Ellen White on Masturbation Make her a False Prophet

sparow said:

From a EasterTract-By-BrotherBrad

"Ishtar", which is pronounced "Easter" was a day that commemorated the resurrection of one of their gods that they called "Tammuz", who was believed to be the only begotten son of the moon-goddess and the sun-god. In those ancient times, there was a man named Nimrod, who was the grandson of one of Noah's son named Ham. Ham had a son named Cush who married a woman named Semiramis. Cush and Semiramis then had a son named him "Nimrod." …..Ishtar soon became pregnant and claimed that it was the rays of the sun-god Baal that caused her to conceive. The son that she brought forth was named Tammuz..

Click to expand...

Oh dear
This is your source regarding Nimrod, a tract by BrotherBrad?

As for Semiramis, she is around 1500 years after the birth of Cush. She lived between the ninth and eighth centuries B.C., was married to King Shamshi-Adad V, who reigned from 823 to 811 B.C., and was the mother of King Adad-nirari III. What we know for real about Semiramis is literally from 4 inscriptions discovered in Iraq and Turkey. BrotherBrad has not checked his 'facts'.
I managed to locate the tract you quoted from, and it is full of completely made up information with no factual basis at all. None of the claims made can be substantiated.

I also notice that you have quoted the pseudo-historian Alexander Hislop. His book, "The Two Babylons" is not a credible source, to put it mildly. I don't know if the rest of your quotes are from the same book or not, but they are certainly of like veracity.

So, do you have any actual historical sources? Tablets, inscriptions, court records, papyrus fragments, etc.? Or do you rely on falsehoods propagated by others for your 'facts' and continue to bear false witness?

prodromos said:

Oh dear
This is your source regarding Nimrod, a tract by BrotherBrad?

As for Semiramis, she is around 1500 years after the birth of Cush. She lived between the ninth and eighth centuries B.C., was married to King Shamshi-Adad V, who reigned from 823 to 811 B.C., and was the mother of King Adad-nirari III. What we know for real about Semiramis is literally from 4 inscriptions discovered in Iraq and Turkey. BrotherBrad has not checked his 'facts'.
I managed to locate the tract you quoted from, and it is full of completely made up information with no factual basis at all. None of the claims made can be substantiated.

I also notice that you have quoted the pseudo-historian Alexander Hislop. His book, "The Two Babylons" is not a credible source, to put it mildly. I don't know if the rest of your quotes are from the same book or not, but they are certainly of like veracity.

So, do you have any actual historical sources? Tablets, inscriptions, court records, papyrus fragments, etc.? Or do you rely on falsehoods propagated by others for your 'facts' and continue to bear false witness?

Click to expand...

You amaze me; Brother Brad was/is a good Catholic who either lied or has been lied to: I used the term sanitised; brads story was fiction and that in it self is not the problem; fiction can be used to convey truth, as with the Biblical parables; what Brad did was use fiction to hide the truth, while not denying the links of Easter to Semiramis, Nimrod and Tammuz. The hidden truth is Nimrod was Semiramis's husband (not necessarily according to Judo-Christian definition), not Cush, and Tammuz was allegedly their son; Tammuz was born a couple of years after Nimrod died and became the Sun-God; and so became Rome's idea that the queen of Heaven was a virgin and had a virgin birth; Semiramis claimed the sun-God was the father of her child which was Nimrod reincarnated and so Tammuz was not only her son but also her husband.

This story is common; it doesn't matter if it is true or false, it remains this is what Bother Brad was protecting Easter and his Church and the Queen of Heaven from.

Alexander Hislop (1807 - 13 March 1865) was a Free Church of Scotland minister known for his criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church. He was the son of Stephen Hislop (died 1837), a mason by occupation and an elder of the Relief Church.

Anyone who calls Ellen white a false prophet doesn't have much credibility in my opinion; I am looking forward to reading Hislop's book.

You asked for sources; they do not seem to have helped. And you have avoided the significant ones; like: "By awarding the Virgin a central place in the cathedral's narrative, the archdiocese is keeping faith with a long, if fluctuating, Catholic and Orthodox tradition of devotion to Our Lady, a tradition enjoying a resurgence under Pope John Paul II. (The pope's personal motto, "Totus tuus sum, Maria," or "I am all yours, Mary," reflects his belief that the Virgin intervened to save his life from an assassin's bullet in 1981 so that he could help defeat European communism.)" -LATIMES.com Sept 1, 2002 By REED JOHNSON, Times Staff Writer.

I expected you to defend you teaching and the worship of the queen of heaven; which is not biblical and may be Blasphemous.

sparow said:

You amaze me

Click to expand...

You don't amaze me. I've unfortunately seen the same nonsense from plenty of others. It is simply sad that so many people accept these fables as fact without doing even the most basic research.

what Brad did was use fiction to hide the truth, while not denying the links of Easter to Semiramis, Nimrod and Tammuz.

Click to expand...

There are no links between Easter and Semiramis, Nimrod and Tammuz. There aren't even any links between Semiramis, Nimrod and Tammuz. Nothing exists in the historical accounts. It is all made up.

The hidden truth is Nimrod was Semiramis's husband (not necessarily according to Judo-Christian definition), not Cush, and Tammuz was allegedly their son; Tammuz was born a couple of years after Nimrod died and became the Sun-God;

Click to expand...

There are no primary sources that link any of the above characters, none. It is all complete fiction.

and so became Rome's idea that the queen of Heaven was a virgin and had a virgin birth;

Click to expand...

Not even remotely close. The virgin birth is recorded in the Gospels, and in Hebrew understanding it is not the wife of the king who is queen, but rather the king's mother. A king may have multiple wives but only one mother.

Semiramis claimed the sun-God was the father of her child which was Nimrod reincarnated and so Tammuz was not only her son but also her husband.

This story is common; it doesn't matter if it is true or false, it remains this is what Bother Brad was protecting Easter and his Church and the Queen of Heaven from.

Click to expand...

It does matter if it is true or not, and BrotherBrad is about as rabidly anti-Catholic as they come. His tract is a mish mash of complete fabrications.

Anyone who calls Ellen white a false prophet doesn't have much credibility in my opinion;

Click to expand...

That does not lend much credibility to your opinion then.

I am looking forward to reading Hislop's book.

Click to expand...

You enjoy reading fiction, do you?

You asked for sources; they do not seem to have helped.

Click to expand...

Ahistorical tracts and pseudo history are not sources. If you quoted them for a history exam you would fail.

And you have avoided the significant ones; like: "By awarding the Virgin a central place in the cathedral's narrative, the archdiocese is keeping faith with a long, if fluctuating, Catholic and Orthodox tradition of devotion to Our Lady, a tradition enjoying a resurgence under Pope John Paul II. (The pope's personal motto, "Totus tuus sum, Maria," or "I am all yours, Mary," reflects his belief that the Virgin intervened to save his life from an assassin's bullet in 1981 so that he could help defeat European communism.)" -LATIMES.com Sept 1, 2002 By REED JOHNSON, Times Staff Writer.

Click to expand...

I'm not Catholic.

I expected you to defend you teaching and the worship of the queen of heaven; which is not biblical and may be Blasphemous.

Click to expand...

Why would I defend something that nobody does?

Christ is Lord said:

Please read the post: Why Ellen White’s Comments on Masturbation Make her a False Prophet

I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic, especially those who are Adventist.



Update: Summary from post.

Ellen's statements on masturbation:

I have been shown that children who practice self-indulgence previous to puberty, or the period of merging into manhood and womanhood, must pay the penalty of nature’s violated laws at that critical period. — An Appeal to Mothers

Many sink into an early grave, while others have sufficient force of constitution to pass this ordeal. If the practice is continued from the ages of fifteen and upward, nature will protest against the abuse she has suffered, and continues to suffer, and will make them pay the penalty for the transgression of her laws, especially from the ages of thirty to forty-five, by numerous pains in the system, and various diseases, such as affection of the liver and lungs, neuralgia, rheumatism, affection of the spine, diseased kidneys, and cancerous humors.Some of nature’s fine machinery gives way, leaving a heavier task for the remaining to perform, which disorders nature’s fine arrangement, and there is often a sudden breaking down of the constitution, and death is the result. — An Appeal to Mothers

Click to expand...

so she's saying masturbation will cause these things? I doubt anyone really takes her seriously and if they do they are just looking for "a professional" to agree with them. It sounds like she just took a handful of ailments and blamed it on masturbation. I love the wording too "various diseases such as affection of the liver and lungs, etc.." these are extremely vague details and she might as well just say if there's something wrong with you then masturbation is the cause.

