Comment: While the "defenders" of

(See in situ)

While the "defenders" of

While the "defenders" of Romanism denounce Hislop, Romanism itself had as it's EARLIEST theological roots, an open confession, no actually AN INSTRUCTION, to "merge" BABYLONIAN "Mystery cult" religion and "New Testament" Christianity into a single "syncretized" theology, claiming mistakenly or possibly even dishonestly, they were one and the same. And this is no "charge" or "allegation", it is actually the INSTRUCTION in the form of a "Revelation" written down and read as SCRIPTURE in the Church of Rome. The reason it was a "Revelation" and "written down as Scripture" was because it is NOT IN the "Scripture" already (written by the actual Apostles and Prophets), and there is no basis "IN THE SCRIPTURE" to come to such a deluded conclusion. Thus the NEED for a "Revelation" that such was the case.

The Shepherd of Hermes "Revelation" was that ancient Babylon religion was THE TRUE CHURCH, and Alexander Hislop's thesis "The Two Babylon's" simply asserts the rather unremarkable mundane "theory", they actually meant what they said. And so what is the real "controversy" here? Embarrassment?

And this isn't some kind of "big secret". This has been known for literally millenia. So... it's pretty "contrary to the evidence" to claim Hislop was just full of himself, and was some kind of writhing idiotic anti-catholic "bigot" and nothing he had to say had/has any validity.

The facts are the facts, and they "support" not "contradict" Alexander Hislop's thesis, Rome's ecclesiology and as a result it's theology, had roots that extended way past both Constantine, and even Christ, as a result of their openly admitted "adoption" of Babelism as their ecclesiology. These are actual observations today, that no serious scholar in history is really willing to credibly deny. The only "confusion' you have today, is that when modern secular historians look at "Christianity" which gets the unique distinction today (thanks to modern political sell outs to the "conservative political agenda" of a Restored Roman-Reich) of being defined by the Papacy in Rome and it's unbiblical practices, they naturally extend their criticism to "Christianity at large", not limited to one of the most corrupt versions of it in human history, uniquely found in Rome.

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams