Ask Questions

You are free to ask any question or share your views here

Drop a comment below.

Private questions can be sent through the contact Page.

Advertisements

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (IX)

  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).

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

isGreek, 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

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (VIII)

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)

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)

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.

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (V)

   Mary? Aeipartheonos?!

(…continued from part four…)

V.            Aeipartheonos, meaning ever virgin (Perpetual Virginity) entered Catholic dogmas in 553 AD of the Second Council of Constantinople and Panagia (Greek: Παναγία, lit. ‘All-holy’).                                                                                                                                                           In the 5th century, the Third Ecumenical Council debated the question of whether Mary should be referred to as Theotokos or Christotokos. Theotokos means “God-bearer” or “Mother of God”; its use implies that Jesus, to whom Mary gave birth, is truly God and man in one person. Nestorians preferred another anomalous title Christotokos meaning, “Christ-bearer” or “Mother of the Messiah.” They did not deny Jesus’ divinity, but believed that God the Son or Logos existed before time and before Mary, and that Mary was mother only of Jesus as a human, so calling her “Mother of God” was confusing and potentially heretical.                                                                                                                                        In the year 1198, Catholicism gave Mary the titles: co-redemptrix, advocate, auxiliatrix, adjutrix, mediatrix, believing that as the mother of Christ, she should share in His official responsibilities. I have a question? Who decides who shares in divine attributes, man or the Divinity? Do we call this ecumenical decision an acute scriptural indigence on the part of Catholicism or a blatant gibe at Scripture? Do we not know whose job it is to distribute ecumenical offices in Acts 13:2 “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them?” Read also Acts 20:28, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Now do confer 1Corinthians 12:7-11.                                                                                                                                                      

                Belief in the Assumption (taken up to heaven like Enoch and Elijah) of Mary became widespread across the orthodoxy of the Christian world from the 6th century onward, and is celebrated on 15 August in both the East and the West. The Medieval period brought major champions of Marian devotion to the fore, including Ephraim the Syrian, and John Damascene. The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, under the Papal conspiratorial supervision, developed within the Catholic Church over time. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) suggested a redirection of the whole Church towards the programme of Pope John Paul II in order to ensure an authentic approach to Christology via a return to the “whole truth about Mary, writing, “It is necessary to go back to Mary if we want to return to that ‘truth about Jesus Christ,’ ‘truth about the Church’ and ‘truth about man.'”

                How pathetic!                                                                                                                     

  Does Mary use the rosary in her celestial intercessory role?

                The twelfth and thirteenth centuries saw an extraordinary growth of the cult of the Virgin in Western Europe, in part inspired by the writings of theologians such as Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153). Bernard of Clairvaux was one of the most influential Roman Catholic churchmen of his time. In the “Sermon on the Sunday in the Octave of the Assumption” he gave an irreverent exegesis of Mary’s participation in redemption. Bernard’s Praises on the Virgin Mother was a small but complete treatise on Mariology. Pope Pius XII’s 1953 encyclical agreed with Bernard’s sermon on Mary as “Our Lady, Star of the Sea.” Western types of the Virgin’s image, such as the twelfth-century “Throne of Wisdom”, in which the Christ Child is presented frontally as the sum of divine wisdom, seem to have originated in Byzantium.                                                                                                                                                               Theologically, one major controversy of the age was the Immaculate Conception. Anthony of Padua (1195–1231) supported Mary’s freedom from sin and her Immaculate Conception. His many sermons on the Virgin Mary shaped the Mariological approach of a large number of Franciscans who followed his approach for centuries after his death. The encyclical of Pope Pius IX in 1854 attested to Roman Catholic catechism concerning Mary’s Sinlessness and Immaculate Conception.                                                                                                            

John Duns Scotus

John Duns Scotus

                A man called John Duns Scotus said that Mary was redeemed in anticipation of Christ’s death on a cross. Scotus’ defense of the immaculist thesis was summed up by one of his followers as potuit, decuit ergo fecit – God could do it, it was fitting that He did it, and so He did it. Gradually the idea that Mary had been cleansed of original sin at the very moment of her conception began to predominate. By the end of the Middle Ages, Marian feasts were firmly established in the calendar of the liturgical year. Pope Clement IV (1265–1268) created a poem on the seven joys of Mary, which in its form is considered an early version of the Franciscan rosary.                      

