'The Great Apostasy'

  • Thread starter Thread starter crazyaboutJesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Search youtube for The Lost Book of Abraham. You’ll discover that J. Smith was nothing but a false prophet (more precisely a liar), and that will put the Book of Mormon in the right perspective for you.
 
crazyaboutJesus said:
I am fairly new to these forums and so this is my first thread, so please bear with me.
I am a Christian, but I have been reading the Book of Mormon, (very slowly I might add too :)), however it really saddened me to read 1 Nephi 13, where it speaks about an abominable church run by the devil, and the simple truths of the writings of the apostles have been lost.
I know that at times some churches are somewhat corrupt and appear hypocritical and whatnot, but I didn’t think that the truth of the Bible had been lost. If such a thing did happen, why would God allow his word to be deformed?
As I mentioned i am quite new to all of this and want people’s opinions.
Click to expand...
Here are a couple of links that might give some insite

equip.org/articles/is-the-book-of-mormon-credible-

equip.org/articles/book-of-mormon-word-change
 
Sorry I was in deep debate on another thread…now…
chessmane4e5 said:
Do you know the True name then? Are you able to spell it? Or can you use phonetics to tell us how to pronounce it?
Click to expand...
It is simply, Yehshua. Yehshua Ben Yosef.

God’s name - as given to Moses was “ehyeh asher ehyeh” will be what I will be], not the falsely put Yaweh.

Yeh “will be”; a variation of the word “hayah” which means “to be”…while “Yah” means “I am”] & Shua “to save”; “salvation”].

[Matthew 1:21]And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Yehshua: for he shall save his people from their sins.

…and in one’s name so goes their purpose.

Yehshua is a common Israelite name dating back to the time of Yahshua (Joshua) and the battle of Yericho (Jericho). There are even a priest of the order of Aaron who was named Yehshua.
If the Messiah was born in this time, his name would be my name; Joshua.
 
“What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;”
  • William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, 1594
 
TheosisM said:
This argument is a straw man, because no one claims that the English names for places and people in the Bible were what they were called anciently. These are translations and transliterations.
Click to expand...
And, in some cases, transliterations of transliterations. (“Jesus” is a transliteration of “Iesous,” which is itself a transliteration. :))
choy said:
is mormonism the first to float the idea of the great apostasy?
Click to expand...
Some other groups claim a great apostasy, too. Like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Joshua27 said:
Should proper names ever be translated or transliterated?
Click to expand...
Ancient Jews and Christians certainly considered it an acceptable practice. It’s done in both the Old and New Testaments with no apparent objection from God.
Joshua27 said:
It is simply, Yehshua. Yehshua Ben Yosef.
Click to expand...
That’s a transliteration too. You can’t object very strongly if you do it yourself.
Joshua27 said:
Yehshua is a common Israelite name
Click to expand...
Extremely common.
Joshua27 said:
If the Messiah was born in this time, his name would be my name; Joshua.
Click to expand...
Another transliteration. 🙂
 
crazyaboutJesus said:
I am fairly new to these forums and so this is my first thread, so please bear with me.
I am a Christian, but I have been reading the Book of Mormon, (very slowly I might add too :)), however it really saddened me to read 1 Nephi 13, where it speaks about an abominable church run by the devil, and the simple truths of the writings of the apostles have been lost.
I know that at times some churches are somewhat corrupt and appear hypocritical and whatnot, but I didn’t think that the truth of the Bible had been lost. If such a thing did happen, why would God allow his word to be deformed?
As I mentioned i am quite new to all of this and want people’s opinions.
Click to expand...
If the Bible is corrupt, if Christianity is corrupt, then Jesus abandoned what He, Himself, established and leads through the Holy Spirit.

Those are the two claims, in a nutshell. You can decide which one is more plausible.
 
