God's Promise to Send Elijah before the Second Coming

[_gdemetz]

That's your view. Perhaps you have another prophet which you believe would be an instrument in the restitution of all things?

[_madeleine]

That's your view. Perhaps you have another prophet which you believe would be an instrument in the restitution of all things?

Jesus Christ is the restitution of all things. There is no other instrument.

[_gdemetz]

You need to read Peter's prophesy recorded in Acts 3 carefully. It states that the heavens would receive Christ until the times of the restitution of all things as spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began! So, obviously, this is referring to a great time of restitution in which many things would be restored. The scriptures also state that the Lord will do nothing except He first reveal it to His servants the prophets. The Lord Himself didn't just come down to earth are restore everything by Himself. He revealed the things which needed restoration in a step by step process to His servants the prophets in accordance with the scriptures!

[_madeleine]

You need to read Peter's prophesy recorded in Acts 3 carefully. It states that the heavens would receive Christ until the times of the restitution of all things as spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began! So, obviously, this is referring to a great time of restitution in which many things would be restored. The scriptures also state that the Lord will do nothing except He first reveal it to His servants the prophets. The Lord Himself didn't just come down to earth are restore everything by Himself. He revealed the things which needed restoration in a step by step process to His servants the prophets in accordance with the scriptures!

Peter references Deuteronomy 18:15 in verse 22, "A prophet like me will the LORD, your God, raise up for you from among your own kindred; that is the one to whom you shall listen." Which came to be understood in the Messianic sense in the New Testament.

When the people saw the sign he had done, they said, “This is truly the Prophet, the one who is to come into the world.” John 6:14

Then in verse 23 Peter references Leviticus 23:29 "Those who do not humble themselves on this day shall be cut off from the people." This verse is in the context of the holy days that Israel were directed to celebrate. The particular holy day is "The Day Of Atonement" (Yom Kippur) So again, another reference given to Jesus. He is our atonement, and no one else.

The prophets are fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

"In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe" Hebrews 1:1-2

Jesus is Prophet, High Priest and King.

[_gdemetz]

You're referring to the wrong verses. Also, you have stated nothing about what all those things are which will be restored. You must not be LDS.

[_Drifting]

You need to read Peter's prophesy recorded in Acts 3 carefully. It states that the heavens would receive Christ until the times of the restitution of all things as spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began! So, obviously, this is referring to a great time of restitution in which many things would be restored. The scriptures also state that the Lord will do nothing except He first reveal it to His servants the prophets. The Lord Himself didn't just come down to earth are restore everything by Himself. He revealed the things which needed restoration in a step by step process to His servants the prophets in accordance with the scriptures!

'Acts' is a second hand account from an unknown author (widely believed as being Luke) about what people may or may not have said, which does not consistently line up with other parts of the New Testament.

Like most biblical books, there are differences between the earliest surviving manuscripts of Acts. This is because there are three different families of Biblical texts, Byzantine, Western, or Alexandrian. Many believers in the Bible hold that only one of these families is trustworthy as transmitting the Word of God. Within a family, manuscripts may have very minor differences in grammatical marks, spelling, and tenses that do not affect the sense. Within the Byzantine text family, a clear genuine reading emerges throughout the New Testament by comparing different manuscripts. When one manuscript has a difference compared to 99% of the others, it is understood to be a copyist's mistake. The manuscripts from the Western text-type (as represented by the Codex Bezae) and the Alexandrian text-type (as represented by the Codex Sinaiticus) are the earliest survivors. The version of Acts preserved in the Western manuscripts contains about 10% more content than the Alexandrian version of Acts. Some scholars have struggled to determine if either of these two versions is closer to the original text composed by the original author. Others favor the Byzantine text as transmitting the true Word of God from its reception.
An early theory, suggested by Swiss theologian Jean LeClerc in the 17th century, posits that the longer Western version was a first draft, while the Alexandrian version represents a more polished revision by the same author. Adherents of this theory argue that even when the two versions diverge, they both have similarities in vocabulary and writing style—suggesting that the two shared a common author. However, it has been argued that if both texts were written by the same individual, they should have exactly identical theologies and they should agree on historical questions. Since some modern scholars do detect subtle theological and historical differences between the texts, such scholars do not subscribe to the rough-draft/polished-draft theory.
A second theory deals with the Byzantine text-type. This family includes extant manuscripts dating from the 5th century or later; however, papyrus fragments may be used to show that this text-type dates as early as the Alexandrian or Western text-types.[28] Many believe this group of texts comes from the original Book of Acts by looking at the Byzantine text for the whole of the New Testament. They argue that the oldest copies of this text family are likely to have been lost or destroyed over time with use, and therefore extant manuscripts cannot accurately date a text family. The great majority of Biblical manuscripts support the Byzantine family, from which a single reading for the New Testament is established. The Byzantine text-type was used for the 16th century Textus Receptus, the first Greek-language version of the New Testament to be printed by the printing press. The Textus Receptus, in turn, was used for the New Testament found in the English-language King James Bible. Today, the Byzantine text-type is the subject of renewed interest as the original form of the text from which the Western and Alexandrian text-types were derived.[29]
A third theory assumes common authorship of the Western and Alexandrian texts, but claims the Alexandrian text is the short first draft, and the Western text is a longer polished draft.
A fourth theory is that the longer Western text came first, but that later, some other redact or abbreviated some of the material, resulting in the shorter Alexandrian text.
In modern times, there is another theory that some have come to believe. According to this new theory, the shorter Alexandrian text is closer to the original, and the longer Western text is the result of later insertion of additional material into the text.[30] In 1893, Sir W. M. Ramsay in The Church in the Roman Empire held that the Codex Bezae (the Western text) rested on a recension made in Asia Minor (somewhere between Ephesus and southern Galatia), not later than about the middle of the 2nd century. Some believe the revision in question was the work of a single reviser, who in his changes and additions expressed the local interpretation put upon Acts in his own time. His aim, in suiting the text to the views of his day, was partly to make it more intelligible to the public, and partly to make it more complete. To this end he "added some touches where surviving tradition seemed to contain trustworthy additional particulars," such as the statement that Paul taught in the lecture-room of Tyrannus "from the fifth to the tenth hour" (added to Acts 19:9). In his later work, St Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (1895), Ramsay's views gain both in precision and in breadth. The gain lies chiefly in seeing beyond the Bezan text to the "Western" text as a whole.

Not what I would call 'reliable'...

[_Buffalo]

[

KJV 1 Edras 8:2 The son of Sadduc, the son of Achitob, the son of Amarias, the son of Ezias, the son of Meremoth, the son of Zaraias, the son of Savias, the son of Boccas, the son of Abisum, the son of Phinees, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest.

Okay, you're right. That's got to be the source. I was wrong.

[_madeleine]

'Acts' is a second hand account from an unknown author (widely believed as being Luke) about what people may or may not have said, which does not consistently line up with other parts of the New Testament.

Not what I would call 'reliable'...

If they differ in teaching, particulary Christian doctrines, then I would agree. But they don't.

Also, I am not sola scriptura. "The faith handed on" was handed on by the Apostles, by what they taught, and what they did, and in the Church that Jesus Christ established. There is not a New Testament writing separate from the Church from where the writings originate. Just to be clear, by "Church" I mean all the baptized. Conveyed in New Testament writings, for example, John's Apocrypha as "the seven churches".

The various sources your source mentions, are not separate from this Church. Our Byzantium and Oriental brothers teach the same, regarding Who Jesus Christ is. The fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Minor difference in text has never been an issue within the Church, as we are all well aware of their origins and use.

As an example of how my current Bible was translated into American English. Several texts were compared in the translation process. Where the texts differ is noted.


Hope that helps.

[_gdemetz]

Peter prophesied that the heavens would receive Jesus Christ, not until the second coming, but until the times of the restitution of all things, and that is exactly what happened! He came back with Heavenly Father to begin this great time of restitution! Remember, Joseph Smith was not the only one to witness of these things! He had a witness when he saw Elias. He had three witnesses when the Book of Mormon was restored by an angel. He had eight more witnesses to the gold plates. He had witnesses when the priesthood as well as other things, including the church, were restored. These witnesses were not hoodlums. They were well respected people. And, I am confident due to the spiritual blindness which I have witnessed here, that you will deny the prophecy, or deny it's fulfillment, and claim a conspiracy theory, but I don't buy that at all!!!

[_just me]

Remember, Joseph Smith was not the only one to witness of these things! He had a witness when he saw Elias.

What is the earliest time we find an account of this?

If I recall correctly, this was never discussed until it was added to the D&C under the direction of Brigham Young in the 1870s..ish.

Are you aware of it being known among the saints or ever spoken of by Joseph Smith during his life?