The Two Babylons

[bbyrd009]

hmm whats sposed to happen now i fergit...

 

[amadeus]

Where are you?
i heard Your Voice in the garden, and i was afraid bc i was naked, so i hid
Who told you that you were naked?

plus i hear an implication that one sinning might somehow be hiding from God...ya, lking it less by the sec bro sorry. looks like God had to look for adam but He found him quick enough maybe?
my guess would be yes to both
although actually "in the depths of" might not characterize everyone so well maybe

hmm, an interesting other way to put maybe that is that even the son doesnt know for a reason, ha

Adam was trying to hide and then we see two other men called by God, Elijah and Jonah, running away from something [God or man or both?]. God found all of them. They were all three doing the wrong thing but God looked and found each one. Were all three sinning? [That is another question, isn't it?] How deep was the pit that each of the three dug for himself?

 

[Hidden In Him]

The Two Babylons
or The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife
By the Late Rev. Alexander Hislop
First published as a pamphlet in 1853--greatly expanded in 1858

This is what I started reading a few days ago. @bbyrd009 have you read this? It's interesting, some will find it disagreeable, but Cain's history was not recorded. If, he is son of the evil one, they are still here.
I was looking up Sargon the Magnificent.

If anyone has read this... how to reconcile yourself?

Hey, Acolyte. I read it when I was a young Christian, since anything associated with the ante-diluvial and post-diluvial worlds fascinated me deeply after I first got born again.

Hislop was correct in some of his historical narratives regarding Nimrod, only many of the "connections" that he made were pretty far-fetched and unsubstantiated. This is why the work came largely into disrepute in Christian scholarship. To quote the Wiki on Alexander Hislop:

"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).”

These are just a few, and actually there were many more which I sensed even when I was reading it way back then. But aside from Mariolatry, there's not really much to tie his case to Catholicism.

However, the work IS revealing when it comes to tying Nimrod to the Satanist religions, since he was in many ways their "founding father," if you will. It is likely that Nimrod was actually the Egyptian king known as "Narmer." This pronunciation is pure conjecture since the Egyptians had no vowel sounds in their writing. All that is actually there in print is "Nr-mr," which was a likely attempt to communicate the name "Nimrod" with what little they had. Leave it to scholarship to ignore Biblical history as irrelevant, or they would have picked up on this.

It would take a lot of explaining (I still may write a book on it some day, Lord willing), but the faith of Satanists in a coming redeemer (see the cover and back cover of the Sabbath album below), the story told by the major arcana of the Tarot and the occult Tree of Life, the legends regarding Osiris being torn in pieces by wild beasts but resurrected by occult magic through Isis... it all actually goes back to Nimrod.

If this sort of thing interests you, let me know. One of the first things I learned as a Christian. Hislop's work wasn't a waste, it's just that he wasn't big on substantiating many of his claims.

_________________________________________________________________

Back cover. Notice the leopard skin, the bull's heads on the bed post, and the angel's wings with a circle; an occult symbol of divinity. The Osiris/Antichrist figure is seen alive from the dead now, with his "father" standing behind him. Satanism is very ancient religion; one founded by someone who attempted to defy God, and in the end simply died a miserable death, though Satanists think he actually did attain to divinity and are attempting to do the same thing themselves.

 

[Acolyte]

ha, tbh i'm not sure an answer is even called for, so much as a reflection?

ha, and there it is!
lol

but while you have already let the cat out there i guess, the accepted Christian pov @ Jesus is pretty obviously in conflict with the Question, and the accepted explanation "bc God cannot look upon sin, God had to turn His Head" is inadequate at best? I would even say obv in denial, antiScriptural even. Even no support whatsoever, not a single Witness, might be pushing it there tho dunno

I found an answer I liked to this question,
I'm trying to find the link. Anyway, the theory is it was wrongly scribed in the original Psalm and the NT followed suit.
It states the hebrew word for tarry, very close to forsaken spelling wise. Hope I find it.

