CATHOLICISM AND MARY (XII)

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

(…continued from part XI…)

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

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

Is this Semiramis or Mary?

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

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

Ascension of Mary, of Scripture?

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

What’s this!?

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

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

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

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

  (Concluded)

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

Read the previous 11th part here

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (XI)

Religious syncretism of Catholicism

(…continued from part ten…)

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

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

Idolatrous adoration of the wafer 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are these cupids grandchildren of Mary?

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

  (…to be concluded…)

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

Read the 10th part here

Click here to read the concluding 12th part

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (X)

 Outer piety that supports scriptural vitiation!

(…continued from part nine…)

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

Christ’s or Antichrist’s vicegerent?

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

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

Saint Bernard got his Marian shot of milk!

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

Catholic saint worship

 Catholic Saint Worship

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

  (…to be continued…)

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

Read the 9th part here

Click here to read the 11th part

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (IX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  (…to be continued…)

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

Read part eight here

Click here to read part 10

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (VIII)

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 offering—rather, “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 . . . women—Not 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 heaven—Cakes 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