The Two Babylons

brakelite said:

You mean like this one? Pure coincidence right. Yep. Coincidence.
Google Image Result for https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_vaticano/vatican138_01.jpg

Click to expand...

This accusation, that Catholics worship the Babylonian fish god Dagon, comes up regularly with Catholic bashers.

The “proof” of this is that the mitres worn by bishops in the Catholic Church resemble the upturned mouth of a fish is risible, but gullible people actually believe it.

There are many faults in this argument.
1. According to the world renowned Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Dagan (Dagon) was the god of crop fertility (not fish), dagan being the Hebrew for “grain”.

Dagan, also spelled Dagon, West Semitic god of crop fertility, worshiped extensively throughout the ancient Middle East. Dagan was the Hebrew and Ugaritic common noun for “grain,” and the god Dagan was the legendary inventor of the plow. His cult is attested as early as about 2500 bc, and, according to texts found at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit), he was the father of the god Baal. Dagan had an important temple at Ras Shamra, and in Palestine, where he was particularly known as a god of the Philistines, he had several sanctuaries, including those at Beth-dagon in Asher (Joshua 19:27), Gaza (Judges 16:23), and Ashdod (1 Samuel 5:2–7).

Dagan | Semitic god

A possible etymology of the name Dagan from the West Semitic/Ugaritic root dgn, which can be translated as 'grain', and the Hebrew dāgōn, an archaic word for 'grain' (Black and Green 1998: 56), has tempted some scholars to assume that he played a role in vegetation/fertility, which might be confirmed by his son's, the West Semitic deity Ba'al, role as a vegetation deity (Black and Green 1998: 56). A 4th century AD tradition which places Dagan as a fish deity is erroneous (Black and Green 1998: 56).

2. Again according to the world renowned Encyclopedia Brittanica, Ea (Greek Oannes) was the Mesopotamian fish god.
Oannes, in Mesopotamian mythology, an amphibious being who taught mankind wisdom. Oannes, as described by the Babylonian priest Berosus, had the form of a fish but with the head of a man under his fish’s head and under his fish’s tail the feet of a man. In the daytime he came up to the seashore of the Persian Gulf and instructed mankind in writing, the arts, and the sciences. Oannes was probably the emissary of Ea, god of the freshwater deep and of wisdom.
Oannes | Mesopotamian mythology

Here is a bit of fun:
John the Baptist's name (John) in Greek is Oannes.
Interesting! Just a co-incidence?
And John baptised in water in a river where fish were!!!!.
Do you think John the Baptist was actually a pagan fish worshipper?

Now things get murkier. Jesus was baptised by John. Was that a baptism into John's fish worshipping cult?
That would explain why Jesus could point out where Peter & other could make a big catch of fish (Lk 5:6, Jn 21:6). And Jesus said Peter would "fish for people". (Lk 5:19)
Perhaps Christianity is just a Babylonian fish cult.
Do you see how silly these sort of comprisons can get?

Now back to the faults of this claim

3. The relief picture of the “fish god” most commonly shown is actually from the Assyrian city of Nineveh (not Babylon), and was discovered in the excavations of the 1840s by Austen Henry Layard. (see www.gutenberg.org/files/39897/39897-h/39897-h.htm)

4. Similar does not mean equivalent. It is the logical fallacy of Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). That there are similarities between two practices occurring at similar times does not mean that there is a causal link between them. This is even more ridiculous when the supposed common practices are at a distance in time and space.

5. Nineveh was destroyed, razed to the ground around 612 BC. The mitre in its current form did not appear until the 12th century AD. It developed from a round headdress like the Jewish priestly turban & as worn today by Eastern Orthodox priests. There are therefore some 16 centuries between the destruction of Nineveh and the supposed appearance of the “fish mouth” shaped mitre.

6. No other similarity is presented between the supposed cult of Dagon and Catholic practices. The whole charge rests on this singular and highly fanciful similarity

Hidden In Him said:

Well, I was attempting to avoid inciting a big argument with Catholics, since I knew it was only a matter of time before someone like BreadOfLife read this thread, and here we are. So I think I'll stay out of that one. I'm kind of past discussing the various problems that exist in Catholic theology anyway... for whatever reason. Maybe it's just old news to me, and I don't see doing so leading anywhere, since Catholics are normally very staunch on standing behind their doctrines in light of the magisterium and their traditions.

