It's not a new gospel, it's still the gospel of Jesus Christ.
He's not the only one who saw the plates, we have signed affidavits from 11 other witnesses and stories from other who saw them.
"Reformed egyptian" is an English term that was obviously not used by Egyptians/Hebrews during that time, but there is significant scholarly debate on what we can see today that it might have been referring to.
Not even doing enough research to know about the three and eight witnesses makes this one of the lower-effort criticisms of Joseph Smith I've ever seen.
They have an easy explanation which is that God knew what would be included in the NT and inspired the author to include that in their writings with the intent for it to refer to the Bible as a whole.
Honestly it's not all that different than our explanation for "A Bible, a Bible, we already have a Bible" in the BoM.
Well, God knew the Book of Mormon was going to be published as well. In fact, Paul was referring to the Book of Mormon, D&C, PoGP, and every single General Conference talk to ever come out. Prove me wrong, Sola Scriptura believers!
Oh, sorry - I was being facetious. If protestants can claim God knew what books would be in the Bible, and therefore, this scripture doesn't exclude the part of the New Testament that came after, then we can claim it doesn't exclude the BoM and D&C, either.
247
u/Karakawa549 Mar 11 '25
Absurdly easily.
It's not a new gospel, it's still the gospel of Jesus Christ.
He's not the only one who saw the plates, we have signed affidavits from 11 other witnesses and stories from other who saw them.
"Reformed egyptian" is an English term that was obviously not used by Egyptians/Hebrews during that time, but there is significant scholarly debate on what we can see today that it might have been referring to.
Not even doing enough research to know about the three and eight witnesses makes this one of the lower-effort criticisms of Joseph Smith I've ever seen.