The Sufficiency of Christ

images (1)

On June, 20, 2016, Pope Francis tweeted:

The Christian journey is based on what I will call the “coordinates of truth.” In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Then in John 17:17, He prayed to the Father, saying, “Your word is truth.

First John 5:6 also says: “It is the Spirit who bears witness [to Jesus Christ] because the Spirit is truth.

In essence, Jesus is the truth, God’s Word – the Bible – is the truth and the Spirit is truth. Any doctrine, no matter how dogmatic, that is not true to Jesus, the Bible and the witness of the Holy Spirit, is a deception.

In a certain Catholic article titled “The Protty Jesus,” the writer stated that the Catholic and Protestant Jesus “are not really related, beyond the most basic things.” Consequently, we non-Catholics “do not worship the same Jesus as Catholics do.”

He’s right.

One of the key areas where we differ greatly is on the sufficiency of Christ – solo Christos. And the best way to demonstrate this is by comparing what the Bible teaches with what Roman Catholicism teaches.

I know the visceral response of the Catholic will be, “We teach and read the Bible too!” Yes, that’s true, but there is a big difference between reading the Bible to learn what God has said in it and reading some contrived ideas into it.

It’s self-deception for one to think he is saved or looking forward to heaven if one believes untruths about Jesus who is the only Way to Heaven.

The stakes are too high and eternity is too real to allow sentiments or rigidity cloud this issue. Here are some examples:

Salvation by Christ or a Church?

The Second Vatican Council decree on ecumenism explains: For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone which is the universal help towards salvation that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained” (Catechism #816, p 215)

Looking at God’s Word on the subject of salvation, you will not find a single verse requiring one to go through a church to be saved.

What did Jesus Himself say?
“For what my Father wants is that all who see the Son and believe in him should have eternal life” (Jn. 6:40).

He says “those who hear my words and believe in him who sent me have eternal life … [they] have already passed from death to life” (Jn. 5:24). He says again “he who believes has eternal life” (Jn. 6:47).

Salvation from eternal condemnation is received by believing in Christ “but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (Jn. 3:18).

If the Catholic church was necessary for salvation, then Jesus was lying.

Apostle Paul wrote: “For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9-10)

Nothing is said about being saved by a church here.

Paul defines the Gospel as how Christ died for our sins and His resurrection and says “you are saved by the gospel if you hold firmly to it.” (1 Cor. 15:2).

He says the Gospel “is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.” (Rom. 1:16).

If salvation is obtained by joining the Catholic church, then Paul was lying and the Holy Spirit inspiring him was also lying.

Apostle John wrote: “Some, however, did receive him and believed in him, so he gave them the rights to become God’s children” (Jn. 1:12).

That’s the only condition to be saved and become a child of God. Therefore, if the Catholic church is the only visible and universal sacrament of salvation, then apostle John was lying, so was the Holy Spirit.

But Jesus is truth, the Bible is truth and the Holy Spirit is truth. The key to salvation is believing in Jesus, not joining a church – whether Catholic or Protestant.

When the Philippian jailer asked Paul “what must I do to be saved?” did Paul say “you must come to the Catholic Church?” No. He said “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 16:31).

The moment one believes the Gospel – which is about the death and resurrection of Christ offering us forgiveness and eternal life – he is saved.

No church can offer salvation because the church is simply a community of the saved. The church is not the Saviour. Not a single person in the New Testament looked up to a church for salvation and why would they, when it’s clear that Jesus alone is the Saviour.

If the Catholic church is right about this, then the Bible was wrong and Jesus was mistaken.

The Sufficiency of Christ’s Mediation

For, taken up to heaven, she [Mary] did not lay aside this saving role, but by her manifold acts of intercession continues to win for us gifts of eternal salvation” (The Documents of Vatican II, p. 91).

Not a single verse of the Bible assigns a saving or interceding role to Mary.

