UNFORGIVING JEHOVAH? (I)

“Had I known” has always come too late! Achan!

1)            “Oh yes! It’s perfectly clear to me that you’re such an unforgiving soul!” A wife vented her anger on her husband’s allusion to a past event. “You call yourself a Christian,” she resumed, “but won’t allow my brother the luxury of a teeny-weeny taste of forgiveness for what he did decades ago! Shame on you!” As far as the wife was concerned, “You are a deviation from your Father in heaven.” After moments of what she deemed a ratiocinative venture I heard her whisper, “Well, this God can be so unforgiving sometimes.”

Only eight souls survived the great Deluge

            He should have forgiven the pristine parents of Eden and used that occasion to shame the Devil. Should He not have manifestly appear in Person to warn the Antedeluvian Age of the impending annihilation? If He had shown that magnanimity He would not need come down to meet the Nimrod ruled world to remind them of what their grandparents told them about the deluge and its destruction. So many questions make man think he is or could be smarter than God. Why, ergo, would God choose the path of unforgiveness? Come to the scriptural voyage with me.

            In the book of Exodus 23:20-21 we read of His warning to Israel. 20)“Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21) Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.” This cannot be a created angel. No angel of creationism is vested with pardoning of transgressions in Scripture. This is Christ in His preincarnational walk with the work of His creation. He proved His absolvent equality with the Father in Luke 5:24, “But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.” We understand from Scripture that “the Father is in me (Jesus), and I in him (Eternal Father) [John 10:38]; and these following verses are in agreement: John 10:30; John 14:11; John 14:20; John 17:11; John 17:21.

                Is Jehovah’s name in Christ? Yes! “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am” [John 8:58]. ‘I AM’ is God’s title and here in the Book of John it is the Greek Ego Eime, the same as “I AM THAT I AM” of Exodus 3:14. All the names of God are telescoped into the name of Jesus. Remember “…All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” of Matthew 28:18? When the same God proclaimed Himself He made it crystal clear in Exodus 34:6-7, “And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, 7) Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.”

                This words cannot be that of Joshua as some believe, or from the praying lips of Moses as the Jerusalem Targum scripts and also as Vulgate Latin version puts it. The allusive prayer of Moses in Numbers 14:17-18, “And now, I beseech thee, let the power of my Lord be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying ……” is quite evident the proclamation is from Jehovah. He is merciful and forgiving but He will never condone any act of disobedience. The love of God is, of course, longsuffering but never eternal suffering. Disobedience is an affront to His persona. A classic example is the situation in Israeli camp.

            It is recorded in the Book of Numbers chapter 25 from verse 6 to the 15th. 6) “And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.” This looks like a record breaking egregious affront!

The LORD, the LORD…forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin

            Verse 7 reads,“And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; 8) And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. 9) And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.” Phinehas did what the LORD God would have done to the audacity of his affront.

          Wash yourself clean from the original sin that takes one to hell for eternity. 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 that Jesus died on the cross for my sin. I believe that You raised Him from the dead. I confess with my mouth that Jesus is Lord and I receive Him now as my Lord and my Saviour. I give God all the glory. Amen!”      

(…to be continued…)

Click here to read part II

THE NEW SPIRITUAL SPECIES (two)

b2ebb45181a79bcdeca620f8b64eefba

  “…your life is hid with Christ in God” Colossians 3:3

(Continued from part one)

(2)          Not like the bulls, rams and lambs hitherto used in sacrificial exculpation, the expendability of which necessitated daily sanguinary butchered ritual for atonement, Jesus rose to live forever. That made the difference, soteriologically. At the pouring forth of the blood of the object of sacrifice in death, the sacrificant is absolved of the hanging judgment. The life of an innocent animal is exchanged for that of the sacrificing wrong doer. The dead animal is not recallable. When Jesus rose from the dead, the Eternal One, who is also the Holy One of Israel, came back from the dead to sniff out death from our essence. The Bible says, “we were quickened together with him:” for in so doing we rose never to die spiritually again, living as eternally as our Saviour, ‘who was, who is, and is to come. Amen!’ “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out.” How many sins were forgiven? The Book of Colossians’ answer is, “All!”

9954c3c777f1747ab4bf9d66c2a1241e

THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (Jer. 23:6), “that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (2Corinthians 5:21).

            If the scriptural factuality is of 2Corinthians 5:17 “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new;” does it not follow that the regenerated soul of a Christian is a spiritually brand new man? This word ‘new’ is the Greek kainos (kahee-nos’): ‘new (especially in freshness).’ Paul did not use neos or neōteros (neh’-os): ‘new, recently born, young, youthful, properly so with respect to age.’ This freshness is located in the spiritual silo or refrigeration of the eternal Christ Jesus. The newness of this freshness, coming from the throne of the Eternal Father, is definitely eternal!

2cf6301780c97e3f66efaf58250e7fc4

 “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature…”

                “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” [Romans 10:10]. The noun ‘righteousness’ is the Greek dikaiosunē (dik-ah-yos-oo’-nay): ‘a feminine noun which speaks specifically of (Christian) justification.’ The feminity stance makes our justification a proper Bride of the Righteous Lamb, who has sworn the oath of “I will never leave nor forsake thee.” Most definitely, our life, as His mystical body on terra firma, has its locale majestically in Christ, the Second Member of the Godhead. “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory,” so says the word of God in Colossians 3:4, where ‘life’ is zoe, ‘God’s kind of life.’ The life of this new species cannot be lost, having its location in Christ, who continually takes care of it: for it is His own life! Amen!

            What does it say in Colossians 3:3? It reveals what the spiritual baptism does. “For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.” “Why,” if any should ask, “will God hide us doubly in Him and in Christ?” Eternal security! That is the answer. God would not trust any other but Him -Jesus. He does not want another careless blunder from an egregious stupidity displayed by the first Adam. “In him was life; and the life was the light of men” [John 1:4].

e6ae66ac37f92a42e08aed373c943946

“In him was life; and the life was the light of men”

                God made the absolutely best choice when He chose Jesus. He, most definitely, chose Himself when He chose to hide us in Jesus. Is Jesus not Emmanuel? “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out.”  God did all of these marvellous deeds to ensure our eternal safety, knowing fully well that we, as free moral agents could disrupt His ineffable plan of salvation. We, as the new spiritual species, have, therefore, become too priceless; bought with the invaluable sinless blood of the Lamb of Jehovah.

092b1200a157971f4f2b460f7ff39bd3

HIS ASCENSION ENGENDERED OUR FUTURE RAPTUROUS ASCENSION

          1Peter 2:9, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” Amen. What is ‘chosen’? It is eklektos (ek-lek-tos’): ‘select; by implication favorite.’ What one does with and for a favourite belonging is what God does for and with us. When you have to discipline your body do you destroy it for whatever reason? I believe not. ‘Generation’ is genos (ghen’-os) meaning: ‘kindred or offspring.’ Christians are not just another race of people, we are so close to Him, the Most High, as closer as His next of kin. ‘Nation’ is ethnos (eth’-nos): ‘a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe.’

                Get born again and be counted among the new species of humanity, say this prayer with all your heart, meaning it:

“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 that Jesus died on the cross for my sin. I believe that You raised Him from the dead. I confess with my mouth that Jesus is Lord and I receive Him now as my Lord and my Saviour. I give God all the glory. Amen!”       

(…to be concluded…)

Click here to read the 1st part.

Read the concluding 3rd part here.

ISAIAH CHAPTER NINE VERSE SIX (one)

Most enigmatic Personage

(1)            Based on the theological stance of the Most High Creator, as it is known in the Scripture, it is quite apposite to infer that, albeit, certain biblical didacticism tend to the direction of it, none of God’s acts is ever an afterthought. In a clinical precision, He had, from eternity past, combed through time of creationism and into the eternity to come. The minutest event not escaping His Almighty’s scrutiny, He had placed Himself so strategically, to ensure that absolutely nothing eventuates by an unaccountable chance. He must remain the LORD God, the Creator, in eternal absolution. One of the Divine counterterrorism of activism happens to be the vaticinatory verse of Isaiah chapter nine verse six.

      The covenant with Israel must produce His humanity

          Two precedent chapters of seven and eight are intimations of the preponderant calamities to bedevil Israel. Only God can save the situation. The legality of the covenant between Jehovah and Israel gives Him every legitimacy to step into the terror of Satanism. Blessed be the ineffability stance of the wisdom of the LORD God. He made sure of His Divine control in Eden. An eternal covenant He established with Abraham. Out of the first seven verses of the ninth chapter comes the divine solution to man’s calamitous disposition. “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]. The characterising profundity of the ‘child’ and ‘son’ is the Hebraic interpretations of them.

                ‘Child’ of this verse is yeled (yeh’-led): ‘something born, that is, a lad or offspring from infancy to young adulthood.’ ‘Son,’ on the other hand, is bên (bane): ‘a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition.’ This bên comes from bânâh (baw-naw’): ‘to build, rebuild, establish, cause to continue.’ There is a demonstrable limpidity proving an enigmatic duality of this personage. How can he be both an infant and a grown up builder of the home: God’s home, definitely speaking? The Adamic acceptance of the meandering Satanism of the ophidian deception was actually a devilish putsch to wrestle from the hands of Adam, his governmental dominion of the earth.

  The LAMB is also the LION!

            The infancy of this Personage is in the prophetic utterance of Isaiah 7:14, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” God’s messenger came all the way from heaven to make the announcement of Luke 1:35 “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” It did culminate in the historical parturition of, “And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn” (Luke 2:7). This is the humanity of Jesus.

And the WORD was made flesh: the Incarnation!

            This is the Son. 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.” He must, as a matter of appositeness, receive mentioning in the microcosmic verse of the entire Bible, “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]. Is the whole matter not about salvation? John 3:17, “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”

Only the Righteous Blood!

                 If it is pertaining to soteriological theme, and we all understand that God alone can save, then this Son is the incarnation of the holy One of Israel, and most absolutely, the LORD God who did form Adam and his woman in the Garden of Eden. He had come to retrieve that which Adam lost. “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world” [1John 4:14]. If Jesus is the Saviour, with a capital ‘S’ then one of my favourite verses, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” [John 1:3], is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Amen.

THE PRINCE OF PEACE: JESUS

Get born again. Say this prayer, meaning it:

“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 that Jesus died on the cross for my sin. I believe that You raised Him from the dead. I confess with my mouth that Jesus is Lord and I receive Him now as my Lord and my Saviour. I give God all the glory. Amen!”

 (…to be continued…)


The Prince of peace: JESUS.

Click here to read part two

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

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

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 (V)

   Mary? Aeipartheonos?!

(…continued from part four…)

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

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

                How pathetic!                                                                                                                     

  Does Mary use the rosary in her celestial intercessory role?

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

John Duns Scotus

John Duns Scotus

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

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

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

 (…to be continued…)                        

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

Read the 4th part here

Click to read the 6th part.

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (IV)

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

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

(…continued from part three…)

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

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

holy mountain*Moriah, on which the temple was.

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

*drink offeringrather, “mixed drink.”

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

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

John Gill’s Commentary on Amos 5:26

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…to be continued…)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

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

Read part three here

Read the 5th part here

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (II)

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

(…continued from part one…)

II.            Matthew 13:55 & 56, “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56) And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?” Let us look at the noun ‘brethren.’ It is the Greek adelphos (ad-el-fos’) ‘1. a brother 2. (of faith) a brother in our Lord, Jesus {literally or figuratively; near or remote; much like ‘a’ for alpha i.e. union} [from ‘a’union (as a connective particle) and delphus “the womb”].’ The feminine ‘sister’ is adelphe (ad-el-fay’) 1. a sister 2. (of faith) a sister in our Lord, Jesus [feminine of adelphos].’ Jesus did share the same womb of Mary with at least six siblings. This is what adelphos and adelphe are pointing out. How can they, the siblings, share the same womb with the Lord Jesus and Mary would not be touched (for conjugal consummation), consequently leading to natural conception?                                                                                                                                               

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

Jesus still a baby?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…to be continued…)                                                                                                                                        

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

Read part one here

Click to read part three

TRINITY OF THE GODHEAD (2)

There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost.

(Continued from the first part…)

            In the Godhead of the Divinity, are three distinctive Persons. No scriptural tenability suffers a fourth Member. For two good reasons Jehovah must assume plurality. Of a cardinal importance in HIS plurality is the incongruity of having intelligent entities of creationism experiencing pluralism before being noticed in the Creator. “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence” [Colossians 1:18]. It is of a very scriptural convenience to ascribe Christ’s nature to the Father’s. “And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them;” asseverates Jesus in John 17:10. How can God the Father enter into a community of ownership with another when Scripture does asseverates, “I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images” [Isa 42:8]?

 Inseparable Trinity

                The LORD God knew that He would create many angelic beings. If ten angels should say to three angels, “We love you,” the numerical strength of the ‘we’ or that of ‘you’ is more than a solitary angel. Even on the sixth day of Adamic formation it was a couple, more than one, which had always experienced the fellowship with an Entity called the LORD God every cool of the evening. Of cruciality of noteworthiness is the facticity that God’s created intelligent beings would have to use the plurality of ‘we,’ ‘us,’ ‘you,’ ‘they’ and ‘them’ experientially before God, thereby making God to learn of this reality from the lives of His created ones. This would not make His Almighty sense!

The grace of the Jesus Christ, the love of God, the communion of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

            God should be able to point at two of Himself and also make an address as Plural Being. Christ, holding hands and side by side with another One, let us say, the Holy Spirit, will say, “You sit on the throne and We will go down to the earth,” and each of the ‘We’ is God Eternal. Christ points at the Father and the Holy Spirit and says, “They are My Fellows.” While the chief reason is of the Divinity, the second reason concerns human predicament of the soulish man.

            His kerygma, when it finds its rejuvenation into the porosity of selected hearts, will no doubt engender a soteriological stance in them, ergo, needing His saving grace. It must require a sinlessness of nature to salvage creatures fallen into the quagmire of inquiry. An angel cannot do it. An angelic soteriologic emancipation lays a foundation for angelic worship: quite an egregious anomaly of scripture!

  HE IS THE ALPHA AND OMEGA

                The LORD God will remain eternally spotless spiritually. He alone, therefore, must show His unprecedented loving kindness. He cannot, as the eternally seated One on the throne (Eternal Judge), come down to save mankind. The invisibility of the Holy Spirit would not attempt it. This leaves the seen One among the Three: the Second Member, Jesus Christ. HE is the Jehovah of legality. There is no way, according to the Scripture of theology, that any man would ever be jurisprudentially redeemed into God’s eternal loving arms, as far as adjudication is concerned, if He were just One Entity. Another reason why Christ must wear the toga of corporeality is that if One of the Members does not, of necessity, assume the representative capacity of Sonship, none can ever enter the filial relationship of “Abba Father” with the Creator. That in all things He might have the preeminence. Amen.

            Trinitarian proofs abound.

            The very first sentence of the entire Bible proves the veracity of the doctrine of Trinity. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” [Genesis 1:1]. Four being the number of creation: for on day 4 God created the lights -of illumination of Him-, the fourth word is ‘God.’ ‘Elôhı̂ym (el-o-heem’) is the Hebrew for ‘God,’ meaning ‘God, judge or strong one, in the plural.’ In the second verse “…And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters;” introduces the Third Member of the Godhead. A diligent perusal of the scriptures will reveal the ‘light’ of verse three to be the true Light of John 1:3, ‘made flesh’ in John 1:14 because He, in the heavenly assizes, had carried out the emptying of Himself in the great kenoo or kenosis of Philippians 2:7. So, when one reads the biblical account of “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:” (Genesis 1:26), it is too obvious that He could not have addressed angels, for scriptural obviousness, and that the Ones He addressed were Christ and the Holy Ghost. Amen.

   (…to be continued…)

CLICK HERE TO READ PART ONE

CLICK HERE TO READ PART THREE