Catholicism

The Eternal Gift

/ hoojewale / Leave a comment

Jesus the Creator of all things

Boxing Day does not stop putting one in deep reminiscence of the eternal gift: that Divine donation to all mankind for the restoration of Adamic walking cadaver to eternal life. The process of this Divine giving culminated in the Emmanuelisation of the Second Member of the Godhead, celebrated globally on the Christmas Day, the 25th of December. It is quite true that we cannot, from scriptural documentation, state categorically when exactly Christ was given to the world.

This Gift is the best of all gifts to come from the LORD God. Christmas signifies the phenomenal event of God, the Creator, becoming Man. Many stories credit the Christmas of December 25th to Nimro-Semiramic invention of a day marking the theistic celebration of Nimrod, the sun god and not forgetting the moon goddess, Nimrod’s wife, Semiramis. The choice of 25th December is credited to Romish Church. Most people, including Christians, believe the origin of Christmas is the pagan feasts to worship the solar god Sol Invictus, Saturn’s god Saturnalia, or the Persian solar god adopted by the Romans, Mithras. Academically, this view is also known as historical religions theory. The theory suggests the Catholic Church in Rome, Italy, began celebrating Christmas on December 25 in 336 CE to replace the pagan celebrations.

Semiramis holding Tammuz before Nimrod, the sun god.

The Roman Catholic Church, the importer of Nimro-Semiramic religious feast, is truly guilty of so many faux pas didacticism of the Scripture, including the inventions and fixing of Christian festival dates. Has the Christ of the Bible got anything to do with the deification of Nimrod? Certainly not, but owing to the facticity of The Nativity, and because we do not have true and categorical documentation of His date of birth, there is really nothing idolatry about the December 25 day for the celebration of the fulfilment of Isaiah 9:6.

We understand that Christ, according to the Bible, 3) “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4) In him was life; and the life was the light of men” John 1:3-4). This Johannine script agrees totally with Pauline 16) “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist” (Colossians 1:16-17). It is written concerning the Author of creationism: 1 “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made” (Genesis 2:1-2).

Having created all things including time and measurements of time, the LORD God, Jesus Christ, owns all. If He truly owns all, the 25th of December, another measure of time, belongs to Christ. What day of every year is not found in day one to the day seven creationism of Genesis chapter one? Christ began creating in Day One through to Day Six; and the immediate following Day Seven, He rested. Right? Does that not tell everyone that the Creator owns all days of human existence? Arguably, the actual day of the LORD’s birth is lost to humans. If on the 25th December, the entire globe decided to honour Him, the LORD God, with the celebration of this eternal gift, what is the abominable thing about it, knowing, especially, pretty well that it is the Owner of all days that is being celebrated?

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given

What momentous stance this Gift is can be best understood from the Davidic “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5). This leads to the ominous “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23); which eventually leads to the annihilative “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezekiel 18:28). From the day of the original sin of Eden, man had become nothing less than a walking cadaver. Matthew 18:14 reads, “Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.” The only way God will ignite the practicality of this verse is definitely by putting the soteriology into force. It is for this reason we have Isaiah 9:6 “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” The ‘child,’ yeled (yeh’-led): ‘something born, i.e. a lad or offspring’; is quite different from the ‘Son’ ben (bane): ‘(used widely) a son (as a builder of the family name)’. The credentials of this ‘Son’ is too divine to be an offspring. The ‘Son’ is all at once the “Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” This is the Personage of John 1:3-4; Colossians 1:16-17 and Genesis 2:1-2 – the LORD God of the Bible.

The Christ, the Creator took the responsibility for man’s creation, and decided to save the lost Adamic soul. No angelic might could successfully manage the soteriological process and come out victorious. Only God can do it. The world must receive the Divine donation of God the Son. This is Jehovah’s greatest gift from eternity to all eternity. God gifted Himself on Christmas Day to the sinning world. Romans 5:8, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Merry Christmas and do have a wonderful Boxing Day! Amen!!

Get Jesus initiated by getting born again: pray this prayer, believing it with all your heart. Say,

“Dear heavenly Father, I come to You now in the name of Jesus Christ. I believe in my heart that Jesus is the Son of God. I believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sin. I believe that You raised Him from the dead. I confess with my mouth that Jesus is Lord and I receive Him now as my Lord and my Saviour. I give God all the glory. Amen!” 

Didactic Incongruity With The Scripture (XI)

/ hoojewale / 2 Comments

“I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11).

(…continues from part ten…)

11)          One tragic thing is that many of our churches are, unfortunately, still tied to Catholicism. Speaking of “Infallibility of the Pope,” Catholicism is wallowing in scriptural puerility not to remember that even a key master builder of the nascent Church, was found wanting in Galatians 2:11-14 “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14) But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Apostle Peter was not infallible as this incident shows; so, how can the Pope of Catholicism ascribe infallibility to the carnality of his existence and his ipseity? The same Roman Catholic Church added an unscriptural prayer for the dead, ostensibly, to create avenue of wealth for the Catholic Church.Now let us discuss this unscriptural prayer I hear even from many pastors.

What scriptural wisdom lies in “May his soul rest in peace” when one comes to the understanding of Hebrews 9:27 “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” which the Pope together with Catholicism is too impervious to acknowledge. Revelation 20:12-15 has in the 15th verse, “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”  The sheer vulgarism of any prayer for the dead is aptly couched in the express Word of Jesus: “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18). Roman Catholic Church also embarked on the promulgation of 1190 A.D. It is: “The sale of indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin. It can also be purchased on behalf of a dead loved one.” Roman Catholic Church cannot be trusted.

