[geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus
- From: Dan <danchap9@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
This book is fare more accurate about what the Catholic Church truly teaches
behind the seens which it's followers are not aware of.
From http://philologos.org/
The Two Babylons
or The Papal Worship
Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife
By the Late Rev. Alexander Hislop
First published as a pamphlet in 1853? expanded in 1858
Rev. Hislop's work has lately been questioned, most notably by Ralph Woodrow's
book "The Babylon Connection" (excerpts at
http://users.clarkston.com./rcorson/2babylons.htm). I have read that particular
book and find it unconvincing and confusing in its own right and still feel
that "The Two Babylons'" inclusion on this website is warranted as a scholarly
work delving into the area of error within the church (wherever it's found and
from wherever it came? ultimately IS Babylon). You will not get too far in your
research of church history without coming across references to this book and
that is the reason we have included it here? a reference work not as something
to be used to beat someone else over the head with (like some use the Bible
itself).
Please be advised of the controversial nature of this work (besides the
contentious title itself) and, like every other area of study, check it out and
prayerfully decide for yourself. research-bpr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contents
Introduction
Chapter I
Distinctive Character of the Two Systems (35k)
Chapter II
Objects of Worship
Section I. Trinity in Unity (22k)
Section II. The Mother and Child, and the Original of the Child (14k)
Sub-Section I. The Child in Assyria (57k)
Sub-Section II. The Child in Egypt (22k)
Sub-Section III. The Child in Greece (28k)
Sub-Section IV. The Death of the Child (10k)
Sub-Section V. The Deification of the Child (61k)
Section III. The Mother of the Child (73k)
Chapter III
Festivals
Section I. Christmas and Lady-day (35k)
Section II. Easter (41k)
Section III. The Nativity of St. John (42k)
Section IV. The Feast of the Assumption (11k)
See Chapter V, Section IV regarding Cupid (St. Valentine's Day)
Chapter IV
Doctrine and Discipline
Section I. Baptismal Regeneration (47k)
Section II. Justification by Works (39k)
Section III. The Sacrifice of the Mass (25k)
Section IV. Extreme Unction (6k)
Section V. Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead (10k)
Chapter V
Rites and Ceremonies
Section I. Idol Procession (15k)
Section II. Relic Worship (16k)
Section III. The Clothing and Crowning of Images (17k)
Section IV. The Rosary and the Worship of the Sacred Heart (10k)
Section V. Lamps and Wax-Candles (18k)
Section VI. The Sign of the Cross (21k)
Chapter VI
Religious Orders
Section I. The Sovereign Pontiff (36k)
Section II. Priests, Monks, and Nuns (19k)
Chapter VII
The Two Developments Historically and Prophetically Considered
Section I. The Great Red Dragon (79k)
Section II. The Beast from the Sea (44k)
Section III. The Beast from the Earth (22k)
Section IV. The Image of the Beast (26k)
Section V. The Name of the Beast, the Number of His Name? Invisible Head of the
Papacy (47k)
Conclusion (28k)
Search this and other books
Buy this book
Russian Translation of The Two Babylons now online
Philologos and BPR are associated with Amazon.com, and, as such, we receive a
small referral fee for any items purchased via the above link. Please note that
this does not increase the price of the book. We truly appreciate your support.
Of interest:
Info from our Reference Guide:
A Woman Rides the Beast, Dave Hunt
Chapters 1, 6, 7, 9, 12 online.
Special thanks to Moza, a research member of Philologos and Bible Prophecy
Research, for providing this electronic copy. THIS BOOK HAS BEEN EDITED. Any
corrections or questions may be directed to the following address:
moza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop
Philologos Edition: Apr1901
"... freely ye have received, freely give." (Mat 10:8)
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Neville,
That's it Neville. Don't deal with the actual issue. You don't know what
Catholics actually believe and teach. So, rather than admit it, you respond by
treating this as an issue of opinions.
You avoided my earlier question by just responding "Good grief". If you get
pinned down, just dodge, right?
How about this one. Assume I belonged to a Math organization which taught
2+2=4. Assume also you are highly critical of me and my organization for
teaching that 2+2=6. I explain to you that you've read some bad stuff about my
organization, since we don't teach 2+2=6, so I suggest you go to the source and
see what we actually teach. An honest person actually interested in the real
truth would do this. A dishonest person would just keep right on being
critical or responding with answers that avoid the matter. I've reached a
decision about you Neville. You aren't interested in the real truth. This is
obvious to any thinking person.
If you ever change, try reading Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma. You
can find it easily if you choose. This would at least be a start in
understanding what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
Regards,
Nick.
---------------------------------
From: Dr. Neville Jones [mailto:ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 6:23 AM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus
Dear Nick,
Many thanks for your kind words, but since you are fallible your opinions are,
by your own admission, worthless.
Neville.
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Neville,
It's interesting that you really have no idea what the Catholic Church actually
is or what it actually teaches.
Your approach IS "convenient" for you Neville. The reason is because you can
do what you want and believe what you want. You can reject what you want and
accept what you want. You're not really interested in the truth, you're
interested in what you want. So what if your approach means you have to give
up bacon. That's convenient too, since you can use it to pretend you are being
a martyr and to claim you are looking for truth.
I'm not easily fooled Neville. I've read enough of you to see through your
facade.
Thank you for reciting the common non-Catholic claims that Catholics don't need
to think, as well as your other caricatures of Catholics. It just further
confirms to me that you haven't actually studied the Catholic faith from
credible sources, which confirms further that you are clueless and just like to
spout off about what you don't know.
Regards,
Nick.
From: Dr. Neville Jones [mailto:ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 4:46 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote: Neville,
That's really convenient isn't it. Just treat the portions of Scripture you
don't agree with as forgeries. Very handy. Especially for a fallible guy.
It is actually not in the least bit "convenient." It is very inconvenient. I
mean, I could easily be like you and say that the Bible has been put together
by men with no alternative agenda, the Jews have had their day but it's "our"
turn now, the Roman Catholic Church is all that I have to put my faith in, the
old law no longer applies so I can eat my bacon sandwiches as I used to, I can
do anything I like as long as I tell the priest and recite three hail Marys
(always assuming that the priest isn't busy doing other things), and above all,
I do not need to think for myself, as you seemingly do not, because everything
has been done for me. I just attend the church building every week and put
money in the box. Of course, the more money I put into the coffers of the
Church of Rome, the more "saved" I'll be - even after death.
No. My rejection of most of the "New Testament" is most certainly not
"convenient."
Neville.
This message and any attachments are confidential, may contain privileged
information, and are intended solely for the recipient named above. If you are
not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivery to the named
recipient, you are notified that any review, distribution, dissemination or
copying is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, you should
notify the sender by return email and delete the message from your computer
system.
---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
Other related posts:
