NOM

My current three issues, this may change in time, are as follows:

1. Why didn't Joseph Smith incorporate the gospel of Thomas into his revised Bible?

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html

2. The real Hebrew name of the Messiah is Yeshua. Jesus is a Latin version of it and not His original name. So, why didn't Joseph Smith name the church "The Church Of Yeashua? Anyone around the world could say Yeshua. Yet, Jesus sounds different in so many languages. In italian, in Portuguese, in Spanish, in French, Russian, Japanese, Korean, etc. If everyone just used His real name, Yeshua, it would be universal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua

3. Despite the supposed greatness of the only "True" church on earth, we haven't had much in terms of real revelations since the late 1800's and early 1900's, nothing more than church operational procedures and changes to policies (through declarations, manifestos) that seemingly tried to avoid trouble with the U.S. Government. In other words, the church seems to do a lot to avoid the persecutions the Messiah warned Christians about.

Any thoughts on one or all of these three issues?

These are good issues. From my point of view, this is the one general answer: Joseph made it all up based on the Christianity he knew about and a couple of specific ideas he added on to fix problems as they arose.

Not including the Gospel of Thomas is only one aspect of the fact that his "inspired translation of the Bible" just looks like "Joseph riffing on scripture". Joseph's translations simply make no sense in light of any actual scholarship. I'm glad Joseph didn't have access to some really weird stuff like the Infancy Gospels, or the Gospel of Thecla.

Do you think that a theology where the name "Yeshua" is used would be more "true"? I'm skeptical that God is actually interested in anyone coming with a correct name.

The lack of revelation is pretty stark. Modern LDS leaders speak of revelation pretty generically, but no effort is made to increase the LDS canon. Asking about this is treated as an impertinent question to leaders. Apologists have their excuses by redefining revelation and inspiration. The obvious problem is that any church can claim revelation and we have the glaring example of the Community of Christ that actually does add new revelations to the Doctrine and Covenants.

The books which became part of New Testament were written in Greek. The Greek name Iesus was used instead of the full Aramaic name Yesuah-ben-Yosef. Iesus later became Latinized as Jesus.

Some top 40 artists like J.S. Bach used Jesu as the poetic form of Jesus.

For number 1, here is some additional info. If Adam Clarke would have included it in his commentary, it might have made it in.

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

moksha wrote: ↑Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:02 pm The books which became part of New Testament were written in Greek. The Greek name Iesus was used instead of the full Aramaic name Yesuah-ben-Yosef. Iesus later became Latinized as Jesus.

Some top 40 artists like J.S. Bach used Jesu as the poetic form of Jesus.

Jesu is the genetive declension in German and I believe Latin also. Fully in German LDS name is Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage Which is just full of genetive grammar.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_case

So Pie Jesu is in the genetive case also.

dogbite wrote: ↑Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:25 am Jesu is the genetive declension in German and I believe Latin also.

Thank goodness we do not have to deal with the accusative case ending: Jesum Christum. It sounds sort of nasty.