I have always found it so unbelievable listening to professed Christians solemnly petitioning, “May his soul rest in peace,” in prayer to God when someone dies. Honestly, you cannot be a knowledgeable person of Christianity to offer such scriptural anomaly. Do these Church going people know the origin of this rampant gaucherie? In the year 310, well over a thousand ago, the Roman Catholic Church institutionalised: “Prayers for the dead and the sign of the cross.” How could it take centuries to unearth this unleashing on the Christianity? The reason is simple. Catholicism stands not on the pillar and ground of the Truth – Jesus Christ. Catholicism believes, and very strongly too, of Papal Infallibility (instituted in 1870). It is amazing that my Christian brethren fail to understand Isaiah 38:18 “For the grave cannot praise thee, death can [not] celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.” Check out my post on R.I.P. click on http://wp.me/p5iz2f-n via @hoojewale

Paul taught in Hebrews 9:27 “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” proving that there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to undo the hell damnation occupation. What did Abraham tell the rich man who found himself in the land of the wicked dead? He thought he could outsmart God’s judgment with: “And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent” (Luke 16:30). Abraham’s simple, divine answer was: “And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (Luke 16:31). Getting born again before one dies is the only solution that takes one not to hell, after death. Getting born again enables the Christian to speak directly to God with new tongues.

They were drunken, not with wine, but the Holy Spirit.

It sounds bizarre anytime I ask born again Christians, especially, those who have believed for years, if they speak in tongues and I wonder, “Why not,” they are quick with the answer, “Speaking in tongues is a gift and not every Christian receives it from God.” Another thing is that some of those who do manifest speaking in tongues do not want to display the gift in public. That is what they have been taught in their Churches, unfortunately.

Speaking in tongues is the evidence of the new birth in Christ Jesus. If you are God’s child, should you not have a language just for the two of you? 1Corinthians 14:2 “For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.” I think this is probably the reason why some churches would rather teach the members to hush the ability to speak with new tongues. This is definitely not what Paul is teaching here. He is only looking at the greater good: which is in the edification of the Church rather than the individual. It is better when your utterance in new tongues benefits the body of Christ. An unmistakable ponderosity of truth about speaking in tongues is that you are, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, in mysterious discourse with God, seated on His empyrean throne!

Getting born again is a conscious effort on the part of an individual. Get born again. You were born in sin. Say this sinner’s prayer.

“Dear heavenly Father, I come to You now in the name of Jesus Christ. I believe in my heart that Jesus is the Son of God. I believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sin. I believe that You raised Him from the dead. I confess with my mouth that Jesus is Lord, and I receive Him now as my Lord and my Saviour. I give God all the glory. Amen!”

(…to be concluded…)

Read part ten here

Get the concluding part twelve. Click

Of Salvation (3)

/ hoojewale / 2 Comments

Like Enoch,the saved walk with God.

(…continues from part two…)

3)            Cyprian was one of the earliest of the Church Fathers to enunciate clearly and unambiguously the doctrine of baptismal regeneration (“the idea that salvation happens at and by water baptism duly administered”). In the Book of Acts of the Apostles Chapter 10, verses 43-45 quotes Peter’s teaching and the divine outcome. “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44) While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.” It was after their regeneration that Peter enjoined their baptism which serves as the credential of Christian faith.

                Cyprian believed that the lapsed can be re-admitted to the Church after penance. The Bible makes it clear that confession must be directed only to God. Matthew 6:6 “But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”

“…and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” (Revelation 20:4).

                Cyprian believed the see of Peter (Rome) is the direct heir of Peter. This is pure fallacy. Where does it get documented that Apostle Peter was ever in Rome – to preach or found a local assembly? Galatians 2:8-9 “(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.” God, no doubt, pushed Catholicism to commit this huge mistake of making Peter the first Pope rather than Pauline Apostleship to the Gentiles, to which belongs Rome! Except for Peter, how is it that one hardly hears of the involvement of other contemporary Apostles of Jesus Christ in Romish Catholicism? Peter could never have been to Rome because God told him to teach the gospel only among the Jewish communities. Paul, on the other hand, is the Apostle of the Gentile nations.

                Cyprian was amillennial. Augustine argued that Cyprian taught the gift of perseverance. Amillennialism is an aberrational intent of Catholicism to debunk the veracity of Revelation Chapter 20. Verses 2-4 read, “And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3) And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. 4) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”

“…shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).

                The so-called Church Fathers of Catholicism do not believe that Jesus will practically descend to this earth in the prophesied Second Coming to reign for an unprecedented one thousand years. Cyprian and Augustine rejected Johannine Spirit inspired Revelation 20:4. Roman Catholic Church finds it difficult to understand Revelation 20:6-7 “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. 7) And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,” and that is quite disappointing.

                Augustinian ‘gift of perseverance’ means that only those that God arbitrarily predestined to save will be given the gift to persevere. Why will a good Jehovah God arbitrarily decide to create some people for eternal, hellish damnation? It does not look a smidgeon of the God of the Bible. This is what really happens. God has a faculty that enables Him to see and know absolutely everything that is going to happen. For this simple reason, His Omniscience, knowing who will and will not receive Jesus as Lord and Saviour, those who will do His divine will hear the gospel and be spiritually transformed. It is for the same rationality that God will say, “Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated.”

“And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.”