GaveMeJoy said:

Hello, thanks for sharing those articles. As opposed to small scale individual studies, I suggest reviewing this systematic literature review of many studies (at least 8), produced by the NIH which is a well respected/.gov

Male circumcision and penile cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“Conclusions
Men circumcised in childhood/adolescence are at substantially reduced risk of invasive penile cancer”

When my son’s pediatrician tried to tell me the risks are not worth mutilating him, I asked how I could risk him getting cancer and she said “when he’s 2 or 3 we can talk to him about keeping the foreskin area clean.” My son is 8 now and by the looks of his room, I think we made the right choice to get a new pediatrician. That kiddo doesn’t keep anything clean, and I don’t want him to lose his penis like my friend.

Click to expand...

There are studies for and against, but I think it's generally agreed that circumcision does improve health and hygiene for males and their wives. In some countries, the World Health Organisation is running programs to promote it to improve the health of women. Kind of ironic that these countries are improving, but liberals are working against it in the west.

I find it doubtful that if circumcision were as harmful as liberals claim, males would be lining up for it in these countries to protect themselves and those they love.

prodromos said:

You don't amaze me. I've unfortunately seen the same nonsense from plenty of others. It is simply sad that so many people accept these fables as fact without doing even the most basic research.

There are no links between Easter and Semiramis, Nimrod and Tammuz. There aren't even any links between Semiramis, Nimrod and Tammuz. Nothing exists in the historical accounts. It is all made up.

There are no primary sources that link any of the above characters, none. It is all complete fiction.

Not even remotely close. The virgin birth is recorded in the Gospels, and in Hebrew understanding it is not the wife of the king who is queen, but rather the king's mother. A king may have multiple wives but only one mother.

It does matter if it is true or not, and BrotherBrad is about as rabidly anti-Catholic as they come. His tract is a mish mash of complete fabrications.

That does not lend much credibility to your opinion then.

You enjoy reading fiction, do you?

Ahistorical tracts and pseudo history are not sources. If you quoted them for a history exam you would fail.

I'm not Catholic.

Why would I defend something that nobody does?

Click to expand...

It would appear you are not a Eastern Orthodox either.

Queen of Heaven (Regina Caeli in Latin) is a title given to Mary, mother of Jesus, by Christians mainly of the Catholic Church and, to a lesser extent, in Anglicanism,[1][2][3][4] Lutheranism,[5][6] and Eastern Orthodoxy. The title is a consequence of the First Council of Ephesus in the fifth century, in which Mary was proclaimed "Theotokos", a title rendered in Latin as Mater Dei, in English "Mother of God".

The Catholic teaching on this subject is expressed in the papal encyclical Ad Caeli Reginam, issued by Pope Pius XII.[7] It states that Mary is called Queen of Heaven because her son, Jesus Christ, is the king of Israel and heavenly king of the universe; indeed, the Davidic tradition of Israel recognized the mother of the king as the Queen Mother of Israel.

The title “Queen of Heaven” has long been a Catholic tradition, included in prayers and devotional literature, and seen in Western art in the subject of the Coronation of the Virgin, from the High Middle Ages, long before it was given a formal definition status by the Church.

Queen of Heaven was a title given to a number of ancient sky goddesses worshipped throughout the ancient Mediterranean and Near East during ancient times. Goddesses known to have been referred to by the title include Inanna, Anat, Isis, Ishtar, Astarte, Astghik and possibly Asherah (by the prophet Jeremiah). In Greco-Roman times Hera, and her Roman aspect Juno bore this title. Forms and content of worship varied. In modern times, the title "Queen of Heaven" is still used by contemporary pagans to refer to the Great Goddess, while Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglican Christians now apply the ancient title to Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Jeremiah 44:17-29 (NKJV)
17 But we will certainly do whatever has gone out of our own mouth, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, were well-off, and saw no trouble.
18 But since we stopped burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine."
19 The women also said, "And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did we make cakes for her, to worship her, and pour out drink offerings to her without our husbands' permission?"
20 Then Jeremiah spoke to all the people--the men, the women, and all the people who had given him that answer--saying:
21 "The incense that you burned in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, you and your fathers, your kings and your princes, and the people of the land, did not the LORD remember them, and did it not come into His mind?
22 So the LORD could no longer bear it, because of the evil of your doings and because of the abominations which you committed. Therefore your land is a desolation, an astonishment, a curse, and without an inhabitant, as it is this day.
23 Because you have burned incense and because you have sinned against the LORD, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD or walked in His law, in His statutes or in His testimonies, therefore this calamity has happened to you, as at this day."
24 Moreover Jeremiah said to all the people and to all the women, "Hear the word of the LORD, all Judah who are in the land of Egypt!
25 Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying: 'You and your wives have spoken with your mouths and fulfilled with your hands, saying, "We will surely keep our vows that we have made, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her." You will surely keep your vows and perform your vows!'
26 Therefore hear the word of the LORD, all Judah who dwell in the land of Egypt: 'Behold, I have sworn by My great name,' says the LORD, 'that My name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, "The Lord GOD lives."
27 Behold, I will watch over them for adversity and not for good. And all the men of Judah who are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by famine, until there is an end to them.
28 Yet a small number who escape the sword shall return from the land of Egypt to the land of Judah; and all the remnant of Judah, who have gone to the land of Egypt to dwell there, shall know whose words will stand, Mine or theirs.
29 And this shall be a sign to you,' says the LORD, 'that I will punish you in this place, that you may know that My words will surely stand against you for adversity.'