Jesus said about His sheep: “I give them eternal life and they shall never perish” (Jn. 10:28).

He “is able, now and always, to save those who come to God through him because he lives forever to plead with God for them” (Heb. 7:25).

He has the power to “keep [us] from stumbling and to present [us] before his glorious presence without fault.” (Jude 1:24)

Why would the Bible emphatically declare that “there is no salvation through anyone else” and no “other name under heaven given to the human race” if Mary also dispenses salvation as Rome says? (Acts 4:12)

Both the Bible and Catholicism do not agree.

Jesus’ intercession is based on His Mediatorship. If Mary is also interceding for mankind, it means Jesus’ mediation is grossly insufficient. But God came down as Man to graciously establish His covenant with us.

Jesus, as the “mediator of the new covenant” (Heb. 9:15) intervenes between God and man. He represents God before mankind and represents mankind before God.

As the God-Man, He has “given us a ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18). This ultimately disqualifies Mary or anyone else.

Jesus came to earth to save sinners. He kept inviting them “Come to Me” – not to Mary or a church for salvation (Mt. 11:28). At no point do we find a sinner being afraid to go to Jesus asking Mary to approach Him on his/her behalf.

We find examples of Nicodemus, Zaccheus, the woman at Bethany, the penitent thief on the cross and many others who came to Christ. They all approached Him directly without going through Mary.

He showed them love and care more than Mary ever did, so, to suggest that He has lost that superior and divine love and mercy for sinners, that we are now to go to Him through Mary is utterly blasphemous. It denies a central truth: “there is one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).

The sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice

“Each time the Mass is offered, the Sacrifice of Christ is repeated. A new sacrifice is not offered, but by divine power, one and the same sacrifice is repeated … In the Mass, Christ continues to offer Himself to the Father as He did on the Cross.” (The New Saint Joseph Catechism, #2, 171)

But the Bible clearly teaches that Christ’s sacrifice must not (and cannot) be repeated.

He “does not need to offer sacrifices every day” (Heb. 7:27) because He “was offered in sacrifice once to take away the sins of many.” (Heb. 9:28)

The offering of His body was “made once and for all” (10:10) and “By the virtue of that one single offering he has achieved the eternal perfection of all who are sanctified” (10:14).

Why would God persistently tell us Jesus’ one sacrifice is sufficient if it needs to be repeated?

After presenting these facts to a Catholic guy years ago, he paused briefly, then said “The original Greek couldn’t have said these. The English Bibles have been distorted!” When I asked him to prove this, he couldn’t. That was a lame excuse.

Jesus said “It is finished” (Jn. 19:30). The Greek word there is tetelestai which literally means “completely complete.” Jesus has offered a perfect and complete sacrifice to God by His infinite power.

To deny this is a blasphemous reduction of Jesus into a perpetual sacrificial victim in the hands of men.

The Sufficiency of His blood

From the most ancient times in the Church good works were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners … [by] the prayers and good works of holy people … the penitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed…” (Vatican II, Vol. 1, 65)

On the contrary, redemption (or salvation) was accomplished by Christ in His sacrifice upon the cross and is received by faith: “Christ entered once and for all into the Most Holy Place … [with] his own blood and obtained eternal salvation for us” (Heb. 9:12).

None of man’s efforts can add to it.

“For by the blood of Christ we are set free, that is, our sins are forgiven” (Eph. 1:7). There is no way our own good works can cleanse our sins or redeem us.

The penalty of sin is infinite and only God could pay it. To reject this one-way redemption provided by the blood of Christ is to remain in sin and eternal condemnation.

Romans 5:9 says “By his blood we are now put right with God…” The present tense used means that once a person repents and believes the Gospel, he is justified and receives eternal life that moment. He doesn’t have to merit it with good works, sacraments or rites.

“The gift of God is eternal life through Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). We don’t work for this gift of salvation, we only receive it by faith in Christ.

Salvation is received here and now and Jesus saves completely, He doesn’t save by half or instalmentally (see Jn. 3:16, 1Cor. 1:21, 2Tim. 1:9, Tit. 3:5).

It matters not how much lip service Catholicism pays to solo Christo, its doctrines explicitly deny it, and a truth-seeking Catholic has a choice to make: to take sides against Jesus, the Bible and the Holy Spirit in order to follow a religion or  humble himself/herself and agree with God’s truth and consequently reject the lies of men.

But one thing is clear: every false religion tries to take the glory away from Christ and diminish His work and place it on a human figure, false god or religious organization.

The Perpetual Virginity: Facts To Consider


The dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity says that she remained a virgin till the end of her life. The Catholic Catechism explains:

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth ‘did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.’ And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever virgin” (1: 499).

Many Catholics ask why we do not hold to this dogma. The reason is simple: it lacks a justifiable evidence, so it would be irrational and irresponsible to believe it.

It’s just like someone asking me if I believe in the tooth fairies and I answer “No,” and I’m being told to “prove it.” Prove what? The burden of proof is not on me to disprove the existence of tooth fairies.

I don’t believe in them for the simple reason that there is no credible evidence to support their existence. I don’t have to produce an evidence against their existence.

The same applies to the perpetual virginity dogma. It’s the Catholics making the claim who need to prove it. Evangelicals are not under any obligation to disprove a dogma for which there’s no evidence in the first place.

However, we can point to several facts that invalidate this belief showing that it can only be believed by those deeply committed to Rome’s fiction.

1. God had predicted that Mary would have other children and the Messiah would have brothers:

I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children” (Psa. 69:8-9).

The perpetual virginity dogma can only be sustained by ignoring this Bible prophecy.

2. If the birth of Jesus didn’t “diminish his mother’s virginal integrity” as the above quote says, then what does this denote?

Does it mean that Jesus passed through the birth canal without rupturing the hymen? Did He temporarily dematerialize or was it the hymen that momentarily dematerialized for this to be possible?

Let’s suppose that Jesus was born without passing through the birth canal, how then was He born?  Was it through a miraculous C-section or teleportation?

To suggest that Jesus circumvented the normal birthing process is Biblically objectionable.

3. Jesus is called Mary’s “firstborn son” (Matt. 1:25) and the natural conclusion is that she had other children.

The Greek word for firstborn (prototokos) is used in that text. If Jesus had been the only son Mary had, the Greek word used would have been monogenes which means “only.” It occurs as “only son” (Lk. 7:12) “only daughter” (Lk. 8:42) or “only child” (Lk. 9:38) in the NT.

4. The Gospels plainly state that Jesus had four brothers (mentioned by name) and at least 3 sisters (Mt. 13:55,56; Mk. 6:3).

Catholic apologists usually quote Jerome, who claimed that these were actually Christ’s cousins.

It is argued that Matthew and Mark had to use the Greek word for brother/sister (adelphos/adelphai) because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a word for “cousin” and the Jews had the custom of referring to all relatives as brothers/sisters.

They cite examples from the Septuagint, but none from the New Testament, because there are none.

There are two Greek words used for cousins in the NT: anepsios and sungenis. Neither of them were used in Matthew 13:22-56.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the Greek words adelphos and adelphai “have the full meaning of full brother and sister in the Greek-speaking world of the Evangelist’s time and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense. Towards the end of the 4th century (c. 380), Helvidius in a work now lost, pressed this fact in order to attribute to Mary other children besides Jesus so as to make her a model for mothers of large families. St Jerome, motivated by the Church’s traditional faith in Mary’s perpetual virginity wrote a tract against Helvidius (A.D. 383)…” (Vol. IX, 337)

5. If the Bible writers used the words for relatives and brothers interchangeably, the Greek word syggenon would have been used in Luke 21:16, not adelphoi.

In Colossians 4:10, anepsios was rightly used for Barnabas’ cousin, so the Catholic argument doesn’t stand. The facts show that “cousins” and “brothers” were not used interchangeably.

If the word “mother” is taken literally in Matthew 13:55-56, why not the word “brethren?” Catholics can only resort to such semantic acrobatics because of their commitment to perpetual virginity in spite of contrary evidence.

6. Mary and her other children are introduced as “His mother and His brethren” (Mt. 12:46-50, Mk. 3:31, Jn. 2:12), indicating that they were her children in her care, or if grown, travelling with her as part of the immediate family.

There is no way that the children of some other woman would be following Mary as “His brethren.”

7. If Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage, then it wasn’t really a marriage after all, but an extended betrothal.

Some Catholic scholars claim that Mary’s perpetual virginity is the hallmark of celibacy. How did this happen? If she took a vow of virginity and then married Joseph, this would have amounted to treachery and contempt on the marriage covenant.

Even Catholicism does not allow a wife to take a vow of continence at her own pleasure. This would also have contradicted the Bible that state that marital conjugal duties are God-ordained (1 Cor. 7:21-24, Heb. 13:4).

When Mary said to the angel “How can this be since I know not a man,” she was only referring to her condition at that time (Lk. 1:34).

8. Perhaps the most outstanding proof against Mary’s perpetual virginity is the “until” clause in Matthew 1:25. Joseph “knew her not until” Christ was born.

The Greek word here is eos ou and it’s used also in Matt. 17:3, Luke 24:4a. It refers to a point in time when the action of the main verb comes to an end.

For instance, the appearance of Moses and Elijah and the angels at the tomb was only for a limited situation. The event later reversed itself.

In the same vein, Joseph didn’t know Mary until after she had given birth to Jesus, then they had sexual relations. To suggest he kept her a virgin all through her life is illogical.

9. Some Catholic apologists quote the apocryphal Apocalypse of James to support this dogma. Of course James wasn’t the author of that legend, it’s just a desperate tool Rome is forced to utilize.

James is called “the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19) and the Bible says “His brethren” didn’t believe in Him until after His resurrection (Jn. 7:3-10, Acts 1:14). Certainly, these “brethren” were the other children Mary had.

Even Josephus the historian, affirms that Jesus had at least one brother:

“He (Ananus) converted the council of judges and brought it before the brother of Jesus – the one called ‘Christ’ – whose name was James, and certain others. Accusing them of transgressing the Law, he delivered them up for stoning” (Antiquities 20.9-1, 200-201).

Quoting the opinions of some church fathers as support proves nothing. They didn’t conduct a pelvic examination for Mary. Some of them, like Origen, Tertullian and Victorinus even rejected the perpetual virginity belief.

Yes, some of the Reformers held to this heresy, but Protestants don’t base their beliefs “on the consent of the Reformers” neither do we hold them as infallible.

The perpetual virginity doctrine wasn’t taught until about 5 centuries after Christ and it was not until the Lateran Council (649 A.D.) that it became an official belief.

10. The legend that Joseph had other children from a previous marriage is self-refuting. If Jesus wasn’t the firstborn of Joseph, he would never had been the legal stepfather of Jesus, and Jesus’ human ancestry would not have been traced through Joseph (Mt. 1:16).

If Joseph had children before Jesus was born, then He couldn’t be the legal heir to David’s throne, which went by law to the firstborn.

The reason Rome persists in this doctrine is because it’s too deeply rooted to be weeded out.

It was a doctrine aimed at modelling the Catholic Mary after old pagan virgin goddesses like the Egyptian Isis, the Greek Artemis, the German Hertha, the Etruscan Nutria and the Druid Virgo Partitura (also called the “Mother of God“).

One common thread running through these goddess figures was their designation as the virgin queen of heaven who bore fruit although they never conceived. This pagan corruption was assimilated into the church of Rome gradually.

According to a writer, “the ancient portrait of Isis and child Horus was ultimately accepted not only in popular opinion, but by formal episcopal sanction, as the portrait of the Virgin and her child” (Homer Smith, Man and His Gods, Brown & Co, 1952, 216).

Neopagans and Wiccans today often signify the virgin phase of their goddess as the crescent moon.

The crescent moon symbol was also associated with Astarte, an ancient Phoenician fertility goddess.

The Egyptian Isis was also represented as standing on a crescent moon with stars surrounding her head. This very representation is seen today in Catholic art, showing “Mary” standing on a crescent moon.

Of course, that is not the Mary of the Bible, but the old pagan goddess in a new garb.

Exposing the Cult of Mary

Yes, we’re familiar with the hoary canard: “We are honouring Mary, not worshipping her!” This is by no means new.

Every false religion has its public defensive cliche.

The Muslims will say: “Islam is peace!”

Mormons would say “We are not polytheists!”

Even Satanists would say “We don’t worship Satan!”

Once you peel off the surface, however, you will see that these claims are empty. What Catholics say to non-Catholics about Mary and what they actually offer to her are miles apart.

Personally, I’ll have to chuckle a bit whenever a Catholic tells me they don’t really worship Mary.

You see, it’s possible for one to master the art of deception to the point that one is not only deceiving others, but also oneself.

Catholic “saint” Alphonsos Liguori, wrote a Marian book, “The Glories of Mary” (fully authorized by the Catholic church) a compendium of all the tributes to Mary going back to the 5th century. Here are some quotes from it:

“So that recourse to Mary is a most secure means to conquer all the assaults of hell; for She, says St. Bernadine of Sienna, is even the Queen of Hell, and the Sovereign Mistress of the devils since She it is who tames and crushes them” (p. 143)

“At the command of Mary, all obey, even God” (p. 566)

“O Mary, sweet refuge of poor sinners. Assist me with thy mercy. Banish me from the infernal enemies and come thou to take my soul and present it to the eternal judge. My Queen, do not abandon me. I give you my heart and soul” (p. 670)

Technically, the Catholic Mary is the ‘most secured means’ of having victory over demons, since she is their queen and perhaps, also speaks their language.

She commands God, replaces Christ and is also the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. In essence, their Mary has stolen away the glory from the Trinity.

If Mary is not being worshipped, why the prayer: “I give you my heart and soul?” Why not give your soul to Jesus? Why to anyone else? Only God demands and deserves one’s “heart and soul.”

How can Catholics give their hearts and souls to Mary and then come out to say they are not worshipping her? Can we get real here?

Some Catholics respond that “Liguori was extreme in some views. But it’s the Church that determines what we believe.” Really? Then why did this “infallible” Church endorse his writings and make him a doctor of the Church?

Maybe these Catholics need to be silent and let their “infallible” Magisterium do the talking on this issue.

On one hand, Catholics deny worshipping Mary, but in reality, the facts indicate that Mary is the chief deity of Catholicism.

I. The emphasis on “Mary

You can travel the world over to every Catholic church you know. Whether it’s in a massive cathedral or a wayside village chapel, the statue of “Mary” always occupies a prominent place.

I read about an exquisite Catholic cathedral named “Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels.” It has depictions of the different forms of “Mary” on each of its bronze doors.

On one is the Virgin of Pomata. On another, the Virgin of Guadulupe, then you have the Virgin of the Cave, the black Virgin, the Virgin of Mercy, the Virgin of the Candlestick, the Virgin of the Rosary of Chinquinqura and a host of them.

Are we to believe one deceased Jewish woman has mutated into a thousand different nationalistic Marys? Of course not. What we see there is a repackaging of ancient goddesses of different cultures to fit into the cult of Mary.

Some apologists of Rome resort to word games. They argue that they offer Mary hyperdulia (special veneration), while other saints are given dulia (veneration) and Christ is offered latria (worship). This is untrue:

(a) According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Terms (p. 141), the Greek root of the word Douleia from which the word “dulia” is formed, means “bondage” or “condition of being a slave.”

