The Two Babylons

[bbyrd009]

i have no idea what you just said, and i find myself in total agreement!

 

[quietthinker]

Relying on Google to bring you the truth in theological matters is about as insane and stupid as it gets.
Anybody can Google any bogus information they want - and there is PLENTY out there . . .

Ahh yes, it's google you patronise when looking for SDA hate sites isn't it? you know, those who feel theologically accurate ....yeah, there's plenty out there....in all shades!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wasnt informationi was referring to. I have the information...I was referring to Google for the images. The symbols. Occult symbolism is all over Catholicism like a baggy cost.

Once again - you can pull ANY anti-Catholic slur about ANY image out of your behind and attribute it to Catholic "paganism" - but iot doesn't make it true.
Googling nonsense is - well, nonsense . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ahh yes, it's google you patronise when looking for SDA hate sites isn't it? you know, those who feel theologically accurate ....yeah, there's plenty out there....in all shades!

WRONG.

I don't just pull things out of my behind. I posted the published source, chapter and page of Ellen White's 9-Volume set, Testimonies for the Church, which contain her false prophecies.

BIG difference . . .

 

[brakelite]

Once again - you can pull ANY anti-Catholic slur about ANY image out of your behind and attribute it to Catholic "paganism" - but iot doesn't make it true.
Googling nonsense is - well, nonsense . . .

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

 

[BreadOfLife]

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

Complete and total RUBBISH.
Time for a history lesson . . .

First of all - the Bishop’s miter didn’t develop into its present form until the late Middle Ages – which is LONG after all of the “Dagon worshippers” were all dead and gone. Before that, it was a shorter version.

Dagon worshippers also forbade the eating of fish, which is something the Catholic Church has NEVER done. In fact, we’ve been accused by you anti-Catholics for eating TOO MUCH fish during Lent and that the Church had a financial interest in the fish industry. Another asinine and unsubstantiated charge . . .

Your confusion and that of your SDA cult stems from the fact that you are ignorant of the customs and practices of Early Christianity.

Next time you’re driving on the freeway, pay attention to some of the carswith the Christian “Fish” symbol on the back. This symbol is an ancient CHRISTIAN symbol for Christ called. “ICHTHUS”. The letters inside the fish are the Greek letters which are the initials of the words I (ēsous) Ch (ristos) th (eou) hy(ios) s (ōtēr) meaning “Jesus Christ Son of God Savior”.

Here is an example of this symbol used in ancient Christian graffiti from the early2nd century:

The fact that some ancient pagan culture did something first doesn’t mean that it was “adopted” by a later culture. They just happen to use the same symbol for different things.

Case in point – the Protestant “altar call”. An altar is a place of sacrifice – and Protestants reject the idea of sacrificing anything to God on an altar. Are they “adopting” Catholic doctrine – or does it have a different meaning??

Another example is the wedding ring, which has roots in paganism. Were YOU parttaking in “pagan worship” when you slipped a ring on your wife’s finger??

So, the next time you feel the need to post something as stupid and unfounded as this ridiculous charge – do your HOMEWORK . . .

 

[brakelite]

Or this statute of Jupiter...I mean Peter...I mean, oh heck, I'm sure someone knows who this is....

Although I think the poor guys big toe is wearing off because of the wear and tear incurred by the lips of his faithful adorers

 

[farouk]

...my Christianity isn't based on what was said on the cross, but what was done on the cross. Amen!

I reckon that "It is finished" is both what was said and done, and gloriously so. :)

 

[farouk]

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!

The Incarnation (John 1.14; 1 Timothy 3.16) is a glorious demonstration of His Divine and Human natures.

 

[Acolyte]

I wish I had never run across this, there is so much more than a Catholic connection. It seems to have permeated (to some degree), all Christian religions. At times, I had to stop reading to focus on my beliefs. To talk to our Father, ask the Holy Spirit to keep me strong.
Without anger, fear or (the worst for me), giving up.
Glory to God!

@BreadOfLife forgive me, this wasn't intended to belittle your path to Christ, I was/am struggling with information I wasn't prepared for.

 

[Philip James]

' capture every thought for Christ' comes to mind..

Peace!

 

[Davy]

@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.

Why create doubt for yourself? The Matthew 27:46 verse further explains the meaning of what Jesus said after the quote from Psalms 22...

Matt 27:46
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?
KJV

God cannot forsake God.

God came in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth to die on the cross. Jesus was teaching... all the way up to His death on the cross. By His quoting that from Psalms 22, He was showing especially those who were supposed to 'know' Scripture, that right then and there they were looking at God The Son on the cross, Messiah, prophesied to die on the cross a thousand years before through David.

 

[Davy]

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?

Per Bristowe in Sargon The Magnificent, the Assyriologist Sayce originally translated from the Babylonian tablets the date when Sargon first appeared among the Sumerians as 3800 B.C. He later changed it to fit the common theory of the day. 3800 B.C. is only about 200 years difference from Ussher's chronology for Adam in God's Garden at 4004 B.C. It helps point to Sargon I possibly being Cain.

