Exposing Hislop's "The Two Babylons"

[phatcatholic]

apparently hislop's book The Two Babylons "has never been refuted" so i wanted to provide some articles that have been written on this matter:

--Babylon Boom Box: Exposing Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons
--The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Methodology
--Hislop's 'Babylonian Mystery Religion' Teaching Exposed and Overturned
--Regarding the 'Babylon Mystery Religion'
--The Two Babylons / The Babylon Connection?: A Book Review
--Did the Catholic Church Have Its Origin in Paganism?
--Tracking the First Pagans

it may also be helpful to read up on logical fallacies and how they relate to this book:
--Pagan Influence Fallacy

finally, a book has been written (by a non-Catholic) with the sole intention of refuting Hislop's book: The Babylon Connection?

note that only the last two articles are actually written by Catholics.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

 

[D46]

Perhaps you can find someone to refute Charles Chiniquy as well.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/chiniquy/index.html

http://www.giveshare.org/babylon/confes ... index.html


Or some others who were there.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/thirty.htm

The "Peace of Christ" abideth not over Rome, but rather, the wrath of God.

 

[phatcatholic]

Perhaps you can find someone to refute Charles Chiniquy as well.

perhaps you can show me why the articles i have provided are erronous....

(as for Chiniquy, you can read 8 articles in refutation of him here)

 

[D46]

Perhaps you can find someone to refute Charles Chiniquy as well.

perhaps you can show me why the articles i have provided are erronous....

(as for Chiniquy, you can read 8 articles in refutation of him here)

Obviously I wouldn't believe the 2-3 that came from a Catholic website and as for another I looked at about Ralph Woodrow, he is/was a Catholic Preterist from all indications and not to believed as well. End of story.

 

[AVBunyan]

The Bible, history and their fruits are enough to condemn Rome unless one is blinded.

 

[phatcatholic]

Obviously I wouldn't believe the 2-3 that came from a Catholic website and as for another I looked at about Ralph Woodrow, he is/was a Catholic Preterist from all indications and not to believed as well. End of story.

end of story? surely you know that ad hominem arguments don't prove anything. whoever wrote it is irrelevant. engage the arguments, that's what i'm waiting for.

btw, i provided 8 articles and 2 were written by Catholics, so that's actually 1/4, not 2/3 ;) what about the other 3/4? maybe you'll respond to those?

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

 

[phatcatholic]

The Bible, history and their fruits are enough to condemn Rome unless one is blinded.

again, this doesn't directly engage anything i have provided. surely you can do better than that! (i have faith in you, bunyan ;) )

 

[cj]

engage the arguments, that's what i'm waiting for.

And by saying so you expose yourself as lacking scriptural understanding.

Contending for the faith is not the entering into of vain meaningless arguments, it is the speaking of the truth at the proper time.

But the suffering of things-vanity is an RC thing, so your stance above should be expected.

In love,
cj

 

[AVBunyan]

The Bible, history and their fruits are enough to condemn Rome unless one is blinded.

again, this doesn't directly engage anything i have provided. surely you can do better than that! (i have faith in you, bunyan ;) )

Honestly - it is just not worth my time - you or I will not budge. :-?

 

[phatcatholic]

engage the arguments, that's what i'm waiting for.

And by saying so you expose yourself as lacking scriptural understanding.

b/c i want someone to actually engage the arguments that have been provided instead of just dismissing them all w/ a wave of the hand? how does that show that i lack scriptural understanding? :smt017

Contending for the faith is not the entering into of vain meaningless arguments, it is the speaking of the truth at the proper time.

But the suffering of things-vanity is an RC thing, so your stance above should be expected.

your logic makes no sense. all i'm asking for is intellectual honesty. is that too much to ask? if you think the arguments i provided are bull, show me. if you can't defend the arguments that hislop makes in his book, nor respond to criticisms made against it, then quit presenting it as the definitive work on Roman Catholicism.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

 

[cj]

b/c i want someone to actually engage the arguments that have been provided instead of just dismissing them all w/ a wave of the hand? how does that show that i lack scriptural understanding?

