WHAT IS MARRIAGE ALL ABOUT? (4)

(…continued from part three…)

(4)          You have to be His to be divinely trusted with the kerygma, to preach His word. In like manner, one must be His, to partake in this marriage. Now if Adam and his wife happened to be created adults to be suitable for marriage then we can safely opine that conjugal relationship is not for tyros. It is for this reason that I cannot decide to give my daughter’s hand in marriage at age 18 even if she’d succeeded in climbing the rungs of pedagogical ladder to have become a distinguished professor at that age of 18. She must be at least in her mid-twenties to receive my blessing.

Man and woman marriage

                Actually, if you ask me, I believe the best time for a lady to be married should be 30. This is my suggestion. I will love to be a grandfather at or before the age of sixty but why should it be at the immature expenses of my child. Makes no sense. Not at all! Marriage, for the information of the ignorant ones, is the most difficult institution in the world.                                                                                        

Ephesians 5:23-24, “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” Amen! If she cannot manage your dream do not ask her hand in marriage. It is a disaster! The man you cannot submit to, for whatever reason, you must not accept to marry. Marriage is God’s business. Marriage is all about Jesus. Amen.     

“…and, behold, it was very good…”

                It is of utmost necessity for the wife to enforce a constant ritual of seeking the husband’s scriptural view on matters of life’s interests. Why? To Adam is the commission of oracular protocol of divinity. The man, Adam the male, was first made before the woman. Genesis 3:16, “…in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” The Bible says “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body” [Ephesians 5:23]. 1Peter 3:6 teaches, “Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.”  1Corinthians 11:8-9 is so explicit. 8) “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9) Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

                Divine methodology regarding the marital machinery places the woman of the conjugal relationship in the state of hupotassō under her husband. How would she learn and love, with all her heart, to submit to him if she does not ask for his oracular guidance very often? If the man you intend to marry is definitely beneath your spiritual maturity, reconsider your conjugal intention because this spiritual disequilibrium can cast a spiritual spell of stagnation. It can be a disaffecting constant vexation of your heart. It will be a harrowing experience of an excruciating degree finding out an impossibility to maximise your spiritual potentials. Marriage is a very serious business! The spiritual inequilibrium is the bane of divorcement!

                When the Bible says in Ephesians 5:25 that “husbands, love your wives,” that is a command from the LORD God. Whatever your wife does or constantly is, you are duty bound to love her. Jesus loves the Church unconditionally. So must Mr. Husband! Amen!

                Get born again by saying this simple prayer:

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

Lubricate the new birth by:

 1. Praying always (in the name of Jesus) 1Thessalonians 5:17.

2. Read the Bible everyday (Joshua 1:8).

3. Go to Church regularly (Hebrews 10:25).

4. Tell others about Jesus (Mark 16:15).    

 (Concluded)

Read the 3rd part here

Advertisements

WHAT IS MARRIAGE ALL ABOUT? (3)

AND THE TWAIN SHALL BE ONE FLESH

(…continued from part two…)

(3)            What does our traditional belief system on marriage hold? Does a woman not get thrilled by the singular thought of being transformed into a Mrs. Somebody or Someone? She would have shamed her detractors the very second her third finger is a marital ring adorned. It has always been their traditional ‘best days of their lives!’ Another very important issue that finally shuts up the gainsaying mouths of envious enemies is when the protrusion of the stomach engenders a parturition and it is said of her, “She is not an arid ground. She has her own offspring as an incontestable proof!” But I want to believe that the carnal satiation of coition is the best untold story of matrimony. The man, of course and the woman too, now have the spiritual legality to enjoy sex and to the fullest. “Yeah! I can do, have all the sex anytime, day, anywhere, sex! Yes!” Is this what marriage is all about: physical, expression and consummation of carnality?

            Genesis 2:24 “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” The adjective ‘one’ which is ‘echâd (ekh-awd’) is, properly, in this context: united.’ There is no gainsaying the fact that ‘one flesh’ is truly indicative of the consummation of the conjugal relationship. Their union, however, finds its united strength –spiritually– only in Jesus. Nowhere else. This is the reason why it must (true marriage) be for only Christians. Amen.

            Marriage adumbrates the espousal of the Church to the Lamb. It takes us back to the Garden of Eden when the LORD God is both the Father of Adam and his Father-in-law. How? Adam married God’s daughter. Being created directly by God’s sculptor’s hands Adam became God’s son. The sole desire of the couple must be to God. Is the marriage of Jesus not to the Church? To them, therefore, is the marriage made for. Is the Church made of Muslims, Hindustani, Taoists, Buddhists and other non-Christians? Not at all! Christians are not just church goers. They are the born again children of God, whose sins have been washed away by the precious blood of the saving Lamb.

            The union must serve its purpose. How? Ephesians 5:25 teaches, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.” Love is not a feeling. It is a commitment. A great man of God defines love saying, “A love called out of the heart of the lover on account of the value placed on the object of his love.” For believing the finished work of salvation by Jesus, God places a huge value upon the regenerate soul. The husband, understanding the love of Jesus, goes to do likewise to his wife. The ‘love’ expressed is the Greek agape, ‘an unconditional affection.’ There is, therefore, no excuse for not loving the wife. None whatsoever. Ephesians 5:22 tells the woman, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” What is the Greek word for ‘submit’?  It is hupotassō (hoop-ot-as’-so): ‘to arrange under, to subordinate, obey.’ Hupotassō comes from hupo (under) and tasso (arrange properly). The wife is, ergo, expected to package herself, properly, under her husband.

                Get born again by saying this simple prayer:

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

Lubricate the new birth by: 1. Praying always (in the name of Jesus) 1Thessalonians 5:17.

2. Read the Bible everyday (Joshua 1:8).

3. Go to Church regularly (Hebrews 10:25).

4. Tell others about Jesus (Mark 16:15).     

(…to be concluded…)

Read the 2nd part here

Read the concluding part 4 here

WHAT IS MARRIAGE ALL ABOUT? (2)

 THE TWO ARE SPIRITUALLY ONE!

(…continued from part one…)

(2)             Not until the marital execution, God did not rate His daily creativity ‘very good’, why? The connectivity between heaven and the earth had not received a legal concretization. Are Christians not the heirs of God? Our marriage to the Lamb is the consummation of the legality that seals the divine donation of our heirdom.

            Lucifer saw God playing with a valueless clay. Messing up His Holy Hands! Adam, by it, was made –the LORD God knew that He would have to carry the sinful mess of His bride on the cross of Calvary.

                Soon after, another being, proving the Excellency of the Sculptor’s craftsmanship emerged as well. “Oh! A brother and his sister,” exclaimed Lucifer. The apostasy of Lucifer was bereft of the mind of Christ, therefore, could not fathom the grand design of Divinity. The Evil one went livid with, “Nooo o! You can’t do that.”

So shall a man…..and cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh

            It dawned on Satan that it is not only the earth Adam is getting. “He’s being offered the celestial assizes as well!” What the species of angelic beings could not be, making it impossible for them to enter into marriage with the LORD God, is what the LORD God is giving away, just like that, to a clayey Adam. “If I could just make the woman mar this marriage I’ll get the Church. I’ll get the worship of my craving.” Lucifer destroyed the first Adam’s marriage. But, that was not the end of the story. (Tell yourself “It’s not the end of my unpalatable story). The last Adam rebuilt. He said, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” [Matthew 16:18]. That which the Rock of Ages built was an eternal structure. This wife -the Church- lives in paradisaic eternity.

                The sobriquet, Peter, is the Greek Petros (pet’-ros): ‘a (piece of) rock (larger than lithos -lee’-thos- ‘small stones’).’ In the Greek, ‘church’ is ekklēsia (ek-klay-see’-ah): ‘a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both).’ The word ‘make’ in Genesis 2:18 “…It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him;” is ‛âśâh (aw-saw’): ‘to create out of existing material.’ The Hebrew word for ‘made’ in Genesis 2:22, “And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man;” has a different meaning. It is bânâh (baw-naw’): ‘to build, rebuild, establish, cause to continue.’ The creation of Adam’s wife was ‘a building.’ The breath of the Creator had found a habitation inside the woman already. That was the reason why Lucifer could not get her to follow him like Cain, her son, did.

                She did sin, yes, she did. But a sin offering continued to serve as a temporary bridge until Shiloh, the Tranquilizer, even Jesus Christ came again and made the asseveration, “I will build my church.” Note the personalization of the Church. The pronoun ‘my’ is: mou (moo), meaning: ‘I, me, my, of me.’ It was not dead lambs that established this new building. ‘Build’ is an interesting oikodomeō (oy-kod-om-eh’-o): ‘to be a house builder, that is, construct or (figuratively) confirm.’ Oikodomeō comes from the root oikodomē (oy-kod-om-ay’) which is a feminine compound abstraction of oikos (oy’-kos): (‘a house’) and dōma (do’-mah): ‘(to build); properly an edifice.’ It was the blood of the Lamb eternal that brought this Building into existence. Jesus had to do this to build the Church and be married to her. This is what marriage is all about!

                It is about getting a people for His Divine pleasure. Are you born again? Better be! Every born again Christian is a lively, added stone to the Divine edifice of the ‘called out.’ The facticity of my claim has a scriptural support in 1Peter 2:5 “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”

                Get born again by saying this simple prayer:

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

Lubricate the new birth by:

 1. Praying always (in the name of Jesus) 1Thessalonians 5:17.

2. Read the Bible everyday (Joshua 1:8).

3. Go to Church regularly (Hebrews 10:25).

4. Tell others about Jesus (Mark 16:15).     

(…to be continued…)

Click to read part 1

Read part 3 here

WHAT IS MARRIAGE ALL ABOUT? (1)

HE STANDS PRIESTLY BEFORE THE HEAVENLY FATHER FOR THE BRIDE

(1)            I do not see any reason why I will not be tagged a religious bigot for my asseverative stance that marriage is strictly for Christians. Before anyone makes the first move of painting my personality with Christian bigotry, he should wait a little bit while I serve the divine meals of God’s word from His protocol, the Holy Bible. Amen.

