: Las Dos Babilonias (Spanish Edition) () by Alexander Hislop and a great selection of similar New, Used and Collectible Books. Las Dos Babilonias: Alexander Hislop: Books – Las Dos Babilonias by Alexander Hislop at – ISBN – ISBN – CreateSpace Independent Publishing .
|Published (Last):||15 January 2004|
|PDF File Size:||17.50 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.87 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Philologos Religious Online Books Philologos. If there be this general coincidence between the systems of Babylon and Rome, the question arises, Does the coincidence stop here?
To this the answer is, Far otherwise. We have only to bring the ancient Babylonian Mysteries to bear on the whole system of Rome, and then it will be seen how immensely the one has borrowed from the other.
These Mysteries were long shrouded in darkness, but now the thick darkness begins to pass away. All who have paid the least attention to the literature of Greece, Egypt, Phoenicia, or Rome are aware of the place which the “Mysteries” occupied in these countries, and that, whatever circumstantial diversities there might be, in all essential respects these “Mysteries” in the different countries were the same.
Now, as the language of Jeremiah, already quoted, would indicate that Babylon was the primal source from which all these systems of idolatry flowed, so the deductions of the most learned historians, on mere historical grounds have led to the same conclusion.
From Zonaras we find that the concurrent testimony of the ancient authors he had consulted was to this effect; for, speaking of arithmetic and astronomy, he says: Both Bunsen and Layard in their researches have come to substantially the same result. The statement of Bunsen is to the effect that the religious system of Egypt was derived from Asia, and “the primitive empire in Babel. It obtained the epithet of perfectand was believed to be the most ancient of religious systems, having preceded that of the Egyptians.
The identity of Nimrod with the constellation Orion is not to be rejected. After referring to the fact that the Egyptian priests claimed the honour of having transmitted to the Greeks the first elements of Polytheism, he thus concludes: All these separate facts–all these scattered testimonies, recur to that fruitful principle which places in the East the centre of science and civilisation. Macrobius shows that the distinguishing feature of the Phoenician idolatry must have been imported from Assyria, which, in classic writers, included Babylonia.
Now to establish the identity between the systems of ancient Babylon and Papal Rome, we have just to inquire in how far does the system of the Papacy agree with the system established in these Babylonian Mysteries. In prosecuting such an inquiry there are considerable difficulties to be overcome; for, as in geology, it is impossible at all points to reach the deep, underlying strata of the earth’s surface, so it is not to be expected that in any one country we should find a complete and connected account of the system established in that country.
But yet, even as the geologist, by examining the contents of a fissure here, an upheaval there, and what “crops out” of itself on the surface elsewhere, is enabled to determine, with wonderful certainty, the order and general contents of the different strata over all the earth, so is it with the subject of the Chaldean Mysteries.
What is wanted in one country is supplemented in another; and what actually “crops out” in different directions, to a large extent necessarily determines the character of much that does not directly appear on the surface. Taking, then, the admitted unity and Babylonian character of the ancient Mysteries of Egypt, Greece, Phoenicia, and Rome, as the clue to guide us in our researches, let us go on from step to step in our comparison of the doctrine and practice of the two Babylons–the Babylon of the Old Testament and the Babylon of the New.
And here I have to notice, first, the identity of the objects of worship in Babylon and Rome. The ancient Babylonians, just as the modern Romans, recognised in words the unity of alexaander Godhead; and, while worshipping innumerable minor deities, as possessed of certain influence on human affairs, they distinctly acknowledged that there was ONE infinite and almighty Creator, supreme over all.
Most other nations did the same. The ancient Icelandic mythology calls him “the Author of every thing that existeth, the eternal, the living, and awful Being; the searcher into concealed things, the Being that never changeth.
Though modern Hinduism recognises millions of gods, yet the Indian sacred books show that originally it had been far otherwise. Major Moor, speaking of Brahm, the supreme God of the Hindoos, says: He “illumines all, delights all, whence all proceeded; that by which they live when born, and that to which all must return” Veda.
In the “Institutes of Menu,” he is characterised as “He whom the mind alone can perceive; aldxander essence eludes the external organs, who has no visible parts, who exists from eternity Nay, not merely had the ancient Hindoos exalted ideas of the natural perfections of God, but there is evidence that they were well aware of the gracious character of God, as revealed in His dealings with a lost and guilty world.
This is manifest bagilonias the very name Brahm, appropriated by them to the one infinite and eternal God. There has been a great deal of unsatisfactory speculation in regard to the meaning of this name, but when the different statements in regard to Brahm are carefully considered, it becomes evident that the name Brahm is just the Hebrew Rahm, with the digamma prefixed, which is very frequent in Alexanrer words derived from Hebrew or Chaldee.
Rahm in Hebrew signifies “The merciful or compassionate one.
Now we find habilonias language applied to Brahm, the one supreme God, as cannot be accounted for, except on the supposition that Brahm had the very same meaning as the Hebrew Rahm. Thus, we find the God Crishna, in one of the Hindoo sacred books, when asserting his high dignity as a divinity and his identity with the Supreme, using the following words: Here, then, we find that Brahm is just the same as “Er-Rahman,” “The all-merciful one,”–a title applied by the Turks to the Most High, and that the Hindoos, notwithstanding their baabilonias religious degradation nowhad once known that “the most holy, most high God,” is also “The God of Mercy,” in other words, that he is “a just God and a Saviour.
