The Jewish "Queen of Heaven".

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

The following is an excerpt from
The Woman Who Laughed at God: The Untold History of The Jewish People
by Johnathan Kirsch

"According to the Book of Jeremiah, a community of Jews in Egypt worshipped a goddess that he calls the 'Queen of Heaven,' a deity that scholars identify with Anath or Astarte, both of them goddesses in the pantheon of the ancient Near East. Like other goddess worshippers, the Jewish women in the Egyptian diaspora light altar fires to the Queen of Heaven, bake and eat 'crescent-cakes marked with her image' (Jer. 44.19) (NEB), pour out libations as drink offerings to the goddess, and burn incense or perhaps even sacrificial animals in her honor. They are joined in these rituals by their menfolk--'And is it we that offer to the Queen of Heaven without our husbands?' they taunt the old prophet (Jer. 44:19)--but it is clearly the women who serve as priestesses. And when Jeremiah calls on them to return to orthodoxy at the risk of their lives--'High and low alike will die by sword or by famine,' he quotes God as saying, 'and will be an object of execration and horror, of ridicule and reproach' (Jer. 44:12) (NEB)--they boldly and flatly refuse." (p.47)
Copyright@Johnathan Kirsch, 2001

......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 19, 2004

Answers

Hi Zarove,

This is the Jewish reference to "The Queen of Heaven" I was trying to remember in the other thread.

I don't ever recall attending mass and celebrating any pagan ritual as described above. So, the "Mary Worship" attached to Catholicism is purely a fabrication based on skewed wishful beliefs by misinformed teachers.

Thanks for keeping things "kosher" in the truth department, Zarove.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 19, 2004.


rod,

Your point is very true. We don't celebrate any pagan rituals to the "Queen of Heaven," and we can thank the early Church fathers who fought against anyone trying to propagate such evil. The real "Mary Worshippers" were a heretical sect called the Collyridians, in the early fifth century AD that was condemned by the Church. This was almost a hundred years after the Edict of Milan in 313. This obscure sect might be the source of the claim that "Mary worship" infiltrated the early Church. The Church fought against and condemned this heresy.

These heretics actually performed something like a Mass where Mary was the center of worship. The teachings about the honor due to Mary have not changed, and the Church is quick to fight any heresy that distorts the truth. This sect tried to twist true devotion to Mary into something very wrong. The same St. Epiphanius who fought this heresy also extolled true honor due to the Blessed Mother. So though there was an obscure sect that really did worship Mary, they were considered heretics and the Church fought against it.

Here are some excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Collyridians, or Philomarianites, offered little cakes in sacrifice to the Mother of God; but the practice was condemned by St. Epiphanius (Hær., lxxix, in P. G., XLI, 740); Leontius Byzant., "Contra Nest. et Eutych.", III, 6, in P. G., LXXXVI, 1364; and St. John of Damascus (Hær., lxxix, in P. G., XCIV, 728).

Ref: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08070a.htm

The existence of the obscure sect of the Collyridians, whom St. Epiphanius (d. 403) denounces for their sacrificial offering of cakes to Mary, may fairly be held to prove that even before the Council of Ephesus there was a popular veneration for the Virgin Mother which threatened to run extravagant lengths. Hence Epiphanius laid down the rule: "Let Mary be held in honour. Let the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be adored, but let no one adore Mary" (ten Marian medeis prosknueito). Nonetheless the same Epiphanius abounds in the praises of the Virgin Mother, and he believed that there was some mysterious dispensation with regard to her death implied in the words of Revelations 12:14: "And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle that she might fly into the desert unto her place." Certain it is, in any case, that such Fathers as St. Ambrose and St. Jerome, partly inspired with admiration for the ascetic ideals of a life of virginity and partly groping their way to a clearer understanding of all that was involved in the mystery of the Incarnation, began to speak of the Blessed Virgin as the model of all virtue and the ideal of sinlessness.

Ref: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15459a.htm

In the early Christian Era the Peputians, Collyridians, and Montanists attributed priestly powers even to women (cf. Epiphanius, De hær., xlix, 79); and in the Middle Ages the Albigenses and Waldenses ascribed the power to consecrate to every layman of upright disposition. Against these errors the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) confirmed the ancient Catholic teaching, that "no one but the priest [sacerdos], regularly ordained according to the keys of the Church, has the power of consecrating this sacrament".

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 19, 2004.


Thanks to Rod and Andy. Great info!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 19, 2004.

I think we should consider the possibility that consecrating sacrificial bread in a Mass--is pagan whether done by male or female.

Satan turned Jesus' beautiful and symbolic words into a circus by falsely forshadowing everything into these pagan cults.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 19, 2004.


He ddnt forshadow it Faith, sinc he Pagan custims didnt rsemble the eucharist as tyou falsely claim.

we have discussed your sorue for your allogatiosn before, and revealed them irrelevant and meanignless.

You cnanot persist in this "Cahtolisism is Pagan' lie very much farther and expect much more out of anyone here othe than dismissal.

Unelss, that is, tou woudl care to verify the claism with acutla myht and hisotry sites, and not just anto-Cahtolic ( Or Chrisain in soem cases) sites...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 19, 2004.



"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89

Faith, you are not only calling the Holy mass pagan, but now you are calling the early martyrs of our faith pagans! Men whom paid for their faith by going to the gallows, to the lions, to the fire. Men and women whose blood is the seed bed of our faith.

Can you go lower? I shudder to think of it . . .

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 19, 2004.


Thanks! Andy. That's more knowledge to assimilate.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 20, 2004.


"I think we should consider the possibility that consecrating sacrificial bread in a Mass--is pagan whether done by male or female"

A: Not likely since it was commanded by God Himself, and has been continuously understood as such by the Christian Church for 2,000 years.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 20, 2004.


In view of all those pagan beliefs in goddesses, I find it very evident that the Catholic Church has protected the truth about Mary and her mission given to her by God. When one conforms to the Catholic doctrines about Mary, there isn't a need to fear or doubt Mary's role and purpose in God's Salvation plan. Mary's truth is perpetuated in the Catholic teachings. Plain and simple, the evidence is there for all to understand. But, there are always those who dabble in conspiracy theories. Be at peace to know that Christ is our Saviour.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 20, 2004.