What's you motive/purpose?

your logic makes no sense. all i'm asking for is intellectual honesty. is that too much to ask?

If both you and I are fallen in our being, and the bible says we are, then how can we expect intellectual honesty to be communited.

... if you think the arguments i provided are bull, show me.

Your arguments mean nothing to me regarding the "bull" content of them. I'm simply concerned that you may stumble weaker believers as an issue of your blindness.

My concern is for your well-being and the well-being of others on this board, not for arguing doctrines, opinions, and concepts.

... if you can't defend the arguments that hislop makes in his book, nor respond to criticisms made against it, then quit presenting it as the definitive work on Roman Catholicism.

Its not, its a speaking against the economy of God's adversary.

It's not Hislop's fault that the RC institution serves as a perfect example of this economy.

In love,
cj

 

[phatcatholic]

b/c i want someone to actually engage the arguments that have been provided instead of just dismissing them all w/ a wave of the hand? how does that show that i lack scriptural understanding?

What's you motive/purpose?

to show that it is in fact hislop who is leading people astray with blatantly faulty and dishonest scholarship. all of this is plainly revealed in the articles i provided, if you will just read them (maybe u don't want to know the truth?)

your logic makes no sense. all i'm asking for is intellectual honesty. is that too much to ask?

If both you and I are fallen in our being, and the bible says we are, then how can we expect intellectual honesty to be communited.

of course, i suppose one way to get around the intellectual dishonesty of his book (and of those who propagate his book) is to say that nobody is capable of intellectual honesty. surely, you don't really believe that, do u? its not that hard. all you have to do is not use logical fallacies, and quote sources for what they actually say, and consult primary sources, instead of second and third-hand information.

... if you think the arguments i provided are bull, show me.

Your arguments mean nothing to me regarding the "bull" content of them. I'm simply concerned that you may stumble weaker believers as an issue of your blindness.

My concern is for your well-being and the well-being of others on this board, not for arguing doctrines, opinions, and concepts.

and how am i a danger to the "weaker believers" on this board? b/c i expose hislop's scholarship for what it is? defend it then, and protect your weaker members.

... if you can't defend the arguments that hislop makes in his book, nor respond to criticisms made against it, then quit presenting it as the definitive work on Roman Catholicism.

Its not, its a speaking against the economy of God's adversary.

It's not Hislop's fault that the RC institution serves as a perfect example of this economy.

well, the articles i provided obviously show that the only thing his book speaks against is the strawman church he has built up in his head. unless, of course, you would like to actually prove this to be the contrary, instead of just dismissing it all w/ a wave of your hand.

dear lurker (and "weak" believer), look at how they change the subject and refuse to engage any of my arguments. what do u think that means?

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

 

[thessalonian]

AV,

I find it sad that you have declared that this theory of Hislop's is next to infallible and has not been refuted by Catholics. Then when we refute it you make no effort to rebut us. This to me indicates that you really haven't done your homework on the theory and have just taken Hislop's word for it. I am sure you will say "but the references". Hislop has identified some historical events and I am sure they are well referenced. The problem is his spin on them. Are his conclusions valid? I think I have shown pretty well already in the other thread that he twists Catholicism to draw his conclusions. That would invalidate them.

Blessings

 

[cj]

To show that it is in fact hislop who is leading people astray with blatantly faulty and dishonest scholarship. all of this is plainly revealed in the articles i provided, if you will just read them (maybe u don't want to know the truth?)

You're right, I don't want to, as I have no need to.

As for knowing the truth, Christ is the truth, not your intellectual concepts, and I know Christ.

... of course, i suppose one way to get around the intellectual dishonesty of his book (and of those who propagate his book) is to say that nobody is capable of intellectual honesty. surely, you don't really believe that, do u?

Actually I do. And so does God, if one is to believe what He has written to us.

... its not that hard. all you have to do is not use logical fallacies, and quote sources for what they actually say, and consult primary sources, instead of second and third-hand information.

That would be "logical faculties",... "fallacies" is what the RC institution holds to and teaches.

... and how am i a danger to the "weaker believers" on this board? b/c i expose hislop's scholarship for what it is? defend it then, and protect your weaker members.

Again, you expose your weak scriptural understanding.

I don't need to defend Hislop or anyone else, I simply need to expose your error and thus invalidate the foundation you attempt to stand on.

well, the articles i provided obviously show that the only thing his book speaks against is the strawman church he has built up in his head. unless, of course, you would like to actually prove this to be the contrary, instead of just dismissing it all w/ a wave of your hand.

There is a good reason why God has declared that we know the truth by the Spirit and not by some RC-influenced articles.

dear lurker (and "weak" believer), look at how they change the subject and refuse to engage any of my arguments. what do u think that means?

Titus  3 : 9

"But avoid foolish questionings and genealogies and strifes and contentions about the law, for they are unprofitable and vain."


God says it means we're not being foolish.



In love,
cj

 

[stovebolts]

dear lurker (and "weak" believer), look at how they change the subject and refuse to engage any of my arguments. what do u think that means?

Hey CJ, good to see ya posting in the spirit again

When I saw phatcatholic's post, I was kinda thinking of

2 Timothy 2:21-22 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

Decree:
2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Commandment:
2 Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

How...
2 Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Purpose...
2 Timothy 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Sorry I'm short of time right now, but as a graduate of 2 interdenominational evangelical Bible Colleges, & son of a Bible College grad, with 44 years of knowing Christ as Saviour & Lord of life, I've read Hislop's brilliantly researched, well-written & beautifully illustrated book 2/3 times, marked up its highlights, & engaged in online debates on it in 3/4 other Christian forums as well as here

Frankly, it's the RC denials that are patently false

The book goes thru each & every distinctive RC dogma & practice & shows them all, most thoroughly, to originate in the forbidden Babylonian pagan occult

You only need, dear readers, to hit RC-HQ's own website, hit catechism & compare each & every part of the 'new' RC cataclysmically, catastrophically abysmal catechism with the clear teaching of the Bible to see their many errors

Just before coming to this public library PC, I read in an Italian mag that John Paul 2 will be canonised in 5 years - they believe that even this great hero of theirs is in a non-existent 'purgatory'

Jesus told the repentant thief, on the cross, 'TODAY, you will be with Me in Paradise'

I'm sure many readers saw JP2's televised funeral & heard the blasphemous prayers to Mary as a goddess & to 'saints' as gods, & saw the big 'M' on his coffin, falsely glorifying Mary as co-redeemer when 'There is no other name under Heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved' (except the Lord Jesus Christ)

The Bible never says to sing hymns to her or to pray to her, or to the 'saints'

All the Bible epistles are addressed to all the saints in the city wrtten to - saints are simply those born-again by the sheer grace of God, thru faith in Christ's once-for-all sacrifice on Calvary's cross - see John 3, Romans 3, Galatians 2:15-16, Ephesians 2:8-9, etc

Mary was not a goddess, not a 'co-redeemer' but just a highly favoured, blessed woman

C of E folk, as well as RC readers, will know that the 'Magnificat' - quoted from the Bible, says, "My soul/spirit rejoices in God my Saviour"

Only a sinner needs a Saviour - the RC dogma that Mary was perfectly sinless all her life, & was physically lifted into Heaven without dying - are both most definitely UNscriptural

The Bible clearly shows that Jesus had younger brothers & sisters, yet RCs falsely say that Mary is an eteral virgin (& had no other children)

James was written by Jesus' brother James - Jude was His brother too

Just ask why so many Mary statues, worldwide, have the same golden hair, blue eyes & pale skin as those of false pagan occult 'fertility goddesses' like Astarte, Venus, Cybele, etc, & not the classic dark hair/eyes & tanned skin of Jewess Mary

