Andrew Kubala
Personal
Andrew was born in Gore, New Zealand and is the youngest of eight children. At the age of thirteen he was diagnosed with leukemia, and spent the next 5 years in and out of hospitals receiving treatment. Andrew was given a 20% chance of surviving, Andrew received a successful bone marrow transplant and has been free from cancer ever since. Now based in Auckland, Andrew is married to Janine, who is also a director in the Get Smart ministry. They have two sons, Samuel and Jonathan.
Youth Ministry
In 1991 Andrew felt the call of God to attend Faith Bible College in Tauranga. A year later he returned to Gore to become the Youth Pastor at Calvin Presbyterian Church where he grew at the time one of New Zealand’s largest youth ministries. In 1994 he moved to Christchurch and worked as an itinerant evangelist with Open Air Campaigners, before becoming the Youth Pastor at City New Life Church in Christchurch. In 1999 Andrew and Janine founded Get Smart Ministries and the Dream International Trust. In 2003 Andrew and Janine moved the Get Smart Head Office to Auckland and is a part of the leadership team at Christian Life Centre Auckland.
Get Smart
Get Smart was founded in 1999 by Andrew and Janine to facilitate the vision of seeing the nation of New Zealand transformed and won for Jesus Christ and to build the local church. Get Smarts goals are for every Christian to understand that they are in full time ministry regardless of occupation, and that they would have a meaningful relationship with God and be able to communicate that relationship in a relevant way to reach their world.
One of the key elements of Get Smart is the Get Smart National Youth Conference which is held every year in July, to train equip and inspire young people to become to live out their God given dreams. Get Smart conference is now New Zealand’s largest youth conference, attracting thousands of people annually. Get Smart Ministries also includes Regional Leadership Training Days and Citywide Youth events conducted throughout New Zealand, a National Youth Pastor’s Network and a Youth Pastor’s Summit.
The vision of Get Smart has always include Fiji and the Pacific Islands. In 2005 Get Smart launched it’s first South Pacific conference in Suva, Fiji. This has been followed by a two Leadership Summits and Get Smart Pacific will be held again in Suva in January 2007.
Itinerant Speaking
Andrew is a powerful and inspirational communicator who regularly speaks to the audiences in New Zealand and around the world. His personal testimony, vision, gift of prophetic revelation, healing and humour will inspire you to live your dreams and impact your world.
Janine Kubala
Personal
Janine was born in Wollongong, Australia. She completed a Bachelor of Commerce at the University of Wollongong and a Master of International Studies at the University of Sydney and worked for a number of years in international education before joining her husband Andrew in youth ministry.
Janine lives in Auckland, New Zealand and has been married to her husband Andrew for 8 years. They have two sons, Samuel and Jonathan and attend Christian Life Centre in Auckland.
Ministry
Janine has a heart for people of all ages and has worked with young people in both her career and in ministry for 14 years. In 1999 Andrew and Janine founded Get Smart Ministries and the Dream International Trust. Janine is also a key leader of the women’s ministry at Christian Life Centre. Janine is a gifted teacher and writer and is a regular writer for JOY magazine.
Get Smart
Get Smart was founded in 1999 by Andrew and Janine to facilitate the vision of seeing the nation of New Zealand transformed and won for Jesus Christ and to build the local church. Get Smarts goals are for every Christian to understand that they are in full time ministry regardless of occupation, and that they would have a meaningful relationship with God and be able to communicate that relationship in a relevant way to reach their world.
One of the key elements of Get Smart is the Get Smart National Youth Conference which is held every year in July, to train equip and inspire young people to become to live out their God given dreams. Get Smart conference is now New Zealand’s largest youth conference, attracting thousands of people annually. Get Smart Ministries also includes Regional Leadership Training Days and Citywide Youth events conducted throughout New Zealand, a National Youth Pastor’s Network and a Youth Pastor’s Summit.
The vision of Get Smart has always include Fiji and the Pacific Islands. In 2005 Get Smart launched it’s first South Pacific conference in Suva, Fiji. This has been followed by a two Leadership Summits and Get Smart Pacific will be held again in Suva in January 2007.
Itinerant Speaking
Janine is a passionate communicator with a powerful testimony that demonstrates the faithfulness and the endless mercy of God. The power of her testimony has bought change to thousands of lives. Her desire is to not only see people saved but completely set free and living in the fullness of God’s promises.
Janine is a fresh and vibrant speaker. Her passion for truth enables her to present the word of God with a depth of revelation that both inspires and challenges. Janine travels to speak regularly throughout New Zealand and abroad.
Signposts 02 
For such great preachers they don’t come across well in these snippets.
Below is endorsement number one.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=scZuYFu2zP
Strangely, however, you can’t find them on the Hillsong Conference list of speakers, yet! You’d think if Brian was really giving them a leg up into Lance’s imaginary speaker’s circuit, they’d be in there, up to their neck in it, with Joel Osteen, Frantzen Jensen and Co.! Early days, though!
I got the impression Brian was happy to give them an endorsement as OK ministers with a good ten year track record in NZ, which is, as you should know, where Brian, and, of course, Phil Pringle, come from. A kind of recommendation from the CEO of ACC [AOG] to encourage ACC [AOG] pastors to give them a go!
You suggested that, ‘Maybe they know how the system works and play their cards really well’!
Maybe you should drop a line to Andrew and ask him. Here you go:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=123081976
You wanted to know what they’ve been doing in Australia. Here’s a list of churches they’ve preached for in 2008, since August, anyway. Hope it helps!
PS ANDREW KUBALA 2008
1 – 4 August 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Dave Fallowfield
Youth Big Event
Numerkah (Albury/Wodonga)
Sessions TBC
24 August 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Mike Smith
Destiny Church Melbourne
Sunday AM & PM services
28 August – 1st September 2008
Ps Andrew & Janine Kubala
Speaking for Ps Bob & Sherry Reeve
Cause Community Church
Orange County, USA
Church Conference 28th – 30th August
Sunday AM & PM Services
19 – 21 September 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Luke Williams
Bayside Church, Melbourne
Sunday AM & PM Services
28 September 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Michael Murphy
Shirelive Christian Centre
Sunday 9:00am, 10:30am & 6:00pm
9 – 11 October 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Luke McMartin
Intensifire Youth Conference
Thursday – Saturday
12 OCtober 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Tim Lowe
CCC God In The City
Sydney
Sunday PM service
15 – 17 October 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Jono Gullo
Suncoast Christian Outreach Centre
Wednesday Youth
Friday Youth
19 October 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Tim Lowe
CCC God In The City
Sydney
Sunday AM & PM services
26 October 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Tim Lowe
CCC God In The City
Sydney
Sunday PM service
9 November 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Andrew Hoyes
Generations Church
Gold Coast
Sessions TBC
And ministry scheduled in case you want to find out for yourself:
16 – 18 January 2009
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Brook Stewart
Kingsway Community Church
Youth Worship Conference
Fri & Sat sessions
Sunday Services TBC
15 February 2009
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Martin Steel
Harbourside Church
Auckland, New Zealand
Sunday services
22 February 2009
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Geoff Cooper
CCC Wynyard
Tasmania, Australia
Sunday services
Monday & Tuesday Meetings
http://www.getsmart.org.nz/pages/andrewandjanine/
Can you sort out the moderation thing, please, s&p. I’m in moderation again because I gave a link.
And just to help you with finding out where Andrew has been ministering in Australia in 2008, here’s a list:
PS ANDREW KUBALA 2008
1 – 4 August 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Dave Fallowfield
Youth Big Event
Numerkah (Albury/Wodonga)
Sessions TBC
24 August 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Mike Smith
Destiny Church Melbourne
Sunday AM & PM services
28 August – 1st September 2008
Ps Andrew & Janine Kubala
Speaking for Ps Bob & Sherry Reeve
Cause Community Church
Orange County, USA
Church Conference 28th – 30th August
Sunday AM & PM Services
19 – 21 September 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Luke Williams
Bayside Church, Melbourne
Sunday AM & PM Services
28 September 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Michael Murphy
Shirelive Christian Centre
Sunday 9:00am, 10:30am & 6:00pm
9 – 11 October 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Luke McMartin
Intensifire Youth Conference
Thursday – Saturday
12 OCtober 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Tim Lowe
CCC God In The City
Sydney
Sunday PM service
15 – 17 October 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Jono Gullo
Suncoast Christian Outreach Centre
Wednesday Youth
Friday Youth
19 October 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Tim Lowe
CCC God In The City
Sydney
Sunday AM & PM services
26 October 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Tim Lowe
CCC God In The City
Sydney
Sunday PM service
9 November 2008
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Andrew Hoyes
Generations Church
Gold Coast
Sessions TBC
And where he’s going to be, in case you want to catch him and find out for yourself:
16 – 18 January 2009
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Brook Stewart
Kingsway Community Church
Youth Worship Conference
Fri & Sat sessions
Sunday Services TBC
15 February 2009
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Martin Steel
Harbourside Church
Auckland, New Zealand
Sunday services
22 February 2009
Ps Andrew Kubala
Speaking for Ps Geoff Cooper
CCC Wynyard
Tasmania, Australia
Sunday services
Monday & Tuesday Meetings
Okay. For some reason that link wasn’t working for me FL. Thanks for that.
That’s some schedule!
But is that what they do? Speak?
Youtube offers nothing. Are they just motivational?
I know no more than you do. I just googled them.
To repeat what I said which went into moderation earlier, minus the link:
‘Strangely, however, you can’t find them on the Hillsong Conference list of speakers, yet! You’d think if Brian was really giving them a leg up into Lance’s imaginary speaker’s circuit, they’d be in there, up to their neck in it, with Joel Osteen, Frantzen Jensen and Co.! Early days, though!
I got the impression Brian was happy to give them an endorsement as OK ministers with a good ten year track record in NZ, which is, as you should know, where Brian, and, of course, Phil Pringle, come from. A kind of recommendation from the CEO of ACC [AOG] to encourage ACC [AOG] pastors to give them a go!’
Andy Kubala is from NZ. He ran the ‘Get Smart’ youth conferences over there. I heard him preach quite recently at at CCCOF and you’d be surprised the things he said.
Before you write him off, listen to his sermon.
http://202.125.166.74/ramgen/ccc/lg1611089am.rm
Ps Brian, Ps Phil, etc have all spoken at andrews conference many times and so there is a relationship built from that.
also Andrew was a member if life church, Aukland wich is closely linked with hillsong church. so im sure there is a good relationship from that also.
as for what they do?
Andrew has 2 strenghts
1) 1st time descisions for christ
2) healing.
anyone heard more about these guys?
Janine Kubala at the start of this year was supposedly wanting to start up a show on supernatural signs and wonders, using the facilities in C3’s CCTV area.
In regards to who are they. All I can say is he prayed for me on the Gold Coast @ Generation Church, and I was healed of cancer in my right leg. I guess the proof is in the pudding so to speak, so I say yep roll out the proverbial red carpet, he is a Man of God.
Praised God you got healed.
I thank God that He healed you and that in his grace chose to reveal his glory through Andrew Kubala. All Christian’s are men and women of God.
But that does not mean he is in the right in the direction he wants to go. I’m glad God is working through him, but my hunch on these guys from the start are starting to become quite revealing at C3.
He has said some pretty heavy things against the gospel by promoting Phil Pringle’s doctrines in the church. Apparently he’s used at C3 to encourage people to give – in quite an offensive manner, guilting people to give. He really is good at applying pressure to give as noted by some in leadership.
His preachings on the House of God and tithing is appalling.
While God is using him, his motives are becoming more manifest. What made me raise my eyebrows to begin with was their self-promotion of their ministries. This can only lead down one road.
These are my observations. This is where they are still seemingly heading. I hope God intervenes for their sake and let’s them know who’s glory they should be seeking.
What I find so hard and sad about these two is that I have met with them. They are lovely people. They seem very sincere and would hate to think that what they would be doing is wrong.
It hurts me to see Christian’s who seem to have such good motive be affected by the ‘little leaven’.
I’m sure if we met some of the outrageous ministers who would be considered heretics or trouble-makers, we all would fall in love with their sincerity and commitment in edifying and equipping the saints, standing for truth and loving people.
In seeing the Kubala’s minister, I sincerely love them but am saddened by this little leaven that I am starting to see become more manifest.
Everyone please pray for them. May they be uncompromising for the gospel and sold out for the glory of Christ. That’s my request.
That is fantastic about your healing, Angela.
I think God can move through anyone to heal; it doesn’t mean that everything they teach is correct.
Hopefully they will read Jesus instructions to his disciples when he sent them out:
Matt 10:8″Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give. ”
These things should in no way ever be associated with appeals for money.
Hey Angela Husheer.
I am excited about your healing and have no doubt that God healed you through Andrew Kubala.
But I encourage you to look beyond these things sometimes to be counted as proof. I do not think you are deceived in any way, however I I hold a desire to see no man be deceived and wish you to continue grow in discernment. You never know who you may come across in ministry that has their own agenda.
The reason why I say this is because Paul says to the church as a warning:
2Thes 2:9-12 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing.
They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
We are all sheep among wolves. We need to be smart as serpents and innocent as doves. I pray you get to know the Truth intimately and learn to hold onto Him with everything you’ve got. May he open your ears more so you can hear his voice in tough circumstances and may he open your eyes to see the ways of men so you may not step into their snares.
God bless you!
If you want to know more about Andrew & Janine Kubala then go to their website. They are doing amazing things for the Kingdom in Australia and around the world.
http://www.kubalaministries.org
By the way they arent motivational speakers. They are healing evangelists. They bring the message of Jesus to this world. They both have a testimony of how God has worked miraculously in their lives (individually). You can read testimonies of healings on their website as mentioned above. They are legit
“They are doing amazing things for the Kingdom in Australia and around the world.”
I’ve seen both of them speak, and the two of them together don’t amount to a hill of beans. It’s pathetic that things have come to such a pass that such ignorant and shallow individuals are not only given a platform, but are lauded into the bargain.