                Cyprian argued that each day of Genesis consisted of 1000 years. “The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years” (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250]). Does this make any Scriptural sense at all? What does Mosaic Genesis creation days mean by, “And the evening and the morning were the first day?” The same goes for each of the subsequent second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth days. Is this not clearly a twenty-four hour period for each day? What about the Sabbath, seventh day of God’s rest, was it a whole one thousand years of Sabbath rest? Did it take God one thousand years to create Adam and his wife? How does one explain Genesis 7:24 in the light of Cyprian’s each day consisting of 1,000 years? The verse reads, “And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.”Did Cyprian believe that those days were actually one hundred and fifty thousand years of antediluvian rainfall of the great deluge? How can one bring oneself to believe faulty teachers of Scripture when their bases for loss of salvation remain unscriptural?

                Getting born again is a conscious effort on the part of an individual. Get born again. Say this sinner’s prayer.

“Dear heavenly Father, I come to You now in the name of Jesus Christ. I believe in my heart that Jesus is the Son of God. I believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sin. I believe that You raised Him from the dead. I confess with my mouth that Jesus is Lord and I receive Him now as my Lord and my Saviour. I give God all the glory. Amen!”

(…to be concluded…)

Read part 2 here

Get the concluding part 4. Click

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (XII)

/ hoojewale / 3 Comments

Apotheosis of Mary (wonder why she’s standing on moon?)

(…continued from part XI…)

(XII)       How many Catholic faithfuls pray through Mary each day? Are they not up to a billion? She is not omniscient to know all, like Jesus. Is she omnipotent with the capability endowment to do all? To attend to all prayers, she must be omnipresent. Catholics scattered all over the terra firma praying to Mary definitely do it in vain. Hebrews 12:2 says, “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” Jesus it is; not Mary. Amen.                                                                                                            

                How I wish with all fervour that Catholicism would be jettisoned by the Romish Church, go back to the Church of Jesus which received The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans. This was an erudition of Pauline scriptural didacticism at his best. Paul did not make mention of Peter in this book, penned circa 58 A.D. neither did he make any mention of an apotheosis of Mary. Trust Paul to have admonished the Christians of Rome if Nimro-Semiramis was a religious practice. Paul taught the salvation found only in Jesus. “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Romans 10:10). This is what the Bible says of Apollos in Acts 18:28, “For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ;” having understood the word of God through Priscilla and Aquila, who were tutored by Paul.                                                               

Is this Semiramis or Mary?

                It is most definitely Jesus, and none else as we read of divine divulgement in Matthew 16:16, “And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” The same Peter made the utterance of John 6:68-69, 68) “Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69) And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” Mary, to whom apotheosis does not belong could never be quoted as voicing the verses of John 11:25-27. 25) “Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26) And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? 27) She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.” The word ‘believe’ and all the inflections ‘believeth and believest’ is the same Greek pisteuo (pist-yoo’-o) ‘1. to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit 2. (by implication) to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well-being to Christ).’ Spiritual pisteuo is to be entrusted only to the Divinity of Jesus, otherwise, there is so much to lose. Reliance on Mary and myriads of dead saints of Catholicism in intercessory prayers is nothing short of filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness which Apostle James expects to be laid aside. Amen.

                Ascension of Mary, where in the Old or the New Testament does it boast of a biblical record? It is merely of unscriptural Catholicism. Did Joseph, her husband, go through the same physical ascension as well? I guess not! Selah!

Ascension of Mary, of Scripture?

                We understand what Exodus 20:4-5 commands concerning images. Acts 17:29 says, “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.” The term ‘Godhead’ is the Greek theios (thi’-os): ‘1. a general name of deities or divinities as used by the Greeks spoken of the only and true God. 2. Trinity of: Christ, Holy Spirit and the Father. 3. Godlike (neuter as noun, divinity).’ If the Godhead cannot be materially represented for adoration how could Catholics set Mary up for bending of the knees? Mary, whose pious enunciation placed the salvation of her soul in the Lord God asserted in Luke 1:47, “And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.”

What’s this!?

                Creationism embroidered in every intelligent being, a heart of adoratory predisposition. Docility, engendered by the original sin, man would prostrate in worship of what ignites his religious fancy. Catholicism, laden with speciosity of Scripture, has successfully wrapped her adherents in the straitjacket of religion. Honestly, no sophistry is required to inculcate John 3:3. A hardened criminal tore the Bible leaves to clean the defecation of the lower orifice of his alimentary canal. After some days, he decided to read ‘the stupid page’ before its desecration. He began to weep uncontrollably when his sinful proclivity hit him as he read, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” [John 3:16]. The criminal, right there on the toilet pot, calling on Jesus, got born again! Not properly processed is the scripture that runs through the conduit of sophism: and honestly speaking, adorcism is very likely the resultant effect! Selah!

                You want to know what establishes the enforcement of Mariolatry? This is it. In the eighth century, the second council of Nicea decreed that the image of God was as proper an object of worship as God Himself. If you truly love God, will you obey or disobey His express mand? Selah!

Pope Francis touches a statue of Mary and Jesus after crowning it during Mass at Lobito beach in Iquique, Chile, Jan. 18. (CNS photo/Paul Haring) See POPE-LOBITO-MASS Jan. 18, 2018.

LIKE POPE FRANCIS, LIKE EVERY OTHER POPE BEFORE HIM –WOULD APOSTLE PETER DO LIKEWISE?

  (Concluded)

NB= I’d very much love to read your candid contributions. Thank you!

Read the previous 11th part here

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (XI)

/ hoojewale / 2 Comments

Religious syncretism of Catholicism

(…continued from part ten…)

(XI)         In the year 1090, Peter the Hermit introduced the use of the rosary into Catholicism. It was first of Hinduism then of Islamic Mohammedanism. Jesus told us never to indulge in vain repetitions in Matthew 6:7. The scapula, a piece of cloth having the picture of the Mary of Catholicism i.e. Semiramis, a heathenish talisman, was a 1287 invention of an English monk, Simon Stock, meant to protect its wearer who has it on his naked skin! How can a true Bible believer deign to allow any rumination of his mind to lead him into an asseveration, to believe that the traditions of the fallibility of human church goers, who constantly dwell in their known carnality, can ever be equal in authority to the revealed Bible? Well, the scapula, that is exactly what the Council of Trent held in 1545 declared!

Tridentine Latin mass at Saint Mary’s Church in Washington, DC.

Idolatrous adoration of the wafer 

                 In fact, as if earlier concoctive poisons were not enough to energise an enervating laxness of spirituality, it placed the Bible in the church’s ‘Index of Forbidden Books’ in 1229. The Bible, God’s instruction to fallen man, became a taboo to laymen of Catholicism. How satanic can one be!? God Himself revealed to Joshua, His servant, where the secret of Moses’ success sprang from in Joshua 1:8, “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.” Read also 2Timothy 3:15-17. “Search the scriptures;” Jesus challenges in John 5:39, “for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”The word ‘search’ is ereunao (er-yoo-nah’-o): ‘1. to seek 2. (figuratively) to investigate.’ Ereunao comes apparently from ereo (er-eh’-o) ‘to utter, i.e. speak or say (through the idea of inquiry). Jesus is the all in all; God over all. The verb ‘testify’ is martureo (mar-too-reh’-o) ‘to be a witness, i.e. testify {literally or figuratively}.’ Which scripture testifies of Mariology? None!  

                And the worst of all atrocities to emanate from Catholicism was Pope Francis’ intimation (in 2017) that God told him to re-orientate the Ten Commandments! The 2nd, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,……Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:” of Exodus 20:4-5, according to him, would face an expunging as directed by the same Jehovah, who threw nations into annihilation for giving their genuflection of adoration to other gods, and were replaced by Israelites. The Bible it is, that wields the final ecumenical say, not the Catholicism of the Pope!

 This is sun worship of Baal, the husband of Madonna.

                Transubstantiation, a decree by Pope Innocent III in 1215, says that the Eucharist is the physical flesh and blood of Jesus; it became Catholicism Mass adoration by Pope Honorius in 1220. All the presiding priest needs to do is a magical abracadabra, and voila; Jesus’ flesh and blood is ready for a cannibalistic feast! Many would want to wonder why I bother myself with Catholicism of Mary. “Leave them alone,” many others will insist. Well, the truth must be told. We are at the end of time. Souls must be saved! Amen!          

             Catholicism owes the Christian world of believers where it got all these meretricious claims of its Mariology. Catholicism has successfully transmuted Mariology to an active Mariolatry unfortunately.           

  Only the Members of the Trinity receive the genuflection of adoration. Scraping before the statue of Madonna is strictly idolatry. A word, they say, is enough for the wise. Amen!!                                                                

                Why should this Catholicism of Mary be any concern of my cogitation? Of course it is borne out of the simple facticity of Roman Catholic Church’s claim of Body-of-Christ connectivity. How can every Catholic Mass be complete only if “Hail Mary” ritualistic chant is an inevitability? Jesus did not become God merely by His conception in the matrix of Mary. Mary, ergo, did not give birth to Christ, God the Son. Jesus Christ is actually a divine compound fusion of a man, Adam or Jesus and the Christ, the LORD from heaven (Isaiah 9:6). Christ, in Mary’s womb, wore Jesus as a toga (John 1:14; 1Corinthians 15:45-47). The word ‘made,’ found in ”And the Word was made flesh,” of verse 14 is not about the creation of the Word. Ginomai (ghin’-om-ai) is the Greek for ‘made,’ meaning: ‘1. to cause to be (“gen”-erate) 2. (reflexively) to become (come into being).’ If the Word became, does it not follow simple logic that He was not flesh or Adam before becoming? The Word of God became a man which, hitherto, He was not. Jesus became God when the God-man compound was anointed in the heavenly assizes (Hebrews 1:8-13).

Are these cupids grandchildren of Mary?

                “Hail Mary” apotheosizes a humble, Jesus worshipping Mary! “Hail Mary” is a ‘Systematic Theotokos’ contraption of Catholicism: an unbiblical Mariology. Its sole bourne is Mariolatry! Truth be told, Mariolatry is anthropolatry! If Catholics should argue that Mariology is not Mariolatry, then why do the Catholic faithfuls kneel before the statue of Mary in prayer? A billion and two hundred million die-hard adherence fail to see the intrinsic shame of Mariology when we understand that the Church happens to be the pillar and the ground of Jesus’ truth! Selah!

  (…to be concluded…)

NB= I’d very much love to read your candid contributions. Thank you!

Read the 10th part here

Click here to read the concluding 12th part

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (X)

/ hoojewale / 3 Comments

 Outer piety that supports scriptural vitiation!

(…continued from part nine…)

(X)          A cursory look at these Catholic priests, Bishops and Cardinals no doubt whips up a glaring piety. The thing is: among the several enthroned dead Popes, how many of them will be accorded seats of thrones with the twenty-four elders around the celestial throne of the Majesty? Having served the heinous inclinations of Satanism so willingly, would they have any place before the thrice holy God? Christians do ask me, totally confused at these things, “Do they know or realize what they’re doing?” My answer has always been, “Most definitely they do!” They work in cahoots with the designs of Satanism which culminates in the eventual installation of the Antichrist. You have to be born again to be a partaker of celestial bliss, right? Does Catholicism make this John 3:3 didacticism a matter of soteriological reality? Catholicism would rather glorify Mariology than make Romans 10:9-10 the main focal point of God’s Church business.

