Mother of God or Mother Goddess?

The Catholic religion’s exaltation of Mary can be seen in the “Mother of God” title attributed to her. Most Catholics when questioned about this often reply: “We believe in the Trinity. Jesus is God, so, Mary too is the mother of God.”

But if this Catholic hobbyhorse is pursued to a logical end, it leads to a warped theology.

One, since God is Triune, then Mary would also have to be the mother of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Two, if we replace the word Jesus with “God” in the following Bible verses, they will read as:

Now when GOD was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod…” (Matt.2:1)

And GOD increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.” (Luke 2:52)

And [GOD] was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow...” (Mark4: 38)

And GOD cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.” (Mark 15:37)

These passages sound absurd. Why? Because Jesus Christ is the God-Man. He is both human and deity; both natures are presented in Scripture. To deny either nature is rank heresy. Mary is only the mother of Jesus as Man, not as God.

The “mother” familial title applies only to His humanity. So to take a title that applies to Jesus’ humanity and transfer it to His Deity is heretical. That is outside the realm of Biblical orthodoxy.

Since Roman Catholicism has no qualms giving Mary this unbiblical position, it wasn’t strange to them to also call her “the Spouse of the Holy Spirit” as well. But if the Holy Spirit is Mary’s husband (and Jesus’ “father”), and Jesus is God, that would mean the Holy Spirit is the “father” of God!

The Catholic Information Service of the Knights of Columbus explains that Mary is the mother of God because:

It matters not that the woman has no part in the production of the spiritual element (directly created by God) in the human nature of the person she conceives. It suffices that she has supplied the bodily substance which goes into the constitution of human nature … She rightly acquires the title of mother.”

Of course, no one denies that Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ. The real issue is whether her motherhood extends to His divine nature that has eternally existed and was not created in the womb of the virgin.

A mother is only the mother of what originates within her womb, and since Jesus, as the Second Person of the Trinity, didn’t originate within Mary’s womb, she can only be the mother of His humanity, not divinity.

I. Jesus is co-eternal with God (Ps. 90:2, 93:2). He had no beginning and has no mother. But as He took on flesh, He was born by Mary.

Mary had a beginning; she’s not eternal and therefore cannot be the mother of Christ’s eternal nature. Since Jesus’ existence didn’t begin in Mary’s womb, she can only be the mother of the Man Christ.

II. As Man, Jesus was the son of David (Lk. 1:32) but as Deity, He is David’s Lord (Ps. 110:1). Quoting this, Jesus asked “If David call him Lord, how is he his son?” to show the distinction between His Deity and His humanity (see Matt. 22:45). In other words, as Man, Jesus is Mary’s son but as Deity, He is her Lord.

III. When John describes Jesus as being given the Holy Spirit without measure (Jn. 3:34), he was referring to His humanity. As the second Person of the Trinity, Jesus didn’t need to be given the Spirit. This clear distinction proves Mary is not the mother of God.

In response, Catholics usually quote Luke 1:43, “And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” But this statement acknowledges the Lordship of Christ rather than the “divine maternity” of Mary.

There is not a single verse in the Bible that describes Mary as the “Mother of God.” No inspired writer of the Old or New Testament gave a hint that she should be addressed so.

Mary considered herself as a “maidservant of the Lord” (Lk. 1:47) and “lowly state of her maidservant” (v. 48). These titles would have been inappropriate if she believed herself to be the “Mother of God.” The Bible repeatedly calls her the mother of Jesus and not “Mother of God” (Mk. 3:31, Lk. 8:19, Acts 1:14).

The “Mother of God” title was developed centuries after the Bible was completed in an attempt to elevate Mary to a divine plane.

Even when the “Bearer of God” (Theotokos) title was first applied to Mary, some theologians like Athanasius, raised objections to it in 428 A.D., pointing out that it affected the fact of Jesus’ humanity.

Cyril of Alexandria engaged in a battle with Athanasius over this matter to make this heresy a dogma, and it finally became one in 431 at the Council of Ephesus. Cyril’s main argument was that those who denied the “Mother of God” title were denying the deity of Christ.

But the Lord Jesus directly addressed Mary as “woman” not “mother.” On one occasion “He stretched out His hand towards His disciples and said, ‘Here are My mother and My brothers!” to show that anyone who believed in Him and obeyed the will of the Father is on the same level as Mary (Jn. 2:4; Mt. 12:49).

