Angelic worship of Theotokos in the clouds or heaven itself?

(VIII)      Catholicism is a dangerous didacticism. The implications of its teachings are quite ominous. Mother of God? This is an idolatrous importation of Nimro-Semiramish proclivity. Scriptural understanding provides a pellucidity of God the Father, and God the Son. The same Scripture teaches quite unequivocally that the Father and the Son are one. Semiramis was believed to have deified Tammuz, her son, teaching that he was the incarnation of her dead husband, Nimrod, who, as believed, happened to be her son as well. The fifth century First Council of Catholicism declaration of Mary as mother of God was an assay to establish a syncretism of Jesus’ Christianity and the idolatrous Nimro-Semiramis. Pure Satanism, known of paganism.

                Will it, in a way, be a ratiocinative superfluity delving into an acquiescence to the 4th century orthodoxy established theotokos (bearer of God) of Mariological title? True rationality will lead to the facticity that Mary’s matrix did containerised the physical reality of the Incarnation on our terra firma. On account of this fact, yes, it is, to theotokos. But since it is pellucid enough that that which is being given birth to is actually coming into existence for the first time, the darkness of Mariological beam leading to ‘mother of God’ insistent hue is a non-issue. An aberrant Mariology. His preincarnate manifestations on the terra firma abound in the annals of the pages of Scripture. Having been before creationism makes Him as eternal as His Father. It is quite impossible to procreate the Self-Existing Jehovah, the Eternal One.

Semiramis, Madonna, Mary of Catholicism

Semiramis, Madonna, Mary of Catholicism 

                The proclivous dream of Catholicism must take Mariology to the next Manichean level of aeiparthenos (ever virgin). “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25) And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS” [Matthew 1:24-25]. The adverb ’till’ is made up of two words: heōs (heh’-oce) and hos (hos). The first ‘a conjugation, preposition and adverb of continuance,’ means: ‘until (of time and place);’ the second is: ‘the relative (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, that.’ The definitions of ’till’ does not in any way prove the aeiparthenos castle in the air theory of Catholicism to be true. In fact, heōs hos support the narrative of Matthew 13:55 & 56, Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56) And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?” That after Jesus was weaned Joseph consummated his marriage with his legally married Mary cannot be vitiated. That the virgin did, as the prophecy did utter, bring forth her firstborn, is all that mattered and matters. Whether she had biological children with her legal husband is nobody’s business. Not at all! Unfortunately, the Satanism of Catholicism must apotheose Mary to usher Semiramis into Christ’s Body. Blasphemy! 

The Father holding an orb? How scriptural?

                How can Mary be a co-redemptrix or an auxiliatrix? Did she die for any Catholic Church members? Does the Bible have such titles in any of the Messianic scriptures? “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” [Genesis 3:15]; is of God being the First Evangelist to proclaim the birth of the Lord Jesus, Saviour of the sinful world. Note the singularity of ‘seed,’ the Hebrew of which is zera‛ (zeh’-rah), a masculine noun, meaning: ‘sowing; figuratively fruit, plant, sowing time, offspring, posterity.’ For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” [Isaiah 9:6]. Does the New Testamentary couch come with any excursus that arrays Mary with any of these epithetical deifications?

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. None else.

                ‘The mighty God’ is El gibbor in Hebrew. It translates ‘God the mighty man,’ ‘God the mighty One’ and ‘the prevailing or conquering God.’ It is exclusively God, the Creator’s, business: of any work found in soteriological dimension. John 1:29, “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Only One personage fits perfectly into this status of ‘the Lamb of God’ and who else co-pilots the redemptive work of mankind? Mary? Reading from the tenth verse to the twelfth of the book of Acts chapter 4, the 12th reads: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” There is no co-redemptrix or an auxiliatrix attached to Him for it says, “there is none other name under heaven given among men…” (Acts 4:12).What is the Greek word for ‘men’? It is anthrōpos (anth’-ro-pos) which has nothing to do with a particular gender. It has the meaning of: ‘male or female; man-faced, i.e. a human being.’                                                                                                                                                Only a brazen proclivity of procacity embedded in Satanism will lead to the convoluted sophistry that evolved ‘Queen of heaven’ peddled by Catholicism of Mary. Is Prophet Jeremiah’s queen of heaven (Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17-19 & 25) not a goddess? Selah!

                When the four angels of The Book Revelation, in the Bible, go in the genuflection with: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come” [Rev 4:8] –where each ‘holy’ is intended for the Persons of the Trinity– where is Mary in this latreutical chant?

(…to be continued…)

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

Read part 7 here

Click here to read part 9


I.             Roman Catholic doctrine does catechize the apotheosis of the wife of Joseph, Mary, who received the unprecedented favour of being the vessel of the Incarnation. In its catechesis the Catholic Church feeds its adherents with the dogmatic Christotokos. It is the Greek title of Mary, the mother of Jesus, used historically by non-Ephesians followers of the Church of the East. Its literal English translations include ‘Christ-bearer’ and ‘the one who gives birth to Christ.’ Theotokos (θɪˈɒtəkɒs) is another, it means ‘Mother of God’ (used in the Eastern Orthodox Church as a title of the Virgin Mary). They believe so unscripturally and firmly that “the love poured into the Theotokos to enable her to love so fully in her turn.”                                                                                                                                                                    Could Mary have given birth to Christ, God the Son? One can only beget a one coming into the existence of creationism for the first time. Of truth is the fact that there is nothing too hard for the LORD to do. But it is also a crystal pellucidity that it will amount to spiritual incongruity for a creature to beget the Author of creationism. The simple fact is that the begotten is actually coming into existence for the first time. If Mary did beget the Ancient of days then she was nothing less than a Goddess (with capital ‘G’): for Jehovah’s deity is of the true living God. Should Mary be a Goddess the Apostolic ink would have had it couched in God’s protocol. Christ’s eternal being would have ceased. He would have to be brought under a new beginning of existence.                                                                                        

The given Son of Isaiah 9:6 was essentially the Divinity

                Isaiah 9:6 prophesied “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Inside Mary’s matrix was a Personage, wielding a dual existence of God and a man. The parturitive ‘child’ is Jesus. The ‘Son’ is the incarnation of Him ‘who was, is, and is to come.’ The Eternal One. The man, Jesus, was born. But the Eternal Son could only be given. Amen! The Incarnation is a compound of God and man. A compound unknown to science. It was an unprecedented –one hundred percent of God, and one hundred percent man– historical event. This is the hypostatic union!                                                                                                                                                                Mary gave birth to the man, Jesus, the humanity of the Incarnate Jehovah, all because a man of Adamic nature is legally required to champion the spiritual regeneration of the sinful nature of mankind (for all have sinned and have come short…– Romans 3:23). Mary gave birth to the one part (not a fraction) of the dualism that did hunger, slumber, thirst and experienced physical fallibility. She did not, could not, birth the One who is the Resurrection, Way-Truth-Life, I Am, Christ, Giver of eternal life, One who was, is, and is to come; the Almighty. Amen!                                                 

                Matthew 1:24 & 25 “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25) And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” ‘Till’ is, in the Greek, heos (heh’-oce) ‘a conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place).’ If the word of God clearly says, “knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:” then the period of Joseph’s continuance of not knowing (not having sex with) his newly, legally, married wife, Mary, carnally was definitely up until after the birth and weaning of her firstborn, Jesus. So where does Catholicism pick the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity? It even goes as far as teaching of her own immaculate birth by her own parents! Phew!                                                                                                                                      

Madonna & son

                I have perused the scriptures countless times and I am yet to find one rhema that teaches this immaculate birth of Mary. Mary’s biological father is here, in Luke 3:23,“And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,” for this Heli is Mary’s father, Joseph’s father-in-law. “As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law” (from Adam Clarke’s Commentary).“The family of the mother is not called a family” (explained John Gill’s Commentary).                                                                                                                                      

                Joseph’s genealogy is documented in Matthew 1:16,  “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” Anyone who teaches the immaculate birth of Mary must teach the same, not only of hers, (but that) of Joseph’s, and, in fact, that of Heli and Jacob, their fathers-in-law and even the mothers-in-law. Mary and Joseph both came from Davidic royal line. That gives Jesus a royal genealogy. The King. David was also a priest. Through the matrilineal consanguinity Mary -a Judahite- had with Elizabeth -a Levite-, probably by marriage, we see Jesus, the Branch, as a priest. Our High Priest.

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

(…to be continued…)

Read part two here