But thanks for the quote on Ralph Woodrow. I actually own that as well. As I recall, it was a much lighter version of the same basic argument, but with more photographs and drawings.

Click to expand...

Do you realise that Ralph Woodrow later repudiated Hislop's and his own book that was based on Hislop's?
He says that few challenged his book. One who did was Scott Klemm, a high school history teacher in Southern California. Woodrow writes:
“Being a Christian and appreciating other things I had written, he began to show me evidence that Hislop was not a reliable historian. As a result I realised that I needed to go though Hislop's work, my basic source, and prayerfully check it out.

As I did this it became clear – Hislop's “history” was often only mythology. Even though some myths may sometimes reflect events that actually happened, an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths cannot provide a sound basis for history.”

Woodrow went on the investigate Hislop's claims consulting many reliable sources. He wrote another book called The Babylonian Connection? in which he demolished Hislop's claims.

Woodrow says:
Here is a list of the some of the unsubstantiated claims that are made about the religion of ancient Babylon:
• The Babylonians went to a confessional and confessed sins to priests who wore black clergy garments.
• Their king, Nimrod, was born on December 25. Round decorations on Christmas trees and round communion wafers honoured him as the Sun-god.
• Sun-worshippers went to their temples weekly, on Sunday, to worship the Sun-god.
• Nimrod’s wife was Semiramis, who claimed to be the Virgin Queen of Heaven, and was the mother of Tammuz.
• Tammuz was killed by a wild boar when he was age 40; so 40 days of Lent were set aside to honour his death.
• The Babylonians wept for him on “Good Friday.” They worshipped a cross-the initial letter of his name.
It is amazing how unsubstantiated teachings like these circulate—and are believed. One can go to any library, check any history book about ancient Babylon, none of these things will be found. They are not historically accurate, but are based on an arbitrary piecing together of bits and pieces of mythology.
http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/pa...n-mystery.html

Woodrow is not an apologist for the Catholic Church. In his book, despite demolishing Hislop's claims, he spends one chapter criticising the Catholic Church for what he calls "excess baggage".

A reviewer of Woodrow's The Babylon Connection? says:
The Babylon Connection? is a devastating critique of Hislop and his many imitators. Almost from the first page, the shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty, and personal prejudices of Alexander Hislop are quite evident. By the end of the first chapter, none except those suffering from “black helicopters over America” paranoia could possibly view Hislop as anything but a crackpot and a fraud. Woodrow presses on, however, and in painstaking detail demonstrates Hislop’s lack of scholarly integrity. As one who was formerly believed Hislop to be a credible source, Woodrow understands the mindset of those fooled by this belief system and he leaves their delusions in tatters. When it is over, nothing of Hislop’s rhetorical edifice is left standing.

Acolyte said:

I have pushed this away, and decided not to read others' works but to stay in our Heavenly Fathers's Word.


Blessings

Click to expand...

@Acolyte While I think there may be some truth in Hislop's book, it may also be somewhat speculative; and certainly staying in the Word is great advice.

Enoch111 said:

I have a copy and it is a well researched book which exposes the tremendous pagan influence on the Catholic Church as seen in their doctrines and practices. No one can deny that the title of Pontifex Maximus (the Supreme Pontiff) for the pope is the very same title that was given to the chief pagan priest in Rome and was taken over by the pontiff. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Hislop traces all pagan idolatrous religions worldwide to Babel and Nimrod and there is no denying that they are all connected, especially with the worship of the Mother and Child, as well as Serpent or Snake worship. The Bible condemned the worship of the Queen of Heaven, but lo and behold the Catholic Church calls Mary Queen of Heaven and there are images of her seated on a throne alongside God the Father and Christ in some of the cathedrals, and being worshipped.

And lest someone come along and claim that Hislop has been debunked, the scholarly and well-respected History of the Christian Church by Philip Schaff confirms what Hislop discovered.

Click to expand...

I have had several books with the word Babylon in the title, but not this one! I will look into it.
Nimrod was worshiped as a god, then after his death, worshiped as the sun god. Well to get to the point I would like to make is, that when God confused the Languages, this worship spread all around the known world, only under different names, according to the language. the rituals and methods of this worship varied, but still the same deity!
Pontiff Maximus? I read that it meant, the great bridge builder ?

