EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST A Challenge for Skeptics (A Long Read)

Bring to you ^ | Peter Kreeft

[Alan2]

Sorry to hear you try to say this. Hor's breathing permit (the papyri from the Met aka Sensen Papyri) is the origin of the boa. For starters, Facsimile #1 which Smith specifically said this was attached to the scroll at its beginning.

Eyewitnesses from the Nauvoo period (1839–1844) describe “a quantity of records, written on papyrus, in Egyptian hieroglyphics, including (1) some papyri “preserved under glass,” described as “a number of glazed slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus,with Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics”; (2) “a long roll of manuscript” that contained the Book of Abraham; (3) “another roll”; (4) and “two or three other small pieces of papyrus with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c.”

Only the mounted fragments ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

The Book of Abraham was translated from the long roll of Manuscript, Not from the facsimiles.

[Godzilla]

Then he is contradicting himself (which he does anyway), because he writes "We do not need to presuppose that the New Testament is infallible, or divinely inspired or even true." He merely argues that we need to axcknolwedge the existence of the New Testament.

Unfortunately for your intents, this does not defacto exclude any use of the scripture at all. The author essentially says as much.

That's correct.

Perhaps that works for you w/e.

In every case, the book selection was a human choice, or so it seems. None of the NT authors says he were guided by the Holy Spirit in his writings.

Well, at least you qualified it. Peter wrote equating Paul's letter to scriptures. Oh, yes, you'll find some excuse to put those down too. Slap a pancake on your head and call it your faith, fwiw.

[Godzilla]

How do you know that? How would you recognize anything from God? Do you know what God is? If you don't, how can you know what is from God?

Interesting Kosta - especially when you say:

That's pretty much how it works. How do you know the books are 'inspired?' How do you know what God is? Simple: whatever you make it to be.

Sounds like your proofs are just as subjective as mormonism's.

[Godzilla]

Eyewitnesses from the Nauvoo period (1839–1844) describe “a quantity of records, written on papyrus, in Egyptian hieroglyphics, including (1) some papyri “preserved under glass,” described as “a number of glazed slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus,with Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics”; (2) “a long roll of manuscript” that contained the Book of Abraham; (3) “another roll”; (4) and “two or three other small pieces of papyrus with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c.”

How laughable Alan, undocumented 'witnesses' now suddenly pop up to counter the prophet smith's own words - or even that of the boa 1:12 " And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

Facsimile 1 was identified by smith as being attached to the papyrus scroll that he translated the boa from. Papyrologists (as well as Hugh Nibley) proved that the 'sensen' fragments were physically attached to Facsimile 1 - hmmm, pretty well rules out this mythical 'other' scroll.

The Book of Abraham was translated from the long roll of Manuscript, Not from the facsimiles.

Most laughable since it has already been proven that smith's translation of the facsimiles is completely bogus. Further it is proven that Facsimile 1 was attached to the 'translated' scroll and that the rest of the sensen pieces are that scroll.

So, is Min your "god"? It is according to smith who interpreted this portion of Facsimile 2

According to smith - Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove. Real egyptian scholars point out the fact that 'god' is the egyptian god Min. Hugh Nibley wrote regarding Min - As the supreme sex symbol of gods and men, Min behaves with shocking promiscuity, which is hardly relieved by its ritual nature...His sacred plants were aphrodisiacal...and he is everywhere represented as indulging in incestuous relationships with those of his immediate family; he had the most numerous and varied religious entourage of all the gods, consisting mostly of his huge harem...The hymns, or rather chanting of his worshippers were accompanied with lewd dancing and carousing...to the exciting stimulus of a band of sistrum-shaking damsels (Abraham in Egypt, p. 210).

And this is what Smith said that this figure represented God sitting on His throne!

Well, is there a living prophet and seer in the mormon church? Let him speak .

[ejonesie22]

It just gets better and better.

Reason is a lost commodity...

[Godzilla]

Reason is a lost commodity...

To those who accept a subjective 'feeling' over clearly stated and proved facts.

[ejonesie22]

I wish that had worked when I was at University.

“Prof, I feel that this is the right answer...”

“Ok, good work, A+”

[ejonesie22]

ouch...

[ejonesie22]

ouch...

[ejonesie22]

However, the evidence that supports the Book of Mormon as the word of (g)od is different from the evidence that supports the Bible as the word of God.

Perhaps the most accurate thing you have ever said.

The evidence that supports the Bible is real, tangible and not based on feelings or fantasy. Once can walk the streets of Rome and Jerusalem, once can trace the histories of the Apostles and the Roman officials such as Herod.

Not so for the BOM, hence it's utter failure as Scripture...

[MHGinTN]

I wouldn’t say it’s an utter failure ... it has sucked millions into following smithism.

[ejonesie22]

Point taken...

Indeed since it is a sales tool to bring in the 10% from the masses it has been very successful in the regard...

[Alan2]

I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

Joseph is referring to Facsimile 1 which is printed along side of the translated Book of Abraham.

The collection of papyrus included many separate pieces. These different pieces went through many different hands after the death of Joseph Smith. Some, but not all, ended up in the Met Museum. The long roll manuscript that contained the Book of Abraham was not included in the papyrus found at the museum.

