Greetings again brotherofJared and Richard7,
I believe that Jesus was 100% human, but comparing your comments in the earlier Post I am surprised at what you mean by this:
The hierarchy of the Mormon Church is different to the Apostolic Ekklesia(s)
Never studied Ekklesia(s)
The concept of the Aaronic Priesthood, and also the Melchizedek Priesthood (which he also says was introduced later in the Mormon Church)
More than a concept or idea! It was introduced around 1835.... Priesthood is denoted as power and authority, even Adam our first earthly father had the Priesthood of God...
“Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man [see Daniel 7:9–14]. He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. … The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family. Jospeh Smith.
The appointment of teenagers as "Elders", while the NT example appears to be older members.
Its believed by many scholars that the original apostles were young, even some could have been of teenage years...
How old were the disciples of Jesus when they joined him?
Answered by Bible Q · 5 November 2011 · 0 Comments
The Bible does not say explicitly, but there are a few hints that at least some of them were relatively young — probably teenagers or in their early 20s.
In Jewish tradition, a young man began following a Rabbi between the ages of 12 and 30, and usually when he was less than 20. So that would make most of the apostles teenagers when Jesus called them to follow him.
Another relevant fact is that John lived until at least AD96 when Revelation was written, which is 66 years after Jesus died. That suggests that John was almost certainly a teenager when he joined Jesus.
Matthew 17:24-27 may provide further evidence. Here, Jesus and Peter pay the temple tax which was required to be paid by every man aged 20 years and older (
Exodus 30:13-14). The other disciples were there (see preceding verses), but do not seem to have paid the tax. Perhaps they were young enough to be exempt from paying it, and so were still teenagers.
We know that a few of them had established jobs including being a fisherman (Peter, Andrew, James and John) or tax-collector (Matthew). But as Jewish schooling normally finished at age 12, there would have been time for them to learn these trades and still join Jesus at a young age.
The citation, or copying of portions of the KJV into the Book of Mormon, including some KJV errors or poor renditions of the Hebrew (I now have a list of at least some of these Isaiah and Book of Mormon portions)
A closer look at these duplicate Isaiah texts actually provides us an additional witness of the Book of Mormon's authenticity
A closer look at these duplicate texts actually provides us an additional witness of the Book of Mormon's authenticity.
[15] One verse (
2 Nephi 12:16), is not only different but adds a completely new phrase: "And upon all the ships of the sea." This non-King James addition agrees with the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Bible, which was first translated into English in 1808 by Charles Thomson. It is also contained in the Coverdale 1535 translation of the Bible.
[16] Such a translation was "rare for its time."
[17]
John Tvedtnes has also shown that many of the Book of Mormon's translation variants of Isaiah have ancient support.
[18]
This throws a huge wrench into any critic's theories that Joseph Smith merely cribbed off of the King James Isaiah. Why would Joseph Smith crib the KJV including all of its translation errors but then go to the trouble of finding the one phrase, "upon all the ships of the sea", from the Greek Septuagint and 1535 Coverdale Bible and make sure that his translation of Isaiah had support from ancient renderings of Isaiah as well? It's obviously
possible that he did, but
highly unlikely.
Fair Mormon
The Book of Mormon is different today than the 1831 edition, having undergone many changes and corrections (If only we had the original autograph copies of the OT and NT Scriptures instead of manuscripts, and with some variations in these)
Kind regards
Trevor
How much have you researched this issue?
Critics of the Church have charged that the Book of Mormon is a fraud because thousands of changes have been made in it over the years, as if the Church were trying to cover up blunders in Joseph Smith's work. Certainly there have been many minor changes in the text of the Book of Mormon, as there have been in the text of the King James Version of the Bible (and other translations as well) over the years. These changes have been minor, usually trivial, primarily dealing with punctuation, correction of typographical errors, and modification of awkward grammar for clarity. I have examined the allegedly most "serious" changes pointed to by critics and have not seen anything representing a real change in doctrine or anything that would cast doubt on the origins of the Book of Mormon. I'll discuss major examples below.
In the early 1800s, spelling and grammar were not yet standardized. Joseph dictated the translation to scribes who spelled many words in ways that are nonstandard today. Hundreds of spelling variants had to be corrected in the first edition and in subsequent editions of the printed text. For example, "ware sorraful" in 1 Nephi 7:20 was changed to "were sorrowful." Likewise, we should not be outraged to find Nephi writing on "plates" today when Joseph's scribes had him writing on "plaits" in 1 Nephi 13:23. Hundreds of such changes have been necessary.
www.jefflindsay.com