He will never leave or forsake you. So it's something I've dug and dug to find. But I can accept why dost thou tarry over why hast thou forsaken me. imo

 

[Acolyte]

Didn't mean to cause strife. Just wondered if anyone had opinions on this teaching.

@Hidden In Him I have to think on this. Had that album. :
thank you... your answer lifts me. Everytime I get in the prophets I get umm.. turmoil inside if that makes sense. Hislop quotes them alot. Enough to keep me reading anyways.

I've read Jesus was trained in the "Mysteries", I've read he was taught from the Talmud. Why search for answers to things some people take at face value? Because something doesn't add up for me. But I was on the wrong road many years and keep my eyes open so I don't get turned around again. As amadeus says GIVE GOD THE GLORY!! Amen

 

[farouk]

I found an answer I liked to this question,
I'm trying to find the link. Anyway, the theory is it was wrongly scribed in the original Psalm and the NT followed suit.
It states the hebrew word for tarry, very close to forsaken spelling wise. Hope I find it.

He will never leave or forsake you. So it's something I've dug and dug to find. But I can accept why dost thou tarry over why hast thou forsaken me. imo

Hi, @Acolyte I think reading a book like Hislop's can be usefully complemented by reading other things as well. For example, the Epistle to the Hebrews traces a lot of themes and symbolism from the Old Testament positively, and in the end I think it's these rather than all the sometimes lurid permutations of error that our hearts and minds can safely and practically rest upon. :)

 

[Enoch111]

Hislop's work wasn't a waste, it's just that he wasn't big on substantiating many of his claims.

I don't know which edition of Hislop you have, but Hislop provided a lot of footnotes to writings which most people would not be able to access. And because he had hit a nerve, the RCC made serious efforts to try and debunk him.

As to substantiating, if one is unable to see the connections, nothing will be substantiated if one is trying to be *scientific*. Let's take the example of the Catholic Rosary. You will find rosary beads (with vain repetitions) being used by all kinds of pagans (Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims) and yet promoted within the Catholic church (and even used by the Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans). If you wish to make the connection, it is there. If not you will dismiss it as "coincidence".

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Two Babylons
or The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife
By the Late Rev. Alexander Hislop
First published as a pamphlet in 1853--greatly expanded in 1858

This is what I started reading a few days ago. @bbyrd009 have you read this? It's interesting, some will find it disagreeable, but Cain's history was not recorded. If, he is son of the evil one, they are still here.
I was looking up Sargon the Magnificent.

If anyone has read this... how to reconcile yourself?

The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop is a work of fiction - and complete nonsense to ANY educated person. NONE of his "history" adds up and some of his characters actually lived hundreds of years apart.
Once you actually do your homework - you begin to see what a charlatan and liar Hislop was.

One avid student of Hislop's book is a man named Ralph Woodrow. In fact, Woodrow was so taken by Hislop's manure that he eventually wrote a book of his own called, "Babylon Mystery Religion". This is where the story gets interesting . . .

Woodrow's book saw some success, so he decided to write a follow-up book. Only THIS time - he decided to do the actual research on his own.
BIG MISTAKE.

Woodrow discovered, to his horror, that his mentor (Hislop) had invented MOST of his "history" and that NONE of the charges were true. This shook him to the core - so much so that he decided to take his own book out of print. Today, Woodrow runs a website apologizing for having written this book and warns people about Hislop's nonsense.

Those of you who have been seduced by Hislop's lies need to read Ralph Woodrow's book, "The Babylon Connection?", in which he debunks Hislop's lies.
In short - DO YOUR HOMEWORK instead of regurgitating the manure of a scck artist like Alexander Hislop . . .

 

[Enoch111]

One avid student of Hislop's book is a man named Ralph Woodrow... In fact

Ralph Woodrow followed Alexander Hislop in his book (and I own both books). There is no doubt that the RCC probably put a lot of pressure on him to reverse his position. So he started back-tracking.

