Announcement
Collapse
Church History 201 Guidelines
Welcome to Church History 201.
Believe it or not, this is the exact place where Luther first posted the 94 thesis. We convinced him to add one.
This is the forum where the Church and its actions in history can be discussed. Since CH201, like the other fora in the History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here. This means that anything like Ecclesiology can be discussed without the restrictions of the Ecclesiology forum, and without the atmosphere of Ecclesiology 201 or the Apologetics-specific forum.
Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is and such is not the area to try disembowel anyone's faith.
If you need to refresh yourself on the decorm, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
Believe it or not, this is the exact place where Luther first posted the 94 thesis. We convinced him to add one.
This is the forum where the Church and its actions in history can be discussed. Since CH201, like the other fora in the History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here. This means that anything like Ecclesiology can be discussed without the restrictions of the Ecclesiology forum, and without the atmosphere of Ecclesiology 201 or the Apologetics-specific forum.
Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is and such is not the area to try disembowel anyone's faith.
If you need to refresh yourself on the decorm, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
RC Church = Whore of Babylon, and that sort of stuff.
Collapse
X
-
I have family members that subscribe to this. I have found it to be dodgy at best. The research to develop this theory has been flawed. This same kind of approach has been used to bolster many of the KJVO arguments.
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostTop tier entertainment?
It’s an……interesting……book: basically a brief for the prosecution against the CC. What sets it apart from most books of that sort is, that Hislop (a minister of the Free Kirk of Scotland, so a most thorough Protestant) sought to show that the Papacy was Babylon the Great (as per Rev 17) by using the description of BtG as “mystery” to identify the religion of BtG with the religion of the Babylon of the OT, by identifying the cup in the hand of BtG in Rev 17.4 with the cup in Jer. 51.7.
His thesis is basically that the religion of OT Babylon was inherited by Rome, and became the religion of BtG AKA the Papacy. The Papacy observes Christmas Day - therefore, the Babylonians must have. The 1862 edition of the book was the last to appear in his lifetime, and by 1862, although a good start had been made on working out how to read and translate the cuneiform texts then available, and although the language then called Assyrian (now called Akkadian) had been identified as distinct from Hebrew, Hislop refers almost not at all to texts in (what is now called) Akkadian, and continually refers to Akkadian as “Chaldee”, which for his purposes seems to include Aramaic (then commonly called Chaldee) & Hebrew. The language now known as Sumerian was hardly recognised in 1862, and was referred to as “Chaldean”, which does not help. Hislop had no way of knowing that in Ancient Mesopotamia both Akkadian & Sumerian were used, nor that the two languages were unrelated. So when he argued from the etymology of the language he called Chaldee, he came up with very strange results.
For instance, he takes “Osiris”, seemingly a Greek version of Egyptian *Wsr*, “Mighty”, and reads it as “He-Siri”, “The Seed” - that is, the (supposed) “Babylonian Messiah”, a figure supposed to be a satanic decoy from the genuine Messiah. The idea that Babylonian religion was a diabolical travesty of Christianity, is one of the main ideas of the book. Arguments from (almost always dodgy) etymology are a major form of proof of his argument.
If a Gaelic-speaking Scot got it into his head that Scotland was the Israel of the Bible, and brought forth the following details:
”coats of skins” = kilts
”coat of many colours” = tartan plaid
pouch for the Urim and Thummim = sporran
the dancing of Miriam & the worshippers of the Golden Calf = a ceilidh
twelve tribes = twelve clans
Shem = the personal name Seumas
King David of Scotland = King David of Israel
Leviathan = Loch Ness Monster
The name Levi-athan proves that Nessie was looked after by the Levites.
Chaldeans = Culdees
”whisky” is an Anglicisation of *uisge beatha*, “water of life” - so references to the “water of life” = whisky
the Assyrian army commander named Tartan, who came to Ashdod.
- he would be making his case in much the same way as Hislop does.
Since all false religion throughout the world is the fault of Nimrod the supposed founder of the Tower of Babel, all religions and cultures are treated as variants of the Babylonian Mystery Religion, and details from them, are treated as evidence for it, and are used to fill in the gaps in what was known about it. This also means that lots of deities can be identified with each other, and with Hislop’s three principal “stars” Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz. If by any ingenuity X can be identified with Y, all details about X are transferred to Y. By this method, Mr Spock the Vulcan would be the same person as Dr Spock the paediatrician, and the paediatrician would therefore have pointy ears, be born on Vulcan, & serve on the Enterprise as First Officer under Captain James T. Kirk.
It’s entertaining “from a certain point of view”. As long as one has a weird sense of humour. A monument of misapplied ingenuity, IMO.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ReformedApologist View PostAnd who g forget Alexander Hislop's Two Babylons. Talk about shoddy research for its time but it had an impact.
None of which stops it being…not exactly good scholarship. Thanks to AH, a lot of people have wildly inaccurate notions about Ancient Mesopotamian religion/culture. Thanks in large part to the popularisation of “best bits” of it by Jack Chick.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Posthave you seen Jack Chick tracts?
The Death Cookie!
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp
[ATTACH=CONFIG]18594[/ATTACH]
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Posthave you seen Jack Chick tracts?
The Death Cookie!
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp
[ATTACH=CONFIG]18594[/ATTACH]
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostGoing back to the OP, the idea of anything being "semi-official" within Protestantism doesn't make a lot of sense for obvious reasons.
There might be less inter-Church consensus between the various Protestant communions, but not none. And all of them share to some degree in a common Protestant tradition.
Besides, there can be real communion of hearts even where there is no or little agreement in doctrine and discipline. Communion of hearts is arguably far more important, and a far more fundamental kind of union between Protestants, than agreement in doctrine.
Leave a comment:
-
Going back to the OP, the idea of anything being "semi-official" within Protestantism doesn't make a lot of sense for obvious reasons.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View PostWhen I was a new Xian back in the '80s, I used to hear a lot of that, mainly from the Fundies in my circle of friends at college. They really seemed to push those beliefs at my then-girlfriend's CMA church, especially when there was a "Prophecy Conference."
In the late '90s, I was told by seemingly well informed people at two reputable Internet discussion venues that back in the days of the Reformation, the beliefs that the Pope was the Antichrist and the RC Church was the Whore of Babylon were at least semi-official for Protestantism as a whole.
1) Is that true?
2) What about the OC? What did the Reformers believe about that branch of Xianity?
" . . .the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, . . ."
That he is just one of the "antichrists" as there are many!!
BU
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Posthave you seen Jack Chick tracts?
The Death Cookie!
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp
[ATTACH=CONFIG]18594[/ATTACH]
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostI usually ran across them left atop toilets in public bathrooms. In some ways it seemed fitting.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostMy understanding is that the Reformers thought about Eastern Orthodoxy even less than they thought about the Epistle of James.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View PostWhen I was a new Xian back in the '80s, I used to hear a lot of that, mainly from the Fundies in my circle of friends at college. They really seemed to push those beliefs at my then-girlfriend's CMA church, especially when there was a "Prophecy Conference."
In the late '90s, I was told by seemingly well informed people at two reputable Internet discussion venues that back in the days of the Reformation, the beliefs that the Pope was the Antichrist and the RC Church was the Whore of Babylon were at least semi-official for Protestantism as a whole.
1) Is that true?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View PostOh yeah! And the full-size comic books. There were some for sale in my ex-girlfriend's church foyer, and a bunch in the Christian bookstore a few miles away.
Leave a comment:
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Leave a comment: