Page 1 of 9
Philo Double Standard: Mithraists can Appropriate and Modify Symbols and Stories of Others, but not Hor Papyrus Author
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2022 5:45 pm
by Ed1
I'd like to challenge my friend Philo, pointing out his double standard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTfyLMJk8n0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcvYI3SXqrE
You say that Hor, an Egyptian of the Greco-Roman period, a literate Egyptian Priest of his day, no doubt very knowledgeable of other religions, the author of the Hor Breathing Permit cannot practice Iconotropy in the Joseph Smith Papyri to reflect Judeo-Christian elements, and LDS who observe this likelihood and evidence for it in the Book of Abraham/KEP are believers in nonsense, but here you say the widespread Mithraist religion, for which you quote one of the PGM papyri, i.e., an Egyptian Papyrus of the Greco-Roman period from which you quote the Mithras Litergy), and that the Mitraist system adopts and adapts stories and symbols from across the Empire, and you admit that the same practice was done in the New Testament. Yet, you say that it cannot happen in the Joseph Smith Papyri. Double standard my friend.
You say Mithraism is a synretistic hodge podge of borrowings of symbols and stories. But it can't happen in the Joseph Smith papyri. For that, we must have a special case to invalidate Mormonism, and stick with the classic Anti-Mormon assertion of no iconotropy there.
I submit that many religions in the Greco-Roman period, including the personal beliefs of Hor, his personal home-brew, was syncretist.
Re: Philo Double Standard: Mithraists can Appropriate and Modify Symbols and Stories of Others, but not Hor Papyrus Auth
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2022 5:54 pm
by Shulem
Ed1 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 5:45 pm
I'd like to challenge my friend Philo, pointing out his double standard.
Philo is busy eating a burger right now. Not sure he has time for your little game.
But we shall see.
PHILO! You've been challenged.
.
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2022 6:09 pm
by Ed1
.
Re: Philo Double Standard: Mithraists can Appropriate and Modify Symbols and Stories of Others, but not Hor Papyrus Auth
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2022 6:26 pm
by Shulem
Maybe the professor will weigh in. We shall see.
Out for a burger
Re: Philo Double Standard: Mithraists can Appropriate and Modify Symbols and Stories of Others, but not Hor Papyrus Auth
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2022 7:00 pm
by drumdude
A farrago of nonsense from beginning to end.
Re: Philo Double Standard: Mithraists can Appropriate and Modify Symbols and Stories of Others, but not Hor Papyrus Auth
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2022 8:34 pm
by Shulem
drumdude wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 7:00 pm
A farrago of nonsense from beginning to end.
It may be a while before Philo & Kishy show up if they even do. I'm getting hungry. let's eat while we wait!
Re: Philo Double Standard: Mithraists can Appropriate and Modify Symbols and Stories of Others, but not Hor Papyrus Auth
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2022 11:55 pm
by huckelberry
Ed1 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 5:45 pm
I'd like to challenge my friend Philo, pointing out his double standard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTfyLMJk8n0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcvYI3SXqrE
You say that Hor, an Egyptian of the Greco-Roman period, a literate Egyptian Priest of his day, no doubt very knowledgeable of other religions, the author of the Hor Breathing Permit cannot practice Iconotropy in the Joseph Smith Papyri to reflect Judeo-Christian elements, and LDS who observe this likelihood and evidence for it in the Book of Abraham/KEP are believers in nonsense, but here you say the widespread Mithraist religion, for which you quote one of the PGM papyri, i.e., an Egyptian Papyrus of the Greco-Roman period from which you quote the Mithras Litergy), and that the Mitraist system adopts and adapts stories and symbols from across the Empire, and you admit that the same practice was done in the New Testament. Yet, you say that it cannot happen in the Joseph Smith Papyri. Double standard my friend.
You say Mithraism is a synretistic hodge podge of borrowings of symbols and stories. But it can't happen in the Joseph Smith papyri. For that, we must have a special case to invalidate Mormonism, and stick with the classic Anti-Mormon assertion of no iconotropy there.
I submit that many religions in the Greco-Roman period, including the personal beliefs of Hor, his personal home-brew, was syncretist.
Ed1, I am simply puzzled by this, I could see Joseph Smith practicing iconotropy and I believe that is what you proposed on your first thread. I do not see how it is coherent to say the Egyptian priest making the scroll was practicing iconotropy. Does it present thousand year old prehebraic symbols reunderstood in an Egyptian style? I have not heard anybody suggesting they see evidence of such a thing.
The recast symbols would be present to be objectively seen no faith or assumptions about prophets involved.
Re: Philo Double Standard: Mithraists can Appropriate and Modify Symbols and Stories of Others, but not Hor Papyrus Auth
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2022 1:17 am
by drumdude
I just noticed the Wikipedia entry on the book of Abraham states that the faithful position is now:
“Mormon scholars tend to accept it (the book of Abraham) as an authentic, ancient interpretation of more ancient scripture.”
Re: Philo Double Standard: Mithraists can Appropriate and Modify Symbols and Stories of Others, but not Hor Papyrus Auth
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2022 1:38 am
by Shulem
drumdude wrote: ↑Sat Feb 12, 2022 1:17 am
I just noticed the Wikipedia entry on the book of Abraham states that the faithful position is now:
“Mormon scholars tend to accept it (the book of Abraham) as an authentic, ancient interpretation of more ancient scripture.”
Interpret all you want, baby. Look and feast ur eyes on me chi chis, just don't touch em.
Ed, which MAN do you find more attractive?
Re: Philo Double Standard: Mithraists can Appropriate and Modify Symbols and Stories of Others, but not Hor Papyrus Auth
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2022 3:39 am
by Philo Sofee
drumdude wrote: ↑Sat Feb 12, 2022 1:17 am
I just noticed the Wikipedia entry on the book of Abraham states that the faithful position is now:
“Mormon scholars tend to accept it (the book of Abraham) as an authentic, ancient interpretation of more ancient scripture.”
Put the word "ancient" in there, and mopologists will do
anything to make it happen. It is as if ancient is all that matters...