CATHOLICISM AND MARY (X)

 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

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

Click here to read part 10

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.