Are there any peer-reviewed archeological studies showing that the Catholic Church is 1:1 to ancient Babylonian polytheism? I’ve read Hilsop’s writings on it and while it’s convincing, I want to know if any more modern studies corroborate his findings.
Pic unrelated
>Are there any peer-reviewed archeological studies showing that the Catholic Church is 1:1 to ancient Babylonian polytheism?
This isn't even /x/ worthy on a flat-earther thread.
it was an interesting theory, though.
What
In what sense? It's simply idiotic, almost unbelievably so. There are virtually zero similarities between the two, much less "HURR DEY IS DE SAME".
No similarities? There’s tons.
how simplistic borderline autistic are you guys to not be able to extrapolate these generalities to see and explore the common themes innate and axiomatic to human consciousness and existence?
seriously yall niggers need a joint at least probably 10
here ill start you off
>hurrr sun gives energy grows stuff makes me feel good
>hurr mother has child and cares for child
Fuck off
>>>/pol
...
I feel sorry for you OP, what a bunch of idiots.
>forgetting that Jesus constantly used fish metaphors in the Bible
Guess every Christian was secretly worshiping Dagon all along then.
So your theory is that because a number of hats and artistic motifs look similar they must be the same religion or at least related?
you realize how stupid that is right? I'm not here to shill for the church but their history is easily followable from primary sources starting in the late 1st century through the modern day.
the early debates over church doctrines, the schisms, and the modern times, are all documented by 1st and 2nd hand accounts and by numerous academics with no love or affiliation with the church
...
>Are there any peer-reviewed archeological studies showing that the Catholic Church is 1:1 to ancient Babylonian polytheism?
>Are there any peer-reviewed archeological studies showing that the Catholic Church is 1:1 to ancient Babylonian polytheism?
The 95 thesises.
No, because it isn't 1:1 with it. There are plenty of pagan influences, but even with those barely any of them are from Babylon and got adapted from European paganism since that is where Catholicism spread.
The closest you will get are those vague passages in the Talmud about a guy named Jesus worshiping a water god and being a magician and who failed at being a rabbi so he made his own cult.
But even if those passages are about Jesus, they're short, devoid of much context, and written just as distant from the actual event as the already unreliable gospels.
So, the closest you can get to Babylonian polytheism is the fact that the Hebrew god was part of the Canaanite pantheon and a few gossip tidbits that maybe Jesus worshiped a water god because he fucked up being a rabbi.
>cult of the Mothers
Jung-tier.
>I don't know how to explain away early Christianity resembling modern Catholicism in its beliefs and practices so therefore I will conclude that it is pagan anyway. Specifically Babylonian paganism because fish hats
...
...
Hm.
Interesting.
How much its a cargo cult(aka they do not know just imitate) and how much they know and deceive ?
And why?
Is they just re-brand at some point(again why?) or subvert new church later?
Read The Two Babylons
>Pic unrelated
pic very much related
judaism is an offshoot of babylonian polytheism and christianity is an offshoot of judaism
...
There’s an interesting book called Divine Mother, Blessed Mother which compares Catholicism and Hinduism. If I remember correctly.
OP I had an archeologist show me why he could see that a pot was made in 1000 bc instead of 1000 ad by the angle of the making of the mouth piece.
Similarities can be illusionary, in history especially
that's a pimped out byzantine hat, you faggot.
the disk thing is new.
>ftw orthodox, but insane protties pull off superficial nitpicks consistent with only western catholicism, as if the latin rite is the only rite in Christendom.
Life is suffering.
Protestants are not Christian.
Which was stolen from the Babylonians