THE CHRISTMAS LIE: It's Bigger Than You Think




Alexander Hislop (born Duns, Berwickshire, 1807; died Arbroath, 13 March 1865) was a Free Church of Scotland minister known for his outspoken criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church. He was the son of Stephen Hislop (died 1837), a mason by occupation and an elder of the Relief Church. Alexander's brother was also named Stephen Hislop (lived 1817–1863) and became well known in his time as a missionary to India and a naturalist.

Alexander was for a time parish schoolmaster of Wick, Caithness. In 1831 he married Jane Pearson. He was for a time editor of the Scottish Guardian newspaper. As a probationer he joined the Free Church of Scotland at the Disruption of 1843. He was ordained in 1844 at the East Free Church, Arbroath, where he became senior minister in 1864, and remained until his death in 1865/66.

He wrote several books, his most famous being The Two Babylons: Papal worship Revealed to be the worship of Nimrod and His wife.

Books by Alexander Hislop

Christ's Crown and Covenant: or national covenanting essentially connected with national revival (Arbroath and Edinburgh, 1860)

Infant Baptism, according to the Word of God and confession of faith. Being a review, in five letters, of the new theory of Professor Lumsden, as advocated in his treatise entitled, "Infant baptism: its nature and objects." (Edinburgh, 1856)

The Light of Prophecy let in on the dark places of the Papacy (exposition of 2 Thess 2: 3–12) (Edinburgh, 1846)

The Moral Identity of Babylon and Rome (London, 1855)

The Red Republic; or Scarlet Coloured Beast of the Apocalypse (Edinburgh, 1849)

The Rev. E.B. Elliott and the "Red Republic" (Arbroath, circa 1850)#

The Scriptural Principles of the Solemn League and Covenant : in their bearing on the present state of the Episcopal churches (Glasgow, 1858)

The Trial of Bishop Forbes (A lecture delivered in East Free Church, Arbroath) (Edinburgh, 1860)

Truth and Peace (in reply to a pamphlet, entitled "Charity and mutual forbearance" by "Irenicus") (Arbroath, 1858)

The Two Babylons; or, the Papal Worship proved to be the worship of Nimrod and his wife (Edinburgh, 1853 & 1858)

Unto the Venerable the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland : the petition of the undersigned (relates to James Lumsden on "Infant Baptism": Hislop was head signatory of this petition) (Edinburgh, 1860)



The universal sentiment of the Masons of the present day is to confer upon Solomon, King of Israel, the honor of being their"first Grand Master".  But the "Legend of the Craft" had long before, though there was a tradition of the temple extant, bestowed, at least by implication, that title upon Nimrod, the King of Babylonia and Assyria. - History of Freemasonry, Chapter 12, p. 63

"At ye making of ye toure of Babell there was a Masonrie first much esteemed of, and the King of Babilon yt called Nimrod was a Mason himself and loved well Masons." - The York MS, No.1 - - NIMROD IN EARLY FREEMASONRY, NIMROD,


As for the tower that thou seest built, it is myself, namely the Church, which has appeared to thee both now, and heretofore - THE SHEPHERD OF HERMES (Written by the brother of the Pope of Rome, and read as Scripture in Rome) - THE SHEPHERD OF HERMES, [TEXT ONLINE], ForbiddenGospels,



The Two Babylons is an [1] anti-Catholic [2] religious pamphlet produced initially by the Scottish theologian and Presbyterian Alexander Hislop in 1853. It was later expanded in 1858 and finally published as a book in 1919. Its central theme is its [3] allegation that the Catholic Church is [4] a veiled continuation of the pagan religion of Babylon, the veiled paganism being the product of a millennia-old conspiracy.[1][2] [5] It has been recognized by scholars as discredited and has been called a "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".[3][4]  Although scholarship has shown the picture presented by Hislop to be based on a misunderstanding of historical Babylon and its religion, his book remains popular among some fundamentalist Protestant Christians.[1]  [6] The book's thesis has also featured prominently in the conspiracy theories of racist groups such as The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord[5] and other conspiracy theorists.[6]  Although extensively footnoted, giving the impression of reliability, commentators (in particular Ralph Woodrow) have stated that there are numerous misconceptions, fabrications and grave factual errors in the document.[7]  - CRITICISMS OF "THE TWO BABYLONS", WIKIPEDIA.ORG


[1] With only six words into the "Criticism", comes the dismissive charge is that Alexander Hislop's book was "anti-Catholic". (As though therefore that means nothing in it is as a consequence valid)  If you object to the Vatican running pedophilia prostitution rings, you're just "anti-catholic", if you object to Adolph Hitler's 3rd Reich, you're just "anti-catholic".  Isn't it strange how these "dismissive labels" always go only one direction, and that is always toward the Protestant?  Rome has had centuries of "throwing labels" at it's critics, and then based on it's own invented label, persecuting, imprisoning, or even executing them, with complete disregard to the truthfulness of what they had spoken.  Yet apparently, some Protestants are still impressed with Rome's label machine?  Having studied this book for years, and it's primary thesis, which is actually much more historically important, that even the specifics of each line in the book, it is time to expose this "alleged scholarly criticism" for what it is.  Catholic apologetics and it's desperate attempts to "prejudice the jury".

Also having read Ralph Woodrow's earlier book, based also on Alexander's Hislop's thesis, it will be noted, how, why and who is now leveling these charges, and why they are entirely wrong.  Hislop's historical thesis is not based on "anti-catholic bigotry" in the least, as it is equally critical of Anglican and even Evangelical ecclesiastical practices, as those also from Rome, shared by Roman Catholicism.  (And this is the real source of the animosity toward his work)

Are we to judge Galileo as simply an "anti-catholic" bigot, and therefore dismiss the idea the sun, not the earth is the center of the solar system?  Because his observations were contrary to the claims of the Vatican, and it's political devotees?   In fact, if you actually listen to the alleged "debunkers" and analyze their specific reasons this work is supposedly "debunked" the same standards could be applied to virtually any important writing from the 1800s, including Charles Darwin and his "Theory of Evolution".  Hislop like Darwin may have in fact used examples, which by today's current models, are not considered "true" as a singular "specific example", the over-all thesis they both proposed, has stood the test of time and criticism in their respective fields.  No scientist today is willing to "villianize" Darwin and claim he has been "debunked", and the suggestion itself usually invites rages of ridicule from actual Scientists.  Such should be the response from Protestants over the claim Hislop has been "debunked", because as a factual matter, nothing could be farther from the truth.  And in fact, quite the opposite has actually occurred.

[2] The seventh word is "religious pamplet".  Apparently deserving this title due to the fact the first printing of this material was not "hard bound".  But, neither was the publication of the "Nag Hammadi Library" at first either.  Was it too simply an "anti-catholic religious pamplet"?  In fact, the comparison is almost parallel in one important respect. Because both bodies of work dealt precisely with the same subject. One being an early thesis by a theologian asserting something had happened based on historical reconstruction, the second being the actual artifacts of documentation from archaeology, that demonstrated it did, and the reconstruction was accurate.  What is charged in Alexander Hislop's work on comparaitve religion and it's role in Roman syncretism, is found documented as historical and archaeological fact in the Nag Hammadi Library.  (Which is now at the pinnacle of current scholarship)

So if the "thesis" originally set forth by Alexander Hislop, was nothing more than "a religious pamplet of anti-catholic bigotry", so was the publication of the "Nag Hammadi Library". (And no one is bent enough yet in their own prejudices to make that charge and think it would be "credible")  But certainly, if they ever thought it could be made, and be "credible", it too would probably be claimed, no matter what the truth of the situation might be.  Because at the root of his detractors, is a self-confessed epistemology that places no value on "the truth", in fact any "truth" at all. It is an epistemology that is non-existent and relegates all this to their utilitarian "outcome based performance".  Any lie will do, and no truth deserves anything more than what it is good for in terms of profitability (politically and psychologically).  And that is why when society at large adopts this kind of religious philsophy, they degenerate into a form of collective retardation.  So degenerate, even Islamic fundementalists emerge in history (and in contrast) as intellectual giants.  So it should be no surprise that these kinds of critics would find either Galileo (in the past) or Hislop (today), abominable ananthemized "heretics".

[3] Here the "bigotry" of his critics is revealed, with the two words "allegation" and "conspiracy".  Two words which mean nothing other than to attempt to color the reader with an unfounded, unfactual "ignore-ant" prejudice.  First, the claim that "syncretism" is at the basis of Roman Catholic theology is not some "allegation". It is SELF-CONFESSED.  SELF-PUBLISHED. SELF-EXPLAINED.  Claiming it is an "allegation", when it is a self-confessed goal, is dishonesty.  There is nothing "prejudicial" about quoting Roman Catholic sources, who "explain" their own "theology", as "syncretism".  Nor is it "bigotry" to investigate therefore, based on these self-confessions, what it is, therefore, that they SYNCRETIZED!  What kind of self-loathing Protestant ding-bat would attempt to defend Papal worship, in defiance of the Vatican's OWN STATEMENTS concerning IT'S OWN RELIGION??  The answer is, the kind who wish to "restore" the Roman-Reich, and do not mind throwing centuries of Protestant martyrs burned at the stake for their faith, "under the bus, in order to do it.  And along with them, works like Hislop, who showed why those sacrifices were historically, religiously and spiritually justified.  Sacrifices the new Vatican "Euro-zone", and it's co-conspiring Religious-Reich in America, is no longer particularly fond of wanting to hear about, naturally.

[4] QUOTE: "a veiled continuation of the pagan religion of Babylon, the veiled paganism being the product of a millennia-old conspiracy."  

I guess the critics never bothered to read the Catholic Encyclopedia, you see above.  QUOTE:"as due to an "original revelation", of which traces...appear among the BABYLONIANS" END QUOTE - THE CATHOLIC ENCYLOPEDIA

To charge these "critics" with stupidity would not be fair, nor accurate.  They are not so stupid that they have no clue what is found in their own encyclopedia articles.  They are not so stupid they have no knowledge of the Shepherd of Hermes, written by the Pope's own brother, and cited as "Scripture" by Irenaeus, and known to have been read in Rome as "Scripture"... and all this known for centuries if not millenia  They are not so stupid that they do not know that these things are factually documented, historically believed, ecclesastically executed and established.  They just do not consider veracity as either a virtue or a factor in their "religious work", nor a necessity in their "arguments of persuasion".  So these things are simply ignored (without conscience) while they bring their charges to defame Alexander Hislop.

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

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

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

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

[5]  QUOTE: "It has been recognized by scholars as discredited and has been called a "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".END QUOTE

     A. "It has been recognized by scholars as discredited"  Which scholars? "Scholars" at Notre-Dame? "Scholars" like those at Boston University who think despite the overtly repetitive use of both the description and word "passover supper" literally scores of times throughout the entire New Testament, it wasn't? Because that's not how we want to manipulate people right now politically? Those kinds of "scholars"? The kind that said "ciggarette smoking" had no "scientific" link to lung disease because they didn't want it too?  The kind that as "legal scholars" have no problem with "the Patriot Act" or openly "violating and rejecting the Geneva Conventions"? Those kinds of scholars?  What "scholars"?  And here you are "provided" their reference.

A 1960s Billy Graham wannabe. From Texas. (Of course he would be from Texas)  SEE THE CHRISTMAS GOSPEL  And exactly what are the "credentials" of this "Scholar"? 

Traveling, doing the work of an evangelist, I did not have the opportunity to study for the ministry in a Bible college or seminary. But this does not mean I have lacked for study—then or now. It is heartening that there are colleges that have used books I have written and purchased them for their libraries. - RALPH WOODROW EVANGLISTIC ASSOC, RALPHWOODROW.ORG


Woodrow explains on his website he started "preaching" at 15, full time at 18, and has never done anything other than "preach at others" his whole life.  It's actually not even clear from his website he actually even graduated from High School before he started "preaching", although he does cite the fact an "unspecified college" gave him an "honorary Doctor's Degree" (even though it was totally unsolicited on his part).  They should regret their decision, and it is noticeable he does not name them. (So perhaps they do)

There is not one factual citation of an error in the book. Not a single factual repudiation. And the "Scholar" they cite is a guy who never even made it too community school, Junior college, or College of ANY KIND.  Not even a second rate (AM Radio) Pentecostal Bible college degree mill!!!  He is literally and totally without an education of ANY KIND.  

SERIOUSLY!  This is the "scholar" Roman Catholic "censors" hold up on Wikipedia as having "debunked" Alexander Hislop's classic work THE TWO BABYLONS?  If you look "Ralph Woodrow" up on Wikipedia itself, they have his Bio "scrubbed" as well.  The only thing you will see listed about him, is that he "recants" Hislop, after writing one of his "evangelistic books" in the 60s quoting it.  What morons. - RALPH WOODROW, WIKIPEDIA.ORG 

Frankly, even having to argue some of this seems like a waste of time. Because only intentional liars obfuscate these matters, and only idiots believe them despite the visible self-evident facts, to the absolute contrary.  So there is no point in it. The liar will not change his opinion because he knows he is simply lying.  And the idiot will not change because he doesn't really know any better, and never will.  

But the fact is more than patently obvious to anyone, who is simply seeking the honest truth about all these things. (Which those "scholars" who are working to restore the "Roman Reich" obviously are not, and never will be, and never have been)  Masonry itself carries the same "syncretism" tradition it inherited from Rome in it's very own literature and traditions.  "Nimrod" being openly identified in their literature as the "First Grand Master".  This eccesiology came straight from Rome, who intentionally excavated it intellectually from Babylon. And if it was not literally directly inherited as such through Roman custom, it certainly was "revived" as such, intentionally for this very purpose, as these things are OPENLY STATED AND CLAIMED.

And that's not even the sum of the matter, although that should be more than enough for any honest objective observer, investigator or researcher.  When you begin to stack up all the actual practices, the "holy days", the architectural forms, even the theology itself, you find complete, unbroken "echos", that takes nothing more than a picture a first grader could "see".  And it is not "bigotry" to see these things. It is credulity, stupidity and "ignore-ance" NOT TOO.

Alexander Hislop's work "The Two Babylons" was as important to Protestant theology, as Charles Darwin was to Science.  And furthermore, what he relayed in in his work THE TWO BABYLONS, he was not the only person SAYING IT.  He drew from common historical sources of the day, the same that both the Masons and Rome were both using themselves, about their own "Traditions".  The only difference in Hislop's explanation of them was his PROTESTANT PERSPECTIVE. And for that Protestants should treat him like an unwanted "step-child"? Hardly. 

Darwin said things that "were not specifically true", today some of the specific examples he gave have been "disproven". Is there a "real Scientist" anywhere in England that is "throwing out Darwin" or claiming he has been "discredited" as simply an "anti-catholic bigot"? As simply a Unitarain "bigot"? Fat chance.  Could it be there actually MIGHT be something wrong with worshiping a religious leader out of Rome? (Know it's hard to believe for a modern Reich-sycophant "Protestant" to actually think that but ? But, just maybe there really is?) 

Let these brain-dead Protestant  "lemmings" throw themselves off the cliff for the worship of the head of the Roman-Reich if they wish, but do not even grace them with an excuse, when they start bashing this classic of Protestant Scholarship, THE TWO BABYLONS.  If it weren't such a powerful statement of something true, the Vatican and it's surrogates in the replacement faux Protestant Church for the Roman-Reich, would not still be fighting it in "futility", with such animosity still to this day. 

They hate it because IT IS A CLASSIC.  They make it "controversial" because they WANT it to be "controversial". They deny the accuracy of his historical thesis because they WANT to deny it.  And here this work will be remembered and passed on to future generations with the honor it deserves as a pioneering work. Hislop did for Protestant theology what Darwin did for Science.  If you "hate evolution" you will naturally defame Darwin. If you hate Protestantism, you will do the same with Hislop.

And it is no accident that they both emerged from the same periods of history.  The days of our Hislops and Darwins have probably come to an end thanks to the Vatican's choke-hold on the institutions and finances of western civilization, ...and working to return to us the glorious days of the dark ages all over again.  

Hislop's work will outlive the latest re-incarnation of the Roman-Reich.  And Hislops work,  THE TWO BABYONS will forever challenge the false deceptive theology of this intentionally syncretized theology, that did in fact come from ancient Babylon, exactly and precisely as he charged.

[6] And of course, this last little notation, cannot pass without a nice firm comment. QUOTE: "The book's thesis has also featured prominently in the conspiracy theories of racist groups such as The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord[5] and other conspiracy theorists" END QUOTE   What is amazing about this Catholic article in Wikipedia, which it seems as though that is what Wikipedia itself has been turned into, is that there is not one factual citation of an error in the book. There is not a single factual repudiation. Not one. And the "Scholar" they cite is a guy who never even made it too community school, Junior college, or College of ANY KIND.  Not even a second rate (AM Radio) Pentecostal Bible college degree mill!!!  He is literally and totally without an education of ANY KIND.  

And to top off their little "Hit Job" on Hislop, they then add, "oh and by the way, some Racists have read his book and liked it too".  And that of course, based on their standards, totally "discredits" Hislop? Because some "racists" read his material and probably twisted some of it's content for their own purposes? Hmmm, wow, that's an interesting standard for these Catholic censors to employ? Consider their 1700 year history of Antisemitism and utter and total white supremacy racist theology? Expressing itself as recently as 1945 with Adolph Hitler? And the Holocaust? Who was an aspirant to the Roman Catholic Priesthood?

My, my what double standards these people employ.  So you see, with all this Catholic  "panic" and "desparation" surrounding this man's writing, it is very very important that you become intimately familiar with it's "theory", because these are the "extremes" they are willing to stretch the truth, in order to bury this work, defame it's author, and HIDE what he had to say.  Alexander Hislop is a Classic Christian author, and his work THE TWO BABYLONS, contain an essential historical premise in it that has IN FACT, been "confirmed", not "contradicted", by the very work of modern archaeology, and current scholarship. 


Major aspects of the "Debunking" claim by "Critics"

The universal sentiment of the Masons of the present day is to confer upon Solomon, King of Israel, the honor of being their"first Grand Master".  But the "Legend of the Craft" had long before, though there was a tradition of the temple extant, bestowed, at least by implication, that title upon Nimrod, the King of Babylonia and Assyria. - History of Freemasonry, Chapter 12, p. 63

As for the tower that thou seest built, it is myself, namely the Church, which has appeared to thee both now, and heretofore - THE SHEPHERD OF HERMES (Written by the brother of the Pope of Rome, and read as Scripture in Rome



1. Hislop incorrectly identifies King Ninus as "Nimrod" (and then builds his entire thesis on this point)
2. Hislop uses Jewish and Greek historical sources to build his argument that have been found "invlid".
3. Hislop uses the Biblical argument that Babel was the beginning of all paganism.
4. Nimrod's wife was not Seramis because King Ninus was not Nimrod
5. Hislop claims there is an "unbroken thread" of the "Queen of heaven" from Babel Ge. 11, to Acts 19:27, to modern Catholicism (and this is not true)


The Nimrod Hypothesis � a Critical Analysis

The purpose here is to expose the fallacious reasoning upon which he has built his hypothesis, and invalidate his conclusions by an appeal to logic, reason, and documented history. 
The purpose here is to expose the fallacious reasoning upon which he has built his hypothesis, and invalidate his conclusions by an appeal to logic, reason, and documented history. In order to refute Hislop's argument effectively, we must first ensure that we understand the full extent of his claims. 

These are:
1. That the Roman Catholic Church has knowingly incorporated paganism into its beliefs and practices.
2. That the representation of Mary as Mother of God is based upon pagan beliefs.
3. That the RCC doctrine of the Trinity is pagan in both its origin and definition.
4. That the RCC is a revival of the Babylonian religious system - specifically, the worship of Nimrod and Semiramis.
5. That the ornaments, symbols, rituals and images of the RCC are borrowed from pagan idolatry.
6. That the RCC is Satanic.
Having defined the scope of Hislop's thesis, we now need to consider the means by which he may be reasonably expected to support his claims. 

He must:

1. Prove that the RCC has knowingly adopted pagan beliefs and practices.
2. Give dates for the changes that would have taken place.
3. Specify which cultures have provided the RCC with her inspiration.
4. Show how this was achieved.



Critic#1 argues that since 150 years ago, Hislop's traditional Greek and Jewish historical sources have been today claimed (or proven) to have been "false" or "innacurrate", Hislop's "work" or "thesis" is therefore "Debunked".  But as discussed above, this claim is not true.  And the reason it is not true is that if you applied that standard written to anything "scholarly" in the 1800s, no matter who "wrote it" or no matter how "accurate it was" by standards and available information to the 1800s, none of it would be "accurate today".  Because "scholarship" is a progressive science and art, is always changing, revising it's positions, changing it's chronologies, re-identifying who was really who in ancient history, re-doing time-lines, etc.  What is claimed today based on "scholarship" will be nothing more than "sentimental" reminiscing 150 years from now.  Some of it is due to real discovery, and unfortunately some of it is due to new political propagandizing, as has been pointed out on this site concerning the issue of "Passover" and the New Testament.  So it should be noted, that just because something is popular now, when before it was not, doesn't automatically mean the most popular propaganda today, is any truer than it's counter-part of propaganda 150 years ago.

And whether or not you "accept" the Biblical record as a reference point for your "interpetation" of history, is a major point in that discussion.  If you begin with the minimalist presupposition nothing in it, is actually true in any way, (and much modern scholarship has built it's entire construct on precisely this premise) then naturally the "interpretation" of the same set of facts, can logically follow to 2 entirely different conclusions.  Hislop's greatest "sin" was "presupposing" a Biblical paradigm of history.  


Citing modern sources on "Nimrod" is pretty irrelevant because real modern sources do not actually accept there ever was a "Nimrod". Of course you can cite modern historians and "disprove" Hislop. You can also cite them to "disprove" there ever was a "Gan Edin", an "Abraham", an "Exodus", or even for some a "Jesus".  So what? And for this "Hislop" is "debunked"?  Not hardly.

In the end, the exact identification of "Nimrod" is totally irrelevent to the theological discussion provided by Hislop.  Hislop identified Ninus as Nimrod because that is precisely what the Masonic, Greek and Jewish historical sources all cited as well. Perhaps they were wrong. But then again, perhaps they weren't.  Every argument on the earth has a counter-argument for anyone who has either the brains or the time to invest in creating it.  There are actually, believe it or not, some fairly intelligent people who spend their time arguing the earth really is flat, and NASA never went to the moon.  Perhaps this is the result of too much medicinal marijuana.  The only "measure" of "whether it is [considered] true or not" is the quantity of people deceived.  And a majority of people have been deceived a number of times throughout history over all kinds of things. Even that sacred priesthood referred to as  "the consensus of modern Scholars".

Almost all of the "specific arguments" of "German Higher Criticism" have been demonstrated to be unfactual. But it is still the most "popular approach" among a "consensus of modern Scholars".  They just replaced the old erroneous theories with some new ones, that will take another 100 years to die out (which will then get replaced with some more "new ones") so that "higher criticism as a school" NEVER goes away.  That's how the "knowledge" game is played.

Was Ninus "Nimrod"? Well the Masons of Hislop's day thought so, as did the Catholics, who also cited the same historical sources Hislop used. Hislop even going so far as to cite Eusebius himself in is arguments.  Coming however, to completely opposite conclusions.  The real question is not whether Hislop's identification of Nimrod was historically accurate by today's theories.  The real question is whether or not his thesis was correct, of which each of his singular points of historical reference did nothing more than serve as historical illustrations.  Can some of those illustrations be "inaccurate" and yet his thesis still be "true"? The answer to that question is a definite yes.  In fact it is show here, particularly in regard to the solar-mass to Apollyon as a "Christ" mass, that Hislop greatest error was that he actually was way to lenient in his "interpretations".  He often excused and dismissed things (even tried to "christianize" some things, such as "mistle-toe") that did in fact come from very pagan sources and for which there is especially today, absolutely no justification in "assimilation" for, whatsoever. (Even more so today)  His information was "relative" to his time.  And if anything, he was way too tepid and compromising, in his own argumentation.

But, here is where things get very complicated. His Biblical theological thesis (which is static with a static Biblical text) does not change, no matter what "current scholarship" may have to say about Nimrod, who he was, who he wasn't, when he lived, when he didn't, etc.  Because the Biblical argument (regardless of how you interpret it's literal historicity) is about a "Perspective" of veiwing the existence and definition of historical things, in terms of their ontological elements.  Historically speaking, there were people who did believe there was a Nimrod when Genesis 11 was written, otherwise Genesis 11 would have never been written as a rebuttal to begin with.  Whether their "beliefs" that such was the case were "historically accurate" or not, is completely beside the point in the larger scheme of things.  Because the point of it was to re-establish a monotheistic cosmology in the face of what was commonly believed by the surrounding world.

And here, Hislop's work, despite the changes in "modern scholarship", remain as valid as ever, as does the Biblical text he was using historical illustration to explain and argue.  The Bible simply advocates the same claim as Hislop, thus the term "Mystery Babylon" (Secret Babelism). Which is in fact AN HISTORICAL REALITY. Confessed openly by both the Masons, and the Vatican's own material.


Here's where this discussion gets amazingly contradictory and complicated because of political reasons.  The world in which Hislop lived,  interpreted anthropological history within the limited box of the perspective of Hebrews in the middle-east.  Men like Aurthur Custance, and Alexnder Hislop attempted to the "connect the dots" between historical information available in their day with Biblical text. Their explanations were as vulnerable to error, as the transitory knowledge of history, in the era in which they lived.  This is always the problem with "scholarship".  Prior to 1965, explaining the universe using both science and a Bible, would not have involved the Big Bang theory, because it did not exist.  In 1964, you could have written a great book explaining Genesis through the lens of "modern science" and the "Steady-State theory". In 1966, it would have been "pulled of the shelf".

There recurring embarrassments for theologians have pushed them into 2 opposite directions (1) Never reconcile anything with the Bible, just cite the Bible and "ignore" science, knowing it will eventually change it's mind anyway (2) Ignore the Bible, because science is always in conflict with it, and it was written a long time ago anyway.  And this itself has led in part to the "great divide" among Protestants of "liberal" and "conservative" persuasions.

Today, in reaction to previous simplistic ideas of a singular homogeneous source for the emergence of civilization, largely taken or mistaken, from the Biblical text, academia is emphasizing the "independence" of emergent civilization, rather than it's "inter-dependence", for the simple fact it is true there were at least six centers of emergent civilization, not simply one.  But in attempting to go the other farthest extreme possible, it is necessarily maintained that there were no connections between any of them, even when concrete evidence surfaces, that there actually was.  This information is not aesthetically pleasing to the "current model", so it is condemned, denounced, minimized and scourged.  As though the information itself had made some moral mistake in simply existing.

Genesis 11 in KJV English does not read the same as Genesis 11 in Hebrew, as many places in the Bible do.  The term translated "world", is actually the term "land", and usually referred to the Levant region.  Claiming the Levant shared a common language is much different than claiming the "world" shared a common language.  Noah's flood is another example.  The English KJV text reads, the whole "earth", but once again, the term is "land", as in the Levant region.  If the author had intended to claim it had been the "whole world" as we think of that term today, the same would not have recorded the existence of entire tribes of people, who survived from before the flood, only chapters later. 

Reconciling Biblical texts with "modern science" is a difficult task, but not because of the Biblical text, but rather because of our "modern science".  Modern scientists can't even reconcile themselves to one another, and their own competing theories, in may cases. If Biblical text is "reconciled to science", which "school of theory" get's the stamp of "Biblical text" behind it? Which then "messes up science", endorsing one school or theory over another?

At some point, science must be left to science, and Biblical text to Biblical text, and the integrity of both maintained, one to it's empirical studies, and the other to it's ontological understanding of what it means in existence.  Hislop was not a work for the former, but the latter, and here it is still relevant as an early pioneering thesis.

For those who prefer to "ignore science because it's going to eventually change it's mind anyway", there is no reason to consider Hislop "Debunked", because the basis of the "knowledge" which is debunking him is "evolutionary science" and it's "interpretation" of emergent civilization (which conservatives do not accept anyway). So why would you then find "young earth creationists" suddenly having a fetish for "debunking Hislop", because these same "conservative" young earth creationists, are now pushing a Republican New World Order (restoration of the Roman Reich) agenda politically, and Hislop is a major "embarrassment" and obstacle in that political agenda for them.  So he must be "removed".

On the other hand, and in the other extreme, "Liberals" reject Hislop because it is a theological cosmology based on an actual acceptance of Biblical text, and Biblical concept.  Some of which was admittedly formed in the vacuum of an 1800s world-view on Biblical history as the sum total of history, which did not observe other centers of emergent civilization outside the middle-east.  But just because there was not a single homogeneous source for all of civilization, doesn't mean therefore there was absolutely no connection between any of them at all (in the other extreme).  Neither Minimalism nor Maximalism, are realistic theories. One no more than the other.

Hislop is not defended here because of Maximalism. He is defended here because he was an early Protestant pioneer in the advancement of an accurate theological thesis despite occasional (and sometimes still debatable) inaccurate examples based on the transitory historical knowledge of the time.  A "crime" no more guilty than anyone else also writing, during this era, and adding to this "error" his Biblical interpretation of current history (which was also simply a common trait of the day in which he wrote).

His thesis however, remains as valid today, as when he first wrote, and there is even more evidence today for the claim Rome (and the Masons of the Church of England) did in fact "adopt" Babelism as it's "ecclesiology" and ultimately because of this, it's "politic", "economics","sociology", "spirituality" and ultimately "spirit".(i.e., consciousness)  A consciousness that is contrary to the best of humanity, Christ, and the God of all life, in the universe.


Beyond who "Nimrod" really was in history, (which modern scholars do not even accept as historical in any form), The Bible is the "source" of Hislop's supposed "error" (if in fact there really is one beyond those discussed above).  The Bible itself claims there is an unbroken chain in human history to it's "original origins".  It doesn't necessarily claim that to have been "universal" as was interpreted from bad translations into English, but it does claim there is some, with particular focus on the Levant.  That's not something Hislop "invented". That's the whole point of the book of Genesis. Genesis!  

The Bible asserts the (steeple) of Babel.  The Bible asserts it spread across the earth. The Bible asserts it all came from the same place and repeated the same patterns of apostacy and error in spiritual judgement.  These things are asserted not in Hislop, but in the Scriptures itself.  And that is not the only relevent point to all this. This is the whole point of the discussion to begin with, right here anyway...

Both the Masons and the Vatican believed it to be the case as well, but did entirely different things with that "belief", and that is precisely the point of both the Scriptures and Hislop on this subject. While Protestants sought to reconstruct genuine New Testament "Christianity" and purge these things from their religious practices, Masons and Romanists intentionally sought to integrate and duplicate them!  The Masonic conception of "Solomon's Temple" being a virtual REPLICA of the BODHI TREE TEMPLE in Asia. (The Bodhi Tree is allegedly the oldest "Tree" in the world, supposedly grown from "sprouts" of the original "Buddhist" serpent tree of enlightenment) [Although "Modern Scholars" now also question if the historical Buddha ever had anything to do with it]

And despite the fact our quote "modern scholars" do not accept the idea humanity (and it's religions) had some common origins in Mesopotamia, it is not "without evidence" despite the fact it is without quote, "support".  And this is a major distinction the average Christian should learn to make. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that is simply willfully "ignored" because the fastest way to dead end your academic career (especially when the University you work at, is dominated or sponsored by, finances  and "chairs" from the "Church-state"), is to accidently say something that supports the Biblical account of anything. Anything at all. And now it is getting to be almost an issue of antisemitism in our universities, as it was in 1930s Germany.

And what is being willfully ignored is not only valid, it is extremely "scientific".  In fact, it is as "state of the art" as it can get, down to the level of even modern "Genetics".  There are a number of "anomalies" that are just simply ignored that a common origin, BEST accounts for.  But do you think any academic (Christian or otherwise for that matter), in America, or anywhere else, is going to loose his entire career over pointing it out to anyone? If arrogant people wish to "believe", people just randomly popped up out of the ground all at the same time, all over the earth, and suddenly got bizarre psychological urges to waste decades of time, energy and wealth, building useless megalithic ziggerauts all over the world the same exact way, at the same exact time, which generated then spontaneous anomolous DNA matches, to go with their completely disconnected ziggerauts, why loose your career telling them what they would never "accept" anyway?  Would you?  Peer review is always cited as an important step in the "Scientific process", but if you know your "peers" will never accept the truth of something, no matter how true it is, because it is charged with biases, it will never become "Science", no matter how "factually Scientific", the truth of it actually is.  This development is a necessary evil in the academic and scientific process, but that is in the end what it is. An evil.  Because it relegates "truth" and thus even reality itself, to a collective "social" process, rather than an empirical one, attainable through individualism and real accomplishment.

One "empirical" fact, of which now on the "outside" of these "social processes", is the very odd realtiy that in tissue typing for organ donors and marrow matching, indigenous population groups on both continents, who have had no known "inter-marriage", find genetic "matches" in "far away" bizzare places, such as a "Native American" with a Greek, in Greece.  Or even more embarrassing than this, cross "racial" genetics among "Whites and Blacks" on completely different continents. The National Morrow Donor program is well aware of these "embarrassing matches" which they have to literally "manage" as a "social problem", in order to do their job of tissue matching. (Because it is a "scientific truth" no one wants to acknowledge) These genealogical markers do not match just anybody, and the odds are beyond those found in lottery figures.  Yet it is there, and these undeniable scientific facts, are simply patently ignored for theories in favor of Jungian psychology (because of the "social collective", rather than the empirical data). 

"Historians" gravitate to "psycho-babel" theories, that all these people in all these different places, all had the same Jungian "urge" to just out of no where start building massive Megalithic ziggerauts (and we will just conveniently ignore the genetics, or interpret them in such a far out way, they make no connection). On every continent, among every people.  They all just simultaneously got "jumpy" one day, and all accidently had precisely and exactly the very same identical "idea" down to minute architectural detail. And anyone that points to genetics, recreation of ocean crossing by early reed vessels done by exploratory scientists, the documented archaeological presence of both African and Caucasian remains in both North and South America, and matching petroglyphs on cave walls and stones, is just an unenlightened hillbilly.  Seriously, that is precisely what is done here. Jungian psychology over hard science. (And the truth is, Jungian psychology is even questioned as "psuedo-science" by some behavioralists)

And once again, what is lacking in SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH, they make up for with smug attitudes and citation of all the other members that have "joined" their little snob "club" against you.  Of course, they can never really explain why all the Scientists in Germany also supported cooked science for Nazism, or in the Soviet Union, for communist disinformation? But they are quite sure that if there are 40 of them and 1 of you, you're just a snot-nosed hillbilly from the Ozarks (no matter how stupid the theory is, they have all agreed to and been paid to, spread).  And it is absolutely amazing how our "modern scholars" can skip over facts of archaeology, genetics, and anthropology, and in order to make appeals to Jungian psychology, and actually be taken seriously, and it's "critics" dismissed as "not scientific". But that is precisely what they are doing in this treatment of "history". (Remember now, this is what they are "using" to "discredit Hislop" with "modern scholarship")  The same that is citing Jungian psycho-theory to explain all the simultaneous existence of all the megalithic Ziggurauts on earth. Really? Seriously? Jungian psychology?



And even here, does Jungian psychology really even get Vatican and Masonic Babelists off the hook? Even if you "accept" the soft-science of Jungian psychology, why is there a collective archetype of such a thing to begin with? And if so, would it also not be a valid point of discussion that Genesis 11 therefore addresses that "collective archetype"? With another "collective archetype" that is critical, and argues the need for an evolutionary change in consciousness? Certainly, it would.  Because the Antithesis of that archetype, is archetypal as well, therefore just as valid as an argument. One "archetype" certainly deserves another, does it not?  Anyone can "play head games" with psycho-babel.

Hislop simply "illustrated" the Biblical paradigm with historical citations of his day. The New Testament, did prophesy a future emergent Roman religion (in Christ's name) [which it did do] which it did identify having it's origin in Babylon.  Hislop by citing "historical sources" that were accepted for hundreds (actually even thousands of years) in western civilization, some of which even by the Catholic church itself, attempted to "illustrate" the Biblical theory.  And because now these sources are questionable? Becuase it seems more "probable" to "modern scholars" they were all having issues with Jungian archetypes at the same time, producing the same architecture, all over the world, and creating strange genetic matchings to go with their disconnected psychological ziggerauts?  

Hislop is "debunked"? And how exactly would this "Debunk" Hislop, and not the Masons? Who also used these sources, or the Vatican itself, some of which were even written by the Vatican? Would it not be much more logical to say, that the bulk of the "history of the world according to the Vatican" has been "debunked"? How is it that HISLOP, is singled out as the only one who gets "the honors" here when the Masons were standing on the left side quoting the same sources, and the Vatican was standing on the right side, doing the same thing itself?  Oh, but of course, it's on Hislop, who is somehow is magically and uniquely "debunked" by these changes? How interesting. It's much like "selective memory" with these "critics", who when you track them down and demand confessions, will be found out to always have ulterior motives and political/religious agendas, often even openly admitted.

And the fact is, that much of what "modern scholars" replace the Biblical paradigm (that these things did have common origins) with is really on the verge of ludicrous, if you give it any serious thought, research or investigation.  And it is often theory asserted in the face of contradictory evidence they simply choose to ignore, because no one wants to go down as the "dummy" who said the Bible was "true".  That's pretty much ananthema to a career as an Academic these days. And not for any particular reason other than prejudice, and a distaste for "creation fundamentalists". (Which has nothing to do with this discussion, as it is an entirely different subject not even directly related)



1. Prove that the RCC has knowingly adopted pagan beliefs and practices.
2. Give dates for the changes that would have taken place.
3. Specify which cultures have provided the RCC with her inspiration.
4. Show how this was achieved.

There are entire sections on this website that document with current scholarship exactly and precisely all four of these things, not just once, but several times over, and over and over. See any.

1. Prove that the RCC has knowingly adopted pagan beliefs and practices.

This is done by the Vatican itself. The testimony of Irenaeus, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Nag Hammadi library along with numerous other historical sources the Vatican itself has published including it's own Encyclopedia.

2. Give dates for the changes that would have taken place.

A. Council of Ephesus

B. Edit of Milan

C. Theodosius Codex.

3. Specify which cultures have provided the RCC with her inspiration.

A. Rome

B. Greece

C. Persia

D. Egyptian

E. Babylonian

4. Show how this was achieved.


So this "Critic" has admitted that these things actually demonstrate Hislop's thesis "correct" not "incorrect" as is claimed.  Particularly in reference to the issue of the assimilation of Rome's Solar-mass to Apollyon as a "Christ" mass.




(From a Catholic website)
Mr Hislops usage of Hebrew alphabet and the  so-called Quaballah hidden and secret last five letters of the Hebrew mystical Qaballah gave him away as a mystic believer under control of the.... true whore.(Israel)  Alexander Hislop was born in Scotland a hotbed of the Masonic Order

By GangstaLawya
This review is from: The Two Babylons or The Papal Worship: Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and his Wife (Hardcover) Alexander Hislop is probably the most inconsistent man in history. He rails against the Roman Catholic church for being the alleged preserver and progenitor of the Babylonian religion. At the same time, Hislop himself was a freemason who was reverand of the Free Church of Scotland. Freemasonry worships baal. Baal was a babylonian deity. I'm so perplexed by this man that I have no words to express it.  He allegedly defends Christianity. Yet, on page 17 he attacks the Christian doctrine of the trinity.  Hislop was no archaeologist nor was he a competent theologian. Roman Catholicism, in the process of converting people, borrowed eclectically its symbolism to integrate its religious community. In addition, it couldn't avoid its art and symbolism from being partaker of the culture from which it grew. Hislop jumps to conclusions.  As a theologian, you get Christian theology from the New Testament. The New Testament is trinitarian. You read the Old Testament from the perspective of the New Testament since it constitutes a chain of progressive revelation from the Old to the New Testaments. Hislop condemns trinitarian theology on page 17.  Jesus, in the great commission, charged His Apostles in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Mt 28:19. Acts 5:3-5 says that Annanias and Sapphira "lied" to the Holy Spirit and says that the Holy Spirit is God. You cannot lie to anything but a person. The Holy Spirit is identified as a person here and as God. Acts 13:2 says that "the Holy Spirit said, set apart for me Saul and Barnabas unto the work to which I have called them." No one disputes that Jesus is a Person. No one disputes He is God. Romans 9:5. The book of Hebrews, which tells the Hebrews to stop being Hebrews, is full of teaching of the deity of Christ, such as the first chapter, verse 6, which quotes the "Old Testament" and says, "Let all God's angels worship Him." No one disputes God the Father is a Person and is God. As the Athanasian Creed said, "we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance."  Hislop was an unfortunate man and antiChrist who denied one of the most sacred teachings of Scripture, namely the Trinity.  As to Babylon the great, it is clearly Israel since Revelations, which teaches about Babylon, identifies it as the same city our Lord was crucified. Rev. 11:8.


Where did you get the idea that Alexander Hislop was a Freemason? Where did you get that information? No REAL Freemason would write against the paganism found in Christianity, as Hislop did; rather they would support it...sort of like you. Forget your "creeds" and read and study the scriptures as a whole for yourself, if you really want the truth. I finally did.

Hislop was a Trinitarian. It's the *pagan Trinity* he had issues with. Page 17 in particular speaks of his issues with *images* portraying the trinity, such as the triangle or figures, since it goes against the scripture "To whom will you liken God, and what likeness will you compare him unto?" Page 17 actually affirms his belief in the trinity. "Some have said that the plural form of the name of God, in the Hebrew of Genesis, affords no argument for the doctrine of plurality of persons in the Godhead, because the same word in the plural is applied to heathen divinities. But if the supreme divinity in almost all ancient heathen nations was triune, the futility of this objection must be manifest." (its in the footnote 'Babylon and Nineveh')  In fact, Hislop broke from his usual tradition in the book when it came to the topic of the trinity. Because the trinity was found in all ancient nations in their earliest religious forms, he believed this a sign of the veracity of the doctrine of the Trinity. As later pagan religions deviated from or modified this concept, he saw this as a sign of those religions departing from an earlier, known, universal truth.  Before you go making a strawman argument and accusing a fellow christian of heresy, *know what they believe*.


Alexander Hislop was a Free Church of Scotland minister who was famous for his outspoken criticism of the Roman Catholic Churches. His father was a mason [i.e., a "Brick-layer"] and elder of the Relief Church. His brother was a missionary to India.  Alexander was born at Duns, Berwicksire, Scotland in February, 1809 and died in Arbroath, March 13, 1865. He was a parish schoolmaster originally, and married Jane Pearson in 1831. They had six children: five girls then a boy. He also edited the Scottish Guardian newspaper. In 1843 he joined the Free Church of Scotland and was ordained in 1844. He became a senior minister in 1864 and having been ill for two years died of a paralyzing stroke.  He wrote several books, and his research on Catholicism has withstood the constant and continual assault of those who do not want to accept the message. His work remains an important and valuable insight into the adoption of heathenism into “Christian Churches” and so challenges every true believer to “come out from among them and be separate, saith the Lord!”  Alexander Hislop was loved by those who know him and captivated their interest with his wit and conversational abilities. He was generous and unselfish by nature. He took interest in improving the housing of the worker, as well as their spiritual and moral nature.  - Alexander Hislop, Rev.Clinton Macomber,  Pleasant Places Press

Appearantly, Alexander Hislop's enemies have been confused by the reference to "mason" in bio.  This was a reference to (1) his father and (2) a profession of being a "brick-layer".  Obviously his father being a "Brick-layer" in England might suggest he was also involved with the "Freemasons" by virtue of his trade. But concerning this two points must be realized; (1) Many Evangelicals who rejected the Church of England [dominated by Freemasonry] did so with family members [sometimes even parents] who were Masons (and thus familiar with the problem it posed for genuine "Christianity") (2) There is no public indication his father actually was. (at least as far as we have been able to find)  Even so however, this would not indict Hislop.  His arguments were against syncretism, not in favor of it.

