Two Marys

Grace and peace to the children of Light.

A Roman Catholic devotee wrote me recently in regards to our article, The Virgin Mary: The Star of the Sea.  She said that after reading the article, she was so distressed that she felt compelled to write me and guide me into a more perfect understanding of the Virgin Mary.

As I read her letter, it became very clear that she was actually talking about two different Marys: the Biblical Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the Virgin Mary that Roman Catholics worship.  It is not difficult to distinguish the two: Mary, the mother of Jesus, is written about in the Bible, while the Virgin Mary is a product of Roman Catholic tradition, folklore, and ancient mythology.  The trouble is that when defending their teachings about Mary, Roman Catholics combine the two.  The result is essentially an un-Biblical hybrid that in no way resembles the mother of our Lord Jesus.

This was something that I had never before considered.  So, in answering the lady’s questions, I tried to get her to understand that Roman Catholic teachings on Mary are extra-Biblical, and are, therefore, heretical.  Any description of Mary or characteristics attributed to her that cannot be found in the Bible describe another Mary.

In that this lady is very articulate and genteel in presenting her argument, and because her beliefs no doubt reflect the beliefs of the average Roman Catholic, I present her arguments here for the edification of the body of Christ.  Her remarks will be in bold type followed by my responses.

Click here for the original email. 

[Begin letter]

Dear [Name withheld]:

Thank you for writing.  First of all, let me commend you for the gentleness with which you articulated your viewpoint.  You are not the first Roman Catholic who has differed with me, but you are by far the most charitable.  I will, therefore, strive to mirror your example.

I’m grateful that you wrote me concerning the article Star of the Sea, and I’m not offended at all about what you had to say.  In fact, that you felt moved to write me means that the article struck a cord with you.  This could be a good thing, because all of my articles, including Star of the Sea, quote either the Bible, historical writings, and/or, ironically, Roman Catholic sources to the effect that the Virgin Mary is the goddess, Semiramis.  Therefore, to gainsay them is to actually doubt the truth, including what those in your own church say on the matter.

99% of what you wrote me about Mary, the mother of Jesus, and what the Roman Catholic church teaches about her, cannot be found in the Bible.  This, coupled with your devotion to the Virgin Mary and the fact that the Douay-Rheims version of the Holy Bible, which you quoted, being based on the corrupted Alexandrian texts, does not agree with the King James Version.  This leads me to believe that it would be futile to try to convince you that Mary worship is unbiblical by quoting Bible verses to that effect.

You strike me as a very articulate, intelligent, and thinking individual.  I will, therefore, attempt to appeal to that individual using the Douay-Rheims bible to prove that what the Roman Catholic church teaches about Mary, the mother of Jesus, is un-Biblical, and that this proves that the Virgin Mary and the Biblical Mary are not the same person.  They are two separate Marys.  For this reason, the Roman Catholic is compelled to go outside the Bible when attempting to justify Mary worship.

For the Christian, our beliefs are nothing unless the Bible can back them up.  Because so much of what you wrote me concerning your beliefs cannot be found in the Bible, I will not try to address all of your concerns.  Let us, therefore, limit our discussion to those points on which the Douay-Rheims and the King James agree.  Your points will be in boldface followed by my responses.  All scripture references, unless otherwise stated, are taken from the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible.

“There are so many things that are mistaken in your understanding of Mary.”

That is because we are actually talking about “Two Marys.”  My understanding of Mary, the mother of Jesus, comes from the Bible.  Your understanding of the Virgin Mary is a mixture of Roman Catholic tradition and the Bible: a hybrid.  So much of what Roman Catholicism teaches about the Virgin Mary is extra-biblical, that it should be clear to any thinking person that the Virgin Mary is not Mary, the mother of Jesus, but someone else.  It is for this reason that I, as you say, read about “ancient pagan deities.”  For the characteristics of the Roman Catholic Virgin Mary agree marvelously with the characteristics attributed to the goddess Semiramis, who was, and is, worshipped all over the world under various names.  One only need compare the attributes of these goddesses with those of the Roman Catholic Virgin Mary to bear this out.