Christ’s or Antichrist’s vicegerent?

                They know what they are doing, hence, there is no forgiveness for them when Christ comes. Every pope sits on a throne. Why? Each pope sees himself as a viceroy of the Lord Jesus, who clearly states, “……My kingdom is not of this world……” [John 18:36]. The word ‘world’ in the Greek is kosmos (kos’-mos) ‘1. orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration 2. (by implication) the world including its inhabitants.’ What Satan did immediately he became the ‘god of this world’ is to rearrange, redefine the world he had won for his nefarious dream. Jesus is not part of this arrangement. He knew He was coming back to right all these evil wrong doings of Satanism. The regent is the Church, His mystical body. Since no pope is Christ’s regent, they, each one of them, sits in place of the Antichrist, who will rule the world. And it is for the same reason Catholic Church sponsored the so called ‘Christian War’. We know that the only one that Christ, with His Church, will eventually fight is against none other than Satan’s son, the Antichrist, the son of perdition.

                Ask yourself what on earth will goad a Pope to kneel or bow before the statue of Mary in prayer? Why should the chant of “Hail Mary” be so prominent than the worship of Jesus? The use of the rosary, is it not superfluity of the naughtiness of vain repetition, as warned by the Lord Himself? With an uncanny ineffability of pride, Catholics religiously brandish an unscriptural rosary.

Saint Bernard got his Marian shot of milk!

                Another story says Catholic Mary exposed her breast to Saint Bernard, and shot milk into his eye. Presently, people say, while receiving milk from the heavenly Mother, Saint Bernard was initiated into supreme consciousness and adopted as the son of God and Mary. The more medieval wording was that Mary filled him with all divine graces and purified all his sins. Did Mary have to die to perform such deeds of divinity? There is not one scriptural record of Mary’s power of initiation into any ecumenical assistance. The Jerusalem Church did not pray to the Madonna. Mary did not utter one word of prophecy or an encouragement to the nascent Church during the Upper Room inauguration. It was Peter who spoke, having been reinstated as an Apostle of the expected Church. Where was Mary at the first ever Church Council of Jerusalem, found in The Book of Acts Of Apostles 15:1-21, to iron out the Church doctrine? It was James, the biological brother of Jesus and the pastor of the Jerusalem Church who made the final ecumenical speech. None heard of Mary.   

Catholic saint worship

 Catholic Saint Worship

                   An egregious uncouthness of Scripture vitiation establishes the proclivous authentication of Catholicism. Her wanton disregard for God’s protocol is evidenced by the proclivous unsupportive canonical additions. In year 995 AD, Pope John XV spoke ex cathedra on the canonization of dead saints. Quite inconformity with Romans 1:7, which reads, “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” The very second you become born again you are a saint of Jesus. The word ‘saint,’ hagios, (hag’-ee-os) in Greek, means: ‘sacred (physically pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially consecrated).’ The reason is quite simple in that YAHWEH TSIDQENUW, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS of Jeremiah 23:6 is actually the Christ as stated in Philippians 3:9. Colossians 3:4 says, “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.” The recipients of Romans 1:7 were Christians who were still alive on terra firma! “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints…… [1Corinthians 1:2].                                                                                                                      

  (…to be continued…)

NB= I’d very much love to read your candid contributions. Thank you!

Read the 9th part here

Click here to read the 11th part

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (IX)

/ hoojewale / 2 Comments

  Michael kneeling before Mary and the Jesus who won’t be weaned?

(IX)         Advocate, adjutrix, mediatrix: all of these, Mary’s titles? A look at 1John 2:1 reads, “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:” Jesus, ergo, is not just one of the advocates as it is vouched in 1Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” where the adjective ‘one’ is heis (hice) (Including the neuter [etc.] ἕν hen); a primary numeral; one.’ In this context it is the primary cardinal number one. Again, the word ‘men’ is anthrōpos (a -Greek- generic word for mankind).(Confer Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:24, 25, & 9:24). Jesus being the only Mediator, is Mary, her mother’s Mediator; now you can understand the profundity of her Luke 1:46-55 effusion.   

Cupids? Babies in heaven? What’s the triangle and halo doing on Father and Son?

                It expressly and categorically states: ‘one God;’ ‘one mediator’ and not any other cardinal number. Catholicism fails, in its bid to satiate its unGodly crave, to perceive the dangerous scriptural anomaly this verse makes of the mediatrix didacticism. If the Bible says, one mediator, and Catholicism establishes another mediatrix, is the church of Papal Rome not changing the word of God to read: “…there is one God, and TWO Mediators between God and men,”? Are there any private interpretation of scripture? “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation,” of 2Peter 1:20, is the answer. A good look at the paintings sponsored by Catholicism are quite Nimro-Semiramic. Haloes, triangles, Madonna, cupids and most prominently, mother and child. To keep Semiramis, the moon goddess latreutically alive, the baby Jesus of Catholicism must not be weaned!

JFB’s Commentary on 2 Peter 1:20 goes thus:

20. “Forasmuch as ye know this” (1Pe 1:18).

first—the foremost consideration in studying the word of prophecy. Laying it down as a first principle never to be lost sight of.

is—Greek, not the simple verb, to be, but to begin to be, “proves to be,” “becometh.” No prophecy is found to be the result of “private (the mere individual writer’s uninspired) interpretation” (solution), and so origination. The Greek noun epilusis, does not mean in itself origination; but that which the sacred writer could not always fully interpret, though being the speaker or writer (as 1Pe 1:10-12 implies), was plainly not of his own, but of God’s disclosure, origination, and inspiration, as Peter proceeds to add, “But holy men . . . spake (and afterwards wrote) . . . moved by the Holy Ghost”: a reason why ye should “give” all “heed” to it. The parallelism to 2Pe 1:16 shows that “private interpretation,” contrasted with “moved by the Holy Ghost,” here answers to “fables devised by (human) wisdom,” contrasted with “we were eye-witnesses of His majesty,” as attested by the “voice from God.” The words of the prophetical (and so of all) Scripture writers were not mere words of the individuals, and therefore to be interpreted by them, but of “the Holy Ghost” by whom they were “moved.” “Private” is explained, 2Pe 1:21, “by the will of man” (namely, the individual writer). In a secondary sense the text teaches also, as the word is the Holy Spirit’s, it cannot be interpreted by its readers (any more than by its writers) by their mere private human powers, but by the teaching of the Holy Ghost (Joh 16:14). “He who is the author of Scripture is its supreme interpreter” [GERHARD]. ALFORD translates, “springs not out of human interpretation,” that is, is not a prognostication made by a man knowing what he means when he utters it, but,” &c. (Joh 11:49-52). Rightly: except that the verb is rather, doth become, or prove to be. It not being of private interpretation, you must “give heed” to it, looking for the Spirit’s illumination “in your hearts.”

                It is blasphemous to make Mary equal to Jesus. To so do is indicative of spiritual indigence as pertaining to scriptures. Isaiah 45:23, “I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” The true Speaker calls Himself ‘LORD’ in verse 21; ‘God’ in verses 21 and 22. ‘LORD’ is the Hebrew ‘Jehovah (self-existing One).’ The first ‘God’ in verse 21 is ‘ĕlôhı̂ym (el-o-heem’): ‘divine ones,’ plural of ‘ĕlôahh, gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God.’

                The second ‘God’ in verse 21 and the ‘God’ in verse 22 is ‘êl (ale): ‘strength; as adjective mighty; especially the Almighty (but used also of any deity).’ Does this not look – ‘Jehovah’ and ‘The Almighty’– like God, the Father? But let us see what two verses say. Romans 14:11 “For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” Philippians 2:10, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.” This verse makes Jesus the Jehovah of the Old Testament. He cannot hold the same office of deification with Mary, unless, of course, Catholicism will prove its proclivity to paganism.

                Only the Members of the Trinity receive the genuflection of adoration. Scraping before the statue of Madonna is strictly idolatry. A word, they say, is enough for the wise. Amen!!

  (…to be continued…)

NB= I’d very much love to read your candid contributions. Thank you!

Read part eight here

Click here to read part 10

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (VIII)

/ hoojewale / 2 Comments

Angelic worship of Theotokos in the clouds or heaven itself?

(VIII)      Catholicism is a dangerous didacticism. The implications of its teachings are quite ominous. Mother of God? This is an idolatrous importation of Nimro-Semiramish proclivity. Scriptural understanding provides a pellucidity of God the Father, and God the Son. The same Scripture teaches quite unequivocally that the Father and the Son are one. Semiramis was believed to have deified Tammuz, her son, teaching that he was the incarnation of her dead husband, Nimrod, who, as believed, happened to be her son as well. The fifth century First Council of Catholicism declaration of Mary as mother of God was an assay to establish a syncretism of Jesus’ Christianity and the idolatrous Nimro-Semiramis. Pure Satanism, known of paganism.

                Will it, in a way, be a ratiocinative superfluity delving into an acquiescence to the 4th century orthodoxy established theotokos (bearer of God) of Mariological title? True rationality will lead to the facticity that Mary’s matrix did containerised the physical reality of the Incarnation on our terra firma. On account of this fact, yes, it is, to theotokos. But since it is pellucid enough that that which is being given birth to is actually coming into existence for the first time, the darkness of Mariological beam leading to ‘mother of God’ insistent hue is a non-issue. An aberrant Mariology. His preincarnate manifestations on the terra firma abound in the annals of the pages of Scripture. Having been before creationism makes Him as eternal as His Father. It is quite impossible to procreate the Self-Existing Jehovah, the Eternal One.

Semiramis, Madonna, Mary of Catholicism

Semiramis, Madonna, Mary of Catholicism 

                The proclivous dream of Catholicism must take Mariology to the next Manichean level of aeiparthenos (ever virgin). “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25) And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS” [Matthew 1:24-25]. The adverb ’till’ is made up of two words: heōs (heh’-oce) and hos (hos). The first ‘a conjugation, preposition and adverb of continuance,’ means: ‘until (of time and place);’ the second is: ‘the relative (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, that.’ The definitions of ’till’ does not in any way prove the aeiparthenos castle in the air theory of Catholicism to be true. In fact, heōs hos support the narrative of Matthew 13:55 & 56, “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56) And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?” That after Jesus was weaned Joseph consummated his marriage with his legally married Mary cannot be vitiated. That the virgin did, as the prophecy did utter, bring forth her firstborn, is all that mattered and matters. Whether she had biological children with her legal husband is nobody’s business. Not at all! Unfortunately, the Satanism of Catholicism must apotheose Mary to usher Semiramis into Christ’s Body. Blasphemy! 

The Father holding an orb? How scriptural?