"In view of all those pagan beliefs in goddesses, I find it very evident that the Catholic Church has protected the truth about Mary and her mission given to her by God."

It also seems to betray the particular hatreds of the enemy, as well. If the enemy knows that our hope is centered in the Blessed Virgin and the Blessed Sacrament, he's going to go to all lengths to attack them. Sure, there are innumerable things Catholic he can and will attack, but these seem offhand to be lie at the deepest part of the heart of the Faith. These, plus the papacy. Seems a natural conclusion that he'll hit these hardest.

On top of that, there are several strategies to use. To obscure or to suppress. Then there's immitation. The last seems popular... false apparitions, heretical ideas or twists on real Catholic things, especially in relation to the Blessed Mother. Imho that's what you have here. The pagan goddess angle seems ancient and popular. The intent could be either of two objectives: 1. Get people to believe that anything having to do with the Blessed Mother is to be relegated to the pagan goddess worship, thereby negating the true role of the Mother of our Savior, or 2. to get people wrapped up in a false or deviant devotion which may actually be along the lines of pagan goddess worship. Perhaps not even with the Blessed Virgin as the object, but as the new agers would have it, some deviant feminist principle.

Truth is like a bullseye on a target; one way to hit, and an infinite number of ways to miss. What we need to know and do to come to eternal life is relatively simple and humble, not unlike the Mary herself. Something which has absolutely zero relationship to the feminist goddess principle.

I still want to hear Faith explain why the Satanists have Black Masses, seeking to mock and desecrate the things of our Faith. If we didn't have the true and real goods, if Catholics weren't his arch enemy, if we were not the holders and protecters of the true doctrine and practice of Christianity... he would waste his time trying mock and descrate the objects of our Catholic Faith.

I've never heard of a Black Tent Revival.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 20, 2004.



"...he would not waste his time trying mock and descrate the objects of our Catholic Faith."

-- (em@cox.nett), December 20, 2004.

Faith says:

"I think we should consider the possibility that consecrating sacrificial bread in a Mass--is pagan whether done by male or female"

To which Paul replies:

A: Not likely since it was commanded by God Himself, and has been continuously understood as such by the Christian Church for 2,000 years.

Good point Paul. What people like Faith often conveniently forget is that their viewpoint on the real presence in the eucharist is a definate minority view among Christians. For example:

According to data on adherents.com, Christians can be broken down into a number of groups (and their estimated numbers):

Catholic 968,000,000 Protestant 395,867,000 Other Christians 275,583,000 Orthodox 217,948,000 Anglicans 70,530,000

The Catholic, Orthodox and Anglicans believe in some form of the real presence. Of the 400 million protestants, we have to subtract out the 64 million lutherans who also believe in the real presence. I will confess that I don't know what they mean by other Christians, but from their website, they include Jehovah witnesses in their numbers.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 20, 2004.


No,

I think that Satan counted on this misunderstanding of Scripture--and has falsely established the sacrifice of the Mass.

Apparitions of Mary are demonic and so is that *Wafer* transformed into flesh and blood sample that the Vatican has encased in a glass box at Vatican City.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 20, 2004.


That's immaterial to the queatsiosn I raised about isogyr that you refuse to address though... so why not address them???

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004.

Faith says "I think that Satan counted on this misunderstanding of Scripture--and has falsely established the sacrifice of the Mass."

If Satan instituted a "false mass," for the Catholic Church, then what did Satan institute at the Black Mass?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 20, 2004.



Zarove?

What is isogyr?

I have scrambled that word every which way, and I can't figure it out.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 20, 2004.


Issues, your riudeness, issues.

Push the dyslexia crakcs faith, go on.

But if you do be wanred.

You FAILED to answer the evolution queatsuona dnd IGNORE the facts on the bbaylonainism claims. you flat out mock peopel on this forum and reufse to aknowledge there objections.

I relaly coidl casre less that you beleive these "godly' spruces, they all build on a known liar thta is hislop, and are untenable.,

None of your claism are een remotely true, and you frefuse to prove me worng by substantiating the claims independantly.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004.


Or--Emerald,

Satan knows the only way to heaven is through jesus Christ, but if he can keep you focused on Mary--you miss the truth revealed in the Scriptures.

The Catholic Church tells you that Mary is the Refuge of Sinners. Catholics should surrender their souls at the hour of their death wholly to her, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. By contrast we know that the Bible tells us that we should put our complete trust in Jesus Christ to save us.

Romans 10:8-13

But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile–the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Any mention of Mary in that??

And don't forget--for those asking about Satanist's Black Masses-- that Satanists are human beings mocking Christianity. There is no reason to believe that Satan is actually any busier in that false religion than any other.

Satan will use whatever he can to deceive us away from the truth in Scriptures. He disguises himself as an angel of light, and his deception is sugar-coated and appealing.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 20, 2004.


Zarove says (re: Faith):

"You FAILED to answer the evolution queatsuona dnd IGNORE the facts on the bbaylonainism claims. you flat out mock peopel on this forum and reufse to aknowledge there objections."

You are absolutely right, Zarove. She ducks the difficult questions, and then she picks on one little piece to launch another objection to Catholicism. If I had a nickel for every rebuttal of mine that has gone ignored, I would be a rich man.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 20, 2004.


Zarove..,

I was serious., and not intentionally trying to knock you. Is it my fault that I have a hard time with your posts?

If you nwant an answer--you'll have to decifer the word for me because I truly don't know what it is.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 20, 2004.


Zarove--

You never prove yourself right--therefore I do not feel compelled to respond to your claims that everything I post is wrong. You never prove that to be so. You simply deny every single thing I post.

Well, no offense but I disagree with your position and see no reason to think you are correct.

I say that Fortuna was indeed the Roman Mother goddess and Jupiter her son., and you not so! Well maybe you should prove yourself first.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 20, 2004.


Faith says:

"Catholics should surrender their souls at the hour of their death wholly to her, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

Faith could you please cite the paragraph where the Catechism states this? I couldn't find it.

Here is a site that has the catechism online, perhaps you can provide the relevant passage. Thanks.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 20, 2004.