The worship of those false idols of the infamous & highly promiscuous pagan orgies was specifically forbidden in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Leviticus, etc

The title 'Queen of Heaven' is also specifically forbidden in the Bible - esp Jeremiah 44

These false goddesses who encouraged the promiscuous sowing of sexual seed as far & wide as possible, as a false way to try & ensure a bountiful harvest of crops thru forbidden 'magic' means of trying to wrest control away from the Almighty Creator

God alone is worthy of all worship, praise, glory, honour, majesty & power, as Revelation 4-5 remind us so beautifully

He will not share His glory with idols & the prophecies of Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36 etc show that all the world will know that the Lord alone is God when He vindicates His holy name thru the mighty miraculous deeds that He is now doing in reborn Israel, showing this to be the climax generation of all history, who will see Messiah return to defend His holy name, land & city

Revelation 17 does indeed have many details that can only apply to Rome - it is the famous city of 7 hills, who spends such obscene fortune on gold, silver, precious stones & fine vestments, woods, incense - & traffics in the bodies & souls of men, exactly as Revelation 17 says

Even the infamous Great Whore/Mother of Abominations, dressed in scarlet, golden goblet in hand, riding the Beast, as in Rev 17, is on all EU flags & coins & is the statue outside the EU Parliament

EU is the fulfilment of Daniel 7 vision of the terrible 4th beast, the revived Roman Empire forecast 3 times there to crush, devour & trample victims till the Ancient of Days crushes it

So Revelation 18 says, 'Come out of her, My people, so that you will not share her punishment'

Jesus warned, in Matthew 24, that the birthpains of all kinds of disasters, multiplying & intensifying to bring on the Great Delivery - the instant airlift rescue of all who love Jesus - would include the spiritual disasters of the Great Apostasy, with many false christs/messiahs.prophets/teachers etc

'Now is the acceptable time: behold, now is the day of salvation'

'Today, if you hear God's voice, don't harden your heart'

Hope that helps, with your prayers, dear readers, to open many spiritually blind eyes before it is too late

'Let us work while it is day, for the night comes in which no man can work'

The Rapture of Matt 24:30-31, 1 Cor 15:51-58, 1 Thess 4:14-5:11, etc will end this 'day of grace/salvation' & start the 'great & terrible/dreadful day of the Lord/of wrath/of judgement' - see also Joel 2-3, Zechariah 12-14 & Rev 16-20

Don't be left behind when Jesus comes, OK?

God bless!

Ian

 

[thessalonian]

MrV,

I have to tell you that your post is so full of errors, distortions, prejudicial statements, total nonsense, and downright ignronace of Catholicism, I hardly know where to begin. I thank you for posting it however as it allows me to expose many reasons why someone weighing Catholicism should not trust your opinions. :-D

You only need, dear readers, to hit RC-HQ's own website, hit catechism & compare each & every part of the 'new' RC cataclysmically, catastrophically abysmal catechism with the clear teaching of the Bible to see their many errors

So you got these doctrines you claim the Catholic Church teaches out of the Catechism heh. Let's see. :-?

Just before coming to this public library PC, I read in an Italian mag that John Paul 2 will be canonised in 5 years - they believe that even this great hero of theirs is in a non-existent 'purgatory'Jesus told the repentant thief, on the cross, 'TODAY, you will be with Me in Paradise'

We could get in to purgatory on this. But the fact of the matter is that the 5 years until JP II's canonization really has nothing to do with purgatory. It is simply the time taken to examine his life. If he is in fact canonized a saint, he is not in purgatory NOW. With regard to the theif on the cross it is not Catholic theology that everyone goes through purgatory and that the theif would immediately go to heaven at death is not inconsistent with Catholic views on initial justification. Nor for that matter is purgatory held to be a particular amount of time. The afterlife is outside of time and time in purgatory may be instantaneous on this earth. But the fact of the matter is that we know that in heaven we will be perfect and your doctrine of imputed righteousness carries with it far more important consequences that point to some sort of cleansing by the grace of God (which is what purgatory is) than our doctrines of infused righteousness.