Secondly, it must also be realized that invoking "Scotland" as a "hot bed" of "Freemasonry" is a bit disingenuous historically. Scotland had become a "battle-ground" over "Freemasonry".  And "Freemasonry" had "targeted" the Evangelicals in this community for precisely this reason.  The "Scottish rite" had a long presence there, but so this the "Scottish Free Church" which produced some of the most intellectually formidable Evangelicals in history.



Epistemology i/ɨˌpɪstɨˈmɒlədʒi/ (from Greek ἐπιστήμη (epistēmē), meaning "knowledge, understanding", and λόγος (logos), meaning "study of") is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge.[1][2] It addresses the questions: What is knowledge? How is knowledge acquired? To what extent is it possible for a given subject or entity to be known? Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. One view is the objection that there is very little or no knowledge at all—skepticism. The field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge. The term was introduced by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier (1808–1864).[3] EPISTEMOLOGY,

EPIS·TE·MOL·O·GY: the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity - EPISTEMOLOGY, Merriam Websters Online Dictionary

There are many different "theories" in the world of "knowledge" about virtually any topic you wish to discuss.  "Scholars" make themselves famous by "proving" an old theory is "false", and a "new one" is "true" (which they invent).  They get "awards", sell "books" and become rich and famous for this activity.  Many ideas which are believed by a "consensus of Scholars" at any given time in history is almost always revisited in the future with a "new theory" that challenges the "validity" of the old one.  And this is how knowledge "progresses". Some things in the past are "static", meaning they are settled facts of reality, and no matter how much "progress" knowledge may make in the future, it will never be "over-turned" by something new, only perhaps "revised" to be "more accurate".  Some things however are purely subjective "judgement calls" made by "educated people" who prefer Vanilla as opposed to Chocolate or Chocolate as opposed to Vanilla.  And being able to "discern" the difference between these two kinds of "knowledge" by "scholars" is very very important, especially in the modern world, where "knowledge" and it's "theories" have life-cycles which are microscopic compared to the historical past.  A new "knowledge" theory can live and die within 1 decade.  And often now today, because of the speed of change, a "new orthodoxy" has emerged in many academic circles to "protect" certain "beliefs" even though these conclusions or "beliefs" are nothing more than "subjective judgement calls".

There is a difference between "Static" knowledge, and "transitory" knowledge.  Meaning some things are "fixed" or "set" precedent, and some things are "subject to change".  Some fields of research are highly subjective fields by definition.  Even the "conclusions of Science" in these areas are more "conclusions of philosophy" or "social psychology" rather than a real "fact" of any kind.  There are many things in the discussion of "history" than can be placed in the latter catagorey, rather than the former.  This is not as true in Sciences such as "physics" or "math" unless you get into "fringe theory" where there is a great deal of "speculation" taking place.

2 + 2 has a "set value". All the knowledge in the world will not change this.  Perhaps a theoretical "other dimension" could be "mathematically created" in which it can be shown that 2 + 2 is really 6.  But that is what is required.  On this planet, in this dimension, it's a settled fact.  But when you mix "flavors", it's not always so objective.  Because the definition of what is "true" depends on the "palate" of the "taster".  One might describe a wine as a "bouquet of flavor" and another might say it's "fruity", one might say a coffee is "too strong", and another might claim it is "too weak" speaking of the same coffee.  There is no "truth" and "lying" in these opinions of "personal taste" or "subjective judgement".  But 2 + 2 is not a "personal taste" nor a "subjective opinion".  It is simple math.

When dealing with religion (and in particular history) 2 + 2 gets often treated like "coffee" or "wine" as a "matter of taste", because there are "government sponsored" Academics, whose "job" is to "promote" a certain "point of view", no matter what the facts may be.  These "State-Church" countries, have on the state payroll, "clerics" who do nothing but sit around all day long in some Academic institution and fact twist for their government sponsor.  In short, they become "professional liars".  They spend their days writing books, articles, digging up the best arguments they can, and thinking of everything they can possibly think of to say 2 + 2 really does not equal 4.  And they are very good at what they do, but in the end, no matter how much puffery they expend on their deceit, they cannot "magically" make what is "false" become "true", they can only "deceive" people into "thinking" it is "true". And they exhort to every scheme and trick imaginable to concoct and argue their lame arguments for lame religion.  Many of whom in the west, are not only often closet atheists, but even homosexual pedophiles.(As many Nicolaitans actually really are, and have been since the writing of the New Testament where they are mentioned by name)

These are the ones most fond of advancing every position within Academia in every topic that "supports" their "institution", whom they see as personal responsible for "feeding" and ensuring it's "survival".  They do not actually care what is really in the Bible, what really happened in history, who is really guilty or innocent, or what lie must be told in order to "win".  They are political operatives using deceit as a "religion" without conscience. They are simply "doing their job" and collecting their "check".  They approach "religion" the same way "Attorney's" do a guilty client.  They take no personal responsibility for arguing for the innocence of a murderer, or even twisting the law, or shading the facts, or suppressing the evidence, whatever is necessary in order to "win".  This is what they are "paid" to do.  And if you, observing the realities of the very definition of their profession, question their credibility, they will attack you as the "crazy one". (as though lying for a living in the name of God is perfectly rational and normal, even when you don't even believe there is one that exists)  That is precisely what you are dealing with as "sources" in much of this "alleged" "Scholarship".

Along side these professional religious liars, are the Academic liars.  They share many of the same qualities, and their worlds often over-lap because the Church-state university, where one works at, the other does too.  They are both getting their paychecks from the same corrupt sources, who basically pay them to tell the lies they want to hear, and punish anyone who tells the truth, with a demotion or a termination.  So while the Academic might have a little more freedom not to tell as many lies, he/she too, will (in so far as a conclusion of knowledge impacts the institution) lie as well in their respective field.  Now please do not confuse this with "conspiracy theory".  This is no "conspiracy", this is just "human nature", and the way the real world works and has always worked, well beyond the heads of many "Christians" in the world who read "opinions" from these sources, and think they are some kind of "fact", when often they are confusing a liar for a "Scholar".  Or in a less dramatic way, but equally misleading, Chocolate and Vanilla for 2 + 2.  Someone who claims "Vanilla" is the "Truth" and "Chocolate" has been proven "false", also communicating essentially a "lie", not a "fact", as that is a "subjective judgement call" which could go either way.


In the United States Declaration of Independence, an interesting phrase is used which reflects the "Epistemology" of the "Age of Enlightenement" and also the "Reformation".  It is a phrase today, that Rome and it's allies spends all of it's time attacking with a vengeance.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH.  In the United States Declaration of Independence, the Protestant and Masonic founding fathers shared common ground and a common epistemology.  It was an Epistemology that brought an end to "The Dark Ages".  It also "brings to an end" most forms of "fascism", because it asserts that the very nature of "truth" itself is SELF-EVIDENT.  Something is TRUE, because it is TRUE, not because an "Authority" said it was, or said it wasn't.

In short it is very simple, as much that is true really is, if something is a lie, it is still a lie no matter how many "degrees" you stack up behind it. And if a truth is true, it is still true no matter how humble the source that speaks it.  That is the idea behind "Self-evident" truth.  Truth is truth, lies are lies, and both are "Self-evident" by the "nature" of what they are, irrespective of the esteem or humility of it's source. This was the lesson in the story of Balaam's Ass.  God can speak the truth even through a "Dumb Ass".  Truth was the great equalizer of men.  Not so, however, in Reich epistemology.


The Protestant epistemology

The Dog barks to tell you your house is on fire and you are in imminent danger. He wakes you up and you see "Self-Evident" truth of a FIRE. No one has to "give you permission" to "see the truth" because it is SELF-EVIDENT.  The "source" of bringing your "attention" to the "truth" is "irrelevant" because it is either true, or it is not, and it is SELF-EVIDENT.  If it is SELF-EVIDENT, there is nothing going on, you tell your dog to shut up, and you go back to sleep, but either way, what the dog has brought your attention too, is not dependent on the dog being anything other than a dog that barked.  Because TRUTH is by it's nature is SELF-EVIDENT.

The Roman epistemology

The Dog barks to tell you your house is on fire and you are in imminent danger. He wakes you up and rather than look for SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH, you examine the credentials of the dog. You get out the pedigree papers, and examine his breeding background, and if he is not telling you what you want to hear, you tell yourself you need to wait and see what your neighbor's dog does, because your neighbor makes more money, and his dog has a higher pedigree.  You ignore the fire you see, because "what is black and black is white, if the Church so decides" - Ignatius Loyola. You look at the fire, and claim you see no fire. And then you die in the flames. And if it is a individual, a nation or a civilization, the results will be the same, the "Dark Ages" all over again, where not just a person, but all of western Europe perished in the flames of ignorance and denial.

"Truth" is always from the "top down" and it is never "Self-Evident".  The odd thing about these esteemed "Church-State" Universities that place so much value on their pedigrees that people should ignore "Self-Evident" truth, is that they spend most of their time "Studying" people in history that invented things, discovered things, and taught great truths, who never went to one of their "Universities".  The Royal Academy of Science in England was quite certain the Wright Brothers, despite the fact they were flying in an Aeroplane, were not really flying because it was "psuedo-science", as the science of physics proved it was an impossibility.  They actually wasted time trying to convince the public it never happened.(Rather than simply investigating the "Self-Evident" truth, of how they did)

This kind of "Epistemology" ultimately fails the very institutions that employ it. It leaves them "behind" in virtually every field they apply this corrupted philosophy too.  And where it rules society as a monoply, ignorance rules entire societies, even it's alleged Academic "elites".  Because real "knowledge" actually requires a "knowledge" of the truth of something, to be actual "knowledge" of anything, other than simply a massive memorization of all the lies one is supposed to tell for his or her institution.

That is precisely why men like Ralph Woodrow can write a book, and be given consideration, equal on par with educated giants in Protestant circles to begin with. There is an equality concerning "truth" in Protestantism, that Rome, not only forbade, it actually fought, not because the "opinions" of their "doctors" were so much better, because most of the time they were spewing "disinformation" for the Reich.  So now Vatican surrogates wish to cite "Ralph Woodrow" as what "debunked" Hislop?  What on earth can be rationally said about this elephant of a contradiction?  Ralph Woodrow is now part of the Texas "religious-right", and he "debunked Hislop" because that is what they are all doing now for political and economic reasons.   Because it is "counter-productive" for a "restoration of the Reich" (or as they now call it "a Christian nation"). Baloney. Roman dictatorship in America is NOT a "Christian nation", it is Nimrod and Babel, precisely as Hislop charged, and thus their need to now quietly dispose of him.


The Bible was important to Protestant Reformers, not so much for the idea that within it's pages contained all the truth in the universe, but because it DISPROVED the CLAIMS OF ROME.  And Rome's Claims extended to the ENTIRE UNIVERSE.  The Bible, no matter what else you think about it, is as a FIXED TRUTH, the earliest documentation of the actual beliefs and practices of the thing and people that ROME claims TO BE.  And thus "entitled" to rule everyone's universe.

So if the static text of the Bible, "Disproves" that claim, the Bible has done what Protestantism employed it for, and that was to bring "Freedom" to the same "Universe" Rome fraudulently claimed entitlement to both own and rule.  

So no matter how much "knowledge" may progress, the "Static" texts of the Bible, and the "Static" decrees and documents from Rome, are "Set", at odds and in conflict.  And this contradiction basicly discredited Rome.

Those are "Static truths".  They cannot be "Changed" no matter how much lying is done to bury it.  No amount of "knowledge" on earth is going to change this fact, because no matter how much you discredit the Bible, in the end, no matter how low you bring it in your "knowledge" is still condemns the Vatcian, because the Vatican claims to be it's author, the subject of it's content, and the stewards of it's "kingdom" of Christ".

The real reason Hislop is so hated today and is being "turned into" this big "controversy" is because he is an ideological "threat" to the "State-Church" insituttion.  He advances the idea that the "Church-State" is simply Babylon "re-incarnated" all over again in history.

But the problem is that Hislop did not "invent" this thesis. This is what is found in the Scriptures itself.  And there are many facts which bear this truth out, to such a degree that if you really study and research the topic, it will become SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH.  You can look at the towers, you can see the employment of the clerical dress, you can research Rome's "holy days", you can read for yourself their own words and declarations looking back to Babylon, both in Catholicism and in Masonry.  There really is nothing that Hislop actually managed to tell anyone, that someone else had not already said on the other side of the fence, as a Mason or a Vatican "scholar".  But Hislop is "the Protestant", and thus his great sin, and the great need to make sure he is "publicly discredited".

The universal sentiment of the Masons of the present day is to confer upon Solomon, King of Israel, the honor of being their"first Grand Master".  But the "Legend of the Craft" had long before, though there was a tradition of the temple extant, bestowed, at least by implication, that title upon Nimrod, the King of Babylonia and Assyria. - History of Freemasonry, Chapter 12, p. 63

As for the tower that thou seest built, it is myself, namely the Church, which has appeared to thee both now, and heretofore - THE SHEPHERD OF HERMES (Written by the brother of the Pope of Rome, and read as Scripture in Rome
What is "Controversial" about Alexander Hislop's claim Rome was a "continuation of Babylon", when BOTH the Masons, and the Vatican said exactly and precisely THE SAME THING? 
And their "Identification" of Ninus as Nimrod was no different than Hislops?
Have they too been "Debunked"? Or not?


Christmass and Lady-Day
by Rev. Alexander Hislop

If Rome be indeed the Babylon of the Apocalypse, and the Madonna enshrined in her sanctuaries be the very queen of heaven, for the worshipping of whom the fierce anger of God was provoked against the Jews in the days of Jeremiah, it is of the last consequence that the fact should be established beyond all possibility of doubt; for that being once established, every one who trembles at the Word of God must shudder at the very thought of giving such a system, either individually or nationally, the least countenance or support. Something has been said already that goes far to prove the identity of the Roman and Babylonian systems; but at every step the evidence becomes still more overwhelming. That which arises from comparing the different festivals is peculiarly so.

The festivals of Rome are innumerable; but five of the most important may be singled out for elucidation—viz., Christmas-day, Lady-day, Easter, the Nativity of St. John, and the Feast of the Assumption. Each and all of these can be proved to be Babylonian. And first, as to the festival in honor of the birth of Christ, or Christmas. How comes it that that festival was connected with the 25th of December? There is not a word in the Scriptures about the precise day of His birth, or the time of the year when He was born. What is recorded there, implies that at what time soever His birth took place, it could not have been on the 25th of December. At the time that the angel announced His birth to the shepherds of Bethlehem, they were feeding their flocks by night in the open fields. Now, no doubt, the climate of Palestine is not so severe as the climate of this country; but even there, though the heat of the day be considerable, the cold of the night, from December to February, is very piercing, and it was not the custom for the shepherds of Judea to watch their flocks in the open fields later than about the end of October, f It is in the last degree incredible, then, that the birth of Christ could have taken place at the end of December. There is great unanimity among commentators on this point. Besides Barnes, Doddridge, Lightfoot, Joseph Scaliger, and Jennings, in his “Jewish Antiquities, who are all of opinion that December 25th could not be the right time of our Lord’s nativity, the celebrated Joseph Mede pronounces a very decisive opinion to the same effect. After a long and careful disquisition on the subject, among other arguments he adduces the following:—”At the birth of Christ every woman and child was to go to be taxed at the city whereto they belonged, whither some had long journeys; but the middle of winter was not fitting for such a business, especially for women with child, and children to travel in. Therefore, Christ could not be born in the depth of winter. Again, at the time of Christ’s birth, the shepherds lay abroad watching with their flocks in the night time; but this was not likely to be in the middle of winter. And if any shall think the winter wind was not so extreme in these parts, let him remember the words of Christ in the gospel, ‘ Pray that your flight be not in the winter.’ If the winter was so bad a time to flee in, it seems no fit time for shepherds to lie in the fields in, and women and children to travel in.” Indeed, it is admitted by the most learned and candid writers of all parties that the day of our Lord’s birth cannot be determined; and that October and the former part of November within the Christian Church no such festival as Christmas was ever heard of till the third century, and that not till the fourth century was far advanced did it gain much observance.[1] 

How, then, did the Romish Church fix on December the 25th as Christmas-day? Why, thus long before the fourth century, and long before the Christian era itself, a festival was celebrated among the heathen, at that precise time of the year, in honor of the birth of the son of the Babylonian queen of heaven; and it may fairly be presumed that, in order to conciliate the heathen, and to swell the number of the nominal adherents of Christianity, the same festival was adopted by the Roman Church, giving it only the name of Christ. This tendency on the part of Christians to meet Paganism half-way was very early developed; and we find Tertullian, even in his day, about the year 230, bitterly lamenting the inconsistency of the disciples of Christ in this respect, and contrasting it with the strict fidelity of the Pagans to their own superstition. “By us,” says he, “who are strangers to Sabbaths, and new moons, and festivals, once acceptable to God, the Saturnalia, the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and Matronalia, are now frequented; gifts are carried to and fro, new year’s day presents are made with din, and sports and banquets are celebrated with uproar; oh, how much more faithful are the heathen to their religion, who take special care to adopt no solemnity from the Christians.” Upright men strove to stem the tide, but in spite of all their efforts, the apostasy went on, till the Church, with the exception of a small remnant, was submerged under Pagan superstition. That Christmas was originally a Pagan festival, is beyond all doubt. The time of the year, and the ceremonies with which it is still celebrated, prove its origin. In Egypt, the son of Isis, the Egyptian title for the queen of heaven, was born at this very time, “about the time of the winter solstice.” [2] 

The very name by which Christmas is popularly known among ourselves—Yule-day[3]—proves at once its Pagan and Babylonian origin. “Yule “is the Chaldee name for an “infant “or “little child; “and as the 25th of December was called by our Pagan Anglo-Saxon ancestors, “Yule-day,” or the “Child’s day,” and the night that preceded it, “Mother-night,” long before they came in contact with Christianity, that sufficiently proves its real character. Far and wide, in the realms of Paganism, was this birth-day observed. This festival has been commonly believed to have had only an astronomical character, referring simply to the completion of the sun’s yearly course, and the commencement of a new cycle. But there is indubitable evidence that the festival in question had a much higher reference than this—that it commemorated not merely the figurative birth-day of the sun in the renewal of its course, but the birth-day of the grand Deliverer. Among the Sabeans of Arabia, who regarded the moon, and not the sun, as the visible symbol of the favorite object of their idolatry, the same period was observed as the birth festival. Thus we read in Stanley’s Sabean Philosophy: “On the 24th of the tenth month,” that is December, according to our reckoning, “the Arabians celebrated the BIRTHDAY OF THE LORD—that u the Moon.” The Lord Moon was the great object of Arabian worship, and that Lord Moon, according to them, was born on the 24th of December, which clearly shows that the birth which they celebrated had no necessary connection with the course of the sun. It is worthy of special note, too, that if Christmas-day among the ancient Saxons of this island, was observed to celebrate the birth of any Lord of the host of heaven, the case must have been precisely the same here as it was in Arabia. The Saxons, as is well known, regarded the Sun as & female divinity, and the Moon as a male. It must have been the birth-day of the Lord Moon, therefore, and not of the Sun, that was celebrated by them on the 25th of December, even as the birth-day of the same Lord MOOD was observed by the Arabians on the 24th of December. The name of the Lord Moon in the East seems to have been meant, for this appears the most natural interpretation of the Divine statement in Isaiah lxv. 11, “But ye are they that forsake my holy mountain, that prepare a temple for Gad, and that furnish the drink-offering unto Meni.” There is reason to believe that Gad refers to the sun-god, and that Meni in like manner designates the moon-divinity. Meni, or Manai, signifies “The Numberer,” and it is by the changes of the moon that the months are numbered : Psalm civ. 19, “He appointed the moon for seasons : the sun knoweth the time of its going down.” 

The name of the “Man of the Moon,” or the god who presided over that luminary among the Saxons, was Mane, as given in the “Edda,”[4] and Mani, in the “Voluspa.” That it was the birth of the “Lord Moon “that was celebrated among our ancestors at Christmas, we have remarkable evidence in the name that is still given in the lowlands of Scotland to the feast on the last day of the year, which seems to be a remnant of the old birth festival for the cakes then made are called Nur-Cakes, or Birth-cakes. That name is Hogmanay. J Now, “Hog-Manai” in Chaldee signifies “The feast of the Numberer; “in other words, The festival of Deus Lunus, or of the Man of the Moon. To show the connection between country and country, and the inveterate endurance of old customs, it is the name of Phoroneus, he was celebrated for having first gathered mankind into social communities. (See ante, p. 61.) The name Meni, “the numberer,” on the other hand, seems just a synonym for the name of Cush or Chus, which, while it signifies “to cover “or “hide,” signifies also “to count or number.” The true proper meaning of the name Cush is, I have no doubt, “The numberer” or “Arithmetician; “for while Nimrod his son, as the “mighty “one, waa the grand propagator of the Babylonian system of idolatry, by foree and power, he, as Hermes (see ante, pp. 25, 26), was the real concocter of that system, for he is said to have “taught men the proper mode of approaching the Deity with prayers and sacrifice “(WILKINSON, vol. v. p. 10); and seeing idolatry and astronomy were intimately combined, to enable him to do so with effect, it was indispensable that he should be pre-eminently skilled in the science of number!. Now, Hermes (that is Cush) is said to have “first discovered numbers, and the art of reckoning, geometry, and astronomy, the games of cbeas and hazard “(Ibid. p. 3); and it is in all probability from reference to the meaning of the name of Cush, that some called “NUMBER the father of gods and men “(Ibid. vol. iv. p. 196). 

