Elias, or in other words - I've changed the title...

madeleine · **Joined:** Sat May 01, 2010 12:03 am **Posts:** 1890

ludwigm wrote:

+ near all names in Mathew 1 are different in the OT
+ Jeremy, a third variation for Jeremiah-Jeremias
+ Zidon-Sidon, Zarephath-Sarepta (in the Elias-Elijah story)

Well, they were not sooo stupid. They should have managed a Correlation Committee...

Apparently, all the translated work was sent to a "General Committee of Review".

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

Well Madaline, what's your excuse for the inquisition? "By their fruits ye shall know them." Was all that sent to a committee also?!?

madeleine · **Joined:** Sat May 01, 2010 12:03 am **Posts:** 1890

gdemetz wrote:

Well Madaline, what's your excuse for the inquisition? "By their fruits ye shall know them." Was all that sent to a committee also?!?

If you're interested, which I doubt, there are good historical, scholarly, works that cover the inquisitions.

There was more than one and more than one circumstance in which they occurred. They were actions of men.

If you want me to judge by fruits, I suggest looking to that beam that is stuck there, in your eye. If you're the typical Mormon fruit, then I'm sure the whole barrel is rotting.

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

The Mormon church would have a long way to go to catch up with all the evils done by your church, and there are so many sites which document clearly the horrors that were instigated from the highest offices in your church!

schreech · **Joined:** Tue May 25, 2010 9:49 am **Posts:** 1417

gdemetz wrote:

The Mormon church would have a long way to go to catch up with all the evils done by your church, and there are so many sites which document clearly the horrors that were instigated from the highest offices in your church!

ludwigm · **Posted:** Wed May 09, 2012 11:15 pm

gdemetz wrote:

...inquisition
... madeleine's church

Please don't pollute my thread this way! Open another for inquisition, if You want.

JST 9:3
- And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses or in other words, John the Baptist and Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
This words put an equal sign between John the Baptist and Elias.

This is the topic.

BTW Apparently You did forget to answer my prayer:

ludwigm wrote:

Please translate us, miserable non-cebuano-speakers, who Elijah is for the Cebuano speakers?

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

But, John the Baptist was not Elias and not Elijah, so the name had another meaning, obviously. That is my point.

ludwigm · **Posted:** Thu May 10, 2012 12:54 am

gdemetz wrote:

But, John the Baptist was not Elias and not Elijah, so the name had another meaning, obviously. That is my point.

Do You can read?

What does this sentence mean in normal, everyday English language?
JST 9:3
- And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses or in other words, John the Baptist and Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

gdemetz wrote:

I only speak English, and a little Cebuano.

None of them, as You prove it again and again.

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

THAT'S RIGHT! SO, ELIAS IS A TITLE USED FOR JOHN THE BAPTIST! HIS NAME WAS JOHN! HE WAS CALLED AN ELIAS! ALSO, IF JOSEPH SMITH DID NOT KNOW THIS AS YOU CLAIM, THEN WHY DIDN'T HE SAY THAT JOHN THE BAPTIST CAME IN D&C 110, INSTEAD OF SAYING ELIAS CAME?!?

madeleine · **Joined:** Sat May 01, 2010 12:03 am **Posts:** 1890

gdemetz wrote:

The Mormon church would have a long way to go to catch up with all the evils done by your church, and there are so many sites which document clearly the horrors that were instigated from the highest offices in your church!

If your argument is a longer period of time equates to more sins of men, I think that would be stating the obvious.

There is a reason we need Jesus Christ. It has always been Catholic teaching that we return, wounded, to Christ. It is the Protestant argument that one has to go searching for Him in as many religions as men can conjure up, including the conjurings of Joseph Smith.

ludwigm · **Posted:** Thu May 10, 2012 12:13 pm

gdemetz wrote:

THAT'S RIGHT! SO, ELIAS IS A TITLE USED FOR JOHN THE BAPTIST! HIS NAME WAS JOHN! HE WAS CALLED AN ELIAS! ALSO, IF JOSEPH SMITH DID NOT KNOW THIS AS YOU CLAIM, THEN WHY DIDN'T HE SAY THAT JOHN THE BAPTIST CAME IN D&C 110, INSTEAD OF SAYING ELIAS CAME?!?

