'The Great Apostasy'

[aspirant]

I asked you for your response to the hypothetical.

It’s not a worthwhile inquiry. It’s like asking “But WHAT IF God is really made of cream cheese?” We know he’s not. Likewise, we know the Lord’s character. Our Messiah is not a petty tyrant who doesn’t understand how human languages work, so the question is moot.

Unless you’re now claiming that transliteration (something the Gospel itself employs) is a violation of God’s laws, actually sinful, this passage isn’t relevant to the topic.

Matthew 7:22-23 doesn’t make the Lord appear unreasonable.

So when he says “you have not denied my name”, [Revelation 3:8] you believe such is open for interpretation or compromise too, right?

This question doesn’t even make sense.

If God or Messiah told you “your Religion/Tradition is wrong and if you want to worship me you must change”, would you change or would you respond saying, “No, YOU change”?

In fact, I have exchanged both my religion and my tradition for God’s.

 

[Joshua27]

Shall we discount the book of Genesis because God created light before He created the sun?

Interesting…But let me ask in response; “What - or more aptly put, who - was the light of the world that was created before the sun?”

Shall we discount the Gospels because the same event may have been described slightly differently?

Only those that label Mary as a virgin, when the ancient prophesy speak of a young woman (Hebrew = “alma”) not a virgin (“bethulah”).

I’m always amazed at the lengths people will go to to prove their points. It reminds me of the JW’s who appraoch you with “do you know God’s name?” They are so proud of the fact that they call God “Jehovah” and that this is somehow suppose to prove that they are a legitimate church.

Your obsession with the correct name of Jesus is no different. You have nothing of substance to prove corruption of scripture other than a transliteration of a name. That is what happens when you have no authentic teacher. You’re missing the forest.

It has nothing to do with a church or my own legitimacy because the mistake is across the entire spectrum of Christianity. How can I tout a specific group if we’re all subject to the same mistake? The point is to admit to one’s mistake and show one’s humility and contrition in such a mistake, but what I hear from you all is nothing more than staunch defense of the mistake. Not once has any of you shown humility in the mind of God and admitted to the possibility of being incorrect; of simply missing the mark (not of being “demonic” or “evil”). And if you can’t admit to a potential mistake (not a sin), such becomes pride (a sin); such is the mark of the spoiled or the tares.

---

“I am salvation”; and as is one’s name, so goes their purpose. When one’s name is changed, one’s purpose/identity changes…When one takes on a new name, they – by default – create a new life and forego the old one:

Abram becomes “Abraham”
Jacob becomes “Israel”
Steve becomes “daddy” = a new identity = a new life as a father of a child.
Joseph Alois Ratzinger becomes “Benedict XVI” = a new identity/purpose/persona = a new life as father of the Catholic Church

…and even as insignificant as when St. Nicolas (a real man) became Chris Kringle and then “Santa Clause” (the mystical Christmas elf), a new identity/persona was created, while the old life no longer exists in the minds of the people of the world.

However, the Messiah; Yehshua (“I am salvation”) never changed his name, because his purpose - as it concerns us – has not changed from the time when he first came. WE’VE changed his name (although subtly and in simple error), and thus we’ve created a new identity; a new person who is worshipped; a new person whom people know in place of Yehshua, the Messiah.

What if when Jesus returns, you call out “Yeshua” and He says, “Please, call me Jesus.”

More aptly put, “If the Messiah returns and says please call me Jesus, then – truly – I will be humble enough to do as he wishes and call him Jesus”…this is all I hoped any of you would say. But not once could anyone say it..

It’s not a worthwhile inquiry. It’s like asking “But WHAT IF God is really made of cream cheese?” We know he’s not. Likewise, we know the Lord’s character. Our Messiah is not a petty tyrant who doesn’t understand how human languages work, so the question is moot.

Do you, really? Truly you don’t know if you can’t recall that Messiah himself questioned his disciples just like this: “Who do they say I am?”…”Who do you say I am?” Clearly, He knew that they knew him, but he still asked them these questions anyhow. Did he look petty? Probably…but that wasn’t the point of asking these questions. These questions were tests; not of doctrinal or historical wisdom, but of true (spiritual) wisdom…and when Peter answered correctly, Messiah told him that ‘the answer did not come from Peter’s own wisdom but from the Spirit of our Father in Heaven’.

I Corinthians 1:27 [brackets are mine] Paul said, “…Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame [negate the pride of] those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful.”