sparow said:

It would appear you are not a Eastern Orthodox either.

Click to expand...

Why?
Because wikipedia made a claim without linking any reference to Eastern Orthodox usage of the term? You do understand that anyone can edit wikipedia articles, don't you?
We Eastern Orthodox have many titles for St Mary, and if Queen of Heaven is one of them, it is very rarely used. That doesn't mean I disagree with the title. Theologically if Christ is King then Mary is Queen, but we don't refer to Christ as King of Heaven for the simple reason that He is Lord of All. Everything in creation is under His dominion, not just heaven.

The rest of your argument seems to rest on the association with pagan false claims of deity, but if we follow that line of reasoning we should never call Christ "God" because of all the association of the title with false pagan "gods."

prodromos said:

Why?
Because wikipedia made a claim without linking any reference to Eastern Orthodox usage of the term? You do understand that anyone can edit wikipedia articles, don't you?
We Eastern Orthodox have many titles for St Mary, and if Queen of Heaven is one of them, it is very rarely used. That doesn't mean I disagree with the title. Theologically if Christ is King then Mary is Queen, but we don't refer to Christ as King of Heaven for the simple reason that He is Lord of All. Everything in creation is under His dominion, not just heaven.

The rest of your argument seems to rest on the association with pagan false claims of deity, but if we follow that line of reasoning we should never call Christ "God" because of all the association of the title with false pagan "gods."

Click to expand...

Wouldn’t using the term queen of heaven to refer to a human woman be confusing to unbelievers and convey an unwanted message? I mean, the answer is definitely yes.

GaveMeJoy said:

Wouldn’t using the term queen of heaven to refer to a human woman be confusing to unbelievers and convey an unwanted message? I mean, the answer is definitely yes.

Click to expand...

It was never a term used in the context of unbelievers. It was only used by believers with other believers. No confusion as to what was meant.

prodromos said:

Why?
Because wikipedia made a claim without linking any reference to Eastern Orthodox usage of the term? You do understand that anyone can edit wikipedia articles, don't you?
We Eastern Orthodox have many titles for St Mary, and if Queen of Heaven is one of them, it is very rarely used. That doesn't mean I disagree with the title. Theologically if Christ is King then Mary is Queen, but we don't refer to Christ as King of Heaven for the simple reason that He is Lord of All. Everything in creation is under His dominion, not just heaven.

The rest of your argument seems to rest on the association with pagan false claims of deity, but if we follow that line of reasoning we should never call Christ "God" because of all the association of the title with false pagan "gods."

Click to expand...

Below is from an Eastern Orthodox site; they do not deny their preoccupation with Mary as Queen of Heaven and the sources for this are numerous.

I am usually impressed by Eastern Orthodox posts, yet I expect the Queen of Heaven doctrine to be typical of all their Traditional doctrine. The pagan Queen of Heaven has previously existed as scripture reveals and Christians who worship Mary as the Queen of heaven are typically those whose ancestors worshipped the Pagan Queen of Heaven; even if your personal case is different, your Church's traditions have a Pagan origin.

On the off chance that Eastern Orthodox Tradition was not Pagan based; then there is no justification for worshipping Mary nor or deeming her Queen of heaven; in both cases is blasphemy.

