Bible truth #2... "Babylon the Great"

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i know, you think they could just stick to the material under discussion without the unnecessary insults. Perhaps prejudice is so deeply ingrained that it takes generations to eradicate it. Perhaps it never will be.

It's not prejudice being expressed here, rather, it seems more like frustration; Christians with a passion for Truth frustrated by the spreading contagion of pseudo-Christian theology.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It's not prejudice being expressed here, rather, it seems more like frustration; Christians with a passion for Truth frustrated by the spreading contagion of pseudo-Christian theology.

what about us, we need to listen to what is self evidently not only pseudo-Christian theology, but a hybrid of pagan and Christian elements masquerading as a truth and is nothing more than bastardisation.

The truth of the matter is, that Christianity, its churches and those who support them through association have the blood of millions on their hands, perhaps you will think of that the next time you consider what is pseudo and what is not, but i doubt it, for prejudice is, well, almost inherent with you people.

look at his text, Babylon the great is the Catholic church, evidence, none! well fair enough, its an opinion which he is free to express, then Galvo suggests they may have similar beliefs, look what happens, the hackles go up, how he distances himself, its really quite the most unchristian demeanour that i can think of, utter indoctrination and look at the result, the expression of prejudice. If he had stuck to the text, all is good and well, but no, he could not bring himself even to do that without having a go.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what about us, we need to listen to what is self evidently not only pseudo-Christian theology, but a hybrid of pagan and Christian elements masquerading as a truth and is nothing more than bastardisation.

The truth of the matter is, that Christianity, its churches and those who support them through association have the blood of millions on their ...[text shortened]... t, all is good and well, but no, he could not bring himself even to do that without having a go.

what about us, we need to listen to what is self evidently not only pseudo-Christian theology, but a hybrid of pagan and Christian elements masquerading as a truth and is nothing more than bastardisation.

See, this is what's so frustrating: you are seriously convinced that your particular heretical/cultic paradigm is Orthodox Christianity. It'd be funny, if it weren't so tragic. I do pray for you, robbie. But what Conrau and others have demonstrated in these forums, obvious to the impartial observer, is that you and galveston maintain your theological errors through willful ignorance. It is no wonder, I suppose, that you do so, since if you had a capacity to judge what is true and false in the first place, you would have already obeyed the scriptures and become one of Christ's sheep. It is my sincere prayer that the Lord might shed His Light abroad in your hearts and expose to your own conscience the counterfeit theology you've become too familiar with.

when one removes the prejudicial use of adjectives from your post, one is left with an empty semblance of a post, the veneer of which is peeling off to betray not only unfounded assertions and unsubstantiated claims but empty words of one who cannot see the rafter in his own eye but proceeds to extract the straw from his brothers.

1.We have never claimed to be orthodox Christians, ours is a simple faith, built upon our understanding of first century Christianity, before the apostasy which Christ foretold and was evident in the time of Paul and of which you are an adherent.

2. Secondly Christians have a duty to use their powers of discernment, or have you never read, Hebrews 5:14 . . .to those who through use have their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong.

3. You , Conrau, or anyone else for that matter have demonstrated nothing, for your posts, like this one are unsubstantiated and contain nothing but mere opinion, prejudicial opinion at that. If Galvo and i really wanted to go to town on Catholicism, Nominal Christianity etc etc we could do so for your record betrays a disrespect and abandonment of the teachings of Christ as recorded and exemplified in Gods word. At least Conrau has occasion to provide references.

and while i appreciate your prayer on my behalf, i would rather someone prayed to the father on my behalf, rather than to Christ, for there is one thing the father reserves for himself, the title 'the hearer of prayer'.

This does not excuse the prejudice that Jaywill has demonstrated.

Originally posted by galveston75
What do you think Babylon the Great is?

Honestly..........Not the Catholic Church but false religion in general and just the secular world that is anti-god and anti-Christ.




Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Honestly..........Not the Catholic Church but false religion in general and just the secular world that is anti-god and anti-Christ.




Manny

So with all that's been pointed out that the Catholic church believes with their customs that contradict what the Bible says not to do such as idloitry, they have the truth or do nothing wrong against the Bible?

Originally posted by galveston75
According to who's theories?

Excuse my English. That is " Your Christology " not "You're ...".

According to the words of the New Testament writers.

Originally posted by jaywill
Excuse my English. That is " Your Christology " not "You're ...".

According to the words of the New Testament writers.