Paul said Messiah came to essentially turn man’s wisdom and reasoning on it head. “Why”, to evoke our humility; to break down our foundations and make us malleable so that we can know the truth.

Matthew 7:24-29

24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.

**26 **But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.

27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

28 When [Messiah] had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching,

29 because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

The point of my posts were to (hopefully) point out errors and to see if anyone can show an ounce of humility on the subject, which is why I earlier asked, “Is God something one possesses in their back-pocket; something which conform to us…or should we be able to conform to Him at any time?”

Some were able to be humble, while others were not.

Be as little children; be malleable; open to possibilities…don’t be as adults; rigid or prideful…as such is not the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[aspirant]

when St. Nicolas (a real man) became Chris Kringle and then “Santa Clause” (the mystical Christmas elf), a new identity/persona was created

The ignorance of language exhibited here is appalling.

Santa is the exact same word as Saint, it’s merely a different language. Claus, an alternate spelling of Klaus, is a shortened form of Nikolaus (as Josh is a common shortened form of Joshua, Bill of William, Jim of James, etc.). “Santa Claus” doesn’t mean “mystical Christmas elf.” That’s nonsense.

“Kris Kringle” is an English corruption of the German word Christkindl, meaning Christ Child. The name “Kris Kringle” is erroneously applied to Santa Claus because he is said in our culture to do what the Christ Child is said to do in other cultures: bring gifts in celebration of Messiah’s birth.

the Messiah; Yehshua (“I am salvation”) never changed his name

Agreed. He does allow people to spell and pronounce it in a variety of ways, as the New Testament demonstrates.

WE’VE changed his name

No, it’s the same name, just spelled and pronounced a little differently. The meaning and significance are exactly the same as always.

It’s not a worthwhile inquiry. It’s like asking “But WHAT IF God is really made of cream cheese?” We know he’s not. Likewise, we know the Lord’s character. Our Messiah is not a petty tyrant who doesn’t understand how human languages work, so the question is moot.

Certainly well enough to know he’s not an ignorant tyrant. And if you really believe he is the blustering jackass your words sometimes suggest he might be, I feel very, very sorry for you.

Did he look petty?

No, but you seem to have a bizarre obsession for claiming he did even when he didn’t.

Paul said Messiah…

If you accept Paul’s teaching, then you must also accept that Messiah doesn’t have a problem with transliteration of his name, even when that entails changes in pronunciations, because Paul and the other apostles did just that. And just like that, all argument should cease: we know from scripture that Messiah allows us to transliterate his name, even when transliteration introduces pronunciation variants.

The point of my posts were to (hopefully) point out errors

Thus far you have made many errors, but not pointed out any.

 

[Joshua27]

[All of the above]

Oh, Aspirant…can’t you see that you’re acting like a Pharisee?

Why do you take pieces [sections] of my responses - out of context - and reply to them alone (as if I said those things exclusively), instead of replying to my whole response? As intellegent as you seem to be (to know when rhetoric is being used) why do you answer my rhetorical questions - those I immediately answer as part of my own point (in context) - as if I’m asking them to you? Such is nothing more than deception.

Not one of your replies have anything to do with the fullness of my response on “humility”, because the Spirit speaks to you right now telling you that what I say is truth. In everything I said about “changing a name equals a new life” [including several examples that you can not argue], you take the one (admittingly so labeled by me as) weak and insignificant example and reply to that? What about the others? What about disproving my point that “name change = new life”, by attacking:

Abram becoming “Abraham”
Jacob becoming “Israel”
Steve becoming “daddy” = a new identity = a new life as a father of a child.
Joseph Alois Ratzinger becoming “Benedict XVI” = a new identity/purpose/persona = a new life as father of the Catholic Church?

Then you’ll fully quote your own responses to make sure others read where you’re coming from, and yet you’ll divide or erase mine which create false impressions, and then you draw your own conclusions as I’m casted into an unnatural light from your false impressions. Is this how you argue? God - and anyone from God - is not the author of confusion, as you appear to be, Aspirant, so don’t be.

And all for what? To win? To have the last word on this thread? I already told you that you won a while back…but if the last word is what you need to have regardless of preserving the truth of our conversation then let me know, otherwise…

“If the Messiah returns and says please call me Jesus (because the particulars of my name do not matter), then – truly – I will be humble enough to do as he wishes and call him Jesus regardless of what I’ve discovered about his name”…This is humility.