Protestant leaders like Martin Luther and John Calvin, while personally adhering (and erroneously, too) to Marian beliefs like virgin birth and sinlessness, considered Catholic veneration of Mary as competition to the divine role of Jesus Christ. Unbelievably, the Catholic Church believed her engagement in Ottoman Wars in Europe against Turkey were fought and won under the auspices of the Virgin Mary. The victory at Battle of Lepanto (1571) was accredited to her “and signified the beginning of a strong resurgence of Marian devotions, focusing especially on Mary, the Queen of Heaven and Earth and her powerful role as mediator of many graces.” Religious superstition crept, undoubtedly, as you can see, through Catholicism, into the Church!                                                                                                                                  

                The Jesuit Francisco Suárez (1548-1617) was the first theologian, who used the Thomist method on Mariology and is considered the father of systematic Mariology. Thomism or Scholasticism is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary is: ‘a philosophical movement dominant in western Christian civilization from the 9th until the 17th century and combining religious dogma with the mystical and intuitional tradition of patristic philosophy especially of St. Augustine and later with Aristotelianism.’ This must, unfortunately, be fed, doctrinally, into the unsuspecting religious Catholic laity to aid the enshrinement of Mariology.  

 (…to be continued…)                        

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

Read the 4th part here

Click to read the 6th part.

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (IV)

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.

Pope Frances supports the adoration of Mary & the Jesus they refuse to get weaned

(…continued from part three…)

IV.          “But ye are they that forsake the LORD, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number” [Isaiah 65:11].

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown’s Commentary on Isaiah 65:11

holy mountain*Moriah, on which the temple was.

troop*—rather “Gad,” the Babylonian god of fortune, the planet Jupiter, answering to Baal or Bel; the Arabs called it “the Greater Good Fortune”; and the planet Venus answering to Meni, “the Lesser Good Fortune” [GESENIUS, KIMCHI, c.]. Tables were laid out for their idols with all kinds of viands, and a cup containing a mixture of wine and honey, in Egypt especially, on the last day of the year [JEROME].

*drink offeringrather, “mixed drink.”

*number*—rather, “Meni” as goddess of fortune she was thought to _number_ the fates of men. VITRINGA understands Gad to be the sun; Meni the moon, or Ashtaroth or Astarte (1Ki 11:33).

                “But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves” [Amo 5:26].

John Gill’s Commentary on Amos 5:26

‘But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch,…. The god of the Ammonites;  called theirs, because they also worshipped it, and caused their seed to pass through the fire to it; and which was carried by them in a shrine, or portable tent or chapel. Or it may be rendered, “but ye have borne Siccuth your king” p; and so Siccuth may be taken for the name of an idol, as it is by Jarchi, Kimchi, and Ben Melech, to whom they gave the title of king, as another idol went by the name of the queen of heaven; perhaps by one was meant the sun, and by the other the moon;

and Chiun, your images; Moloch or Siccuth was one, and Chiun another image, or rather the same; and this the same with Chevan, which in the Arabic and Persic languages is the name of Saturn, as Aben Ezra and Kimchi say; and is so rendered by Montanus here; and who in the Egyptian tongue was called Revan, or Rephan, or Remphan; as by the Septuagint here, and in Ac 7:43;

the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves; or the star “your god” q; meaning the same with Chiun or Saturn; perhaps the same with the star that fell from the air or sky, mentioned by Sanchoniatho r; which Astarte, the wife of Chronus or Saturn, is said to take and consecrate in Tyre; this they made for themselves, and worshipped as a deity. The Targum is, “ye have borne the tabernacle of your priests, Chiun your image, the star your God, which ye have made to yourselves.”                                                    

                Marian epithets of Catholicism were never handed down to Catholic fathers. These epithetic Mariolatry are the scriptural paradoxicalities of Romish rumination. They are not Pauline, Peterine or Johannine. They have no backing of the twelve-pillared Apostolic offices of the upper-room event (ten days after Christ’s ascension) of nascent Church. They crept in from outside the Church of the Living Jesus. It probably began with St. Irenaeus of Lyons, in the second century A.D. He called Mary the “second Eve” because through Mary and her willing acceptance of God’s choice, God undid the harm that was done through Eve’s choice to eat the forbidden fruit. The earliest recorded prayer to Mary is the sub tuum praesidium (“Beneath Thy Protection”), a hymn of Catholicism. It is the oldest preserved extant hymn to the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos.                                                                                                                                       In the First Council of Nicaea which took place in the year 325 AD they agreed on the virgin birth of Jesus. The outcome of the First Council made it quite easy for the Mary of Catholicism to become the mother of God in the First Council of Ephesus of 431. Saint Ambrose’s view of Mary as the Mother of the Church, was adopted at the Second Vatican Council. This is an example that shows the early influence of Roman Catholic (and never of the twelve called Apostles of Jesus) traditions and views on Mary in modern times. This view was then emphasized by Pope John Paul II in 1997. Mary, today, is viewed as the Mother of the Church by many Catholics, as Ambrose had proposed.                                                                                                                                          

Is this not Pope John Paul II? Is this a latria bow or not? Is it to Jesus or Mary?

