You've got to be joking. You're not taking any of this that serious are you. This is 2021, mythology is interesting but in the end it's still just myths
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I read this post on another forum and am interested in feedback based on the Christian Bible
- Thread starter K9Buck
- Start date
SweetSue92
Diamond Member
And you think I care ? The whole of Christianity was wrought out of the Hebrew tribal religion. This mythology has no real basis in fact.
Didn't you just wish everyone a Happy Solstice? And you think some mumbo jumbo about having been at the crucifixion in a past life or some such, yes? So really....on the mythology
SweetSue92
Diamond Member
Probably not.. Abraham was a desert chieftain .. He probably didn't read or write.
LDS is rather ridiculous.
Most Mormons are very decent people. However, The Book of Abraham is and was a complete and total fraud. Joseph Smith was said to have "translated" it from hieroglyphics and claimed it was a book about Abraham. When it was actually translated, it was a common Egyptian funeral or "breathing" document. There weren't small inconsistencies and such. The entire thing was and is a blatant fabrication.
But then
Joseph Smith made up Mormonism by peering at a rock in a hat.
Lol, more wrong from you.
>>The unnamed savior was to be an anointed warrior king who would vanquTLol, more wrong from you.
>>The unnamed savior was to be an anointed warrior king who would vanquish the enemies of the Jews.. Jesus was none of that.<<
What evidence do you have lmao? You are too weak asf.
Read the Old testaament.
The solstice is a natural event working religion is a natural religion.Didn't you just wish everyone a Happy Solstice? And you think some mumbo jumbo about having been at the crucifixion in a past life or some such, yes? So really....on the mythology
Typo in above: Wiccan religion is a natural religion.The solstice is a natural event working religion is a natural religion.
Yes, Jesus was a real man and I was Simon in a past visit here. I had nothing to do with making Jesus god.Didn't you just wish everyone a Happy Solstice? And you think some mumbo jumbo about having been at the crucifixion in a past life or some such, yes? So really....on the mythology
That of course is the story from the opponents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To read a more fair look at the Book of Abraham, check out this link: Book of Abraham. See also Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham.Most Mormons are very decent people. However, The Book of Abraham is and was a complete and total fraud. Joseph Smith was said to have "translated" it from hieroglyphics and claimed it was a book about Abraham. When it was actually translated, it was a common Egyptian funeral or "breathing" document. There weren't small inconsistencies and such. The entire thing was and is a blatant fabrication.
But then
Joseph Smith made up Mormonism by peering at a rock in a hat.
Last edited:
SweetSue92
Diamond Member
That of course is the story from the opponents to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To read a more fair look at the Book of Abraham, check out this link: Book of Abraham
"Translated by inspiration"--right. I am not an opponent of the LDS church. I am simply on the side of truth.
I am not accusing you of being an opponent, but simply repeating the arguments that have been in the arsenal of the opponents of the church for a long time."Translated by inspiration"--right. I am not an opponent of the LDS church. I am simply on the side of truth.
SweetSue92
Diamond Member
I am not accusing you of being an opponent, but simply repeating the arguments that have been in the arsenal of the opponents of the church for a long time.
You can cast them as "opponents of the church" but they are correct. The Book of Abraham is a complete fraud.
An excerpt from the link Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham:
Faulty Assumptions and the Source of the Book of Abraham
One of the most pressing questions concerning the Book of Abraham has to do with its very origin. What was the source of Joseph’s translation? This question became more important when the Metropolitan Museum of New York revealed that it had obtained some of the papyri Joseph Smith had owned, including Facsimile 1. They gave these papyri—known as the Joseph Smith Papyri—to the Church, and fervor over the Book of Abraham ensued. The texts on these papyrus fragments were translated as versions of common Egyptian funerary texts. The text adjacent to Facsimile 1 was a copy of the Book of Breathings, a composition which was designed to help the deceased reach his desired goals in the afterlife.
Once the existence of the papyri had been made public, the immediate assumption was that text adjacent to Facsimile 1 must have been the text from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham. The idea that the text adjacent to Facsimile 1 was the source of the Book of Abraham was a tantalizing supposition. Because we now have the ability to translate such texts, this idea appealed to Mormon and non-Mormon alike; the former group anxious to have some palpable proof of the prophet’s inspiration and the latter wanting evidence against his revelatory ability. Although many in both groups are still unaware of it, their hopes were based on an assumption, and a problematic assumption at that. While at first glance it seems reasonable to assume that the text adjoining Facsimile 1 would be the place to look for the source of the Book of Abraham, there are many reasons to discard this assumption. The six most salient follow:
1. Even with modern publication software and technology, we often are not able to place an illustration right next to the text with which it is associated. Hence when textbooks say “see figure 3.2,” that figure is often on a different page. Even with the sophisticated electronic layout abilities we have developed, when I ask my students how many of them have textbooks in which this is the case, almost every hand goes up. This dissonance between text and picture is even more pronounced with ancient papyri; it is common to find the picture (on Egyptian papyri we call them vignettes) some distance from the text. [19] Such incongruity was especially endemic to the Ptolemaic era, the time period during which the Joseph Smith Papyri were created, [20] and to the type of text we find next to Facsimile 1. [21] In this case, the Joseph Smith Papyri turns out to be exactly like most papyri of its day.
2. Furthermore, during the time period in which the Joseph Smith Papyri were created, it was common not only for the text and its accompanying picture to be separated from each other, but also for the wrong vignette to be associated with a text, or for vignettes and texts to be completely misaligned on a long scroll. [22] The content of a vignette and the content of the text frequently lack any apparent connection. [23] This is particularly common in Books of Breathing, the type of text which is adjacent to Facsimile 1 on the Joseph Smith Papyri. [24]
3. There is no known case of any vignette remotely like Facsimile 1 that is associated with the type of text that is adjacent to it. No other copies of the Book of Breathings contain anything similar. Based on ancient parallels to the Book of Breathings, the most likely conclusion is that the picture next to the text was not associated with the text.
4. The Book of Abraham itself says that the fashion (or drawing) of the idolatrous gods is “at the beginning” (Abraham 1:14), presumably of the record or papyrus on which the text is recorded. This statement seems to indicate that the vignette depicting the altar and idols is not adjacent to the text, but some distance from it—at the beginning. We do not know whether it was Abraham or a later scribe who created the drawing and inserted the statement. Furthermore, in the oldest Book of Abraham manuscripts we have, this phrase was inserted after the rest of the text was written, meaning that Joseph or his scribes likely inserted it as they were preparing to publish the text. We cannot tell who wrote this line.
5. A few accounts indicate that the source of the Book of Abraham had some Hebrew characters on it. [25] None of the fragments we have today contain any Hebrew characters. Thus we must conclude that the eyewitnesses were describing texts other than those we now possess.
6. Finally, eyewitness accounts from Joseph Smith’s day agree that the Book of Abraham was on the long roll. Through museum documents we can corroborate that the long roll was sold to the Chicago museum. Unfortunately, it was destroyed by fire in 1871. [26] The small portion on the outside of that roll seems to have been cut off and mounted for its protection (it is always the outermost edge of a scroll that is damaged the most, and Joseph must have felt that this damaged piece needed preservation efforts). Because this part of the scroll was glued to paper that dates back to the Kirtland period, [27] and eyewitness accounts agree that the Book of Abraham was translated from the large roll after the fragments had been cut off, [28] eyewitnesses of the papyri during the Nauvoo period did not think that the fragments we have today contained the Book of Abraham. Again, we are forced to conclude from the historical evidence at hand that the fragments we now have are not the source of the Book of Abraham.
Given the problems with the assumption that the text surrounding Facsimile 1 was the source of the Book of Abraham and the fact that we possess only a small percentage of the original papyrus roll on which Facsimile 1 was drawn (perhaps about 5 percent), we must conclude that it is most unlikely and foolhardy to insist that the text adjoining Facsimile 1 must be the text of the Book of Abraham. Yet critics insist on this faulty assumption.
