On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus [W:71]

[RAMOSS]

Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."
[/quote]

First of all , almost everyone agrees it is impossible that this is not unaltered. Not even John Meier, who came up with a 'solution' will argue that. IT's just too Christian.
One big problem is that the term 'He was the Christ' was used. The term 'CHrist' comes from "Moishe' in the Hebrew. Jospehus would not use that term for several reasons. First of all, the way he escaped execution when he was captured was by telling Vespisian that HE was going to be the prophized King of the Jews. The audience his writing was intended for was the Romans, and Christ literally means 'annointed' or 'wetter' to be literal. That would not have meaning for his target audience, since they would not understand Jewish custom of annointing high priests and kings with oil. There is also the little business that Jospehus would not use that because it would be going against the narrative he told Vespisian to save his life. That means, at the very least, the passage would have to be modified.

Since it was modified, the next question to ask would be 'Is there any evidence that it was there before the modified passage'. The answer to that is , well, no there isn't. The first external mention of the passage was from Eurisebus. However, Origien, a century earlier, quoted from the passage right by it talking about John the Baptist. Despite the fact Oregin was very particular about trying to use Jospehus to support his claims about Jesus, he never mentioned this passage at all. That is very odd, considering Oriegin's motivations and purposes.
So, we have at the very least a modified passage... and no evidence that it existed before the 4th century at all. Therefore, even if a version did exist, it is so corrupted that we don't know for sure, and it can not be shown with any kind of reasonable evidence that it did indeed exist before the 4th century

Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

First of all , almost everyone agrees it is impossible that this is not unaltered. Not even John Meier, who came up with a 'solution' will argue that. IT's just too Christian.
One big problem is that the term 'He was the Christ' was used. The term 'CHrist' comes from "Moishe' in the Hebrew. Jospehus would not use that term for several reasons. First of all, the way he escaped execution when he was captured was by telling Vespisian that HE was going to be the prophized King of the Jews. The audience his writing was intended for was the Romans, and Christ literally means 'annointed' or 'wetter' to be literal. That would not have meaning for his target audience, since they would not understand Jewish custom of annointing high priests and kings with oil. There is also the little business that Jospehus would not use that because it would be going against the narrative he told Vespisian to save his life. That means, at the very least, the passage would have to be modified.

(continued next messaage)

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Since it was modified, the next question to ask would be 'Is there any evidence that it was there before the modified passage'. The answer to that is , well, no there isn't. The first external mention of the passage was from Eurisebus. However, Origien, a century earlier, quoted from the passage right by it talking about John the Baptist. Despite the fact Oregin was very particular about trying to use Jospehus to support his claims about Jesus, he never mentioned this passage at all. That is very odd, considering Oriegin's motivations and purposes.
So, we have at the very least a modified passage... and no evidence that it existed before the 4th century at all. Therefore, even if a version did exist, it is so corrupted that we don't know for sure, and it can not be shown with any kind of reasonable evidence that it did indeed exist before the 4th century

 

[chromium]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

yeah you make a compelling case, but there are still questions. Why did it take so long to falsify, and why didn't O do this personally? Of course, maybe E did the falsifying lol. Then there is the possibility, given how ancient documents were frequently lost, that there was earlier reference to the passage, but we don't have them

Still, with such a supposedly miraculous and significant series of events, we should have many eyewitness accounts and many early references to them, and references to those, not just josephus + some dude 300 years later

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

yeah you make a compelling case, but there are still questions. Why did it take so long to falsify, and why didn't O do this personally? Of course, maybe E did the falsifying lol. Then there is the possibility, given how ancient documents were frequently lost, that there was earlier reference to the passage, but we don't have them

Still, with such a supposedly miraculous and significant series of events, we should have many eyewitness accounts and many early references to them, and references to those, not just josephus + some dude 300 years later

First of all, by the time Euresibus quoted those lines, Oreign was deceased. Next, both Origen and Eusebius has the religious motivation to promote Christianity. That makes it doubly strange that Origen didn't quote that passage if it existed.

 

[Cephus]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

It is well known that the passage is a fraud, an early Christian attempt at forgery. The parts that supposedly refer to Jesus are written in an entirely different voice than the rest of the passage and if you remove them, the passage reads much more consistently. Those parts do not appear in any version of Jewish Antiquities that existed during the life of Josephus either. There were many other early Christian apologists who seemingly were entirely unaware of them, Origen was hardly the only one who would have made use of them had they existed, yet didn't.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

It is well known that the passage is a fraud, an early Christian attempt at forgery. The parts that supposedly refer to Jesus are written in an entirely different voice than the rest of the passage and if you remove them, the passage reads much more consistently. Those parts do not appear in any version of Jewish Antiquities that existed during the life of Josephus either. There were many other early Christian apologists who seemingly were entirely unaware of them, Origen was hardly the only one who would have made use of them had they existed, yet didn't.

