Babylonian God????

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little_Katie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
similarities??? It is called plagiarism in this day and age. It is not just a few similarities,they are the SAME EXACT STORIES. Just change the names of the characters,and twist a couple events. It would seem that you have not studied bible origins at all. I was in your shoes once,I didn’t wan’t to know anything that might possibly weaken my faith. So I just sat back and listened to others, and assumed everyone was B.S.n’ me. However to be honest with myself, I had to study the bible in depth,OBJECTIVLy,and also its origins…I am going to read the Trimorphic Protennoia next. It is an early Christian book about 140 A.D. It goes into very detailed explanations of the trinity. I started it once before but it lost me.
 
Little_Katie said:
I have seen this. I also laughed so hard I cried. I am actually an avid DnD/table top role player myself!! I have never felt the urge to kill myself upon loosing a character. And last time I checked my DM is not trying to lure me into a Satanic Cult (though I think he’s been hinting at me baking cupcakes for the next game again…). LOL
Click to expand...
You know I’m curious. Does your friend also happen to believe that/in…
  1. The Earth is 6000 years old
  2. The KJV is the only true Bible that should be read
  3. The Rapture
  4. That listening to rock/modern music will make you satanic
  5. That playing role-playing games will make you join a wtich’s coven
… and along many other things I have now come to associate this Jack Chick style ‘theology’

P.S.

To the krew with the many 5s in his name, Genesis seems to be the only book that has similarities to these alleged Babylonian myths. And it’s the book of Genesis no less (it’s pretty much symbolic on the whole so it’s literary devices don’t seem very worthy of any concern so as long as the basic message is in there) I don’t think it’s enough to consider Christianity as a whole is descended from this. :rolleyes:
 
krew555555 said:
similarities??? It is called plagiarism in this day and age. It is not just a few similarities,they are the SAME EXACT STORIES. Just change the names of the characters,and twist a couple events. It would seem that you have not studied bible origins at all. I was in your shoes once,I didn’t wan’t to know anything that might possibly weaken my faith. So I just sat back and listened to others, and assumed everyone was B.S.n’ me. However to be honest with myself, I had to study the bible in depth,OBJECTIVLy,and also its origins…I am going to read the Trimorphic Protennoia next. It is an early Christian book about 140 A.D. It goes into very detailed explanations of the trinity. I started it once before but it lost me.
Click to expand...
To be completely honest… I know my bible very well, but as for it’s origins I only have a very rough idea. I do know the basic history. However, I still feel that some similarities don’t mean they are talking about the same story. And even if they were… as a Catholic I believe that those other stories aren’t ‘divinely inspired’ such as the ones that actually are in scripture are.
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
You know I’m curious. Does your friend also happen to believe that/in…
  1. The Earth is 6000 years old
  2. The KJV is the only true Bible that should be read
  3. The Rapture
  4. That listening to rock/modern music will make you satanic
  5. That playing role-playing games will make you join a wtich’s coven
… and along many other things I have now come to associate this Jack Chick style ‘theology’

P.S.

To the krew with the many 5s in his name, Genesis seems to be the only book that has similarities to these alleged Babylonian myths. And it’s the book of Genesis no less (it’s pretty much symbolic on the whole so it’s literary devices don’t seem very worthy of any concern so as long as the basic message is in there) I don’t think it’s enough to consider Christianity as a whole is descended from this. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yeah my friend pretty much has that carbon copy of Jack Chick-ish theology. It’ ridiculous. I was pretty surprised when he told me he had never even heard of Jack Chick. I guess they are just the same branch of Christianity…

Not so sure about Genesis being mostly symbolic. Most Catholics/Christians I know (including myself) take Genesis as true history.
 
Little_Katie said:
Yeah my friend pretty much has that carbon copy of Jack Chick-ish theology. It’ ridiculous. I was pretty surprised when he told me he had never even heard of Jack Chick. I guess they are just the same branch of Christianity…

Not so sure about Genesis being mostly symbolic. Most Catholics/Christians I know (including myself) take Genesis as true history.
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s the branch of FundaMENTALism. :rolleyes:

As to Genesis, if you look at what krew555555 said, most of the similarities only reach as far as the creation of the world up to Noah’s flood. If we’re discussing the story of Abraham and whatnot then I guess that could have some historical credibility. But as to the first chapters dealing with the origin of the world (Seven days, Fall of Man etc) those are pretty much symbolic.
 
