Once again, where have I ever said I have proof of what Hislop says? I'm surprised that someone who has read Noorbergen's book would ask how the Aztecs came to have the same practices the Catholic church has. Shocked is probably a better word.

Even if you didn't use the word, you implied it when you said that what you "showed" somehow means it did happen.



And yes, I've read Noorbergen's book -- it doesn't tell us that Nimrod and Semiranus started infant baptism and transported it to Mexico. So no, I don't know where the Aztecs got it from, I can only surmise from various details how they MIGHT have learned to do it.

Noorbergen's book does give considerable evidence that right after the flood there was a serious exploration of the earth, with maps showing accuracy that was completely lost in following centuries.

They built some kind of system which he suggests ran along the magnetic fields of the earth, and were used for communication and travel (even flight travel) The pyramid idea and small lined up towers, and pictures one can see only from the air, seemed to be very much part of this global organization of the world as these things are found in various parts of the world.
But that communication system which was meant to hold the whole world together (one world government) was disrupted when the tower of Babel was smitten.

ALSO Aztecs apparently had a legend that the "gods" sailed away in ships, and would reappear. When the Europeans arrived in the 1600's and men sailed into their harbors they at first thought the "gods" had returned. That initially made it easy for the "white men" to take advantage of them.

But explain how a pagan ritual that has Biblical language and thought laced all through it, but of course was paganized, managed to last through 4000 years. According to Aztec legends the Aztec suffered at least four or five serious collapses of their culture, followed by "rebirth" of culture during those years. How do you know if it wasn't Japheth or Shem's descendants, that were the initial explorers? Japheth and his descendants seemed to be the ones that travelled the farthest and had the farthest communities away from the ark area. Or maybe it was a combined effort by all the brothers?


ALSO
There's lots of evidence that the Vikings were in America centuries before Columbus "discovered" America. (They seem to have first come around 930 AD)
The Vikings were part of Catholic Christianity. Their legendary stories of voyages in America were also just legends for many years, till the ruins of one of their settlements was found in Canada, and the natives "remembered" stories.

Also the Vikings were avid seamen.
It's very possible they sailed along the coasts, and were the "white men" (gods) in the ships of Aztec legends. They could have brought Catholic religion to the natives, before sailing on.

We don't know where or how the Aztec got the idea to baptize their baby using rather Biblical language, though calling on pagan gods.

There is a lot we don't know, for me to just believe that which it appears (whatever it is you seem to think is obvious) and you are so shocked that I don't just accept that theory as matter of fact?

So? What difference would it make who taught the Aztecs as most of the earth was in rebellion against God and scattered over the earth because of Babel and the paganism practiced there? And the Vikings gods closely paralleled the Babylonian gods. I don't see you've said anything that discredits Hislop.

Yes, that is the big problem!
What difference does it make -- Hislop makes no difference, he lumps everything into one basket, which he calls paganism that supposedly originated in Nimrod and Semarimus.

Now departure from truth definitely began soon after the flood.

Sadly the apostolic Christian church, as it grew in membership was bombarded with all manner of superstitions, heathen rituals, as well as sophisticated Greek philosophy and learning. Truths were explained not only in heathen terms, but also in philosophical reasoning, and gradually counterfeits attached themselves to the truths.

There is a difference in the example of the Aztec baptism, even though done in the name of pagan gods.

The concepts of "rebirth" "regeneration" in that account were not the same as the ancient Egyptian concepts of rebirth and regeneration. The Aztec baptism (other than mentioning other gods) was very much the same as CATHOLIC concepts of rebirth and regeneration.
The Egyptian's focus was on life after death, rebirth after death and ascending to live with the gods in the stars after their earthly life ceased.
The Aztec baptism was dealing with rebirth from the inherited original sin. Clearly a Catholic doctrine.

Yes, Hislop tries to take the responsibility away from the Catholic church and put the blame on ancient paganism, so he refers to some ancient initiation rituals that involved water, but those did not sound like baptism, but rather they sounded like endurance tests, in which some didn't even survive. Then he points to Virgil's epic legendary poem where the great warrior escaped from Troy and enters the "underworld" where the dead live as "shades" and he heard deceased babies crying who couldn't go to the peaceful fields of the underworld because they hadn't participated in pagan mystic rites. No indication this was baptism, though of course the idea of needing some sort of ritual to advance in the regeneration of life was implied. He then gives the Aztec account to imply infant baptism was a practice derived from paganism.

