Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu soc.religion.christian:21705
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!christian
From: REXLEX@fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Hyslop and _The_Two_Babylons_
Message-ID: <May.19.05.15.00.1993.1013@geneva.rutgers.edu>
Date: 19 May 93 09:15:01 GMT
Sender: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu
Organization: FNAL/AD/Net
Lines: 53
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

In article <May.13.02.30.57.1993.1557@geneva.rutgers.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu
(Charley Wingate) writes:
>Seeing as how _The_Two_Babylons_ has been brought up again,
>  Its scholarship is phony and its assertions spurious.
>-- 
>C. Wingate       

Maybe you should dig a little further Charles.  Hislop's scholarship was
accepted by the Bristish Oriental Institute which, at the time, was the premere
Institute for Oriental studies.  As I've stated over and over,  I've checked
out about 25% of his references (most are now out of print or in private
libraries) and the likes of Wilkerson and Layard hold their own merit.  THey
too came to the same conclusions and if you will trouble yourself, you will
find that their knowledge of the mysteries have yet to be surpassed.  Both were
highly honored by the British Oriental Museum.  Wilkerson is known as one of
the leading archeologist in the history of Egyptiology and Layard is still
being refered two after 200 yrs of archeology in the Mesopotamian regions.  He
was recently refered to in a TIME article on Babylonian archeology.  

Phony scholarship is when you review their references and find that they have
misquoted or misrepresented the conclusions.  Hislop did not.  His conclusions
do not tickle the ears, that much is self evident.  But to assert that his
conclusions are "spurious" is without merit.  He gave references to all his
conclusions and as I have stated, for the last 25 years I have used his
conclusions in debates at RC seminaries and brotherhoods, not to mention the
individual priests and bishops that I have talked to one on one.  No counter to
Hislops scholarship was made.  The only rebuttals were against his conclusions
because they do totally undermined the claims of the RCC. He was showing that
the intitution of the RCC was based on the mysteries (which others have shown
even to this day in various articles and topics).  THe tongues movement in
Corinth was a direct result of the mysteries entering into the church.  If it
was so in Corinth, why could they not have an influence in Rome, the city of
seven hills?

Also, you do not have to listen to his conclusions, you can draw your own
conclusions by looking at the customs, artifacts, the cerimonial dress, the
docrine of purgatory, etc from the vantage of the mysteries.  You don't even
have to be a believer to see the parallels.  Just one example.  THe mitre. 
Where did it come from?  Why is it shaped the way it is?  What are the two
tails that hang down the back represent?  Was this an ancient  head dress from
an earlier culture and why was it in Rome at the time of the beginnings of the
church of the State of Rome?  Does it have pagan history behind it, and if so,
why did the RCC chose regardless?

Any lay person of middle eastern religion can answer these questions.  Even the
scriptures themselves refer to it.  All Hislop did was collect the information
from all the various sources and put them in one binding.  There is no lack of
scholorship in that.

Please tell me why you discredit this man by your accusation, yet present no
evidence supporting it.  

--Rex