And you can call Hislop's work any thing you want (using the term *manure* as though that changes the truth) but Hislop is not alone in his conclusions about the Babylonian nature of Roman Catholicism.

What you should be doing is THANKING those who expose the False Christianity of Rome and walking away from it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ralph Woodrow followed Alexander Hislop in his book (and I own both books). There is no doubt that the RCC probably put a lot of pressure on him to reverse his position. So he started back-tracking.

And you can call Hislop's work any thing you want (using the term *manure* as though that changes the truth) but Hislop is not alone in his conclusions about the Babylonian nature of Roman Catholicism.

What you should be doing is THANKING those who expose the False Christianity of Rome and walking away from it.

And what YOU should be doing is some actual homework like your fellow Protestant and former anti-Catholic Ralph Woodrow did.

Your laziness is pathetic . . .

Read Woodrow for yourself:
Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association

 

[farouk]

In the end it's not all about what us wrong with error, but what - most blessedly - is the truth? with a view to cleaving to it, forsaking error, and adorning the doctrines of our Lord and Saviour (Titus 2.10).

 

[Acolyte]

@bbyrd009 I can't find the link for tarry, but I did find this:
Yeshua never said, "Why have you forsaken me?" He said, "Why have you spared me?" These words are straight from the Aramaic English New Testament (AENT) which is a translation of the oldest NT ever discovered, the Khabouris Codex which was written in all Aramaic - no Greek in sight! Here's the scripture along with its footnote from the AENT:

Matthew 27: 46. And about the ninth hour, Y’shua cried out with a loud voice and said, My El! My El! [Lemana shabakthani] Why have you spared me?

Footnote for the above: Y’shua was not necessarily quoting Psalm 22, although the imagery of the Psalm is certainly intended by Matthew. Greek is transliterated Eli, Eli lama sabacthani, but Peshitta and Psalm 22 read: Eli, Eli lama azbatani. Many Bibles read "forsaken" from which came a false teaching that the Father left Y’shua destitute (Marcionite thinking). Isaiah 53:4 indicates that "we" reckoned him smitten of Elohim, but it is not YHWH who tortured His own son, but men motivated by religious tradition. Psalm 22 references those who scorned Y’shua for his Faith in YHWH and called him a worm (detested), but Father YHWH does not forsake the righteous, nor does He at any time "forsake" His own Son – see Psalm 9:9, 10; 37:25; 71:11; Isaiah 49:14-16.

Y'shua says "Eli" (my El). He is in great physical pain after being brutally tortured; those around him were confused about whether he was saying "Eli-yah" or "Eliyahu". If Hebrew eyewitnesses were not sure of what he was saying, it shouldn’t be a surprise that Greek transliteration was also wrong, putting "lama sabacthani" rather than "lemana shabakthani". Perhaps the reason Y’shua says "why are you sparing me" is because he has proven his commitment by laying down his life and has already endured about six hours of the execution! So, it’s not a matter of being "forsaken" but that he literally means, "Father, I'm ready, why can’t we finish this?" In a matter of moments from saying this, he dies, which fully supports this interpretation.

Hope this helps someone. I know this passage has made alot of people say, if our Father can forsake his own Son, where does that really leave me. Along with many other questions. Sorry, derailed my own thread. Oops.

 

[farouk]

Hope this helps someone. I know this passage has made alot of people say, if our Father can forsake his own Son, where does that really leave me. Along with many other questions. Sorry, derailed my own thread. Oops.

Perhaps the answer is in Romans 8.32:

"He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?"

 

[Acolyte]

You always make me smile. Thank you.

Sometimes I need to turn my mind off.

Blessings! :)

 

[quietthinker]

@bbyrd009 I can't find the link for tarry, but I did find this:
Yeshua never said, "Why have you forsaken me?" He said, "Why have you spared me?" These words are straight from the Aramaic English New Testament (AENT) which is a translation of the oldest NT ever discovered, the Khabouris Codex which was written in all Aramaic - no Greek in sight! Here's the scripture along with its footnote from the AENT:

Matthew 27: 46. And about the ninth hour, Y’shua cried out with a loud voice and said, My El! My El! [Lemana shabakthani] Why have you spared me?

