Exposing Hislop's "The Two Babylons"

[CatholicXian]

"Firstborn" does not necessarily imply that more children followed. It was a term given to the eldest son, the one given birthright by law. The term is used to signify the precedence of Christ's birth, not only as the Son of Man (the son of Mary), but as the Son of God.

I also hesitate to say that Mary had other children because doing so would lessen the miracle of Christ's birth from a VIRGIN. If Mary later shows up with more children, the "oops" factor is going to become more and more suspicious. Indeed, a very dear friend of mine-- well meaning, thinks that Mary had other children and so thinks that some people are "more special" because they were blood brothers of Christ, and decendents from Christ's siblings are somehow "more divine" (? I don't know, and I don't quite understand... sounds too Da Vinci Code for me... but how do answer someone like that?)

Secondly, by the time Jesus is 12, and Luke's Gospel narrates the trip to the Temple and we only hear about Jesus, Mary, and Joseph... surely, if Christ had other brothers and sisters we would've heard about them by the time He was 12!?!? Thus, I'm more inclined to think that James the brother of Jesus is more likely Jesus cousin, rather than a son of Joseph and Mary. "adelphos" is in someways similar to the Hebrew "ah" which doesn't always designate true blood relation (cf. Genesis 13:8, and some others)

The purpose of Matthew 1:25 is to stress what has not taken place (sex between Joseph and Mary), regardless of what takes place after. It is to underscore the virgin and miraculous birth of Jesus, not relay that Jesus had siblings.

 

[JM]

"Firstborn" does not necessarily imply that more children followed.

Yes it does.

It was a term given to the eldest son, the one given birthright by law. The term is used to signify the precedence of Christ's birth, not only as the Son of Man (the son of Mary), but as the Son of God.

I also hesitate to say that Mary had other children because doing so would lessen the miracle of Christ's birth from a VIRGIN.

Not true.

If Mary later shows up with more children, the "oops" factor is going to become more and more suspicious. Indeed, a very dear friend of mine-- well meaning, thinks that Mary had other children and so thinks that some people are "more special" because they were blood brothers of Christ, and decendents from Christ's siblings are somehow "more divine" (? I don't know, and I don't quite understand... sounds too Da Vinci Code for me... but how do answer someone like that?)

This is human reasoning and not Biblical thinking. We have a saying in theology, 'think God's thoughts after Him.'

Secondly, by the time Jesus is 12, and Luke's Gospel narrates the trip to the Temple and we only hear about Jesus, Mary, and Joseph... surely, if Christ had other brothers and sisters we would've heard about them by the time He was 12!?!?

You're assuming based on facts that are not on record.

Thus, I'm more inclined to think that James the brother of Jesus is more likely Jesus cousin, rather than a son of Joseph and Mary. "adelphos" is in someways similar to the Hebrew "ah" which doesn't always designate true blood relation (cf. Genesis 13:8, and some others)

It doesn't always designate a true blood relation but it does in most cases.

The purpose of Matthew 1:25 is to stress what has not taken place (sex between Joseph and Mary), regardless of what takes place after. It is to underscore the virgin and miraculous birth of Jesus, not relay that Jesus had siblings.

That has nothing to do with Christ's brother James, that has to do with the miraculous birth of Christ.

 

[CatholicXian]

JM,

Does "until"/"till"/"heos" (in the Greek) always mean "and then it happened"? For instance, we read in Matthew 1:25 (which I didn't say had anything to do with James...) that Joseph knew Mary not "till she had brought forth her firstborn son"

 

[JM]

JM,

Does "until"/"till"/"heos" (in the Greek) always mean "and then it happened"? For instance, we read in Matthew 1:25 (which I didn't say had anything to do with James...) that Joseph knew Mary not "till she had brought forth her firstborn son"

Please post your qualifications to render Greek terms, if not, maybe a source or two?

I mean this in the most polite way, I'd like to check it out myself.

 

[CatholicXian]

I was hoping for a response, but alas, with class tomorrow I cannot stay up too much later.

My point here is not to prove Mary's virginity, but only to make a plausible argument for it and to show that the Catholic doctrine on Mary's virginity is for the sake of Christ, to underscore the uniqueness and miraculous event that took place in the virgin birth.

"till" does not always mean "and then it happened"... The word "heos" (until/till/etc), in language, tells us to understand that a thing will not come to pass in time to come: as Michal had no children "till" her death day, (2 Samuel 6:23). And in the last chapter of Matthew's Gospel 'Behold, I am with you "till" the end of the world'. Obviously a dead woman cannot bear children, and obviously Christ is not going to abandon us at the end of the age. It is simply establishing what has not yet taken place, regardless of what takes place (or doesn't) afterwards.

Thus, Matthew 1:25 in saying that Joseph knew Mary not "until" she had given birth to her firstborn doesn't imply that Joseph and Mary then had other children.

Secondly, and this is truly an honest question to be given consideration. Why Mary's surprise at the Angel's announcement that she WILL conceive a son? The Angel does not tell Mary that she is at that time pregnant, nor does he relay to her that she WILL become pregnant before her marriage to Joseph, so why on earth would a woman about to be married respond "HOW CAN THIS BE" since she doesn't know man? Married women conceive and give birth all the time, it's not a big deal. Women about to be married were not ignorant of how babies come about. Mary doesn't express surprise about who the Son will be, but only that she will conceive--she stresses that she doesn't 'know' man in that way. Why?

Even if you vehemently disagree. You have to admit that there is a plausibility at play here. That does make sense. The "brothers" of Jesus later mentioned pose not a problem because of the use of language at that time (and even today... we have fraternities, etc... and many Christians call each other brother and sister though they are not related by blood) and the fact that they could be relatives-- cousins, etc.

 

[CatholicXian]

JM,

Does "until"/"till"/"heos" (in the Greek) always mean "and then it happened"? For instance, we read in Matthew 1:25 (which I didn't say had anything to do with James...) that Joseph knew Mary not "till she had brought forth her firstborn son"

Please post your qualifications to render Greek terms, if not, maybe a source or two?

I mean this in the most polite way, I'd like to check it out myself.

(patience is a virtue I need more of! ;-) )

Check out Strong's Concordance if you have one, or can look it up... it's 2193. That's the easiest and quickest source I can give you unless you have a 24 hour library with a lot Greek books. lol.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. 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

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

Thanks MrV - I see you have actually read and researched while others here have not or either just "skimmed over" without checking the references and foot notes.

Dr. Peter S. Ruckman (whom I love and appreciate in the Lord) is quite a reader and researcher in his own right and has read the book through 5 times (and he only needs to read a book through twice to get it) and says the book is right on - and Dr. Ruckman used to be a good Catholic before he got gloriously saved :-D

2. Thanks again MrV - Rome's greatest comeback is, "Protestant lies and distortions…, etc." Blah, blah, blah.

One more time with feeling....A simple King James Bible, "Two Babylons", and history destroys Rome for an enlightened person. Now, if one is in darkness (II Cor. 4:3; I Cor. 2:14) then only God can open the eyes.

Again - nice work MrV -

By the way Rome - why did Origen, under the influence of the god of this world, take "firstborn" out? We know why.

Mary going up into heaven sinless???!!!??? And common folk took the pope's word inthe 1800's for dreaming this up? Chapter and verse please? :o :o :o

Who needs "unreality" TV and Star Wars when you have Rome!?!?!? :o

God bless 8-)

 

[Heidi]

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. :-?

[quote:caf0d]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[/quote:caf0d]

Where does the bible say that Mary was sinless, a virgin, and a co-redeemer with Christ? :o Mary isn't even mentioned by Paul. So much for her "co-redeemer" status. I honor my mother, but that doesn't mean she is responsible for my salvation! She was an atheist. So you completely distort the OP and your comments are not relevant to it. And where does the bible say that James & Jude were not Christ's brothers? :o Verses please. ;-)

 

[cj]

How easily the deceiver moves discussions away from Hislop and his book towards doctrinal issues.

Just throw it all together and they will confuse themselves is Satan's method.

Oh Thess, I appreciate you, but Mary didn't need to sin as she was born in sin.

See, if Mary was without sin she would not have suffered death. And before you tell me about her being taken up like (raptured in some sort of way) understand this, for the sake of the point I'm making it doesn't matter if she was or wasn't, the fact is Mary did not possess eternal life before she believed into Christ.

And why?

Because she was born in sin, meaning, in a state of death.

This is the sin for which we require the Son and His precious blood, to bring us from a state of death (sin before God) to a state of life (righteousness before God).

You want to explain the scriptures to folks on these boards and yet you show us that you don't understand even the most basic of scriptural truth.

Fact is, if Mary was headed towards death she was headed there as a resault of being born in sin.

Are you going to deny that Mary was dying from the day she was born?

Are you going to say that even if Christ did not die Mary would have lived forever?

I hope not.

And if not, then you are contradicting the erroneous RC teachings of Mary being without sin.


Now, that said, Mary was a Jew and I believe that as such she could have maintained a position of righteousness before God through her keeping of the Jewish law. But this does not equate to Mary being without sin in the sense that the RC institution attempts to suggests.

In love,
cj

 

[cj]

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.

Purgatory doctrine is a load of doody meant to keep believers imprisoned by manmade forms and traditions. The false and folly teaching of purgatory is one of the most heinous crimes committed against God and men by the RC institution.