Truth said:

I have had several books with the word Babylon in the title, but not this one! I will look into it.
Nimrod was worshiped as a god, then after his death, worshiped as the sun god. Well to get to the point I would like to make is, that when God confused the Languages, this worship spread all around the known world, only under different names, according to the language. the rituals and methods of this worship varied, but still the same deity!
Pontiff Maximus? I read that it meant, the great bridge builder ?

Click to expand...

If you get Hislop's The Two Babylons then also get The Babylon Connection? by Ralph Woodrow, which thoroughly debunks Hislop's.

Mungo said:

If you get Hislop's The Two Babylons then also get The Babylon Connection? by Ralph Woodrow, which thoroughly debunks Hislop's.

Click to expand...

Are you for or against Hislop? or are you just reading the pro's and con's? and making a conclusion from the Two?

Mungo said:

If you get Hislop's The Two Babylons then also get The Babylon Connection? by Ralph Woodrow, which thoroughly debunks Hislop's.

Click to expand...

Although in the beginning Woodrow agreed with Hislop and more or less plagiarized him, it would appear that tremendous pressure was placed on Woodrow to retract (probably by the Vatican).

In any event nothing was *debunked* since respected historian Philip Schaff agreed with Hislop 100%. The very fact that the pope is proud to be called Pontifex Maximus -- A PAGAN TITLE FOR THE HIGHEST PAGAN PRIEST -- should suffice.

"...In the Roman Republic, the Pontifex Maximus was the highest office in the polytheistic Roman religion, which was very much a state cult. He was the most important of the Pontifices (plural of Pontifex), in the main sacred college (Collegium Pontificum) which he directed. According to Livy, after the overthrow of the monarchy, the Romans also created the priesthood of the Rex Sacrorum or 'king of rites' or 'king of the sacred rites' to perform the religious duties and rituals and sacrifices previously done by the king...."
Pontifex Maximus - New World Encyclopedia

And let's not forget the cult of the Queen of Heaven, which is already condemned in the Bible.

Enoch111 said:

Although in the beginning Woodrow agreed with Hislop and more or less plagiarized him, it would appear that tremendous pressure was placed on Woodrow to retract (probably by the Vatican).

Click to expand...

So, no only do you make false accusations against the Catholic Church, but you are prepared to trash the reputation of another Christian.
How shameful!

Woodrow says that few challenged his book. One who did was Scott Klemm, a high school history teacher in Southern California. Woodrow writes:
“Being a Christian and appreciating other things I had written, he began to show me evidence that Hislop was not a reliable historian. As a result I realised that I needed to go though Hislop's work, my basic source, and prayerfully check it out.

As I did this it became clear – Hislop's “history” was often only mythology. Even though some myths may sometimes reflect events that actually happened, an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths cannot provide a sound basis for history.”

Woodrow says:
Here is a list of the some of the unsubstantiated claims that are made about the religion of ancient Babylon:
• The Babylonians went to a confessional and confessed sins to priests who wore black clergy garments.
• Their king, Nimrod, was born on December 25. Round decorations on Christmas trees and round communion wafers honoured him as the Sun-god.
• Sun-worshippers went to their temples weekly, on Sunday, to worship the Sun-god.
• Nimrod’s wife was Semiramis, who claimed to be the Virgin Queen of Heaven, and was the mother of Tammuz.
• Tammuz was killed by a wild boar when he was age 40; so 40 days of Lent were set aside to honour his death.
• The Babylonians wept for him on “Good Friday.” They worshipped a cross-the initial letter of his name.

It is amazing how unsubstantiated teachings like these circulate—and are believed. One can go to any library, check any history book about ancient Babylon, none of these things will be found. They are not historically accurate, but are based on an arbitrary piecing together of bits and pieces of mythology.

He also says on his website concerning his repudiation of his earlier book:
Because misinformation about this decision persists on the Internet, and in other ways, the aim of this article is to set the record straight.
According to one rumor, “the Catholics” put so much pressure on me, I had a heart attack and almost died! Consequently, I “recanted” and wrote the other book. There is no truth to this!