I certainly wouldn’t let either one of them pray for me.
I went to the recording of their television show at C3 Oxford Falls a couple of years ago, a show that is yet to be broadcast. Kubala claimed to heal the long-term illnesses of his parents-in-law, though up till that moment at the recording he claimed total ignorance of their illnesses – which is totally unbelievable.
Kubala went for the bad backs, ringing in the ears, etc. All the stuff no one can see. And of course, most people were ‘healed’. Yet he totally ignored the 4 people at the side in their wheel chairs. They were only prayed for after the recording was over, then they wheeled themselves out of what passes for a church at C3. If Kubala does have some real healing ministry and God heals through him, why didn’t Kubala have enough faith to pray for the people in the wheel chairs as part of the show, then have them walk back to their seats. That he didn’t even try says it all.
This is typical of the kind of nasty stream of accusations aimed at good minsters on this blog a couple of years ago. A case of shooting your own with fiery darts made of nothing but innuendo and supposition.
It was amazing how much positive information there was at S&Ps fingertips when he first out out this heap of bile.
Then someone pipes up and gives testimony of healing from cancer under their ministry and S&P as much as suggests they were healed by the devil, quoting scriptures which refer to deceiving spirits, after first saying it was probably God, and saying God should get the glory.
These were respected youth minsters with the God-given grace t reach young people, who have stepped out into full time ministry to bring glory to God.
God bless the Kubalas for getting out there and preaching the gospel, trusting God to heal people and giving their lives for the salvation of souls.
‘These were respected youth minsters’
Only amongst those who don’t have a clue who is worthy of respect and who isn’t. The church is full of people who are full of themselves, and even fuller with people who are willing to shower pompous nonentities with undeserved adulation.
Nothing much has changed since the days of ancient Israel, when God’s people, in their desire to “be like the other nations”, clamoured for a King to whom they could look – rather than trusting in God alone.
The cult of personality is nothing less than rebellion and idolatry, and it bears witness of wilful ignorance and uncircumcised ears and hearts.
I can add some first-hand experience here. I write without any accusatory nastiness, without innuendo or supposition.
A couple of years ago a few like-minded churches, including the local C3 network, organised and sponsored a big youth event held in the city hall. Andrew Kubala was one of the key speakers and I went along to see what my kids were soaking up. The hall was filled with 15-25 year olds. The CCM was ear-burstingly loud – no matter, but I could not conduct any worship as such. The money and giving message (with all the standard tithing, prosperity catch lines) was pushed hard. In a room full of teens and students, how do you react to: ‘I believe there is someone here tonight who is going to give $1000’? Honestly, it was that brazen.
Anyway, the on-stage healing performance began with the usual call out to anyone with aches, pains, sore knees (skateboarding is pretty big round here), frozen shoulder etc offered in a way that appeared to be Holy Spirit-inspired. To the average teen it might have been convincing, but it just came across as painfully cheesy. Then we found someone who’s condition (allegedly) could only be healed by having one leg prayed over to become the same length as the other. Here was the party piece from Kubala who was stage-managing the whole affair.
A chair is centre stage with the young person sat down. Several other volunteers are up there, one with a microphone. Firstly, Kubala is putting considerable pressure for the ‘witnesses’ to recognise the apparent different lengths of the lad’s legs. Then we spend about 10 minutes of ever-more increasingly hysterical and loud ‘prayer’, turning regularly to the young, rather bewildered fellow with the mike, screaming at him, ‘can you see it grow? Tell everyone that it’s growing. You can see it, can’t you, can’t you?’ Poor kid. This went on for an excessive time before everyone was bustled off stage to make way for a final agonisingly loud song and calls for people to bring their money to the front. I could see the kids around me turning their pockets out for a few dollar coins or crumpled fivers.
I had a chat with my kids afterwards (I didn’t sit with them), and thankfully they could see the whole evening for what it was – a Christian circus performance. From reading another thread recently on the nature of the anointing, it seems folk have a good awareness when pastors are operating from a place of no Holy Spirit-given anointing. There wasn’t a sniff of God’s presence that night, but all the manic pretence that he was there ‘in power’.
Watch out z-man, you’re going to be accused of being nasty and mean.
Does the loudness of the yelling reveal the level of anointing?
I’ve known some gentle ministers who had a far greater level of the ‘anointing’ than some of the pentecostal clowns.
In fact I mentioned two years ago, Bones, so zeibart’s opinion is fine with me, and I’m not personally that familiar with the ministry. The point I was making was that the post was so short on fact as to be pointless.
I followed up S&Ps claims that nothing was known about this couple’s then movements by giving two lists of their itinerary readily available at the time online. It took me all of five minutes, and would have rendered S&Ps post completely unnecessary.
If zeibart is dissatisfied with the ministry he saw then I’m prepared to go along with his assessment. I’ve heard other reports, however, which are favourable, so I’ll reserve my own judgment.
Zorro, however has said nothing of substance, and merely blown his own trumpet with a blast of hot air. The real Zorro would at least give a fact-based cause and a reason for flicking his sword around.
For all we know Zorro might be a JW, in which case his opinion is worthless.
Yes, its actually our old friend CCCer. But I’d challenge the idea that all JW’s opinions on matters of Christianity are worthless.
Everyone I think sees through the glass darkly. Many have grave and silly errors, but it dosent mean their opinions are worthless. We may indeed be surprised to find that we have serious errors in our understanding.
I think it is a mistake to just look at someone’s background, and then use that to make a judgment about everything they may say from then on. It is as erronous to judge the JW’s pronouncements as worhless as it is to judge one’s hero’s pronouncements (Pringle, Spong, Wigglesworth or whoever) as being automatically worthy of praise and consideration.
“The church is full of people who are full of themselves, and even fuller with people who are willing to shower pompous nonentities with undeserved adulation.”
That was great. Bit too long for a bumper sticker, but good nonetheless.
“Everyone I think sees through the glass darkly.I think it is a mistake to just look at someone’s background, and then use that to make a judgment about everything they may say from then on.”
Very true. That’s why I listen to everyone from Joel Osteen to Wazza and Greg, to the Pope.
“‘I believe there is someone here tonight who is going to give $1000′? Honestly, it was that brazen.”
Not as brazen as saying that they believe that there is a special anointing so that if you give $1000 that God will return it to you 100 fold by the end of the year.
Been there, heard that.
Wazza, you are right, and it requires a close walk with the Holy Spirit and good knowledge of the Word to discern the wheat from the chaff when looking into what other denominations, or even large cults, have to say. But they often have a piece of God’s full revelation to share if only we would see it.
Personally, I see a great deal of sound biblical interpretation from the SDAs, but wouldn’t necessarily be drawn into their churches full time. They are also off wack in a number of aspects, as indeed are most denominations somewhere along the line.
SM that is very TBN telecast raise-a-thon hype. That large numbers of people get sucked in is amazing, but when you’re hearing it from the pulpit….
At my previous church, I witnessed a visiting preacher from a neighbouring associated church praying over one of the leaders of our church that God was going to bless him financially to the point whereby he could give $100,000 to the church. I only just stopped a cry of ‘noooooooooo’ come screaming from my mouth. Steve, you may not find any problem with such a prayer, but I nearly choked with the blatant coerciveness of those words. So not God.
‘For all we know Zorro might be a JW, in which case his opinion is worthless.’
For all we know Steve’s a shape-shifting alien who can only be killed by a long burst from a high-powered laser, in which case his opinions would be obscured by thick black smoke.
Steve, your cover’s been blown away.
Anyway Zorro, that’s ridiculous. Aliens are cessationists.
Well, JW’s opinions would be worthless on healing because they are self-confessed cessationists, wazza.They have to be because they don’t believe anything which would be considered faith for healing, salvation, miracles or deliverance.
They don’t even believe we can be saved, born again or redeemed as saints unless we’re one of their mythical 144,000, staring with Charles Taze Russell, Judge Rutherford and their ilk, and a long list of elders who run the various Kingdom Halls around the world, the number included having run out some time ago when Jesus didn’t actually come again in 1975 or whenever they last prophesied his arrival.
God being unwilling to work through their unbelieving selves because they don’t actually confess that Jesus is God, or the Holy Spirit is Deity, means they have to make up some other doctrine which declares healing and miracles to have ceased when the last Apostle ceased, scriptural evidence for which they have nil.
But why be bothered with scripture when you can just produce your own translation and fit it to your error doctrine?
So, yes, I’ll stick to their doctrine being completely worthless. It is demonic, dangerous and seductive. Unless you fully understand how to discuss issues with them I would recommend to anyone that they totally ignore anything they have to say.
Here here Steve..
So, Steve, where would you draw the line between out and out cult awash with error and those who have something to contribute to ‘true’ Christianity?
1. JWs (obviously) – cult ignore in toto
2. Christadelphians? – cult ignore in toto??
3. Mormons? – cult ignore in toto?
4. 7th Day Adventists? etc
5. Roman Catholics
6. C3
Do we just dial up http://www.cultwatch.com (or whoever) and accept their findings? Where is that dividing line?
Zorro could be an atheist in which case are his observations void?
The first three on your list deny God outright. On Jesus alone they are in error. On the new birth, and salvation, too.
Their Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible, and they deny his deity. They deny the new birth of the Bible. You cannot be saved unless you are one of the 144,000, which is gross error. They cannot enter heaven or the New Jerusalem for the same reason. They earth their right to dwell on the earth by works.
Catholics call their Jesus down into a wafer at mass. Theirs is not the Jesus of the Bible. They also deny the new birth according the scripture, since they claim the new birth at infant ‘christening’, not as confession of Jesus as Lord. They live a works-based religion. They can fail to live in righteousness, but may enter purgatory and be saved by indulgences of the living and their prayer to ‘saints’ – defined in their religion as dead people who have been ‘canonised! It is the most whacky of the lot.
Seventh Day Adventists may have some attributes of the Jesus of the gospels, and believe in the new birth through fait in Jesus. But they place Him in the ‘sanctuary’ today because of Millar’s incorrect prophecy, which they bent into false doctrine, saying their Jesus didn’t come again, he just got up and moved into a holy place. Jesus is, however, still seated at the right hand of glory. He has not ‘moved’ into the ‘sanctuary’. They have many errors which lead to legalism and preach a works-based holiness.
C3 teaches the Jesus of the Bible as being the fulness of the Godhead in bodily form, and that the new birth is for all who believe on Him. Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father, making intercession for the saints. The Godhead is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Son being the Word who is God. We are saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves, or of works lest any man should boast.
Your attempt at applying cultishness to C3 is beneath your own intelligence.
zeibart,
The first thing you’d do with cult-watch is check their beliefs, which look orthodox. Is their Jesus the Jesus of the Bible? At first glance, yes.
Firstly, I still don’t know enough about Zorro to take his judgement at face value. Any bod could go into a meeting off the street and draw a conclusion.
The originator of the above post, Lance White of Gripesick infamy, is a case in point. I wouldn’t trust a single word he said about any church he entered and made a comment on, simply because I know he hates all Pastors and all Pentecostals. End of!
How do I know Zorro isn’t of the same ilk? He says nothing of consequence in his commentary. He just says the Kubala’s are ‘not worthy of respect’, which is demonstrably nonsense because there are other commenters here who have shown respect, and they have successfully built a large youth ministry in NZ, which obviously demonstrates respect.
They are known by their fruit. Zorro shows none, only puffed up wind-baggedness! Could be anybody, or nobody. The devil accuses with empty words, too.
Secondly, I trust what you say, to a degree, because we have built a relationship over time and I consider you basically orthodox, but understand there may be some differences of doctrine between us on some secondary issues, such as the way in which the Church operates today.
So, when you give actual evidence of what you considered controversial I can take note, and I think I understand you enough to believe you are not making things up.
The people at cult-watch have a good exposé of Brain Tamaki, which, if true (and I’d like another opinion), would demonstrate that he has preached error on the bodily resurrection of Christ, although cult-watch admit he has since recanted.
Your comments on the RC church Steve and wholesale dismissal of them as a viable Christian entity is pretty bold and, I would say, unfair and untrue. We all know that belonging to a denomination does not qualify or disqualify one from eternal life. Certainly it is harder to be known by God as having the qualifying seal of the Holy Spirit when you are in enthusiastic agreement with erroneous teachings, but there are plenty of honest believers in the RC church – that would be obvious. Certainly many hold to doctrinal tenets and historical traditions that are are extra-biblical and unnecessary for salvation (purgatory, veneration of ‘saints’ etc), but they invariably have a very Jesus-focussed approach to their gatherings. I have to say, I have been to many a C3 meeting and hardly heard mention of Jesus. The Pente-types can be fairly big on ‘God’ because everyone has a concept of God that will not be challenged in such services, but start talking about Jesus in radical terms (there are no other) and I got the distinct impression it was all a bit awkward for the seeker-sensitive bias of most C3 meetings I attended. There you go – easily challenged, but my perspective nevertheless.
That’s why I included C3 in the list. Not because of any assumed cultishness (although by the definition of a cult it is arguably pretty close). They post no statement of faith on their website (not that this is cultic but it doesn’t allow for analysis), and also strongly encourage works-based activities such as tithing. Yet they, like the Catholics are in the community doing ‘good’ things and actually doing the business of presenting the gospel. That said, the pure act of doing so does not qualify an organisation or denomination in God’s eyes. Medecin sans Frontiers are doing much better things that the average C3 or RC church in terms of making peoples lives better, but have no spiritual input.
So, we come back to the point I was making above – do we write off entire denominations and all their professing attendees because they hold to certain teachings and have particular biases. I agree that there is a line in the sand that is crossed by Mormons, JW but what about oneness pentecostals, baptists, RC, and, yes C3/Hillsong/Believers Voice of Victory etc?