When Catholics say they offer Mary hyperdulia, what it actually means is that they are in super bondage or super slavery to “Mary.” If this is not goddess worship, I don’t know what it is.

(b) The Greek words dulia and latria are synonyms. They do not distinguish worship. Rome’s distinctions are artificial.

They would say “But we venerate our parents.” That may be true, but since Catholics don’t venerate their parents the way they venerate their Mary, this is a false equivocation.

The same gestures Catholics offer Mary are the same pagans offer their mother goddesses, so what’s the difference?

II. Attached divine attributes

a) One of the hymns to Mary in the Baltimore catechism (No. 1, 63) reads:

Daily, daily, sing to Mary
Sing, sing, my soul, her prayers due
All her feasts, her actions worship
With the heart’s devotion true
She is mighty to deliver
Call her, trust her lovingly
When the tempest rages round thee
She will calm the troubled sea

You can see that the Catholic Mary receives the very worship that an angel of God rejected from John in Revelation 19:10.

God is the only One who is mighty to deliver. He says “Call unto me, and I will answer thee…” (Jer. 33:3).

In Psalm 89:10 God is the One who “rules the raging sea; [He] stills its swelling waves.”

So from this hymn it’s clear that the Catholic goddess has replaced God.

b) A Catholic publication dedicated to ‘Our Lady of Fatima’ declares:

“Mary is so perfectly united with the Holy Spirit that He acts only through [her] His spouse … all our life, every thought, word, and deed is in Her hands…at every moment, She Herself must instruct, guide, and transform each one of us into Herself, so that not we but She lives in us, as Jesus lives in Her, and the Father in the Son” (Soul Magazine, November-December, 1984, 4).

Why will the Holy Spirit be acting only through Mary? He has been acting from eternity past before Mary was even born.

Our lives are in God’s hands, not Mary. And we are being transformed into the image of Christ, not of Mary.

It is Christ who lives in Christians, not Mary (Col. 1:27) and we also live in Christ (Rom. 8:1). For Mary to be able to live in every Catholic, she would have to be omnipresent like God.

Obviously, the Mary of Catholicism is not the Mary of the Bible, but a diabolical counterfeit.

III. Marian Devotion

One of the prayers to Mary reads: “Hail Mary … My Queen! My Mother! I give myself, and to show my devotion to thee, I consecrate to thee my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my entire self. Wherefore, O loving Mother, as I am thine own, keep me, defend me as thy property and possession.”

Nothing here glorifies God or Jesus Christ. Nowhere in Scripture would you find the apostle Paul or Peter teaching people to pray to anyone other than to God.

It doesn’t matter how Catholics slice the cake, they pray more to this “goddess” Mary than God.

Why would God redirect millions of daily prayers to Mary? Or how can a finite mind process millions of prayers in different languages per day? It’s absolutely impossible.

In a publication by the Legion of Mary group which had received “apostolic blessings” from two popes, we read:

Put thy feet into her fetters, and thy neck into her chains.
Bow down thy shoulder and bear her and be not grieved with her bonds.
Come to her with all thy mind; and keep her ways with all thy power…” (The Legion of Mary, 1975, p. 225)

Though popes have affinity for particular Madonnas as well, Catholics are still far more devoted to Mary than to the pope.

When Mary speaks, Rome must listen. Who is even the pope compared to Mary? When Lucia, (one of the 3 children of Fatima) received three “secrets” from their Lady in 1929, she sent them to the Vatican in sealed envelopes and instructed that they must not be opened until 1960. The pope dared not disobey.

She told Pope Pius XII that “Mary” demands that the whole world – especially Russia – be consecrated to her. He instantly obeyed.

Yet Lucia was just a nun, and was technically subordinate to the pope. But when a nun or even a lay person becomes Mary’s mouthpiece and is channelling directives from the Queen of heaven, who cares about holy ranks?