We don't have any versions of Antiquities that old. The oldest complete version is from the 11th century, and even the fragments we have older than that do come from Christian sources.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

It is well known that the passage is a fraud, an early Christian attempt at forgery. The parts that supposedly refer to Jesus are written in an entirely different voice than the rest of the passage and if you remove them, the passage reads much more consistently. Those parts do not appear in any version of Jewish Antiquities that existed during the life of Josephus either. There were many other early Christian apologists who seemingly were entirely unaware of them, Origen was hardly the only one who would have made use of them had they existed, yet didn't.

It is the fashion among many theologians these days to say that the passage is only partly fake. My argument is against them in specific. If it is partly fake, then it is up to them to show it actually existed before the 4th century. I will totally agree with your point, but, such theologians as John P Meier , and James Charlesworth claim once the overly christian sections are removed , it makes perfect sense. However, the error they are making is that the ones who cut it tried to make sure it blended with the rest of Ant 18, and therefore have confirmation bias. They do not provide any evidence it existed before the 4th century except to say 'It makes sense'.

 

[Doc Doom]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Another point that should be addressed is that Josephus was a Jew and would never have referred to Jesus as a messiah....Since the Jews did not believe he was because he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies.

 

[laska]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

My testimony has nothing to do with whether Josephus quotes are true or not. If there were later Christian dishonest tampering with the text, this would not surprise me as the Book of Mormon states this is what they did to the written testimonies of the apostles. That they altered the text of the New Testament to some degree.

According to Wikipedia while Ramoss is correct about the majority of scholarship rejecting some of the quotes on Jesus as later Christian additions, there are also aspects of the NT narrative mentioned by Josephus that the majority of scholarship believes are authentic quotes by Josephus:

"...Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [13] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[14][1][2][15][16][17] However, New Testament scholar Robert M. Price speculates that Josephus may have considered James a fraternal brother rather than a sibling.[18]

Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist also to be authentic and not a Christian interpolation.[19][20][21]

The references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as the Jewish War, written 20 years earlier, but some scholars have provided explanations for their absence.[22] A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of James and John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts.[19][23] Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them."[19][24][23] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

My testimony has nothing to do with whether Josephus quotes are true or not. If there were later Christian dishonest tampering with the text, this would not surprise me as the Book of Mormon states this is what they did to the written testimonies of the apostles. That they altered the text of the New Testament to some degree.

According to Wikipedia while Ramoss is correct about the majority of scholarship rejecting some of the quotes on Jesus as later Christian additions, there are also aspects of the NT narrative mentioned by Josephus that the majority of scholarship believes are authentic quotes by Josephus:

"...Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [13] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[14][1][2][15][16][17] However, New Testament scholar Robert M. Price speculates that Josephus may have considered James a fraternal brother rather than a sibling.[18]

Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist also to be authentic and not a Christian interpolation.[19][20][21]

The references found in Antiquities have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as the Jewish War, written 20 years earlier, but some scholars have provided explanations for their absence.[22] A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of James and John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts.[19][23] Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them."[19][24][23] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Which, when it comes to antiquities 18, what is the evidence that the passages about Jesus existed before the 4th century? It is acknowledged to be highly tampered with at least, what evidence is there that it's not a total interpolation?

Because we want it to be there is nto an answer, or 'we can make it look like it was from Josephus' is not an answer either.

 

[laska]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

I take it you don't have any response to the antiquities 18 points then?? I want to confirm that before moving on to antiquities 20, and show why that is unreliable when it comes to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Shall we close out the Antiquities 18 section, and concentrate on Ant 20???

This is a fight that is meaningless to me. Whether all the quotes are true or none of them, it doesn't matter to me. I was just pointing out the wikipedia arguments. i have no clue whether they or you are accurate. What evidence is there for Moses or pretty much any of the Biblical prophets. I believe the Lachish Letters mentions the prophet Jeremiah but other than that, besides the scriptures themselves, off the top of my head I cant think of anything that verifies the the prophets of the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, the New Testament, or the Book of Mormon. My testimony derives from faith in the words of the scriptures and personal revelation.