Footnote for the above: Y’shua was not necessarily quoting Psalm 22, although the imagery of the Psalm is certainly intended by Matthew. Greek is transliterated Eli, Eli lama sabacthani, but Peshitta and Psalm 22 read: Eli, Eli lama azbatani. Many Bibles read "forsaken" from which came a false teaching that the Father left Y’shua destitute (Marcionite thinking). Isaiah 53:4 indicates that "we" reckoned him smitten of Elohim, but it is not YHWH who tortured His own son, but men motivated by religious tradition. Psalm 22 references those who scorned Y’shua for his Faith in YHWH and called him a worm (detested), but Father YHWH does not forsake the righteous, nor does He at any time "forsake" His own Son – see Psalm 9:9, 10; 37:25; 71:11; Isaiah 49:14-16.

Y'shua says "Eli" (my El). He is in great physical pain after being brutally tortured; those around him were confused about whether he was saying "Eli-yah" or "Eliyahu". If Hebrew eyewitnesses were not sure of what he was saying, it shouldn’t be a surprise that Greek transliteration was also wrong, putting "lama sabacthani" rather than "lemana shabakthani". Perhaps the reason Y’shua says "why are you sparing me" is because he has proven his commitment by laying down his life and has already endured about six hours of the execution! So, it’s not a matter of being "forsaken" but that he literally means, "Father, I'm ready, why can’t we finish this?" In a matter of moments from saying this, he dies, which fully supports this interpretation.

Hope this helps someone. I know this passage has made alot of people say, if our Father can forsake his own Son, where does that really leave me. Along with many other questions. Sorry, derailed my own thread. Oops.

hmmm interesting, however, if Jesus took the sinners stead and it was sin that was being dealt with, then was not a separation justified?

 

[Hidden In Him]

I don't know which edition of Hislop you have, but Hislop provided a lot of footnotes to writings which most people would not be able to access.

Loizeaux Brothers, 1959 hardcover edition. It has a lot of footnotes, but maybe there was an edition which had more.

As to substantiating, if one is unable to see the connections, nothing will be substantiated if one is trying to be *scientific*.

Some connections were definitely there. Just saying that some were dubious at best.

 

[Acolyte]

hmmm interesting, however, if Jesus took the sinners stead and it was sin that was being dealt with, then was not a separation justified?

Then it makes Jesus just a man. Was he just a man when he walked, talked and ate with sinners? No.. when he healed the lepers, raised the dead? No.. I guess it was something I had to be able to accept. Luckily, my Christianity isn't based on what was said on the cross, but what was done on the cross. Amen!

 

[bbyrd009]

Adam was trying to hide and then we see two other men called by God, Elijah and Jonah, running away from something [God or man or both?]. God found all of them. They were all three doing the wrong thing but God looked and found each one. Were all three sinning? [That is another question, isn't it?] How deep was the pit that each of the three dug for himself?

ha ya sinning idk but i guess we can see they all had some knowledge was gettin in the way i guess huh? I forget Elijah's but Jonah's is pretty clear

 

[bbyrd009]

Anyway, the theory is it was wrongly scribed in the original Psalm and the NT followed suit.

oh, imo "why have You forsaken Me?" works fine there, although i do like the "tarry" angle too, yeh. So interesting, but still doesnt really answer why Jesus would even be saying that, if we question whether God cannot in fact look upon sin? Which is hooey, at least imo. So iow another expalantion must be contemplated for why Jesus would say that right then

 

[bbyrd009]

Everytime I get in the prophets I get umm.. turmoil inside

ha you know the prophets are not as like universally respected by the Bible as we respect them, which i think we do bc we have a few examples of "good" ones? Plenty of places read like "dont let your prophets be filling you full of crap like they usually do" lol. We turn Job into a story about a guy who was doing nothing wrong, right