"And don't forget--for those asking about Satanist's Black Masses-- that Satanists are human beings mocking Christianity. There is no reason to believe that Satan is actually any busier in that false religion than any other"

SAY WHAT? Satan takes the blood and body of our LORD and perverts it, desecrates it, completely mocking of the passion of our Lord -- a total and complete ABOMINATION, and you're saying Satan is "no busier" there than anywhere else. So in your view, there is no difference between what Catholics celebrate at Mass, than what Satan does at his mass?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 20, 2004.


Like I said Gail..,

Satanists are human beings.

First you need to prove that this religion is Satan's religion.

Personally--I think it would be too obvious a religion for him to be involved in. I think the people doing this sort of thing are evil and perhaps even posessed.., but really, Satan is far more deceptive than that.

Satan is an imitator, and he loves to imitate Christ!

Jesus said, "I am the light of the world" (John 9:5). Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). He spreads a false illumination upon the Word of God, resulting in false doctrine that leads people astray.

God sent a Messiah, Jesus Christ. Satan will send a messiah too--the Antichrist.

God will send His son to earth on a white horse (Rev. 19:11). Satan will send his son, the son of perdition, on a white horse (Rev. 6:2).

The devil is a master of deception!

See also the unholy Trinity of the last days (Rev 13)

This unholy trinity--The dragon, the beast out of the sea, and the false prophet--unite in a desparate attempt to overthrow God. Because the beast-- the antichrist, is a false messiah, he will be a counterfeit Christ and even stage his own ressurection (Rev 13:14).

People will follow and worship him and be awed by his power and miracles (Rev 13:3-4).

They will believe that he is Christ returned! We should remember all the warnings about false Christs and pay close attention.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 20, 2004.


Zarove-- You never prove yourself right--therefore I do not feel compelled to respond to your claims that everything I post is wrong. You never prove that to be so. You simply deny every single thing I post.

{You turned to this when you hre cornered... its a chap and low blow Faoith, and don say you have too hard a time with my posts, you answered me beofre...}-Zarove

Well, no offense but I disagree with your position and see no reason to think you are correct.

{Other than the fact that you cancheck any myhtology or religiosu hisotyr book and easly confirm what I say?}-ZaROVE

I say that Fortuna was indeed the Roman Mother goddess and Jupiter her son., and you not so! Well maybe you should prove yourself first.

{OK.

Here are a few links Faith...

http://www.crystalinks.com/romegods.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_%28god%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/zeusmyth/

http://www.timelessmyths.com/classical/roman.html

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/o/ops.html

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/s/saturn.html

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/j/jupiter.html

http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/roman/jupiter.htm

http://www.crystalinks.com/romemythology.html

http://mythman.com/

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/romrelig3.html

This enoguh for now, or need more?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004.


AS TO FORTUNA, AKA Tyche...

A Greek goddess, originally of fortune and chance, and then of prosperity. She was a very popular goddess and several Greek cities choose her as their protectress. In later times, cities had their own special Tyche. She is regarded as a daughter of Zeus (Pindar) or as a daughter of Oceanus and Tethys (Hesiod). She is associated with Nemesis and with Agathos Daimon ("good spirit"). Tyche was portrayed with a cornucopia, a rudder of destiny, and a wheel of fortune. The Romans identified her with their Fortuna.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/tyche.html

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/f/fortuna.html

She was the Daighter of Jupiter ( Zeus), not his mother. Or of OCeanus and Tuthes... at any event shes not the mother goddess... leas tof all is she the mother of Jupiter, that Honou goes to Ops, also known as cybelle, an in Greek as Rhea.

She wa he goddess of random chance, NOT the mother goddess of th entire Roman Sttae, ut the patron of mothers and gamblers...

Especially gamplers.

Want mroe Faith?

http://www.godchecker.com/gotw/003_fortuna.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virilis

http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Arc/3860/goddess/fortuna.html

http://www.dromo.info/fortunabio.htm

Worse , shes a Minor goddes. one wonders why this majorly improtant centralcharecer o the faiht of all ofrmans, derived at from babylonain Origins and wom recieved devoton as the sacred mother of the divine god-bou Jupiter, who was revered and worhsiooed as Cahtlcis wirhsip Mart ( who was indeed the same goddess cathlcis worshipo to this day... as tey use er) is relogated to the roe of Minor goddess, and not seen as a preimenent goddess today.

Are all my sources wrong fdaith?> Ar eony tor soruces, arrived at by mean of Hislop, correct and mine in error, thouh htye rea origional soruces such as Hesiod and virgil?

Now that I have shows what i have, and can guerentee you I have more, what have you?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004.


James,

I found it!

CCC #2677--

Holy Mary, Mother of God: With Elizabeth we marvel, "And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Because she gives us Jesus, her son, Mary is Mother of God and our mother; we can entrust all our cares and petitions to her: she prays for us as she prayed for herself: "Let it be to me according to your word." By entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her: "Thy will be done."

Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death: By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the "Mother of Mercy," the All-Holy One. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. And our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender "the hour of our death" wholly to her care. May she be there as she was at her son's death on the cross. May she welcome us as our mother at the hour of our passing to lead us to her son, Jesus, in paradise.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 20, 2004.


Answer my posts this tme Faith, and don try claimign I didnt prov emyself.

I have hundrfeds if not thousands ofmor elinks to show you if you deny these.

i evenhave links to origionalpgan soruces in Greek, latin, and english. ( The last beign translated, of cuse).

I can clearly demonstrate fortuna was no the Mother Goddess ofthe orman State, and that jupiter was not her son.

I can show that all other facts you present arr wroing too.

what else do you want m to prove.

Don ignroe Faith, show, dont tell, wjhy these ar eunreliable, and tell mw whay I should beleive your babylonainism claims?

I did my part, now do yours.

And rmember, No Catechisms for me, Im not Cahtolic...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004.


Jupiter the boy, was worshipped in the arms of the goddess Fortuna

From Pompeii, vol. ii. p. 150.

The reader will remember that Jupiter, as "Jupiter puer," or "Jupiter the boy," was worshipped in the arms of the goddess Fortuna, just as Ninus was worshipped in the arms of the Babylonian goddess, or Horus in the arms of Isis (see Ch. II, Section II). Moreover, Cupid, who, as being the son of Jupiter, is Vejovis - that is, as we learn from Ovid (vol. iii. p. 179, in a Note to Fasti, lib. iii. v. 408), "Young Jupiter" - is represented, as in the above cut, not only with the wine-cup of Bacchus, but with the Ivy garland, the distinctive mark of the same divinity, around him.

*****************************************************************

I have links too Zarove

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 20, 2004.


A liunk to "The Two baby;ons" is harldy convencing.

Try doign this instead, link to a Mythology site that is in no way intereste din cahtlisism, and that offers raw myths, and hsow fortuna as the Mother Goddess and Jupiter on her lap. Or a translation of the Greek or Latin texts that reveal her ot be this.

something form a neutral sorue that confirms your claims. anything.

Midn you, My soruces for these arent cahtolic apologist here,they offer raw myths and have no interest in Christainity, there misison is to teahc Greek and roman Mythology.

Use a neutral soruce that only seeks to offer Greek and roman Mythology, and show me fortuna and Jupiter-Peur.

Go on, I ask, and should recieve.

have you any soruces Faith, that tell the myth on its own, so I may read it?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004.


Zarove--

I think you are missing the point here.

It would take a Christian familiar with the Bible and pagan religion to be able to make the Babylonian connection.

A completely secular source--ignorant of the biblical prophecies and of the Babel connection, would not be a reliable source.

I have read your links--to some degree and I think that Hislop harmonizes much nicer.

Would trust a secular source like Josephus to explain Jesus' life-- or would I rather hear it from a historian like Luke?

You can choose to believe whomever you like, and so may I.

Just because you disagree--doesn't make your opinion right, and it surely doesn't disprove my sources. Let the reader decide for him/herself.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 20, 2004.


Josephus is an impartant source. Even Josephus believed while attempting to maintain an unbiased account of Christian/Jewish history.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 20, 2004.


Zarove-- I think you are missing the point here.

No, you are.

It would take a Christian familiar with the Bible and pagan religion to be able to make the Babylonian connection.

This is exclty my point. Hislop shows no competence in Pagan mythology. None whatsoever. Nada.Zippo.Zilch.

I mean, come on Faith, where DID he get his informaiton? What is HIS source?

Show me, then, from the origional PAGAN TEXTS, which are all available onlne, ther Mother-and-Child connection. I dont NEED nor am

I ASKING for anyhign short of actuasl refernece to a Mother oddess in roman State Religion as a central deity.

een accpeting your rather dubious claim that it takes a Chrisain familiar withthe myths and the Bible to make these connections, you still have the obligaiton of showing the myths in raw form for our parusal.

hislop doesnt show that he is familiar with the myths, because no source , either secondary as I have shown, or prmary, such as actual pagan writings, meniton the things he has claimed.

His work, rather capabl of beign understood byu nonChrisaisn or not, and his conclusions, rather capabl of beign arrived at by Noinchristyaisn or not, still rest on the myths which antedate his work and are manifestly in agrfeance with my claim that his grasp pf the mythology is poor.

Nolw, show me Hislops spiurces, and that they are crdible, show me the pagan Mythologies from Pagan texts.

Let me read the raw myths for myself and compare them to hislops claim.

Surley some Pagan text soemwhere reads about the Mother Goddess and Jupiter-Peur. Soemwhere this will be mentioend in all of orman mytholigy.

Again, im not lookiugn for the Cahtolci connection, just the myths that Hislop claism existed in this time.

wihtout those Myths being verified as existant, then the whole case is nothign but empty rhetoric and fiction.

A completely secular source--ignorant of the biblical prophecies and of the Babel connection, would not be a reliable source.

They Wouldn't be reliable for, say, a Biblcial study or chfristain perspectve, but they WOULD be reliable for offerign the raw myths.

A Secular soruce may not arrive at the conclusiosn tyou make about Cahtolisism and its babylonain connection, but it certianly woidl be able o repeat the myths form ancient pagans.

What Im askign for is less a spiritually advanced understanding, and more the raw myths.

Unless you are sayin te Pagans themselvess had to be Chrisyain before inventing Pagan myhtologies, you must at leats admit that the Myhtologies reported in hislops "The Two babylons" shoidl be accessable tot he general reader form some media soemwhere, so that his word can be confirmed, and we can SEE th ancient romans bowing to a statue of Fortuna, The uqeen of Heaven, and her god-incarnate son, Jupiter-Peur.

why woudl the Romans NOT mention this?

All im askign for is the raw mythology, NOT soemone who wodl undetsand prophecy.

Did hislops Mythology eixst in ancien times, and is his rpeort oof ancient babylonain and later rman religion correct? If so, surely you can present a roman Text which outlines everythign Hislop claims the roman texts shoudl outline, otherwise, he is utterly useless a a soruce, sicne his claism cannot be confirmed.

I have read your links--to some degree and I think that Hislop harmonizes much nicer.

Except where he makes artificial claism such as fortuna beign Jupiters mother, or where he claism the Indo-european rleigin decened from babylonaism, a semetic relgion that was extinct long before rme, or where he claism the Mother-and-Chidl Cult was central to roman worship, or where he ignroes the all-to-familar roman and Greek classical works in favur of specualtion nd fantacy...

Would [you] trust a secular source like Josephus to explain Jesus' life-- or would I rather hear it from a historian like Luke?

The differenc is what Im lookign for. I WOUDL trust Josephus in dscriptuons fo Jerusalem in the irts century, or desrptons of roman Culture.

reemember, what we are ultmatly askign you for, Faith, is not a spiritual interpretation of the data and the ability to make the nessisary conenctions, but for the raw Data itsself. without the Data, no one, not a Christain, not an Atheist, not a Buddhist, no one, can make anyconnections whatsoever. Now, if hislop drew from actual pagan Mythology and religious hisotry, surely his soruces woudl reveal that what he said was the truth.

If he drew form reputable materials and presented facts, his facts shodl be confirmable even to a secular mind, in much the same way that Luke is capable of beign understood by a secuarists in matters regardign history.

They may not understand the spiritual dimension of the work, btu they can srely compare Luke's work witht that of other contemporary hisotrians, and if Luke had claime that jeruslem was 10'000 times the size of rome, r tat the ormans worshipped the goddess Ishtar regularly, then we cul clealry declare luke's gospel a fraud. as it stands, Lukes gospel is the most repsected of the Gospls as hisotry, and represents a true historians take on the events of Jesus's life, acuratley, with facts a secular mind can check.

Hislop shoud be as eaisly scrutinised.

If no Pagan Mythologies are presented to us or consderation that confirm his Mother-and-Child cult, and his variosu other claims, then we shall have no choice but to conclude that he is unreliable.

Again, Faith, and I want you to udnerstand this, we want the sources of hislops claims, not te ability to connect the dots to show rome, just themyths that show that he is a competent historian, liek Luke...

You can choose to believe whomever you like, and so may I.

Its not about choosing to beleive whomever I like, its abotu the responibility I have as a Christain, as an academian, and as a Journalist, for accuracy in facts.

If I presented fale facts in a news story, eopel woidl not have trusted my paer.

If I present false facts in collage, peopel wont trust my

credientials and I wont get a degree.

If I present fe facts as a chrisain, I harm the bod of Chirst.

Noen of these I choose to do.

Hislop had to have soruces, and these will easly onfirm him if they are reputale and cna be cofirmed of as beign form antiquity. Surely you can show me the raw myths that support his claims, cant you?

Just because you disagree--doesn't make your opinion right, and it surely doesn't disprove my sources.

Unfortnatlry, mine isnt opinion Faith. And its nto abotu beign spiritual enough to see the connectiosn to Babylon and rome. its all about sources, which secular midns can see, and about rpesenting those soruces so you can prove to me tat the Myths he presented in his book "The Two babylons" actually existed and wher the basis of the major part ofthe rman empires rleigiosu devtion. Surely you can find at leats some extra-Hislopian mateirals, that are cmpeltley independant of him and his desire t discredit Catholisism, that show either the Hisotry of the orman rleigion ebign centred around a Mother Goddess who was later renamed Mary, or else the raw myths frm translated Greek or Latin MSS.

I can show toyu the Iliad,for instance,or the Anead for Orme. What Myths can you show me?

And again aith, this sin abtu opinion, but Sruces.

Let the reader decide for him/herself.

They cant decide, because yo refse to show prmary soruces hat support hislops claim. This is cntral to my argument agausnt you.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 20, 2004.


See The two babylons: A Case Study in Poor Methodology a review of The Two Babylons, or The Papal Worship by Alexander Hislop by Ralph Woodrow, author of Babylon Mystery Religion and The Babylon Connection?.

I think I got all the threads...

-- ("ask3332004@yahoo.com), December 21, 2004.


Here is an excerpt for the above link which is found at the Christian Research Institute:

"As a young evangelist, I began to preach on the mixture of paganism with Christianity, and eventually I wrote a book based on Hislop, titled Babylon Mystery Religion (Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Assn., 1966). In time, my book became quite popular, went through many printings, and was translated into Korean, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and several other languages. Hundreds quoted from it. Some regarded me as an authority on the subject of “pagan mixture.” Even the noted Roman Catholic writer Karl Keating said, “Its best- known proponent is Ralph Woodrow, author of Babylon Mystery Religion.”1

Many preferred my book over The Two Babylons because it was easier to read and understand. Sometimes the two books were confused with each other, and once I even had the experience of being greeted as “Reverend Hislop”! As time went on, however, I began to hear rumblings that Hislop was not a reliable historian. I heard this from a history teacher and in letters from people who heard this perspective expressed on the Bible Answer Man radio program. Even the Worldwide Church of God began to take a second look at the subject. As a result, I realized I needed to go back through Hislop’s work, my basic source, and prayerfully check it out."

******

Perhaps, Faith, you should follow the example of Mr. Woodrow, and prayerfully consider that you have been duped!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 21, 2004.


No Gail., sorry,

But this is just another opinion. I am not convinced that Hislop wasn't onto something.

But it still doesn't change the fact that even Woodrow still considers Catholicism as pagan.

Read on:

I saw that a more direct and valid argument against errors in the Roman Catholic Church (or any other group) is the Bible itself, not ancient mythology. For ex­ample, the Bible speaks of a minister being “the husband of but one wife” and that “for­bid­ding people to marry” is a doctrine of devils (1 Tim. 3:2; 4:3). This provides a strong­er argument against priestly celibacy than trying to show that ancient priests of Semiramis castrated themselves.

While seeking to condemn the paganism of Roman Catholicism, Hislop produced his own myths. By so doing, he theorized that Nimrod, Adonis, Apollo, Attes, Baal-zebub, Bacchus, Cupid, Dagon, Hercules, Januis, Linus, Lucifer, Mars, Merodach, Mithra, Moloch, Narcissus, Oannes, Odin, Orion, Osiris, Pluto, Saturn, Teitan, Typhon, Vulcan, Wodan, and Zoroaster were all one and the same. By mixing myths, Hislop supposed that Semiramis was the wife of Nimrod and was the same as Aphrodite, Artemis, Astarte, Aurora, Bellona, Ceres, Diana, Easter, Irene, Iris, Juno, Mylitta, Proserpine, Rhea, Venus, and Vesta.

******

All he is really saying is that the mythology could be misrepresented, though it will be interesting to see if he proves his change of heart is right.

All he is sying is that it is better to stick with the Scriptures alone to disprove Catholicism.

:: Once Upon A Time

We are going to start right at Babylon's - not so humble - beginnings ... and follow the progress of a few people whose wickedness influenced a city, a people, a nation, an empire, a planet.

We see Babylon or Babel's origin shortly after the flood. "Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood. And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan. And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar." Genesis 10:1,6,8,9,10

Now concerning verse 9, Nimrod it is said was of great significance to dealing with the problems of wild animals in the land, and so strengthened his position of leadership with the people. But the phrase "before the Lord" can also be translated, "against" or "in defiance of the Lord". Now let's look at one of Nimrod's most famous endeavors...

Gen 11:1-4 "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth."

This declaration was in direct defiance of God's instruction to "replenish the earth" found in Genesis 9:1.

Gen 11:5-9 "And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth."

We see that only four generations from Noah, the building of the tower of Babel became a symbol of man's unified rebellion against God.

The name Babel itself in the Semitic means "The Gate of God". But in the Hebrew it derives from a different root, and means "to confound" or "confusion". So we see that the very beginning of Nimrod's kingdom of Babel was steeped in rebellion against God.

The name Nimrod comes from the Hebrew word "marad" which means "he rebelled". We also see that this rebellion involved all the people of the world in civil and religious unity, to the point that God thought it necessary to intervene.

