Nondenominational Christianity

[FHII]

Alexander Hislop’s “The Two Babylons” piece of shoddy history and angry opinions.
Let’s start with Wikipedia’s review . . .

The book has been severely criticized for its lack of evidence, and in many cases its contradiction of the existing evidence: for instance, the Roman state religion before Christianity did not worship a central Mother Goddess, and Jupiter was never called "Jupiter-Puer."

Likewise, Semiramis lived centuries after Nimrod, and could neither have been his mother, nor married him. Hislop also makes unacceptable linguistic connections and fanciful word plays, e.g. the letters IHS on Catholic Holy Communion wafers are alleged to stand for Egyptian deities Isis, Horus and Seth, but in reality they are an abbreviation for Ihsous, the Latin spelling of Jesus's name in Greek (Ιησους), although popularly, they stand for the Latin Iesus Hominum Salvator meaning Jesus, Savior of Mankind (which also fits the teaching of Transubstantiation, where the wafer and wine are said to become the body and blood of Christ).” (Source: Wikipedia article, Alexander Hislop. Alexander Hislop - Wikipedia)


Regarding the etymology of “Easter” from the SAME Wikipedia page - in contrast with Hislop’s version:
The claim that Easter is derived from Ishtar has been questioned.[11] Modern etymologists derive the word Easter from the Proto-Indo-European root *aus-, meaning "dawn,"[12] potentially by way of *h₂ewsṓs.[13] Ishtar is a Semitic name of uncertain etymology, possibly taken from the same root as Assyria, or from a semitic word meaning "to irrigate."[14]


From Conservapedia:
https://www.conservapedia.com/%27%27The_Two_Babylons%27%27
The work has been completely discredited by painstaking professional historical research, and thoroughly rebutted and refuted by strongly evangelical former supporters who did follow-up research of their own.

Historians who have carefully researched the historical claims made in this book, and the source materials that author Hislop relied on, have determined that he is unreliable as an historian. Almost all of his "facts" are shown to be false, and his reasoning from superficial similarities of appearances and ritual actions is demonstrated to be completely unsound and without merit as "proofs" of pagan origins. This has demolished his credibility. 16th–19th century anthropologists who were contemporaries of the authors of his source materials have also shown that even among historians in the 16th–19th centuries most of his sources had no reliable historical credibility as researchers.

Impartial and objective evaluations by non-Catholic reviewers of this book have also determined that it is simply a calumny against the Catholic religion. This has refuted his Christian integrity as a writer. This does not prove that Alexander Hislop was a liar, but only that his book is full of falsehoods. There is a difference. He may indeed have been sincere in his belief. His methology was entirely wrong. His conclusions are errors.

From the Christian Research Institute:
https://www.equip.org/article/the-two-babylons/
The subtitle for Hislop’s book is “The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.” Yet when I went to reference works such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Americana, The Jewish Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia, The Worldbook Encyclopedia – carefully reading their articles on “Nimrod” and “Semiramis” — not one said anything about Nimrod and Semiramis being husband and wife. They did not even live in the same century. Nor is there any basis for Semiramis being the mother of Tammuz. I realized these ideas were all Hislop’s inventions.

The fact that you don’t believe Ralph Woodrow is YOUR problem. He was FAR more familiar with Hislop’s work that YOU. – and the weight of scholarship is on HIS side . . .

So you are not going to answer any of my questions?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Acca Larentia is a Roman Goddess who is most famous for being the foster-mother of the mythical twins Romulus and Remus.

Jupiter-puer explained

Who was Ishtar, and is there any connection between Ishtar and Easter?

Finally, anyone who does serious historical study sees that the Roman Roman Catholicism is the adaption of pagan Roman religion by the early Catholics.

Then, ANY time you wanna do that, by ALL means, do it.

Please give us a doctrine by doctrine comparison.
I can't wait to see this . . . . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

So you are not going to answer any of my questions?