The Justification below is Apologetics and is not different to Catholic excuses and Catholic apologists can make black white; and yet none of these excuses would stand up in a court of Law. So the best I can do is show reasonable doubt.

Psalm 45:9 in some Bibles it is verse ten. At your right hand stands the queen in gold from Ophir.

This really makes no sense; it seems violate the commandment regarding graven images; I suggest the translator/interpreters got it wrong and that it should read in English, AT YOUR RIGHT HAND STANDS GOLD FROM THE QUEEN IN OPHIR.


Regarding the queen mothers; without looking I wont dispute the Biblical stories but I will dispute the conclusions reached by the apologists. All or most of the Davidic Kings would have been sons of queens who would have carried on as queens until they died; I would expect that at least one of the Kings wives would be a queen, such that her King son would have a queen mother.

Revelation 11:19.

<<The mention of the Ark is odd, since it had been done away with when the Glory of God had left that Ark, but the Orthodox teaching is that Mary is a type of the new Ark. This is further expressed by the verses that follow showing a sign of a woman in heaven.>>

Here there is a pathetic lack of understanding; the Sanctuary and every thing in it was a replica of what is in heaven; Just because men discarded the box or that God abandoned the box doesn't mean things have changed in heaven; but we see in this Orthodox teaching an entry point for the Church depending on Mary for their salvation.

Revelation from chapter 4 is symbolic and cannot be taken literally; Mary is the church; Revelation 12:17 (NKJV)
17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.


Isaiah 7:14-18. I think the Orthodox Church places a wrong perspective on Mary's virginity; it is more concerned about the membrane rather that the moral calibre of Mary., or God's methodology of making Himself human. These verses are mind boggling; but I do not agree with the apologists use of them.

Mary as the Queen of Heaven |

Mary as the Queen of Heaven

In the Jewish culture, a Davidic King would have his mother as Queen rather than his wife, because he rarely had one wife, but many wives. Sharing power with many wives would be much too difficult, but he had only one mother and she was given the title of Queen. Almost every time a new king is introduced in 1 and 2 Kings, the king’s mother is mentioned. She was a member of the royal court, wore a crown, sat on a throne, and shared in the king’s reign (2 Kings 24:12, 15; Jer. 13:18–20). She acted as counselor to her son (Prov. 31), an advocate of the people, and as an intercessor for the citizens of the kingdom (1 Kings 2:17–20). Since Jesus is a King based on the order of David, it makes sense that His mother would be called Queen.

Psalm 45 depicts Christ as King and at his side is a Queen.

Psalm 45:9

At Your right hand stands the queen in gold from Ophir


So who is this Queen? Scripture puts forth Mary as our Queen in a grandiose description found in Revelation. In a vision of heaven, we are shown that the Ark of the Covenant is present in the temple.


Revelation 11:19

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.


The mention of the Ark is odd, since it had been done away with when the Glory of God had left that Ark, but the Orthodox teaching is that Mary is a type of the new Ark. This is further expressed by the verses that follow showing a sign of a woman in heaven.


Revelation 12:1

And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.


And then to specifically designate who this woman is,


Revelation 12:5

She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne.

The male child described is Jesus, which implies that the woman is Mary.


Some will argue that the woman is not Mary, but Israel, as some of the verses do not appear to reference Mary. And they would be correct. There are many prophecies that have multiple meanings or multiple references. A good example is a prophecy many Christians are familiar with.

Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


We all are familiar with this verse and know it refers to the virgin birth. But when you read more of the prophecy it gets a bit more complicated.


Isaiah 7:14-18

Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings. The Lord will bring the king of Assyria upon you and your people and your father’s house—days that have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah.”


It would be a strange theology to teach that there was a time when Jesus didn’t know how to refuse the evil and choose the good. This prophecy was also partially fulfilled in the time before Christ’s birth when a child named Immanuel was born as a sign that God was still with Israel.(Isaiah 8:8) Given the way this very popular prophecy was used to speak of Christ in the New Testament as well as Immanuel in the Old Testament, it is reasonable that the prophecy in Revelation could be used the same way. It can describe both Israel and Mary.


The prophecy describes Mary in very grand terms pointing to her royal status. She wears a royal crown pointing to the 12 tribes or to the 12 apostles symbolizing her queenship in the new kingdom. The moon under her feet represents her dominion and victory over her enemies. Then finally clothed with the sun. This is an important woman! This is the Queen of Heaven!