Ramoss, what are your thoughts on the last verses of the Jewish scriptures:


1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

2 ¶But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts.

4 ¶Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.

5 ¶Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:

6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

This is a fight that is meaningless to me. Whether all the quotes are true or none of them, it doesn't matter to me. I was just pointing out the wikipedia arguments. i have no clue whether they or you are accurate. What evidence is there for Moses or pretty much any of the Biblical prophets. I believe the Lachish Letters mentions the prophet Jeremiah but other than that, besides the scriptures themselves, off the top of my head I cant think of anything that verifies the the prophets of the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, the New Testament, or the Book of Mormon. My testimony derives from faith in the words of the scriptures and personal revelation.

Ramoss, what are your thoughts on the last verses of the Jewish scriptures:


1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

2 ¶But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts.

4 ¶Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.

5 ¶Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:

6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

That has nothing to do with the reliability of Josephus.. and as such is irrelevant to this thread.

 

[laska]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

That has nothing to do with the reliability of Josephus.. and as such is irrelevant to this thread.

If you didn't know those verses dated before New Testament Christianity, given your perspective, why not be suspicious of Christian interpolation. "Sun of Righteousness arising with healing in his wings", etc.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

If you didn't know those verses dated before New Testament Christianity, given your perspective, why not be suspicious of Christian interpolation. "Sun of Righteousness arising with healing in his wings", etc.

That is not relevant to the reliability of Josephus. That is a different issue... however, the one thing I will point out that it's a bad translation. It's not the 'sun of righteousness', but 'sun of Mercy', and in Hebrew, sun and son are not pronounced the same way, so , it appears to be that you are trying to make a connection that isn't there in the original language. You are also taking it out of context, but from what Malichi is talking about, and culturally. The Jewish interpretations of that passage do not make it a messianic passage.

 

[laska]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

That is not relevant to the reliability of Josephus. That is a different issue... however, the one thing I will point out that it's a bad translation. It's not the 'sun of righteousness', but 'sun of Mercy', and in Hebrew, sun and son are not pronounced the same way, so , it appears to be that you are trying to make a connection that isn't there in the original language. You are also taking it out of context, but from what Malichi is talking about, and culturally. The Jewish interpretations of that passage do not make it a messianic passage.

Whether mercy or righteousness, it fits Christian imagery to a t. This is a little off topic but I'll give the LDS interpretation of those passages. They are speaking of just prior to the Second Coming of Christ, that God would send Elijah the prophet. In the New Testament to prepare Peter, James, and John to carry on the Church, at the mount of transfiguration, Moses and Elijah visited conferring onto them keys to lead the kingdom on earth. The keys Elijah has is the sealing power of the Melchizadech priesthood which allows ordinances that pertain to the salvation of the human family to be sealed on earth and Heaven. Without these keys, ordinances such as baptism, eternal marriage in the temples, and the sealing of families together for eternity would have no effect after mortal death.

When the angel Moroni visited the young Joseph Smith, he quoted those verses in Malachi and stated they were about to be fulfilled. A little over a decade or so later, after Joseph and the latter day saints completed the first temple, on Easter Sunday 3 Apr 1836, Moses and Elijah, along with Elias and the Savior Himself, returned to the Kirtland temple. Elijah conferred to Joseph and the apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints the sealing keys of the Melchizedek priesthood. All of this so the kingdom can be built up prior to the Second Coming of Christ: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/110

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Whether mercy or righteousness, it fits Christian imagery to a t. This is a little off topic but I'll give the LDS interpretation of those passages. They are speaking of just prior to the Second Coming of Christ, that God would send Elijah the prophet. In the New Testament to prepare Peter, James, and John to carry on the Church, at the mount of transfiguration, Moses and Elijah visited conferring onto them keys to lead the kingdom on earth. The keys Elijah has is the sealing power of the Melchizadech priesthood which allows ordinances that pertain to the salvation of the human family to be sealed on earth and Heaven. Without these keys, ordinances such as baptism, eternal marriage in the temples, and the sealing of families together for eternity would have no effect after mortal death.

When the angel Moroni visited the young Joseph Smith, he quoted those verses in Malachi and stated they were about to be fulfilled. A little over a decade or so later, after Joseph and the latter day saints completed the first temple, on Easter Sunday 3 Apr 1836, Moses and Elijah, along with Elias and the Savior Himself, returned to the Kirtland temple. Elijah conferred to Joseph and the apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints the sealing keys of the Melchizedek priesthood. All of this so the kingdom can be built up prior to the Second Coming of Christ: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/110

So, the LDS interpretations use bad translations and are out of context. Do you have a point?