It boils down to what are the essentials for salvation and, if they are taught, what errors are of sufficient magnitude to counter them. Salvation is an individual matter between a person and God, not God and a denomination or movement, as you will agree. Thanks for the vote of orthodoxy, by the way. I actually hold to an eclectic mix of biblical understanding that if unpacked in full would have you screaming for the exit probably 🙂 For another time maybe.
The approach towards Roman Catholic doctrine has softened immensely since the second Vatican Council, which was a massive and spectacularly successful PR exercise designed to take the heat off after years of preaching against its doctrine by evangelicals.
Wesley was hounded from town to town by RC protesters who threatened his life for preaching for gospel.
Their doctrine is pure error. There is nothing of Biblical substance worth noting. Don’t be fooled by the nice people who are part of it all. They are no different to nice JWs or Mormons.
The idolatrous worship of saints and lauding of Mary as mediatrix, the calling down of ‘Christ’ into wafers, the separation between clergy and congregation, the reluctance to allow the ordinary person to read or study the Word for themselves, the appeal to tradition over the canon, the doctrine of transubstantiation, of purgatory, of Peter as pope, of indulgences (which still takes place), of false signs and wonders, shrine worship (groves), persecution of true believers through the ages, murderous Crusades, burning Bible translators and gospel preachers at the stake, torture of ‘heretics’, suppression of adherents forced to worship at their idolatrous altars, corruption of autocratic political papacy, adoption of false gods through cross religious evangelism, the list goes on.
This is has for many years been considered the Mystery Babylon, ad there is much evidence to the accuracy of the claims, with Rome seated on the five hills of Revelation as the seat of whoredoms.
A hundred years ago Rome was considered the centre of apostasy.
You would champion this, the ultimate cult, over the comparatively orthodox and evangelical Australian Pentecostal movements?
You, of all people, a person who is engaged on the struggle to break away from the erroneous clergy/laity divide, which is more rife in the Roman Catholic church than anywhere, and which is the bastion of separation between a hierarchy of single, unmarried men and the congregations, who are truly the blind leading the blind, who espouse false signs and wonders, such as weeping Mary’s, and deny true miracles, healing and deliverance, who teach on the Apostolic succession and deny true apostleship!
I’m surprised at this, but I shouldn’t be!
ziebart,
They post no statement of faith on their website
I don’t know why you couldn’t find what C3 believes. It took me exactly one minute to google it and paste it here:
1.) There is one God: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit
2.) In the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God; we believe in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His victorious and atoning death, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, His constant intercession and in His imminent return
3.) In the person and work of the Holy Spirit with His fruits and gifts available in the Church; The bible is the living word of God – infallible, authoritative and everlasting, and the foundation of all Christian doctrine
4.) In the existence of an evil spiritual being – the devil
5.) In the spiritually lost condition of all people and the essential need for the ‘new birth’ by faith in Jesus Christ
6.) In the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a gift available to believers subsequent to the new birth, with normal evidence of speaking in other tongues
7.) In the sacraments of the Lord’s Supper and baptism by full immersion in water for all believers
8.) In the resurrection of both the saved and the lost, the one to everlasting life and the other to everlasting separation from God
9.) In the church being the body of Christ, and each member being an active part of a local church, fulfilling the Great Commission
ziebart,
and also strongly encourage works-based activities such as tithing
Tithing is encouraged. Not as a means to salvation, as you seem to be claiming, but as an avenue to blessing, as an act of giving, and not by law, but as an act of faith, as in giving as we purpose in our hearts, so we could give more than a tithe, or less, but as the tenth is mentioned by God as an act of giving for Israel, it is a good example as a starting point for faith-based giving, not by necessity (so not law), or grudgingly, but with a cheerful attitude (according to our C3 Pastor). Some teach more fervently on this than others, but not as a means to salvation, as you imply. It is not mentioned in the list of basic believes, as you can see.
But good works are important to the believer once they are saved.
We are not saved by works, but we are predestined, once we are saved, for good works, which demonstrate our faith.
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
That”s a crap analysis of Roman Cathlic theology by Steve whose been reading too many Chick Publications.
Most of your argument isn’t theological at all. The same could be said of Protestantism and most of the Reformers, Actually it’s an argument frequently used by atheists.
I think Pentecostal and Catholic theology aren’t that much different.
clergy/laity divide = pastor/laity divide
tithing = indulgences.
Catholic paedophilia scandals = any number of Pentecostal sex scandals and divorces
Worship of saints = adoration of personalities
Papal authority = submission to pastor (mini-Popes)
Catholic crimes and corruption = Jim Jones and corruption and opulence through ripping off the poor
Catholic priesthood venerating sacraments (the magic bits) = receiving the Holy Spirit via the man of God (the magic bits).
Catholic false signs & wonders = Pentecostal false signs & wonders
Appeal to tradition over the canon = Appeal to the Spirit and false interpretations and scriptural manipulation over honest and careful Biblical scholarship
Suppression of adherents forced to worship at their idolatrous altars = suppression of those who disagree witth their pastor or won’t be manipulated
This is has for many years been considered the Mystery Babylon, ad there is much evidence to the accuracy of the claims, with Rome seated on the five hills of Revelation as the seat of whoredoms.
That is astoundingly poor theology and Bible scholarship. You have never studied Revelation.
A hundred years ago Rome was considered the centre of apostasy
By who?
Are you sure you’re not JW because you sound like one.
I’m not surprised at this. You have revealed yourself as an ignorant man.
Just on the Marian theology, according to Steve most of the early Church Fathers were undoubtedly apostate. But Steve probably doesn’t know who they are as he would have no clue on Church history which only began with the Pentecostal movement..
Eusebius, the great Church historian . . . calls her panagia, “all-holy”. (PG, 24, 1033B)
Athanasius: . . . pure and unstained Virgin . . . (On the Incarnation of the Word, 8)
O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71, 216)
Ephraem: Thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in thy Mother no stain. (Nisibene Hymns, 27, v. 8)
Gregory Nazianzen: He was conceived by the Virgin, who had first been purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor. (Sermon 38, 13)
Gregory of Nyssa: It was, to divulge by the manner of His Incarnation this great secret; that purity is the only complete indication of the presence of God and of His coming, and that no one can in reality secure this for himself, unless he has altogether estranged himself from the passions of the flesh. What happened in the stainless Mary when the fulness of the Godhead which was in Christ shone out through her, that happens in every soul that leads by rule the virgin life. (On Virginity, 2; NPNF 2, Vol. V, 344)
[T]he power of the Most High, through the Holy Spirit, overshadowed the human nature and was formed therein; that is to say, the portion of flesh was formed in the immaculate Virgin. (Against Apollinaris, 6)
Ambrose: . . . Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin. (Commentary on Psalm 118, 22, 30)
Jerome: ‘There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of his roots.’ The rod is the mother of the Lord–simple, pure, unsullied; drawing no germ of life from without but fruitful in singleness like God Himself… Set before you the blessed Mary, whose surpassing purity made her meet to be the mother of the Lord. (Letter XXII. To Eustochium, 19, 38; NPNF 2, Vol. VI, 29, 39)
Augustine: We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin whilst they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer? (A Treatise on Nature and Grace, chapter 42 [XXXVI]; NPNF 1, Vol. V)
Cyril of Alexandria: Hail, Mary Theotokos, Virgin-Mother, lightbearer, uncorrupt vessel . . . Hail Mary, you are the most precious creature in the whole world; hail, Mary, uncorrupt dove; hail, Mary, inextinguishable lamp; for from you was born the Sun of justice . . . (Homily 11 at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus)
Theodotus: Innocent virgin, spotless, without defect, untouched, unstained, holy in body and in soul, like a lily-flower sprung among thorns, unschooled in the wickedness of Eve . . . clothed with divine grace as with a cloak . . . (Homily 6, 11)
Leo the Great: For the uncorrupt nature of Him that was born had to guard the primal virginity of the Mother, and the infused power of the Divine Spirit had to preserve in spotlessness and holiness that sanctuary which He had chosen for Himself . . . (Sermon XXII: On the Feast of the Nativity, Part II; NPNF 2, Vol. XII)
Gregory the Great: The most blessed and ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God . . . has completely surpassed the height of every elect creature. (In I Regum, 1, 5)
Andrew of Crete: . . . alone wholly without stain . . . (Canon for the Conception of Anne)
John Damascene: O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew. (Homily I on the Nativity of Mary) ]
Common Ground – a study for Catholics and Protestants what can we learn from each other.
Fr John Riccardo on the Mass interviewed by Pastor Steve Andrews of Ninevah Crossing Church.
Or one could do a 1 minute google search on any of those issues and actually dialogue with a Catholic
http://socrates58.blogspot.com.au/2009/06/catalogue-index-catholic-apologetics.html
I had a good search on the main C3 website and nothing was obvious, nor on my old local church website, but I’ll try again if google found it.
”I’m surprised at this, but I shouldn’t be!” Then you misunderstand my motives, I’m afraid Steve. My point was not to defend Catholicism over C3, nor to place C3 in with the cults, merely to point out that no denomination has ownership of absolute truth, and where does the scale of total error-ridden cult start and move across to total biblical understanding and out-working? You wanted to place the RC church out with the JWs and Church of the Latter Eighth Day Adventist Charismatic Gnostic Personality, which on a strategic scale might seem appropriate, but not at the individual level ie God’s level.
I have no beef with any of the statement of faith you articulated – it’s all pretty solid (with perhaps the exception of speaking in tongues as evidence of a special anointing of the Holy Spirit which is rather WoF, but small beer overall). When it comes to your description of me, of all people, supporting such a clergy/laity system as RC, you fail to look into your C3 mirror where it happens every week. Please don’t be as the Pharisees who viewed themselves as the keepers of all things spiritual and Godly in Israel. On the last day we will be held accountable as individuals before God, not how ‘Godly’ and Spirit-led our wonderful pastor/movement’ seemed to be.
In a sense, this discussion illustrates how pointless it is casting rocks at accepted Christian movements and denominations. By a person’s fruit shall you know them. I think from now on I will refrain from any pulling down of C3 because I know it has many sincere Christians within its walls, as has Roman Catholicism, as has SDAism.
“We have crafted one of the most incredible ……… Opening Nights yet, and you don’t want to miss it! To top it all off, we are giving away reserved box seats for the night – but only if you Register TODAY! Imagine coming to one of our biggest nights and walking past lines of people to head straight to special box seats reserved for just for you. It’s part of the ultimate …………. experience, so get registered today so you don’t miss out!”
Fill in the blanks. Any suggestions?
Fill in the blanks. Any suggestions?
I loved blankety blanks.
I’ll go with ‘awesome’.
Try again…..:)
Presence?
There you go, Wazza2, straight to the special box seat for you, with “a free Steven Furtick product arriving on your doorstep”…….
My husband is sitting here shaking his head, saying “what has this got to do with Christ and Christianity, buying box seats as if it’s a football match etc etc….”
And why do we need to feel so special, parading our pride as we walk past those poor “late registers”? So wrong on so many levels.
Love an upgrade, but only on a plane.
I remember watching a video of the late Father Rick Thomas and his work among the poor in Juarez Mexico. Thomas was a charismatic Catholic who testified to many miracles among the poor.
Why does the Holy Spirit come upon those who are the blind leading the blind as Steve says?
Of course, Bones, you could go into a small room with any of these ‘priests’ and give your confession, which you should do because your argument at 10.49 was so full of holes it should carry a danger warning, i.e, ‘four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire’! ‘Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall’!
I don’t read Chick publications. I leave them to the Potter’s House mob. I’m more of a Hislop reader. Besides, I’ve seen first hand what RC hierarchy does to its priests when they start asking about being born again evangelically. They send them away for reconditioning.
Perhaps you should take a good look at what Hislop and his contemporaries say, comparing the RC apostasy to Babylon, as many theologians of his era did, to combat the religious bigotry had destroyed lives for a thousand years in Europe, learned, bold Christian, truly converted men who struggled against the papal fist to remove its wicked yoke from the people.
Then at 11.46 you utterly confirm the patriarchal idolatry of mary and the saints which has made Catholicism a cult. Wonderful work. Commendable. Thank you.
The Second Vatican Council was a last gasp attempt at salvaging some credibility as the RC stranglehold was being removed from the world, in part, by the marvellous and Biblically faithful theology of the emerging evangelicals.
The Second Vatican Council largely succeeded in presenting a new ‘enlightened’ form of Catholicism which was more acceptable to the ecumenists amongst us, and helped make the WCC into a marvellous tool for leveraging Catholicism back into favour with people like you, who are prepared to forget the historical evil of this terrifying cult and the overwhelming power it had over entire nations and peoples (sounds a bit like Babylon, doesn’t it?), and the blood it shed in the name of its idolatrous system (cup of wine of Babylon).
You need to read a little more of the history of this cult and less of the propaganda and PR.
Margot, as usual, completely misses the point of the discussion and throws in an utterly banal series of comments.
Couldn’t you have found some supporting Reformed theology which attacked the cult of Mary rather than slam a promotion for a conference? I’m certain Calvinists were very vocal against papists.
Or do yo agree that Mary worship and saint adoration is acceptable ecumenically today, and that infants (therefore all catholics) can be born again through sprinkling, or that Christ can literally be called down by men into a wafer?
Now, I’m not having a go at C3 by commenting on http://www2.myc3church.net/videos/ps-phil-pringle-fresh-start-beginnings-am but when you listen to PP at minutes 58-61ish and 88-91 in particular, you realise how strongly the tithing message comes through in his teaching; how absolutely wedded he is to the tithing concept as a source of financial breakthrough and it is even mentioned in the same sentence and connection to salvation. This is coupled by a totally ‘word of faith’ approach to life where we, as mini-Gods can ‘speak’ to our circumstance and bring about change. Doesn’t he realise that the act of speaking is only the overflow of one’s heart? If you have faith, it will be evident in what you say, but Pringle wants to put the cart ahead of the horse and simply make pronouncements regardless of the heart.