I'm sure many readers saw JP2's televised funeral & heard the blasphemous prayers to Mary as a goddess & to 'saints' as gods, & saw ythe big 'M' on his coffin, falsely glorifying Mary as co-redeemer when 'There is no other name under Heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved' (except the Lord Jesus Christ)

More distortion. Perhaps you can find ONE statement where Catholicism calls Mary a goddess or a deity? Every single statement in Catholic theology on her refers to her as a creature. She has no power in and of herself but if you will note in the prayer most often said to her it says "pray for us sinners". Mary prayers for us. Intercession is what it is called and in 1 Tim 2:1-4 it is said to be a good and holy thing. She asks the grace of her son for our lives. The mother points to the son and Catholic theology on Mary is completely consistent with our being saved by Christ. God works through his creatures. I certainly hope you can think of enough scriptures yourself that I don't need to post them for you to prove this point. "How can one hear the word of God without a preacher....". Even Paul calls God's plan of salvation, "my plan of salvatoin". This is the crux of the co-redeemer issue. The latin is to cooperate with, not as another redeemer. God works through his creation.

The Bible never says to sing hymns to her or to pray to her, or to the 'saints'

The Bible says we are a body of believers and nothing, including death can separate us from Christ. Therefore those in heaven before the throne of God are united with us. The book of revelations indicates that they are united in prayer. In rev 5 the incense representing the prayers of those in heaven is mixed with the prayers of the saints. They interceed for us before the throne of God and we can in fact request that they pray for us. Intercession once again is not limited to Christ and is a good thing. 1 Tim 2:1-4.

All the Bible epistles are addressed to all the saints in the city wrtten to - saints are simply those born-again by the sheer grace of God, thru faith in Christ's once-for-all sacrifice on Calvary's cross - see John 3, Romans 3, Galatians 2:15-16, Ephesians 2:8-9, etc

I agree with this and so does the Catholic Church.

Mary was not a goddess, not a 'co-redeemer' but just a highly favoured, blessed woman

As said above you twist Catholic teaching. Your right, she was not a goddess. You do not understand co-redemption. It means cooperating in the redemption of Christ.

C of E folk, as well as RC readers, will know that the 'Magnificat' - quoted from the Bible, says, "My soul/spirit rejoices in God my Saviour"

Amen.

Only a sinner needs a Saviour - the RC dogma that Mary was perfectly sinless all her life, & was physically lifted into Heaven without dying - are both most definitely UNscriptural

No, you are wrong here. There are two ways someone can be saved. One can be saved by pulling them out of the mud. The normal way. However, one can also be saved if they are stopped from falling in to the mud as well. God's grace prevents sin as well as washes it away. In Mary's case all sin was prevented. I am curisios as to what you think about babies. Do they go to hell as some on this board think? Do they not need Christ? Do you think that a newborn baby is a sinner? I know newborns die.

The Bible clearly shows that Jesus had younger brothers & sisters, yet RCs falsely say that Mary is an eteral virgin (& had no other children)

James was written by Jesus' brother James

Which James? The one identified as Jesus brother who was brother to Judas and Joseph as well. Turns out he is the son of Mary, mother of Cleopas. Trace him through the scriptures and you will see this to be true. We can get in to the details if you like. Perhaps you can come up with a name of a person which the scriptures say
is "bob, son of Mary" or "martha daughter of Mary". I know of no such passage.

God alone is worthy of all worship, praise, glory, honour, majesty & power, as Revelation remind us so beautifully

Well Paul praised Christians ("I praise you because you have ...")of his day so I think your a bit off here. Ever heard the phrase "honor your father and mother". You have some problems with your theology I think. It gives honor to God to acknowledge what he has done in and through others. He is the source.

All I have time for at the moment.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

Mr. V.

Thought I might give you a little more detail on those alledged other children of Mary. Particularly James. You are referring either to Matt 13 or
Gal 1:19. Actually I think they are both the same james. But regardless lets see the problem with your contention that either of these is the son of Mary.