My greatest problem with Mormonism is that it makes Jesus sound like he doesn’t know what he’s doing. That he spent all those years teaching the disciples, that he died for them (as well as the rest of us), that the Holy Spirit was poured into all of them to grant them great stores of wisdom and knowledge (still waiting for a good argument against that one btw), and that after that, when it was time to return to the Right Hand of the Father, that he would leave them all down here just to muck it up??? I’m sorry, I have greater faith that Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, knew what he was doing, compared to some guy who might or might not have dug up gold plates in the desert, when debating on whether the disciples were going about things the right way.

(I will say that I admit the possibility for their being gold plates in the desert. There is some evidence to suggest that some of the Kings and Emperors in the North African region had reached North America. Not much, but still a little. I’m willing to admit that physical possibility. Now as for the translation, much less the Angel, I’m a lot more skeptical. I’m skeptical of anyone who claims to have seen an Angel, unless they’re someone I know them well enough to accurately say if their mistaken or lying. Plus we can never ignore the possibility it was a demon. Who know?)

Now please understand, I’m not trying to bring down the Mormons themselves. I have a lot of friends who are Mormons, and their some of the nicest people I’ve ever met. I will say that I know plenty of Mormons who I would judge (if I did judge) to be better than a lot of Catholics I know. It’s just that I find some of their beliefs completely irrational.

Archistrage
 
And here I always thought that the idea of restoration was unique to Mormonism. Good thing to know they dont have the corner on that market.

Thanks for the link.
 
aspirant said:
“Yehshua”] That’s a transliteration too. You can’t object very strongly if you do it yourself.

“Yehshua” is a common Israelite name] Extremely common.

[In modern times, I would have been “Joshua”] Another transliteration. 🙂
Click to expand...
Sorry, buddy. But you’re mixing time periods and confusing my point.

My name is Joshua…a name given to me by my parents, which is based on this time period [And in this time period there exists a “J” and the sound of “J”, regardless of where my name originated]. A hundred years later, when my great grandchildren hear stories about me, my name will still be Joshua…regardless of the changes our culture makes in their language in the future.

Today, my middle name is Phillip [2 "L"s], this is MY middle name, regardless of the evolution of the same name (which originally began with 1 “L”).

“Yehshua” was a common Israelite name given to boys in that time period. It was also given to a particular Jew, from which our salvation was offered. His name was given to him by his parents based on the language of the time (regardless of how human and language had or HAS developed).

Now…when we talk about this man, hundreds of years later, should we call him by a new name or should we call him - who was already born and exists - by the name his parent’s originally gave him?

Transliteration concerns things that were already originally named that are renamed in linguistic error.

This is why I use the phrase, “would be” when explaining that Messiah’s name would have been “Joshua” had he been born in this time [meaning he can not have already been born, as a prerequisite], because of present day existence of “J” and the meaning of the name “Joshua”. But He WAS already born, and given a name.

His name was - and will always be - Yehshua.
 
Joshua27 said:
Sorry, buddy. But you’re mixing time periods and confusing my point.

My name is Joshua…a name given to me by my parents, which is based on this time period [And in this time period there exists a “J” and the sound of “J”, regardless of where my name originated]. A hundred years later, when my great grandchildren hear stories about me, my name will still be Joshua…regardless of the changes our culture makes in their language in the future.

Today, my middle name is Phillip [2 "L"s], this is MY middle name, regardless of the evolution of the same name (which originally began with 1 “L”).

“Yehshua” was a common Israelite name given to boys in that time period. It was also given to a particular Jew, from which our salvation was offered. His name was given to him by his parents based on the language of the time (regardless of how that language had developed).

Now…when we talk about this man, hundreds of years later, should we change his name or should it be the name his parent’s originally gave him?

Transliteration is an error of retranslating something (or someone) that was “previously, already” named an original name, and thus given a new name - based on present day phonetics.

This is why I use the phrase, “would be” when explaining that Messiah’s name would have been “Joshua” had his parents been born in this time (because of present day existence of “J” and the meaning of the name “Joshua”.