 

[laska]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

So, the LDS interpretations use bad translations and are out of context. Do you have a point?

Just had a pretty cool connection. The last verses of the Jewish scriptures connect "Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings" with the return of Elijah. This is obviously imo speaking of Christ at His resurrection and the healing powers of the Atonement, the power to raise from ash to beauty and life. In your Resurrection thread I showed where Easter Sunday 3 Apr 33 AD was the date of Jesus' resurrection. And that exact date the sacred calendars align like no other date in history making it the most holy date in history. Eight of the fourteen known sacred calendars this date was on the one day on their calendars that represent resurrection. On five of the other remaining six, that day was a holy day. So 13 out 14 known calendars align on a holy day on that date. Even those scholars not familiar with the calendars have circled that date as the likely resurrection date as the Friday before it is on Passover. So Sun 3 Apr 33 AD is not just pulled out of thin air. According to the LDS, what is the date Elijah returned? Easter Sunday 3 Apr 1836. The perfect date that symbolizes "Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings".

Pratt shows that Sun 3 Apr 1836 was no ordinary Easter either according to the stars. Symbolism of Passover

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Just had a pretty cool connection. The last verses of the Jewish scriptures connect "Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings" with the return of Elijah. This is obviously imo speaking of Christ at His resurrection and the healing powers of the Atonement, the power to raise from ash to beauty and life. In your Resurrection thread I showed where Easter Sunday 3 Apr 33 AD was the date of Jesus' resurrection. And that exact date the sacred calendars align like no other date in history making it the most holy date in history. Eight of the fourteen known sacred calendars this date was on the one day on their calendars that represent resurrection. On five of the other remaining six, that day was a holy day. So 13 out 14 known calendars align on a holy day on that date. Even those scholars not familiar with the calendars have circled that date as the likely resurrection date as the Friday before it is on Passover. So Sun 3 Apr 33 AD is not just pulled out of thin air. According to the LDS, what is the date Elijah returned? Easter Sunday 3 Apr 1836. The perfect date that symbolizes "Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings".

Pratt shows that Sun 3 Apr 1836 was no ordinary Easter either according to the stars. Symbolism of Passover

I don't see a connection there at all.

 

[laska]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

I don't see a connection there at all.

Easter Sunday April 3 33 AD and Easter Sunday April 3 1836. The prophecy in Malachi connects the resurrection of Christ( Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings) with the return of Elijah.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Easter Sunday April 3 33 AD and Easter Sunday April 3 1836. The prophecy in Malachi connects the resurrection of Christ( Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings) with the return of Elijah.

There is nothing in that writing to show those dates. For that matter, it has nothing to do with the messiah what so ever, and is not a messianic prophecy.

 

[laska]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Quote from sacred calendar expert Pratt in the link in my post: "...the timing of Elijah's return may have been arranged to occur on the best anniversary of Easter, calendrically speaking, in history." Referring to Sun 3 Apr 1836.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Quote from sacred calendar expert Pratt in the link in my post: "...the timing of Elijah's return may have been arranged to occur on the best anniversary of Easter, calendrically speaking, in history." Referring to Sun 3 Apr 1836.

And, when you look at the words in Malchi, Pratt's claims and the words in Malachi do not have a correspondence.

 

[laska]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

And, when you look at the words in Malchi, Pratt's claims and the words in Malachi do not have a correspondence.

We disagree on the interpretation of those verses. Why would Elijah return to the LDS temple?

In the Torah God made covenants with Israel. In the ancient world the covenant was a contract between two parties with blessings and cursings written down depending on if the covenant was kept or broken. Part of the blessings for Israel is if they obeyed God's commandments her enemies would have no power over her. God would protect her. If she broke the covenant the nation would be trodden down and her people scattered among the nations. The fact that Assyria destroyed the Northern Kingdom in 721 BC and Judah was destroyed by Rome in 73 AD, and for almost two millenia there was no nation of Israel means the covenant was broken. Prophets like Isaiah predicted this would happen but also that in the latter days God would be merciful and remember the covenant once again, restore the true religion of their fathers in its fulness, and gather her to the lands of her inheritance. God would re-establish the covenant and restore all the blessings to the house of Israel.