            Genesis 2:20 is actually the reason for that of the 18th verse. It says, “And Adam gave  names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him” [Gen 2:20]. It is on account of the last part of this 20th verse that gave rise to 18th verse, “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him” [Gen 2:18]. The key words here are ‘help meet for’ -him. There is also the misconstrued ‘alone’ of the eighteenth verse. If, as it has been grossly misconstrued, the alone is about loneliness, then it will be an adjective or an adverb. How could a newly created Adam of less than a day of twenty-four hours of a single day be pining in loneliness?

                The beauty of Eden garden alone, of which I strongly doubt whether Hollywood can truly afford –in its all ramifications– to display in cinematography, will take Adam about a whole 356 days of a year to come over it. What about the grandeur of the hills, mountains and breathtaking plains; the gregarious proclivities of animalistic life? The twinkles of the heavenly bodies in conjunction with luminous glare of the lunar orb was something to look forward to every now and then! Where is the gaol of loneliness?

            The word ‘alone,’ bad (bad) in Hebrew, is a masculine noun. It is actually, from the context, a combination of –bad i.e. ‘apart’- and –le (a prep. pref.) i.e. ‘to, towards, in, through, before.’ This proves that ‘alone’ is a state of being and not a description of Adam’s feeling. This state of being alone brings Adam and his solitariness in contrast to the LORD God (not only of Trinitarian essence, but the future Bridegroom of the Church), before whom he stood. Bad means: ‘by itself, besides, a part, separation, being alone; only (adverb) apart from, properly separation; by implication a part of the body, [Bad comes from bâdad (baw-dad’): ‘be separate, be isolated, to divide, that is, (reflexively) be solitary’].

                The simplest definition of ‘alone’ in this context, is ‘different’. Different from God’s eternal plan of conjugal relationship of salvation. Adam’s solitariness was a state of his being: an absolute denegation of the Christ he prefigures. ‘Be alone’ in Hebrew is, lebaddo; i.e. ‘only himself.’ This definitely tells me that the creationism business of day number six had not got to its divine conclusion. A surprising oomph of a perfect completion was about to take place.

          The word ‘help,’ which is‛êzer (ay’-zer), means: ‘aid’: it comes from ‛âzar (aw-zar’): ‘A primitive root; to surround, that is, protect or aid.’ I love this one from Adam Clarke’s Commentary: “I will make him a help meet for him; עזר כנגד ezer kenegdo, a help, a counterpart of himself, one formed from him, and a perfect resemblance of his person.”

Now, having taken care of ‘help’ let us look at ‘meet for,’ which is a combination of neged (neh’-ghed) and ke (keh). Neged means ‘what is conspicuous, what is in front of, that is, part opposite; specifically a counterpart, or mate.’ Ke. ‘It is a marker of comparison: as, like; marker of similarity or correspondence: according to; marker of time: when, as soon as, about.’ Neged ke says a whole lot about this union. Does it not? The ‘help meet’ is actually ‘for’ him -Adam! She must correspond in thought and deed to Adam’s dreams. She is a very strong woman who must surround Adam protectively with the revealed word of God. She is made for Adam, and by the ultimate extension, the Lord Jesus’ soteriological agendum.

               Adam stood ‘before God all by himself’ –in an uncompleted glory. A detached organ of the wholesomeness. An atypicality. Quite irrepresentable of the Church. An unfinished statement of the Logos. The irrepressibility of Adam’s elocutionary rap was not expressive of a salivatory desideration of sexual crave. That was why he named her ‘woman’ from the Sculptor’s view of His divine desideration. The ‘woman’ surrounds him in the perfection of worship. With the woman in the conjugal place, it was God’s turn, the day after the sixth, to bask in the euphoria of Divine accomplishment! I have heard many pastors teach that an unmarried bachelor is incomplete. Quite untrue. Adam’s creation alone typified his LORD God. Christ has already got His bride, the Church. Is every other man Christ? Every bachelor is complete in Christ Jesus. Amen!

                Get born again by saying this simple prayer:

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

Lubricate the new birth by:

1. Praying always (in the name of Jesus) 1Thessalonians 5:17.

2. Read the Bible everyday (Joshua 1:8).

3. Go to Church regularly (Hebrews 10:25).

4. Tell others about Jesus (Mark 16:15).     

(…to be continued…)

Click to read part 2

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).

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 (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.