Enoch111 said:

In any event nothing was *debunked* since respected historian Philip Schaff agreed with Hislop 100%.

Click to expand...

If Schaff really thinks that (and I don't trust what you say) then he is nopt a historian but a pedlar of myths

Truth said:

Are you for or against Hislop? or are you just reading the pro's and con's? and making a conclusion from the Two?

Click to expand...

I'm against Hislop.

There are two major problems with his thesis:

Firstly his claims turned out to be bogus. He simply invented information about Babylonia which doesn’t exist. Likewise his diagrams and sketches were just a product of his imagination,

Secondly he made links without any causal evidence, avoiding more realistic causal links. For example he claimed that the Babylonians offered round wafers to their God, the same a Catholic hosts at the Catholic Mass. His Babylonian claim was false, he showed no link as to how the Catholic Church took this from Babylon, and ignored the obvious point that the Matzo bread which Jesus broke at the last supper was flat round unleavened bread. Also manna is described as round (Ex 16:14) and like wafers (Ex16:31)

As Wikipedia says: "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".[3][4]
The Two Babylons - Wikipedia
The two bits in quotation marks are referenced in footnotes [3][4] in Wikipedia as from
[3] Book Review: Plan 9 From Saturday Christian Book Reviews November 12th, 2005
[4] Book Review: Honesty is the Best Policy Christian Book Reviews November 12th, 2005

Mungo said:

So, no only do you make false accusations against the Catholic Church, but you are prepared to trash the reputation of another Christian. How shameful!

Click to expand...

I do not make false accusations at all. If you choose to be wilfully blind, that is your problem. But if you want the truth, you will agree with what I have said. Do you know that the pope holds to the title of Pontifex Maximus to this day? If not let me quote from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (even though they have put a spin on it rather than tell the truth)

"Pontiff
The terms Pontifex Maximus, Summus Pontifex, were doubtless originally employed with reference to the Jewish high-priest [not true], whose place the Christian bishops were regarded as holding each in his own diocese (Epistle of Clement 40). As regards the title Pontifex Maximus, especially in its application to the pope, there was further a reminiscence of the dignity attached to that title in pagan Rome. Tertullian, as has already been said, uses the phrase of Pope Callistus. Though his words are ironical, they probably indicate that Catholics already applied it to the pope. But here too the terms were once less narrowly restricted in their use. Pontifex summus was used of the bishop of some notable see in relation to those of less importance. Hilary of Arles (d. 449) is so styled by Eucherius of Lyons (P.L., L, 773), and Lanfranc is termed "primas et pontifex summus" by his biographer, Milo Crispin (P.L., CL, 10). Pope Nicholas I is termed "summus pontifex et universalis papa" by his legate Arsenius (Hardouin"Conc.", V, 280), and subsequent examples are common. After the eleventh century it appears to be only used of the popes..."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Pope

Now that you have the proof from a Catholic source, are you prepared to retract YOUR FALSE ACCUSATIONS against me?

Mungo said:

If Schaff really thinks that (and I don't trust what you say) then he is nopt a historian but a pedlar of myths

Click to expand...

So this is how you dismiss a respected historian because he exposed the paganism of the Catholic Church? If he was peddling myths, his history would not be found in the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*

Mungo said:

I'm against Hislop.

There are two major problems with his thesis:

Firstly his claims turned out to be bogus. He simply invented information about Babylonia which doesn’t exist. Likewise his diagrams and sketches were just a product of his imagination,

Secondly he made links without any causal evidence, avoiding more realistic causal links. For example he claimed that the Babylonians offered round wafers to their God, the same a Catholic hosts at the Catholic Mass. His Babylonian claim was false, he showed no link as to how the Catholic Church took this from Babylon, and ignored the obvious point that the Matzo bread which Jesus broke at the last supper was flat round unleavened bread. Also manna is described as round (Ex 16:14) and like wafers (Ex16:31)

As Wikipedia says: "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".[3][4]
The Two Babylons - Wikipedia
The two bits in quotation marks are referenced in footnotes [3][4] in Wikipedia as from
[3] Book Review: Plan 9 From Saturday Christian Book Reviews November 12th, 2005
[4] Book Review: Honesty is the Best Policy Christian Book Reviews November 12th, 2005

Click to expand...