Yet, the evidence for the origin of the Aztec baptism seems to point to the Catholic understanding of infant baptism having been given to these Aztec people sometime before the Spanish arrived.
And yes, the Vikings, while never fully giving up their paganism had converted to Catholicism. Erik the Red (Thorvaldsson around 1000 AD) explored Greenland and founded the first Norse settlement there. One of his sons, Leif Eriksson, led some of the first European explorations of the east coast of North America. The Saga of Erik indicates Leif brought Christianity to Greenland, Erik was against it, but his wife and Leif built a Catholic church and promoted Christianity. (Of course this was Catholic Christianity).
As mentioned in the previous post, Leif and his company of explorers could very well have been the ones bringing the whole concept of infant baptism to the Aztecs several hundred years before the Spanish arrived.

I agree that the Catholic belief of Infant baptism is unbiblical, and that their version of being "born again" which supposedly happens to the infant at baptism is totally missing what "born again" means. Those beliefs are totally unbiblical. There's no question that Catholicsm absorbed a lot of pagan concepts into their beliefs. Compromising, manipulating, philosophizing, not to match the ancients, but shape their own counterfeit religion.

The point is -- yes, sin swept the world, sadly very soon after the flood, counterfeits of all sorts were developed and practiced and passed on for thousands of years.

But the Catholic Church started with apostolic beginnings. Paul and his associates started the Gentile churches, including the one in Rome. They had the Bible and the truth.
Sadly, even while Paul was still preaching, "the mystery of iniquity was already at work"
a lot of the old Gentile customs and rituals and thought patterns crept in to pollute the truths. Generally due to compromising. The Gentile church didn't start out polluted, it started out with truth and became polluted.

But remember another side of the story, the Jewish church also was given the true gospel message, yet it seems they became a real pain to Paul and his ministry as they too clung to their old rituals and practices.

That's some thing Hislop seems to miss, there were several things that came into the Catholic system which was an attempt to reinstate the Jewish sanctuary practices. The priesthood (coming to the priests for forgiveness and perform the sacrifice). The high Priest (The pope, Bishop of all Bishops -- at first all bishops were equal but even before Constantine the Roman bishop was trying to be the bishop of bishops). The sacrificial lamb (reinstated as the bloodless mass). Even infant baptism, in the early years, just two centuries after Christ, they were debating whether babies should be baptized on the eighth day (the day scripture commands circumcision) in order to be part of the faith community.
On the other hand, Sunday as the day of worship came in not because they desired to worship the sun, it started as a celebration of Christ's resurrection, and also a desire to be distinguished from the Jews. It was wrong, because God sanctified the seventh day and asked His people to keep it holy, not the first day. Constantine didn't enforce sunday worship on Christians, it was because Christians (especially in Rome) were already celebrating on Sunday that Constantine saw it as a good merging point in his sun worshipping empire.
As one pioneer Adventist wrote: "they (the papal church) reinstated that which was abolished, and abolished that which was to remain."

There was a mix of things that pulled the church off track into its "antichrist" position..
But while we need to peel back the false, underneath there is still truth.

While pagans were steeped in superstitions and false religions, not everything a pagan did was sin.
Just because pagans did something, does not always or automatically mean it's sin. It's only sin if it is against God's commandments and/or taking us away from our Savior and setting our affections on something else (a false god).

How does the fact that the RCC teaches the same thing as the Aztecs did discredit Hislop? All I see in your argument is a reinforcement of Hislop's beliefs and writings.





So we see that the roots of water as a regenerative agent go clear back to Nimrod's and Semiramis' times

Hislop shows pagan practices, but his basic theory is different. His theory assumes all these practices found in the Catholic church were originated by about two or three people shortly after the flood. I don't believe that part --
I do believe Satan has been busy coming up with all kinds of counterfeit gods and practices and misunderstandings to match all kinds of different temperaments over many centuries of time.
Soon after the flood, yes there were some in deliberate rebellion against God. There was deliberate rebellion against God and willful disregard to God's ways and teachings. But some of these things Hislop writes about also grew from misunderstanding truths originally taught by the survivors of the flood. Some were just everyday things people did over the centuries and became habits and customs, which may or may not be wrong. Just because pagan cultures did something does not automatically make it evil.