                The Fourth Ecumenical Council saw Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican affirming the title Mother of God, while other Christian denominations give no such title to her. The ‘Middle Ages,’ as documented, saw a growth and development of Mariology.  Conception of Mary was celebrated as a liturgical feast in England from the 9th century, and the doctrine of her “holy” or “immaculate” conception was first formulated in a tract by Eadmer, companion and biographer of the better-known St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (1033–1109). St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure, for example, believed that Mary was completely free from sin, but that she was not given this grace at the instant of her conception.  

(…to be continued…)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

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

Read part three here

Read the 5th part here

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (III)

 Millions of faithful Catholic Church’s object of adoration. This is it! (Exodus 20:4 & 5).

 (…continued from part two…)

III.           She was not spiritually attached to the Lord of glory. Weak, spiritually, she was. The pointer to her weakness is found in John 19:26 & 27, When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27) Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. None heard Mary’s voice again. The maternal umbilical cord had been discarded. It is not in congruity with divine protocol. What did Mary, whose parturient matrix engendered the biological incarnation of the Lord’s earthly sojourn, say even on the day of the epical Day of Pentecost? Nothing! The Church is never about the femininity of her persona. The word ‘mother,’ in Luke and John is meter (may’-tare) ‘a “mother” {literally or figuratively, immediate or remote};’ and ‘brethren’ is adelphos.                                                                                                                                                            

                One of the scriptural bizarreness of Catholicism is the cultic mother-and-child established indoctrination. Quite a paganistic occultism. This is a Nimrodic (or Nimro-semiramic) importation of paganism into the Church of Jesus. Nowhere in Scripture is it (mother-and-child) found. This is an apodeictic representation of Nimrodic Baal worship of his wife, Semiramis, and Tammuz their son, whose deified stance concludes the apish trinitarian concept of Baalism. Satanism conspiracy took it from Babel to Egypt, the next global world power. There, in Egypt, the mother and child assumed the sobriquet of Isis and Horus. Is it not over two thousand years ago? How could the baby Jesus still remain a baby? Catholicism should tell me, in fact, us, when that baby of Madonna will be weaned!                                                                                                                                                   In Egypt, Semiramis became known as “Isis”, “The Queen of Heaven.” Nimrod became known as “Osiris”, the husband/son, and frequently called “Horus” (the sun god). In Phoenicia, Semiramis and Nimrod were worshipped as or known as Ashterath and Tammuz or EL, BACCHUS, ASTARTE; in Greece, Aphrodite and Eros or ZEUS, DIONYSUS, APHRODITE; in Rome, Venus and Cupid or JUPITER, ATTIS, CYBELE, DIANA, and in China, Mother Shing Moo and her child.

 Indulgence of talismanic proclivity of Catholicism!

Here is a chart to show how Nimrod, Tammuz and Semiramis has been handed down.

1. Nimrod Lord of Heaven

2. Tammuz ‘The Pagan Messiah’

3. Semiramis ‘The Queen of Heaven’

Lebanon – Baal, Tammuz, Ashtoreth

 BABYLON – Belus, Tammuz, Rhea, Ishtar

ASSYRIA – Ninus, Hercules, Beltis

 EGYPT – Ra, Osiris, Horus, Isis, Hathor

INDIA – Vishnu, Krishna, Isi, Devaki

CHINA – Pan-Ku, Yi, Heng-o, Ma Tsoopo

MEXICO – Teotl, Quetzalcoatl, Coattlicue

Scandinavian – Odin, Balder, Fregg, Freyda

Note: As you can see by the chart above, Satan has started his counterfeit religion in Babel.