The name Meni is just the Chaldee form of the Hebrew “Meni,” the “numberer” for in Chaldee it often takes the place of the final e. As we have seen reason to conclude with Gesenius, that Nebo, the great prophetic god of Babylon, was just the same god as Hermes (see ante, p. 26), this shows the peculiar emphasis of the first words in the Divine sentence that sealed the doom of Belshazzar, as representing the primeval god—”MENE, MENE, Tekel, Upharsin,” which is as much as covertly to say, “The numberer is numbered.” As this was peculiarly the symbol of Cush (see ante, p. 49), hence the pouring out of the drink-offering to him as the god of the cup; and as he was the great Diviner, hence the divinations as to the future year, which Jerome connects with the divinity referred to by Isaiah. Now Hermes, in Egypt as the “numberer,” was identified with the moon that numbers the months. He was called “Lord of the moon “(Bunsen, vol. i. p. 394); and as the “dispenser of time “(WILKINSON, vol. v. p. 11), he held a “palm branch, emblematic of a year “(Ibid. p. 2). Thus, then, if Oad was the “sun-divinity,” Meni was very naturally regarded as “The Lord Moon.” (See JAMIESON’S Scottish Dictionary). Jamieson gives a good many speculations from different authors in regard to the meaning of the term “Hogmanay “; but the following extract is all that it seems necessary to quote:— “Hogmanay, the name appropriated by the vulgar to the last day in the year. Sibb thinks that the term may be …. allied to the Scandinavian Hoeg-tid, a term applied to Christmas, and variouf other festivals of the Church.” As the Scandinavian “tid “means “time,” and “hoeg-tid” is applied to festivals of the Church in general, the meaning of this expression is evidently “festival-time;” but that shows that “hoeg “has just the meaning which I have attached to Hog —the Chaldee meaning.

It is worthy of remark, that Jerome, commenting on the very words of Isaiah already quoted, about spreading “a table for Gad,” and “pouring out a drink-offering to Meni,” observes that it “was the custom of late as his time [in the fourth century], in all cities especially in Egypt and at Alexandria, to set tables, and furnish them with various luxurious articles of food, and with goblets containing a mixture of new wine, on the last day of the month and the year, and that the people drew omens from them in respect of the fruitfulness of the year.”[5] The Egyptian year began at a different time from ours; but this is as near as possible (only substituting whisky for wine), the way in which Hogmanay is still observed on the last day of the last month of our year in Scotland. I do not know that any omens are drawn from anything that takes place at that time, but everybody in the south of Scotland is personally cognizant of the fact, that, on Hogmanay, or the evening before New Year’s day, among those who observe old customs, a table is spread, and that while buns and other dainties are provided by those who can afford them, oat cakes and cheese are brought forth among those who never see oat cakes but on this occasion, and that strong drink forms an essential article of the provision.

Even where the sun was the favorite object of worship, as in Babylon itself and elsewhere, at this festival he was worshipped not merely as the orb of day, but as God incarnate,[6] It was an essential principle of the Babylonian system, that the Sun or Baal was the one only God.[7] When, therefore, Tammuz was worshipped as God incarnate, that implied also that he was an incarnation of the Sun. In the Hindoo mythology, which is admitted to be essentially Babylonian, this comes out very distinctly. There, Surya, or the Sun, is represented as being incarnate, and born for the purpose of subduing the enemies of the gods, who, without such a birth, could not have been subdued.[8]

It was no mere astronomic festival, then, that the Pagans celebrated at the winter solstice. That festival at Rome was called the feast of Saturn, and the mode in which it was celebrated there, showed whence it had been derived. The feast, as regulated by Caligula, lasted five days[9]; loose reins were given to drunkenness and revelry, slaves had a temporary emancipation,[10] and used all manner of freedoms with their masters.[11] This was precisely the way in which, according to Berosus, the drunken festival of the month Thebeth, answering to our December, in other words, the festival of Bacchus, was celebrated in Babylon. “It was the custom,” says he, “during the five days it lasted, for masters to be in subjection to their servants, and one of them ruled the house, clothed in a purple garment like a king.”[12] This “purple-robed “servant was called “Zoganes,” the “Man of sport and wantonness,” and answered exactly to the “Lord of Misrule,”that in the dark ages, was chosen in all Popish countries to head the revels of Christmas. The wassailing bowl of Christmas had its precise counterpart in the “Drunken festival” of Babylon; and many of the other observances still kept up among ourselves at Christmas came from the very same quarter. The candles, in some parts of England, lighted on Christmas-eve, and used so long as the festive season lasts, were equally lighted by the Pagans on the eve of the festival of the Babylonian god, to do honor to him: for it was one of the, distinguishing peculiarities of his worship to have lighted wax-candles on His altars.[13] 

The Christmas tree, now so common among us, was equally common in Pagan Rome and Pagan Egypt. In Egypt that tree was the palm-tree; in Rome it was the fir; f the palm-tree denoting the Pagan Messiah, as Baal-Tamar, the fir referring to him as Baal-Berith. The mother of Adonis, the Sun-God and great mediatorial divinity, was mystically said to have been changed into a tree, and when in that state to have brought forth her divine son.[14] If the mother was a tree, the son must have been recognized as the “Man the branch.” And this entirely accounts for the putting of the Yule Log into the fire on Christmas-eve, and the appearance of the Christmas-tree the next morning. As Zero-Ashta, “The seed of the woman,” which name also signified Ignigena, or “born of the fire,” he has to enter the fire on “Mother-night,” that he may be born the next day out of it, as the “Branch of God,” or the Tree that brings all divine gifts to men. But why, it may be asked, does he enter the fire under the symbol of a Log? To understand this, it must be remembered that the divine child born at the winter solstice was born as a new incarnation of the great god (after that god had been cut in pieces), on purpose to revenge his death upon his murderers.[15] Now the great god, cut off in the midst of his power and glory, was symbolized as a huge tree, stripped of all its branches, and cut down almost to the ground. But the great serpent, the symbol of the life restoring Esculapius, twists itself around the dead stock (see Fig. 27),[16] and lo, at its side up sprouts a young tree —a tree of an entirely different kind, that is destined never to be cut down by hostile power—even the palm-tree, the well-known symbol of victory.[17] 

The Christmas-tree, as has been stated, was generally at Rome a different tree, even the fir; but the very same idea as was implied in the palm-tree was implied in the Christmas-fir; for that covertly symbolized the new-born God as Baal-berith,[18] “Lord of the Covenant,” and thus shadowed forth the perpetuity and everlasting nature of his power, now that after having fallen before his enemies, he had risen triumphant over them all. Therefore, the 25th of December, the day that was observed at Rome as the day when the victorious god reappeared on earth, was held at the Natalis invicli tolis, “The birth-day of the unconquered Sun.” Now the Yule Log is the dead stock of Nimrod, deified as the sun-god, but cut down by his enemies; the Christmas-tree is Nimrod redivivus—the slain god come to life again. In the light reflected by the above statement on customs that still linger among us, the origin of which has been lost in the midst of hoar antiquity, let the reader look at the singular practice still kept up in the South on Christmas-eve, of kissing under the mistletoe bough. (The reader will remember that Esculapius is generally represented with a stick or a stock of a tree at his side, and a serpent twining around it. The figure in the text evidently explains the origin of this representation. For his character as the life-restorer, see PAUSANIAS, lib. ii., Corinthiaca, cap. 26; and VIRQIL, Jeneid, lib. vii. II. 769-773, pp. 364, 366.) That mistletoe bough in the Druidic superstition, which, as we have seen, was derrived from Babylon, was a representation of the Messiah, “The man the branch.” The mistletoe was regarded as a divine branch[19]—a branch that came from heaven, and grew upon a tree that sprung out of the earth. Thus by the engrafting of the celestial branch into the earthly tree, heaven and earth, that sin had severed, were joined together, and thus the mistletoe bough became the token of Divine reconciliation to man, the kin being the well-known token of pardon and reconciliation. Whence could such an idea have come f May it not have come from the eighty-fifth Psalm, ver. 10, 11, “Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have KISSED each other. Truth shall spring out of the earth [in consequence of the coming of the promised Saviour], and righteousness shall look down from heaven “1 Certain it is that that Psalm was written soon after the Babylonish captivity; and as multitudes of the Jews, after that event, still remained in Babylon under the guidance of inspired men, such as Daniel, as a part of the Divine word it must have been communicated to them, as well as to their kinsmen in Palestine. Babylon was, at that time, the centre of the civilized world; and thus Paganism, corrupting the Divine symbol as it ever has done, had opportunities of sending forth its debased counterfeit of the truth to all the ends of the earth, through the Mysteries that were affiliated with the great central system in Babylon. 

Thus the very customs of Christmas still existent cast surprising light at once on the revelations of grace made to all the earth, and the efforts made by Satan and his emissaries to materialize, canalize, and degrade them. In many countries the boar was sacrificed to the god, for the injury a boar was fabled to have done him. According to one version of the story of the death of Adonis, or Tammuz, it was, as we have seen, in consequence of a wound from the tusk of a boar that he died.[20] The Phrygian Attes, the beloved of Cybele, whose story was identified with that of Adonis, was fabled to have perished in like manner, by the tusk of a boar.[21] Therefore, Diana, who though commonly represented in popular myths only as the huntress Diana, was in reality the great mother of the gods,| has frequently the boar’s head as her accompaniment, in token not of any mere success in the chase, but of her triumph over the grand enemy of the idolatrous system, in which she occupied so conspicuous a place. According to Theocritus, Venus was reconciled to the boar that killed Adonis, because when brought in chains before her, it pleaded pathetically that it had not killed her husband of malice pretense, but only through accident.): But yet, in memory of the deed that the mystic boar had done, many a boar lost its head or was offered in sacrifice to the offended goddess. In Smith, Diana is represented with a boar’s head lying beside her, on the top of a heap of stones, and in the accompanying woodcut (Fig. 28)[22], in which the Roman Emperor Trajan is represented burning incense to the same goddess, the boar’s head forms a very prominent figure. 

On Christmas-day the Continental Saxons offered a boar in sacrifice to the Sun. to propitiate her[23] for the loss of her beloved Adonis. In Rome a similar observance had evidently existed; for a boar formed the great article at the feast of Saturn, as appears from the following words of Martial:—That boar will make you a good Saturnalia.”[24] Hence the boar’s head is still a standing dish in England at the Christmas dinner, when the reason of it is long since forgotten. Yea, the “Christmas goose “and “Yule cakes “were essential articles in the worship of the Babylonian Messiah, as that worship was practiced both in Egypt and at Rome (Fig. 29). Wilkinson, in reference to Egypt, shows that “the favorite offering “of Osiris was “a goose, and moreover, that the “goose could not be eaten except in the depth of winter.”[25] As to Rome, Juvenal says, “that Osiris, if offended, could be pacified only by a large goose and a thin cake.”

The Egyptian Clod Seb, with his symbol the goose; and the Sacred Goose on a stand, offered his sacrifice. In many countries we have evidence of a sacred character attached to the goose. It is well known that the capitol of Rome was on one occasion saved when on the point of being surprised by the Gauls in the dead of night, by the cackling of the geese sacred to Juno, kept in the temple of Jupiter. The accompanying woodcut (Fig. 30) proves that the goose in Asia Minor was the symbol of Cupid, just as it was the symbol of Seb in Egypt. In India, the goose occupied a similar position; for in that land we read of the sacred “Brahmany goose,” or goose sacred to Brahma. Finally, the monuments of Babylon show f that the goose possessed a like mystic character in Chaldea, and that it was offered in sacrifice there, as well as in Rome or Egypt, for there the priest is seen with the goose in the one hand, and his sacrificing knife in the other. There can be no doubt, then, that the Pagan festival at the winter solstice—in other words, Christmass—was held in honor of the birth of the Babylonian Messiah.

The consideration of the next great festival in the Popish calendar gives the very strongest confirmation to what has now been said. That festival, called Lady-day, is celebrated at Rome on the 25th of March, in alleged commemoration of the miraculous conception of our Lord in the womb of the Virgin, on the day when the angel was sent to announce to her the distinguished honor that was to be bestowed upon her as the mother of the Messiah. But who could tell when this annunciation was made? The Scripture gives no clue at all in regard to the time. But it mattered not. Before our Lord was either conceived or born, that very day now set down in the Popish calendar for the “Annunciation of the Virgin “was observed in Pagan Rome in honor of Cybele, the Mother of the Babylonian Messiah. Now, it is manifest that Lady-day and Christmas-day stand in intimate relation to one another. Between the 25th of March and the 25th of December there are exactly nine months. If, then, the false Messiah was conceived in March and born in December, can any one for a moment believe that the conception and birth of the true Messiah can have so exactly synchronized, not only to the month, but to the day? The thing is incredible. Lady-day and Christmas-day, then, are purely Babylonian.
[1] . From whence it appears that Christ must be born before the middle of October, since the first rain was not yet come.” KITTO, on Deut. xi. 14 (Illustrated Commentary, vol. i. p. 398), says that the “first rain,” is in “autumn,” “that is, in September or October.” This would make the time of the removal of the flocks from the fields somewhat earlier than I have stated in the text; but there is no doubt that it could not be later than there stated, according to the testimony of Maimonides, whose acquaintance with all that concerns Jewish customs is well known. (Mede. Works, 1672. Diacourte xlviii. The above argument of Mede goes on the supposition of the well-known reasonableness and consideration by which the Roman laws were distinguished. (Archdeacon WOOD, in Christian Annotator, vol. iii. p. 2. LOMMEB’S Manual of Presbytery, p. 130.) Lorimer quotes Sir Peter King, who, in his Enquiry into the Worship of the Primitive Church, Ac., infers that no such festival was observed in that Church, and adds—”It seems improbable that they should celebrate Christ’s nativity when they disagreed about the month and the day when Christ was born.” See also Rev. J. Ryle, in his Commentary on Luke, chap, ii.. Note to verse 8, who admits that the time of Christ’s birth is uncertain, although he opposes the idea that the flocks could not have been in the open fields in December, by an appeal to Jacob’s complaint to Laban, “By day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night.” Now the whole force of Jacob’s complaint against his churlish kinsman lay in this, that Laban made him do what no other man would have done, and, therefore, if he refers to the cold nights of winter (which, however, is not the common understanding of the expression), it proves just the opposite of what it is brought by Mr. Ryle to prove—viz., that it was not the custom for shepherds to tend their flocks in the fields by night in whiter. (J GIBSELBB, vol. i. p. 64, and Note. (Monitum in Ham. dt Natal. Chritti), writing in Antioch about A.D. 380, says : “It is not yet ten yean since this day was made known to us “(Vol. ii., p. 362). “What follows,” adds Oieseler, “furnishes a remarkable illustration of the ease with which customs of recent date could assume the character of apostolic institutions.” Thus proceeds Chrysostom: “Among those inhabiting the west, it was known before from ancient and primitive times, and to the dwellers from Thrace to Qadeira [Cadii]

[2] It was previously familiar and well-known, that is. the birth-day of our Lord, which was unknown at Antioch in the east, on the very borders of the Holy Land, where He was born, was perfectly well known in all the European region of the west, from Thrace even to Spain. Tertullian, Dt Idolatria, o. 14, vol. i. p. 682. For the excesses connected with the Pagan practice of the fint foot on New Year’s day. see QIESCLEB, vol. 1. sect. 79, Note. WILKINSON’S Egyptian, vol. iv. p. 406. PLUTARCH (Dt I fide, vol. ii. p. 377, B), states that the Egyptian priests pretended that the birth of the divine son of Isis, at the end of December, was premature. But this is evidently just the counterpart of the classic story of Bacchus, who, when his mother Semele was consumed by the fire of Jove, was said to have been rescued in his embryo state from the flames that consumed her. The foundation of the story being entirely taken way in a previous note (see p. 69), the superstructure of course falls to the ground. MALLET, vol. i. p. 130.

[3] From E61, an “infant.” The pronunciation here is the same as in eon of Gideon. In Scotland, at least in the Lowlands, the Yule-cakes are also called Nur-cakes (the u being pronounced as the Fronohu). Now in Chaldee Noui. signifies “birth.” Therefore, Nur-cakes are “birth-cakes.” The Scandinavian goddesses, called “Nome,” who appointed children their destinies at their birth, evidently derived their name from the cognate Chaldee word “Nor,” child. SHARON TURNER’S Anglo-Saxont, vol. i. p. 219. SALVERTE, Dei Sciences Occultea, p. 491. J STANLEY, p. 1066, col. 1. SHARON TURNER, vol. i. p. 213. Turner cites an Arabic poem which proves that a female sun and a masculine moon were recognised in Arabia as well as by the Anglo-Saxons.—(Ibid.) In the authorized version God is rendered “that troop,” and Meni, “that number; “but the most learned admit that this is incorrect, and that the words are proper names. See KITTO, vol. iv. p. 66, end of Note. The name Gad evidently refers, in the first instance, to the war-god, tor it signifies to atiault; but it also signifies “the assembler; “and under both ideas It is applicable to Nimrod, whose general Character was that of the sun-god, for he was the first grand warrior.

[4] MALLET, vol. ii. p. 24. Edin. 1809. Supplement to IDA Iceland, pp. 322, 323.

[5] HIEBONYM, vol. ii. p. 217.

[6] PLUTARCH, De I aide, vol. ii. sect. 82, p. 372; D. MACROS. Saturn., lib. i. cap. 21, p. 71.

[7] MAOBOBIUS, Sat., lib. i. cap. 23, p. 72, E.

[8] See the Sanscrit Researches of Col. VANS KENNEDY, p. 438. Col. K., a moat distiguished Sanscrit scholar, brings the Brahmins from Babylon (Ibid. p. 157). Be it observed, the very name Surya, given to the sun over all India, is connected with this birth. Though the word had originally a different meaning, it was evidently identified by the priests with the Chaldee “Zero,” and made to countenance the idea of the birth of the “Sun-god.” The Fracrit name is still nearer the Scriptural name of the promised “seed.” It is “Suro.” It has been seen, in a previous Chapter (p. 77), that in Egypt also the Sun was represented as born of a goddess.

[9] Subsequently the number of the days of the Saturnalia was increased to seven. See JUSTUS Lireiua, Opera, torn, ii., Saturnal, lib. i. cap. 1.

[10] If Saturn, or Kronos, was, as we have seen reason to believe, Phoronnu, “The emancipator “(see ante, pp. 61, 62), the “temporary emancipation” of the slaves at his festival was exactly in keeping with his supposed character.

[11] f From “Tzohkh,” “to sport and wanton,” and “anesh,” “man,” or perhaps “anea” may only be a termination signifying “the doer,” from “to act upon.” To the initiated, it had another meaning.

[12] ADAM’S Roman Antiquitiu, “Religion, Saturn.” See STAIIUS, Sylv., lib. i. e. vi. v. 4, pp. 66, 66. The words of Statius are:— “Saturooi mlhl compede eioluti et roulto gravidua mero December et ridens jocus, et aales proterri Adstnt.”

[13] In ATHENXDB, ziv. p. 639, C. CRASB’S Mythology, “Saturn,”p. 12. Berlin Correspondent of London Timii, December 23, 1853.

[14] OVID, Metam., lib. x. v. 600-613.

[15] See ante, p. 69.

[16] From MAURICE’S Indian Antiquities, vol. vi. p. 368. 1796.

[17] “Ail,”or “II,”a synonym for Oheber, the “mighty “one (Exodus xv. 16), signifies also a wide-spreading tree, or a stag with branching horns (see PABKHUBST, tub vote). Therefore, at different times, the great god is symbolized by a stately tree, or by a stag. In the accompanying woodcut, the cutting off of the mighty one is symbolized by the cutting down of the tree. On an Ephesian coin (SMITH, p. 289), he is symbolized by a stag cut asunder; and there a palm-tree is represented as springing up at the side of the stag, just as here it springs up at the side of the dead trunk. In SANCHENIATHON, Kronis is expressly called “Ilos “—i.e., “The mighty one.” The great god being cut off, the cornucopia at the left of the tree is empty; but the palm-tree repairs all.

[18] Baal-bereth, which differs only in one letter from Baal-berith, “Lord of the Covenant,” signifies “Lord of the fir-tree.”

[19] In the Scandinavian story of Balder (see ante, p. 87), the mistletoe branch is distinguished from the lamented god. The Druidio and Scandinavian myths somewhat differed; but yet, even in the Scandinavian story, it is evident that some marvelous power was attributed to the mistletoe branch; for it was able to do what nothing else in the compass of creation could accomplish; it slew the divinity on whom the Anglo-Saxons regarded “the empire “of their “heaven “as “depending.” Now, all that is necessary to unravel this apparent inconsistency, is just to understand “the branch “that had such power, as a symbolical expression for the true Messiah. The Bacchus of the Greeks came evidently to be recognized as the “seed of the serpent; “for he is said to have been brought forth by his mother in consequence of intercourse with Jupiter, when that god had appeared in the form of a serpent.—(See DYMOCK’S Classical Dictionary, tub voce “Deois.”) If the character of Balder was the same, the story of his death just amounted to this, that the “seed of the serpent “had been slain by the “seed of the woman.” This story, of course, must have originated with his enemies. But the idolaters took up what they could not altogether deny, evidently with the view of explaining it away.

[20] For the mystic meaning of the story of the boar, see ante, p. 65.

[21] PAUSANIAE, lib. vii., Achaica, cap. 7.

[22] From KITTO’S Illustrated Commentary, vol. iv. p. 137.

[23] The reader will remember the Sun was a goddess. Mallet says, “They offered the largest hog they could get to Frigga “—i.e., the mother of Balder the lamented one.—(Vol. i. p. 132.) In Egypt swine were offered once a-year, at the feast of the Moon, to the Moon, and Bacchus or Osiris; and to them only it wan lawful to make such an offering.—.&LIAN, z. 16, p. £62.

[24] See ante, pp. 29, 30.

[25] THEOCRITUS, Idyll xxz. v. 21, 40.