The way to show the evil of paganism is to define it as Satan's COUNTERFEITS.
In order to hide the true birth and mission of Christ, {Who is the Word, Who from the beginning time everlasting, was with God and was God, and was with God. and became flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1)} Satan kept all manner of pagan counterfeits going, so when the true came, people just placed it in the realms of paganism and didn't recognize it.

Satan uses all manner of deceptive strategies. His biggest lie is that people can become "gods". All his "gods" emerged from people who supposedly ascended into godhood. Thus he made Mary into a "god" using that same lie. But with the same brush made Christ less than "God".

You just proved my point. That's why simply drawing parallels is wrong.
There has to be a greater discerning measuring rod, parallelism is the weak argument.

Why? Because you say so?

The problem in adoring Mary isn't because of some legends in the past.
The problem in adoring Mary is because the real Mary is in the grave awaiting the resurrection and demons are taking her name and her history and pretending to be Mary in order to mislead the people.

Semiramis, no matter when or where she existed, IS DEAD. BUT demons have taken her stories (real or legendary, embellished them and probably the stories of a few others like her) and have been representing themselves as these women.

Mary, the human being, is DEAD, she did not ascend to heaven into the inner circle of God as is claimed by Catholics and even some other religions. That's why we reject the whole Marian movement in the world today. Not because people have confused her with Semiramis (who is also dead) but because these so called "ascended" human beings into godhood, are all fake masks of demons out to deceive. It's not Mary AT ALL.



Because you used the exact same logic in your hypothetical argument as I see people who base their argument on Hislop use.
And which can obviously lead to wrong conclusions.

The logic that mother/child beliefs all over the world are evil, (and yes they are) therefore the Catholic belief and adoration of Mary is evil. --
Is that what we base our rejection of Mary adoration upon? If it is, and we follow that logic to it's logical conclusion, we would reject Christ as well.
That logic won't convince a Catholic, the argument I shared, though abbreviated, is not hypothetical, it's one a Catholic believer gave to show she was not at all impressed by being told Mary adoration comes from pagan goddesses.
She didn't believe Christ was linked to Tammus OR that Mary was in any way linked to Semiramis.
The pagan stuff was evil she believed that, and found it offensive that people even thought that represented Mary, for Mary and Christ are holy and good.

We need something MORE, something based on clear biblical reasons, to convince them Marian adoration is WRONG.


So yes, any reasoning that claims because the Mormon prophet, and several other prophets that emerged in the last 170 years are false, won't that also make EGW a false prophet, is faulty reasoning.

There has to be a greater discerning measuring rod, than just similarities. It needs to be tested by the Bible, do they speak according to the law and the testimony?


DO YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING HISLOP WROTE IS TRUTH or just some of it?

You didn't answer my question?
Do you believe everything Hislop wrote is truth or just some of it?

I didn't ask where you got you ideas of paganism from.
I didn't ask if you believed in EGW White's writings.

I simply asked you if you believe everything Hislop wrote is truth or if you believe just someof it is truth.

Do you really believe everything Hislop wrote is backed up solidly by the Bible?

Or does he just take concepts FROM the bible and apply them to his studies?

No, I don't have a personal issue with you at all, and I have no idea why you think, my sharing what I believe is an important view, that doesn't really come out in what Hislop gives, somehow insults you???


I've written several times that I think Hislop is on a right trend, he was just a man writing out his studies. I've mentioned that I do have some issues with some of his conclusions and groupings of things. Yet, his book asks a lot of important questions, but are all his answers true -- is his explanations of Revelation all true (some is but ...)?

You have repeatedly said I'm condemning the book, and insinuating that I'm supporting the Catholic belief, etc etc.
Why have you done that?

No, the questions I asked you was to hopefully show you the situation where I'm at, and hopefully help you see that questioning aspects of Hislop's book, is not condemning his whole book, or supporting Catholic belief.

1. I believe SOME of Hislop's writings are true, but not EVERYTHING.
2. I believe he takes concepts FROM the Bible and tries to show what he believes is their background, but I do not see that his conclusions are all solidly based on the Bible.