Even Augustine of Hippo wrote:

“When the Lord said, ‘Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come’ (John 2:4). He rather admonishes us to understand that, in respect of His being God, there was no mother for Him” (Treatise on Faith and Creed, Ch. IV., 9).

History shows that before some theologians in Alexandria in the third century used the “Mother of God” title for Mary, it had been a title of Isis, the Egyptian goddess of fertility.

The city of Ephesus where it finally became a dogma in the 5th century, had long been devoted to the pagan goddess Diana. Apparently, the people were more influenced by the surrounding pagan culture than Scripture.

“The Council of Ephesus assembled in the basilica of the Theotokos in 431. There, if anywhere, in the city so notorious for its devotion to Artemis, or Diana as the Romans called her, where her image was said to have fallen from heaven, under the shadow of the great temple dedicated to the Magna Mater since 330 BC, and containing; according to tradition, a temporary residence of Mary, the title ‘God bearer’ hardly could fail to be upheld” (E. O. James, The Cult of the Mother Goddess, New York, 1959, 207).

“Veneration of the mother of God received its impetus when … the pagan masses streamed into the church … Their piety and religious consciousness had been formed for millennia through the cult of the ‘great mother’ goddess and the ‘divine virgin'” (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 16: 326-327).

The whole complex of Marian dogmas was a simply a transition from the old pagan mother goddess to a “new Christian” mother goddess under the guise of “Mary.”

The Immaculately Conceived Lie

images (1).jpeg

The Immaculate Conception doctrine states that from the instance of Mary’s conception in her mother’s womb, she was preserved free from the stain of original sin by the foreseen merits of Christ.

This dogma was first defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. Since then, there have been visions of “Mary” asking for reparation of the world to her “immaculate heart.”

This belief underlies the bulk of Catholic prayers and devotions. Since Rome says those who reject this doctrine are damned, we need to examine it.

The first problem with it is what the Bible says about all of humanity:

“There is none righteous, no, not one.” (Romans 3:10)

“For all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

No exception is made here or elsewhere for Mary. She was born with original sin like every other human. Only Jesus Christ is sinless.

Catholics would argue that, “It’s illogical that a perfect Christ would come from an imperfect Mary, therefore, Mary had to be free from original sin.”

The fact is, Jesus’ sinless nature came from God the Father, not from Mary.

Jesus has always existed eternally before Mary was ever born.

If the Catholic is going to be consistent with this argument, the Immaculate Conception doctrine, as it turns out, is viciously regressive.

If Mary was sinless, then Mary’s parents would also have to be sinless, since an imperfect parent can’t give birth to a perfect child. And as a result, Mary’s grandparents and great grandparents would also have to be perfect and free from sin as well.

This same perfection would also have to be present in her other relatives as well. So what we have here is an entire generation traced back to Eve, totally free from sin. If that’s the case, then Original Sin should be discarded. Obviously, this makes no sense either logically or biblically.

Over the years, Roman Catholic apologists have come up with other arguments to make this false doctrine appear Biblical, which I reply to below:

“That the word ‘Immaculate Conception’ isn’t found in the Bible doesn’t need mean the doctrine isn’t Biblical. The Bible doesn’t have the word ‘Trinity’, but it is still orthodox”

This is a fallacy of wrong parallel. There is an overwhelming data of Biblical evidence in context supporting the Trinity which cannot be presented for Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

“The universe was created in an immaculate state, free from any blemish or sin or imperfection. Out of it, God created Adam from the womb of the earth. So also, Jesus received his substance from his immaculate mother.”

This mode of Bible interpretation is absurd. You won’t find just one place in the Bible where the word “immaculate” is used in connection with the earth.

The perfection of the earth was a temporary situation anyway, so how does that parallel Mary? This sounds more like an argument that a goddess-worshipping New Ager would trot out.

“Genesis 3:15 says the “seed of the woman” would crush the serpent. If Mary wasn’t sinless, then this prophecy is false for she had to be sinless to crush Satan.”

The Catholic is influenced more by his faulty Douay-Rheims bible translation at this juncture.

While every other translation renders Genesis 3:15 as “It [the woman’s seed] shall bruise thy [the serpent’s], head, and thou [Satan] shall bruise his [Messiah’s] heel.” Their bible changes it to “she [the woman] shall bruise thy head.”

The import of Genesis 3:15 is about Jesus’ victory over Satan, not Mary at all. It takes a curious interpolation to see the immaculate conception there.

“Mary represents the Ark of the Covenant in the OT (Ex. 40: 34-8, 2 Sam. 6:14-16). Just as God wanted the ark to be perfect and blemish to be worthy receive His written word, He must have also wanted Mary to be perfect and unblemished to carry the Word of God in flesh.”

This attempt to parallel Mary with the Ark is totally absurd and flawed. If the ark of God typified Mary:

(a) That means she must also have been stolen by God’s enemies for a time, so she could be brought back to God’s people with great rejoicing (1Samuel 4).

(b) A man who touched Mary must have been killed as Uzzah was (2 Sam. 6:3-8).

(c) A bull and calf must have been sacrificed at each 6 steps Mary took as during the carriage of the Ark (2 Sam. 6:13).

This an abuse of Biblical interpretation. Catholics just pick and choose what aspects of Mary’s life they wish to parallel with the Ark and which parts they want to ignore.

Under this rule of “interpretation,” virtually anything can be proved and any conclusion can be drawn. Using such dumb typology, you can as well parallel Balaam’s ass with the pope or the land of Canaan with the Vatican city.

Elizabeth greeted Mary as “blessed among women.” This phrase has a superlative meaning implying Mary was the holiest of all women (Luke 1:42).

It is true that the term “blessed of all women” is a superlative and there are no superlatives in Hebrew or Aramaic. But the giant leap of the Catholic from “blessed” to “holy” here is fraudulent.

The Greek word translated as “blessed” there is eulogeo. It is defined as “to speak well of, to praise, to invoke blessings” (Strong #2127). No Greek lexical work defines it as “holy.”

No one who reads that text would get that idea, unless he is importing Rome’s myth into it.

If the word “blessed” makes Mary perfectly sinless, then all Believers too are immaculately conceived, because Jesus says we are “blessed” of the Father (Matt. 25:34).

When the angel appeared to Mary, he said ‘Greetings, you who are highly favoured! The Lord is with you.’ (Lk. 1:28) This is a recognition of her sinless state.”

This is Rome’s favourite argument. A Catholic apologist wrote that the Greek word kecharitomene translated as “highly favoured” means “full of grace” or a perfection of grace:

A perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively. The grace Mary enjoyed must have been as ‘full’ or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it must have extended over the whole of her life, from conception. That is, she must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called ‘full of grace’ or to have been filled with divine favor…” (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Ignatius Press, 1988, p. 269).

(a) There is a sleight-of-hand trick here. The Greek word “kecaritwmenh” is the perfect passive participle of the word “caritow.” This caritow is defined as “favoured one in the sight of God.” No lexical word defines it as sinlessness.

(b) The term “full of grace” is used only of Christ in John 1:14. It was never used of Mary (except in the spurious Catholic Douay Rheims version).

The Greek word “caritow” used in Luke 1:28 refers to God’s favour or grace. It’s also used in Ephesians 1:6 “…to the praise of the glory of his grace [caritow] upon us in the beloved…”

Unless Catholics want to tell us that all Believers have a “perfection of grace” or were immaculately conceived, this argument doesn’t fly.

(c) In that passage Luke refers to Mary as the object of divine favour, and not the source of divine grace.

There is simply no justification for jumping from the perfect tense of a Greek participle (kecaritomene) to the idea that the Greek “indicates a perfection of grace.”

That Rome has to resort to such complicated semantic acrobatics implies that they are not deriving this doctrine from the Bible, rather they are forcing it into it.

“The Early Church believed in the Immaculate Conception.”

The term “early church” has to be properly defined. If by “early” they are referring to prior to the 400 AD, then the above claim is false.

The immaculate conception dogma is missing from the earliest patristic sources. Mary didn’t even enter into the picture of theological disputes of the church fathers until the upsurge of Christological heresies and the impulse of asceticism and monasticism in church history.

Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, admits: “Neither Greek nor Latin Fathers explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Tan Publishers, 1960, p. 201)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, 7:378-81) states that:

“…the Immaculate Conception is not taught explicitly in Scripture … the earliest church Fathers regarded Mary as holy but not as absolutely sinless … It is impossible to give a precise date when this belief was held as a matter of Faith, but by the 8th or 9th century, it seems to have been generally admitted…”

Even after then, controversies over this dogma raged on for a whole 1000 years with the Dominicans fighting the Franciscans over the issue. The so-called “infallible authority” of Rome was neutral on the issue.

Even a 19th century Catholic bishop admitted:

“The Church does not decide the controversy concerning the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, and several other disputed points, because she sees nothing clear and certain concerning them either in the written or unwritten Word, and therefore leaves her children to form their own opinions concerning them” (Cited in George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church, 182)

This proves that this dogma was a very late development and had just been around only about 150 years. It can’t be supported either with the Bible or traditions.

The Mary of the Bible was born a sinner and offered temple sacrifices for her own purification (Luke 2:22-24; Lev. 12:1-8).

She also called God her “Saviour” (Luke 1:47), which would not have been so had she been without sin. But the Catholic Mary, modelled after the old pagan goddesses has replaced the true Biblical Mary in the minds of millions of Catholics.

Testing the Messages


The apparitions of a living, three-dimensional lady enveloped in bright light who introduces herself as the Virgin Mary are not new.

Many visionaries and seers describe her as a beautiful, young woman glowing in radiant splendour. There have been reports of luminous clouds, glowing orbs, tongues of fire, visions of angels, mysterious solar phenomena that accompanied these apparitions.

Whether in dreams or in reality, the consensus is that the Queen of heaven has messages to deliver to the world. This is no joke.

Her shrine in Guadalupe, Mexico, (dedicated to Juan Diego who saw “Our Lady” in 1531), has an annual visit of 15-20 million followers. The war-torn Bosnia, has received an estimated 30 million pilgrims visiting the Marian shrine at Medjugorje since 1981.

The Fatima Marian shrine in Portugal receives 4.5 million yearly while the Lourdes shrine receives more than 5 million pilgrims, and Poland’s shrine of Our Lady of Czestochowa draws 5 million pilgrims yearly.

Kenneth Woolward wrote in Newsweek:

“In many ways, the 20th century has belonged to Mary. From almost every continent, visionaries have reported more than 400 ‘apparitions’ of the Virgin – more than in the previous three centuries combined … Taken together, these visions point to what the Marian Movement believes is a millennial ‘Age of Mary'”.

These are not just wild, ecstatic visions in Catholic countries, but credible reports from many other countries.

In the 1960s, thousands of people saw a “lady composed of light,” holding a baby as she seems to float across the roof of a Coptic Orthodox church in Cairo, Egypt.

“Several nights each week,” wrote Ray Strant in Fatima Prophecy, “thousands of Muslims fell to their knees on prayer rugs spread wherever space permitted, and wept before the ‘magnificent, wondrous, glorious form of Our Lady from Heaven’.”

Now, if this mysterious lady is actually Mary and her messages are really from Heaven, then we need to test them with God’s Word.

The Bible commands us to “test all spirits” (1Jn. 4:1) and “Prove all things” (1Thess. 5:21). If her messages contradict God’s Word, we must reject them.

Some skeptics viscerally debunk reports of apparitions (even though the Catholic church hasn’t authenticated all of them), but an objective examination gives us reasons to believe a spirit being was indeed seen.

Nancy Fowler, a seer in Georgia, used to receive up to 100,000 visitors on her farm in one single day. These pilgrims came many great distances to hear from her, messages from the Queen of heaven.

In a certain video, two scientists investigated whether Fowler’s visions were made up or real. They reported that though she had a brain activity that looked like she was in a coma, yet she was fully alert and was able to respond. She was definitely in touch with the spirit realm.

In previous posts, the real identity of the Queen of Heaven and the miracles of Rome have been dealt with.

In 2004, Annabella Osibe in Ogoja, Cross River State (Nigeria), claimed that the “virgin Mary” appeared in her room while she was wide awake. She described seeing “an immaculate figure whose slender frame was outlined by a halo” and who had “the most adorable face I have ever seen.”

Before this vision, she was a member of Living Faith Church (a Pentecostal church) but she reverted to Catholicism afterwards. The question is: how did she know that the being she saw was really Mary? The report says:

The housewife, who had been born into a Catholic family and had herself attended Catholic schools and churches when she was young had no doubt that the figure standing before her was the Virgin Mary also known as Mary, the Mother of God” (Saturday Sun, February 17, 2007).

