S
A lot of the anti-Christmas, anti-Easter, anti-Roman Catholic remarks on the forums come from Hislopites, who believe the teachings of Alexander Hislop, or were indoctrinated by individuals influenced by Hislop's writings.
I am definitely not pro-Roman Catholic Church, but my discussions with them center upon the Bible, and not the works of an ignoramus who distorted facts to arrive at his conclusions. Therefore I would never repeat his foolishness to a Roman Catholic to convince him that the teachings of the RCC are in error; I would make my arguments from Scripture.
I don't agree with Roman Catholic theology in regards to peculiar doctrines such as denying justification by faith alone and sola Scriptura, as well as purgatory, the sacerdotal system, perpetual virginity of Mary, the Mass, and other significant doctrinal problems. I have some Roman Catholic friends that I love and believe are born-again, and I can talk to them about some of these issues without alienating them, because I don't use poor logic and the works of ignorant men to approach them.
In addition, I know that cult members with much worse doctrine than the Roman Catholic Church use Hislop's conclusions to impugn Roman Catholicism. Chief amongst those are Armstrongites (United Church of God, Restored Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God, and Living Church of God) and Jehovah's Witnesses. Some darker Hebrew Roots Movement organizations would fall into the same category. It is ironic that wolves are identifying the RCC as a wolf, while they themselves are wolves. Bow wow.....or maybe I should say HOWL...
Alexander Hislop was a Scottish clergyman who wrote a book called "Two Babylons" in 1853.
The basic thesis of the book was to prove that Roman Catholicism was related to the worship of Nimrod, his nymphomaniac wife Semiramis, and their son, Tammuz (who was supposedly a reincarnation of Nimrod). By extension, Protestants are also implicated in this mixture of paganism and Christianity by many Hislopites, especially the aforementioned cults.
Generally, the accusations relate specifically to Christmas and Easter when it comes to criticisms leveled at Protestants, but include a wide variety of Roman Catholic specific practices when these criticisms are leveled against Roman Catholics.
As a former Armstrongite, Hislop's book Two Babylons was very important to forming my prejudices against Roman Catholicism and Protestants of all types. Armstrongites rejected the Christianity of all believers outside of their organization.
Alexander Hislop was probably one of the worst scholars that I've ever read. He tries to connect all of paganism to the worship of Nimrod and Semiramis, and then connect that system to the Roman Catholic Church. The logic he uses is abominable, and he misquotes references in order to make his claims. He is academically dishonest and his work has no credibility.
For instance, Nimrod and Semiramis didn't even live in the same century, so I think that rendered the possibility of them having a child pretty much to nill...I think reproduction requires two partners who exist at the same time. He claims that the Roman Catholic version of Mary was actually Semiramis, which is pretty hard to believe since Mary is considered to be a perpetual virgin and Semiramis was a nymphomaniac with many lovers. He believed that Nimrod was an ugly black man, which suggests some racial overtones, and also isn't provable due to the scant information available about Nimrod. He claims that the Babylonians practiced confession like Roman Catholics do, but the reference he gives actually relates to Greece and not Babylon. He taught that church steeples are actually phallic symbols (the male sex organ) and that church bells actually relate to testicles. I can remember believing this as an Armstrongite. I was taught that Protestants and Catholics were basically giving God the finger through these steeples attached to their churches.
Hislop clained that all pagan religion came from Nimrod and Semiramis worship. The logic he used involved finding a similarity between one pagan god and Nimrod (usually based on some poor correlation), and then finding a similarity between that pagan god and another pagan god, and assuming they were both Nimrod. By using this "method", he connected many pagan gods from all over the world to Nimrod.
The logic would be something like this:
Bill wears a red shirt and blue jeans.
Bob wears a red shirt and khakis.
Jim wears a green shirt and khakis.
Conclusion: Jim is Bill.
That's pretty much the logic Alexander Hislop used.
Like I said previously, he also misquoted his references to prove his points so he was academically dishonest.
His work has been utterly discredited. Christians of any moral caliber whatsoever should not refer to Hislop's nonsense to convince Roman Catholics that Roman Catholicism is wrong, rather, they should use Scripture to prove that Roman Catholicism is wrong.
I think that Protestants use arguments like this against Roman Catholicism because they aren't very literate in Scripture, or perhaps they themselves don't believe justification by faith alone. If that's true, they don't understand Christianity well enough to refute Roman Catholicism on the central issues between us. I would suggest reading James White's book Roman Catholic Controversy if this is the case.