But, “If the Messiah returns and says please call me Yehshua because Jesus is a false name, then will you be humble enough to do as he wishes and call him Yehshua (accepting Jesus is a false name), or will you not be humble enough to yield, Aspirant?

 

[aspirant]

Oh, Aspirant…can’t you see that you’re acting like a Pharisee?

If you mean a person more concerned with the letter of the law than its spirit, I’d say just the opposite. What you pray in your heart is far, far and away more important than pronouncing words exactly as someone else does.

God is merciful, God is compassionate, God is Love. He would much rather someone pray “Jesus!” and really mean it than for someone to merely say “Y’shua” just like a first century Jew yet without conviction.

What about disproving my point that "name change = new life"

I do not disagree that a true change in name is significant. I disagree with the ludicrous claim that transliteration is a change in name.

And all for what?

In the hope that people will not be misled by erroneous claims.

 

[Joshua27]

I do not disagree that a true change in name is significant. I disagree with the ludicrous claim that transliteration is a change in name.

Finally…Then you disagree.

In the hope that people will not be misled by erroneous claims.

Fair enough. so I’m going to ask you again.

“If the Messiah returns - possessing the opportunity to correct our missunderstandings since he’s here now (while no one could be judged since he wasn’t here previously) - and then says, “please call me Yehshua because Jesus is a not the name my mother gave me”, will you be humble enough to do as he wishes and call him Yehshua, Aspirant?

 

[SteveVH]

Finally…Then you disagree.

Fair enough. so I’m going to ask you again.

“If the Messiah returns - possessing the opportunity to correct our missunderstandings since he’s here now (while no one could be judged since he wasn’t here previously) - and then says, “please call me Yehshua because Jesus is a not the name my mother gave me”, will you be humble enough to do as he wishes and call him Yehshua, Aspirant?

If He asks me to call him Yeshua I will be more than happy to comply. Somehow though, I have a feeling that it isn’t going to be first on His list. God reads our hearts, he doesn’t “get us” on technicalities. He is much “bigger” than you give Him credit.

 

[aspirant]

so I’m going to ask you again.

And my answer is the same as it has been every time you asked before. God has revealed himself to us. He is no more a petty tyrant than he is made of cream cheese. He does not forbid transliteration of names, even when transliteration requires variation in pronunciation. God is merciful, God is compassionate, God is Love. He would much rather someone pray “Jesus!” and really mean it than for someone to merely say “Y’shua” just like a first century Jew yet without conviction.

 

[aspirant]

God reads our hearts, he doesn’t “get us” on technicalities. He is much “bigger” than you give Him credit.

Complete agreement.

 

[dusza]

St. Faustina called the Lord Jezu (yeh-zoo), an archaic vocative case of Jezus still in use today. He never responded with a “who, me?”. In fact, He told her to put the inscription “Jezu, Ufam Tobie” under the painting of Divine Mercy.

Incidentally, I feel that “Jesus, I Trust in You” is a slight mistranslation. It should simply be “Jesus, I Trust You”. I know it’s a subtle difference, but one that doesn’t exist in the Polish language. It’s probably of no consequence, although whoever authorized the English translation felt that’s what Jesus meant to say. Makes me think, since there’s no grammatical way of saying “Jesus, I Trust IN You” in Polish.

Perhaps this would make a nice thread subject by itself.

 

[aspirant]

St. Faustina called the Lord Jezu (yeh-zoo), an archaic vocative case of Jezus still in use today. He never responded with a “who, me?”. In fact, He told her to put the inscription “Jezu, Ufam Tobie” under the painting of Divine Mercy.

 

[Jay53]

The prophecies that there would be a “seizing” (Matthew 21:38) or a “prevailing” against the saints (Daniel 7:21; Revelation 13:7) or an honoring “me with their lips but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men” (Isaiah 29:13), among others, demonstrate that God foresaw that there would be changes in the doctrines (Isaiah 24:5) that would necessitate that another angel be sent to the earth “to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,…” (Revelation 14:6) to restore that which had been changed.

Parker,

I’m not sure what you meant by this post, but I just want to make sure that you are not still trying to use Matthew 21:38 as any kind of support for the “Great Apostasy” or Mormonism in general. We’ve had this discussion before and the parable of the vinedressers has absolutely nothing to do with Mormonism unless you are going to try to claim that the Son in the parable is somehow Joseph Smith!

