Skip to comments.The Book of Abraham Papyri and Joseph Smith
Posted on 07/31/2014 9:01:53 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
The Book of Abraham Papyri and Joseph Smith
by Matt Slick
There are many proofs that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, but Mormons typically will not accept them. From the biblical evidence that contradicts Mormon theology to the contradictions within its own history and doctrine, proofs abound. But Mormons, completely dedicated to their religion and their testimony, cannot and will not see the evidence. They rely not on biblical evidence--not on historical evidence but rather trust a 'testimony' that Mormonism is the restored church and Joseph Smith its true prophet.
One of the tests of whether or not a belief is grounded in reality is whether or not it can be proven to be true or false. If someone says, "I don't care what evidence you show me, I will always believe," then that person's faith is not rooted in reality. And since Christianity is a religion of history, crucifixion, resurrection, an empty tomb, etc., it is a religion rooted in reality. If it could be proven beyond doubt that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is a false religion. Likewise, if it could be proven that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, then Mormonism is a false religion. It just so happens that there is such a proof.
The Book of Abraham
Joseph Smith claimed that an angel appeared to him and revealed the location of some golden plates on which was written the account of the ancient people of the Americas. Joseph Smith later translated those plates into what is now known as the Book of Mormon. This translation was done by the power of God through special means. Joseph Smith, being the Lord's chosen instrument, became the prophet of the Mormon church and held the office of Seer. A Seer, according to the Book of Mormon in Mosiah 8:13, can translate records that are untranslatable. Hence, Joseph Smith was able to translate the golden plates into the Book of Mormon. But his Seer abilities did not stop there.
In July of 1835, an Irishman named Michael Chandler brought an exhibit of four Egyptian mummies and papyri to Kirtland, Ohio--then the home of the Mormons. The papyri contained Egyptian hieroglyphics. In 1835 hieroglyphics were unreadable.
Thanks for the link! That movie is highly recommended.
As it would turn out I do know something about Egyptology. That “Book of Abraham” is not what Joe Smith says it is. I’m not Dr. Bob Brier http://drbobbrier.com/ and I can tell you this.
From the REAL papyrus of Abraham ...Verses 1-5
(I/1) [Osiris, the gods father], prophet of Amon-Re, King of the Gods, prophet of Min who slaughters his enemies, prophet of Khonsu, the [one who exercises] authority in Thebes,
(I/2) [. . .] . . . Hor, the justified, son of the similarly titled overseer of secrets and purifier of the god, Osorwer, the justified, born by the [housewife and sistrum-player of ]
(I/3) [Amon]-Re, Taikhibit, the justified! May your ba-spirit live among them, and may you be buried on the west [of Thebes].
(I/4) [O Anubis(?),51 . . .] justification(?).
(I/5) [May you give to him] a good and splendid burial on the west of Thebes as on the mountains of Ma[nu](?).
[Osiris shall be towed in]to the great lake of Khonsu,
and likewise [the Osiris Hor, the justified,] born of Taikhibit, the justified,
after his two arms have been [placed] at his heart, while
the Breathing Document, being what
is written on its interior and exterior, shall be wrapped in royal linen and placed (under) his left arm in the midst of his heart. The remainder of his
wrapping shall be made over it. As for the one for whom this book is made,
he thus breathes like the ba-spirit[s] of the gods, forever and ever.
I take it this is not an LDS caucus thread.
Thanks. I will check it out.
Not even close! lol
Oh please, what about requiring proof He rise from the dead in the first place? The Bible is one of the most contested, edited, politically fought-over books in human history - as are claims of Jesus's teachings and even existence.
Ultimately religion is based on faith and spiritual experience, not "proof," which is always ever anything but. Denying that reality about Christianity while requiring "proof" from Mormonism or any other faith is sheer hypocrisy. And really, why do it at all? If someone's faith brings them peace and closeness to God, as long as it doesn't involve killing or persecuting those who disagree with them, leave them alone. Isn't life hard enough without having to damn everyone who doesn't think the same? I get so sick of this crap.
And this is a perfect example, because the very Protestants who believe Mormons aren't Christians also believe Catholics aren't Christians either - and Catholics believe the same thing about Protestants and Mormons. So in that case, why worry about Mormons not being real Christians of you also feel the same way about the entire other half of the acknowledged Christian world?