SEMIRAMIS or Ashtarte NIMROD or Baal the sun god

Cybele (Goddess Mother) Asia Deoius (Asia)

Fortuna (Pagan Rome) The Boy Jupiter (Pagan Rome)

Venus (Rome) Cupid (Rome)

Ashterath (Phoenicia) Tammuz (Phoenicia)

Aphrodite (Greece) Eros (Greece)

Irene (Goddess of Peace) Greece The Boy Plutus (Greece)

Ishtar (Babylon) The Winged One (Babylon)

Rhea (Mother of Gods) Orion (Constellation)

Diana (Ephesian) Bacchus (God of Party going) of Ancient Greece

Shing Moo (Holy Mother of China).                                                                                                                                  

Unholy syncretism

 Unholy syncretism

                With these overwhelming facts that connects the Mary of Catholicism with Semiramis, the Papacy of the Romish church continues, without any prick of conscience, to extol the unscriptural deistic virtues of the biblical Mary. This tells me something. There is no iota of doubt in my mind that the Romish Catholicism knows what she is doing. They are deliberately serving the Nimrosemiramic deities! Period!                                                                                                                                                            The Book of Jeremiah 7:18 reads: “The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.” Here is JFB’s Commentary on Jeremiah 7:18 children . . . fathers . . . womenNot merely isolated individuals practised idolatry; young and old, men and women, and whole families, contributed their joint efforts to promote it. Oh, that there were the same zeal for the worship of God as there is for error (Jer 44:17; Jer 44:19; Jer 19:13 (refs3)).                                                                                                                                                        

cakes . . . queen of heavenCakes were made of honey, fine flour, c., in a round flat shape to resemble the disc of the moon, to which they were offered. Others read as Margin, “the frame of heaven,” that is, the planets generally so the Septuagint here; but elsewhere the Septuagint translates, “queen of heaven.” The Phoelignicians called the moon Ashtoreth or Astarte: the wife of Baal or Moloch, the king of heaven. The male and female pair of deities symbolized the generative powers of nature; hence arose the introduction of prostitution in the worship. The Babylonians worshipped Ashtoreth as Mylitta, that is, generative. Our Monday, or Moon-day, indicates the former prevalence of moon worship (see on Isa 65:11).

that they may provoke me—implying design: in worshipping strange gods they seemed as if purposely to provoke Jehovah.‘ 

(…to be continued…)

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

Read part two here

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (II)

Is not this the carpenter’s son, his mother Mary, his brethren, and his sisters not all with us?

(…continued from part one…)

II.            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?” Let us look at the noun ‘brethren.’ It is the Greek adelphos (ad-el-fos’) ‘1. a brother 2. (of faith) a brother in our Lord, Jesus {literally or figuratively; near or remote; much like ‘a’ for alpha i.e. union} [from ‘a’union (as a connective particle) and delphus “the womb”].’ The feminine ‘sister’ is adelphe (ad-el-fay’) 1. a sister 2. (of faith) a sister in our Lord, Jesus [feminine of adelphos].’ Jesus did share the same womb of Mary with at least six siblings. This is what adelphos and adelphe are pointing out. How can they, the siblings, share the same womb with the Lord Jesus and Mary would not be touched (for conjugal consummation), consequently leading to natural conception?                                                                                                                                               

One of the scriptures quoted in support of Mary’s adoration is the angelic greeting of ‘hail’ in Luke 1:28 “And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” They claim that this greeting set Mary apart. The meaning of ‘hail,’ chairo (khai’-ro) is: ‘1. to be “cheer”ful, i.e. calmly happy or well-off 2. (impersonally, especially) as salutation (on meeting or parting), be well.’ Because of chairo they began to pray the idolization prayer of ‘Hail Mary.’ In the book of Matthew 28:9 “And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him;” it was the Lord Jesus, Himself, who did the ‘hail,’ which is the same chairo. Whose ‘hail,’ if I may ask,gathers a more prominent momentousness, angel Gabriel’s or that of Jesus, the Lord God? ‘Hail Mary’ is the same as, “Greetings Mary.” Why would anyone want to greet someone who is no longer resident on earth? For the simple anomalous worshipful reason; not more!                              

Jesus still a baby?!

                Luke 1:46, 47 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47) And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” Mary’s admittance of needing a Saviour is an indication of her spiritual indigence. How could God’s own mother crave for a soteriological stance? Whoever seeks for divine salvation must be a sinner. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God [Romans 3:23]; Mary, the natural biological daughter of Heli, was born a sinner. I hope the past Popes, and especially the extant Pope Frances is not unaware of the scriptural facticity of Mary’s sinful birth, ergo, cannot be God’s Mother and consequently a Goddess!

