Replies

You wrote:

“Not true. Read Jerome. Read Periplus (Sylax, c.500 BC)”

Neither Jerome nor Periplus discussed the Germanic Oestertag.

“Trier, Germany finds it’s fabled founder in Trebeta, son of Ninus (Nimrod, king of Babylon). The Guti (Goths) were kin to the Assyrians, and the Indo-Germanic tongue finds it’s roots among the Hatti (High caste of Assyria).”

Nope. None of that is true. Trier was not in any way related to anything in the Middle East. Modern historians merely report what fanciful legends the people of Trier told in days gone by. Only fools like the Armstrongites believe that sort of nonsense. Besides it still would prove nothing about Oestertag and the Germans had bot even settled in Trier at the supposed founding their fairy tales claim. It is much like the Romans saying they were decsendent from Aeneas. Fanciful nonsense.

Also, the Goths were not kin to any people in the very ancient Near East. The Goths and Assyrians spoke two entirely different languages. This is the sort of rubbish you’re pushing: http://www.asmallvoice.org/id30.html

Please note: it’s from a wacky sect - the WCG/Armstrongites who pushed the fanciful British Israelite nonsense. You have apparently fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

“The OEstar (Ishtar, Semiramis (wife of Nimrod) celebration can easily be found to have traveled to Germany in the earliest of times, not to mention later...”

Nope. The Germans had nothing to do with the Babylonians.

“Whether your take on it is true or not, UriÂ’el-2012 is correct about celibate/eunuch priests being founded in the Babylon Mystery religion.”

Nope. Jesus was celibate. St. Paul was celibate.

“The references you point to are of Hebrew traditions - the very same traditions that Christ abhorred - probably deriving from the Babylonian captivity, where Babylon’s Mystery Religion infected the Hebrew truth. It is *not* Torah.”

Christ was celibate. Christ could not have deliberately chosen celibacy yet abhorred celibacy. He, in fact, praised it. I suggest you start studying rather than believing myths and fables of anti-Catholicism and cults.

“Again, UriÂ’el-2012 is right in this (at least partly, as he stopped at Pergamum) - Both Pontifex Maximus and Pater Patrum come directly from Pergamum - Titles of Pergamum’s priest-kings...”

Nope. Again, Rome and its Pontifex Maximus both existed before there was a Pergamum. There were no kings in Pergamum with the title BEFORE they existed in Rome.

“princes and a priesthood that fled to Pergamum on the heels of Cyrus conquering Babylon. Attalus III, the last Babylonian king of Pergamum willed his kingdom to the Roman Caesar, and thus Nimrod’s (and Satan’s) throne moved from Babylon to Pergamum, and from there to Rome.”

Nope. Attalus III was Greek. He was not Babylonian and Babylon had been destroyed centuries before him anyway. Remember, he was Gree, not Babylonian. Also, he did not will his kingdom to the “Roman Caesar” because no Caesar even existed when he died. Attalus III died in 133 BC. Julius Caesar was born more than 30 years LATER. Attalus willed his kingdom to the Roman Republic. Anti-Catholics are just so bad with history that it’s embarrassing. You have a Greek king put down as Babylonian when Babylon didn’t even exist anymore. You have a king willing his kingdom to a man or office that did not even exist yet. And you want to be taken seriously? Wouldn’t help to get some basic facts right?

“You are correct that there was a Pontifex Maximus in Rome too, though... It is the position of “Chief Pontiff (Bishop)” in the Mystery Religion, and no doubt Rome, as the chief city of Rome, would have had a Chief Pontiff over Rome (the country) going back into the ages.”

Nope. The Romans’ Pontifex Maximus had nothing to do with Babylon.

“But UriÂ’el-2012 is more correct, that the “High Chief Pontiff”, the Pater Patrum, was in Pergamum, and before that in Babylon. It was Julius Caesar AFAIR, (elected first as Pontifex Maximus) who vested the priest-king titles in perpetuity upon the emperors of Rome, wherein it became an automatic title.”

Nope. Uriel is wrong. Also, Julius Caesar did not vest the “priest-king titles in perpetuity upon the emperors of Rome” since he was not an emperor and he was not immediately followed by an emperor in the office of Pontifex Maximus either. Lepidu held the title after him. Only when Octavian held the title did it remain with those who were emperors.

“Yes, that is true - But the Roman church was already sitting on Vatican Hill - Thus Satan’s seat didn’t need to move an inch.”

I think Satan’s seat is more likely in the hearts and minds of anti-Catholics than on any hill outside of oldest Rome.

“Again, UriÂ’el-2012 is right.”

As demonstrated, Uriel is not right.

“Christmas is a perfect re-enactment of the celebration of Tammuz, which fell on the eve of the 3rd day past the winter solstice. Look it up - the parallels are undeniable - Even as the pagan roots of Easter.”

Nope. The Romans, and especially Roman Christians, knew nothing about Tammuz, could not read Babylonian texts and adopted none of their ceremonies. The parallels are actually quite deniable. Most people rely on Hislop for this nonsense and he was notoriously wrong in his facts.

“*none* of this was God ordained, and in a haste to make converts, power, and the blessings of the Emperor, The church of Rome has wholly neglected the Holy things of Jehovah - To include His Sabbath, founded upon the last day of Creation. *None* of the High Holy Days of Jehovah, *HIS appointed times*, are found in Rome (or in Protestantism, to be sure).”

Jesus released us from the Jewish law of observances. When you get your facts straight, let me know.