                How can Mary be a co-redemptrix or an auxiliatrix? Did she die for any Catholic Church members? Does the Bible have such titles in any of the Messianic scriptures? “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” [Genesis 3:15]; is of God being the First Evangelist to proclaim the birth of the Lord Jesus, Saviour of the sinful world. Note the singularity of ‘seed,’ the Hebrew of which is zera‛ (zeh’-rah), a masculine noun, meaning: ‘sowing; figuratively fruit, plant, sowing time, offspring, posterity.’ “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” [Isaiah 9:6]. Does the New Testamentary couch come with any excursus that arrays Mary with any of these epithetical deifications?

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. None else.

                ‘The mighty God’ is El gibbor in Hebrew. It translates ‘God the mighty man,’ ‘God the mighty One’ and ‘the prevailing or conquering God.’ It is exclusively God, the Creator’s, business: of any work found in soteriological dimension. John 1:29, “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Only One personage fits perfectly into this status of ‘the Lamb of God’ and who else co-pilots the redemptive work of mankind? Mary? Reading from the tenth verse to the twelfth of the book of Acts chapter 4, the 12th reads: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” There is no co-redemptrix or an auxiliatrix attached to Him for it says, “there is none other name under heaven given among men…” (Acts 4:12).What is the Greek word for ‘men’? It is anthrōpos (anth’-ro-pos) which has nothing to do with a particular gender. It has the meaning of: ‘male or female; man-faced, i.e. a human being.’                                                                                                                                                Only a brazen proclivity of procacity embedded in Satanism will lead to the convoluted sophistry that evolved ‘Queen of heaven’ peddled by Catholicism of Mary. Is Prophet Jeremiah’s queen of heaven (Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17-19 & 25) not a goddess? Selah!

                When the four angels of The Book Revelation, in the Bible, go in the genuflection with: “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come” [Rev 4:8] –where each ‘holy’ is intended for the Persons of the Trinity– where is Mary in this latreutical chant?

(…to be continued…)

NB= I’d very much love to read your candid contributions. Thank you!

Read part 7 here

Click here to read part 9

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (VII)

/ hoojewale / 4 Comments

Zachariah, Elizabeth, Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus.

VII.         I saw this in a Wikipedia post, “According to the apocryphal Gospel of James, Mary was the daughter of Saint Joachim and Saint Anne. Before Mary’s conception, Anne had been barren and was far advanced in years. Mary was given to service as a consecrated virgin in the Temple in Jerusalem when she was three years old, much like Hannah took Samuel to the Tabernacle as recorded in the Old Testament. Some apocryphal accounts, continued the post, state that at the time of her betrothal to Joseph, Mary was 12–14 years old, and he was ninety years old, but such accounts are unreliable.  According to ancient Jewish custom, Mary could have been betrothed at about 12. Hyppolitus of Thebes claims that Mary lived for 11 years after the death of her son Jesus, dying in 41 AD.                                                        

Transubstantiation of 1215

                “The earliest extant biographical writing on Mary is Life of the Virgin attributed to the 7th-century saint, Maximus the Confessor, which portrays her as a key element of the early Christian Church after the death of Jesus.”    

An Apocrypha is devoid of biblical canonization, ergo, cannot be relied on to serve as God’s protocol.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                This is the genealogy of Mary. According to the writer of Luke, Mary was a relative of Elizabeth, wife of the priest, Zechariah of the priestly division of Abijah, who was herself part of the lineage of Aaron and so of the tribe of Levi [Luke 1:5; 1:36]. Mary’s relationship with Elizabeth was probably on the maternal side. Joseph, to whom she was betrothed, was of the royal House of David and so of the Tribe of Judah. The genealogy of Jesus presented in Luke 3 from Nathan, third son of David and Bathsheba, is in fact the genealogy of Mary, while the genealogy from Solomon given in Matthew chapter 1 is that of Joseph.

 Nimrod the sun god (stars) up, Semiramis the moon below.

Mariological Titles:

*Life-giving Spring It will certainly take a wickedly fudged scripture to get God’s Bible to validate this title. Does Mary boast coevality with the Trinity? Why would Catholics not kneel in idolisation before the sculptured work of Madonna? She is a life-giving spring after all!

*Our Mother the Holy Virgin This one is supposed to be taken from John 19:27, “Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.” Most certainly, the Romish church knows how to mangle scripture to suit the cravings of Catholicism. If Mary were to be the spiritual matriarch that Catholicism is unsuccessfully trying to establish, then, John would have to be the one to follow his holy, perpetual virgin mother home, and not the vice versa.

*The Queen who is by the Right Side of the King. Is Psalm 45:9 a couch in reference to Mary? “Kings’ daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir” [Psalm 45:9]. Is this Mary, Madonna or the Church (the Bride of Jesus)? This is certainly the CHURCH! Except for a wickedly distortion of rhema, there is nowhere in scripture where an individual is married to the Lamb! If Mary, the daughter of Jacob and the mother of Jesus were to be a queen in the celestial assizes, then, she must have a throne in the third heaven of the Almighty Jehovah.                                                                                      

 Who are these young angelic beings? Cupidity of baby angels?

                A mother knows the beginning of the life of the fruit of her matrix. This makes her biologically more advanced in age than the unborn foetus. Is there any infinitesimal inference to Marian maternity of God in Simon Peter’s Holy Spirit’s inspired scriptural transcriptions? A mother will always be older than her progeny even if she dies at age fifty and her son goes on to clock the hundredth year in his own life time. No wonder Goddess Madonna continues to clutch on to Baby God! She is older than the Ancient of days! That, Pope Francis (if you care to know), is the implications of your Christokos! Your false declarations make Mary the mother of the One who has neither beginning nor ending. Had your Madonna been before the beginlessness of the Ancient of days? Does she have the capacity of eternity to containerise the Self-Existing, Eternal, Holy One of Israel? Impossible!