If I get this straight, the only criterion by which she “had no doubt” that she saw Mary was the pictures of Mary she had seen.

Who told her those were pictures of Mary? And which one out of the thousand pictures of Mary in all Catholic churches worldwide is the REAL picture of Mary? No explanation was given. All we are asked to believe is: she saw Mary. That actually proves she didn’t see Mary.

Demons are well able to appear as beautiful beings using a picture we are familiar with.

These apparitions come under different guises. When this entity appears in Africa, she looks African. When she appears in the East, she looks oriental. Her messages also vary.

When she appears to a Catholic, her messages are fully in line with Catholic beliefs. But when she appears to a New Ager for example, her messages are more New Age philosophies than rigid Catholicism.

This lends credence to the fact that there is an agenda behind the apparitions. There is a well-laid out plan from the spirit realm to enthrone her all over the world. She’s quoted saying:

Soon, I will come, my children! Soon, I will be in your midst with a great light. I will enlighten the entire world. Many souls will cry because they did not listen to my call. I will pass above everyone in a cloud and everyone will see me … I will give a great sign in the sky for those who still want to be saved” (Beckley and Crockett, Secret Prophecy of Fatima Revealed, 1991, 106-7)

In a message given to Chris Courtis in 2004 she says:

I wish to also tell you that before my apparitions end completely, I shall be seen by every denomination and religion throughout this world. I will be seen among all people, not for just a moment, but everyone will have a chance to see me.”

From the above quotes, it’s obvious that this Queen of heaven craves for worship from all over the world and this can only be realized by uniting all religions.

This desire for worship is exactly what Satan craves: “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High” (Isa. 14:14). This was the same thing he wanted Jesus to offer him (Matt. 4:8). Every time millions of people gather to worship this false Mary, Satan is right there.

Interestingly, “St” Mary of Agreda, a 17th century Catholic mystic, said: “Before the Second Coming of Christ, Mary must, more than ever, shine in mercy, might and grace in order to bring unbelievers into the Catholic Faith … Mary will extend the reign of Christ over the heathens and Mohammedans and it will be a time of great joy when Mary, as Mistress and Queen of Hearts, is enthroned” (Tetlow et al, Queen of All: Queen of Rome, Queen of Islam, Eternal Productions, 2006, 35-36).

Today, many Hindus, Buddhists and even Muslims embrace these apparitions. A Catholic magazine reported that “a Marian revival is spreading throughout Africa, with alleged apparitions of the Virgin Mary finding a following among Muslims…” (The Tablet, Feb. 29, 1992).

Jesus declared: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn. 14:6).

There is only one way to be saved and that is through Jesus Christ. It doesn’t matter what religion a person holds on to, if he does not trust in Jesus alone and in His perfect work on the cross, he is lost eternally.

In contrast, this spirit says:

Tell this priest, tell everyone, that it is you who are divided on earth. The Muslims and the Orthodox; for the same reason as Catholics; are equal before my Son and I [sic]; You are all my children” (Richard Beyer, Medjugorge Day by Day, 1993, April 6th meditation).

The basic error underlying this “message” is how it glosses over serious differences between Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Islam. They don’t believe in the same Mary.

The Catholic Mary was immaculately conceived; is the Mother of God; a perpetual virgin; Mediatrix and Queen of Heaven, while the Mary of Eastern Orthodoxy though sinless, wasn’t immaculately conceived.

The Mary of Islam – confused with Miriam the sister of Moses – is neither the “mother of God” nor of the Son of God (“Allah has no son” Q 4:171). This again proves that the entity giving this message is a deceiver.

The Biblical Mary, however, wasn’t sinless (Lk. 1:47), had other children (Mk. 6:3), was not the “mother of God” or the Queen of heaven. She had no leadership role among the apostles and taught no doctrine.

Don’t get me wrong, we love and honour Mary as we do the apostle Paul or Peter, but we don’t give her a place that God hasn’t given her, and nowhere in Scripture does God say He would send her to convert people’s hearts.

In an apparition in Venezuela, she said:

My children, I am giving you a piece of Heaven … It is for everyone, not only Catholics … My message is of faith, love, and hope. More than anything, it brings reconciliation between people and nations. It is the only thing that can save this century from war and eternal death.”