The attribute that is the most obvious is that of virginity.  If the Virgin Mary is the Biblical Mary, the mother of Jesus, why does the Roman Catholic church continue to call her a virgin?  It doesn’t make sense.  The Bible only refers to Jesus’ mother Mary as a virgin in one passage of Scripture:

“And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

“To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary” (Luke 1:26-27).

In no other place in the Bible is Mary called a virgin.  If, after giving birth to Jesus, Mary never gave birth to another child, then she technically would have remained a virgin for the rest of her life.  But the Bible clearly teaches that Mary had other children:

“Is not this the carpenter’s son?  Is not His mother called Mary, and His brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:

“And His sisters, are they not all with us?” (Matthew 13:55-56).

If Mary had other children, then she did not remain a virgin.  Furthermore, if Mary was still a virgin, why did Luke not write, “Is not His mother called “The Virgin Mary?”  Is there any mother on planet earth who, after giving birth multiple times, as the Biblical Mary did, is still referred to as a virgin?  Of course not.  Why, then, does the Roman Catholic church continue to call Mary “The Virgin?”

I submit it is because the Virgin Mary is not the mother of Jesus, but Semiramis, the “Virgin Queen of Babylon” (Isaiah 47:1), who, like the Virgin Mary, was also called “The Lady” (Isaiah 47:5).

 I wrote about this at length in several articles such as A Goddess By Any Other Name; The Star of Your God; and The Roman Catholic Church, Zionism, Stars, and Seashells.

You would do well to read them.

“[The Virgin Mary is] neither idol nor pagan goddess…”

I disagree.  An idol is essentially an object of worship.  The Roman Catholic Virgin Mary is a statue, which makes it an object, and this statue is worshipped, which makes it an idol.  Some Roman Catholics deny this, saying that the Virgin Mary is “adored” rather than worshipped.  But, in that prayer is a form of worship, and Roman Catholics pray to the Virgin Mary, then Roman Catholics worship the Virgin Mary.  The Bible says that anything that is worshipped other than God is an idol.  Mary is not God, yet Roman Catholics worship her.   The Virgin Mary is, therefore, an idol by definition and in practice, though you may not appreciate that distinction.

But let us say, for the sake of argument, that the Virgin Mary is really the mother of Jesus (which it is not).  Roman Catholics pray to Mary.  Prayer, besides being a form of worship, is the way humans speak to God.  God is alive, so it is okay to speak to Him.  Mary, the mother of Jesus, however, is dead.  Roman Catholics, therefore, in praying to Mary, are actually praying to a dead woman.  Communicating with the dead is a form of witchcraft called necromancy, and is forbidden by God (Deuteronomy 18:11).

So, whether the Virgin Mary is really the mother of Jesus or not, Mary worship is idolatry and witchcraft.  Roman Catholics, therefore, are guilty of idolatry and witchcraft.  They are truly between a rock and a hard place.

“[The Virgin Mary is] the Mother of God…”

If Mary, the mother of Jesus, were the “mother of God,” as you say, then she would, in fact, be God: as much as Jesus, being the Son of God, makes Him God.  That would mean that Mary was sinless.  Now, we know that Roman Catholicism holds to the very un-Biblical doctrine of the “Immaculate Conception”: the doctrine that Mary was born without original sin.  If this were true, however, then the Bible would be a lie, for the Bible teaches, “all have sinned” (Romans 3:23).  That includes Mary.  Only Jesus was born sinless.

But, for the sake of argument, let us say that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was the “Mother of God” (and, therefore, God) and sinless.  If this were true, then Mary should have been able to pay our sin debt in accordance with Romans 5:12-21.  Being mortal, she would have been able to shed her blood for our sins, in accordance with Hebrews 9:22, and she would have been able to die for us, in accordance with Romans 6:23.  And being God, she would have been able to rise from the dead, as the Lord Jesus did, thus having victory over death and guaranteeing the resurrection of all those who are in Christ.