The first fact is that Babel was the predcessor of Babylon which was the seat or beginning of most paganistic forms of false beliefs and teachings that were as Gen 10:8-10 says "in opposition to God." Most false teachings such as idolitry, belief in an afterlife, existance of other God's, triads of God's, seperation of clergy and laymen, astrology, magic, etc, all started here.
All of these are still practiced in many religions today in one form or another worldwide.
Rev 17:1-5 states that this harlot "sits on many waters" and has "committed fornication with the Kings of the earth".
This first shows that this harlot has a worldwide affect and is not political as it says she "committs fornication" or is deeply involved in it's politics with the Kings of the earth.
Rev 18:7 talks about the "wealth" she has amassed and the glory she demands. Many countries in the world are very poor so this would not apply to a political entity.
"Babylon the Great" is false religion as a whole. Any religion that practices anything that can be traced back to Babel or Babylon is now part of Babylon the Great.

http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/appendix_12.htm

Originally posted by galveston75
The first fact is that Babel was the predcessor of Babylon which was the seat or beginning of most paganistic forms of false beliefs and teachings that were as Gen 10:8-10 says "in opposition to God." Most false teachings such as idolitry, belief in an afterlife, existance of other God's, triads of God's, seperation of clergy and laymen, astrology, magic now part of Babylon the Great.

http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/appendix_12.htm

We're going in circles. Here we are again where we've been before.

So again, I ask you this: In Alexander Hislop's definitive classic book on "The Two Babylons" where does he say anything about the Babylonian origin of the belief in the Trinity ?

He speaks of a truck load of other things - Christmas, Easter, clerical garbs, yul logs, Santa, Mother and Child portraits ... etc. He traces many many religious things to ancient Babylon.

This is a genuine question because I no longer have the book. WHERE does he discuss the Babylonian origin of the doctrine of a Trinity ??.

If you cannot locate it then you should suspect that Russell took the liberty to add in stuff he didn't like and indoctrinate his students accordingly.

Originally posted by jaywill
We're going in circles. Here we are again where we've been before.

So again, I ask you this: In Alexander Hislop's definitive classic book on [b]"The Two Babylons" where does he say anything about the Babylonian origin of the belief in the Trinity ?

He speaks of a truck load of other things - Christmas, Easter, clerical garbs, yul logs, Santa ...[text shortened]... took the liberty to add in stuff he didn't like and indoctrinate his students accordingly.[/b]

i also have given my book to someone else, but they live relatively closely, however, it is well documented that Hislop traces the development of the trinity through Babylon.

Your assertion that Charles Russell has added this aspect and thus has been guilty of indoctrination on this basis is truly unadulterated mince. I could search the net and find the references if necessary.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i also have given my book to someone else, but they live relatively closely, however, it is well documented that Hislop traces the development of the trinity through Babylon.

Your assertion that Charles Russell has added this aspect and thus has been guilty of indoctrination on this basis is truly unadulterated mince. I could search the net and find the references if necessary.

==============================
i also have given my book to someone else, but they live relatively closely, however, it is well documented that Hislop traces the development of the trinity through Babylon.
===========================================

PAGE? PARAGRAPH?

Substantiate it from the book. That will shut me up.

================================
Your assertion that Charles Russell has added this aspect and thus has been guilty of indoctrination on this basis is truly unadulterated mince. I could search the net and find the references if necessary.
==================================

I do not recall Hislop saying anything in his book about the Babylonian origin of the belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

If it IS there, Please point it out to me. Otherwise you CANNOT credit Hislop for your theory.

Originally posted by jaywill
We're going in circles. Here we are again where we've been before.

So again, I ask you this: In Alexander Hislop's definitive classic book on [b]"The Two Babylons" where does he say anything about the Babylonian origin of the belief in the Trinity ?

He speaks of a truck load of other things - Christmas, Easter, clerical garbs, yul logs, Santa ...[text shortened]... took the liberty to add in stuff he didn't like and indoctrinate his students accordingly.[/b]

Jay just do some simple reaearch on the internet. More proof then tou can imagine that the trinity came from Babylon....Why is that such a hard thing to do?

Originally posted by jaywill

its not my intention to 'shut you up Jay', why would i want to do that? however i shall try to get my book back and when i do, will you retract your statement?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its not my intention to 'shut you up Jay', why would i want to do that? however i shall try to get my book back and when i do, will you retract your statement?

Of course, I will admit that anything you prove Hislop wrote about is indeed in his book if you find it. Why would I not admit that I was wrong ?

Search for a discussion on the Trinity. I don't remember anything in his book saying the "trinity" was a concept going back to ancient Babylon.

Originally posted by galveston75
Jay just do some simple reaearch on the internet. More proof then tou can imagine that the trinity came from Babylon....Why is that such a hard thing to do?

You've got to be kidding me. You can find whatever your little old heart desires on the Internet.

I am not talking about JWs putting up articles on the Internet repeating your charges.

My specific point is that where in that signal publication The Two Babylons is a discussion on the Babylonian origin of the Trinity ?