WOW! I am not to big on reading outside books, I think your info has saved me, not only time, But cost!
Thank You! I have never had a problem with listening to one that has walked over the Mountain!

Enoch111 said:

I do not make false accusations at all. If you choose to be wilfully blind, that is your problem. But if you want the truth, you will agree with what I have said. Do you know that the pope holds to the title of Pontifex Maximus to this day? If not let me quote from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (even though they have put a spin on it rather than tell the truth)

"Pontiff
The terms Pontifex Maximus, Summus Pontifex, were doubtless originally employed with reference to the Jewish high-priest [not true], whose place the Christian bishops were regarded as holding each in his own diocese (Epistle of Clement 40). As regards the title Pontifex Maximus, especially in its application to the pope, there was further a reminiscence of the dignity attached to that title in pagan Rome. Tertullian, as has already been said, uses the phrase of Pope Callistus. Though his words are ironical, they probably indicate that Catholics already applied it to the pope. But here too the terms were once less narrowly restricted in their use. Pontifex summus was used of the bishop of some notable see in relation to those of less importance. Hilary of Arles (d. 449) is so styled by Eucherius of Lyons (P.L., L, 773), and Lanfranc is termed "primas et pontifex summus" by his biographer, Milo Crispin (P.L., CL, 10). Pope Nicholas I is termed "summus pontifex et universalis papa" by his legate Arsenius (Hardouin"Conc.", V, 280), and subsequent examples are common. After the eleventh century it appears to be only used of the popes..."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Pope

Now that you have the proof from a Catholic source, are you prepared to retract YOUR FALSE ACCUSATIONS against me?

Click to expand...

You make all kinds of false accusations against the Catholic Church.
This thread is about the book The Two Babylons but now it has been exposed asfalse you want to divert onto other topics .

Enoch111 said:

So this is how you dismiss a respected historian because he exposed the paganism of the Catholic Church? If he was peddling myths, his history would not be found in the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*

Click to expand...

And which bit claims that The Two Babylons is true history?

Enoch111 said:

I do not make false accusations at all. If you choose to be wilfully blind, that is your problem. But if you want the truth, you will agree with what I have said. Do you know that the pope holds to the title of Pontifex Maximus to this day? If not let me quote from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (even though they have put a spin on it rather than tell the truth)

"Pontiff
The terms Pontifex Maximus, Summus Pontifex, were doubtless originally employed with reference to the Jewish high-priest [not true], whose place the Christian bishops were regarded as holding each in his own diocese (Epistle of Clement 40). As regards the title Pontifex Maximus, especially in its application to the pope, there was further a reminiscence of the dignity attached to that title in pagan Rome. Tertullian, as has already been said, uses the phrase of Pope Callistus. Though his words are ironical, they probably indicate that Catholics already applied it to the pope. But here too the terms were once less narrowly restricted in their use. Pontifex summus was used of the bishop of some notable see in relation to those of less importance. Hilary of Arles (d. 449) is so styled by Eucherius of Lyons (P.L., L, 773), and Lanfranc is termed "primas et pontifex summus" by his biographer, Milo Crispin (P.L., CL, 10). Pope Nicholas I is termed "summus pontifex et universalis papa" by his legate Arsenius (Hardouin"Conc.", V, 280), and subsequent examples are common. After the eleventh century it appears to be only used of the popes..."
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Pope

Now that you have the proof from a Catholic source, are you prepared to retract YOUR FALSE ACCUSATIONS against me?

Click to expand...

You have just told another lie by claiming that the Catholic Encyclopedia has "put a spin on it rather than tell the truth"

Enoch111 said:

The very fact that the pope is proud to be called Pontifex Maximus.

Click to expand...

Another lie about the Catholic Church.

Pope Francis has made a point that his main title is Bishop of Rome.
According the the National Catholic Reporter
Pope Francis has possibly de-emphasized a number of the formal titles normally taken by the leader of the Roman Catholic church, choosing instead to list himself first by the basic title "Bishop of Rome" in the Vatican's annual directory....

In the 2013 edition, Francis is also described by those titles [Supreme Pontiff etc], but on the back of the page that describes him as "Bishop of Rome," perhaps giving a signal of which of the titles he finds more relevant.

If he was "proud" of the title Pontifex Maximus he would not have relegated to the back of the page.