It would be too easy to condemn the entire movement based on the leader, but that would tarnish many a believer in C3 churches trying to make his way through such confusing and muddied teaching. So, true to my word, this is not anti-C3, but observational points regarding the warped teaching at the very pinnacle of the movement (and I’d point to the same should it come from the Pope’s mouth).
This wacky, idolatrous, apostate, cultist makes a whole lot more sense than most Pentecostal pastors. And if his Jesus is different to Steve’s, I like his better.
You’re wacky if you’re following Hislop. Hislop has no evidence for his theory. You may as well go and join Ian Williams and his nutbag theories. The comparison of the whore of Babylon to Catholicism is so utterly infantile that you can’t see that scholarship has moved on from the 1800s.
Alexander Hislop – The Two Babylons
This book was initially published in 1853 as a pamphlet, then greatly revised and expanded and released as a book in 1858. Hislop’s work has been described as conspiracy theory propaganda which mixed “sketchy knowledge of Middle Eastern antiquity with a vivid imagination.”[1]
He claimed the Roman Catholic Church was a Babylonian mystery cult, and pagan, whereas Protestants worshipped the true Jesus and the true God. He contended that Roman Catholic religious practices are actually pagan practices grafted onto true Christianity during the reign of Constantine. At this point, he alleged, the merger between the Roman state religion and its adoration of the mother and child was transferred to Christianity, merging Christian characters with pagan mythology. The Goddess was renamed Mary, and Jesus was the renamed Jupiter-Puer, or “Jupiter the Boy”.
Hislop’s theory was that the goddess, in Rome called Venus or Fortuna, was the Roman name of the more ancient Babylonian cult of Ishtar, whose origins began with a blonde-haired and blue-eyed woman named Semiramis.
According to Hislop, Semiramis was an exceedingly beautiful woman, who gave birth to a son named Tammuz, was instrumental as the queen, and wife of Nimrod the founder of Babylon, and its religion, complete with a pseudo-Virgin Birth. This he called a foreshadowing of the birth of Christ, prompted by Satan. Later, Nimrod was killed, and Semiramis, pregnant with his child, claimed the child was Nimrod reborn.
Hislop claimed that the cult and worship of Semiramis spread globally, her name changing with the culture. In Egypt she was Isis, in Greece and Rome she was called Venus, Diana, Athena, and a host of other names, but was always prayed to and central to the faith which was based on Babylonian mystery religion.
Then, according to Hislop, Constantine, though claiming to convert to Christianity, remained pagan but renamed the gods and goddesses with Christian names to merge the two faiths for his political advantage, under Satan’s guidance.
Though Constantine had been exposed to Christianity by his mother, Helena, there is no consensus among scholars as to whether he adopted his mother’s Christianity in his youth, or gradually over the course of his life,[2] and he did not receive baptism until shortly before his death.[3][4] Whatever the case, Constantine’s endorsement of the tradition was a turning point for Early Christianity. In 313, Constantine issued the Edict of Milan legalizing Christian worship. The emperor became a great patron of the Church, and set a precedent for the position of the Christian Emperor within the Church and the notion of orthodoxy, Christendom, and ecumenical councils that would be followed for centuries as the State church of the Roman Empire.
Think I’ll take my utterly banal self off to bed, and say a prayer for those considering attending conferences where special box seats and free gifts are offered like carrots on a stick, rather than the precious gospel message of Christ.
From an anti-Catholic site on Hislop. Even they see it for the extremist nonsense it is which has been discredited. I’m amazed that a pastor would not be up with modern theology but still trowelling around in the ditch of some nineteenth century fantasy..
Hislop’s ‘Babylonian Mystery Religion’ Teaching Exposed and Overturned.
The Commendable Intellectual Honesty of Ralph Woodrow…
I n 1858 a Scottish minister called Alexander Hislop published a book called ‘The Two Babylons’. The book’s basic teaching is that modern Christianity, in its more ritualistic form (as evidenced within Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy), is entirely pagan and can be traced back to the worship of Nimrod and Semiramis and to the very worst of ancient pagan practises. I myself read this book when it was loaned to me by a friend around 1981. The book was certainly fascinating but I recall being disturbed that almost none of Hislop’s claims could really be substantiated by any reputable source, although it was certainly ‘meat and drink’ to the gullible. I did not entirely reject Hislop’s thesis but put in on the back burner for a few years with the feeling that Hislop’s points were not backed up with conclusive evidence (something which Hislop himself was apparently blind to). Basically, I came to the conclusion that outrageous accusation is not the same thing as carefully compiled and decisive evidence.
Today, of course, the book is soundly rejected because of the flawed and mostly unsubstantiated mish-mash which it is. Note, for instance, what the Wikipedia Encyclopedia says about this book,
The book has been severely criticized for its lack of evidence, and in many cases its contradiction of the existing evidence: for instance, the Roman state religion before Christianity did not worship a central Mother Goddess, and Jupiter was never called “Jupiter-Puer.” Likewise, Semiramis lived centuries after Nimrod, and could neither have been his mother, nor married him. Hislop also makes unacceptable linguistic connections and fanciful word plays, e.g. the letters IHS on Catholic Holy Communion wafers are alleged to stand for Egyptian deities Isis, Horus and Seth, but in reality they are an abbreviation for Ihsous, the Latin spelling of Jesus’s name in Greek (Ιησους), although popularly, they stand for the Latin Iesus Hominum Salvator meaning Jesus, Savior of Mankind (which also fits the teaching of Transubstantiation, where the wafer and wine are said to become the body and blood of Christ).” (Source: Wikipedia article, Alexander Hislop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hislop)
I believed that – as late as 1998 – no self-respecting evangelical would wish to touch this book; imagine my astonishment, then, when one day – circa 1998 – I found this book still for sale in a highly reputable evangelical book shop! Actually, perhaps naively, even now many still cling to every (usually erroneous) word of Hislop.
Originally influenced by this error-strewn book, Ralph Woodrow wrote Babylon Mystery Religion. But this honest man has since withdrawn this book (an action which has caused him much financial loss) because of his later honest acceptance of Hislop’s flaws. See Woodrow’s frank and honest admission about his Hislop-inspired book and about the errors of Hislop HERE.
Here is just one brief quote from Woodrow’s article to help us to note the flawed reasoning which Hislop so often used and which spread to the cults and sects:
“Some claim that round objects, such as round communion wafers, are symbols of the Sun-god. But they fail to mention that the very manna given by God was round! (Exod. 16:14). Some are ready to condemn all pillars and historical monuments as pagan. But they fail to take into account that the Lord himself appeared as a pillar of fire; and, in front of his temple, there were two large pillars (Exod. 13:21,22; 2 Chron. 3:17).”
I am not going to go further into the errors of Hislop here but would commend Woodrow’s article to all, plus the book which he has now written, The Babylon Connection?, to help put right freely-admitted earlier errors (see the earlier link).
How worrying then, that even now in November 2005, when I did a Google search for ‘The Two Babylons’ and ‘Alexander Hislop’, the first 15 pages which came up were overwhelmingly in support of Hislop’s position (most of these pages were from the websites of the cults and sects but some extreme fundamentalists were also represented). I finally only found about 3 references out of a few hundred which Google produced which understood that Hislop’s arguments are now discredited!
Please be aware that in rejecting Hislop’s wild claims about Roman Catholicism I am in no way defending error where it is present within Romanist doctrine, indeed, my whole internet ministry is based on exposing theological error (wherever it may be found), but I believe that it is vital for Christian Apologetics and Countercult ministries to ensure that they carefully substantiate all claims.
Robin A. Brace, 2005.
Oh and I only had to do a short reading to realise his stuff was rubbish. Doesn’t say much for your discernment skills.
Indeed, but nothing quite so banal as the world of entertainment Margot 🙂
Then at 11.46 you utterly confirm the patriarchal idolatry of mary and the saints which has made Catholicism a cult. Wonderful work. Commendable. Thank you.
So Augustine, Athanasias, Basil, the Gregory’s, Cyril, Jerome were all cultists.
Do you even know who they were?
Sorry to interrupt your reading of Dan Brown, Steve, but that quote Hislop’s ‘Babylonian Mystery Religion’ Teaching Exposed and Overturned is from
http://www.ukapologetics.net/1hislopbaby.html
Ralph Woodrow wrote a book Babylon Mystery Religion, based on Hislop’s theory which he has since pulled due to the lack of substantiated claims and obvious errors and has since repudiated. I notice that he has received threats for doing so.
Because misinformation about this decision persists on the Internet, and in other ways, the aim of this article is to set the record straight.
According to one rumor, “the Catholics” put so much pressure on me, I had a heart attack and almost died! Consequently, I “recanted” and wrote the other book. There is no truth to this!
Another rumor is that my motives were financial—my desire was to be popular and make more money. To the contrary, BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION was extremely popular and provided more income to our ministry than all other books and offerings put together! We have faced much financial loss because of the decision to pull the book out of print.
Some letters we have received have been very warm, commending me for honesty and integrity, expressing appreciation for the clarification provided by the replacement book THE BABYLON CONNECTION? But other letters have been mean-spirited—that I am “stupid,” “scum,” “scared of the truth,” a “low down coward,” a “traitor to Christ,” following “a false god,” and am an “undercover Jesuit”! One even said, “I hope you die soon, I want you dead!”
It puzzles me how some can be so fanatical against one set of errors—or what they perceive to be errors—only to develop greater errors: becoming judgmental, hateful, and dishonest.
My original book had some valuable information in it. But it also contained certain teachings that were made popular in a book many years ago, THE TWO BABYLONS, by Alexander Hislop. This book claims that the very religion of ancient Babylon, under the leadership of Nimrod and his wife, was later disguised with Christian-sounding names, becoming the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, two “Babylons”—one ancient and one modern. Proof for this is sought by citing numerous similarities in paganism. The problem with this method is this: in many cases there is no connection.
Let’s suppose that on May 10th a man was stabbed to death in Seattle. There were strong reasons for believing a certain person did it. He had motive. He was physically strong. He owned a large knife. He had a criminal record. He was known to have a violent temper and had threatened the victim in the past. All of these things would point to him as the murderer, except for one thing: on May 10th he was not in Seattle—he was in Florida!
So is it with the claims about pagan origins. What may seem to have a connection, upon further investigation, has no connection at all!
By this method, one could take virtually anything and do the same—even the “golden arches” at McDonald’s! The Encyclopedia Americana (article: “Arch”) says the use of arches was known in Babylon as early as 2020 B.C. Since Babylon was called “the golden city” (Isa. 14:4), can there be any doubt about the origin of the golden arches? As silly as this is, this is the type of proof that has been offered over and over about pagan origins.
By this method, atheists have long sought to discredit the Bible and Christianity altogether—not just the Roman Catholic Church.
By this method, one could condemn Protestant and evangelical denominations like the Assemblies of God, Baptist, Church of Christ, Lutheran, Methodist, Nazarene, etc. Basic things like prayer, and kneeling in prayer, would have to be rejected, because pagans knelt and prayed to their gods. Water baptism would have to be rejected, for pagans had numerous rites involving water, etc.
By this method, the BIBLE itself would need to be rejected as pagan. All of the following practices or beliefs mentioned in the Bible, were also known among pagans—raising hands in worship, taking off shoes on holy ground, a holy mountain, a holy place in a temple, offering sacrifices without blemish, a sacred ark, city of refuge, bringing forth water from a rock, laws written on stone, fire appearing on a person’s head, horses of fire, the offering of first fruits, tithes, etc.
By this method, 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 (Psa. 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 worshipped 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). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Psa. 91:4).
Here is a list of the some of the unsubstantiated claims that are made about the religion of ancient Babylon:
• The Babylonians went to a confessional and confessed sins to priests who wore black clergy garments.
• Their king, Nimrod, was born on December 25. Round decorations on Christmas trees and round communion wafers honored him as the Sun-god.
• Sun-worshippers went to their temples weekly, on Sunday, to worship the Sun-god.
• Nimrod’s wife was Semiramis, who claimed to be the Virgin Queen of Heaven, and was the mother of Tammuz.
• Tammuz was killed by a wild boar when he was age 40; so 40 days of Lent were set aside to honor his death.
• The Babylonians wept for him on “Good Friday.” They worshipped a cross-the initial letter of his name.
It is amazing how unsubstantiated teachings like these circulate—and are believed. One can go to any library, check any history book about ancient Babylon, none of these things will be found. They are not historically accurate, but are based on an arbitrary piecing together of bits and pieces of mythology.
Hislop, for example, taught that mythological persons like Adonis, Apollo, Bacchus, Cupid, Dagon, Hercules, Janus, Mars, Mithra, Moloch, Orion, Osiris, Pluto, Saturn, Vulcan, Zoraster, and many more, were all Nimrod! He then formed his own “history” of Nimrod! He did the same thing with Nimrod’s wife. So, according to his theory, Nimrod was a big, ugly, deformed black man. His wife, Semiramis—also known as Easter, he says—was a most beautiful white woman with blond hair and blue eyes, a backslider, inventor of soprano singing, the originator of priestly celibacy, the first to whom the unbloody mass was offered! This is not factual history—it is more in the category of tabloid sensationalism.
Some claim that round objects, such as round communion wafers, are symbols of the Sun-god. But they fail to mention that the very manna given by God was round! (Exod. 16:14). Some are ready to condemn all pillars and historical monuments as pagan. But they fail to take into account that the Lord himself appeared as a pillar of fire; and, in front of his temple, there were two large pillars (Exod. 13:21,22; 2 Chron. 3:17).
Because Babylon had a tower (Gen. 11:4), some suppose this must be why there are church buildings with towers or steeples: they are copying Babylon! A newspaper reporter in Columbus, Ohio, wrote to me about this. In that city, and numerous other places, this claim has been made. Let me say it quite clearly: No church ever included a steeple or tower on their house of worship to copy the tower of Babel! Why discredit thousands of born-again Christians by promoting ideas that have no connection? If a tower in itself is pagan, God would be pagan, for David described him as “my high tower” (2 Sam. 22:3; cf. Prov. 18:10).