I also want to point out that Isaiah 24:5 does not necessarily point to or support Mormonism. Why don’t you believe that it is pointing to Jesus and the new covenant that He brings to us?

I also don’t think Revelation 14:6 refers to the angel associated with Joseph Smith unless you are also going to claim that verse 7 has also already come to pass and that “the hour of His judgment has come” and then who are the other 2 angels in that chapter? Are there other angels associated with Joseph Smith and his visions?

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

I’m not sure what you meant by this post, but I just want to make sure that you are not still trying to use Matthew 21:38 as any kind of support for the “Great Apostasy” or Mormonism in general. We’ve had this discussion before and the parable of the vinedressers has absolutely nothing to do with Mormonism unless you are going to try to claim that the Son in the parable is somehow Joseph Smith!

I also want to point out that Isaiah 24:5 does not necessarily point to or support Mormonism. Why don’t you believe that it is pointing to Jesus and the new covenant that He brings to us?

I also don’t think Revelation 14:6 refers to the angel associated with Joseph Smith unless you are also going to claim that verse 7 has also already come to pass and that “the hour of His judgment has come” and then who are the other 2 angels in that chapter? Are there other angels associated with Joseph Smith and his visions?

Jay53,
Of course you would say that Matthew 21:38 does not support an idea of a drifting from the pure gospel and Christ’s pure teachings. Of course I wouldn’t expect otherwise. Verse 39 says “they caught him,… and slew him.” Of course that is a prophecy of what the Jews would do to Jesus Christ, the Son who had been sent by the Father as the “heir.”

But verse 38 says that their intent was not only to “kill him”, but also to “seize on his inheritance.” If you have no idea what is represented by the words “his inheritance,” then you would respond exactly as you have. I think it is clear from the Bible that “his inheritance” means not only “His throne and divine kingship”, but also those who become “His sons and his daughters” through His redeeming power. The intent of the parable was to foreshadow both His coming death on the cross of Calvary, and the warning that the Jewish leaders had a bigger plan than just that of killing Him. That plan came about not only from their ranks as they persecuted the early saints just as Saul of Tarsus who later became Paul did to those such as Stephen, but also as some joined the church but could “not endure sound doctrine” and tried to keep circumcision and not let go of the parts of the law of Moses that had been fulfilled. This is attested repeatedly by the apostles.

I could accept that Isaiah 24:5 was speaking strictly of the Jews in that they did indeed “break the everlasting covenant,” but the words “they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant” and the words in Isaiah 24:2, “as with the people, so with the priest” and the words of verse 1, “the Lord maketh the earth empty”, gives a picture that ought to make every person who reads those words sincerely look and evaluate and figure out whether there have been “changes” to the ordinance and whether an everlasting covenant has been broken. You think it hasn’t–I think there is evidence that ordinances were changed and that the everlasting covenant was broken. Part of that had to do with rejecting the doctrine of eternal marriage, as I have pointed out earlier on two other threads. Part of it has to do with the ordinance done by John the Baptist which the Savior set the perfect example of what should be done and how it should be done, and also described it to Nicodemus very specifically.

Verse 7 of Revelation 14 says indeed “the hour of his judgment is come:” and that is a process, not an event that happens in one day or one hour of earth’s time. It is happening now on the earth. It will continue to happen in the days preceding the Second Coming of Christ. Verse 8 will be fulfilled during the beginning of the Millenium, and another angel will declare that Babylon is fallen. Verse 9 will also be fulfilled at the beginning of the Millenium, and those who have followed the beast and set their hearts on Babylon and its wonders will have a day of reckoning when the earth will be cleansed.

But it is important to understand that there will be many wonderful people of many faiths who have not set their hearts on Babylon. The hard part is that, say, a young person living in today’s world does not have the inner faith and resoluteness to not be overcome by all the temptations of “Babylon” that are apparent in the world today. Such a loss! Such a need for leaders and teachers to teach with pure truth, so the youth can get the Holy Spirit in their life to help them have the “patience of the saints”, and “keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”

The purer the doctrine and the purer the truths taught, the greater will be the impact on the youth of the world who need that doctrine so desperately in a world gone awry. They will feel the truth in their innermost soul, and be resolute and disciplined in keeping the commandments of God as they gain the Holy Spirit in their personal life.

 

[Jay53]

Of course you would say that Matthew 21:38 does not support an idea of a drifting from the pure gospel and Christ’s pure teachings. Of course I wouldn’t expect otherwise. Verse 39 says “they caught him,… and slew him.” Of course that is a prophecy of what the Jews would do to Jesus Christ, the Son who had been sent by the Father as the “heir.”
But verse 38 says that their intent was not only to “kill him”, but also to “seize on his inheritance.” If you have no idea what is represented by the words “his inheritance,” then you would respond exactly as you have. I think it is clear from the Bible that “his inheritance” means not only “His throne and divine kingship”, but also those who become “His sons and his daughters” through His redeeming power. The intent of the parable was to foreshadow both His coming death on the cross of Calvary, and the warning that the Jewish leaders had a bigger plan than just that of killing Him. That plan came about not only from their ranks as they persecuted the early saints just as Saul of Tarsus who later became Paul did to those such as Stephen, but also as some joined the church but could “not endure sound doctrine” and tried to keep circumcision and not let go of the parts of the law of Moses that had been fulfilled. This is attested repeatedly by the apostles.

I don’t understand or accept this explanation at all. You are suggesting that at the time Jesus gave this parable, He knew that He would be killed (and rise again) and that He would be establishing His church and that within a short time the people would go astray, that they would remain astray for 1800 years and that He did absolutely nothing about it. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I realize that it would seem to fit with the theology of your church, given how Joseph Smith twisted so many things against what the Apostles were teaching, but it does not fit with the true teaching of this parable.

If you read the rest of the parable, you see that the owner is said to destroy those who killed His Son and let out the vineyard to other vine-dressers who “will render to him the fruits in their season”. The parable does not say anything about the owner destroying those who killed His Son, giving the vineyard to more vinedressers (His Catholic Church) who also went astray and then taking it away from them to give more vinedressers (Mormons). If you read further in the verse it even says that the chief priests and Pharisees knew he was speaking about them. There is nothing in the parable to suggest the twists that you are giving to this scripture!

I could accept that Isaiah 24:5 was speaking strictly of the Jews in that they did indeed “break the everlasting covenant,” but the words “they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant” and the words in Isaiah 24:2, “as with the people, so with the priest” and the words of verse 1, “the Lord maketh the earth empty”, gives a picture that ought to make every person who reads those words sincerely look and evaluate and figure out whether there have been “changes” to the ordinance and whether an everlasting covenant has been broken. You think it hasn’t–I think there is evidence that ordinances were changed and that the everlasting covenant was broken. Part of that had to do with rejecting the doctrine of eternal marriage, as I have pointed out earlier on two other threads. Part of it has to do with the ordinance done by John the Baptist which the Savior set the perfect example of what should be done and how it should be done, and also described it to Nicodemus very specifically.

I still don’t see your interpretation of these verses. There is nothing in the verses to suggest that this has anything to do with the Catholic Church going astray. It seems like you are doubling up all of these prophecies - they apply to the Jews who did not accept Jesus and then also prophecy a further going astray of the Church Jesus established. Again, there is nothing to suggest that this is correct! There is no doctrine of eternal marriage - that was not taught by Jesus or the Apostles at all.

With reference to Baptism, Jesus was baptized, He did describe it to Nicodemus and He also told His disciples to go out and baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. It was at that time that He also told us that He would be with us all days. There is still nothing to suggest that the Catholic Church has failed in following Jesus’ instructions with regard to baptism. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean. ??

The purer the doctrine and the purer the truths taught, the greater will be the impact on the youth of the world who need that doctrine so desperately in a world gone awry. They will feel the truth in their innermost soul, and be resolute and disciplined in keeping the commandments of God as they gain the Holy Spirit in their personal life.

I agree with most of what you’ve said here - obviously I just disagree with where the “purer doctrine” and “purer truths” can be found. There has still been nothing to suggest that there has been a “great apostasy” of the Church, and I have still seen no evidence of unique Mormon doctrines in any of the scriptures or the interpretation of those scriptures by the Apostles and/or their successors.

 

[TheosisM]

With reference to Baptism, Jesus was baptized, He did describe it to Nicodemus and He also told His disciples to go out and baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. It was at that time that He also told us that He would be with us all days. There is still nothing to suggest that the Catholic Church has failed in following Jesus’ instructions with regard to baptism. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean. ??

I believe he is referring to immersion baptism, as well as faith/repentance before baptism (thus no infant baptism).

 

[Jay53]

I believe he is referring to immersion baptism, as well as faith/repentance before baptism (thus no infant baptism).

Is there someplace where Jesus tells Nicodemus/us that we have to be immersed to be baptized? The verse I’m thinking of (which I thought he was referring to (John 3)) only says that one must be born of water and Spirit in order to enter the Kingdom of God. Perhaps I have missed something?

 

[ParkerD]

Is there someplace where Jesus tells Nicodemus/us that we have to be immersed to be baptized? The verse I’m thinking of (which I thought he was referring to (John 3)) only says that one must be born of water and Spirit in order to enter the Kingdom of God. Perhaps I have missed something?

Jay53,
I appreciate TheosisM having explained part of what I was referring to, simply and to the point. (I was asked by one poster never to refer to that directly, so I have complied.)

Jesus and John the Baptist went into the River Jordan on that special day when His formal ministry began, and He “fulfilled all righteousness” by setting the example of what should be done as an initial step when one believes in Him. John the Baptist didn’t consider himself worthy to do that ordinance for the Son of God, but did it because the Savior asked him to.

Nicodemus doubted about a man who is old “entering into his mother’s womb” to be re-born. He didn’t understand being “born of water” or “born of the Spirit”. A baby has come from an immersion in amniotic fluid (mostly water) when they are born from the womb of the mother. You may discount both of these clear examples of how the first part of the ordinance was done (by immersion) and was taught, just as Nicodemus doubted the whole teaching, but it is there to be understood and it is quite plain.

 

[RebeccaJ]

ParkerD is doing nothing but proselyting.

 

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

Absurd, petty, and frankly futile for another language to pronounce MY name the way I want it pronounced…Names Proper are a “no-no”. Listen to yourself: “well…everyone does it…”

Names Proper are a “no-no”. How they pronounce their “Joshua” is non-consequential to how I pronounce mine. McDonalds is pronounced McDonalds because that is how they wanted to pronounce it. Gerard Depardieu is pronounced Gerard Depardieu everywhere because that is what He said his name is. Name Proper = nouns representing unique entities…and if they’re important enough they should NOT be pronounced differently.

So the question is “is the Messiah’s name important enough?” I guess it’s not that important to you…fine.

So to disprove my point…you help me make my point even further? Thanks for the Hebrew. You can’t possibly equate “Jesus” to ישוע phonetically without going through several stages of transliteration, while I can sit here and say that ישוע is pronounced “Yehshua”. This is my point…

ישוע - pronounced “Yehshua” - is the Messiah’s name, not Jesus.

This is why its important to read the conversation…the point of this thread is Apostasy; I pointed out that there’s evidence of corruption in the Bible simply because "J"s (the SOUND of "J"s) is only 600-800 years old so the names of the “J”-people of the bible are not the accurate names. This is a error because while you and I know of this fact, not many “faithful” people know the bible has been transliterated (or even what transliteration is).

Ye | sh | ua (ישוע) = Hebrew
Ie | s | ous* (Ιησους) = Greek
Ie | so | us = Latin
Je** | s | us = English (pronounced “Yesus” prior to 1400-1500s)

*From Hebrew to Greek the last syllable was changed, NOT because of pronounciation, but because Greek scribes believe a male’s name should not end in an “a” (feminine ending).

**“J”, even when after making its debut, was still pronounced as an “i”, so even after the bible was translation into Latin and English, “Jesus” was still pronounced “Yesus” [the early chuch knew this pronounciation, and knew where it came from] (the first English bible was in the 1300s), since both “J” and “i” were pronounced as "i"s [writers were becoming lazy and began curving the end of "i"s]. But around 1400-1500s or so - not that long ago - "J"s were given the “gee-uh” sound.

So even if the name was translated in to other languages, if these 2 corruptions (of time and optinion) were not made, the name would be “Jesua”, pronounced “Yesua” even today.

“Tisk-Tisk.” First, you make your own baseless assumption, (At least my assumption is based on scripture [Revelation 3:8])…and then you reduce your argument to name-calling? Come-on…you can do better than this. This is what happens when one has nothing else of relevance to say just to prove their point.

[Ridiculous… ] I’m on an Online, English-Speaking forum thread. I can’t use my voice to pronounce the name “Yehshua”. Now let’s get back to “The Great Apostasy” topic, please.

Hey there Joshua27 - I just wanted to say to you that I find your knowledge of language very interesting. Most of what you write I didn’t know. Just saying thanks for the shared knowledge.