In short, if Mary were born sinless and was God, then she would have had all of the qualifications to die on the cross for our sins and to rise again on the third day.  If this were true, then why was Mary only chosen to be the vessel for the Deliverer, our Lord Jesus?  Why was she not chosen to die and shed her blood for the sins of the world?  Why did Jesus have to suffer and die at all?  The answer is simple: because Mary was not sinless.

And if, according to the Bible, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not sinless, then she cannot be the Virgin Mary, which the Roman Catholic church teaches was born without sin.

I could quote the book of Luke wherein we read that Mary, after giving birth to Jesus, went to Jerusalem to offer a sin sacrifice.  But you would likely dismiss it, since it is customary for Roman Catholics to defer to their tradition to justify the Virgin Mary’s “sinlessness.”  And they would have to, since this doctrine is not Biblical.

You should think about this very carefully, as you are saying that the Virgin Mary will redeem mankind.  This goes against the Bible, which teaches that Jesus Christ redeemed us with His own blood:

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

“Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God” (Romans 3:23-25). 

There is therefore no need for Mary or anyone else to do anything.  Jesus “paid it all.”

“If you subscribe to the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura “by scripture [sic] alone” there is plenty of evidence to show that Mary is an important figure in the Bible.”

This is true on many levels.  It is true that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was an important figure in the Bible, as she gave birth to our Savior.  It is also true that the Virgin Mary, the Babylonian goddess, is an important figure in the Bible.  As the Abomination of Desolation, she will order the execution of all who will not bow down and worship her (Revelation 13:15).  So yes, both Marys are important figures in the Bible.

“It would be well to stick to the Bible, also, rather than reading about ancient pagan “deities.”

No one would benefit more from “sticking” to that advice than the Roman Catholic church.  But if it did, the Roman Catholic religion would implode overnight.  You must understand that one must read about ancient pagan deities in order to understand the Virgin Mary, because what is attributed to the Virgin Mary cannot be found in Scripture, but can actually be found in ancient mythology and folklore.  That is because what is taught about the Virgin Mary can also be attributed to pagan deities like Diana, Artemis, Venus, Aphrodite, and other goddesses.  In fact, they are all the same goddess: Semiramis.

“How many humans can say that they are “highly favored” by God?  Mary could.  In the King James Luke 1:30-31, the angel Gabriel, God’s messenger tells her so.  She also is pre-figured in Genesis as the woman who will correct the error of Eve 3:15.”

It is true that Mary is called “highly favored,” being chosen as the vessel to bring the Lord Jesus into the world.  It is not true, however, that Mary is “full of grace,” as the Roman Catholic church teaches, and that she may impart this grace onto anyone.  As a matter of fact, Mary received God’s grace herself in that she was a sinner and, yet, was still chosen to give birth to the Son of God.

Neither is it correct to say that Mary will “correct the error of Eve.”  I won’t debate Genesis 3:15 with you, because, as you point out, the Douay-Rheims translation differs from the King James.  Let us therefore hear what the Bible has to say regarding your claim that the sin was Eve’s and that Mary will correct that sin.

Let me begin by stating that nowhere does the Bible say that the first sin was Eve’s, though the Bible clearly states that Eve was deceived and not Adam (1 Timothy 2:14).  God blamed Adam for Eve’s transgression, because she was his wife, and he should not have let her be deceived.  But it is clear that the sin was Adam’s:

“To the woman also [God] said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

“And to Adam He said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee, that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work: with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life” (Genesis 3:16-17).

Notice that the earth was cursed for Adam’s sin, not for Eve’s.  This is because God had given Adam dominion over the earth before Eve was even created:

“And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name.  

And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself” (Genesis 2:19-20).

God brought all the animals to Adam, who then named them.  There is a very simple principle at work here: he, who names a thing, owns a thing.  Adam was the master of the earth and all that is in it; so God gave Adam the right to name the animals.  Adam was responsible for the earth.  It was Adam’s actions, therefore, that would affect the earth, not Eve’s.  This is why God blamed Adam, and not Eve.

Sin is a curse (Galations 3:13).  So when the passage says that the earth is cursed, it is talking about original sin (Romans 5:12).  In that you state that Mary had to correct the sin, because Eve sinned, then you know something about God’s idea of justice: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Therefore, since the earth was cursed because of Adam, and Adam was a man, then his sin had to be corrected by a Man, in accordance with God’s idea of justice.

And the Bible backs this up.  Consider these passages from the Douay-Rheims:

“For if by the offence of one (Adam), many died: much more the grace of God and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

 “For if by one man’s offence death reigned through one; much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift and of justice shall reign in life through one [Man], Jesus Christ.

 “For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one [Man], many shall be made just”  (Romans 5:15,18,19).

As you can see, the Bible clearly teaches that, because Adam sinned, his sin had to be corrected by a Man, not a woman.  And the Bible makes it clear that it was no ordinary man who paid for our sin, but the only Man who could: Jesus Christ.

So, the idea that the Virgin Mary must correct the sin of Eve, is, again, not Biblical.  It is, therefore, by definition, a heresy.

“Notice how many times in the Bible when Jesus addresses Mary, he [sic] calls her “Woman.” It is to highlight and correlate that she is the woman in Genesis, and the woman in Revelation.”

You go on to quote Revelation 12:1 “And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet and upon her head a crown of twelve stars” (representing both the 12 tribes of Israel & the 12 apostles, your words).  If the woman in the passage is Mary, as you say, then why doesn’t the passage read, “And Mary appeared in heaven?”  Think about this.

I’m aware that the Roman Catholic church teaches that it is true Israel, and that it uses the six-pointed “Star of David” to signify this.  Besides being a heresy, because the Roman Catholic church was begun by the Roman Emperor Constantine, who was not Jewish (hence the term, Roman Catholicism), nowhere does the Bible use a six-pointed star to represent Israel.  The Bible uses several symbols for Israel, including animals.  But there are only three instances, to my knowledge, where the Bible speaks of stars in relation to Israel.  One instance, which you mentioned, is Revelation 12:1.  The others are Amos 5:26 and Acts 7:43, respectively.

With respect to Revelation 12:1, it is important to understand that the woman and the crown of stars are symbolic: you yourself admitted this, when you said that the twelve stars represent Israel and the Twelve Apostles.  That the passage begins with “And a great sign appeared in heaven” (Revelation 12:1), reinforces this.  A sign is an omen, a portent.  This is our cue that the passage is symbolic.  Again, you know this, as you say that the twelve stars are symbolic of Israel.

Now, we know that the child is Jesus.  But you say that the woman is Mary.  If that is true, then where does Scripture speak of a dragon standing before Mary waiting to devour the baby Jesus?  I can tell you that nowhere in Scripture can that be found.

As a matter of fact, if one continues to read the passage, it goes on to say:

“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan” (Revelation 12:9). 

The woman, the crown of stars, and the dragon are symbols.

Inasmuch as the woman and the crown of stars are symbols, then the woman means nothing without the crown of stars, and the crown of stars means nothing without the woman.  In the Bible, a woman is symbolic of a religion.  The woman, therefore, with the crown of twelve stars, represents the twelve tribes of the God of Israel.

With respect to the second and third instances, where a star is mentioned in relation to Israel, it is important to understand that it is connection with idolatry:

“But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images [idols], the star of your god” (Amos 5:26).

“Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them” (Acts 7:43).

According to the Bible, the star is a symbol of a pagan deity.  Bear that in mind as we continue.

Now, the woman of Revelation 12 wears a crown of stars, not a single star.  The Roman Catholic church uses the six-pointed star, the so-called Star of David, to represent the Virgin Mary, having given birth to Jesus, who was of the House of David.

But consider something: If the Roman Catholic church uses the so-called Star of David because the woman of Revelation 12 is really the Roman Catholic church, then why does the Roman Catholic church also use the five-, seven-, and eight-pointed stars to symbolize Mary?  Are these also used to represent Israel?  If so, where can references to Israel and the five-, six-, seven-, or eight-pointed stars be found in the Bible?  I know that you cannot tell me, because the Bible doesn’t speak of any star that represents Israel.  The Bible does, however, mention the apostate Jews having worshipped a star to represent Chiun and Remphran: both names for a pagan deity.

If you say that the Roman Catholic church does not use the five-, six-, seven-, and eight-pointed stars to represent the Virgin Mary, then consider what Marielena Montesino de Stuart, a prominent Roman Catholic, former Florida senatorial candidate, and writer for Renew America, said in an article entitled, It’s all in the stars…Socialism and the Vatican: Why is the Vatican so concerned over a five-pointed yellow star?:

“Is the five-pointed star found in Mariology [Mary Worship]? Of course! The Assumption of Mary in Attard, Malta and the Miraculous Medal, as revealed by the Virgin Mary to Saint Catherine Labouré.”  [Parentheses mine.]

 “Is the six-pointed star found in Mariology? Of course!  The image of the Pilgrim Virgin of Fatima was made according to indications by Sister Lúcia, and was a gift from the Bishop of Leiria – and solemnly crowned by the Archbishop of Évora, on May 13, 1947.”

 “Is the seven-pointed star found in Mariology? Of course!  Basilica of Our Lady of Scherpenheuvel, Belgium.”

About the eight-pointed star, the Catholic Herald says this:

“The eight-pointed star has always symbolized Mary in Catholic church tradition.”

Again, I ask you: where does the Holy Bible mention the five-, six-, seven-, and eight-pointed stars being symbols for Mary or for Israel?  Answer: nowhere.  If it is not in the Bible, but is taught as doctrine, then it is, by definition, a heresy.

Again, the Virgin Mary is not the mother of Jesus, but an ancient goddess that was worshipped the world over under different names, including Mary.

“Mary is the favored one of God, deemed worthy to be a vessel for the Son of God, who said Yes and gave herself totally to the will of God, and reversed the No of Eve in order to bring salvation to humanity.”

The first part of this statement is very true: Mary was deemed worthy to be the vessel to bring the Son of God into this world.  The second part, however, is false.  Mary was not deemed worthy to bring salvation to humanity, because she could not.

To prove this, let us first define salvation.  According to the Bible, salvation is deliverance from:

1. The power and effects of sin (Romans 5:12)
2. This “present evil world” (Galations 1:4)
3. The “curse of the law” (Galations 3:13)
4. Bondage to sin (Galations 4:3, Romans 6:6)
5. Death (Romans 6:23)
6. Hell (Matthew 10:28)
7. Judgment (Revelation 19:13)
8. The “second death” (Revelation 19:14-15)

Because of Adam’s sin, we are all condemned to die (Romans 5:12).  We need, therefore, only concern ourselves with point 5: deliverance from death.  The only way to save, or redeem from death was through the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22) and death (Romans 6:23).  But not any man could redeem us, because the Bible says that all have sinned (Romans 3:23), and are condemned to die.  A normal man could not die for our sins, because, being a sinner, he would stay dead.  A dead man cannot offer anyone eternal life.

Only one man could shed his blood, die, and get back up.  That man was Jesus Christ.  Being sinless, He could shed his blood and die for us, paying our sin debtl and, being God, He could rise from the dead, thus having victory over death and ensuring our eternal life.  For if He could raise Himself, He can certainly raise us up.

Mary died and stayed dead.  She is waiting on the Resurrection just like all Christians are.  Jesus, however, after dying, got back up.  He, then, is the only One who could save us.

It was not the “No” of Eve that condemned us, but the “No” of Adam; for he “hearkened unto his wife.”  And, as we have already seen in Romans 5, it was not the “Yes” of Mary that brought salvation, but the “Yes” of Jesus.  How?  Because Jesus obeyed the Father:

“[Jesus] humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8).