No Christian who puts a bumper sticker with a fish symbol on the back of his car has ever done so to honor the fish-god Dagon. No congregation has ever put a cross on a church building for the purpose of honoring Tammuz. No Christian has ever gone to an Easter sunrise service to worship Baal. No Christian has ever worshipped a Christmas tree as an idol. Claims that imply “all these things started in Babylon,” are not only divisive and fruitless, they are untrue.
The concern about not wanting anything pagan in our lives can be likened to a ship crossing a vast ocean. This concern has taken us in the right direction, but as we come to a better understanding as to what is actually pagan and what is not, a correction of the course is necessary in our journey. This is not a going back, but a correction of the course as we follow “the shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day” (Prov. 4:18).
http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/pages/babylon-mystery.html
You realise, of course, Bones, that wikipedia articles are authored by contributors, who could have any background or theological stance. They could be JWs! More likely Catholic in sympathies.
The article you quoted is, as far as I can make out, Catholic in flavour, so, of course, would be hostile to Hislop. Could you find something a little more reliable? I know wikipedia is tempting as a first source, and I’ve used it myself on occasion as a means to locating more substantial information, but it’s not really the last word in anything, is it?
I can actually give you the entire book as a pdf if you like and you can read through it and make the judgement for yourself as to Hislop’s scholarship. Of course he has critics, and one would have to include the entire Catholic diocese as opposition to his writings.
In my response to your charge of sourcing from Chick publications, I didn’t say that I held entirely to Hislop’s ideas, but that it was a far more useful pamphlet than Chick publications, which you assigned to me.
I also mentioned that, in Hislop’s day, most evangelical theologians of any note would have said much the same about the idolatrous practices of the RC church, none of which have changed significantly, apart from a softening down of some of the prohibitive practices of pre-Second-Vatican-Council times.
In your lifetime, Bones, RC services were conducted in Latin, with a Latin prayer book, so that few English speaking plebs could actually understand what was being said, and no one could learn a thing, nor were they expected to.
The The only thing they had to do was laud the parish priest, consider the pope infallible, ‘god’ on earth, worship mary, idolise images of saints, receive ‘christ’ in the wafer (which was indeed round and contained the image of the sun), drink ‘christ’s’ literal blood in the wine, be saved at christening in the sprinkled water by a priest, etc., etc..
As for those who venerate Mary, how could you possibly not consider them idol worshippers, no matter how famous or revered they are. They are not my source of theology. Mary worship is anathema.
Again, Bones, I didn’t mention Ralph Woodrow, whom you extensively quote.
I gave you Hislop’s Two Babylons as a deeper read than Chick’s publications, but you made my interesting and fun resource into some kind of evidence of lack of discernment.
Here, read Hislop for yourself. It may be hugely controversial, especially for RCs, but it’s mighty read.
Click to access THE_TWO_BABYLONS.pdf
Pope Gregory, ‘[The Madonna is] “our greatest hope; yea, the SOLE GROUND OF OUR HOPE”.’
Is that what you mean, Bones, by the theology of the Gregory’s?
Crikey, you’ve been found out on this one. Even ukapologetics lists RC as a cult but at least have the honesty and integrity to debunk Hislop’s trash which is where the quote from 9:12pm came from.
Woodrow made a fortune from expanding on Hislop and he still gets many requests for and has now written another book pointing out the errors in Hislops.
I can see how it has influenced JW theology. It is so obvious.
I’ve got a good idea for your Hislops book and it involves a shredder.
Is that what you mean, Bones, by the theology of the Gregory’s?
Omg, you dont know who Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus are?
It probably doesn’t matter to you because you probably believe doctrines like the Trinity and the deity of Christ fell from the sky.
The early church fathers, specifically those I posted on March 11, 11:46am, were responsible for the formulation of most of the theology you have today. Even Reformers know that and even try to find a link back to them. They were also very Catholic. They believed in the communion of saints (in the Apostolic and Nicene Creeds) and they worshipped Mary as the Mother of Jesus – the theotokos (God bearer).
You’ve just condemned the people who formulated Orthodox (as in Christian) beliefs. Arianism could quite possibly have become the dominant doctrine on the deity of Christ if it wasn’t for the Though I’m not surprised given that you go out of the way to defend TD Jakes, Phil Pringle, Benny Hinn and any other nutbag Pentecostal..
Don’t give me a lesson on RC theology (or should I say your interpretation of it). I used to attend a charismatic Catholic group. (The Holy Spirit falls on Catholics too you know). My brother is a RC priest and we have had many discussions about RC theology. I’m quite content in the knowledge that he loves Jesus. I can bet I know how many Catholic priests you’ve talked with especially when you’re getting your information from such reliable sources like Hislop.
As for the Marian stuff, it’s not for me. But I understand how it became important in the battle with the Arians over the Deity of Christ, Mary became an important figure.
I mean you could search for truth on this issue. Or just keep believing Hislop’s 150 year old fable and read some more Dan Brown (which would probably be more reliable).
And then we have this review of Hislop by a critic who labels the Papacy as deceptive as the Assyrians.
We could find 10,000 errors in Mister Hislop’s exposition; but such is needless, and we do not wish to denigrate his earnest endeavor. But, again, we must condemn misleading source apologetics in his Appendix. Even sans historical exegesis, we refute the conception whereby Noah’s grand-son is stated to have emerged as Menes, the Egyptian King (page 294).
This critique author would commend Alexander Hislop for having an unusually rich Mythology background. However, he would not recommend the book for Bible interpretation assistance nor as a contribution to soteriological instruction, though one might gain some entertainment from the reading exercise.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Book-Critique-of-Alexander-Hislops:-THE-TWO-BABYLONS&id=6196808
The problem is there are many nutjobs out there who take this crap as gospel.
I gave you Hislop’s Two Babylons as a deeper read than Chick’s publications, but you made my interesting and fun resource into some kind of evidence of lack of discernment.
Anything’s better than Jack Chick’s hate filled diatribe. He didn’t even realise he had in one of the books he endorsed a supposed trye story of a woman meeting with Jesus and telling her secrets about the Catholic Church. One of the things Jesus apparently told her was “Don’t be afraid of me. I’m not like my Father. You don’t need to fear me”.
It was only after this apparent theological and unbiblical gaffe was pointed out that the whole thing was revealed as complete shite.
You are correct Hislop is better than Chicks.
In the same way that being beheaded is better than a long slow torturous death.
I’d rather have neither.
Bones,
In the same way that being beheaded is better than a long slow torturous death.
Of course, if you’d been of the ilk of William Tynedale in his day you could have suffered either under papal decree!
Your defence of Catholicism is understandable but not credible, since the doctrine it espouses is completely off the wall. When Luther pointed out the very obvious doctrine of salvation by grace trough faith and not by works he was hounded out of the priesthood. The rest is hid=story, but the RC church has never changed a jot or tittle of its doctrine. It is such a vast denomination with many different wings that there are indeed people who actually read their Bibles, and some charismatics, some even saved, but that does not make the denomination right, or its doctrines acceptable as orthodox or Biblical.
And you can yell and scream at me to stop pointing out their errors all you want. The answer is no. When they repent and recant of their error perhaps I’ll consider their denomination a safe environment for a new believer, but right now, I would never send a new Christian anywhere near their apostasy.
A note on the author of your distinguished critique of Hislop’s Book:
An avid reader and student of physics and metaphysices since childhood, the author has accomplished major breakthroughs in both fields: such conclusions derived in the integrity of syllogistic justification.
Indeed!
Like he’d have a clue where Hislop is coming from. Having given you free access to the entire book Hislop wrote for your personal perusal and critique, should I consider any other critic you provide to be equally invalid? Hislop has far more supporters than detractors, so your commentary is hugely one sided.
Why didn’t you check your sources? Did you just google the nearest Hislop deprecator and post it as your own view? Did you decide Winter would be OK because he had a negative view and between the pair of you you’d get away with his insincere and unqualified opinion?
Bones,
Mary became an important figure
She did, indeed! So important she has replaced Jesus as mediator.
This has been a truly fascinating conversation. For months I have watched as various people on here attack C3, which, as I have shown, has a fairly orthodox set of basic beliefs, and been soundly berated for any defence of Pentecostalism, which, again, is evangelical with the additional teaching that the baptism with the Holy Spirit, and His gifts are for today.
Now I put up a few lines criticising Catholic dogma, following zeibart’s incredibly provocative addition to his list of possible cults, and you are suddenly defending this very obvious and well exposed cult with a vehemence and an energy I have not seen from you.
So C3 has your undivided attention as an attack worthy movement, despite its basic orthodoxy, yet you will defend, almost with your life, the gross, deadly and perpetual error of the Roman Catholic system, which is clearly apostasy.
You were a charismatic catholic. It is said that it is very difficult to remove the catholic once it is instilled in the adherent.
Your loyalty is commendable.
Not so liberal all of sudden.
Bones,
still trowelling around in the ditch of some nineteenth century fantasy
What a crude operator you are. You’ll appeal to first, second and third century patriarchs who devised Mary worship, yet accuse the numerous well respected and read 19th century theologians who expose the error of Mediatrix idolatry of trawling around in fantasy.
All this whilst at the same time refusing to give time to analysing the said book for yourself even though I’ve given you the entire book as a pdf.
The challenge – read it for yourself. See what Hislop has to say, and discover some uncomfortable truths about your old system which will help you break free of its error. I’m not saying it’s all totally accurate, but there are many things he says which will shock you about the historic RC church, many of which have been obscured form view since Vatican Two, including the very reasons 17th, 18th and 19th century evangelical theologians were so scathing of this error-strewn cult.
But no. You’d consign the information I sourced for you to the shredder. So much for balanced opinion.
I think Hislop may be too deep for you, actually, and far too much of a learned and dedicated theologian with masses of detail and research for you to wade through. I warn you. It is not a light read, which is the very reason I refuted your charge that I bothered with Chick publications.
The challenge is laid down.
And, finally, since you refuse to examine his work for yourself, even though it is now available to you, I need to let you know that this is only a small fragment information I have on Catholicism, as you ignorantly claim. I like Hislop because I have an interest in language and history. His is not the only information on Catholic error, just one of the most intriguing.
I even gave you a clue. We were discussing the new birth with a young parish priest some time ago in a small country town in WA. He was, incredibly, considering his position, very curious about being born again and what it meant for evangelicals, and the Holy Spirit, having seen our witness and spending several hours in our home, where we became friends with him.
You’d think he’d know about these things, having just come out of seminary, wouldn’t you? When his Bishop found out what was happening, he was immediately whipped out of the parish and made to undergo retraining and reconditioning. Oh yes he was! We never saw him again. A Polish traditionalist priest was installed in his place.
Ever since then we’ve looked into these things, because their system is so stained with unbiblical teaching, and always has been.
So, how is a Catholic born again?
Oh, I almost forgot to mention, I have seen first hand in nations I have ministered the way Catholicism adapts and adopts the pagan and idolatrous worship systems of the ethnic groups it evangelises.
The evidence is all around you, and you fail to see it. The very names of the days and months are pagan, yet adopted by Gregory.
Next time they hold the big money bagging Mary worshipping parade in Innisfail in QLD why not take a trip to see Catholic idolatry in action in your own nation.
We were in a city on Negros Island half a day inland from Binalbagan, where we have churches we support, conducting some meetings, when, in he night, I was aware of a gross darkness over the city, something black and death. I sensed a call to prayer. Next day, I asked about it. The locals told me that, before the Catholics came, there was a cult of devil worship where a young woman used to be sacrificed every year to ward off evil spirits. There was an accompanying parade, in which everyone dressed in black, which is what I saw in my dream.
When the Catholics came they did not remove the idolatrous parade. They merely stopped the human sacrifice and replaced the girl to be sacrificed with a statue of Mary, which is still annually paraded down the street in the 21st century, despite 2-300 years of Catholic influence.
Paganism, Bones! Just like the days of your week, and the calendar of ‘christian’ events and feasts!
That city has never been exorcised of its demonic influences. All Catholicism did was add Jesus, mary and Joseph to what already existed, and the people are still kept under by he priests.
It’s the same all over the world, wherever the RCs evangelised, they adopt and adapt, they never bring deliverance or the true gospel. Ceremony, feasts, saints replacing gods and idols to become the new gods and idols of a demonised people.
Find that in the Bible for me. Oh, that’s right, you don’t believe the Bible is the Word of God, and has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Tradition speaks louder, just as i does for Catholic dogma.
But here’s Hislop in a chapter on Idol Processions, telling you why they are not stopped by papists:
Sorry the reference to Insurance Company Airfare to london Cheap flight to rome Loan calculator excel Lead Generation Studying Hotel in london intruded into the online paragraph and I didn’t pick it up to edit it out.
Wow, you have have fallen for lies and deception.
Of course those who hate Catholics would lap this stuff up and not check out the facts. Those who have checked his sources come to the same conclusion, that his sources are not agreeing with what he is saying.
Hislop’s work is blatant anti-Catholic propaganda.
The truth has been pointed out to you and you choose to ignore it.
And no I don’t agree with RC practices and some are wrong as are some PENTECOSTAL ones. I could list litanies of Pentecostal excesses and abuse and say see, look how evil Pentecostals are. Then you’ll reply all insulted and offended.
I shall talk to you like an atheist seeing you want to use the religion is evil argument. The murders carried out be RC AND Protestants were as much a part of maintaining power and political influence. It shows that politics corrupts and the establishment of power overrides the Gospel.
Btw there were more people killed in the Protestant witch hunts than in the Spanish Inquisition. Must make Protestants evil as well.
I’m glad my Pentecostal pastor isn’t as ignorant as you and regularly prays for all the Christian churches in our city including the Catholics who he regards as brothers and sisters in Christ.
You have no idea of Early Church history which would debunk all of Hislop’s rubbish. The origin of Christian doctrines obviously isn’t important to Pentecostals. Just pick up any old piece of rubbish lying on the side. I don’t need to read the Book of Mormon to know it is shite, like Hislop’s Two Babylons.
Oh and we had processions in the Anglican Church too. As I was walking down the aisle I wasn’t thinking of Minerva.
It’s stupid that I even had to say that.
You were a charismatic catholic. It is said that it is very difficult to remove the catholic once it is instilled in the adherent.
Once again your comprehension skills are revealed as poor and that statement is just ignorant. I have never been a Catholic. I attended a charismatic Catholic group because the Holy Spirit was revealing himself through the gifts of the Spirit there. Do you know what that is by any chance?
Some RC priests have been given short shrift when under a traditional bishop. The same happens in the Anglican church. I’m pretty sure Peter Jensen wouldn’t welcome Spirit filled clergy (That could have changed but in my days as an Anglican, Sydney Diocese had no time for charismatic clergy, though they were strictly evangelical. Some of the more liberal and Catholic Anglicans were more open to the charismatic gifts.)
I met born again Catholics, Catholics who spoke in tongues, Catholics who laid hands on each other and were healed or delivered. The full gifts of the Spirit were being poured out in that group.
I suppose the spirit which came upon them was Nimrod or some garbage.
”following zeibart’s incredibly provocative addition to his list of possible cults,” My we are a bit prickly Steve.
CULT CHARACTERISTIC No. 1:
Pyramid Power Structure.
CULT CHARACTERISTIC No. 2:
Mind Control by Men, not the Spirit.
CULT CHARACTERISTIC No. 3:
Isolating the Sheep.
CULT CHARACTERISTIC No. 4:
Christ is the Way;
but we’re the Way to the Way (and you cannot go directly)
CULT CHARACTERISTIC No. 5:
Slandering opposition unmercifully.
I reckon there is good evidence for 4 out of 5 characteristics from C3, but I did not say they were on a list of cults. I simply suggested a few denominations that could be included in compiling a sliding scale from orthodoxy to cult.
Started reading Hislop’s nonsense then gave it away. Honestly I don’t need to look under my shoe to tell if I walked in something bad. I can tell by the smell. Like this book which is like something I stepped in
It is a book used to build up people’s prejudices by an author hellbent on defaming the RC Church. Christians of course don’t check the facts but believe the teaching that tickles the ears or creates conspiracies.
The number of people who think this is a factual account and scholarly classic is unbelievable.
Despite the fact that:
* he claimed Nimrod was a big, ugly, deformed black man. His wife, Semiramis, was a beautiful white woman with blond hair and blue eyes. But she was a backslider known for her immoral lifestyle, the inventor of soprano singing and the originator of priestly celibacy. He said that the Babylonians baptized in water, believing it had virtue because Nimrod and Semiramis suffered for them in water; that Noah’s son Shem killed Nimrod; that Semiramis was killed when one of her sons cut off her head, and so on. No recognized history book substantiated these and many other claims.
* not one book said anything about Nimrod and Semiramis being husband and wife. They did not even live in the same century. Nor is there any basis for Semiramis being the mother of Tammuz. These ideas were all Hislop’s inventions.
Given that the subtitle of Hislop’s novel is “The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.” His thesis is defeated then and there.
* claims that the “round” wafer used in the Roman Catholic mass came from Egyptian paganism. Egyptians also used oval and triangular cakes; folded cakes; cakes shaped like leaves, animals, and a crocodile’s head; and so on. Hislop failed to even mention this. Hislop fails to mention that the very manna given by the Lord was round. “Upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing…And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat” (Exod. 16:14-15, KJV, emphasis added). round is not necessarily pagan.
* taught that Tammuz (whom he says was Nimrod) was born on December 25, and this is the origin of the date on which Christmas is observed. Yet his supposed proof for this is taken out of context. Having taught that Isis and her infant son Horus were the Egyptian version of Semiramis and her son Tammuz he cites a reference that the son of Isis was born “about the time of the winter solstice.”
The reference he gives for this (Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians, vol. 4, 405), the son of Isis who was born “about the time of the winter solstice was not Horus, her older son, but Harpocrates. The reference also explains this was a premature birth, causing him to be lame, and that the Egyptians celebrated the feast of his mother’s delivery in spring. Taken in context, this has nothing to do with a December celebration or with Christmas as it is known today.
* said that a Lent of 40 days was observed in Egypt. But when we look up the reference, Wilkinson says Egyptian fasts “lasted for seven to forty-two days, and sometimes even a longer period: during which time they abstained entirely from animal food, from herbs and vegetables, and above all from the indulgence of the passions” (Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians vol. 1, 278) with as much credibility, we could say they fasted 7 days, 10 days, 12 days, or 42 days. Hislop’s claim appears to have validity only because he used partial information.
* the Roman state religion before Christianity did not worship a central Mother Goddess, and Jupiter was never called “Jupiter-Puer.” as Hislop claimed.
* There is no evidence from any historical document that the Babylonians went to a confessional and confessed sins to priests who wore black clergy garments.
* There is no evidence from any historical document that their king, Nimrod, was born on December 25. Round decorations on Christmas trees and round communion wafers honored him as the Sun-god.
* There is no evidence from any historical document that Sun-worshippers went to their temples weekly, on Sunday, to worship the Sun-god.
* There is no evidence from any historical document that Tammuz was killed by a wild boar when he was age 40; so 40 days of Lent were set aside to honor his death.
* There is no evidence from any historical document that the Babylonians wept for him on “Good Friday.” They worshipped a cross-the initial letter of his name.
* When checked his footnote references, in numerous cases it was discovered they do not support his claims.
http://newprotestants.com/2babylons.htm
I don’t know if you noticed, Bones, but you used the same text from March 10 at 9.49 pm from the same source, Ralph Woodrow, on a different site in your comment at March 11, 10.13. I thought I picked up similarities in the critique. That would be duplication of something i already commented on.
Ralph seems like a good Christian Evangelical Baptist man, and I admire his honesty. As I said previously, I did not quote him or from his work. His critique of Hislop is fair enough, but I don’t think it’s representative of what Hislop says, and neither is your condemnation of his work, which is considered a classic resource by many respected ministries. More, in fact, appreciate the depth of his work than denigrate it, so I guess we’ll have to disagree on that.
If you don’t like it that’s fine with me. I think it’s possible you do not see where Hislop is coming rom. To call it ‘ear tickling’ doctrine is ridiculous. If you bothered to read the book through and check the bibliography you’d see Hislop quotes extensively form highly regarded sources throughout.
If you don’t think evangelicals of Hislop’s era were scathing of historical RC dogma and the depths of persecution and control they exercise not just over the ordinary people, but over kings and nations for centuries, based on a false theocratic dominion theology which crushed dissenters mercilessly, then you are being naive.
To say Hislop ‘builds up prejudices… in an author hellbent on defaming the RC church’ is to miss the era in which he lived. Rather he was amongst a growing band of evangelical theologians exposing prejudice and error in a cult which had dominated the world for an entire age. For the first time in many centuries theologians were safe to say what others before had said but lost their lives doing so, some in the flames of the stake.
Defaming? Well the RC church did plenty of that for themselves, really. Infamy would be a better word.
It is to their dubious credit that they have managed to silence most of their critics since Vatican Two, but the truth is that most of their cardinal errors remain intact, all of which you seem willing to defend, even though you do not support them personally.
For instance, what do you say about the doctrine of the penitent in confession, here recited from their own sacraments?
Three things are required of a penitent in order to receive the sacrament worthily:
1. He must be contrite—or, in other words, sorry for his sins.
2. He must confess those sins fully, in kind and in number.
3. He must be willing to do penance and make amends for his sins.
So, works based penance under the power and instruction of a potentially sinful man is a doctrine you would send one of your friends into as a church you would recommend?
How is it that the blood of Jesus is not enough to provide forgiveness for the repentant Christian? Why does the repentant man or woman have to do penance? And why does the priest have the power to prescribe the penance?
Where did you see Jesus anywhere prescribe a penance to a repentant man or woman, other than ‘sin no more’?
And why is there a separated priesthood? Are we not all a royal priesthood in Christ?
http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Why_Confession.htm
zeibart,
I simply suggested a few denominations that could be included in compiling a sliding scale from orthodoxy to cult.
Really?
I think at best you were being tongue in cheek about it, but in a provocative way. Maybe mildly provocative, but a pin-prick is as attention seeking as a stab. I was only mildly responding. Bones, it seems, has taken it to another level, which I’m happy to accommodate.
Your list of cultish behaviours and assertion that C3 qualifies for at least four confirms your desire to provoke response. Tongue through cheek I suspect. Not a pretty sight.
In fact none apply.
My only surprise is that you seem to be ignoring the obvious cultish background of papism, especially since the pyramid structure you so fondly refer to came straight out of their hierarchal system.
which is considered a classic resource by many respected ministries. More, in fact, appreciate the depth of his work than denigrate it, so I guess we’ll have to disagree on that.
Well I guess that settles it then.
No need for truth or facts for they are truly blind.
Hislop has lots of sources. They’ve been checked and do not back him up.
And I suppose your preaching this rubbish and spreading these lies to your congregation. I can see it is reflected in your theolgy hence your references to the Catholic Church as the ‘Whore of Babylon’. You’ve been taken in and deceived and now the truth is revealed refuse to let go of the lies and deception.
Ziebert’s post above has more credibility.
Utterly lamentable from a pastor.
Reading back over old issues/comments here on SP02, I’ve realised there’s a pattern with Steve, especially towards those who raise issues about C3, so I’m adding something to the list that Zeibart put up and Steve proves through his own responses to discussions about C3.
CULT CHARACTERISTIC No. 6: “One of the most troubling abusive traits in the dysfunctional church or denominational family is the unwritten “no talk” rule. This rule implies that certain problems in the group must not be exposed because then the group might look bad and things would have to change. The “no talk” rule itself is among those things never talked about. Healthy groups thrive on the free flow of information. Members have ready access to each other’s opinions and concerns. Sick groups generally suffer from confused, defective or controlled communication.”
And this……
David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen describe it in The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse.
“The can’t talk rule has this thinking behind it: ‘The real problem cannot be exposed because then it would have to be dealt with and things would have to change; so it must be protected behind walls of silence (neglect) or by assault(legalistic attack). If you speak about the problem out loud, you are the problem. In some way you must be silenced or eliminated.” pg. 68
Not my style, Bones. I preach the Word, not against denominations. I’m surprised at the level of vitriol you have, considering the amount of negative comments there have been against C3, and often because you associate me with C3.
That’s what I mean by the way you guys treat another person’s opinion. The accusations simply because I make a comment or two about RC dogma. Now I’m a preacher of hate and a cover-up artist at the same time. LOL! 😀
Margot there are patterns about your commentary which could be lined up with any number of the things you quote from various sources. That is the nature of this kind of ministry. I’m not at all concerned with those silly ‘subtle power of spiritual abuse’ so-called ‘discernment ministry’ types, who are almost all way over the top with their opinions at some juncture, and that’s all they are most of the time, opinions, always based on their own premise for doctrine.
Bones used a certain Mr Winter as an ‘expert’ on Hislop, and I showed the man to be a spiritualist and an expert in metaphysics, and not a dicky bird from anyone. Bones shrugs it off and repeats one comment from one source as an ‘exert’ on Hislop, then rants and accuses, and you stand alongside his defence of RC dogma as if to support mary worship, idolatry of saint statues, transubstantiation, the mass, the calling down of Christ into the wafer, the daily sacrifice of Christ in communion, the unmarried priesthood, the hierarchal system, the burning pf martyrs at the stake, the inquisitions, the imprisonment and torture of dissenters, the doctrine of purgatory, the sprinkling of infants as salvation, the indulgences (yes they still condone indulgences), etc, etc.
Tell me you don’t support RC doctrine margot, please!
Now you join the chorus, as is your pattern, which is condemning me for having pointed out error in the RC church. That’s incredible considering the Calvinist position on Catholicism.
And you have the weirdness to say I am of some cult of silence. That’s amazing considering I’m talking to you, and have doe for some time.
I am so intrigued by this reaction to pointing out RC error. It is truly astonishing!
Good one Margot, and it goes hand in glove with characteristic 5 that anyone who speaks ill of us is clearly of the devil. PP says as much during his talk that I linked to at 8.33pm 10 March. He declares that we are only to speak well of our church environment, but the unspoken command in that statement is ‘no matter what is preached, or error laid bare, thou shalt not comment against it’.
Paul, when he said on many occasions to be a blessing to the elders, to make their work a joy, to be in accord with one another, would not allow error, worldliness or ill-discipline to occur. He was the one, for goodness sake (literally), who said the Corinthian church must cast out the sinning man so he could be handed over to satan for correction. Can you see that happening today? See how quickly Todd Bentley was ushered back into top level ‘ministry’ after his acts of adultery and who knows what financially.
Steve, no tongue, no cheek. And I do see how that list can be held up to the RC church as well and it be found wanting. I can’t stand the pyramid leadership structure. It’s the most iconic image of Egypt, and represents all she stands for in the scriptures.
But here’s the thing (as PP would say): having a Christian worldview that is filtered through the lens of your denomination will lead to an inevitable bias that, surprisingly often, doesn’t match up to the bible. People who are passionate about their movement or denomination tend to be blinded to the peculiarities of that brand of Christian expression. That’s why Paul tears a strip off the Corinthians for separating into groups according to their favourite teacher (1 Cor 1 & 3). The Jews did it all the time, but it was the beginning of denominations. I have listened enough to C3 leaders to know that they quietly want the audience to be sucked into the following of personalities. A cursory nod to Jesus (if forthcoming) is not enough to clear their name of that charge – can’t you see it Steve?
Those who cheerlead C3 are as much to blame as those who defend the non-biblical quirks of their own closely held denominational perspective. There is leaven in C3 and the RC system (for that is what both are). How much God tolerates, we’ll wait and see his judgement.
Haven’t said a word about RC doctrine because, though I believe the RC doctrine isn’t biblical, I have seen evidence of God working in the lives of Catholics. My remarks were directed to C3 and issues found there.
As I mentioned today on a FB post, I heard the best gospel presentation at a Catholic funeral by a man giving the eulogy of a beloved “aunt” (my mother-in-law) he had led to Christ. His words had the priest sitting there looking stunned. This same (Catholic) man used the opportunity to lovingly share his concerns for her daughter’s lost state, and encouraged her to look to Christ and Him alone for forgiveness, salvation and so be reunited with her mother in eternity.
I did not WANT to because that funeral because it was Catholic, but loving her, attended of course. And was blown away that God ministered to so many through that dear man.
Steve, that silence is endemic, we are still experiencing it and that same silence leads a form of shunning. Even those closest to us expressed dismay that leadership did not want to sit down and talk, especially when the initial concerns were expressed privately.
How many times have we heard the refrain “it’s all good, it’s all good.” Even when it’s not.
And obviously it still hurts on so many levels, but that’s my problem.
The issue here isn’t RC theology, as wacky as some of it is and as distasteful as I find the current Pope. The issue isn’t even religious persecution and murder committed by the RC Church as disgraceful as that is. The issue isn’t even the heretical buy your way into heaven or God’s favour theology (which reigns in not just the RC church).
The issue here is the use of clearly denigrated texts which have been accepted for over 150 years as fact and undermined not just the RC church but Anglicans and Lutherans as well, as there are elements of RC in both traditions. It has undermined believer’s confidence in their ministers on the basis of fantasy, rumour and conjecture. It has even fed atheists relishing to see Christianity as just another pagan offshoot. That Hislop’s book has been instrumental in the cultic doctrines of JWs and the Worldwide Church of God cannot be denied. My aunt is a JW and the only time she countenanced walking into a RC church was for my mother’s funeral. Her belief was that Romanism was the Whore of Babylon and full of paganism.
In 150 years there has been a whole lot of archaeological finds in the Middle East especially with concern to Ancient Babylon.
Nothing has been found to corroborate any of the obvious errors in Hislop’s book. Yet still we must accept it because the Catholics were bad and nasty and we think RCs are of the Devil and a lot of Christians believe it as fact so we must as well.
Any Biblical scholar knows that there is no way the Whore of Babylon and the Dragon are the RC church. That is the stuff of extremists.
You aren’t interested in the truth, Steve. But in cultivating your own bias.
You still haven’t said why God would pour His Spirit out onto RC believers? Why do they manifest the gifts of the Spirit given their Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible?
@ Bones – we experienced the whole so-called Toronto Blessing and saw many Catholics, including priests, attend services at Brookvale when Rodney-Howard Browne “strutted his stuff”. We saw all sorts of crazy manifestations, much so-called outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
No longer believe any of it was real, it was probably even demonic, certainly none of it biblical – is this what you would say happened to the Catholics you know? I heard many stories of Catholics continuing in their adoration of Mary, saying their tongues were really from her.
Yes I’m well aware of that. Been to Rodney Howard Browne myself and the guys another obvious shonkster as was that whole Toronto Blessing thing. I’m open to God moving spiritually but that was just weird. People laughing uncontrollably, twitching, drunk in the Spirit, barking. And you had to catch it take it to another place as you do with the Holy Spirit.
Freaky stuff. I took a group of liberal theological students to open their eyes and they were unimpressed.
Given Steve’s propensity to defend heretical teaching eg tithing and the spiritual wonders of Benny Hinn, I was wondering how far he would go. I’ve seen the same signs in the Catholic Church which Steve calls the ultimate cult and the Whore of Babylon.
Harsh, Bones. I don’t remember that I called her the whore. I think others have said she is probably Mystery Babylon.
I gave one example of an author who gives the pagan symbols behind some of the Babylonian religion and claims it corresponds to Romish belief, but, as I say, I preach the word, not condemnation. I find the truth goes further than anything else in preaching. I do not preach opinion. I reserve it for places such as this, where I am free to give it, since that os what blogs are for.
Opinion has no place in the pulpit.
It’s the Spirit who convicts, not me. I am commanded to preach the good news.
I think you should apologise for accusing me of preaching what I have already said I don’t. In a study amongst select people I might discuss some of these things, but I will not venture down the road of speculation before a congregation.
My influences on who the Mystery woman is are far more varied than Hislop, who basically gives pagan background to religion. However, he quotes extensively form others before him who gave the same information and reached the same conclusions about Rome.
Maybe you should read through Revelation 17 to gain some background information as to why theologians have come to this conclusion, almost as one.
For your information, many other recognised theologians claim Rome as the Mystery Babylon mentioned in Revelation. Maybe you should check them out before being so rude to me.
Gill:
and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast; the beast is the same with that in #Re 13:1| as the description shows, and is no other than the Roman empire as Papal; the “scarlet” colour is expressive of its imperial dignity, its power and authority, it received from the dragon; and also of this beast’s cruelty and tyranny, and of its shedding the blood of the saints: the woman sitting upon it is the great city of Rome, as is manifest from #Re 17:18| or the Romish antichrist, the apostate church of Rome, represented by a woman, as the true church is, #Re 12:1| but in a very different form, and is the same with the second beast in #Re 13:11|and the false prophet; and as the two beasts respect the same, under different considerations, namely, the Papacy, in its civil and ecclesiastic capacity, so this strange phenomenon, a woman sitting on such a beast, means one and the same thing as the horse and his rider in the seals, though in different views; the woman designs the Romish church, with the pope at the head of it, and the beast the Roman Papal empire as civil, by which the former is supported and upheld, bore up on high, and exalted in the manner it has been: moreover, as purple and scarlet are the colours of garments wore by the pope, and cardinals, hence the woman in the next verse is said to be “arrayed in purple and scarlet colour”, so even the very beasts on which they rode were covered with scarlet.
Clark:
Saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.] No doubt can now be entertained that this woman is the Latin Church, for she sits upon the beast with seven heads and ten horns, which has been already proved to be the Latin empire, because this empire alone contains the number 666. See on #Re 13:18|. This is a representation of the Latin Church in her highest state of antichristian prosperity, for she SITS UPON the scarlet coloured beast, a striking emblem of her complete domination over the secular Latin empire. The state of the Latin Church from the commencement of the fourteenth century to the time of the Reformation may be considered that which corresponds to this prophetic description in the most literal and extensive sense of the words; for during this period she was at her highest pitch of worldly grandeur and temporal authority. The beast is full of names of blasphemy; and it is well known that the nations, in support of the Latin or Romish Church, have abounded in blasphemous appellations, and have not blushed to attribute to themselves and to their Church the most sacred titles, not only blaspheming by the improper use of sacred names, but even by applying to its bishop those names which alone belong to God; for God hath expressly declared that he will not give his glory to another, neither his praise to graven images.
Wesley:
And he carried me away-In the vision. Into a
wilderness-The campagna di Roma, the country round about Rome, is now a wilderness, compared to what it was once. And I saw a woman-Both the scripture and other writers frequently represent a city under this emblem. Sitting upon a scarlet wild beast-The same which is described in the thirteenth chapter.
#Re 13:1-18| But he was there described as he carried on his
own designs only: here, as he is connected with the whore. There is, indeed, a very close connexion between them; the seven heads of the beast being “seven hills on which the woman sitteth.” And yet there is a very remarkable difference between them, -between the papal power and the city of Rome. This woman is the city of Rome, with its buildings and inhabitants; especially the nobles. The beast, which is now scarlet-coloured, (bearing the bloody livery, as well as the person, of the woman,) appears very different from before. Therefore St. John says at first sight, I saw a beast, not the beast, full of names of blasphemy -He had’ before “a name of blasphemy upon his head,” #Re 13:1|: now he has many. From the time of Hildebrand, the blasphemous titles of the Pope have been abundantly multiplied. Having seven heads-Which reach in a succession from his ascent out of the sea to his being cast into the lake of fire. And ten horns-Which are contemporary with each other, and belong to his last period.
Again, Wesley:
And on her forehead a name written-Whereas the saints
have the name of God and the Lamb on their foreheads. Mystery -This very word was inscribed on the front of the Pope’s mitre, till some of the Reformers took public notice of it. Babylon the great-Benedict XIII., in his proclamation of the jubilee, A.D.
1725, explains this sufficiently. His words are, “To this holy
city, famous for the memory of so many holy martyrs, run with
religious alacrity. Hasten to the place which the Lord hath
chose. Ascend to this new Jerusalem, whence the law of the Lord and the light of evangelical truth hath flowed forth into all
nations, from the very first beginning of the church: the city
most rightfully called ‘The Palace,’ placed for the pride of all
ages, the city of the Lord, the Sion of the Holy One of Israel.
This catholic and apostolical Roman church is the head of the
world, the mother of all believers, the faithful interpreter of
God and mistress of all churches.” But God somewhat varies the
style. The mother of harlots-The parent, ringleader, patroness,
and nourisher of many daughters, that losely copy after her. And
abominations-Of every kind, spiritual and fleshly. Of the earth
-In all lands. In this respect she is indeed catholic or
universal.
Maybe you can research other theologians for yourself on who the Mystery Woman of Revelation 17 is. The seven hills could only indicate Rome, the seat of both ancient iniquities, and of the Romish Church.
Is she the whore? Rome almost certainly is. Is her church guilty of the blood of martyrs? You judge.
Bones,
Given Steve’s propensity to defend heretical teaching eg tithing and the spiritual wonders of Benny Hinn, I was wondering how far he would go. I’ve seen the same signs in the Catholic Church which Steve calls the ultimate cult and the Whore of Babylon.
Please show me – where have I ever defended Benny Hinn? I have not, ever. I consider some of his doctrine flawed, and have said so, often.
Where have I ever defended tithing as law? I have given paragraphs to explaining my position on this and never have I said legalistic tithing is a necessity.
Why is either heretical? Are not all things lawful to believers, yet not always expedient? Where is your ‘law’ which bans believers from tithing if they so choose?
Your defence of the excesses of Rome far outweigh anything I have said on the tithe, or on the gifts of the Spirit.
There’s is a very real heretical system. I am prepared to show you why.
You’ll never find a word on these pages to confirm your claims on either Hinn or what I say about tithing.
The only one doing any apologising here is you for presenting this nonsense which is a litany of lies and error.
Biblical study has moved on from the Protestant/ Catholic Wars but you’re obviously still there.
Most modern scholarship acknowledge those references of Babylon to the Roman Emperor cult.
Welcome to the 21st century.
The key to understanding the situation is in the vibrant symbolic language that is so typical of ancient apocalyptic writings. The author viewed the religious and political force of Roman rule as a threat. It is now thought that this arose in Ephesus after the year 89 CE when Domitian instituted a new imperial cult sanctuary dedicated to his family, the Flavian dynasty. It had included his father, Vespasian, who as Roman general led the war against the Jews from 66-69. When the Emperor Nero was killed, Vespasian was summoned from Judea to Rome to become the new Emperor. Vespasian then appointed his elder son, Titus, as the commander of the legions in Judea. It was Titus who led the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. When Vespasian died in 79 CE, Titus became the next Emperor. Titus, however, died just two years later in 81, and this left the empire to Vespasian’s younger son, Domitian. Domitian was known as a strong-willed emperor who tolerated no disagreement with his policies. Nonetheless, there is no clear indication that he consciously tried to persecute Christians for their faith.
For this reason, most scholars now think that the issue revolved around the inauguration of the Flavian imperial cult in Ephesus. The imperial cult was a way of showing loyalty and honor to the Emperor, and was viewed as a public duty of all citizens in a city like Ephesus. Our clearest indication of how this is reflected in Revelation is seen in the description of the two “beasts” from Rev. 13. The first is called “the beast from the sea” who is given his power by Satan himself. He is described as having “seven heads and ten horns,” and people worshipped him (Rev. 13.1-4). Then there is a second, “the beast from the land” who makes every everyone worship the first beast and its “image” (Rev. 13.11-18). The “image” (13.14-15) and the mysterious number “666” (13.18) refer to statues and coins or inscriptions with the emperor’s image and titles. The “beast from the land” probably referred to either the provincial governor of Asia or to the highpriest of the imperial cult, who jointly would have overseen the temple and its festivals in Ephesus at just this time.
That the “beast from the sea” is the Emperor himself is made clear in a later passage in Rev. 17, where the symbolism of the seven heads is spelled out.
9 “This calls for a mind that has wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; also, they are seven kings, 10 of whom five have fallen, one is living, and the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain only a little while. 11 As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction. 12 And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. 13 These are united in yielding their power and authority to the beast; 14 they will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them… (Rev. 17.9-14).
Accordingly, the woman sits on the seven-headed beast as a symbol of her “seven hills” — the seven hills of Rome. The woman is the city of Roman, here depicted as the persecutor of Christians. Then it says that the seven heads are also seven kings. And we can read from its cryptic terminology the references to the Emperors of Rome. The “five fallen” refer to the five emperors who have died: Augustus (29 BCE – 14 CE), Tiberius (14-37 CE), Gaius (37-41), Claudius (41-54) and Nero (54-68). “One has a wound” refers to the emperor Nero, who died in 68, but whom conftemporary legend had it would return from the dead to continue persecuting the Christians. Thus, the beast has a head that has recovered from a mortal wound. The head “who is” refers to Vespasian (69-79) and the one that is “not yet” refers to Titus(79-81). The head that “was but is not” refers to an eighth emperor, Domitian. From this we can also see that the work looks at this history as if it were being written while Vespasian was still alive, and thus “forecasting” what terrible things would occur under Domitian only a few years later. This technique is common in apocalyptic literature, and Revelation was probably written sometime during the early 90’s, when Domitian was emperor, or perhaps even after the death of Domitian in 96 CE. By portraying the Emperor and his provincial authorities as “beasts” and henchmen of the dragon, Satan, the author was calling on Christians to refuse to take part in the imperial cult, even at the risk of martyrdom.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/revelation/white.html
OK so an honest evangelical who read through Hislop’s sources isn’t to be believed then I shall do my own research.
