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.


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


 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


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


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