Jesus came to free men, the RC institution (really, Christianity on a whole) seeks to reimprison those whom He has set free.


That said, as counterfeiting goes, and Christianity, which comes out of the Mother in Rome, is the counterfeit, the best effort is that which so closely compares to the real thing that the two are almost indistinguishable.

The fact is prugatory is the counterfeit of the time of perfecting for believers that will take place after the Lord's return.

Know this, there will be a judgement of believers by the Lord Himself, He will test each and every believer's work. And any that fail, even slightly, will require further perfecting, an experience which the scripture describes as being touched by the second death.

Fact is, the perfecting that comes after our time on earth, if necessary, will not be a time of smiling in heaven but of gnashing of teeth in a hell-like environment.

Hey, don't believe me believe what the scriptures say. And the truth is this is right there in black and white.

So many believers think that they are heaven-bound upon death, but this is not the truth. The bible tells us that there is a time of sleeping, a time of awaiting the Lord's return, from a location of being underneath the altar.

And this place that is underneath the altar is what is called Paradise or Abraham's Bosom, the good part of Hades, a place where the dead saints await the Lord's return.

But I'm going away from the topic of purgatory,... so lets get back.

The nature and essence of RC doctrine/forms/traditions, coming out of Satan, has just one motive/purpose,... to imprison men. Thus it is not the fact that men will suffer after death that is so wrong but that all the attached doctrines/forms/traditions that are taught and that work to bind men as they live is absolutely against God and His economy.

The fact is some will suffer unto further perfecting after death, but what the RC institution teaches and that binds men is an absolute lie.

And this is Satan's way,... take the truth and infect it with the corruption which issues from his mind.

This is exactly what he did in the garden and is exactly what he attempted to do to the Lord in the wilderness.


Knowing what Hislop wrote about the RC institution is good, but we have the bible from which in spirit and with the Spirit we can come into all truth.

Knowing Satan up and personal, and hating what we know of him, is the surest way of being safe.

How do you know to stay away from garbage?

Because you know the smell.

How do you know to not drink sour milk?

Because you know the taste.

How do you know not to touch fire?

Because you know it burns.


The principle is the same, the better we know Satan is the better our chances of staying clear of him.


How well do you think God knows Satan?

Then let us pattern ourselves off of Him.


In love,
cj

 

[thessalonian]

How easily the deceiver moves discussions away from Hislop and his book towards doctrinal issues.

Hey thanks for showing your lack of bias in acknowledging that MrVersitile moved this away from Hislop CJ. :-D I aprreciate it. Do you think that's nice calling him a deciver though? I don't know how the mods will feel about that

:wink:

 

[thessalonian]

"Firstborn" does not necessarily imply that more children followed.

Yes it does.

JM do you expect us to take your word for it. Let me pull up a few verses.

Exodus 11 [Context] [Commentary]

5. and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of the Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the firstborn of the slave girl who is behind the millstones; all the firstborn of the cattle as well.

So does this mean that any families with only one child did not suffer this woe because their son was not their firstborn. Was John the Baptist not elizabeth's firstborn son. Was Sameul not a firstborn.


Ex 13
2. "Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me."

So did they have to wait around until the second was born to see if the first was a firstborn. Did every family always have more than one child? Do you know of any families with just one child? Were there any in the Bible (hint Samuel, John the Baptist) I think the ridiculousness of your statement "yes it does" is quit apprent. The firstborn had religous significance in that he was to be consecrated to the Lord. It does not mean their HAD to be a secondborn. Thanks for posting it.

 

[JM]

Real quick:

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

"Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children."

And knew her not Until she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and he called His name, Jesus!"

"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

Jesus is the firstborn over all creation. Col. 1:15, 19; 2:6-9; 3:1-2; Heb 1:6

The term does have other meanings, I admitt to this Thess, but the context of the scriptures given above doesn't agree with your understanding. Jesus had brothers, the impression is given that Joseph didn't 'know' Mary UNTIL Christ was born.

Peace,
j
Ps: 2 sec post. :D

 

[thessalonian]

Real quick:

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

"Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children."

And knew her not Until she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and he called His name, Jesus!"

"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

Jesus is the firstborn over all creation. Col. 1:15, 19; 2:6-9; 3:1-2; Heb 1:6

The term does have other meanings, I admitt to this Thess, but the context of the scriptures given above doesn't agree with your understanding. Jesus had brothers, the impression is given that Joseph didn't 'know' Mary UNTIL Christ was born.

Peace,
j
Ps: 2 sec post. :D

Thanks for the honesty in the last paragraph. I will leave the until part for the moment and handle those who are said to be jesus brothers. Actually I handled your passages in a post to Mr. V yesterday so I will simply repost what I said to him yesterday. Keep in mind I do not claim I can prove that Mary was ever virgin by a literal rendering of scripture. I simply am proving that you cannot prove that she did. Typologically speaking I believe I can provide strong evidence that she was ever virgin. But that's a bit much for this discussion. I find it very unlikely that the James and Joses and Simon and Gal 1:19 are children of Mary from scripture. Read.

Blessings

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.


Blessings

 

[JM]

Thess, it just seem you're taking the least likely use of 'firstfruits' and cousins to make your doctrine stick.

I could be wrong and often am.

peace.

 

[thessalonian]

[double post

 

[thessalonian]

Thess, it just seem you're taking the least likely use of 'firstfruits' and cousins to make your doctrine stick.

I could be wrong and often am.

peace.

You mean firstborn? No, I think it is pretty clear that the focus of Matt 1:25 is not on the sex lives of Mary and Joseph but on who Jesus is and that he is not the son of Joseph.

As for cousins, I don't say they were cousins. They could be. But the fact of the matter is that in our way of thinking it is the least likely because we have many words for various relatives. At Jesus time they had only one word in the Hebrew for blood family relations. So when put in the context of the Bible, the language, and the hebrew culture, it is not the least likely. Further it is the most likely that James, Joses, and Simon were not sons of mary the mother of Jesus but of Mary, wife of Clopas. Otherwise the James and Joseph of Matt 13 and the James and Joseph of Matt 27 had to have been close relatives with the same names. I won't say this is impossible either but pretty unlikely. Do you agree that James the Apostle of Gal 1:19 was the son of Alpheus and not the son of Mary, Jesus mother? Be honest with yourself. Note I agree he was jesus brother but in the Hebrew context.

 

[phatcatholic]

How easily the deceiver moves discussions away from Hislop and his book towards doctrinal issues.

amen!!

sorry MrVersatile, some may enjoy a good red herring or two, but not me. this thread isn't about doctrine. its about hislop's faulty logic and scholarship. specifically, what i am referring to is the absurd logic which asserts that if one thing came after another thing, the first was the cause of the second --or-- that if two things are similar, then the one must have caused the other. you do realize that there were many pagan gods that remind of Jesus, right? gods who become man, and are born of a virgin, and die for mankind are found throughout the pagan world. should we then use hislop's logic and assert that our beleifs about Jesus came from paganism too?

as for his scholarship (from this article):

• --the subtitle for Hislop’s book is “The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.†but, refer­ence works such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Americana, The Jewish Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia, and The Worldbook Encyclopedia say nothing about Nimrod and Semiramis being husband and wife. they did not even live in the same century
  
  --Semiramis is apparently the mother of Tammuz, but this was nowhere to be found either
  
  --Hislop says that the “round†wafer used in the mass came from Egyptian paganism. For this he cites a statement in Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians (vol. 5, 353, 365) about the use of thin round cakes on their altars. however, Wilkinson’s work also said the Egyptians used oval and triangular cakes; folded cakes; cakes shaped like leaves, animals, and a crocodile’s head; and so on. the manna from heaven was around also (Exo 16:14-15), maybe we should condemn that while we're at it....
  
  --he says that Semiramis (or Isis) gave birth to Tammuz (or Horus) during the winter solstace, and that's the origin of the date when Christmas is celebrated. but, in Wilkinson's work, which he cites for this, the child born of Isis during that time was Harpocrates, not Tammuz, or Horus. so, Hislop basically just stick in the god that worked best for him.
  
  --In another appeal to Wilkinson, Hislop says that a Lent of 40 days was observed in Egypt. But when we look up the reference, Wilkinson says Egyptian fasts “lasted from seven to forty-two days, and sometimes even a longer period: during which time they abstained entirely from animal food, from herbs and vegetables, and above all from the indulgence of the passions†(Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, vol. 1, 278). With as much credibility, we could say they fasted 7 days, 10 days, 12 days, or 42 days. Hislop’s claim appears to have validity only because he used partial information.

this is supposed to be "brilliantly researched"??? not from what i can tell....

pax christi,
phatcatholic

 

[cj]

How easily the deceiver moves discussions away from Hislop and his book towards doctrinal issues.

Hey thanks for showing your lack of bias in acknowledging that MrVersitile moved this away from Hislop CJ. :-D I aprreciate it. Do you think that's nice calling him a deciver though? I don't know how the mods will feel about that

:wink:

Thess, slow down, relax, take a chilly-pilly,... by deceiver I meant God's adversary, who will try his best to influence the saints away from anything that exposes him and his work.

Sorry that you got all worked up for nothing.

In love,
cj

 

[cj]

Mary was dead in sin from the day she was born and became alive in Christ the moment she believed into Him.

Saying anything else is a lie, and holding onto a lie is folly.

In love,
cj