Now we've come to BAPTISM.

What you posted shows me the ancients at one time knew A LOT about God's redemptive plan. Yes, in those accounts we see the true God being replaced and people manufacturing their own false gods and twisting the truth to fit their false gods, but if these things lifted from the legends are what the ancients actually believed, then the great truths of scripture which people think were only known after Christ's first coming, were known from the beginning.

When God told Adam and Eve the plan of redemption it was explained and understood in considerable detail. Noah would have understood, he would have taught it to his sons.


The confirmation this gives of the flood!
Yes, Noah lived on both sides of the flood.
And yes, God used water to wash away all evil and recreated the world.
Though its difficult to relate the flood to baptism of people, it is true that flood washed away the sinful results and perpetrators of sin. The earth was cleansed and renewed.


Yes, that is obviously connecting to a true historical event (though Noah is no god).

But then Hislop gives a pretty confusing conclusion tying things together. His supposed connection of Semiramis with Nimrod and Noah is sketchy and weak, combining mythical stories of numerous goddesses, from different times and legends together to come to his conclusions. There's no way Semiramis shared Noah's distress, and likewise sought safety in the same way.



To identify the Holy Spirit, in terms of the sensuous goddesses Venus, Dione or any other goddess, is akin to blasphemy, nor does the Holy Spirit give spiritual powers to water.
But He does give spiritual power to those repenting and being baptized.
It does seem obvious there was knowledge concerning the eternal Godhead -- Father, Messiah, Holy Spirit.
The Messiah would be in the midst of them.
The Holy Spirit they recognized as having regenerating power for new life.

Seems the Jews also believed in "regenerating water" as we see in the story recorded in John chapter five. The pool of Bethesda had a lot of sick people waiting for the spirit to stir the water thinking the first to jump in would be regenerated (healed).

So where did the whole idea of washing with water/baptizing originate?

Hislop may show washing in water and a connection with "regeneration" was practiced by pagans. But did it originate in paganism, or did paganism counterfeit it, or misunderstand it?

Among the Jews purification by water washings was well known. John the Baptist (before Christianity) baptized a lot of people, but he wasn't starting something new. They may have questioned his authority to perform the ritual, but they didn't question the ritual itself.

Among the Jews purification by water washings was well know. The Levitical system of was filled with "divers washings" Hebrews 9:20.
The priests were washed as they began their sacred duties. Exodus 30:19,20; 29:4.
A "defiled" person must wash before entering society again.

Baptism was not a Christian invention -- it was practiced by the Jews long before Christianity came.

Immersion was also demanded of Proselytes. "One of the steps in becoming a proselyte was complete immersion in running water to wash away impurities acquired while in a state of heathenism.... " (Universal Jewish Encyclopedia)
"Israel does not enter into covenant but by these three things, by circumcision, baptism, and peace offering; and proselytes, in like manner." (History of Infant Baptism)

However, Christianity brought a whole new meaning to baptism. In the first couple centuries they stressed conversion and commitment, putting off the old man, and rising in newness of life, which was signified in baptism, They were against infant Baptism. But that changed.

Whereas Israel, saw inclusion in the covenant community achieved more by outward signs and rituals which largely took place while still an infant (like circumcision on the eighth day after birth)
This belief was one reason some pushed for infant baptism.

No where does Hislop say that one or two people were responsible for the invention of all pagan gods and practices. These are legends and by definition have grown up after the death of the "gods". No one declares themselves a god. It is those who come after them who do that.

Of course the pagan practices are counterfeits of Satan's inventiveness. That's what Hislop is pointing out.

Once again your reasoning is faulty.

Then why does Hislop put all this emphases on Nimrod, Cush and Semiramis?
I'm glad you finally realize this is all based on legends that have grown over time.

Not sure in what way you think my reasoning is faulty --easy to say without giving any proof.


By the way I didn't say "one or two people were responsible for the invention of all pagan gods and practices", I wrote:
His theory assumes all these practices found in the Catholic church were originated by about two or three people shortly after the flood.