What?

gdemetz wrote:

ELIAS IS A TITLE USED FOR JOHN THE BAPTIST! HIS NAME WAS JOHN! HE WAS CALLED AN ELIAS!

No.
Elias may be a title in English. Elias may be anything in English.
(Apparently You have not enough brain cell to grasp it, but Elias can be even Elijah...)
In other languages no Elias, no John.

FYI

Quote:

Language may refer either to the specifically human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication, or to a specific instance of such a system of complex communication. The scientific study of language in any of its senses is called linguistics.

The approximately 3000–6000 languages that are spoken by humans today are the most salient examples, but natural languages can also be based on visual rather than auditory stimuli, for example in sign languages and written language. Codes and other kinds of artificially constructed communication systems such as those used for computer programming can also be called languages. A language in this sense is a system of signs for encoding and decoding information.

gdemetz wrote:

IF JOSEPH SMITH DID NOT KNOW THIS AS YOU CLAIM, THEN WHY DIDN'T HE SAY THAT JOHN THE BAPTIST CAME IN D&C 110, INSTEAD OF SAYING ELIAS CAME?!?

Because he didn't know who Elias is/was.
As You don't know. Your prophet is as stupid as You. Please get it as courtesy.

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

You're the stupid one! You claim you know all these languages, but you apparently can't seem top understand what I am stating in English!
You can't have it both ways! You were saying before that Joseph was mixed up between Elijah and Elias. However, I showed you where Joseph also referred to John the Baptist as Elias. You never answered my question! If you can understand this question, then try to answer it!

Question: If Joseph Smith didn't know that Elias was Elijah as you claim, and thought he was John the Baptist, then why didn't he state that it was John the Baptist who visited in D&C 110 since he referred to John the Baptist as Elias in his translation of Mark 9:3?!?

ludwigm · **Posted:** Thu May 10, 2012 11:11 pm

gdemetz wrote:

Question: If Joseph Smith didn't know that Elias was Elijah as you claim, and thought he was John the Baptist, then why didn't he state that it was John the Baptist who visited in D&C 110 since he referred to John the Baptist as Elias in his translation of Mark 9:3?!?

Answer:
Elias is one of the translation errors of the KJV. No more, no less.

Joseph Smith said and wrote a lot of cock about a lot of people called Elias.
These are
- not true, by default
- contradict with each other
- can not be understood, even by such brilliant thinkers as You (a nobody) and as Bruce R. McConkie* (a prophet, seer, a revelator, an oracle and superman)

Why did Joseph Smith (a prophet, seer, revelator, translator - see D&C 21:1, 107:92, 124:125) said false, contradictory and baffling things about some "eliases"? Because he know nothing about those eliases.
This is my answer. (See my signature abot preachers who were spouting gibberish... ) If You don't like my answer - I am certain You don't - then search another. I suggest You this official item, copy of the similar entry from BRM's spiritual child, the Mormon Doctrine, which is not doctrine, BTW.

_________________
*
This is off topic here, but can show that such omniscients as BRM - who knows everything better - are making arse out of their mouth, if necessary:

Bruce R. McConkie was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when this address was given at the CES Religious Educators Symposium on 18 August 1978. (http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=11017)

All Are Alike unto God
I would like to say something about the new revelation relative to the priesthood going to those of all nations and races.
...
Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge...

Got it?

gdemetz · **Joined:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:59 am **Posts:** 1681

Answer this one then why is it obvious to not only Mormons, but also other people such as the one I referenced, that Elias is a name/term that can refer to more than one person (perfect example - John the Baptist called Elias!), but you are apparently unable to comprehend this concept!!!!!!!

ludwigm · **Posted:** Fri May 11, 2012 12:09 am

gdemetz wrote:

Answer this one then why is it obvious to not only Mormons, but also other people such as the one I referenced, that Elias is a name/term that can refer to more than one person (perfect example - John the Baptist called Elias!), but you are apparently unable to comprehend this concept!!!!!!!

Please explain Your "perfect example" (whatever is it) to German speakers. In their language there is no Elias, no Elijah.
For them, there is a prophet called Elia. In German, the E_l_i_a_s character string is not a name, it is not a term, it is nothing. No such word. Nada. Zilch.