                Jesus would not have His mother interfere with Divine operation in John 2:4. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. Let us treat the originalities of the words of this verse, where we have ‘woman,’ the Greek of which is gune (goo-nay’) ‘1. a woman 2. (specially) a wife.’ This is a clear case of an indictment. The word ‘what’ is tis (tis’) ‘an interrogative pronoun, who, which or what (in direct or indirect questions).’ The words ‘have I,’ emoi (em-oy’) is: ‘to me.’ And ‘to do with’? It is kai (kai’) conj. ’and, also, even, so then, too, etc. {Often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words} [apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force].’ The pronoun ‘thee’ is soi (soy’) ‘to thee [dative case of ‘thou’].’                      

 “Thou wife of Joseph, what is the matter with thee?”

                Jesus did not insult His mother. It was only a gentle rebuke. “Thou wife of Joseph, what is the matter with thee? Keep out of what concerns only the Members of the Divinity,” were the absolute import of the words of our Lord Jesus, to a wife and, consequently, mother of His siblings, and by her husband, the late Joseph.                                                               

When one hears something of the nature of Luke 11:27 “And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked;” does it not evoke the apotheotic Mariolatry of Catholicism? But thank God that Jesus did not disappoint God’s protocol: for He made an asseverative pellucidity in the next verse, “But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it” [Luke 11:28]. This pronouncement drags Mariology of Catholicism into one of the scriptural indictable offences.                                                                           

My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

                Luke 8:19-21 “Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press. 20) And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. 21) And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.” The disciples of Jesus receive prominent cognizance even above the woman, who offered her matrix that ushered in the Incarnation, and the siblings of the Lord. Fact is that this woman has a good report as Luke 2:19 (& 51) “But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart” puts it.

(…to be continued…)                                                                                                                                        

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

Read part one here

Click to read part three

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (I)

I.             Roman Catholic doctrine does catechize the apotheosis of the wife of Joseph, Mary, who received the unprecedented favour of being the vessel of the Incarnation. In its catechesis the Catholic Church feeds its adherents with the dogmatic Christotokos. It is the Greek title of Mary, the mother of Jesus, used historically by non-Ephesians followers of the Church of the East. Its literal English translations include ‘Christ-bearer’ and ‘the one who gives birth to Christ.’ Theotokos (θɪˈɒtəkɒs) is another, it means ‘Mother of God’ (used in the Eastern Orthodox Church as a title of the Virgin Mary). They believe so unscripturally and firmly that “the love poured into the Theotokos to enable her to love so fully in her turn.”                                                                                                                                                                    Could Mary have given birth to Christ, God the Son? One can only beget a one coming into the existence of creationism for the first time. Of truth is the fact that there is nothing too hard for the LORD to do. But it is also a crystal pellucidity that it will amount to spiritual incongruity for a creature to beget the Author of creationism. The simple fact is that the begotten is actually coming into existence for the first time. If Mary did beget the Ancient of days then she was nothing less than a Goddess (with capital ‘G’): for Jehovah’s deity is of the true living God. Should Mary be a Goddess the Apostolic ink would have had it couched in God’s protocol. Christ’s eternal being would have ceased. He would have to be brought under a new beginning of existence.                                                                                        

The given Son of Isaiah 9:6 was essentially the Divinity

                Isaiah 9:6 prophesied “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.” Inside Mary’s matrix was a Personage, wielding a dual existence of God and a man. The parturitive ‘child’ is Jesus. The ‘Son’ is the incarnation of Him ‘who was, is, and is to come.’ The Eternal One. The man, Jesus, was born. But the Eternal Son could only be given. Amen! The Incarnation is a compound of God and man. A compound unknown to science. It was an unprecedented –one hundred percent of God, and one hundred percent man– historical event. This is the hypostatic union!                                                                                                                                                                Mary gave birth to the man, Jesus, the humanity of the Incarnate Jehovah, all because a man of Adamic nature is legally required to champion the spiritual regeneration of the sinful nature of mankind (for all have sinned and have come short…– Romans 3:23). Mary gave birth to the one part (not a fraction) of the dualism that did hunger, slumber, thirst and experienced physical fallibility. She did not, could not, birth the One who is the Resurrection, Way-Truth-Life, I Am, Christ, Giver of eternal life, One who was, is, and is to come; the Almighty. Amen!                                                 

                Matthew 1:24 & 25 “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.” ‘Till’ is, in the Greek, heos (heh’-oce) ‘a conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place).’ If the word of God clearly says, “knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:” then the period of Joseph’s continuance of not knowing (not having sex with) his newly, legally, married wife, Mary, carnally was definitely up until after the birth and weaning of her firstborn, Jesus. So where does Catholicism pick the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity? It even goes as far as teaching of her own immaculate birth by her own parents! Phew!                                                                                                                                      