This brings up the question of how much papyri Joseph Smith had, and especially how long the papyrus with Facsimile 1 might have been. The fragments we have today (which contain Facsimile 1 and the adjacent text) consist of less than two feet when pieced together. But how long was the scroll originally, and did it contain the source of the Book of Abraham?
We know from eyewitnesses that Joseph had “two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings.” [29] From the surviving papyri, we can identify five different ancient owners, indicating that there were at least five different sets of papyri. A variety of accounts establish that at least two of these were sizable scrolls. Other contemporary witnesses describe a number of fragments of papyrus contained under glass, [30] a “long roll” reportedly containing the Book of Abraham, [31] as well as “another roll.” [32] Thus our available historical evidence establishes the existence of a fair-sized scroll, another longer scroll, and several other pieces of papyri. The bulk of the writing must have been on the two rolls of papyrus.
As to size, we can no longer be certain of the rolls’ length. Various methods have been attempted to ascertain their length, but the most accurate likely comes from John Gee’s application of a mathematical formula (which has been used by other Egyptologists) [33] in which the circumference of the roll and how tightly it was wound can be used to calculate its original length. Employing this mathematical formula, Gee has estimated that the scroll anciently owned by Seminis (the shorter roll) would have been about twenty to twenty-four feet long. [34] The longer scroll (which contained Facsimile 1) was anciently owned by a priest named Horus. It is estimated to have been over forty-two feet long. [35] This combined evidence paints a convincing picture that Joseph Smith had a large quantity of papyrus in his possession. Because it t is very common for a papyrus roll to have writing on both sides, a conservative estimate approximates over eighty feet of text on the roll that contained Facsimile 1. These findings indicate that we have only about 2.5 percent of what Joseph originally had. Clearly there was room for the Book of Breathings, the Book of Abraham, and a host of other texts on the long roll. During that time, it was not uncommon to have multiple texts on a single papyrus.
Faulty Assumptions and the Source of the Book of Abraham
One of the most pressing questions concerning the Book of Abraham has to do with its very origin. What was the source of Joseph’s translation? This question became more important when the Metropolitan Museum of New York revealed that it had obtained some of the papyri Joseph Smith had owned, including Facsimile 1. They gave these papyri—known as the Joseph Smith Papyri—to the Church, and fervor over the Book of Abraham ensued. The texts on these papyrus fragments were translated as versions of common Egyptian funerary texts. The text adjacent to Facsimile 1 was a copy of the Book of Breathings, a composition which was designed to help the deceased reach his desired goals in the afterlife.
Once the existence of the papyri had been made public, the immediate assumption was that text adjacent to Facsimile 1 must have been the text from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham. The idea that the text adjacent to Facsimile 1 was the source of the Book of Abraham was a tantalizing supposition. Because we now have the ability to translate such texts, this idea appealed to Mormon and non-Mormon alike; the former group anxious to have some palpable proof of the prophet’s inspiration and the latter wanting evidence against his revelatory ability. Although many in both groups are still unaware of it, their hopes were based on an assumption, and a problematic assumption at that. While at first glance it seems reasonable to assume that the text adjoining Facsimile 1 would be the place to look for the source of the Book of Abraham, there are many reasons to discard this assumption. The six most salient follow:
1. Even with modern publication software and technology, we often are not able to place an illustration right next to the text with which it is associated. Hence when textbooks say “see figure 3.2,” that figure is often on a different page. Even with the sophisticated electronic layout abilities we have developed, when I ask my students how many of them have textbooks in which this is the case, almost every hand goes up. This dissonance between text and picture is even more pronounced with ancient papyri; it is common to find the picture (on Egyptian papyri we call them vignettes) some distance from the text. [19] Such incongruity was especially endemic to the Ptolemaic era, the time period during which the Joseph Smith Papyri were created, [20] and to the type of text we find next to Facsimile 1. [21] In this case, the Joseph Smith Papyri turns out to be exactly like most papyri of its day.