                Let the Pope show me Mary’s maternity and throne of Madonna in heaven. Jesus said, “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” [John 14:3]. And where is the place of Jesus at the celestial throne? “And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven” [Mark 14:62]. At the right hand of God’s throne. These following verses do corroborate: Psalm 110:1; Matthew 22:44; Mark 16:19; Acts 2:34; Acts 7:55; Acts 7:56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Ephesians 4:8; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 12:2; 1Peter 3:22.  

  (…to be continued…)

  NB= I’d very much love to read your candid contributions. Thank you!

Read part 6 here

Click to read part 8

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (VI)

/ hoojewale / 3 Comments

Nowhere does the Bible support the emblematic holiness of the halo

 (…continued from part five…)

VI.          Mariology in the 19th century was dominated by discussions about the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception and the First Vatican Council. In 1854, Pope Pius IX, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic Bishops, whom he had consulted between the years of 1851–1853, proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which had been a traditional belief among the faithful for centuries.                                                                                                                                                                  On 8 May, during the First Vatican Council, a majority of the fathers voted to reject making the Assumption a dogma, a position shared by Pope Pius IX. In its support, Council fathers highlighted the divine motherhood of Mary and called her the mother of all graces. In 1950, the dogma of the Assumption of Mary received an encyclical from Pope Pius XII. The Second Vatican Council spoke of Mary as Mother of the Church. In 1988 Pope John Paul II stated that the Second Vatican Council confirmed that: “unless one looks to the Mother of God, it is impossible to understand the mystery of the Church.” In 2002 in the Apostolic letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae he emphasized the importance of the rosary as a key devotion for all Catholics and added the Luminous Mysteries to the rosary.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                Pope Benedict XVI continued the program of redirection of the Catholic Church towards a Marian focus and stated: “Let us carry on and imitate Mary, a deeply Eucharistic soul, and our lives will become a Magnificat”. In 2008 Pope Benedict XVI introduced a Marian prayer he had composed, which referring to Mary being the Mother of all Christians stated: “you became, in a new way, the Mother of all those who receive your Son Jesus in faith and choose to follow in his footsteps…”                             

Quite a scatological mind of an individual it will take to disdain the faith and exemplary character of Mary, the mother of Jesus; but when one peruses the Pauline hall of faith (Hebrews chapter eleven), Mary is not accorded a mentioning, neither as the Catholicism engendered ‘mother of God.’ The Holy Spirit did not even direct Paul to do an insertion of her name somewhere in-between verses 39 & 40 to produce a couching like: “God having provided some better thing for us, through the divine matrix of Madonna of the blessed perpetuity of virginity, that they without us should not be made perfect.”  Mary, to Catholicism, would have been the co-Perfecter of the faith of Christians if Hebrews eleven has an inclusion of her name.                                                                                                     

Guess what the halo behind Mary means? Semiramis, the moon goddess, of course!

                Madonna, a Catholicism epithet of Mary, the mother of Jesus, is defined as ‘my Lady.’ Lord, as the masculinity of lady, makes Madonna something else. In the spiritual ritualism of religiosity the lordship of any personage is deistic. The title of Madonna, ergo, is a Papal acquiescence of Mary’s sacerdotal worship. Lacking Scriptural knowledge, it is quite obvious why Catholicism will embark on a vitiation of Exodus 20:3 to bring the knees of Catholic faithful members bowed before the statue of Mary.                                                                                                                                                    How could the supposed ‘mother of God’ betray such imperfection seen in Luke 2:41-50? “And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business” [Luke 2:49]? The humanity of the twelve-year old Jesus did not only debunk Catholic’s counterfactual, “Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God: pray for us sinners now and in the hour of death;” He questioned His mother’s spiritual bankruptcy.                                                                                                                                                                     The papal Gregory the Great authorised the teaching of first two parts of Marian prayer in 1198, taken from Luke 1:28, 42. Pope Pius V added the third part in 1568. The true words of Luke 1:28 are “Hail, thou that art highly favoured,” which are translated in the Romish Vulgate as, “Ave gratia plena” (“Hail Mary full of grace”), the catechism means that, Mary is full of gifts of grace and on account of this she exists between God and mankind as the mediator to dispense gifts. Mariolatry! The only One who of Scripture is termed ‘full of grace’ is Jesus in John 1:14, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” This is the only place, in Scripture, ‘full of grace’ appears, making it a hapax legomenon.

   Infant baptism? Romans 10:9-10?

                On the day of the naming of a new baby, the Roman Catholic Church priest washes the baby’s head which, to Catholic faithful, represents the Christian baptism. Whether it is ‘baptize, baptized, baptizing,’ the Greek word of which is baptizo (bap-tid’-zo): ‘1. to immerse, submerge 2. to make whelmed or soaked (i.e. fully wet)’ or ‘baptism,’ baptisma (bap’-tis-mah): ‘immersion (technically or figuratively),’ it is definitely of a total immersion in water by definition. One only goes for baptism after having been born again (Mark 16:15 &16). The Pope changed the baptismal doctrine to suit Catholicism. A baby, according to the soteriological formula of Romans 10:9, 10, cannot go through the rituals of this spiritual rejuvenation. As babes, Christ did die for them. I am wondering why a priest of Almighty Jehovah will continue to be christening Christian babies Cynthia or Diana, knowing fully well that it is paganistic through and through, being one of the sobriquets of Semiramis.        

(…to be continued…)                                                                                                                                           

NB= I’d very much love to read your candid contributions. Thank you!

Read part five. Click here.

CLICK HERE to read part seven.