 

[ParkerD]

(1) I don’t understand or accept this explanation. You are suggesting that at the time Jesus gave this parable, He knew that He would be killed (and rise again) and that He would be establishing His church and that within a short time the people would go astray, that they would remain astray for 1800 years and that He did absolutely nothing about it. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. …

(2) If you read the rest of the parable, you see that the owner is said to destroy those who killed His Son and let out the vineyard to other vine-dressers who “will render to him the fruits in their season”. The parable does not say anything about the owner destroying those who killed His Son, giving the vineyard to more vinedressers (His Catholic Church) who also went astray and then taking it away from them to give more vinedressers (Mormons).

(3) I still don’t see your interpretation of these verses. There is nothing in the verses to suggest that this has anything to do with the Catholic Church going astray. It seems like you are doubling up all of these prophecies - they apply to the Jews who did not accept Jesus and then also prophecy a further going astray of the Church Jesus established. Again, there is nothing to suggest that this is correct! There is no doctrine of eternal marriage - that was not taught by Jesus or the Apostles at all.

(4) With reference to Baptism, Jesus was baptized, He did describe it to Nicodemus and He also told His disciples to go out and baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. It was at that time that He also told us that He would be with us all days. There is still nothing to suggest that the Catholic Church has failed in following Jesus’ instructions with regard to baptism. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean. ??

(5) I agree with most of what you’ve said here - obviously I just disagree with where the “purer doctrine” and “purer truths” can be found. There has still been nothing to suggest that there has been a “great apostasy” of the Church, and I have still seen no evidence of unique Mormon doctrines in any of the scriptures or the interpretation of those scriptures by the Apostles and/or their successors.

Jay53,
(1) The Savior had several purposes for His ministry on earth, the most important of which was to Redeem every person ever born into the world unconditionally to a resurrection and conditionally to whatever glory in the hereafter they desire to receive and show by their actions they are willing to receive. He also established the new covenant gospel, as the One who fulfilled the law of Moses. He also was the perfect example of how one should live their lives. He fulfilled each of those important missions, including the single most important mission of the atonement suffered by Him and His own resurrection to conquer death and the grave and show us that we would all be resurrected, whether the Jews rejected Him or accepted Him and whether the Gentiles rejected His message or accepted His message as they heard it.

He also established His church and called twelve apostles to give special witness of Him, including going into all the world with the pure gospel message of salvation. He had called prophets of old (the ones alluded to in the parable who had been beaten or killed, as stated in 22:34-36). Their writings gave us the Old Testament. The apostles and Luke’s writings gave us His teachings, and we have them today glory be to God.

So when you say it “absolutely makes no sense whatsoever” that Christ would do those things, even if He did know that most of the Jews would reject Him and He would be killed and His pure church would have difficulty both from without and from within as time went on, then I would say “it makes sense to me that He would complete His mission”. He had a far greater mission than you seem to be alluding to with that particular comment.

His whole message was one of people choosing on their own to follow Him–not being forced or compelled to do so. What was He to do differently if He knew that more righteous people and prophets would be killed (see Matthew 23:34) just like some of the prophets of old had been killed, and knew that “the kingdom of God shall be taken from you (the Jews), and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”? The Roman Empire did not have the “fruits thereof”. Certainly, Christ was not referring to the Roman Empire as the nation “bringing forth the fruits thereof.” So, what nation fits the description? I think there was not an automatic answer to that question. The Gentiles struggled with the new gospel covenant, as shown in the epistles and in Acts. But “ye shall know them by their fruits.”

Did a nation flourish and have dramatic progress through the light of the gospel and dramatic evidence of the fruits of the gospel with the people loving one another and caring for their poor and with the doctrine of free choice with neither compulsion nor threatening in any way as the teachings were carried forward among the people of that nation? You tell me, and demonstrate it by history beginning in 100 AD and beyond, century after century, with a whole “nation” showing the fruits of the gospel among all the people.

(2) Note that verse 41 is the reply of the “chief priests and elders of the people” to whom He had given the parable. Verses 42 and 43 convey the lessons Christ wanted to be understood from the parable, as noted above in (1).

(By the way, I have never said I think verse 43 refers to the Mormon church, but I would say it more closely refers to the early United States history as to a whole nation showing the fruits of living the gospel of Jesus Christ, with the Bible at the very center of the progress of that nation and its constitutional government, and with that nation flourishing with those fruits until such time as it has departed from its foundational principles.)