[Colofornian]

The Bible is the word of God and should be believed.

(You forgot to add the Mormon leader caveat where they diminish the Bible's trustworthiness: "Insofar as correctly translated" -- then they don't even bother to hand out the supposed "correct translation" by Smith...JST)

[Colofornian]

There are 3 witnesses that saw the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, they saw the angle Moroni, and they heard the voice of God declaring that the Book of Mormon was true.

Let's define how the earliest Mormon apostates defined "saw," shall we?

Like spiritual forefather, like spiritual son. Note: 2 of the 3 "witnesses" on the title page of the Book of Mormon both say they saw Joseph Smith's phantom "plates of gold" with eyes of faith: David Whitmer, one of the witnesses who was later ex-communicated by the LDS church, one whom Smith called a "dumb beast to ride" and "an ass to bray out cursings instead of blessings" (see History of the Church, vol. 3, p. 228) said he saw these gold plates "by the eye of faith." [Eye of faith quotation source: The Palmyra Reflector, March 19, 1831] (BTW, by 1847, Whitmer told Oliver Cowdery that he was the prophet of the New Church of Christ.)

Another original Book of Mormon "witness," Martin Harris, was a Quaker-turned-Universalist-turned-Restorationist-turned-Baptist-turned-Presbyterian-turned-Mormon (And that was only before his conversion to Mormonism). After his conversion (after the LDS Church kicked him out, that is), he changed religions 8 more times (including with the Shakers, where he said he had a stronger testimony there than with the Mormons) & then joined a Mormon break-off group, the Strangites. If you check out a book, Gleanings by the Way, Harris said he saw the gold plates with "eyes of faith and not with natural eyes."

I guess since you put so much weight on the testimonies of these apostates, then you must believe Shakerism is even more true than Mormonism--if you want to believe Martin Harris' testimony!

Besides, this whole thing is analogous to Joseph Smith "translating" the King James Bible into the "Joseph Smith Translation." Since he didn't know Greek or Hebrew, Smith would have no need of the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts just like Smith would have no need of the "Gold Plates" for the Book of Mormon. I mean there's so many Mormon reports that Smith would be on the one side of a curtain, looking into his hat. You don't think he put these "gold plates" in his hat, do you? [would have been pretty hefty...and if he had a translating "peepstone" where the characters would come up one by one, well if the Mormon god already had a "rock computer" back then...what did anybody need the "gold plates" for???]

Bottom line: The whole thing was a sham, which is why when Martin Harris' wife kept the first 116 pages of the supposed "translation" of the Book of Mormon, Smith never tried to re-duplicate those pages and said as much in Doctrine & Covenants.

I mean there's 304,805 Hebrew characters in the Torah--the first 5 books of the Bible. Some Hebrew scholars believe that God dictated each of those characters to Moses while he was on Mt. Sinai for 40 days & 40 nights.

Could you imagine Moses coming down the mountain with a Torah manuscript & handing it to Aaron or a family member of Aaron, and her "losing" it, and then Moses saying, "Oh, well, it was only Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers. I guess I'll pick up the translation process in Joshua and start there"???

[Alan2]

You forgot to add the Mormon leader caveat where they diminish the Bible's trustworthiness: "Insofar as correctly translated"

The individual books of the Bible when they were originally written by the Prophets/Apostles were perfect and there was no need for any disclaimer. However, today we have many DIFFERENT versions of the Bible each with their own different meanings. And the Bible it self says that it is not complete.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

If you want to trust your soul to the arm of flesh, and rely upon incomplete and in some cases incorrect translations, then go right ahead. I will continue to rely on the revealed word of God.

[kosta50]

Unfortunately for your intents, this does not defacto exclude any use of the scripture at all. The author essentially says as much

FWIW, namely that it is not necessarily "infallible, or divinely inspired or even true."

Peter wrote equating Paul's letter to scriptures. Oh, yes, you'll find some excuse to put those down too.

You are assuming (1) that Peter actually wrote that, (2) that it is divinely inspired and infallible, and (3) that it is true.

[Alan2]

Another original Book of Mormon "witness," Martin Harris, was a Quaker-turned-Universalist-turned-Restorationist-turned-Baptist-turned-Presbyterian-turned-Mormon (And that was only before his conversion to Mormonism). After his conversion (after the LDS Church kicked him out, that is), he changed religions 8 more times (including with the Shakers, where he said he had a stronger testimony there than with the Mormons) & then joined a Mormon break-off group, the Strangites.

Yet after belonging to so many different churches, which one did he return to? He returned to the LDS church and on his death bed reaffirmed his testimony that the Book of Mormon was true.

[kosta50]

Interesting Kosta - especially when you say:

That's pretty much how it works. How do you know the books are 'inspired?' How do you know what God is? Simple: whatever you make it to be.

Sounds like your proofs are just as subjective as mormonism's

Not really. Read what you quoted me on again. They are questions, not subjective fairy tales. I didn't ask for comments but for simple answers to simple questions. Can you do that?

[ejonesie22]

Ooops...

Guess he is still learning to keep the story straight.