What we are going to see is that through Noah's Grandson Cush, Cushs' son Nimrod, Nimrod's wife Semiramis, and her son Tammuz, and through the city of Babylon was the foundation laid for almost every idolatrous religious and mythological system in existence. These four individuals were exalted to the status of deity, complete with their own legends, which fast spread through the entire world populace. …

The Jewish Encyclopedia says of Nimrod;

"that it was he who made all the people rebellious against God." The Jewish Historian Josephus wrote:

"Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God. The multitudes were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod and they built a tower, neither sparing any pains, nor being in any degree negligent about the work: and by reason of the multitude of hands employed in it, it grew very high… the place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon."

We know from many sources that the wife of Nimrod was the infamous Semiramis. She is reputed to have been the foundress of the Babylonian mysteries and the first high-priestess of idolatry. Babylon was the HQ of this mystery-religion when it began. It eventually spread in various forms throughout the whole earth; and it is alive & well today!

Author unknown--but it's mostly Scripture and a quote from Josephus.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 21, 2004.


But this is just another opinion. I am not convinced that Hislop wasn't onto something.

But it still doesn't change the fact that even Woodrow still considers Catholicism as pagan. - Faith

Faith,

You're misrepresenting Woodrow. I recommend you read his book. He doesn't agree with Catholicism, but he does see the Babylon "connection" to Catholicism as being false. Why do you brush him off, and put more faith in Hislop?

As you said, it's another opinion, but Woodrow is a respected evangelical preacher who professes the same basic beliefs as you. He came to see the errors of Hislop slowly and after much research. He lost money by pulling his book based on Hislop's false claims. He had the conviction to not only do that, but to write a book refuting his original. He's actually looked into Hislop's claims and found them wanting. He does say that it is better to use Scripture to show the errors of Catholicism (or any group), but he does not say that Catholicism is pagan. Please read his whole article. Here's another excerpt:

"If finding a pagan parallel provides proof of paganism, the Lord Himself would be pagan. The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in His hand (Ps. 75:8). Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14). Pagans worshiped the sun; the Lord is the “Sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2). Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called “the bright and Morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Pagan gods had temples dedicated to them; the Lord has a temple (Rev. 7:15). Pagans built a high tower in Babylon; the Lord is a high tower (2 Sam. 22:3). Pagans worshiped idolatrous pillars; the Lord appeared as a pillar of fire (Exod. 13: 21–22). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Ps. 91:4)."

and another excerpt:

"I have since replaced this book with The Babylon Connection? a 128- page book with 60 illustrations and 400 footnote references. It is an appeal to all my brothers and sisters in Christ who feel that finding Babylonian origins for present-day customs or beliefs is of great importance. My advice, based on my own experience, is to move cautiously in this area, lest we major on minors. If there are things in our lives or churches that are indeed pagan or displeasing to the Lord, they should be dealt with, of course. But in attempting to defuse the confusion of Babylon, we must guard against creating a new “Babylon” (confusion) of our own making."

Please, please, please consider that Hislop is wrong. Pray for wisdom and to accept the truth, whatever it may be. Accepting that Hislop is wrong does not mean that you have to accept that Catholicism is right. Just look at Woodrow.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 21, 2004.


And of cortuse, that is the main issue. Not rather or not Catholisism is right or wrong, but inthis case rather or not your Hislopian claim of the Mother and chidl Cult which began in babylon, spread to rome, became the state relgion, and merged with christainity.

This is all we are askign you to surrender. we arent askign you to attend Mass and seek a Prest for cofession here, Only that you actually look at the raw myths adn see for yourself how disparagent they are to yuor claims, not to mention the history.

Hilops used the same tactics as Acharya S who cliams Jesus chirst wa sa mythocal Charecter stolen form Pagans. She, like hislop, re-writes myths and disorts relaity to make her case.

we website is WWW.TRUTHBEKNOWN.COM ... Go there, and tell me why I shoild bleive Jesus christ ever existed.

If I where like you, and ignorant of the real mythology, her work wodl be impressive. indeed, many ar eimpacted by her work, which is quiet poplar among critics of chrstainity.

Noenteless, before I read her web[age, I had exptensively as a hobby studied myhtology and hisotry, and knew her claims to be false.

Noentheless, you reject the mythology from soruces unbaised, that exist only to present the myths and legends, and accept the book by hislop.

So, what woudl this mean to me? what if I began sayign Jesus as a Plagerised Pagan Myth based on Acharya S? How woidl you prove me wrong? wodl you qute the real Myht of orus and sow he want crucified? if so, i can sounter that becase AScharya Said it and chrisyaisn ar evil and alway have been, you are wrong and its jst your opinion.

To discredit Acharya, I use the real Mythology. To discredit Hislop, I use the real Myhtology.

I have no interest in Proving Cahtolisism here Faith, as the others note, merly I ask of you a simpel thing, to invest in Pagan Mhtology books, and read what the myhts actally said, and see, hoenstly, if they emasure of to Hislops claim.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 21, 2004.


Rod,

I believe the Queen of Heaven in Catholic worship is the Goddess Diana worshipped at Ephesus as witnessed by Paul when he preached there. See Acts.

Ishtar/Isis/Ashtoret/Astarte is the same Goddess, just like

Fatima/Guadalupe/Lourdes/Medjugorie/Caridad del Cobre/....is supposed to be Mary, the mother of Jesus in Catholicism.

That is the full connection, Rod.

I discovered that in 1991 in a Humanities class I had at the universe. My research paper dealt with the connections of several Gods and Goddeses.

Other interesting things Rod: Adonis is the same as Adonai =Lord(the word Jews use today to refer to God).

I read over 13 books on the subject.Yet, I only received a B for my efforts.

I did better on a paper I did for my religious studies class taught by a former Jesuit: Eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven by Uta Rankemann.

Those were the days of great research for me.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), December 21, 2004.


Andy.,

As I have already said--I never even read Hislop. It doesn't matter to me if he is correct about what god or goddess was who?

I can see paganism in Catholicism.

It may be true that many the things that pagans do--are done in the Bible for the One true God. But that is the difference.

The way I see it--the One true God did not instruct us to turn to Mary for any reason. She is not shown as the Helper or co-mediatrix in the plan of salvation.

The way I see it--John 6 was not instituting the Eucharist or the Mass.

I could go on, but my point is that these are pagan things when done in the name of a different god other than the true God.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 21, 2004.