Correction: The Bible is one of the most fought-over books in human history, and the subject of much misinformation. Actually, we have more than 5000 manuscripts in the Greek language for the NT, with a 99.5 similarity, and that's not including the many ancient translations we have in Latin, Syriac, and other languages.
Ignorant atheists often like to believe that the scripture is the subject of much "editing" and trouble, but it is not so when you examine the actual evidence.
As for "proof" in the first place, all of the Apostles died for their belief, as did many others. Ignatius, a disciple of the Apostle John, was eaten by lions. Polycarp, a contemporary and another disciple of John, was also martyred horribly, and yet did not recant. Certainly the testimony of witnesses is a great proof indeed.
Ultimately religion is based on faith and spiritual experience, not "proof,"
This is true to a certain extent, but if there is evidence that utterly says the contrary, then that settles things. Ultimately, faith must have reason too, otherwise you get Mormonism.
And really, why do it at all?
You do not sound like a Christian, so it is probably impossible for you to understand the desire of Christians for the lost to be found.
Isn't life hard enough without having to damn everyone who doesn't think the same? I get so sick of this crap.
Then don't read the thread or these posts.
And this is a perfect example, because the very Protestants who believe Mormons aren't Christians also believe Catholics aren't Christians either
Probably would be wise for you not to put words into peoples mouths.
Bah to you too.
You’re not the first skeptic to pursue this line of reasoning without investigation. Leo Strobel, a Jew, and a liberal journalist from San Francisco, set out to prove just how silly this Christianity stuff is. He used his investigative training to explore the facts. You should read his book, The Case for Christ. See where it takes you.
You do not know much about either the Bible or the Nazarene. You apparently haven’t bothered to read any of the numerous books out there that have been written about the evidence available to prove the resurrection
since we’re all watching cartoons..
You deny my faith in Christ and then tell me not to put words in others mouths in order to avoid my point?
I wish I could say I found your kind of Christianity rare, but I can't. As for me, I consider Christ as the only way to reach God, and Jesus as a genuine full incarnation of Christ.
So obviously, I'm not a Christian, because first of all that's not nearly enough to qualify, and second of all, I haven't received your certification on the relationship between my heart, mind and soul and the living, eternal God.
But look at the bright side - without your certification I am sure to burn in hell for all eternity in screaming torment, so you've got that going for you. After all, can any less be expected for those who differ from your beliefs in even the slightest bit? I think not.
LOL, so I'm a liberal Jew? Or am I a sceptic? See my post #16 for my declaration of faith. You'll no doubt find it inadequate, and I'll find your judgment amusing. So it's win-win.
That's not all I don't know about - I'll bet you anything I know less about more things than you do. About Jesus, I pretty much summed myself up in post #16 above. Try not to laugh when you read it, as it is so lacking in learning.
You are a believer and yet deny the authenticity and reliability of the Holy Scripture, amongst other things? That doesn't make any sense.
As for me, I consider Christ as the only way to reach God, and Jesus as a genuine full incarnation of Christ.
Christ only means "anointed." Christ is entirely God, not an "incarnation" of a New-Agey Christ, as that sounds like what you are saying. There is no such thing as a "full incarnation of anointed." This concept does not exist in the scripture.
After all, can any less be expected for those who differ from your beliefs in even the slightest bit?
Everybody always says that. Mormons say it and yet they are polytheists who believe they will become gods of their own planet, deny the existence of hell, and instead replace it with an "outer darkness" which may only be temporary, and 2 lower heavens where most everyone goes to regardless of what they believed, and this, despite what the scripture teaches:
Joh_3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
'Very little" from the Christian viewpoint would be, for example, the difference between the infant baptism of the Presbyterians and the baptism of the Baptists, which neither believe saves or damns anyone, as it is a question of mere practice and has strong arguments on both sides.
"Very little" from the New-Agey or cultist viewpoint is usually like the difference between planet Earth and the Mormon planet Kolob where "god," who is a man of flesh and blood who was once a good Mormon on another planet, lives and reigns.
It's easy to say it's very little when you're living in a strange and irrational world, but not for those of us who are normal.
Well, as cults go, it’s a pretty functional and loving one, not like those, such as Islam which kill people and such. Just thinking
I told you I would fail your criteria. I didn't think it would be two-tiered, though. That's pretty slick, defining your particular beliefs as "normal." That way you get to include psychological deviancy into your evaluation of religious purity.