I already told you that it doesn’t matter WHO Nick Sayers He could be a high school drop-out.
The linguistic evidence he presents is what matters.

As for “St.” Bede – he’s not a canonized saint at all. Regardless of that – he’s entitled to his own opinions – as long as they are not DOCTRINAL errors. As I showed you – Alexander Hislop’s work is a joke among serious scholarship.

Bede didn’t write an entire book or treatise that is FILLED with errors and inventions of his own.
Hislop DID.

 

[CoreIssue]

Then, ANY time you wanna do that, by ALL means, do it.

Please give us a doctrine by doctrine comparison.
I can't wait to see this . . . . . .

You make the claim you guys are all united, so you prove it.

The chart I posted proves it. The denial of the Roman Catholic Pope except for Roman Catholicism proves it.

You guys don't even cross yourself the same way. Which by the way is just as empty as a lot of your other teachings.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You make the claim you guys are all united, so you prove it.

The chart I posted proves it. The denial of the Roman Catholic Pope except for Roman Catholicism proves it.

You guys don't even cross yourself the same way. Which by the way is just as empty as a lot of your other teachings.

TRANSLATION:
"I'm not equipped to prove that the Catholic Church has Pagan origins. I was just shooting my mouth off irresponsibly."

That's what I thought . . .

 

[CoreIssue]

TRANSLATION:
"I'm not equipped to prove that the Catholic Church has Pagan origins. I was just shooting my mouth off irresponsibly."

That's what I thought . . .

Your meaning is you cannot disprove what I said so you resort to personal attacks.

Deal with the message is not the messenger.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your meaning is you cannot disprove what I said so you resort to personal attacks.

Deal with the message is not the messenger.

In post #80 – YOU made the idiotic charge that the Catholic Church had Pagan roots.
In post #82 – I asked you to provide a doctrine-by-doctrine comparison to prove this.
In post #84 – YOU dodged this challenge by posting an asinine remark about unity in the Catholic Church.

Was my challenge to your earlier claim too difficult??
Is there a reason that you were unable to provide any proof of your moronic claim??

STICK to the conversation . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

As I have said before, the more you answer , respond to him, the more you all cause him to sin against you and God. Let it be.

 

[CoreIssue]

In post #80 – YOU made the idiotic charge that the Catholic Church had Pagan roots.
In post #82 – I asked you to provide a doctrine-by-doctrine comparison to prove this.
In post #84 – YOU dodged this challenge by posting an asinine remark about unity in the Catholic Church.

Was my challenge to your earlier claim too difficult??
Is there a reason that you were unable to provide any proof of your moronic claim??

STICK to the conversation . . .

The better word is pointless You will attack try to divert to escape the issue

 

[BreadOfLife]

The better word is pointless You will attack try to divert to escape the issue

Soooooo, you wanna be able to level bogus charges against the Church, then RUN when asked to substantiate them??

Exposing cowardly lies like this is PRECISELY why I'm here . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

As I have said before, the more you answer , respond to him, the more you all cause him to sin against you and God. Let it be.

No, he'll have to provide PROOF.
Something that YOU were never able to do.

 

[CoreIssue]

Soooooo, you wanna be able to level bogus charges against the Church, then RUN when asked to substantiate them??

Exposing cowardly lies like this is PRECISELY why I'm here . . .

Nothing bogus about I posted. It is fact anyone can confirm with one Internet search.

The Church is not Catholicism. Catholicism is a cult.

You teach a different Christ, a different salvation and elevate Mary to being Queen of heaven and your saints to being minor gods. Plus claim the power forgiveness of sin and Teach salvation through works.

 

[mjrhealth]

No, he'll have to provide PROOF.
Something that YOU were never able to do.

There are pages and pages and pages of proof that all stand as testament against you, and you will have to answer for everyone, Nothing Hidden. But as Jesus put it, forgive them they know not what they do....

 

[BreadOfLife]

There are pages and pages and pages of proof that all stand as testament against you, and you will have to answer for everyone, Nothing Hidden. But as Jesus put it, forgive them they know not what they do....

Then PLEASE point me to some of the "evidence" so we can have a discussion.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Nothing bogus about I posted. It is fact anyone can confirm with one Internet search.

The Church is not Catholicism. Catholicism is a cult.

You teach a different Christ, a different salvation and elevate Mary to being Queen of heaven and your saints to being minor gods. Plus claim the power forgiveness of sin and Teach salvation through works.

No - your charges are nothing but bogus manure unless you can substantiate the.

You and others here have cowardly refused to substantiate your moronic accusations by telling ME to do an internet search.
If YOU can't bring the evidence to the table - then you have NONE.

Didn't ANYBODY ever teach you how a debate works??
No WONDER your site failed so miserable . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

Then PLEASE point me to some of the "evidence" so we can have a discussion.

Here preserved for ever, not even God will have to remember

 

[BreadOfLife]

Here preserved for ever, not even God will have to remember

And this list of MY posts proves WHAT, exactly??

 

[FHII]

I already told you that it doesn’t matter WHO Nick Sayers He could be a high school drop-out.
The linguistic evidence he presents is what matters.

As for “St.” Bede – he’s not a canonized saint at all. Regardless of that – he’s entitled to his own opinions – as long as they are not DOCTRINAL errors. As I showed you – Alexander Hislop’s work is a joke among serious scholarship.

Bede didn’t write an entire book or treatise that is FILLED with errors and inventions of his own.
Hislop DID.

Whether or not Bede is canonized or not, I will default to you as I am not aan expert on Catholic Saints. However, I will point out that according to Wikipedia. Anonized as a Doctor of the Church in 1899.

As for Nick Sayers... It kind of does matter who he is. You mention that Hislop is a joke amongst serious scholarship [sic]. Is Sayers a serious scholar or not?

As for the list of "serious scholars".... Well... I found 5 references. I am not impressed. There is one I could not access the work of... But they tend to just quote each other or themselves. There conclusions miss important points. Its all interestimg, but it only is a rival hypothesis to what hislop wrote. It debunks NOTHING.

Please dont think I am a fan of Hislop.... I am looking at this with an objective POV. I will continue to look into this.... I have much to learn! However, this was NOT Hislop's imagination or invention. And his detractors make multiple mistakes in understanding cultural diffusion and mythology.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

I am a Catholic, Catholic means it is not denominational, but we have all have types of Orders that suit our gifts. but does not get in to your true Order until your are Born Again in the Holy Spirit.

Don't get me wrong I am not Roman Catholic or Prot or Jew or anything other, because I don't have faith in them, Jesus Christ is my only Lord and Saviour.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Whether or not Bede is canonized or not, I will default to you as I am not aan expert on Catholic Saints. However, I will point out that according to Wikipedia. Anonized as a Doctor of the Church in 1899.

As for Nick Sayers... It kind of does matter who he is. You mention that Hislop is a joke amongst serious scholarship [sic]. Is Sayers a serious scholar or not?

As for the list of "serious scholars".... Well... I found 5 references. I am not impressed. There is one I could not access the work of... But they tend to just quote each other or themselves. There conclusions miss important points. Its all interestimg, but it only is a rival hypothesis to what hislop wrote. It debunks NOTHING.

Please dont think I am a fan of Hislop.... I am looking at this with an objective POV. I will continue to look into this.... I have much to learn! However, this was NOT Hislop's imagination or invention. And his detractors make multiple mistakes in understanding cultural diffusion and mythology.

No - you're missing the point.

Bede made a mistake.
Hislop wrote an entire book FILLED with errors and inventions of his OWN making. In other words - LIES.

2+2 = 5 is a mistake.
2+5 = the Catholic Church is pagan because I claim that a person from one century married someone from another century is a LIE.
BIG difference . . .