In the purgatory of the Papacy, ever since the days of Pope Gregory, FIRE itself has been the grand means of purgation
(Catechismus Romanus). Thus, while the purgatorial fires of the future world are just the
carrying out of the principle embodied in the blazing and purifying Baal-fires of the eve of St.
John, they form another link in identifying the system of Rome with the system of Tammuz or
Zoroaster, the great God of the ancient fire-worshippers.
WRONG! It was around well before Pope Gregory.
Fundamentalists may be fond of saying the Catholic Church “invented” the doctrine of purgatory to make money, but they have difficulty saying just when. Most professional anti-Catholics—the ones who make their living attacking “Romanism”—seem to place the blame on Pope Gregory the Great, who reigned from A.D. 590–604.
But that hardly accounts for the request of Monica, mother of Augustine, who asked her son, in the fourth century, to remember her soul in his Masses. This would make no sense if she thought her soul would not benefit from prayers, as would be the case if she were in hell or in the full glory of heaven.
Nor does ascribing the doctrine to Gregory explain the graffiti in the catacombs, where Christians during the persecutions of the first three centuries recorded prayers for the dead. Indeed, some of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament, like the Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity (both written during the second century), refer to the Christian practice of praying for the dead. Such prayers would have been offered only if Christians believed in purgatory, even if they did not use that name for it.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/purgatory
The Sign of The Cross p136
In this view, therefore, it had no very great attractions for the Pagans, who, even in
worshipping Horus, had always been accustomed to make use of the mystic tau or cross, as
the “sign of life,” or the magical charm that secured all that was good, and warded off
everything that was evil. When, therefore, multitudes of the Pagans, on the conversion of
Constantine, flocked into the Church, like the semi-Pagans of Egypt, they brought along with
them their predilection for the old symbol. The consequence was, that in no great length of
time, as apostacy proceeded, the X which in itself was not an unnatural symbol of Christ, the
true Messiah, and which had once been regarded as such, was allowed to go entirely into
disuse, and the Tau, the sign of the cross, the indisputable sign of Tammuz, the false
Messiah, was everywhere substituted in its stead. Thus, by the “sign of the cross,” Christ has
been crucified anew by those who profess to be His disciples. Now, if these things be matter
of historic fact, who can wonder that, in the Romish Church, “the sign of the cross” has always
and everywhere been seen to be such an instrument of rank superstition and delusion?
WRONG
That evil Constantine again.
Do we really not know the origin of the cross in Christian worship? When we sing “When I survey the wondrous cross” are we singing about Tammuz. Maybe Jesus was Tammuz. One of the earliest drawings of Christians was of a Christian worshipping an ass on a cross. The picture was to denigrate Christians and Jesus. Oh and it was widespread centuries before Constantine. It is also a statement of credal belief – “In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”.
It is from this original Christian worship of the cross that arose the custom of making on one’s forehead the sign of the cross. Tertullian says: “Frontem crucis signaculo terimus” (De Cor. mil. iii), i.e. “We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross.” The practice was so general about the year 200, according to the same writer, that the Christians of his time were wont to sign themselves with the cross before undertaking any action.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm
On Wax candles and lamps p129
Another peculiarity of the Papal worship is the use of lamps and wax-candles. If the
Madonna and child are set up in a niche, they must have a lamp to burn before them; if mass
is to be celebrated, though in broad daylight, there must be wax-candles lighted on the altar; if
a grand procession is to be formed, it cannot be thorough and complete without lighted tapers
to grace the goodly show. The use of these lamps and tapers comes from the same source
as all the rest of the Papal superstition. That which caused the “Heart,” when it became an
emblem of the incarnate Son, to be represented as a heart on fire, required also that burning
lamps and lighted candles should form part of the worship of that Son; for so, according to the
established rites of Zoroaster, was the sun-god worshipped.
When every Egyptian on the same night was required to light a lamp before his house
in the open air, this was an act of homage to the sun, that had veiled its glory by enshrouding
itself in a human form. When the Yezidis of Koordistan, at this day, once a year celebrate
their festival of “burning lamps,” that, too, is to the honour of Sheikh Shems, or the Sun. Now,
what on these high occasions was done on a grand scale was also done on a smaller scale,
in the individual acts of worship to their god, by the lighting of lamps and tapers before the
favourite divinity. In Babylon, this practice had been exceedingly prevalent, as we learn from
the Apocryphal writer of the Book of Baruch.
Well Hislop is right for once, in part.
However his logic is extremely dodgy.
Pagans use candles, Catholics (as do other churches btw) use candles, therefore Catholics are pagans.
Let’s follow that logic.
Pagans used knives for child sacrifices, I use a knife, therefore I am a pagan.
Oooh look out who else used candles.
Pagans used candles, Jews use candles, Jesus was a Jew, Jesus is a pagan.
Why else would Christians use candles? Let me guess. To see in the dark. Like in the catacombs. What might candles represent to Christians cowering in the darkness of the catacombs? The light of Christ that has come into the world.
I could go on.
Much of what Hislop says has been used by atheists to discount not just Christianity but the very Bible itself.
With just a small understanding of Early Church History I was able to prove 2 of Hislop’s chapters busted and 1 plausible (but it’s just as plausible that Jesus was a pagan).
But this is apparently an accurate historical and classical account which many Christian ministries use.
Of course those who have no knowledge or wish to remain ignorant of Early Church history will just lap it up.
It’s a book built on a bias of the Protestant/ Catholic divide. A book built on hatred. Those who read it will feed on that hatred and boost their prejudice.
There is nothing accurate nor edifying about it.
It could quite possibly be demonic, given the ones who are feeding off it and the fruit it is producing.
You proved nothing of the sort, except in your own mind. You equally failed to show where any of these atheists, JWs or Mormons or whatever quote Hislop.
An atheist quoting a theologian of any kind is in itself is proof of nothing. JWs quote John Stott and other recognised evangelicals. It’s their way to take snippets of orthodoxy to prove error. That is the way the deceivers operate. Enough of the truth to fool the ignorant. And Catholics are the great prey of JWs, of course, simply because they are so kept in the dark, and their false doctrine is so easy to demolish.
So JWs take portions of scripture, books, writings, anything to align themselves with some kind of orthodoxy, but, when investigated, are found to fall short of either context or accuracy in anything.
So you’d believe known liars and frauds such as atheists, JWs and the like rather than a theologian who quotes from many of his contemporary sources, whose teaching on pagan rituals and ceremonies is recognised in many circles, and who has a complete book of some 350 pages, out of which you have quoted selected passages inaccurately and out of context with what he is saying to prove nothing about anything except that you aggressively disagree with his conclusions.
Here are Jamieson, Fawcett and Browne, renowned and often quoted commentary writers on Revelation 18:7, which talks about the Mystery Woman of Revelation, and quoting Augustine.
As Babylon was queen of the East, so Rome has been queen of the West, and is called on Imperial coins “the eternal city.” So Papal Rome is called by Ammian Marcellin [15.7]. “Babylon is a former Rome, and Rome a latter Babylon. Rome is a daughter of Babylon, and by her, as by her mother, God has been pleased to subdue the world under one sway” [Augustine].
Here, then, is another commentary referring to papist Rome as following in Babylonian Rome’s footsteps. This was a common theme for the era as I have said.
The one thing which changed the teaching on Roman Catholic error was the side-foot of Second Vatican Council, which convinced ecumenical churchmen that they had changed, when, in fact, it has been proven by subsequent papal decrees and ordinances that they have only changed in a limited fashion, and by the quotes form the very vatican papers of today, which indicate the continuance of the doctrines of the mass and of purgatory, as well as other blasphemies and heresies which were well exposed by former evangelical theologians, but, of late, have been overlooked, especially by the plethora of online so-called ‘discernment ministry’ blogs, which, in the light of the almost complete lack of exposure of RC error, show themselves to be the lightweight self-repeating anti-charismatic and anti-Pentecost scam that they often are.
“So JWs take portions of scripture, books, writings, anything to align themselves with some kind of orthodoxy, but, when investigated, are found to fall short of either context or accuracy in anything.”
Not just JWs, though – many of today’s pentecostal “denominations” can be accurately characterised in exactly the same manner, and are clearly nothing more than cults in drag.
Examples?
Particularly on the key doctrines of salvation and grace.
Wow, I didn’t know Steve was so blind.
So I read parts of the book and dismantled his argument.
That’s without going into his nonsense about the Madonna and child.
If anyone is displaying cultic behaviour, it’s you.
Oh dear we’re using such up to date texts to back up our argument. Hmmm, when did Jamieson, Fawcett and Browne write. In the 1870s.
Sorry. But that is hardly a credible source seeing you have to go back that far. Are you still using 150 year old commentaries to back up your other biblical studies?
Oh and just on Jamieson, Fawcett and Browne’s use of this quote.
“Babylon is a former Rome, and Rome a latter Babylon. Rome is a daughter of Babylon, and by her, as by her mother, God has been pleased to subdue the world under one sway” [Augustine].
The use of that quote by Augustine to refer to Roman Catholicism is simply the stuff of fantasy. Augustine was referring to Rome itself with it’s Emperor cult. If Augustine meant the RC Church that would mean his church as that’s who he belonged to.
And what of Ammian Marcellin’s quote on Rome.
As Babylon was queen of the East, so Rome has been queen of the West, and is called on Imperial coins “the eternal city.”
The guy was a historian whose hero was the pagan emeperor Julian. He was simply stating that Rome is the new empire. It had nothing to do with Catholicism at all.
You should read some modern stuff, sometime.
You equally failed to show where any of these atheists, JWs or Mormons or whatever quote Hislop.
From Watchtower Publications Online
THE TWO BABYLONS by Alexander Hislop (1850s)
This book was a favorite of J. F. Rutherford, who used Hislop’s teachings to eliminate the use of the Cross, and stop celebrating Christmas, Easter, birthdays, etc. The WBTS sold this book until sometime in the 1980s. Readers should be aware that there are websites which are highly critical of Hislop’s scholarship and conclusions
http://jws-on-tv.0catch.com/watchtower_publications/online_library.html
Some interesting comments by JWs using Hislop to dispute the Cross. However even some of them are debunking Hislop.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/65204/1/Alexander-Hislop-Two-Babylons
Oh look the Plain Truth uses Hislop as well to debunk Easter as a pagan myth.
http://www.hope-of-israel.org/ishtar.htm
Now I onder what books Christadelphians might recommend?
Oh here’s one.
Two Babylons (A. Hislop)
http://www.testimony-magazine.org/back/Special_Issues/Sep91/art15.htm
What about you Mormons. Would you use Hislop at all?
Yep.
http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/mormon_holy_days_&_holidays.htm
Well at least Charles Taize Russell didn’t use it.
Oh hang on…
Russell was a dedicated reader of fringe ideas, a purveyor of charts, dispensation theories. Charles Russell had been privately tutored as a boy developing an articulate skill in writing and speaking. He found himself attracted to lunatic fringe people and zealous self-promoters. The self-styled “Pastor” met a radical feminist with fervent ideas whom he married and began a work of publishing various viewpoints which might promote Adventist ideas. They shared extremist views and a vivid writing style in pushing these beliefs forward.
At this time, (post Civil War) a pseudo-historian with extreme hatred for Catholicism named Alexander Hislop published a pamphlet (later enlarged into a book THE TWO BABYLONS) and promoted it by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
This book would play a large and influential role in establishing a methodology for Jehovah’s Witnesses in doing their own crackpot pseudo-historical analyses.
Russell’s own writing took on a tone of scholarship, reasoning and extrapolation of history, scripture and conclusion so similar to Hislop’s that it borders on compulsive.
Russell’s successor, J.F.Rutherford, carried on using this methodology by relating scripture, phoney history and imagination as a new Theology.
What was this metholody and how did Jehovah’s Witnesses employ it. An article will follow.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/experiences/162162/1/How-Alexander-Hislops-crackpot-pseudo-history-influenced-JWs
But your attack is almost exclusively focused on Hislop. I disagree with your tack, since being quoted by cults isn’t either unusual or proof of error, unless you consider Stott in the same light as you consider Hislop.
You haven’t yet tried to defend Catholic error, although I can’t think why you would, anyway.
You’ll notice I have not focused much on Hislop at all, since his is an opinion, and he has made it well, with some very interesting history. I merely said I read deeper things than Chick, which I think I have ably demonstrated.
Your attack on 19th century theologians is unfortunate, since they are closer to the RC church as it was before the Second Vatican Council than current theologians.
All point to Rome as the seat referred to in Revelation 18. The seven mountains or hills single it out. There is also a religious aspect to this. Can you suggest where that might be?
I have focused almost totally on RC doctrine and compared it to scripture. You have largely avoided this, apart from obscurities. Why?
Ha, comparing Stott to Hislop is garbage. Cults have used Hislop’s whole text for their beliefs and doctrines. One of my family members is JW and most of Hislop’s nonsense smelt familiar.
I have outlined some of the modern interpretations of Revelation based on modern scholarship including other texts found since the 1900s gives an insight into the Apochrypha genre.
I am pointing out error. At the time of writing those two texts, there was hatred between Protestants and Catholics. Both demonised the other. Those texts cannot be said to be anyway accurate and reflect the bias of their authors towards the Catholic church. You say they were closer to the Reformation. Hence the hatred towards Catholicism which was also reflected in British media.
It would be like reading an anti-pentecostal tract by John McArthur (for example) and in 100 years saying see the Pentecostals aren’t from Christ.
This hasn’t been about defending Catholicism but having an appreciation of Early Church history. To say that all of the traditions of the church (not just RC either) come from a pagan background is completely untrue.
As Christians, I thought we should honour truth not fall for lies.
Thanks for the good writeup. It in reality used to be a entertainment account it. Glance advanced to far brought agreeable from you! By the way, how could we keep up a correspondence?