In his book he tries to trace everything back to these three. That many of the goddess and gods even though with different names and possessing some same but also differing characteristics supposedly had their origin from one of these three.

That's the whole thesis of his book -- tracing the "mysteries of Babylon" all the way back to these three.

Nimrod, receives a lot of attention in the book, as do all three.

Of course it's all confusion. For in the story, Nimrod is supposedly conceived by a deceased god. The confusion is that Nimrod was supposedly Semiramis' husband, but now becomes her son.
If Nimrod was supposedly the "seed of Cush" what evidence does anyone have that Cush died before Nimrod was born? Even the legends don't agree on that. Some think the mighty Nimrod was Semiramis husband, but was killed and then he impregnated Semiramis with himself and was reborn as her son. But then we have in the narrative that Cush helped Semiramis build the walls of Babylon after Nimrod's death. Semiramis having inherited Nimrod's status, after he was departed. Obviously the whole story is based on confusion not on facts.
Also if Nimrod was the first human deified, he can't be Osiris, for the Egyptians already were worshipping Osiris and Isis when they started building pyramids -- and they were built while Cush and his son's would still have been alive.

And how do you know Nimrod was alive when the Egyptians began worshiping Osiris? The flood happened around 2350 BC According to Biblical reckoning and Nimrod was Noah's great grandson. How did that leave enough time for the Egyptian culture to get started and legends develop after the flood and the tower of Babel for legends of Osiris to develop before Nimrod's day?

And how long after creation did Cain kill Abel? Did it take centuries before that level of evil developed on earth? Remember how long it took for Adam and Eve to develop guilty consciences to bother them so that they hid themselves in the trees when they heard God walking in the garden?

Once again your reasoning seems pretty faulty to me.

The inspired rendition.

EGW gives much the same story as the Bible -- her emphases is on the relationship between the people and God. She doesn't even mention Nimrod or Ham's son Cush, (Semiramis doesn't appear in EGW writings or in the Bible) The only grandson of Noah she mentions is Caanan the fourth son of Ham.
The strange thing is that though Caanan is specifically singled out as "cursed" both in scripture and EGW, Hislop doesn't mention him.



What does Genesis tell us of Nimrod, Cush and Semiramus?


Interesting -- verse 7 lists five sons from Cush and two grandsons. (Nimrod not mentioned)
It's not till the next verse, vs 8, after having mentioned grandsons, does it go back and mention Nimrod It appears Nimrod was born later in Cush's life, after he (Cush) already had grandsons.
And yes, it is implied Nimrod was a mighty warrior and rebel and a builder of cities and a kingdom.

So the Bible, of the three Hislop spends a lot of pages on, only mentions Nimrod as leading a rebellion against God. Cush is only mentioned as Ham's son, and father of several sons. Semiramus isn't mentioned at all.

Caanan, which the Bible specifically mentions and which we see later in the Bible is very wicked and given to destruction, is ignored by Hislop.

MOSES
Moses wrote the book of Genesis, possibly while he was herding sheep in the land of Midian.

Moses was brought up in Egypt. Not as a slave but as a favored prince in Pharaoh's court. Educated in the schools of Egypt. His teachers probably priests in Egypt's pagan arts.
Moses KNEW all about the religion of the land, he was immersed in the center of it.

Yet, Moses, under the inspiration of God tells the story of earth's beginnings in the book of Genesis and totally ignores the great mother goddess Semiramus the supposed mother goddess Rhea and her supposed connection with the gods and goddesses of Egypt. He doesn't even mention Nimrod's elevation to godhood.
Why?

Yes, he probably was familiar with the legends of creation, Noah, and Osiris and Isis. But Moses was given the task to set the record straight. To tell the truth would counter the prevailing errors
He was to write how God created the world, how sin entered, why the flood, what Noah did, how it all began.

Genesis three should have alerted all to the wrongness of their whole concept of gods and goddess.

Satan's lie - Disobey God and
1. you won't die
2. you will be like gods (and goddesses)

That is the foundation. The foundation of Satan's deception.
Reject Satan's lie -- and all that god and goddess stuff will be seen for what it is.