But then comes this man’s shocking statement regarding Hislop himself:
“But to make matters worse, Alexander Hislop, I’d actually go so far as to say that a careful analysis of his work probably shows he was suffering from some type of mental psychosis, that he probably had a mental illness.”
This is not the place to go in-depth into the fact that the concept of “mental illness” is nothing but a myth, invented within the religion of psychology which has so permeated western society. The immaterial mind, which is not the same as the brain, cannot be ill; only a material body can. Richardson was clearly using the term as so many do in society today, having been thoroughly indoctrinated in the lies and myths of psychology, as meaning that Hislop suffered, in some sense, from madness. And his use of the words “crazy” and “craziness” in the paragraph quoting him below, prove this to be, indeed, the case.
What sheer arrogance, what heights of haughtiness, to take a book as well-researched as Hislop’s, a book whose immense value has been recognised by Christians ever since it was written, and dismiss it not just as being inaccurate, but as being the work of a madman!
See how he justifies his “diagnosis” that Hislop was “mentally ill”:
“He [Hislop] actually says that the very cross itself is thoroughly pagan, that no Christian should have any association with the symbol of the cross. He says that every single symbol or liturgy that you can find or imagine in the Catholic Church is all thoroughly pagan. And when you start looking at how did he come to these conclusions, this crazy stuff, he says polka dots are completely pagan, circles are completely pagan, crosses are pagan, on and on it goes. And it’s all based on these ‘connections’ he finds in these ancient pictorial sourcebooks from the 1700s or whatever or a similarity in some name, and it ends up being craziness. This is material that needs to be rejected by careful students of the Scriptures and history, and we need to get back to the Bible and what the Scriptures say.”
Firstly, the cross is a thoroughly pagan symbol, and no Christian should use it in any way. Hislop is not the only one who has demonstrated this fact, and claiming that it is not a pagan symbol just shows up Richardson’s ignorance. Secondly, Hislop never said that every symbol or liturgy “that you can find or imagine” in the Papal system is thoroughly pagan. That would be a nonsensical statement. Thirdly, why is Richardson defending the symbolism and liturgy of the blasphemous, pagan, antichristian Roman Catholic institution anyway? Why would he even want to? Fourthly, Hislop does not state that mere polka dots and circles are pagan. This is Richardson doing his best to make Hislop look “crazy” to people. Fifthly, Richardson’s dismissal of “ancient pictorial sourcebooks from the 1700s or whatever” again reveals his own ignorance. Any reader of Hislop’s work will see the sound historical sources he used. This statement also shows Richardson’s arrogance again – “from the 1700s or whatever” – as if men who conducted careful research centuries ago were really just backward, ignorant types because they did not live in these more “enlightened” times (when we have Richardson’s own “wisdom” to supposedly guide us!). Sixthly, his statement that we need to get back to what the Bible says has a very hollow sound to it, considering that he himself has failed to follow his own good advice.
So What is “Mystery Babylon” According to Joel Richardson?
“My position,” says Richardson, “is that Mystery Babylon is an end-time reality, it’s an end-time entity, it’s an end-time city. And biblically speaking, Babylon represents, if you will [well, no, Joel, we won’t, actually], the spiritual stronghold of Satan in the earth at any given time. So all the way back to Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon – that is the prototype, that is the basis for the end times Babylon.”
No, “Babylon” does not represent Satan’s stronghold at any given time. This is to wrench the teaching of Revelation 17 and 18 out of its context, and to ignore the very, very specific identification marks given within these chapters themselves, which can only, ever be applied to the city of Rome, and to the religious system which has its headquarters there: the Roman Catholic institution. In addition, the prototype was not Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon (although this typified much regarding Rome, the New Testament “Babylon”), but Nimrod’s Babylon just after the flood! But Richardson mocked what he derisively termed “The Nimrod Myth”.