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
See more
See less

RC Church = Whore of Babylon, and that sort of stuff.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sherman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rushing Jaws
    replied
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    Top tier entertainment?
    Well, Isis and Horus and Seb, actually. “Seb” is a misreading of “Geb”, a correction not made until roughly 1915 (AFAIK). Set the brother/murderer of Osiris is not mentioned by Hislop by name - though he refers to him indirectly when talking about the god “Bar” in Egypt - “Bar” = the Syrian storm-god Baal, who was syncretised with Egyptian Set.

    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:


  • Rushing Jaws
    replied
    Originally posted by ReformedApologist View Post
    And who g forget Alexander Hislop's Two Babylons. Talk about shoddy research for its time but it had an impact.
    It still sells - and has been translated into German, French, Spanish, and (most recently ?) Russian.

    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:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    Top tier entertainment?
    more a matter of whatever it is that leaves a person aghast and disgusted with a dash of outraged.

    Leave a comment:


  • JonathanL
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    I forced myself to read it as far as "IHS stands for Isis Horus and Set" - At that point it just became (I don't think there's a word for what it became.)
    Top tier entertainment?

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    have you seen Jack Chick tracts?

    The Death Cookie!

    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]18594[/ATTACH]
    I forced myself to read it as far as "IHS stands for Isis Horus and Set" - At that point it just became (I don't think there's a word for what it became.)

    Leave a comment:


  • ReformedApologist
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    have you seen Jack Chick tracts?

    The Death Cookie!

    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]18594[/ATTACH]
    And who could forget Alexander Hislop's Two Babylons. Talk about shoddy research for its time but it had an impact.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rushing Jaws
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    Going back to the OP, the idea of anything being "semi-official" within Protestantism doesn't make a lot of sense for obvious reasons.
    Depends on the kind of Protestantism. Anglicans, Reformed, Lutherans, and Baptists (& probably others) have all issued Confessions of Faith, catechisms, and other credal documents.

    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:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    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:


  • Bibleuser
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    When 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?
    1 John 2:18
    " . . .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:


  • Catholicity
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    have you seen Jack Chick tracts?

    The Death Cookie!

    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]18594[/ATTACH]
    Because we all know Communion means death.

    Leave a comment:


  • Catholicity
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    I usually ran across them left atop toilets in public bathrooms. In some ways it seemed fitting.
    Did you flush them?

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    My understanding is that the Reformers thought about Eastern Orthodoxy even less than they thought about the Epistle of James.
    That depends on the Reformer. Luther entered into discussions with the EOC that went a couple rounds before they politely asked him to stop. Jan Huss' brother was baptized EO - they found his baptismal certificate a few years ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kbertsche
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    When 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?
    Both Calvin and Luther had extremely negative views of the Pope and the RCC, for obvious reasons. Below are a few quotes from Calvin.

    Source: Calvin's Commentary, Mt. 16:1-5


    Thus in our own day we find that not only from Popish temples, and from the dens of sophists and monks, does Antichrist vomit out her impostures, but that there is a Theology of the Court, which lends its aid to prop up the throne of Antichrist, so that no stratagem is left untried. But as Christ opposed the evils which then prevailed, and as he aroused the minds of his followers to guard against those which were the most dangerous, let us learn from his example to make a prudent inquiry what are the abuses that may now do us injury. Sooner shall water mix with fire than any man shall succeed in reconciling the inventions of the Pope with the Gospel. Whoever desires to become honestly a disciple of Christ, must be careful to keep his mind pure from those leavens; and if he has already imbibed them, he must labor to purify himself till none of their polluting effects remain. There are restless men, on the other hand, who have endeavored in various ways to corrupt sound doctrine, and, in guarding also against such impostures, believers must maintain a strict watch, that they may keep a perpetual Passover.

    © Copyright Original Source


    Source: Calvin's Commentary, 2 Cor. 10:14


    14. And no marvel. It is an argument from the greater to the less. “If Satan, who is the basest of all beings, nay, the head and chief of all wicked persons, transforms himself, what will his ministers do?” We have experience of both every day, for when Satan tempts us to evil, he does not profess to be what he really is. For he would lose his object, if we were made aware of his being a mortal enemy, and opposer of our salvation. Hence he always makes use of some cloak for the purpose of insnaring us, and does not immediately show his horns, (as the common expression is,) but rather makes it his endeavor to appear as an angel. Even when he tempts us to gross crimes, he makes use, nevertheless, of some pretext that he may draw us, when we are off our guard, into his nets. What then, if he attacks us under the appearance of good, nay, under the very title of God? His life-guards imitate, as I have said, the same artifice. These are golden preambles — “Vicar of Christ” — “Successor of Peter” — “Servant of God’s servants,” but let the masks be pulled off, and who and what will the Pope be discovered to be? Scarcely will Satan himself, his master, surpass so accomplished a scholar in any kind of abomination. It is a well known saying as to Babylon, that she gives poison to drink in a golden cup. (Jeremiah 51:7.) Hence we must be on our guard against masks.

    © Copyright Original Source


    Source: Calvin's Commentary, 1 Jn 2:18


    Moreover, under the Papacy there is nothing more notorious and common than the future coming of Antichrist; and yet they are so stupid, that they perceive not that his tyranny is exercised over them. Indeed, the same thing happens altogether to them as to the Jews; for though they hold the promises respecting the Messiah, they are yet further away from Christ than if they had never heard his name; for the imaginary Messiah, whom they have invented for themselves, turns them wholly aside from the Son of God; and were any one to shew Christ to them from the Law and the Prophets, he would only spend his labor in vain. The Popes have imagined an Antichrist, who for three years and a half is to harass the Church. All the marks by which the Spirit of God has pointed out Antichrist, clearly appear in the Pope; but the triennial Antichrist lays fast hold on the foolish Papists, so that seeing they do not see. Let us then remember, that Antichrist has not only been announced by the Spirit of God, but that also the marks by which he may be distinguished have been mentioned.

    © Copyright Original Source


    Source: Calvin's Commentary, James 4:12


    It hence appears what is to be thought of human precepts, which cast the snare of necessity on consciences. Some indeed would have us to shew modesty, when we call the Pope antichrist, who exercises tyranny over the souls of men, making himself a lawgiver equal to God. But we learn from this passage something far more, even that they are the members of Antichrist, who willingly submit to be thus ensnared, and that they thus renounce Christ, when they connect themselves with a man that is not only a mortal, but who also extols himself against him. It is, I say, a prevaricating obedience, rendered to the devil, when we allow any other than God himself to be a lawgiver to rule our souls.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    Oh 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.
    I usually ran across them left atop toilets in public bathrooms. In some ways it seemed fitting.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by guacamole, 11-15-2016, 08:23 AM
8 responses
6,099 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X