The pattern found in the Torah is that when God makes a new covenant in restoring the lost true religion in its fulness that had been lost due to apostasy, He raises up a prophet. For example when the offspring of Adam rejected the true religion of the patriarchs He raises up a Noah under a new covenant to start over again. New covenant but the same original religion. When a restoration was needed in the house of Israel after several centuries of Egyptian bondage, God raises up a Moses. In the LDS view, which is consistent with the torah in this pattern, in the last days God raises up a latter day Joseph to restore the house of Israel their former blessings. And what better person to re-establish the new covenant with Israel than a latter day descendant of Joseph of Egypt. Another Joseph! In the Torah Joseph was the first born son of Rachel and the birthright son of Israel. The birthright was connected with the rights of the Priesthood. Joseph was the most faithful son of the house of Israel, and would later save the house of Israel from famine with the stored grain of Egypt. Compare this with the latter day Restoration. A latter day Joseph to save the house of Israel from the long spiritual famine with the restored gospel. Instead of stored grain from Egypt, you have a text written in a reformed Egyptian script that contains the fullness of the restored everlasting gospel. The Book of Mormon is the stick of Ephraim that Ezekial prophesied that the Lord would combine with the Bible "stick of Judah" in gathering Israel in the last days.

Ezekial 37:
15 ¶The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,

16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:

17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

8 ¶And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?

19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

20 ¶And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.

21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:

22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

We disagree on the interpretation of those verses. Why would Elijah return to the LDS temple?

In the Torah God made covenants with Israel. In the ancient world the covenant was a contract between two parties with blessings and cursings written down depending on if the covenant was kept or broken. Part of the blessings for Israel is if they obeyed God's commandments her enemies would have no power over her. God would protect her. If she broke the covenant the nation would be trodden down and her people scattered among the nations. The fact that Assyria destroyed the Northern Kingdom in 721 BC and Judah was destroyed by Rome in 73 AD, and for almost two millenia there was no nation of Israel means the covenant was broken. Prophets like Isaiah predicted this would happen but also that in the latter days God would be merciful and remember the covenant once again, restore the true religion of their fathers in its fulness, and gather her to the lands of her inheritance. God would re-establish the covenant and restore all the blessings to the house of Israel.

The pattern found in the Torah is that when God makes a new covenant in restoring the lost true religion in its fulness that had been lost due to apostasy, He raises up a prophet. For example when the offspring of Adam rejected the true religion of the patriarchs He raises up a Noah under a new covenant to start over again. New covenant but the same original religion. When a restoration was needed in the house of Israel after several centuries of Egyptian bondage, God raises up a Moses. In the LDS view, which is consistent with the torah in this pattern, in the last days God raises up a latter day Joseph to restore the house of Israel their former blessings. And what better person to re-establish the new covenant with Israel than a latter day descendant of Joseph of Egypt. Another Joseph! In the Torah Joseph was the first born son of Rachel and the birthright son of Israel. The birthright was connected with the rights of the Priesthood. Joseph was the most faithful son of the house of Israel, and would later save the house of Israel from famine with the stored grain of Egypt. Compare this with the latter day Restoration. A latter day Joseph to save the house of Israel from the long spiritual famine with the restored gospel. Instead of stored grain from Egypt, you have a text written in a reformed Egyptian script that contains the fullness of the restored everlasting gospel. The Book of Mormon is the stick of Ephraim that Ezekial prophesied that the Lord would combine with the Bible "stick of Judah" in gathering Israel in the last days.

Ezekial 37:
15 ¶The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,

16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:

17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

8 ¶And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?

19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

20 ¶And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.

21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:

22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

Very nice.. don't accept it one bit, and this has nothing to do with the reliability of Josephus.

 

[laska]

Re: On the reliablity of Jospehus in regards to the passages about Jesus

Very nice.. don't accept it one bit, and this has nothing to do with the reliability of Josephus.

Yeah I got a little off topic. My point was that those verses in Malachi could easily be dismissed as Christian interpolation if the manuscripts were of a later date. The wikipedia article suggests most modern scholarship supports some of the Christian quotes of Josephus as being authentic, while most think other Christian quotes are later additions. You think all the Christian quotes are later additions? Do you disagree with the wikipedia aricle when it states most scholarship supports the john the Baptist and brother of Jesus quotes? I'm not qualified to make a comment, and Josephus quotes being true or not is meaningless to me. I'm not a fan of later Christian scribes and that period is known for the corruption of scribes and forgeries.