The people of the land of Nod, east of Eden, in Genesis 4 - Cain took a wife of these people, built the first city (Enoch). Sargon I built the first city in ancient Sumer (Erech). Those peoples were part of God's 6th day creation of mankind.

In the Hebrew of Genesis 1, a distinction is made in verses 26 & 27 between a specific man Adam, and a the races of mankind. The grammar is like our English. Hebrew eth'ha'aadam with particle and article is about a specific man. It's like when we say, "this same man builds a house." But aadam, by itself, means 'mankind' in general, like, "man builds houses." God created all the races of mankind on the 6th day also. But He created the specific man Adam to til His Garden. Thus the people of Nod were already outside Eden, and that is who Cain migrated to.

I strongly agree with Bristowe, Sargon I was most likely Cain of Genesis.

In Genesis 3:15, God reveals enmity between two seeds, that of Satan's seed, and that of the Seed of the Woman (i.e., Christ's). That is represented by Cain and Abel. The ancient Sumerians called Sargon the son of Bel (dragon). That is when and where the most ancient pagan devil worship began which all other pagan religions have sprung from, i.e., with Sargon I. It makes sense that Cain would point to Sargon in that too.

It is sad that some ministers in the Church believe that the Babylonian tablet creation account is where The Bible account originated, simply because the Babylonian tablets are proven to be older than any Hebrew OT manuscript of Genesis. The Babylonian creation account is full of corruptions, which is what we may expect from a corrupt pagan account by Cain overlaying the original true account that he well knew from his father Adam and thus from God.

 

[Acolyte]

Per Bristowe in Sargon The Magnificent, the Assyriologist Sayce originally translated from the Babylonian tablets the date when Sargon first appeared among the Sumerians as 3800 B.C. He later changed it to fit the common theory of the day. 3800 B.C. is only about 200 years difference from Ussher's chronology for Adam in God's Garden at 4004 B.C. It helps point to Sargon I possibly being Cain.

The people of the land of Nod, east of Eden, in Genesis 4 - Cain took a wife of these people, built the first city (Enoch). Sargon I built the first city in ancient Sumer (Erech). Those peoples were part of God's 6th day creation of mankind.

In the Hebrew of Genesis 1, a distinction is made in verses 26 & 27 between a specific man Adam, and a the races of mankind. The grammar is like our English. Hebrew eth'ha'aadam with particle and article is about a specific man. It's like when we say, "this same man builds a house." But aadam, by itself, means 'mankind' in general, like, "man builds houses." God created all the races of mankind on the 6th day also. But He created the specific man Adam to til His Garden. Thus the people of Nod were already outside Eden, and that is who Cain migrated to.

I strongly agree with Bristowe, Sargon I was most likely Cain of Genesis.

In Genesis 3:15, God reveals enmity between two seeds, that of Satan's seed, and that of the Seed of the Woman (i.e., Christ's). That is represented by Cain and Abel. The ancient Sumerians called Sargon the son of Bel (dragon). That is when and where the most ancient pagan devil worship began which all other pagan religions have sprung from, i.e., with Sargon I. It makes sense that Cain would point to Sargon in that too.

It is sad that some ministers in the Church believe that the Babylonian tablet creation account is where The Bible account originated, simply because the Babylonian tablets are proven to be older than any Hebrew OT manuscript of Genesis. The Babylonian creation account is full of corruptions, which is what we may expect from a corrupt pagan account by Cain overlaying the original true account that he well knew from his father Adam and thus from God.

Unfortunately, I agree. I believe that also, which led me to The Two Babylons. Which blew me away. (It also answered questions about why the apostles were told not to go into Asia.) They do worship the dragon.

The book on Sargon the Magnificent was very eye opening. A good read at the very least.

The Two Babylons, well, that was ground shaking. I only read a chapter at a time trying to come to grips. Still cannot finish it.

Going to stay in my KJV, the Holy Spirit tells me I'm not ready for such yet.

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

Unfortunately, I agree. I believe that also, which led me to The Two Babylons. Which blew me away. (It also answered questions about why the apostles were told not to go into Asia.) They do worship the dragon.

The book on Sargon the Magnificent was very eye opening. A good read at the very least.

The Two Babylons, well, that was ground shaking. I only read a chapter at a time trying to come to grips. Still cannot finish it.

Going to stay in my KJV, the Holy Spirit tells me I'm not ready for such yet.

Blessings.

Hislop's book is interesting! :)

I wonder if some of it is imagination; but interesting anyway...

 

[quietthinker]

I wonder if some of it is imagination; but interesting anyway...

lol....you give yourself away farouk

 

[farouk]

lol....you give yourself away farouk

So...how?

 

[Acolyte]

Hislop's book is interesting! :)

I wonder if some of it is imagination; but interesting anyway...

Seems if they didn't teach the general population to read, it would be too time consuming to write/record fairytales.

Blessings

 

[Stan B]

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.

I read Hislop's book many years ago, and thought it was a bit hokey, but I have a VERY high regard for Philip Schaff, the translator of the Early Church Fathers, etal. Maybe I should read it again.

 

[quietthinker]

So...how?

because you wouldn't have said what you said had you been familiar with the bibliography.