Does Richardson Possess Special Knowledge, Hidden from Believers Through the Ages?
Apparently he thinks so! – or at least, those who sit at his feet, agog with awe, think so. The author of the article praising Richardson’s book, Mystery Babylon, writes: “Richardson believes he has solved the enigma surrounding the city of evil which will arise in the last days and host an empire which will persecute believers. However, to solve this mystery, Richardson needed to debunk some of the most widespread fallacies which exist among Christians.” Another sentence in the article, advertising Richardson’s book, says, “One of the greatest mysteries in Scripture – solved at last!”
Warning signals should flash in our heads when we read statements like this. When a man comes along, telling us that he has definitively “solved an enigma” which has supposedly stumped and baffled Christians through the ages, he is claiming to possess special knowledge which was not granted to anyone before him. This is a very dangerous claim to make. Essentially this would mean – if it were true, which it is not – that what sound Christians have known, believed and taught through the centuries was all false, and that we had to wait until the twenty-first century for a new “prophet Joel” to arrive and put us all right.
Through the centuries Christians have maintained, for very sound, biblical, and historical reasons, that the Roman Papacy is the biblical Antichrist, and that the religion of Antichrist, “MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT”, described in such detail in Revelation 17 and 18, is the Roman Catholic institution. The evidence is simply overwhelming, and I have dealt with this evidence elsewhere. The Holy Spirit has given us all the identifying marks in His prophetic Word, and they are absolutely conclusive, as has been recognised by the Lord’s people through the ages. The “great city” is Rome; it arose centuries ago, and will not (as Richardson and others believe) merely arise in the final days of earth’s history; and it has persecuted the saints of God for centuries. But now along comes a certain Joel Richardson and says, “No! All those Christians were wrong. I have solved the enigma!” This is sheer arrogance, so typical of so many in today’s professing “Church” who have no understanding of Church history and no real interest in it, believing themselves to be the most enlightened Christians of all time.
Richardson Wiser in His Own Eyes Than All Who Have Believed that Rome is “Babylon”
Richardson contends that “theories about ‘Mystery Babylon’ being rooted in a secret religion or the ‘Illuminati’ are demonstrably untrue. Theories about the Vatican being behind the Antichrist are similarly rooted in deception, or even, as Richardson argues, madness.”
Note that! Not only does Richardson maintain that “the Vatican being behind the Antichrist” is a belief “rooted in deception”, but that it may even be madness! We will see, in a moment, how he comes to this conclusion, by accusing Alexander Hislop, author of The Two Babylons, of possibly being “mentally ill”. But first, it must be pointed out that it is certainly untrue that “Mystery Babylon” is rooted in some secret religion or in the Illuminati. Secret religions are very real (such as the Freemasons, among many others), but they are not the root of “Mystery Babylon”. And the Illuminati is very real, but it falls under the Jesuits of Rome – it is a mere branch of Jesuitism. Those who see “Mystery Babylon” as being rooted in such secret religions or organisations are missing the truth. “Mystery Babylon” is the Papal system! It is this, and nothing else.
To claim that it is a deception to tie the Vatican to the Antichrist, is to deny the evidence of history, known and understood by men of God through the centuries and based on solid and overwhelming evidence, that the Roman Papacy is the biblical Antichrist, and that the Vatican is the headquarters of the religious system known as the Roman Catholic institution.
It is bad enough that Richardson thinks of this as deception. But to call it madness! This is truly shocking. Wittingly or unwittingly, he is doing the Jesuits’ own work.
Richardson Claims Alexander Hislop was Probably “Mentally Ill”
Let us come to what Richardson says about Alexander Hislop, the author of the great classic work, The Two Babylons, and about the book itself:
“The same thing with the Roman Catholic Church, if you read the work of Alexander Hislop, a Scottish minister who wrote in the late 1800s. He wrote The Two Babylons. The entire foundation for his book, again, is The Nimrod Myth. But then he takes it about 10 steps further and he claims the Roman Catholic Church today, and not just the Roman Catholic Church but Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, really any number of any liturgically based or traditional denominations; he says their whole foundation is in Babylon, is in Nimrod’s ancient religion. Many, many Protestants have latched onto this, but there’s no historical basis for it whatsoever.”
In this one paragraph, Richardson has done wonders for the Roman Catholic harlot, as well as for its sister-harlot Eastern Orthodoxy and its daughter-harlot, Anglicanism! He has merely called them “liturgically based or traditional denominations.” In other words, he recognises them as churches in some form. But none of these are true churches! They do not worship God in the true manner; they do not proclaim the true Gospel; they do not teach the true doctrines of the faith. They are false religious systems. And – despite Richardson’s airy wave of the hand, denying any historical basis for it – the foundation of Roman Catholicism certainly was in ancient Babylon! As Hislop so conclusively demonstrates in his monumental and thoroughly researched work, the doctrines of the false religion of Nimrod’s ancient Babylon have been carried over, lock, stock and barrel, into Roman Catholicism.
What Richardson fails to appreciate, also, is that Hislop is not the only one to whom we can go to find the necessary information which proves these things. He did a most admirable job of putting a vast amount of the historical, archaeological and other evidence together in one place; but one can study these same things by making use of many other books, without reference to his work at all, if one so desires. In The Two Babylons itself is a very long list of works quoted or referred to in the book; and many more could be added today.