His name was - and will always be - Yehshua.
Click to expand...
In the end, exactly what is your point? My name is Stephen. In Spanish it is Esteban. In Russian I’m sure it is something else. I think we know Who we are talking about and Jesus, being Jesus, surely knows Who we are talking about. It seems you’ve gone a long distance to prove something that is fairly meaningless in the great scheme of things. It there is a point I think I’ve missed it.
 
Joshua27 said:
His name was - and will always be - Yehshua.
Click to expand...
I thought “Eashoa” is the Aramaic name of Jesus?

Was he bi-lingual?

Which did the Angel Gabriel tell Joseph to call Him? “Yehshua” or “Eashoa”?
 
SteveVH said:
In the end, exactly what is your point? My name is Stephen. In Spanish it is Esteban. In Russian I’m sure it is something else. I think we know Who we are talking about and Jesus, being Jesus, surely knows Who we are talking about. It seems you’ve gone a long distance to prove something that is fairly meaningless in the great scheme of things. It there is a point I think I’ve missed it.
Click to expand...
🙂 Well first, the conversation begins some time ago, so unless you’ve already read why I gave the following explanation, it can be confusing; it’s like walking in on a conversation already in progress.

But “wow”! Do all of us lack such humility? Your name is Steven; on your birth records your name is “steven”…not “Esteban”. Your parents named you “Steven”, not “Esteban”, nor “Stephanos”. You’ve named your identity (on this forum) “Steve”. As far as we know, we will respect you by calling you either Steve or Steven (as you’ve also pointed out).

Should I call you Charles, as long as you know I’m talking to you?

Should I refer to you by an name other than the one you were given? For my convenience?

Truly, if I use another name, surely you’ll know I’m talking to you, right?
 
This kind of debate reminds me of the nit-picking that drove Christ crazy with the Pharisees!! LOL 😃
 
Marie5890 said:
I thought “Eashoa” is the Aramaic name of Jesus?

Was he bi-lingual?

Which did the Angel Gabriel tell Joseph to call Him? “Yehshua” or “Eashoa”?
Click to expand...
[The Jews of the time *were bilingual -they had to be - however…]

Miriam (Mary) was Jewish…she and Yosef (Joseph) spoke Hebrew; the language of their people during that period.

Ancient Aramaic predated Hebrew… but again - like my previous post points out - as time passes and language develops the name “Eashoa” became “Yehoushua” for the language of Hebrew. But [Jesus] was not born in the time period of “Aramaic Lingua” but when the Israelites spoke “Hebrew Lingua” as a common tongue.

Eashoa is the Aramaic source of his name…and my name. But just as my name is “Joshua” (not “Yehshua” or “Eashua”), so is His name “Yehshua” (not “Eashoa” or “Joshua”, or “Jesus”)…because of the time when we were born.

Yeh = “E”

ou = “a”

Shu = “sho”

a = “a”

“Yehoushua”, which was shortened to “Yehshua” or “Yeshu” (“u” silent; or of the breath)
 
Joshua27 said:
🙂 Well first, the conversation begins some time ago, so unless you’ve already read why I gave the following explanation, it can be confusing; it’s like walking in on a conversation already in progress.

But “wow”! Do all of us lack such humility? Your name is Steven; on your birth records your name is “steven”…not “Esteban”. Your parents named you “Steven”, not “Esteban”, nor “Stephanos”. You’ve named your identity (on this forum) “Steve”. As far as we know, we will respect you by calling you either Steve or Steven (as you’ve also pointed out).

Should I call you Charles, as long as you know I’m talking to you?

Should I refer to you by an name other than the one you were given? For my convenience?

Truly, if I use another name, surely you’ll know I’m talking to you, right?
Click to expand...
You missed the point. If I move to Spain, while it is possible for me to keep my name, it is also customary to adopt a Spanish name, but not just any old name, I would use the one that is equivalent to my name in English.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top