I could go on, but my point is that these are pagan things when done in the name of a different god other than the true God. - Faith

If it were true that Catholics worship any God other than the one true God, I would agree with you Faith. But we adore and worship the Creator of the Universe, the God who sent his only begotten Son, the same God who became flesh (Emmanuel) and suffered and died because of our sins. The same God who redeems the human race through his Son, born of a virgin. The same Triune God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The only God that is real. How is this God different than the true God you worship?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 21, 2004.


It doesn't matter to me

I can see paganism in Catholicism.

It may be true that many the things that pagans do--are done in the Bible

The way I see it the One true God did not instruct us to turn to Mary

The way I see it--John 6 was not instituting the Eucharist or the Mass.

but my point is that these are pagan things

Nothing like doctrinal certitude. It's great to be Catholic.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 21, 2004.


Faith says:

" can see paganism in Catholicism.

It may be true that many the things that pagans do--are done in the Bible for the One true God. But that is the difference.

The way I see it--the One true God did not instruct us to turn to Mary for any reason. She is not shown as the Helper or co-mediatrix in the plan of salvation.

The way I see it--John 6 was not instituting the Eucharist or the Mass.

I could go on, but my point is that these are pagan things when done in the name of a different god other than the true God."

These are speculations based on your preconceived notions and convenient ignoring of any evidence that is against them.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 21, 2004.


Doctrinal certitude jake?

Like the ones instituted by murderous popes sitting on a false seat that they obtained by killing their adversaries?

I asked you about this a long time ago--and instead of answering me-- you banned me:

Remeber this question about your popes, jake??

"There were several rivals each claiming to have been legally voted in by a legitimate council. Surely you know the history behind the simultaneous election by rival factions of Popes Ursinus and Damasus?

Ursinus's followers managed to--after much violence--install him as pope., but later--after a bloody three-day battle, Damasus, with the backing of the emporer, emerged the victor and continued as Vicar of Christ for 18 years (366-84 A.D.) So am I to understand that "apostolic succession" by an "unbroken line from Peter" operated by armed force?? Really?

Ironically--Pope Damasus was the first who, in 382, used the phrase "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." to claim supreme spiritual authority.

This all sounds so bloody, wealthy, powerful and corrupt to me. I hope rather than deleting my objections, that you might address my points with historical facts and not more Catholic theology. I really would be interested if you could prove this history wrong..

******************************************

Here's another one that you failed to address:

Stephen VII (396-7), who exhumed Pope Formosus and condemned the corpse for heresy at a mock trial--was soon thereafter strangled by zealots who opposed him. His party prompltly elected a Cardinal Sergius to be pope, but he was chased out of Rome by a rival faction which had elected Romanus as its "vicar of Christ."

Of the strange manner in which popes followed one another in an "unbroken line of apostolic succession from Peter," one historian writes:

"Over the next twelve months four more popes scrambled onto the bloodstained (papal) throne, maintained themselves precariously for a few weeks--or even days--before being hurled themselves into their graves.

Seven popes and an anti-pope had appeared in little over six years when...Cardinal Sergius reappeared after seven years' exile, backed now by the swords of a feudal lord who saw a means thereby of gaining entry into Rome. The reigning pope [Leo V, 903] found his grave, the slaughters in the city reached climax, and then Cardinal Sergius emerged as Pope Sergius [III, 904-11], sole survivor of the claimants and now supreme pontiff." (E.R. Chamberlin, The Bad Popes.(Barnes and Noble, 1969)

***********

Can you answer them now?

Is this history accurate?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 21, 2004.


why sgould they address anyhtign you raise when you wont address anyhting they, or I, raise?

Faith, I raised the issue that Fortuna is not the mother of Jupiter. all you can do is poun to Hislop and say she was. I say she was never wprshipped as "The queen of Heaven" ( A role held by Juno, in the roman world), and you sa Im wrong with bohtign but hislop to back you. I poitn to websites that give only the myths, and several of those, with several thousand still out there ready to back me up.

I even offer to post orgional sources, trnaslations of roman and greek mythology ( same relaly)

all you say is that this is "Your opinion" and move on withthe same drek.

Since you refuse to openly acknowledge the Histrical prolems with yor Bbaylonain rleigion connection tot eh Cahtolci Chruch, and refuse to show how the roman State Religion, when pagan, was Babylonain in origin, and sicne ytou refuse to even answer or address the probelm that no primary soruce mentions the roman Mother Goddess, then you are forced to be silent on thererefusals, unless tyou want to be a Hypocrite.

Now, either show real soruces for the Myhtology that you claim was evident inrome, Neutral soruces that dotn mention CaHTOLISISM AND GIVE JUST THE RAW MYTHS, OR ELSE STOP COMPLAINIGN AOUT HOW BADLY THEY TREAT YOU AND HOW THEY IGNORE TOIUR OBJECITONS.

hOU IGNROE EVERYONE ELSES AND ARE IN NO POSIITON TOMAKE DEMANDS.

AND REMEMBER FAITH, Im not Catholic, Im just tired of the double standards and dishoensty posed here.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 21, 2004.


Zarove says:

"AND REMEMBER FAITH, Im not Catholic, Im just tired of the double standards and dishoensty posed here. "

I couldn't agree more. It would be nice if we could raise the level of discourse from propaganda to scholarship. In scholarship you have to at least acknowledge that there are other schools of thought besides your own.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 21, 2004.


Here is an article Faith might be interested in. It's all about that evil "St. Nick" and how when the Bible refers to the Nicolaitans in Revelations, that's code for "those who follow St. Nicholas."

http://our.homewithgod.com/bibletruths/Christmas.html

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 21, 2004.


Zarove--

Stop yelling!

What you really mean to say is, "Faith, I am right and you are wrong. And if you don't agree with me--then you cannot speak."

What you are really doing, Zarove, is making a demand of me that I *prove* what I believe to be true, and that I prove it with secular sources.

Why do I have to abide by that again? I must have missed something??

I know you think your links *prove* something. But I disagree.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 21, 2004.


Zarove-- Stop yelling!

{Imnot. My cap lock key sticks sometimes. im getitng a new Keyboard in January.}-Zarove

What you really mean to say is, "Faith, I am right and you are wrong. And if you don't agree with me--then you cannot speak."