2. Furthermore, during the time period in which the Joseph Smith Papyri were created, it was common not only for the text and its accompanying picture to be separated from each other, but also for the wrong vignette to be associated with a text, or for vignettes and texts to be completely misaligned on a long scroll. [22] The content of a vignette and the content of the text frequently lack any apparent connection. [23] This is particularly common in Books of Breathing, the type of text which is adjacent to Facsimile 1 on the Joseph Smith Papyri. [24]
3. There is no known case of any vignette remotely like Facsimile 1 that is associated with the type of text that is adjacent to it. No other copies of the Book of Breathings contain anything similar. Based on ancient parallels to the Book of Breathings, the most likely conclusion is that the picture next to the text was not associated with the text.
4. The Book of Abraham itself says that the fashion (or drawing) of the idolatrous gods is “at the beginning” (Abraham 1:14), presumably of the record or papyrus on which the text is recorded. This statement seems to indicate that the vignette depicting the altar and idols is not adjacent to the text, but some distance from it—at the beginning. We do not know whether it was Abraham or a later scribe who created the drawing and inserted the statement. Furthermore, in the oldest Book of Abraham manuscripts we have, this phrase was inserted after the rest of the text was written, meaning that Joseph or his scribes likely inserted it as they were preparing to publish the text. We cannot tell who wrote this line.
5. A few accounts indicate that the source of the Book of Abraham had some Hebrew characters on it. [25] None of the fragments we have today contain any Hebrew characters. Thus we must conclude that the eyewitnesses were describing texts other than those we now possess.
6. Finally, eyewitness accounts from Joseph Smith’s day agree that the Book of Abraham was on the long roll. Through museum documents we can corroborate that the long roll was sold to the Chicago museum. Unfortunately, it was destroyed by fire in 1871. [26] The small portion on the outside of that roll seems to have been cut off and mounted for its protection (it is always the outermost edge of a scroll that is damaged the most, and Joseph must have felt that this damaged piece needed preservation efforts). Because this part of the scroll was glued to paper that dates back to the Kirtland period, [27] and eyewitness accounts agree that the Book of Abraham was translated from the large roll after the fragments had been cut off, [28] eyewitnesses of the papyri during the Nauvoo period did not think that the fragments we have today contained the Book of Abraham. Again, we are forced to conclude from the historical evidence at hand that the fragments we now have are not the source of the Book of Abraham.
Given the problems with the assumption that the text surrounding Facsimile 1 was the source of the Book of Abraham and the fact that we possess only a small percentage of the original papyrus roll on which Facsimile 1 was drawn (perhaps about 5 percent), we must conclude that it is most unlikely and foolhardy to insist that the text adjoining Facsimile 1 must be the text of the Book of Abraham. Yet critics insist on this faulty assumption.
This brings up the question of how much papyri Joseph Smith had, and especially how long the papyrus with Facsimile 1 might have been. The fragments we have today (which contain Facsimile 1 and the adjacent text) consist of less than two feet when pieced together. But how long was the scroll originally, and did it contain the source of the Book of Abraham?
We know from eyewitnesses that Joseph had “two papyrus rolls, besides some other ancient Egyptian writings.” [29] From the surviving papyri, we can identify five different ancient owners, indicating that there were at least five different sets of papyri. A variety of accounts establish that at least two of these were sizable scrolls. Other contemporary witnesses describe a number of fragments of papyrus contained under glass, [30] a “long roll” reportedly containing the Book of Abraham, [31] as well as “another roll.” [32] Thus our available historical evidence establishes the existence of a fair-sized scroll, another longer scroll, and several other pieces of papyri. The bulk of the writing must have been on the two rolls of papyrus.
As to size, we can no longer be certain of the rolls’ length. Various methods have been attempted to ascertain their length, but the most accurate likely comes from John Gee’s application of a mathematical formula (which has been used by other Egyptologists) [33] in which the circumference of the roll and how tightly it was wound can be used to calculate its original length. Employing this mathematical formula, Gee has estimated that the scroll anciently owned by Seminis (the shorter roll) would have been about twenty to twenty-four feet long. [34] The longer scroll (which contained Facsimile 1) was anciently owned by a priest named Horus. It is estimated to have been over forty-two feet long. [35] This combined evidence paints a convincing picture that Joseph Smith had a large quantity of papyrus in his possession. Because it t is very common for a papyrus roll to have writing on both sides, a conservative estimate approximates over eighty feet of text on the roll that contained Facsimile 1. These findings indicate that we have only about 2.5 percent of what Joseph originally had. Clearly there was room for the Book of Breathings, the Book of Abraham, and a host of other texts on the long roll. During that time, it was not uncommon to have multiple texts on a single papyrus.
DudleySmith
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2020
- 20,347
- 14,469
- 2,288
"Translated by inspiration"--right. I am not an opponent of the LDS church. I am simply on the side of truth.
I like most Mormons I've met.
Jesus and Paul taught satan is the ruler of this world-the god of this system of things. John 12:31- 2Corinthians 4:4I think the author is a heretic but his post is interesting nonetheless. I just don't recall any biblical verses that back up what he's saying. Do you know of any? Here is what he wrote:
When Satan realized God was going to sacrifice Himself, he tried to stop it, and ((inhabiting Judas)) threw the 30 pieces of silver back.
Satan led a small army to Gethsemane, and Christ flattened them, including Satan himself in Judas, by uttering His name. it was not Satan's intent to seize Christ but to force His hand - and Satan did not realize that Christ is God until that moment. Satan isn't stupid - he's more clever than any of God's creation. he knew Jesus could walk right through a crowd of guards trying to seize Him. he knew Jesus was full of power and could command even the water and the wind - He showed complete command over all of physical creation. so what does Satan think a hundred men with swords and clubs are going to do? does he think they are any kind of threat to the Messiah?? he is not stupid.
he expected to force Jesus to start an insurrection, calling fire down to destroy them or something. Satan wanted Peter to draw his sword; Jesus told him to put it away, and healed Malchus' ear.
at the cross the Lord defeated Satan by laying down His life. Satan ain't out to get defeated. he thought Jesus was only an anointed man, not divine, and sought to cause Him to fall. he did not know He is God until God chose to reveal Himself, saying I AM and rendering Satan utterly powerless.
people are evil all by themselves; Satan didn't make humanity reject the light and love darkness. humans will do that even with Satan imprisoned for a thousand years and Christ seated on the throne - people will reject God even with certain knowledge that He is God. the devil didn't 'make you do it'
Satan knows 100% he cannot tempt God--He tempted Jesus in the wilderness asked him for an act of worship, He wanted Jesus to sin and fail. Thus- sin = worship to satan.
If one is a follower of Jesus they best believe him over dogmas and errors translated in. At John 17:3, Jesus clearly teaches -- To get eternal life one must know( The one who sent him( John 5:30= Father) and know Jesus, and calls the one who sent him--THE ONLY TRUE GOD--but most outright refuse to believe him over dogmas and the error found at John 1:1 of a capitol G God in the last line. It does NOT read like that in the Greek lexicon which is their own translating. Fact-The only word in Greek for either God or god is Theos, thus a differential was there in many spots in the Nt. In the second line the true living God is called- Ho Theos,= the true living God, in the last line plain Theos, meaning was divine or has godlike qualities. It did not call Jesus the God.
Every trinity scholar on the planet knows it is Fact. They are raking in billions of dollars every year, they cant give it up. Jesus is Gods son, no son was ever his Father. Jesus lives to do his Fathers will( John 5:30)Luke 22:42) that is how one sees the Father as well Collosians 1:15--Jesus is his Fathers image. An image is NEVER the real thing. That is how they are one. Jesus teaches--The Father is greater than i. Jesus brought truth. Believe Jesus.
Last edited:
Yeah.......except your "supposed liberation theology" was prophesied about hundreds of years before the Christ was born.whatever may have been of a satan was laid to rest long ago, the same must be accomplished by each individual to free their spirit as the requirement for admission to the Everlasting -
only in their single source book is there ever a mention the itinerant claimed to be a messiah - the events of the 1st century and the reason for the crucifixion was the message of liberation theology not servitude the itinerant knew would lead to his death.
"Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
NOT ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT (of Moses) that I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand and to bring them out of the land of Egypt; WHICH MY COVENANT THEY DID BRAKE, although I was a husband unto them (married only to the Jews with no Gentile nations included); saith the Lord.
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put My law in their inward parts (as opposed to be written on stone); and write it in their hearts; and will be their God; and they shall be My people. (just as the Christ declared in Luke 17:20-21). -- Jer. 31:31-33
According to the Prophet Jeremiah the Jews could not even keep the Law of Moses and the Prophets without breaking the law.......but, they insisted that some of the old law was to remain in effect after the Perfect Law of Liberty (the NT) came into existence. Who are the Jews to give advise concerning covenants?
By the time that Jesus was born, His Generation......there existed only a remnant of the once powerful nation of Biblical Israel because they continually broke the law of God and God punished them just as He promised.God promised to punish Israel when they disobeyed the Law. (Lev. 26:27-39). They would be driven from the promised land (Deut. 4:25-28) They would cease being a nation (Deut. 8:19-20) All these things happened just as God promised.
Due to the longsuffering of God, He allowed a faithful remnant to come back to the land of promise (Jer. 25:8-13,Isa.10:20-23). But.......like a broken potters jar, Israel would be repaired but never made whole like it was in the days of its glory (Jer. 19:7-13).
This is the time period in which Jesus was born into..........a broken and repaired Israel nothing but a shadow of its former glory under the thumb of the Roman Empire with its rulers nothing but figure heads and their religious leaders nothing but greedy money changers who did not obey the scriptures and the Law but preached Tradition over scripture.
The N.T. covenant was spoken of long before the birth of Jesus the Christ. The N.T. points out that the NT covenant was planned by God and based upon the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus and that plan pre-existed the creation of the world and time itself. (1 Peter 1:20, and 2 Tim. 1:9)
Last edited:
It sounds very much like an updated version of some of the religious / morality plays that were around in the 1400's and 1500's. The context is the same; only the verbiage has been cleaned up a bit.I think the author is a heretic but his post is interesting nonetheless. I just don't recall any biblical verses that back up what he's saying. Do you know of any? Here is what he wrote:
When Satan realized God was going to sacrifice Himself, he tried to stop it, and ((inhabiting Judas)) threw the 30 pieces of silver back.
Satan led a small army to Gethsemane, and Christ flattened them, including Satan himself in Judas, by uttering His name. it was not Satan's intent to seize Christ but to force His hand - and Satan did not realize that Christ is God until that moment. Satan isn't stupid - he's more clever than any of God's creation. he knew Jesus could walk right through a crowd of guards trying to seize Him. he knew Jesus was full of power and could command even the water and the wind - He showed complete command over all of physical creation. so what does Satan think a hundred men with swords and clubs are going to do? does he think they are any kind of threat to the Messiah?? he is not stupid.
he expected to force Jesus to start an insurrection, calling fire down to destroy them or something. Satan wanted Peter to draw his sword; Jesus told him to put it away, and healed Malchus' ear.
at the cross the Lord defeated Satan by laying down His life. Satan ain't out to get defeated. he thought Jesus was only an anointed man, not divine, and sought to cause Him to fall. he did not know He is God until God chose to reveal Himself, saying I AM and rendering Satan utterly powerless.
people are evil all by themselves; Satan didn't make humanity reject the light and love darkness. humans will do that even with Satan imprisoned for a thousand years and Christ seated on the throne - people will reject God even with certain knowledge that He is God. the devil didn't 'make you do it'
Similar threads
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 439
- Replies
- 81
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 111
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 540
- Replies
- 42
- Views
- 547
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 70
- Views
- 555
- Replies
- 179
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 146
- Views
- 718
- Replies
- 57
- Views
- 214
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-