And your dismissal of Christ as the Savior, by devaluing the meaning of anointed into a splash of oil - breathtaking.
Wow, and to think I actually believed in the mercy and love and forgiveness of Christ, and thought I was living a spiritual life by studying Jesus's teachings, when all I was doing was becoming abnormal. Let's see, what to do, continue to pray to Jesus for guidance, or throw away a lifetime of spiritual experience, in favor of the details of your personal approval and judgment of normalcy? I mean, shall I keep going down the dark and sinful path to hell by following my prayers to a Christ that you've clearly proven doesn't even exist?
My God, to think I've been praying to a smear of oil all these years, it's downright embarrassing. And all those experiences of mercy and love and guidance were just... fantasies!
The ex-Mormons who have been victims of shunning and other forms of abuse wouldn’t think so. And no dead Mormon would either, on account of all the fire .
I was merely rejecting your phrase "the full incarnation of Christ." There is no such thing. Christ is not the incarnation of Christ. It's just silly. He is "Immanuel," God with us. Please do not distort what I say.
Wow, and to think I actually believed in the mercy and love and forgiveness of Christ, and thought I was living a spiritual life by studying Jesus's teachings,
This is an interesting use of language and I can kind of guess what kind of doctrines you hold, and they are entirely heterodox. Do you deny the deity of Christ?
When I talk of "normal" people, I mean rational people. A rational person does not condemn Christianity for being, essentially, based on a "edited" and unreliable text, with no proof, and then, apparently, reveal they have a new-agey or some other strange view they describe as "Christian" (by what standard?) that (from their own perspective should be) is equally without proof.
It is a contradiction, and if there are contradictions in the belief system you hold, it is simply invalid.
You do not fail my criteria. You fail your own, and you fail the scriptures'.
I don't mind that you disagree with my faith. But your refusal to even own your own judgments makes uyou a moral coward. Criteria do not float in the ether - they are created and defended by someone, are subject to examination, and applied within limits. What you are calling correct Christianity, and supposedly practicing, is nothing other than the need to somehow damn my soul, to crawl into my head with your twisted words and invalidate my relationship with Christ by making your own imagined presumptions about me. That's not religion - that's hate. and it's irrational hate under the guise of logic and proof, pursued by fear and insecurity and the desire to do serious damage. Where most people want to win and argument, you want to judge my very soul.
I don't know how to break this to you, but you need help, and I suggest you get it before you influence someone who believe your pronouncements and you do real harm. I don't think your a poor Christian - I think you are mentally and emotionally ill. Christ is not a weapon to hurt people with, but by pursuing that aim, especially while claiming love, you have seriously damaged yourself. Again, get help - you are no teacher, and you do not represent the Good News.
Joseph Smith made up this whole religion because he did not want to honor the vow of marital fidelity that he made to his wife. He could find nowhere in then Christian America that would accept his philandering so he just made up a story and created his own religion. And, naturally, he found some other guys in the community who liked the idea for the same reason. If he were alive today, he would just convert to Islam so that he could have multiple wives.
It is called 2,000 years of Christianity. If you feel it damns your soul, you should act on that and repent.
Christ is not a weapon to hurt people with, but by pursuing that aim, especially while claiming love, you have seriously damaged yourself.
Christ also is not a cushion for the vanity of someone who apparently denies His deity, but covers it up under accusations of "hate" and whatnot.
Your problem is not with me, but with the God of the Bible.
Your misrepresentation of my words and beliefs with your judgments is offensive, and your hypocrisy and arrogance are ugly and reflect no humility. I find nothing of Christ in what you say. Rather the opposite. It’s no wonder you use the Bible as a hammer.
But I will give you this - your choice of FReep name perfectly represents your true personality.
Be specific. What are my "misrepresentations"?
***Well, as cults go, its a pretty functional and loving one, not like those, such as Islam which kill people and such.***
They didn’t used to be that way.
MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE
Did you know that the Mormons also attacked two other wagon trains? The Shepherd Train and the Miltmore train, both which had people killed by the mormon attackers.
You mean besides your claiming that you don't know what your misrepresentations are? Nothing.
Enough of this nonsense, I'm out of here.
Yes I know that, however, Christianity has it’s bloody history too. We stopped, so did the Mormons, the Muzzies have not. Perhaps we should realize alies when we see them. Salvation wise, they’re possibly doomed but they are great people and most are so misled they have no idea what their religion teaches.
It seems I am entirely on target. But if you won't get specific, maybe I will:
1) Do you believe that Jesus is God?
2) Do you believe there are many different "incarnations of the Christ"?
3) If not, what, exactly, IS your theology? What church are you a member of? What is your position on the essential doctrines of Christianity such as: The Trinity, soteriology, etc?
Enough of this nonsense, I'm out of here.
You wrote much, but said nothing. It was like you were never here to begin with.
So damning my soul isn’t enough, now I need to never have existed, unless I answer your religious inquisitory by first accepting your premise that I haven’t already said anything.
Are you a Jesuit?
It doesn’t surprise me that you can’t see me. To the contrary, why should you be able to?
You accused me of misrepresenting you from my inferences based on what you yourself wrote. If you won't disprove my conclusions, then you can't accuse me of misrepresenting you.
Furthermore, you can't accuse me of arbitrarily "damning" your soul (I have no power for that anyway), since issues such as the Trinity are universal to all Christians, and those who reject such sound teachings have been condemned by Christianity for hundreds of years. If you call me all sorts of names because of this, then, by extension, you do this to all of Christianity, since I am only reporting the perspective of orthodox Christianity, and not doing anything novel.
now I need to never have existed
I never said that you don't exist period. I said that you wrote posts, but said nothing. IOW, your posts are meaningless and serve no purpose.
nless I answer your religious inquisitory
I am a Spaniard, so maybe it's in the blood.
Are you a Jesuit?
The Jesuits are liberal and wouldn't care what you believed. It's like you're literally wrong about everything.
The folks that have the chutzpah to criticize others' religious beliefs - other than folks who believe God gave them a right to kill others - make me ill.
They can't prove a damn thing, they have weird beliefs themselves, but never see the "pot calling the kettle black" argument.
It's sad, yet maddening at the same time. The Bible contains some excellent moral principles. It doesn't include crapping on your neighbor's most dearly held beliefs. I think their "backbiting" and snarky attitudes suck.
Your words are like those described by Lewis in The Screwtape Letters. Jesus is either fully God or He is not. The ‘Christ’ that you refer to is a title, a descriptor. It is not meaningful when speaking of being a ‘Christian’. The followers of the Nazarene believed ( as mainstream Christians do today) that He was incarnate, He was fully God and fully human while on earth. That He was crucified, suffered and was buried. On the third day he rose again
Perhaps you ought to at least read the Nicene creed to see what orthodoxy is.
I don’t laugh at people’s ignorance. I feel sorry for them
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
What exactly can't we prove? Is it particular doctrines like the Trinity, or is your attack more general? If your attack is against Christianity itself that "can't be proved", then all you're saying is that you, who do not value Christianity, cannot understand why Christians value Christ and His church. You don't really offer anything to whether or not Mormonism is really wrong or not. I can certainly disprove its doctrines, and this thread proves Joseph Smith is a false prophet.
For us it is quite serious, souls are at stake, although, naturally, you guys can find no reason why we might want to "criticize others religious beliefs," since your souls are among the totally lost.
What makes you think I haven’t read the Nicene creed?
Let alone “at least”?
Of what concern is orthodoxy? By definition, orthodoxy cares only of orthodoxy. It doesn’t matter what I believe to orthodoxy - what matters to orthodoxy is that I do not accept orthodoxy. Because the purpose of orthodoxy is not belief - it’s too find out who is, and who isn’t, orthodox.
Of course, all people do because of that is declare their beliefs orthodox, and others not. And then arguments start concerning the definition of orthodoxy.
I said earlier that I believe that the Christ is that aspect of God which reaches down to us in Grace, and brings us back to God in Divine Mercy. I also said I believe that Jesus was the incarnation of this aspect of God in human form. That works for me, and I share it out of kindness and community. I don’t demand that anyone agree with it, or follow it. Not do I believe my understanding is perfect, or the only path, or that others are going to hell for not agreeing with me.