Maybe the woods cant be seen because the trees are in the way…Just maybe??🙂
 
adstrinity said:
OOOH! The Baptism of Bells!!! That’s an old one!!! It’s nice to see that they are sticking with the classics!
Click to expand...
That is verrrry funny, adstrinity. The ‘classics’ !!

Thank you for adding laughter to my day.

reen12
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
Yes, it’s the branch of FundaMENTALism. :rolleyes:

As to Genesis, if you look at what krew555555 said, most of the similarities only reach as far as the creation of the world up to Noah’s flood. If we’re discussing the story of Abraham and whatnot then I guess that could have some historical credibility. But as to the first chapters dealing with the origin of the world (Seven days, Fall of Man etc) those are pretty much symbolic.
Click to expand...
Nah, I still take most of the bible pretty literally. The fall of man was an actual event. I’m pretty sure most others would agree with me. In fact, one of the only books that I can honestly tell you is symbolic is revelations.

Heck… I don’t even know what revelations is talking about no matter how often I read it!!

I’m not really sure what the Catholic stance is on Revelations, but I know we don’t buy into the rapture.
 
Little_Katie said:
Nah, I still take most of the bible pretty literally. The fall of man was an actual event. I’m pretty sure most others would agree with me. In fact, one of the only books that I can honestly tell you is symbolic is revelations.

Heck… I don’t even know what revelations is talking about no matter how often I read it!!

I’m not really sure what the Catholic stance is on Revelations, but I know we don’t buy into the rapture.
Click to expand...
We are not pre-tribulation about the Rapture. If you mean that after Jeus’s Second Coming that everyone alive at taht time is taken into heaven for judgement and the world ends, we accept that. If you mean that he pulls the beleivers our and then there is a period of time then it ends, nope. That is not Biblical at all.

Revelation has several meanings. One shows the end of the Temple system and the advent of the Church. One gives us a message of Hope that Christ will return. There are more. We can accept any of them, so long as we do not step on other doctrine when we do.
 
ralphinal said:
We are not pre-tribulation about the Rapture. If you mean that after Jeus’s Second Coming that everyone alive at taht time is taken into heaven for judgement and the world ends, we accept that. If you mean that he pulls the beleivers our and then there is a period of time then it ends, nope. That is not Biblical at all.

Revelation has several meanings. One shows the end of the Temple system and the advent of the Church. One gives us a message of Hope that Christ will return. There are more. We can accept any of them, so long as we do not step on other doctrine when we do.
Click to expand...
Do you know any good links or books that give the Catholic approach on Revelations? It’s something I’d like to look further into it. 🙂
 
Little_Katie said:
Do you know any good links or books that give the Catholic approach on Revelations? It’s something I’d like to look further into it. 🙂
Click to expand...
A good starting place is The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth by Scott Hahn
 
Little_Katie said:
Do you know any good links or books that give the Catholic approach on Revelations? It’s something I’d like to look further into it. 🙂
Click to expand...
AS posted by Mercy, Lamb’s Supper is a good one. I’ll get some other names for you soon. I am going by EWTN this week, and I can find something for you.
 
Little_Katie said:
I don’t know if my friend is weirded out by the sign of the cross specifically, but I would definitely say that he finds catholic practices in general as ‘cultish’.

No, actually, he doesn’t believe the trinity is pagan. I think his denomination is called ‘4 square’ or something weird like that… they believe in the trinity.

I have actually never heard of the baptism of bells… you call it a classic? lol, was it stirring up scandal long before?
Click to expand...
Sounds like Jack Chick has stuck again. Yes all this stuff has been out there for years and all of it wrong. The cross he probably has problems with is the Tau Rau (something like that) because it looks like the egyptian ahnk symbol. But thats combining two languages entirely different. It is nonsense anything that Chick or anyone else can put out against the Catholics can be disproven with a little understanding of history.
 
sambos671 said:
Sounds like Jack Chick has stuck again. Yes all this stuff has been out there for years and all of it wrong. The cross he probably has problems with is the Tau Rau (something like that) because it looks like the egyptian ahnk symbol. But thats combining two languages entirely different. It is nonsense anything that Chick or anyone else can put out against the Catholics can be disproven with a little understanding of history.
Click to expand...
Ha ha- the funny part is that my friend never heard of Jack Chick.
 
Little_Katie said:
I have a protestant friend who recently tried to convince me that Catholics are worshiping a Babylonian God and don’t even know it and that Mary is really some Babylonian Goddess or some weirdness… Basically he’s convinced that we are all poor lost souls being tricked by the Vatican.

So we got talking and of course I told him to show me the evidence of this. He pulled up a series of ‘claims’ on various web pages and it’s all made to look very valid and intelligent and historical and what not. Of course I knew that this was just a bunch of anticatholic propaganda, but how can I prove to him that his ‘evidence’ is a bunch of phooey?? He and, to my shock, tons of others are taught and believe this nonsense!! Seriously, he was talking about insane stuff that I thought I’d only ever come in contact w/ in some stupid Jack Chick comic…
Click to expand...

This idea is not true at all. It’s not often that can be said - most fictions have some truth in them; but not this one. Unfortunately, a lot of people believe it - it appears you’ve discovered that for yourself 🙂​

There is more than one form of this idea, so if you don’t tell us what was said, we have no way of knowing. 🙂

A few points:
  • Babylonian religion did not originate in Babylon - Babylon is first mentioned in about 2200 BC, but its religion is mainly derived from the earlier religion of the city-states of Sumer.
  • Sumerian religion is known to have had over 1970 gods - Babylonian religion kept the names alive, but identified many of the gods with one another.
  • So in practice the very many gods of Sumer were reduced to a rather small number - 20 are named in the Code of Hammurabi (about 1750 or so)
  • Many gods were worshipped by particular groups in society, or were favoured by particular rulers or at particular times. There are many variables, so it is very misleading to treat the religion of Ancient Iraq as though it was unchanging between 3000 BC & 100 AD.
  • Not all gods in Ancient Iraq came from there - gods travelled a good deal, & the ones worshipped in Ancient Iraq included deities from
    There were tendencies to treat certain major deities - Ashur, Enlil, Ishtar, Marduk & some others - as including other deities: a Babylonian text describes a number of gods as parts of the body of Marduk:
  • “Ninurta is Marduk of the hoe,
    Nergal is Marduk of the attack,
    Zababa is Marduk of the hand-to-hand fight,
    Enlil is Marduk of lordship and counsel,
    Nabu is Marduk of accounting,
    Sin is Marduk the illuminator of the night,
    Shamash is Marduk of justice,
    Adad is Marduk of rains…”
  • Joan Oates, Babylon p.172
(The text is incomplete, because the tablet it is on is broken)

The god Nabu is known to have been favoured in Assyria about 800 BC. The poem “Enuma elish” (AKA “the Babylonian Epic of Creation”) describes the rise of Marduk to kingship over all other gods.

So there were tendencies that cut down the number of gods in various ways - but there was never the worship of one God Alone. The Jews got there - the people of Ancient Iraq did not.

A site you might find helpful is the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature:
A few names of gods:

wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

The deities mentioned in the Prologue to the Code of Hammurabi are:
  • Anu
  • Enlil
  • Marduk
  • Ea
  • the Igigu-gods
  • Shamash
  • Sin
  • Nana
  • Zababa
  • Nabu
  • Urash
  • Mama
  • Nintu
  • Ningirsu
  • Damgalnuna
  • Dagan
  • Tishpak
  • Ninazu
  • Anunitum
  • [Ashshur]
  • Ishtar of Nineveh (the Hurrian goddess Sawushka)
  • Inana
    The Epilogue names, in addition to several of the above:
  • Sarpanit
  • “Belit, the great Mother, whose command is potent in E-Kur”
  • Hadad
  • Ishtar
  • Nergal
  • Ninkarrak
  • the Anuna-gods
    The writing of names in English is subject to variations in how they are read: “Ninurta”, “Ninib/p”, “Mash”, & “Bar” are the same god. “Zababa” is the same as “Zamama” - the god is a war-god identified with Ninurta, who was a god of war & agriculture.
The Sumerians, Babylonians & Assyrians were fond of making lists - one list of gods gives the 1970 names mentioned, & also indicates which gods were identified with which. Some gods had many names as a result - Ninurta had over a dozen, thanks to being identified with:
  • Hurabtil
  • Inshushinak = “Lord of Susa” in Elam
  • Lugalbanda
  • Lugal-Marda = “King of Marad” (a city)
  • Ninazu = “Lord Physician”
  • Ningirsu = “Lord of Girsu” (a city)
  • Pabilsanga
  • Pab/pnigingarra
  • Pisangunuk = “Priest of Uruk” (a city)
  • Tishpak (a storm-god)
  • Zababa (city-god of Kish)
  • Uta-ulu is a name of Ninurta in “Ninurta and the Turtle”
  • & others. He was much favoured in Assyria, as is shown by personal names, which are one of the clues to which gods were popular when. The god Nabu was in part a Babylonian equivalent - both were “sons” of the gods of their respective nations: Ninurta, of Asshur; Nabu, of Marduk. Ninurta had begun as the son of Enlil, the principal god of the Sumerians.
Hope this helps 🙂
 
Little_Katie said:
I have a protestant friend who recently tried to convince me that Catholics are worshiping a Babylonian God and don’t even know it and that Mary is really some Babylonian Goddess or some weirdness… Basically he’s convinced that we are all poor lost souls being tricked by the Vatican.
Click to expand...

The idea is, that the BVM is a lightly Christianised version of the deified woman Semiramis, queen of Assyria in about 2180.​

None of that is true, because:
  • “Semiramis” is a fiction - a composite character who is partly the goddess Ishtar, partly (in name) Sammuramat, who was regent (?) for her son between 810 & 805;
  • Semiramis has been further developed, so as to be made up of a large number of goddesses, including Juno, Hera, Artemis, Isis, Astarte, & many more.
  • The historical Sammuramat was not deified: Assyrian rulers who regarded themselves as gods begin with Sargon I of Assyria, & the only other one known is Tukulti-Ninurta I (1243-1206). Deified rulers are known in Sumerian history, but the only rulers to have had temples, appear to have been Naram-Sin of Akkad (2150 or so), & two or three of the kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur, about 100 years later.
  • The date of 2200 or so does not fit Assyrian history - it’s too early by about 300 years.
  • The BVM is venerated for reasons which have nothing to do with the religion of Ancient Iraq. She is called “Queen of Heaven”, not because she is a Christianised from of Asherah or some other goddess, but because of her relation to Christ. If she is not the “mother of God” except because Isis is called “mother of God”, then the title “king of kings” borne by Christ in Revelation must by that reasoning mean Christ is Osiris, who is called by that title far earlier than Christ.
    If similarities to other deities prove identity, Christ is as “pagan” - “Babylonian” ? - as can be desired: he resembles:
  • Ninurta
  • Ninazu
    for a start: & if all gods are “Babylonian”, then he makes a very good Dionysus, Osiris, Adonis & Tammuz.
The idea behind all this is that the content of Babylonian religion can be found by looking elsewhere - anywhere. So a tribal dance in the Americas, the worship of gods in Britain, artifacts from Malta, all show:
  • that there was a widespread “Babylonian Mystery Religion”
  • that just about everything in Catholicism - mitres, Hosts, baptismal regeneration, crosiers, liturgical fans, the pallium, the tonsure, Peter’s keys, the Mass, Confession, the college of cardinals, the Papal office, & much much more - comes from the religion of Babylon, & must therefore have featured in it.
So we got talking and of course I told him to show me the evidence of this. He pulled up a series of ‘claims’ on various web pages and it’s all made to look very valid and intelligent and historical and what not. Of course I knew that this was just a bunch of anticatholic propaganda, but how can I prove to him that his ‘evidence’ is a bunch of phooey?? He and, to my shock, tons of others are taught and believe this nonsense!! Seriously, he was talking about insane stuff that I thought I’d only ever come in contact w/ in some stupid Jack Chick comic…
Click to expand...

This stuff is believed by a lot of people 😦 , such as:​

  • Bahais
  • Jehovah’s Witnesses
  • Calvinists
    The book all this stuff is taken from is regarded as something of a classic in some quarters. It is the source of the further development of Semiramis.
The book is believed for a number of reasons - for most people, Babylon is as alien as Uranus or Venus, & its appearance in the NT as the supremely evil city does nothing to suggest it is worth studying 😦 There are not no connections whatever between Babylon & the CC, but most of them come from the fact that Catholicism, like all forms of Christianity, is derived from the religion of Israel & Judah - which shared a good many cultural (& therefore religious) features with Ancient Iraq.
 
adstrinity said:
OOOOH! The first site takes a swipe at the Orthodox Church! That’s new!

The Vatican Site has the reason why the Oblesk is there and was moved.

I don’t think that the Dali Lama is friends with PJPII when he was alive. I think they were more like aquaintaintances. I’m pretty sure the African women dancing for PJP were not trying to induce a trance.

I can see what you mean. There are pictures. There are statements. There are accusations. The statements may not represent the pictures in their entirity and the accusations are either ignorant lies or deliberate half-truthes.

The third site has the Rosary wrong. Even the definition of the Rosary.

OOOH! The Baptism of Bells!!! That’s an old one!!! It’s nice to see that they are sticking with the classics!

I like 3.1: They acknowledge that the upsidedown cross is associated with St. Peter, but, in todays society it’s seen as anti-Christian. They are accusing Catholics of being evil, even though they acknowledge history and try to fit the modern piece of the puzzle into something that has nothing on the Church’s doing.

3.2: They have a problem with the sign of the cross? Are they JW’s? Note the picture is of an ankh. The ankh was adopted as a Christian symbol later (I think it still has ties in the Coptic Church – I THINK), but, the ankh is NOT the cross. If your friend has a problem with the sign of the cross, let us know. I was weirded out by it at first, too.

3.3: HEY…wait a minute…I’ve seen this list before. It’s not new. They give us credit for candles. We cannot take it.

OH! I see the dates on the side. They are wrong and can be historically proven wrong.

There’s a bit on the side (scrolling down) saying the Trinity Doctrine is pagan. …Is this what your friend believes?
Click to expand...

Since you ask :o 🙂 :​

  • There is yet one more symbol of the Romish worship to be noticed, and that is the sign of the cross…The cross is adored with all the homage due only to the Most High; and for any one to call it, in the hearing of a genuine Romanist, by the Scriptural term, “the accursed tree,” is a mortal offence. To say that such superstitious feeling for the sign of the cross, such worship as Rome pays to a wooden or a metal cross, ever grew out of the saying of Paul, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ”–that is, in the doctrine of Christ crucified–is a mere absurdity, a shallow subterfuge and pretence…The same sign of the cross that Rome now worships was used in the Babylonian Mysteries, was applied by Paganism to the same magic purposes, was honoured with the same honours. That which is now called the Christian cross was originally no Christian emblem at all, but was the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians–the true original form of the letter T–the initial of the name of Tammuz–which, in Hebrew, radically the same as ancient Chaldee, as found on coins, was formed as in No. 1 of the accompanying woodcut (Fig. 43); and in Etrurian and Coptic, as in Nos. 2 and 3. That mystic Tau was marked in baptism on the foreheads of those initiated in the Mysteries, * and was used in every variety of way as a most sacred symbol.
  • TERTULLIAN, De Proescript. Hoeret. The language of Tertullian implies that those who were initiated by baptism in the Mysteries were marked on the forehead in the same way, as his Christian countrymen in Africa, who had begun by this time to be marked in baptism with the sign of the cross. Note: “and for any one to call it, in the hearing of a genuine Romanist, by the Scriptural term, “the accursed tree,” is a mortal offence.”
Sorry to be awkward - but that phrase does not occur in the Bible. The closest approximation to it is this:
More fiction here:
  • see Chapter 5 Section 6 for the Cross
 
A cross-shaped figure is used as a divine emblem for Shamash the sun-god:
Another emblem of Shamash is worn by Shamshi-Adad V of Assyria (811-783) here:
Unfortunately, a cross for some people is anything vaguely cruciform - including the ankh :o Even though the ankh is a symbol of life, & not a cross. 🤷 Whisky is not only like water in being drinkable - the name means “water of life”: & that, is in the Bible 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top