We don’t need peace with nations. What the Bible promises is “peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1) as a free gift of God’s grace by Christ’s death. That’s the only way to be saved from eternal death.

Individual peace comes by faith to all who believe the gospel. Until Jesus comes back to reign on earth, there can be no world peace.

The Gospel is about Jesus Christ who came to pay the penalty for our sins. The penalty He paid is infinite and no human – Mary, Buddha or Muhammad – can pay it. Only Jesus as the God-Man paid for it at the cross.

Those who repent and trust in Christ and His work are saved. So, there’s no such thing as a “co-redeemer” or a “co-mediatrix” with Christ.

But in a message, this spirit said:
I stand here as the Co-Redemptrix and Advocate. Everything should be concentrated on that. Repeat this after me: The new dogma would be the dogma of the Co-Redemptrix. Until I am acknowledged there where the Most Holy Trinity has willed me to be, I will not be able to exercise my power fully in the maternal work of co-redemption and as the universal mediation of graces” (Josef Kunzli, editor, The Messages of The Lady of All Nations, 1996, 49).

This is in direct opposition to the Bible.

Revelation 5:9 “…for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue and people and nation.”

Titus 2:14 “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own…”

Psalm 31:5 “Into your hands I commit my spirit; redeem me, O LORD God of truth.”

Nowhere does God say Mary has the power to redeem. It’s blasphemous to transfer God’s abilities to Mary. It’s even an anti-Christ teaching. The lady of Fatima declared:

I will never leave you. My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge, and the way that will lead you to God … Sacrifice yourself for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary…” (Lucia Speaks on the Message of Fatima, 26, 29-31)

The blasphemies here are obvious. The statement “I will never leave you” was Jesus’ promise to His disciples. How can Mary do this without being omnipresent – an attribute of God alone?

She says “My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge” but that contradicts Scripture: “I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress…” (Ps. 91:2).

She says “Sacrifice yourselves…” but only Christ’s sacrifice avails for sinners (Heb 10:10-12).

She speaks of “sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary” but our sins are committed against God, not Mary. David said to God: “Against you, you only, have I sinned…” (Psa. 51:4).

She also said:

Each of My statues is a sign of a presence of Mine and reminds you of your heavenly Mother. Therefore it must be honoured and put in places of greater veneration…” (Fr. Don Gobbi, To The Priests, Our Lady’s Beloved Sons, 1998, 383).

Since there are thousands of statues of Mary worldwide, for her presence to be in each of them, she would have to be omnipresent.

Even Catholics are aware that some images of “Mary” exhibit more power than the rest. In Italy, for instance, there are different “Madonnas.” Some are believed to protect children or help with specific occupations. Seekers can drive for miles, bypassing several images of “Mary” until they reach the one they think can help them the most.

In the cathedral of Chartres, France, only 3 out of many images of Mary are said to be powerful – Our Lady of the Crypt, Our Lady of the Pillar and Our Lady of the Belle Verriere. Why? Because there are demons behind these statues and their power levels differ.

This demonic entity is sometimes accompanied by a helpless, little baby, said to be “Jesus”. This happened at Fatima:

On the 10th of December, 1925, the Most Holy Virgin Mary appeared to Lucia, with the Child Jesus by Her side, elevated on a cloud of light” (Lucia Speaks: The Message of Fatima, 1968, 46).

Jesus Christ has ascended to heaven in His glorified body and is now at the right hand of the Father. But it defies all bounds of rational thought and reality to imagine that Christ is still a baby accompanying His mother.

Jesus is coming back as a Man, not a baby. “Then people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory” (Mk. 13:26)

“…Jesus, who was taken from you to heaven will come back in the same way that you saw him go to heaven” (Acts 1:11)

The Lord Jesus made it clear that the last days will be characterised by great deception. Much of this will be spectacular miraculous signs and the promotion of a false Christ that may deceive even the elect.

The Bible also warns that even if an angel descends from heaven to preach a gospel contrary to the one taught in the Bible, let him be condemned.

We therefore, we reject the messages and signs of the Queen of heaven as deceitful and diabolical (Gal. 1:8). Come out of her, God’s people and be no partaker of her evils.