So, though it is true that Mary was worthy enough to give birth to our Savior, she was not worthy enough to redeem mankind. Further proof of this is Revelation Chapter 5, wherein we read that the Apostle John, in his vision, saw God the Father sitting on His throne, holding a book sealed with seven seals:

“And I saw, in the right hand of him that sat on the throne, a book, written within and without, sealed with seven seals.

 “And I saw a strong angel, proclaiming with a loud voice: Who is worthy to open the book and to loose the seals thereof?

 “And no man was able, neither in heaven nor on earth nor under the earth, to open the book, nor to look on it.

“And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open the book, nor to see it.

 “And one of the ancients said to me: Weep not: behold the lion of the tribe of Juda, the root of David, hath prevailed to open the book and to loose the seven seals thereof.

 “And I saw: and behold in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures and in the midst of the ancients, a Lamb standing, as it were slain, having seven horns and seven eyes: which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth.

“And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat on the throne” (Revelation 5:1-7).

We all know that Jesus is the Lamb of God and the Root of David.  Now, if Mary, as you say, brought salvation to humanity, why was she not found worthy to take the book from the hand of God?  Why was only Jesus worthy enough?

I can show you better than I can tell you.  From the Douay-Rheims:

“And they sung a new canticle, saying: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to take the book and to open the seals thereof: because thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God, in thy blood, out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation:

“And hast made us to our God a kingdom and priests, and we shall reign on the earth.

 “And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the living creatures and the ancients (and the number of them was thousands of thousands),

 “Saying with a loud voice: The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive power and divinity and wisdom and strength and honour and glory and benediction” (Revelation 5:9-12).

Now if the Virgin Mary, or any Mary, for that matter, were worthy of the accolades that the Roman Catholic church bestows upon the Virgin Mary, why does the Bible not bestow these honors upon it/her?  Because Mary was not nailed to a cross: Jesus was.  Because Mary did not shed her blood: Jesus did.  Because Mary was not slain:  Jesus was.  And because Mary did not rise on the third day: Jesus did.

You made a great many other un-Biblical claims.  But it would not be edifying to address them.  Let us, therefore, examine your claim regarding my family life:

“This may be hard to hear, friend, but if your zeal for your vision of faith is putting enmity between you and your wife, and bringing sadness to your children, then it cannot be of God.  For all that is of God, brings peace, wholeness, harmony and love.”

Again, though I believe you mean these words in all sincerity, you are woefully misinformed about the nature of the Christian life.  There are just too many verses in the Bible to prove that faithfulness to Jesus and the Word of God brings nothing, if not enmity—even between a husband and wife.

Jobs trials were of God, and it cost him his health, his prosperity, his children, his birth family, his friends, and his relationship with his wife.  For Job’s wife told him:

“Curse God, and die” (Job 2:9 KJV).

Not a very nice thing for a wife to say to her husband.

The Douay-Rheims renders the passage, “Bless God, and die,” but the sentiment is nevertheless the same.  Job’s wife wanted him to die.  Now, to my knowledge, Job’s wife was not a Roman Catholic.  Yet, Job’s faithfulness to God was a problem for her, for she prefaced this imperative by saying, “Doth thou still retain thine integrity?” (KJV).  Job’s wife thought that as a result of God’s actions, Job should have renounced Him, just as the Devil said he would.  But Job wasn’t having any of it.

Faithfulness to God is enmity with the world.

You say that God brings peace.  What I think you meant to say is that God only brings peace.  This, of course, is not true: for Jesus Himself said:

“Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.”

 “For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 “And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household” (Matthew 10:34-36).

Was Jesus a warmonger?  I think not.  What He was saying was that if a man would be faithful to the Gospel of Jesus, though he will have peace inwardly, he will have war outwardly—maybe (READ especially) in his own family.  Not everyone wants to the do the will of God.

Don’t think for one minute that I regret what has happened to my family because of my faithfulness to Jesus.  As unpleasant as it has been, I rejoice that it has happened—and is happening—because it has proved to me that the Word of God is true.  My trials have resulted in most of the material you will find on this site, which have brought some to a saving knowledge of Jesus, led others into a greater knowledge of God’s will for His people, given still others victory over sin, and a great many more deliverance from bondage.  What a blessing!

Many people talk about their faith, but believe me when I say I put Jesus to the test—I had to in order to pass through what I have and come out SANE, not to mention with my faith intact.  And Jesus passed with flying colors.  Only when you have passed through the fire can you really know the keeping power of Jesus.  Only then can you claim to really know Him, which is why Paul said that to know Jesus is “to know the fellowship of His sufferings.”

A warm and fuzzy is good for some things.  But only hardship and tribulation bring you closer to Jesus.  While the extent of most people’s Christian experience is singing hymns, church picnics, Gospel concerts, and saying “Have a blessed day,” my family is involved in daily spiritual warfare.  And believe it or not, we are stronger than ever for it.

As for my children being sad, their sadness comes only when they are at school being persecuted by their Roman Catholic and Muslim classmates.  This is done in a very slick way, out of sight of the casual observer, but it is done.  Outside the classroom and at home, they are some of the happiest, most polite, most well adjusted children you will ever meet.  The Bible says in 2 Timothy 3:3 that in the last days, people would be “despisers of those that are good” (KJV).  That can’t be truer than it is today.

The difficulties my wife and I have experienced are the result of truth being yoked to error.  In that my wife is Roman Catholic, according to the Bible, we are “enemies for the gospel’s sake.”  I love her in spite of this enmity, however, and I believe this is the way God wants all Christians to love Roman Catholics.  They too, are souls for whom Christ Jesus died.  You have to love a Roman Catholic to tell him the truth.  Her religion notwithstanding, God has sanctified my wife for our children’s sakes (1 Corinthians 7:14).  So there is always a chance that she will one day come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.  That is the day I pray for.

“With love and peace in Christ, and all prayers for your salvation and that of your whole family, because no one gets to Heaven without a battle.”

I trust you mean well, when you say you will pray for my salvation.  But you have absolutely no idea how terribly deceived you are.  You are praying for my salvation, yet your own soul is in jeopardy!

You worship an idol contrary to Scripture.  You adore (worship) a piece of bread (the Eucharist) as Jesus, contrary to Scripture.  You call a mere man, the Roman Catholic pope, “Holy Father”: a name reserved exclusively for God the Father (John 17:11).  What blasphemy!  You believe in a mythical Purgatory, where you believe you must go to have your sins purged or burned off, contrary to Scripture, and, in so doing, you spit on the Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus.  For when He hung on the cross, Jesus said, “It is finished.”

Wasn’t Jesus’ blood good enough?  Wasn’t His suffering good enough?  Wasn’t His death good enough?  What, then, could you, the Virgin Mary, or anyone else possibly add to this?  Can’t you see how deceived you are, how you’ve been lied to?

You rightfully say that Satan is the father of lies.  But you are marvelously blind to the fact that his greatest deception is the Roman Catholic church, to which you have given your blind trust, and which, in return for your loyalty, has condemned your soul to the Lake of Fire burning with fire and brimstone.

Instead of hearing the Lord Jesus say, “Well done!” you are in danger of hearing Him say, “Depart from me, ye wicked, into everlasting fire!”

No, my dear child, I will pray for your salvation.

Tony  

[End letter]

As you can see, this dear soul’s mind has been corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.  And she truly believes she is a Christian and is praying for my salvation!  Now can you see why I do what I do?  Saints, we must reach the Roman Catholics, while there’s still time.  There are precious few hours of daylight left.  

If you are a Roman Catholic who has been blinded by Roman Catholic fables and traditions, and you now want to seek a return to the faith that was once delivered unto the saints, then click here now.  

The podcast of this teaching is available at the iTunes store, for playback on your favorite listening device.  Subscribe to our podcast today!  For your convenience, we have also provided it below.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Podcast (gospellightandtruthhour): Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Be encouraged and look up, for your redemption draweth nigh.  

The Still Man