Therefore -- like a lot of other books, I value them for the trend in them which I see as them relating to Biblical truth, but don't feel at all obliged to accept everything they say.

The same for another book you suggested:
Secrets of the Lost Races.
A great book -- I have three copies and have shared the ideas.
But is it all truth? Probably not, it's a man looking at archeological findings and asking a lot of very important questions.
I believe the ancients were a super intelligent, strong, creative people, and yes Noorbergen's concepts show this to be true. That much is true! I like the book! Whether every conclusion he reaches is true -- I don't know about that, but the concept is definitely in the right direction.

Basically I am totally baffled by your responses. If those rather negative responses aren't because I disagree with your focus on urging certain claims of Hislop as being special truths, then I have no idea what those responses were about.

The very way you phrase things -- "people reject Hislop, because the devil can use any excuse to reject truth in favor of his lies." Tells me you place Hislop pretty close to the level of inspired.
I don't think that's an insult, that's just an observation that you place that book very high and see disagreements as rejection of truth

Actually I don't think I've ever asked you if you think Hislop's book is inspired?
You simply ASSUMED, when I said it wasn't inspired that somehow I was asking you???.
I realize you never actually said it was inspired.
I said it wasn't inspired, because I don't think it was inspired.
And you got upset.
Later the question I asked you was:
Do you believe EVERYTHING Hislop wrote is true, or just SOME of it?

I asked because you kept saying I'm condemning the book, when I disagreed with some of his conclusions and groupings.

What is my disagreement:
I don't believe Semiramus was all the things the book says she was.
I don't think Semiramus was Nimrod's wife.
I believe when the Bible says Asshur, it means Asshur not Nimrod.
You even got "insulted" when I showed you how I understood Micah's prophecy in it's broader context. That really surprised me!
I think we need to be careful in building an argument based only on chosen parallels to show something is pagan. Hislop doesn't even follow his own rule. Yet builds quite a few heavy conclusions built almost entirely on (the pagans did x,y,z =therefore=. everything that even looks a bit like xyz is pagan.
People have thrown out the truth along with the false in more cases than you seem to realize, because of the pagan counterfeits. Every major event and characteristic of Christ had been assigned to one or more pagan gods. Everything was counterfeited.


Quoting all the Bible texts about Diana doesn't proof she's a reincarnation of Semiramis. I already know Diana worship was all over the Roman world as well as in Ephesus. (Should I too be insulted because you think I don't know that? No! -- and neither should you be insulted if I quote the texts surrounding the Micah quote.)

Quoting texts about the evils of idol worship etc. etc. doesn't proof those points of disagreement, either. Idol worship is an abomination, the Bible is clear on that.

You seem to think all my real life experiences I've met due to that book are just simple, weak arguments.
Yet you haven't disproved any of those "weak and simple" reasons that are problems with Hislop's logic -- and yes they are common reasons, because they are obvious to people.

Now I do believe Nimrod played a big role in the whole Babel scene.
There are things there that I do agree with.
But do you know Ellen White never even mentioned Nimrod in her writings. I was actually surprised that his name doesn't even appear in her writings. Don't you think it's a bit odd?
When she talks about the Babel scene she refers to the "dwellers in the plain of Shinar" or "the tower builders" or just plain "they".
Semiramis is never mentioned in the Bible or in Spirit of Prophecy.
And no, I don't expect the Bible nor EGW to mention all the "gods" and "goddesses" in history, BUT according to Hislop, Nimrod and Semiramis where not just some "gods" they were the originators and prime motivators of the whole pagan culture that would envelop the whole world. Surely someone with such a central role in the battle of light and darkness, would receive some recognition in the Great Controversy revealed to Ellen White.

Also, if you like "Secrets of the Lost Races" there are things in that book which show a different picture of the Babel scene than what Hislop shows. I tend to lean more to Noorbergen's ideas.

So maybe we should move away from Hislop and see what Noorbergen thinks of Babel generation.

Do you believe everything Hislop wrote is truth or just some of it?