Another big issue is a misunderstanding of Revelation 17. A typical misunderstanding is that the Great Prostitute is talking about the Roman Catholic Church. However, if that's true, then Protestants are the daughters of the Great Prostitute, and that doesn't bode too well for Protestants. You play right into the hands of cults when you make that claim..Armstrongites believe that both Roman Catholics and Protestants are part of "Babylon" and are both equally corrupt.
I've been researching a partial preterist view in this regard, and I'm convinced that the Great Prostitute was actually the Jewish nation, who consorted with the Romans to persecute Christians, and the book of Revelation is about the judgment of God against the Jewish nation for rejecting the Messiah. This view is more coherent than the Roman Catholic Church view. I haven't fully completed my study yet on this topic, but it is looking more coherent than what I've seen from premillennial dispensationalists.
I am pretty sure the book of Revelation was written shortly before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD67-70, as the first three verses specified that these events were "soon to come"..not 1950 years or more in the future.
Anyways, regardless of your view on that, I'd encourage you to be cautious of Hislopites on the forum. You will know them because they will refer to Roman Catholicism in the context of Nimrod and Semiramis worship. Like I said, Hislop's work has been discredited and it is ridiculous. It is also condemning of much of Protestantism, as some of his comments applied to Protestant practices. So, using his reasoning basically condemns yourself if you are a Protestant.
Here's an article by Ralph Woodrow, who wrote a book called The Babylonian Connection? where he refuted Hislop's work. Before he wrote this book, he believed Two Babylons, and wrote a book that lauded it, but after he came to an understanding of its problems, he refuted his own position, much like I have done with regards to my own former association with Armstrongism.
Here's a link to the article:
The Two Babylons - Christian Research Institute
Here's a link to the Wikipedia article on Hislop:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hislop
Here's a link to Ralph Woodrow's books if you want to buy them:
Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association
(quote begins)
Two Babylons by Ralph Woodrow
This article first appeared in the volume 22, number 2 (2000) issue of the Christian Research Journal. For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org
In my earlier Christian experience, certain literature fell into my hands that claimed a considerable amount of Babylonian paganism had been mixed into Christianity. While the Roman Catholic Church was the primary target of this criticism, it seemed the customs and beliefs with which pagan parallels could be found had also contaminated other churches. Much of what I encountered was based on a book called The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (1807–1862).
Over the years The Two Babylons has impacted the thinking of many people, ranging all the way from those in radical cults (e.g., the Jehovah’s Witnesses) to very dedicated Christians who hunger for a move by God but are concerned about anything that might quench His Spirit. Its basic premise is that the pagan religion of ancient Babylon has continued to our day disguised as the Roman Catholic Church, prophesied in the Book of Revelation as “Mystery Babylon the Great” (thus, the idea of two Babylons — one ancient and one modern). Because this book is detail­ed and has a multitude of notes and references, I assumed, as did many others, it was factual. We quoted “Hislop” as an authority on paganism just as “Webster” might be quoted on word definitions.
As a young evangelist, I began to preach on the mixture of paganism with Christianity, and eventually I wrote a book based on Hislop, titled Babylon Mystery Religion (Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Assn., 1966). In time, my book became quite popular, went through many printings, and was translated into Korean, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and several other languages. Hundreds quoted from it. Some regarded me as an authority on the subject of “pagan mixture.” Even the noted Roman Catholic writer Karl Keating said, “Its best-known proponent is Ralph Woodrow, author of Babylon Mystery Religion.”[SUP]1
[/SUP]
Many preferred my book over The Two Babylons because it was easier to read and understand. Sometimes the two books were confused with each other, and once I even had the experience of being greeted as “Reverend Hislop”! As time went on, however, I began to hear rumblings that Hislop was not a reliable historian. I heard this from a history teacher and in letters from people who heard this perspective expressed on the Bible Answer Man radio program. Even the Worldwide Church of God began to take a second look at the subject. As a result, I realized I needed to go back through Hislop’s work, my basic source, and prayerfully check it out.
As I did this, it became clear: Hislop’s “history” was often only an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths. He claimed Nimrod was a big, ugly, deformed black man. His wife, Semiramis, was a beautiful white woman with blond hair and blue eyes. But she was a back­slider known for her immoral lifestyle, the inventor of soprano singing and the originator of priestly celibacy. He said that the Baby­lon­ians baptized in water, believing it had virtue because Nimrod and Semiramis suffered for them in water; that Noah’s son Shem killed Nimrod; that Semiramis was killed when one of her sons cut off her head, and so on. I realized that no recognized history book substantiated these and many other claims.
The subtitle for Hislop’s book is “The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.” Yet when I went to refer­ence works such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Americana, The Jewish Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia, The Worldbook Encyclopedia – carefully reading their articles on “Nimrod” and “Semiramis” — not one said anything about Nimrod and Semiramis being husband and wife. They did not even live in the same century. Nor is there any basis for Semiramis being the mother of Tammuz. I realized these ideas were all Hislop’s inventions.
If we sought to base an argument about George Washington and his wife, we should at least start out with facts. We could show who George Washington was, that he had a wife named Martha, when they lived, and continue from there. But if no historian was certain who George Washington was, or if he even had a wife, or when they lived, this would not be a sound basis on which to prove anything. Such is the inherent weakness of Hislop’s thesis that papal worship is the worship of Nimrod and his wife.
I saw that a more direct and valid argument against errors in the Roman Catholic Church (or any other group) is the Bible itself, not ancient mythology. For ex­ample, the Bible speaks of a minister being “the husband of but one wife” and that “for­bid­ding people to marry” is a doctrine of devils (1 Tim. 3:2; 4:3). This provides a strong­er argument against priestly celibacy than trying to show that ancient priests of Semiramis castrated themselves.
While seeking to condemn the paganism of Roman Catholicism, Hislop produced his own myths. By so doing, he theorized that Nimrod, Adonis, Apollo, Attes, Baal-zebub, Bacchus, Cupid, Dagon, Hercules, Januis, Linus, Lucifer, Mars, Merodach, Mithra, Moloch, Narcissus, Oannes, Odin, Orion, Osiris, Pluto, Saturn, Teitan, Typhon, Vulcan, Wodan, and Zoroaster were all one and the same. By mixing myths, Hislop supposed that Semiramis was the wife of Nimrod and was the same as Aphrodite, Artemis, Astarte, Aurora, Bellona, Ceres, Diana, Easter, Irene, Iris, Juno, Mylitta, Proserpine, Rhea, Venus, and Vesta.
Take enough names, enough stories, and enough centuries; translate from one language to another; and a careless writer of the future might pass on all kinds of misinformation. Gerald Ford, an American president, might be confused with Henry Ford, the car manufacturer. Abraham Lincoln might end up as the inventor of the automobile, the proof being that many cars had the name “Lincoln.” The maiden name of Billy Graham’s wife is Bell. She has sometimes gone by the name Ruth Bell Graham. The inventor of the telephone was Alexander Graham Bell. By mixing up names, someone might end up saying Billy Graham was the inventor of the telephone; or that he invented Graham Crackers. In fact, the inventor of Graham Crackers was Sylvester Graham. Again, similarities could be pointed out. Both men were named Graham. Both men were ministers. But the differences make a real difference: Sylvester was a Presbyterian and Billy a Baptist, and they were from different generations.
Building on similarities while ignoring differences is an unsound practice. Atheists have long used this method in an attempt to discredit Christianity altogether, citing examples of pagans who had similar beliefs about universal floods, slain and risen saviors, virgin mothers, heavenly ascensions, holy books, and so on.
As Christians, we don’t reject prayer just because pagans pray to their gods. We don’t reject water baptism just because ancient tribes plunged into water as a religious ritual. We don’t reject the Bible just because pagans believe their writings are holy or sacred.
The Bible mentions things like kneeling in prayer, raising hands, taking off shoes on holy ground, a holy mountain, a holy place in the temple, pillars in front of the temple, offering sacrifices without blemish, a sacred ark, cities of refuge, bringing forth water from a rock, laws written on stone, fire appearing on a person’s head, horses of fire, and the offering of first fruits. Yet, at one time or another, similar things were known among pagans. Does this make the Bible pagan? Of course not!
If finding a pagan parallel provides proof of paganism, the Lord Himself would be pagan. The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in His hand (Ps. 75:8). Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14). Pagans worshiped the sun; the Lord is the “Sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2). Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called “the bright and Morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Pagan gods had temples dedicated to them; the Lord has a temple (Rev. 7:15). Pagans built a high tower in Babylon; the Lord is a high tower (2 Sam. 22:3). Pagans worshiped idolatrous pillars; the Lord appeared as a pillar of fire (Exod. 13: 21–22). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Ps. 91:4).
(quote ends)
I am definitely not pro-Roman Catholic Church, but my discussions with them center upon the Bible, and not the works of an ignoramus who distorted facts to arrive at his conclusions. Therefore I would never repeat his foolishness to a Roman Catholic to convince him that the teachings of the RCC are in error; I would make my arguments from Scripture.
I don't agree with Roman Catholic theology in regards to peculiar doctrines such as denying justification by faith alone and sola Scriptura, as well as purgatory, the sacerdotal system, perpetual virginity of Mary, the Mass, and other significant doctrinal problems. I have some Roman Catholic friends that I love and believe are born-again, and I can talk to them about some of these issues without alienating them, because I don't use poor logic and the works of ignorant men to approach them.
In addition, I know that cult members with much worse doctrine than the Roman Catholic Church use Hislop's conclusions to impugn Roman Catholicism. Chief amongst those are Armstrongites (United Church of God, Restored Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God, and Living Church of God) and Jehovah's Witnesses. Some darker Hebrew Roots Movement organizations would fall into the same category. It is ironic that wolves are identifying the RCC as a wolf, while they themselves are wolves. Bow wow.....or maybe I should say HOWL...
Alexander Hislop was a Scottish clergyman who wrote a book called "Two Babylons" in 1853.
The basic thesis of the book was to prove that Roman Catholicism was related to the worship of Nimrod, his nymphomaniac wife Semiramis, and their son, Tammuz (who was supposedly a reincarnation of Nimrod). By extension, Protestants are also implicated in this mixture of paganism and Christianity by many Hislopites, especially the aforementioned cults.
Generally, the accusations relate specifically to Christmas and Easter when it comes to criticisms leveled at Protestants, but include a wide variety of Roman Catholic specific practices when these criticisms are leveled against Roman Catholics.
As a former Armstrongite, Hislop's book Two Babylons was very important to forming my prejudices against Roman Catholicism and Protestants of all types. Armstrongites rejected the Christianity of all believers outside of their organization.
Alexander Hislop was probably one of the worst scholars that I've ever read. He tries to connect all of paganism to the worship of Nimrod and Semiramis, and then connect that system to the Roman Catholic Church. The logic he uses is abominable, and he misquotes references in order to make his claims. He is academically dishonest and his work has no credibility.
For instance, Nimrod and Semiramis didn't even live in the same century, so I think that rendered the possibility of them having a child pretty much to nill...I think reproduction requires two partners who exist at the same time. He claims that the Roman Catholic version of Mary was actually Semiramis, which is pretty hard to believe since Mary is considered to be a perpetual virgin and Semiramis was a nymphomaniac with many lovers. He believed that Nimrod was an ugly black man, which suggests some racial overtones, and also isn't provable due to the scant information available about Nimrod. He claims that the Babylonians practiced confession like Roman Catholics do, but the reference he gives actually relates to Greece and not Babylon. He taught that church steeples are actually phallic symbols (the male sex organ) and that church bells actually relate to testicles. I can remember believing this as an Armstrongite. I was taught that Protestants and Catholics were basically giving God the finger through these steeples attached to their churches.
Hislop clained that all pagan religion came from Nimrod and Semiramis worship. The logic he used involved finding a similarity between one pagan god and Nimrod (usually based on some poor correlation), and then finding a similarity between that pagan god and another pagan god, and assuming they were both Nimrod. By using this "method", he connected many pagan gods from all over the world to Nimrod.
The logic would be something like this:
Bill wears a red shirt and blue jeans.
Bob wears a red shirt and khakis.
Jim wears a green shirt and khakis.
Conclusion: Jim is Bill.
That's pretty much the logic Alexander Hislop used.
Like I said previously, he also misquoted his references to prove his points so he was academically dishonest.
His work has been utterly discredited. Christians of any moral caliber whatsoever should not refer to Hislop's nonsense to convince Roman Catholics that Roman Catholicism is wrong, rather, they should use Scripture to prove that Roman Catholicism is wrong.
I think that Protestants use arguments like this against Roman Catholicism because they aren't very literate in Scripture, or perhaps they themselves don't believe justification by faith alone. If that's true, they don't understand Christianity well enough to refute Roman Catholicism on the central issues between us. I would suggest reading James White's book Roman Catholic Controversy if this is the case.
Another big issue is a misunderstanding of Revelation 17. A typical misunderstanding is that the Great Prostitute is talking about the Roman Catholic Church. However, if that's true, then Protestants are the daughters of the Great Prostitute, and that doesn't bode too well for Protestants. You play right into the hands of cults when you make that claim..Armstrongites believe that both Roman Catholics and Protestants are part of "Babylon" and are both equally corrupt.
I've been researching a partial preterist view in this regard, and I'm convinced that the Great Prostitute was actually the Jewish nation, who consorted with the Romans to persecute Christians, and the book of Revelation is about the judgment of God against the Jewish nation for rejecting the Messiah. This view is more coherent than the Roman Catholic Church view. I haven't fully completed my study yet on this topic, but it is looking more coherent than what I've seen from premillennial dispensationalists.
I am pretty sure the book of Revelation was written shortly before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD67-70, as the first three verses specified that these events were "soon to come"..not 1950 years or more in the future.
Anyways, regardless of your view on that, I'd encourage you to be cautious of Hislopites on the forum. You will know them because they will refer to Roman Catholicism in the context of Nimrod and Semiramis worship. Like I said, Hislop's work has been discredited and it is ridiculous. It is also condemning of much of Protestantism, as some of his comments applied to Protestant practices. So, using his reasoning basically condemns yourself if you are a Protestant.
Here's an article by Ralph Woodrow, who wrote a book called The Babylonian Connection? where he refuted Hislop's work. Before he wrote this book, he believed Two Babylons, and wrote a book that lauded it, but after he came to an understanding of its problems, he refuted his own position, much like I have done with regards to my own former association with Armstrongism.
Here's a link to the article:
The Two Babylons - Christian Research Institute
Here's a link to the Wikipedia article on Hislop:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hislop
Here's a link to Ralph Woodrow's books if you want to buy them:
Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association
(quote begins)
Two Babylons by Ralph Woodrow
This article first appeared in the volume 22, number 2 (2000) issue of the Christian Research Journal. For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org
In my earlier Christian experience, certain literature fell into my hands that claimed a considerable amount of Babylonian paganism had been mixed into Christianity. While the Roman Catholic Church was the primary target of this criticism, it seemed the customs and beliefs with which pagan parallels could be found had also contaminated other churches. Much of what I encountered was based on a book called The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (1807–1862).
Over the years The Two Babylons has impacted the thinking of many people, ranging all the way from those in radical cults (e.g., the Jehovah’s Witnesses) to very dedicated Christians who hunger for a move by God but are concerned about anything that might quench His Spirit. Its basic premise is that the pagan religion of ancient Babylon has continued to our day disguised as the Roman Catholic Church, prophesied in the Book of Revelation as “Mystery Babylon the Great” (thus, the idea of two Babylons — one ancient and one modern). Because this book is detail­ed and has a multitude of notes and references, I assumed, as did many others, it was factual. We quoted “Hislop” as an authority on paganism just as “Webster” might be quoted on word definitions.
As a young evangelist, I began to preach on the mixture of paganism with Christianity, and eventually I wrote a book based on Hislop, titled Babylon Mystery Religion (Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Assn., 1966). In time, my book became quite popular, went through many printings, and was translated into Korean, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and several other languages. Hundreds quoted from it. Some regarded me as an authority on the subject of “pagan mixture.” Even the noted Roman Catholic writer Karl Keating said, “Its best-known proponent is Ralph Woodrow, author of Babylon Mystery Religion.”[SUP]1
[/SUP]
Many preferred my book over The Two Babylons because it was easier to read and understand. Sometimes the two books were confused with each other, and once I even had the experience of being greeted as “Reverend Hislop”! As time went on, however, I began to hear rumblings that Hislop was not a reliable historian. I heard this from a history teacher and in letters from people who heard this perspective expressed on the Bible Answer Man radio program. Even the Worldwide Church of God began to take a second look at the subject. As a result, I realized I needed to go back through Hislop’s work, my basic source, and prayerfully check it out.
As I did this, it became clear: Hislop’s “history” was often only an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths. He claimed Nimrod was a big, ugly, deformed black man. His wife, Semiramis, was a beautiful white woman with blond hair and blue eyes. But she was a back­slider known for her immoral lifestyle, the inventor of soprano singing and the originator of priestly celibacy. He said that the Baby­lon­ians baptized in water, believing it had virtue because Nimrod and Semiramis suffered for them in water; that Noah’s son Shem killed Nimrod; that Semiramis was killed when one of her sons cut off her head, and so on. I realized that no recognized history book substantiated these and many other claims.
The subtitle for Hislop’s book is “The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.” Yet when I went to refer­ence works such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Americana, The Jewish Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia, The Worldbook Encyclopedia – carefully reading their articles on “Nimrod” and “Semiramis” — not one said anything about Nimrod and Semiramis being husband and wife. They did not even live in the same century. Nor is there any basis for Semiramis being the mother of Tammuz. I realized these ideas were all Hislop’s inventions.
If we sought to base an argument about George Washington and his wife, we should at least start out with facts. We could show who George Washington was, that he had a wife named Martha, when they lived, and continue from there. But if no historian was certain who George Washington was, or if he even had a wife, or when they lived, this would not be a sound basis on which to prove anything. Such is the inherent weakness of Hislop’s thesis that papal worship is the worship of Nimrod and his wife.
I saw that a more direct and valid argument against errors in the Roman Catholic Church (or any other group) is the Bible itself, not ancient mythology. For ex­ample, the Bible speaks of a minister being “the husband of but one wife” and that “for­bid­ding people to marry” is a doctrine of devils (1 Tim. 3:2; 4:3). This provides a strong­er argument against priestly celibacy than trying to show that ancient priests of Semiramis castrated themselves.
While seeking to condemn the paganism of Roman Catholicism, Hislop produced his own myths. By so doing, he theorized that Nimrod, Adonis, Apollo, Attes, Baal-zebub, Bacchus, Cupid, Dagon, Hercules, Januis, Linus, Lucifer, Mars, Merodach, Mithra, Moloch, Narcissus, Oannes, Odin, Orion, Osiris, Pluto, Saturn, Teitan, Typhon, Vulcan, Wodan, and Zoroaster were all one and the same. By mixing myths, Hislop supposed that Semiramis was the wife of Nimrod and was the same as Aphrodite, Artemis, Astarte, Aurora, Bellona, Ceres, Diana, Easter, Irene, Iris, Juno, Mylitta, Proserpine, Rhea, Venus, and Vesta.
Take enough names, enough stories, and enough centuries; translate from one language to another; and a careless writer of the future might pass on all kinds of misinformation. Gerald Ford, an American president, might be confused with Henry Ford, the car manufacturer. Abraham Lincoln might end up as the inventor of the automobile, the proof being that many cars had the name “Lincoln.” The maiden name of Billy Graham’s wife is Bell. She has sometimes gone by the name Ruth Bell Graham. The inventor of the telephone was Alexander Graham Bell. By mixing up names, someone might end up saying Billy Graham was the inventor of the telephone; or that he invented Graham Crackers. In fact, the inventor of Graham Crackers was Sylvester Graham. Again, similarities could be pointed out. Both men were named Graham. Both men were ministers. But the differences make a real difference: Sylvester was a Presbyterian and Billy a Baptist, and they were from different generations.
Building on similarities while ignoring differences is an unsound practice. Atheists have long used this method in an attempt to discredit Christianity altogether, citing examples of pagans who had similar beliefs about universal floods, slain and risen saviors, virgin mothers, heavenly ascensions, holy books, and so on.
As Christians, we don’t reject prayer just because pagans pray to their gods. We don’t reject water baptism just because ancient tribes plunged into water as a religious ritual. We don’t reject the Bible just because pagans believe their writings are holy or sacred.
The Bible mentions things like kneeling in prayer, raising hands, taking off shoes on holy ground, a holy mountain, a holy place in the temple, pillars in front of the temple, offering sacrifices without blemish, a sacred ark, cities of refuge, bringing forth water from a rock, laws written on stone, fire appearing on a person’s head, horses of fire, and the offering of first fruits. Yet, at one time or another, similar things were known among pagans. Does this make the Bible pagan? Of course not!
If finding a pagan parallel provides proof of paganism, the Lord Himself would be pagan. The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in His hand (Ps. 75:8). Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14). Pagans worshiped the sun; the Lord is the “Sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2). Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called “the bright and Morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Pagan gods had temples dedicated to them; the Lord has a temple (Rev. 7:15). Pagans built a high tower in Babylon; the Lord is a high tower (2 Sam. 22:3). Pagans worshiped idolatrous pillars; the Lord appeared as a pillar of fire (Exod. 13: 21–22). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Ps. 91:4).
(quote ends)
Last edited:
