God the Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Blessed Mary. Convert, Catholic Church. Vet, Father, Church history. Sacraments. Daily Rosary. St. Michael. Adoration.
Thereβs never been a better time for information seeking, so likewise. Since I didnβt belong to anything and my life circumstances, Iβve been to many stops along the way, including the Catholic Church. I moved on from it and came back reading plenty along the way. I have the Holy Spirit to thank for where it all led. God Bless brother.
Respectfully, I don't feel compelled to read another defense of Joseph Smith any more than you'd feel compelled to read a book arguing against your faith. I've already concluded that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ, and that's the lens through which I evaluate these claims now. Appreciate the conversation, but I'm comfortable leaving it there.
@simonsnathank@lukei4655 Forget John. Ritner's argument stands or falls on the evidence. A lost scroll may have existed, but "a lost scroll existed" is not the same thing as "the lost scroll contained the Book of Abraham." What's the evidence for that second claim?
@simonsnathank@lukei4655 This argument doesn't actually answer Ritner's evidence. Instead, it moves the discussion to a place where the evidence is missing and asks people to assume the missing material would have solved the problem.
Admittedly, I stopped pursuing the LDS church with the 17 year old "elders" before I could become a scholar of it, due to what seemed obvious to someone who didn't know what "LDS" was when they showed up at the door. I was intrigued that someone would have Jesus Christ on their name-tag and yet I knew nothing of what they were.
https://t.co/7xh7sUBQOM
@j_divis@Ch_JesusChrist Itβs going to be a tough realization for many and doubtful for many that they will ever stop feeding their own confirmation bias.
https://t.co/QDSM3fXCnF
https://t.co/SL0WiQcpTk
The Egyptian papyri Joseph Smith claimed contained Abraham's writings do not actually mention Abraham.
The papyri are standard Egyptian funeral texts that Egyptologists can read today.
The text on the papyri does not match the Book of Abraham.
Facsimile 1 is a common Egyptian burial scene, not Abraham being sacrificed.
The "priest" Joseph identified is actually a jackal-headed Egyptian funerary deity.
The jars Joseph identified as pagan gods are ordinary canopic jars used in mummification.
Several names Joseph gave to figures are not recognized as Egyptian.
Missing parts of the facsimiles were reconstructed by Joseph in ways that do not match similar Egyptian originals.
According to Dr. Ritner, the evidence shows Joseph Smith was not translating Egyptian into English in the normal sense.
The major implication is that the traditional explanation of the Book of Abraham cannot be reconciled with modern Egyptology.
Bottom line:
"The Book of Abraham is not what Joseph Smith said it was" is the central conclusion of the video.
If Joseph Smith was wrong about the Book of Abraham, what does that mean for his claims as a prophet?