So for you to feel sorry for me over my belief, literally my belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, as representing spiritual ignorance is a bit astounding to me, as I really do not see much fault in it. After all, what part of the incarnation of God needed for salvation itself is such incredible fault that it will land me in eternal hell? Such an interpretation is something I see as ignorance, and sad. And if it is not a hellbound fault, how is it ignorance? And besides, what authority do you have to judge the relationship of another soul with God - or even to question it? The lack of humility in such behavior is nearly absolute.
Jesus said that the most important commandment, upon which all law and all the prophets hang, is to love God with all ones heart, and to love ones neighbor as oneself. Therefore, because of the premiere importance He put on it, that is what I believe to be the root of Christianity, what literally makes a Christian. Because Jesus also said to pray to the Father, and not to Him. And therefore I believe theories about His exact nature are secondary to following His teachings. Not to mention the question of how, exactly, is the human mind supposed to fully comprehend the nature of Jesus Christ? So these arguments, to me, are childish.
If the Nicene creed is the key to salvation, then I am not alone - all Protestants will go to hell with me. And if grace alone is the key, then I will not be alone in hell either, because all the Catholics will be with me for their belief in grave plus works. So judge away if it pleases you, but I personally don’t see what that sort of judgment has to do with being a Christian.
These beliefs bring me joy and peace and faith and the love of God, and teach me daily to love my neighbor as myself. If that represents spiritual ignorance to you, then I am sad for your inability to see the grace it represents in my life.
He also said (and very clearly) I am the light and the Truth and the Way.
You get pretty worked up over stuff you claim not to care about.
All I did was suggest that your use of words is well described in The Screwtape Letters. I also stated what Christians believe as described in the Nicene creed. I could have as easily used the Apostles’ creed. What one believes is important. One cannot claim to be a Christian without believing certain things.
“all Protestants will go to hell”....What silliness. Protestants actually use the Nicene creed. You post things claiming to have understanding of oh so much...and yet your ignorance merely shines through.
I posted my love for God and Jesus Christ. Indeed, it is extremely ignorant. I don't go a day without marveling that for all my efforts, I can truly understand so little of what appears to be easy teachings. That's why I am constantly grateful for the grace I recieve that allows me to proceed at all.
It's also why I would never compare my knowledge to yours. In fact, it must give you great satisfaction that I will burn in hell for my errors, because truly, I deserve nothing less for believing things so far away from your approval. What a sad state this world is, where you actually walk among us, making your judgments available to the pathetic beliefs of the confusion of the people, offering to save them from eternal damnation if only they would subject their relationship with God to your scrutiny.
And yet what do they do? In pride and arrogance they refuse your gift! You must weep with the knowledge that so many souls are lost for all eternity for indulging in their love for God and Jesus Christ in such haphazard ways, when you could have shown them the proper, approved ways to love God and Jesus Christ, and thereby saved then from having to endure eternal hell for their monstrous arrogance.
But why should a question of truth be considered childish? Unless one is an enemy of truth (which appears to be the case with you), then there is no reason to shy away from seeking the truth, however inconvenient it is.
Christ certainly would never agree with your interpretation of "love and humility," and even says that He didn't come to bring peace, but, rather "a sword," dividing whole families as to the question of whether He is the Christ or not, the ultimate truth claim. In fact, Christ openly declares that belief in Him is an absolute necessity, and whoever does not believe is condemned already, and destined to hell. Would that fit your conception of love and humility? Your love is actually hate, because you damn people to hell by discouraging them to believe in anything concrete.
I said earlier that I believe that the Christ is that aspect of God which reaches down to us in Grace, and brings us back to God in Divine Mercy. I also said I believe that Jesus was the incarnation of this aspect of God in human form.
God is truly God, and is not a mere aspect of Him:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).
Furthermore, Paul condemns those who reject the clear teachings of the Apostles:
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
This immediately refutes two things: that it is okay to disbelieve that Jesus is God, as well as your claim that it is wrong to judge beliefs. Paul was quite interested in whether you believed the Gospel or not, and what the Gospel means.
Your feigned humility is so obviously sarcastic that I have no more words
As I said previously, some of the words posted here are clearly explained by Lewis in The Screwtape Letters. Words and definitions matter as you rightly point out
You reject my love for Jesus Christ as inadequate.
I got that.
Now why don’t you go take a pill?
You do not love Jesus Christ. You love an idol you have created, which just happens to share the same name, but is a mere "aspect" and, ultimately, a worthless fantasy you cannot even defend, and shouldn't anyway.