It is well known that the Brahmins, to exalt themselves as aldxander priestly, half-divine caste, to whom all others ought to bow down, have for many ages taught that, while the dls castes came from the arms, and body and feet of Brahma–the visible representative and manifestation of the invisible Brahm, and identified with him– they alone came from the mouth of the creative God. Now we find statements in their sacred books which prove that once a very different doctrine must have been taught.
It evidently meant that He who, ever since the fall, has been revealed to man as the “Merciful and Gracious One” Exo That name is commonly derived from the Sanscrit, Div”to shine,”–only a different form of Shivwhich has the same meaning, which again comes from the Chaldee Ziv”brightness or splendour” Dan 2: But there is reason to believe that “Deva” has a much more honourable origin, and that it really came originally from the Chaldee, Thav”good,” which is also legitimately pronounced Thevand in the emphatic form is Theva or Thevo”The Babilonia.
Hence, from Dheva or Thevabsbilonias Good,” naturally comes the Sanscrit, Devaor, without the digamma, as it frequently is, Deo”God,” hisoop Latin, Deusand the Greek, Theosthe digamma in the original Thevo-s being also dropped, as novus in Latin is neos in Greek.
This view of the matter gives an emphasis to the saying of our Lord Matt So utterly idolatrous was the Babylonian recognition of the Divine unity, that Jehovah, the Living God, severely condemned His own people for giving any countenance to it: But how little weight is in babi,onias, may be seen from the fact that it is this very term “Achad,” and that without the article, that is used in Deuteronomy, when the Unity of the Godhead is asserted in the most emphatic manner, “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah,” i.
In the unity of that one Only God of the Babylonians, there were three persons, and to symbolise that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed, as the discoveries of Layard prove, the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day. The Egyptians also used the triangle as a symbol of their “triform divinity.
In both cases such a comparison is most degrading to the King Eternal, and is fitted utterly to pervert the minds of those who contemplate it, as if there was or could be any similitude between such a figure and Him who hath said, “To whom will ye liken God, and what likeness will ye compare unto Him?
The Babilonixs has in some of its churches, as, for instance, in the monastery of the so-called Trinitarians of Madrid, an image of alxander Triune God, with three heads on one body. Layard, in his last work, has given a specimen of such a triune divinity, worshipped in ancient Assyria.
Las Dos Babilonias by Alexander Hislop (2014, Paperback)
Petersburg, and given in Parson’s “Japhet. We beg to speak of it with due reverence. One of the heads is like the ordinary pictures of our Saviour. The other is the head of an old man, surmounted by a triangle. Out of the middle of this figure is proceeding the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. We think it must be painful to any Christian mind, and repugnant to Christian feeling, to look at this figure. Some have said that the plural form of the name of God, in the Hebrew of Genesis, affords no argument of 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.
In India, the supreme divinity, in like manner, in one of the most ancient cave-temples, is represented with three heads on one body, under the name of “Eko Deva Trimurtti,” “One God, three forms. Kennedy objects to the application of the name “Eko Deva” to the triform image in the cave-temple at Elephanta, on the ground that that name belongs only to the supreme Brahm.
But in so doing he is entirely inconsistent, for he admits that Brahma, the first person in that triform image, is identified with the supreme Brahm; and further, that a curse is pronounced upon all who distinguish between Brahma, Vishnu, and Seva, the three divinities represented by that image. In Japan, the Buddhists worship their great divinity, Buddha, with three heads, in the very same form, under the name of “San Pao Fuh. While overlaid with idolatry, the recognition of a Trinity was universal in all the ancient nations of the world, proving how deep-rooted in the human race was the primeval doctrine on this subject, which comes out so distinctly in Genesis.
Las Dos Babilonias (spanish Edition) Alexander Hislop | eBay
If the angel here referred to had not been God, Jacob could never have invoked him as on an equality with God. When we look at the symbols in the triune figure of Layard, already referred to, and minutely examine them, they are very instructive. Layard regards the circle in that figure as signifying “Time without bounds. And whence can we have derived this term but from the Arabians, as they, without doubt, had themselves derived it from the Chaldees, the grand original cultivators at once of arithmetic, geometry, and idolatry?
Zero, in this sense, had evidently come from the Chaldee, zer”to encompass,” from which, also, no doubt, was derived the Babylonian name for a great cycle of time, called a ” saros.
Therefore, according to the genius of the mystic system of Chaldea, which was to a large extent founded on double meanings, that which, to the eyes of men in general, was only zero, “a circle,” was understood by the initiated to signify zero, “the seed.
While this had been the original way in which Pagan idolatry had represented the Triune God, and though this kind of representation had survived to Sennacherib’s time, yet there is evidence that, at a very early period, an important change had taken place in the Babylonian notions in regard to the divinity; and that the three persons had come to be, the Eternal Father, the Spirit of God incarnate in a human mother, and a Divine Son, the fruit of that incarnation.
Back Table of Contents Forward moza butterfly. Table of Contents The Two Babylons: Backend server did not respond in time.