Please search Elias and/or John the Baptist in this bible words below:

Matthew 17
in German:
the Luther 1912 bible
wrote:

11. Jesus antwortete und sprach zu ihnen: Elia soll ja zuvor kommen und alles zurechtbringen.
12. Doch ich sage euch: Es ist Elia schon gekommen, und sie haben ihn nicht erkannt, sondern haben an ihm getan, was sie wollten. Also wird auch des Menschen Sohn leiden müssen von ihnen.
13. Da verstanden die Jünger, daß er von Johannes dem Täufer zu ihnen geredet hatte.

________________________________________________
English is a beautiful language. For You.

Quote:

(Scene opens in a courtroom: Usual set up with a judge, clerk of the court and defense counsel sitting in the well af the court. The defendant is in the witness box. Superimposed caption on screen : 'CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT')
Judge (Graham Chapman): Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have you reached a verdict?
Foreman (Michael Palin): We have m'lud.
Judge: And how do you find the defendant? (the foreman puts his hand out with two fingers extended) Two words. (the foreman nods and holds up one finger) First word. (the foreman mimes taking a piece of string and tying it in knot) Rope? String?
(The foreman shakes his head and points to the knot.)
Counsel (John Cleese): Point?
Clerk (Eric Idle): Belt?
Judge: Tie?
(The foreman nods and points to the knot.)
Counsel: Cravat? Silk square?
Clerk: Knot?
(The foreman nods enthusiasticly.)
All: Knot!
(The foreman gives a thumbs up and points to his second finger.)
Judge: Second word. (foreman indicates two syllables) Two syllables. (the foreman points to his first finger) First syllable. (the foreman starts to mime a fish while pointing at his throat) Bird?
Clerk: Swimmer?
Judge: Breast stroke.
Counsel: Brian Phelps.
Judge: No, no, no, he was a diver.
Clerk: Esther Williams then.
Judge: No, no, don't be silly. How can you find someone 'Not Esther Williams'.
Counsel: Fish. (the foreman nods and points at throat) Fish wheeze. Fish wheeze?
Judge: Fish breathe.
Counsel: Fish breathe, throat.
Judge: Fish breathe, throat? GILL! (the foreman gives a thumbs up and the court applauds excitedly) Not gill. (the foreman mimes the second syllable) Second syllable. Not gill.
(Foreman mimes drinking a cup of tea.)
Counsel: Drink.
Clerk: Sip? Imbibe?
(The foreman points to the mimed cup itself.)
Judge: Not gill... cup? Not gillcup! (the foreman looks disappointed) You have been found not gillcup of the charges brought against you and may leave this court a free man. Right. My turn. (the defendant leaves.)

And I leave, too.

madeleine · **Joined:** Sat May 01, 2010 12:03 am **Posts:** 1890

Mormons are using the Bible with a suspicious eye, rather than a believing heart...I think that is what it comes down to.

Corpsegrinder · **Joined:** Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:33 pm **Posts:** 613

madeleine wrote:

Mormons are using the Bible with a suspicious eye...

Would it be fair to say that Christians view all non-Biblical scripture with a "suspicious eye"?

madeleine · **Joined:** Sat May 01, 2010 12:03 am **Posts:** 1890

Corpsegrinder wrote:

madeleine wrote:

Mormons are using the Bible with a suspicious eye...

Would it be fair to say that Christians view all non-Biblical scripture with a "suspicious eye"?

There's no such thing as non-Biblical scripture.

Quasimodo · **Posted:** Fri May 11, 2012 2:55 pm

madeleine wrote:

There's no such thing as non-Biblical scripture.

Mahabharata, The Vedas, The Upanishads, Tao Te Ching, The Sutras?

madeleine · **Joined:** Sat May 01, 2010 12:03 am **Posts:** 1890

Quasimodo wrote:

madeleine wrote:

There's no such thing as non-Biblical scripture.

Mahabharata, The Vedas, The Upanishads, Tao Te Ching, The Sutras?

ha, lol, I thought of Christian scripture. Those aren't Christian scripture either.

MCB · **Posted:** Fri May 11, 2012 4:10 pm

Semantics. There is Scripture, and there is scripture.

Elias, or in other words - I've changed the title...

Who is online