Madonna & son

                I have perused the scriptures countless times and I am yet to find one rhema that teaches this immaculate birth of Mary. Mary’s biological father is here, in Luke 3:23,“And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,” for this Heli is Mary’s father, Joseph’s father-in-law. “As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law” (from Adam Clarke’s Commentary).“The family of the mother is not called a family” (explained John Gill’s Commentary).                                                                                                                                      

                Joseph’s genealogy is documented in Matthew 1:16,  “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” Anyone who teaches the immaculate birth of Mary must teach the same, not only of hers, (but that) of Joseph’s, and, in fact, that of Heli and Jacob, their fathers-in-law and even the mothers-in-law. Mary and Joseph both came from Davidic royal line. That gives Jesus a royal genealogy. The King. David was also a priest. Through the matrilineal consanguinity Mary -a Judahite- had with Elizabeth -a Levite-, probably by marriage, we see Jesus, the Branch, as a priest. Our High Priest.

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

(…to be continued…)

Read part two here

Tithes Revisited (six)

(6)            The first ever tithe of Genesis 14:20 was in gold (a means of business transaction). Tithes, in Hebrew is ma‛ăśer (mah-as-ayr’) ‘a tenth; especially a tithe’; and ma‛ăśer comes from a root word ‛aśar (aw-sawr’) ‘ten (only in combination), that is, the “tens”; also (ordinal) a “tenth”‘; which also comes from ‛eśer (eh’ser): ‘ten (as an accumulation to the extent of the digits)’. Where ‛eśer comes from is: ‛aśar (aw-sar’) ‘to accumulate; to tithe, that is, take or give a tenth’, and ‛aśar is identical with ‛ashar (aw-shar’): ‘A primitive root; properly to accumulate; chiefly (specifically) to grow (causatively make) rich’. Tithes, therefore, interestingly, means riches. Jacob, having struck a providential deal with God in Genesis 28:22 decided, “….and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.” Where do you think Jacob got that prosperity formula from if not from his good grandfather, Abraham? God definitely did not tie him (Jacob) with any tithing law or did He?

Tithing is of the Church!

            This is the most important reason why tithing is of the Church. I did not see it until my Pastor, Rev. Chris Okotie, showed it to the congregation on the 3rd of March, 2019. Let us look at the Pauline Book of Hebrews. “And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. 9) And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10) For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him” [Hebrews 7:8-10]. Now, the ‘here’ of the eighth verse points to the Mosaic instituted Levitical priesthood; while ‘there’ is of the eternal stance of the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. It is a good thing poring over what one learns from Church, as Rev. Chris Okotie has always enjoined. In my perusal, some questions popped up. Which of the priesthood is nobler, Melchizedek’s or the Levitical order? Of whose priesthood has the superiority, Levitical or the one according to the order of Melchizedek?

 Blessed Abraham of faith.

            “And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better” [Hebrews 7:7]. The blessing from the priesthood of Melchizedek gives him a nobler personality role than, the tithe giving, faithful Abraham. This is the first element of Melchizedek’s superiority. If as verse 9 above, “And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham,” expounds, then Levi, the tithe collector from Jewish votary did not only receive what Abraham, his progenitor, received (the priesthood blessing that makes Melchizedek the better); he has continued to pay tithes, in Abraham, to Melchizedek. This is another fact of superiority of Melchizedek’s office. How do I know this fact? “And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth” [Hebrews 7:8].

                On account of death, the first high priest from Levi, that is Aaron, was replaced. Up until the time of Pauline scripting of the Book of Hebrews, death had brought about an ineluctable replacements to that office. But of Melchizedek, whose natural genealogy the Scripture is silent about, is absolutely antitypical to the office of the Lord Jesus. The Holy Spirit, through Paul, teaches that this king-priest Melchizedek, said to be figuratively living, undying like the eternal Jesus, continues to receive tithes. How is this possible? It is a theological issue. Melchizedek signalizes the true High Priest, even the Initiator of the Old and the New Testaments, the Lord Jesus, the Alpha and the Omega; the One who was, is, and is to come, the Almighty.

               If Christ is our High Priest, and one of His priesthood functions (in order to pour forth His Providence) is a la tithing, and the indubitability of His body on terra firma happens to be Christians, then the only place of storeroom tithe collection is none other than the Church. Where else? Selah!  

(Conclusion)  

Read the 5th part here