re hyslop and the two babylons in article may 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 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 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 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