Matt.13
[55] Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

By this wording these could definitely be Jesus immediate brothers of some sort. Perhaps children of Mary just taken on it's own. But Protestants tell me all the time "interpret scripture with scripture". Good advise, let's do it. It appears likely that this James shows up later in Matt.

Matt.27
[56] among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb'edee.

Okay. So we a couple of Mary's here. One is the mother of James and Joseph. Likely the same James and Joseph in Matt 13. Now here's the kicker.

[25]
So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag'dalene.

It seems there were three Mary's at the cross. Jesus mother was everywhere else identified as such. So it is unlikely that the Mary of Matt 27 is his mother but more likely Mary the wife of Clopas. What is interesting is that Clopas is known to have been another name for Alpheus early in the Church. Kind of like my sister is Margaret and Peggy is equivalent. We call her Peggy normally and she prefers it. Now Alpheus was the father of James the Apostle and the Galtians verse you may be referring to says:

[19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

Hmmmm. I know of two James's in the list of the twelve. The son of Zebedee and the son of Alpheus. I don't know that Mary the mother of Jesus ever married an Alpheus do you? Now the calling of them as brothers makes sense when we realize that the Jews called close relatives such as cousins brothers. Have I proven Jesus did not have other brothers? No. But I find your explanation very unlikely for all of this and you cannot prove from scripture that Jesus did have other brothers. Sorry. :-?

Do come back. :-D

 

[D46]

Hmmmm. I know of two James's in the list of the twelve. The son of Zebedee and the son of Alpheus. I don't know that Mary the mother of Jesus ever married an Alpheus do you? Now the calling of them as brothers makes sense when we realize that the Jews called close relatives such as cousins brothers. Have I proven Jesus did not have other brothers? No. But I find your explanation very unlikely for all of this and you cannot prove from scripture that Jesus did have other brothers. Sorry.

So, are you attempting to prove Mary was a perpetual virgin? Fools and blind...

Matthew 13:55-56 (KJV) Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

More distortion. Perhaps you can find ONE statement where Catholicism calls Mary a goddess or a deity? Every single statement in Catholic theology on her refers to her as a creature.

How about the Queen of Heaven or Queen of the Universe, etc, etc.? Sounds like a goddess to me. Every single statement in Catholic theology makes her out to be just that. For every one shrine to Jesus, there's ten or more to Mary...not a goddess? Could have fooled me.I never say them crown Jesus and carry him in a parade like Mary...more idolatrous Catholic garbage.

Mary a co-redeemer is complete blasphemy. She had absolutely nothing to do with the salvation of mankind. That was accomplished at Calvary by the man Christ Jesus our Lord. We are told nowhere in the bible to go through Mary for anything and if there's a way of seeing/hearing earthly things in heaven, I'd bank on the fact that you people have caused her to shed more tears than all peoples of the earth for trusting in her.

The one difference between fundamentalists and Catholics is the Holy Bible. Their Bible is human and can be corrected and enlarged; and it has been many, many times. Every strange doctrine of the Catholic Church is part of their human Bible that they have enlarged and even corrected. Bible-believers are committed to the absolute Word of God that is pure and perfect. No one has the right to add to or subtract from it one word. Remember, you will be judged by this Book that is forever settled in Heaven. At the judgment, if you present your earthly Bible as your argument you will be found guilty. The rest will be tears and sorrow forever.

 

[AVBunyan]

So, are you attempting to prove Mary was a perpetual virgin? Fools and blind...

Yes, D46 we know they teach Mary stayed a virgin. And, as you well know D46, if one reads all the new versions (all Catholic) then they will find the word "firstborn" removed from Matt. 1:25 thus hinting at that Mary could have had more children but the Holy Spirit kept the word "firstborn" in the King James Bible thus wiping out Rome's distorted view of Mary as the "blessed virgin" forever. :o

Praise the Lord for his word the King James Bible - Rome's worst enemy to their religion.

God bless