{No, what I mean is, you have no evidence to support your claims, and all evidence you have shown is either discredited nonsence, or else its not relaly proof of your accusation.

I can accept disagreeance, what I canot abide is outright deception.}-Zarove

What you are really doing, Zarove, is making a demand of me that I *prove* what I believe to be true, and that I prove it with secular sources.

{what Im askign for is what I ask of anyone, soem creidble evidence. I dotn think anyone shoukld take claims like yours lightly or at face value.

You have simpley got to relaise that without evidnece, no one will beleive you, and if youtr material evidenc eis fundamentlaly flawed, or outorhgt dishonest, then the conlcusions tou arrive at baed upon said soruces is also subjec tot dismissal.

This is pretty standard stuff Faith...I mean if I pulled semthign lie this agisnt hwat you beleive, woudl you accept it withut queatsion?}- Zarove

Why do I have to abide by that again? I must have missed something??

{Like everyone else, you are to serve under the same criterion ofproof. proclaimign a beelif as proof is not vlaid reason for anyone to beelive it, and examination of your accusaitons is not equivolent to beign cruel to you.

You demand that Cahtolcis prve things all the tme, why dont you do what you ask of them yourself and prove yourself?}-Zarove

I know you think your links *prove* something. But I disagree.

{Dusagree or not, my links show the eal myths, and they do not corolate to Hislop or the fantasies he concocted, and you pomulfgate.

In short, youhave no evidnce to back or claims, and I have evidnece agaisnt them.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 21, 2004.


Remember two things Zarove--

First of all--you can claim my sources are not credible all you want. That does not make it so.

And second, the point of my post was never mythology.

I have not demanded proof from anyone about their beliefs. Faith and belief and religions in general cannot be proven true. Not in the material sense. Even evolution or most history is understood in terms of interpretation of the supposed facts.

Stop demanding the *unreasonable* just from me. Have you demanded that jake prove that Mary will be returning with jesus at His return for the purpose of making Jesus known to us through her?

I mean--talk about *yikes.*

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 21, 2004.


Remember two things Zarove-- First of all--you can claim my sources are not credible all you want. That does not make it so.

{I did more than claim thy whee not credible, I habe demonstrated this to be the case, repeatedly. Simpley ignorign the evidnece I present you agaisnt your soruces is not suffcient to eliminaitng my objecitons, neither is pretendign My evidnece doesn not prove anything...

obviously, your csoruces conradict known fact, andtherefore are wrong.}-Zarove

And second, the point of my post was never mythology.

{This is false. Your entire argment rests on the presupposition that Babyonian rleigious practives and Mythology Merged with Christainity in 313 AD with Constantine makign Christinity a legal religion iN rme.

To this end, a workign knowledge of the Myths and religiosu practives of babylon and orme are centrlay integral to your arugment, thus, the Myhtology of rome and Babylon are the entire matter on which your claism are built.

thus, Myhtology is your poin, sicne you claim this Mythology is what Catholics are now participatign in and beleiving.

wihtout the Myth of the Great mother goddess fortuna and er Son Jupiter-Peur, your entire claim falls to firely ash.

Now, either show evidence that there was a Great Mother Goddess in rome, or else conceed you have no evidnece.}-Zarove

I have not demanded proof from anyone about their beliefs.

{Yes, you have. Seveal times tyou make demands of Catholics on this baord over vaiosu issue, ranging from mary worship, and demands tha they show you either whre it is instituted in scurptures, or else emands that they prve they don worship mary dispite praying to her. You demand of them about Papal infalibility and where to fn it in Scriptue. you demand of them about the church heirarchy.

you make frepeated demands, over these and numerous other issues.

even I, who am not Cahtolic, have had demands palced upon me. You demand I porve eovlution, and demand that I accet your soruces on that. You demand I look at the "Facts" hsere, and when you relaise your facts ar einfficient, then say you make no demand.

Howerver, you have made repeated demands, and now merley wish to retain your beleifs wihtotu examination as if there vlaid and ignore all we have spoken agaisn thtem.

This is childish Faith.}-Zarove

Faith and belief and religions in general cannot be proven true.

{I disagree, btu this is neither elevent nor germane.

What i asked you to prove was nto the validity of the babylonain religoons, I asked you to prove that the Babylonain rleigion was the roman State Religion, and that Rome worhsipoed a Mother-and-Child iamge, as tou asserted.

This is not a rleigiosu claim, bu a hisotrical claim about religiosu practices that surely shoudl have some evidence.}-Zarove

Not in the material sense. Even evolution or most history is understood in terms of interpretation of the supposed facts.

{No, evolution is undertsood wihtin the frameworks of an oeratonal theory, knwon facs, and a few base asupmptions. hisotry is undertsood by the records and undestandin of the records and elicsof ancnet peopels. Its not all beelif and speculation so that anyhign goes. You have to hav at leats some evidence ot beelive what you do, oherwise you have nothing.}-Zarove

Stop demanding the *unreasonable* just from me.

{It is most reasonable to demand evidence for ones claims, especally on seriosu mater as you have decided to speak on. Likewise, you are not the only oe I hold to this standard.

I hold everyone, myself included, to this standard.

Academiclaly speaking, one cannot make a case whtout evidence. its bad form and lackign in crfedibility.

If you have no evidnece, then your claim is nohtign but unsubstantiated accusaiton. I have evidenced agaisnt your claims and have presented it, dpite tyour rejection, my evidnece clealry shows your statements false. Yo have no cojnter evidence.

It is not unreasonable to ask for evidnece, but it isunreasonable to pretend evidnece is not important, and then to pressuppose anyone will beleive your claims.}-Zarove

Have you demanded that jake prove that Mary will be returning with jesus at His return for the purpose of making Jesus known to us through her?

{I havent seen him even make this claim, I tend to avoid such discussions. Noentheless, the statement jake makes is of future events which I cannot ask oen to prove. i can, hwoever, ask you to prove your statementsbaouthte past, which you cliam is base don research.

You are right that many rleigiosu claim ar euntestable, btu Im not rellay askign for or rleigious veiws, im askign for evidnece base don history for your claims made baout Hisotry, wichis different.}-Zarove

I mean--talk about *yikes.*

{Irreelevant to this discssion.}-Zarove

-- ZAROFF (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 21, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