers to scripture of “Elias returning before the Messiah” in the NT and Malachi refers to “Elijah returning before the Messiah” in the OT. Elias means Elijah in Greek. Jesus quotes the Greek translation in other places.

It all makes perfect sense to me.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Err… you know that Jesus is quoting from the Greek, right?

He didn’t use the KJV?

 

[Xavierlives]

He didn’t use the KJV?

He does now.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, you stated that there was a change from the “original text”, and I would appreciate it if you could demonstrate this change from the “original text”. I think this will get to the heart of the matter on what the translators of the KJV/DR were doing, and what the translators of all other versions (that I am aware of) were doing.

To be perfectly honest, this is not something that I really think about. It peaked my interest because I am aware that LDS make a distinction between Elias and Elijah (perhaps also based on an event recorded in the D&C), while traditional Christians do not. I was also interested to know how Catholics apparently changed the “original text” of a passage.

From what I am aware of (other Catholics correct me if I am wrong), Catholics and other traditional Christians view these passages as referring to Christ’s “first coming”. I really don’t think it should surprise anyone that participates in apologetic discussions how “plain texts” are interpreted by others, since Catholics wonder the same thing about things that are “plain” to Catholics, yet are not believed by non-Catholics.

TheosisM,
I need to clarify what I had tried to express, but did an incomplete job of it. (I’ve enjoyed thinking about this subject for the past couple of days, and re-reading some of the passages and looking at the Greek to English translations. So–thanks for questioning and thus stimulating the study.)

When I had referred to “change from the original text”, I was meaning the change to use the word “Elijah” rather than the Greek name (or title) “Elias” in the translations. I had viewed the use of the Greek “Elias” in the New Testament translations as a way of expressing that the translators of the DR and the KJV wanted to allow the reader to make their own judgment about whether the “Elijah” described in 1 Kings-2 Kings and mentioned in Malachi should be the single person whom the reader would have come to mind when they would read the New Testament references that include the name “Elias”, particularly because of the expression the “spirit and power” of Elijah resting upon Elisha, and later upon John the Baptist (see 2 Kings 2:14-15 and Luke 1:17).

It appears the later translators made an assumption and wanted to associate the Elias references specifically to the prophet Elijah of the Old Testament–which would be a logical assumption for their purposes and based on their understanding. But it appears to me that the verses associated with the name Elias in the New Testament, and the verses in Isaiah 40:1-5 and 9-11 and Malachi 4:5-6, are dual fulfillment prophecies or texts that deal with both the messenger role of John the Baptist and the restorer role of Elijah the prophet, and with both the first coming of the Messiah and His glorious and triumphant Second Coming.

I personally wish that Catholics and Protestants, if they do indeed believe that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi about the coming of Elijah the prophet, would earnestly go about fulfilling the words that say “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers,” which to me means that fathers would take their role as head of their home and provider for their family very seriously with no excuses, thus alleviating a burden upon many mothers who find themselves in a provider role for their family; also, that having children would be viewed as the most sacred of all trusts God gives to humankind, and the highest calling a man or woman can have from God; finally, that the heart of the children would truly turn to their fathers (meaning their ancestors) and wonder about their salvation, desire their salvation, and yearn for their salvation through the plan of salvation given by the Lord, Jesus Christ to all of humankind.

 

[zaffiroborant]

TheosisM,

I personally wish that Catholics and Protestants, -]if they do indeed believe that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi about the coming of Elijah the prophet/-], would earnestly go about fulfilling the words that say “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers,” which to me means that fathers would take their role as head of their home and provider for their family very seriously with no excuses, thus alleviating a burden upon many mothers who find themselves in a provider role for their family; also, that having children would be viewed as the most sacred of all trusts God gives to humankind, and the highest calling a man or woman can have from God; finally, that the heart of the children would truly turn to their fathers (meaning their ancestors) and wonder about their salvation, desire their salvation, and yearn for their salvation through the plan of salvation given by the Lord, Jesus Christ to all of humankind.

So Catholics and Protestants are deadbeat dads. More LDS good, Catholic (or in this case non-LDS) BAD.

 

[ParkerD]

So Catholics and Protestants are deadbeat dads. More LDS good, Catholic (or in this case non-LDS) BAD.

Zaffiroborant,
Personally, I was thinking that if they pick up one end of the stick, they have picked up the other end of the stick, and since it has been conveyed that they did pick up the one end, then great–pick up the other end and transform the world’s economies. I think that will be fantastic.

The Millenium comes about not through some magical transformation that brings an economic well-being to the majority of the world instead of a small minority of the world. It comes about through fathers taking on their dual responsibility as head of the home and provider for their family, with no excuses and no looking to the governments of the world or anyone else than their own two hands and their mind and their education and their ingenuity and resourcefulness.

The Elijah prophecy wasn’t just nice words on a page. It was pre-Millenial, in that when people follow the Messiah with all their heart they will establish a Millenial society where the fathers will take on their responsibility with the inspiration of heaven to support them and the resourcefulness to get the job done–meaning square up their shoulders and care for their family while supporting the nurturing role of their wife, whether she works outside the home or not. The peace of the Millenium will include economic peace as well as spiritual peace.

 

[Xavierlives]

TheosisM,
I need to clarify what I had tried to express, but did an incomplete job of it. (I’ve enjoyed thinking about this subject for the past couple of days, and re-reading some of the passages and looking at the Greek to English translations. So–thanks for questioning and thus stimulating the study.)

When I had referred to “change from the original text”, I was meaning the change to use the word “Elijah” rather than the Greek name (or title) “Elias” in the translations. I had viewed the use of the Greek “Elias” in the New Testament translations as a way of expressing that the translators of the DR and the KJV wanted to allow the reader to make their own judgment about whether the “Elijah” described in 1 Kings-2 Kings and mentioned in Malachi should be the single person whom the reader would have come to mind when they would read the New Testament references that include the name “Elias”, particularly because of the expression the “spirit and power” of Elijah resting upon Elisha, and later upon John the Baptist (see 2 Kings 2:14-15 and Luke 1:17).

It appears the later translators made an assumption and wanted to associate the Elias references specifically to the prophet Elijah of the Old Testament–which would be a logical assumption for their purposes and based on their understanding. But it appears to me that the verses associated with the name Elias in the New Testament, and the verses in Isaiah 40:1-5 and 9-11 and Malachi 4:5-6, are dual fulfillment prophecies or texts that deal with both the messenger role of John the Baptist and the restorer role of Elijah the prophet, and with both the first coming of the Messiah and His glorious and triumphant Second Coming.

I personally wish that Catholics and Protestants, if they do indeed believe that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi about the coming of Elijah the prophet, would earnestly go about fulfilling the words that say “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers,” which to me means that fathers would take their role as head of their home and provider for their family very seriously with no excuses, thus alleviating a burden upon many mothers who find themselves in a provider role for their family; also, that having children would be viewed as the most sacred of all trusts God gives to humankind, and the highest calling a man or woman can have from God; finally, that the heart of the children would truly turn to their fathers (meaning their ancestors) and wonder about their salvation, desire their salvation, and yearn for their salvation through the plan of salvation given by the Lord, Jesus Christ to all of humankind.

Well parker, I am pleased that you took the time to study this and quite frankly come to a conclusion that I don’t think many in your place would. It actually brings joy to my heart that you are growing.

Now maybe we could work on some other things.