Once a visionary of Rome has messages from the Queen Mother herself, which he/she can dangle about like the sword of Damocles, the Magisterium must surrender.

For example, if Lucia had said Mary told her Pope Benedict XVI was an anti-pope, who are the Catholics going to side with – a pope or Mary’s mouthpiece?

The entire cult of Mary emanated from ancient paganism. This is why even pagans today see no difference between their goddess and the Catholic Mary.

Many Witches/New Agers believe that their goddess has had many names and forms all through history but has now emerged as the Catholic Mary. A New Ager, Peter LeMesurier, described her saying:

“It was none than the rounded form of the Great Mother, Earth herself, clad in the same flowering robes of the shimmering blue and white that had been those of mother goddesses of earth and sky throughout history and not least his most recent mother goddess, the Virgin Mary herself…” (The Armageddon Script, Element Books, 1981, pp. 245-6).

Further evidence of this amalgam can be seen in some titles used for the Catholic Mary. She is called “stella maris” or “beautiful star of the sea.” This has been the title of the Egyptian Isis.

She is also called “pelagris” which means “star of the ocean.” The Canaanite goddess Asherah was also called ‘Lady of the Sea.’ According to a work:

“Ashera was called ‘the Lady of the Sea’, which links her to the Sumerian Nammu, and to the Egyptian Isis, ‘born in the all-wetness’ … Her other title was the ‘Mother of the Gods’, as was the Sumerian Ninhursag’s, and among her seventy children were her sons Baal and Mot and her daughter Anath. Kings were nourished from her breasts, as they had been by the goddess in Sumeria and Egypt” (Anne Baring and Jules Cashford, The Myth of the Goddess: Evolution of an Image, Penguin books, 1991, p. 454).

There is no connection between the Mary of the Bible and the sea. Catholics who sing “Ave Maria, O beautiful mother … beautiful star of the sea,” are singing to a big demon, not Mary.

The Bible talks about demonic principalities in the sea (see Ezk. 29:3-4, Is. 27:1, Job 3-8). In Africa, virtually all cultures pay homage to or worship water deities.

It’s not a coincidence that there are references to Mary’s “virginal breasts” in Catholic hymnals. The goddess Diana of Ephesus was pictured as having many breasts as well. It has been an emblem of fertility.

In Catholic art, Mary is often represented as being surrounded by a halo or nimbus. According to a 33 degree Mason, Manly P. Hall, “the oval or nimbus in which the figure stands represents the glorification of the Creative Power as exemplified in motherhood” (The Secret Teachings of All Ages, p. 17).

The same terms Catholics use to address their Mary goddess in prayer sounds just like those used by Witches. Here is an example of a chant in some covens:

Queen of Heaven; Queen of Hell
Horned Hunter of the night
Lend thy power unto the spell
And work my will by magic rite

Some covens invoke her saying:

“Diana, Queen of the night;
In all your beauty; shine on us here
And with your silver beam; Unlock the gates of dream…
I invoke and call upon thee, Mighty Mother of us all, bringer of all fruitfulness … Hail Aradia! From the Amalthean Horn; Pour forth thy store of love; I lowly bend…”

Compare these chants with those prayed to Catholic goddess and you can see that though the names are different, the entity being contacted is the same.

It was this same goddess that ensnared the people of God in Scripture and took their hearts away from Him.

“And they forsook the LORD and served Baal and Ashtaroth” (Jud. 2:13). And God’s response? “And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers…” (vs. 14)

When Solomon’s heart was turned away from God he “went after Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians…” (1Kings 11:5).

This was God’s response: “I will surely rend the kingdom from thee…And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon” (vs. 11, 14).

The same continues today. God’s response to those who worship this mistress of the devils and queen of hell has not changed.

Dear friends, renounce her worship and escape from her clutches before it’s too late.