The Ark Of The Covenant Has Been Discovered Two Millenia Ago And Is Found In Bethlehem And With Its Discovery Expect A Coming War And Heavy Persecution

By Walid Shoebat (Shoebat Sunday Special)

Many labored in finding the lost Ark when this whole time it was placed right in front of them in Bethlehem two millennia ago. One secret that is rarely understood to finding this Ark was hidden in Psalm 132 and in plain view. In what is probably the least read verses in Scripture we find it:

1 Lord Jehovah, remember David and all his affliction! 2 For he swore to Lord Jehovah and vowed to the God of Jacob: 3 “I shall not enter to the roof of my house; I shall not ascend to the mattress of my bed,” 4 “I shall not give sleep to my eyes, neither slumber to my eyebrows” 5 “Until I find a place for Lord Jehovah and a tent for the God of Jacob“. 6 Behold, we heard it in Ephrata and we found it in the fields.7 We shall enter his tabernacle and we shall worship at the stool of his feet. 8 Arise, Lord Jehovah, to your rest, you and the ark of your might9 Your priests will wear righteousness and your righteous ones -glory. 10 Because of David your Servant, do not turn away the face of your Anointed11 Lord Jehovah has sworn to David in truth and he will not turn from it: “One from the fruits of your loins I shall set upon your throne“. 12 “If your sons will keep my covenant -this testimony that I teach them, some also of their children will dwell to the eternity of eternities upon your throne” 13 “Because Lord Jehovah is pleased in Zion and he chose it a dwelling place.” 14 “This is my rest to an eternity of eternities; here I shall sit because I desired it.” 15 “And I shall bless her game and her poor ones I shall satisfy with bread“. 16 “I shall clothe her priests with salvation and her righteous ones in glory”. 17 “There I shall make the trumpet of David shine and I will shine a lamp for his Anointed.” 18 “And I shall clothe his enemies in shame, and upon him my holiness will flourish.” (Psalm 132, Aramaic Bible)

Wow! This packs some heavy clues. Today few pay attention to, especially when the text speaks of the Ark resting in Ephrata (Bethlehem).

Even the best of Protestant commentaries, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible is confused on how to interpret these verses since historically the Ark if the Covenant never rested in Bethlehem Ephratah:

 Lo, we heard of it at Ephratah – Most probably this is the language of the contemporaries of David; or this is what they might be supposed to say; or this is what tradition reports that they did say. David’s purpose, as referred to in the previous verses, is not recorded in the history, and the memory of the whole transaction may have been handed down by tradition. Or, this may be merely poetic language, expressing the feelings of those who, when sent out by David, or accompanying him, found the ark. Much difficulty has been felt in regard to this verse. There is no mention in the history of the fact that the ark was “heard of” at Ephrata, or that it was ever there. The name Ephrata – אפרתה ‘ephrâthâh – is applied

He jotted several presumptions and concluded that the verse is difficult to interpret.

But the Bible is perfectly accurate. If the Ark rested in Bethlehem then it did.

You might quickly and prematurely say that the Ark here is Christ Who rested in Bethlehem. But this interpretation presents a major problem for Bible scholars. Take the same Albert Barnes (1798-1870) who wrote Barnes Notes, he knows that such an interpretation sets a major trap; how could this Ark in Psalm 132 be Christ when it accompanied Christ Himself in heaven?

Pay close attention: “Rise up, Lord [Christ], come to Your resting place, You and Your powerful ark”.

We do not have two Messiahs. There is only one.

And what is this ark all about? Here:

“Lord Jehovah, remember David and all his affliction! … I shall not enter to the roof of my house; I shall not ascend to the mattress of my bed. I shall not give sleep to my eyes, neither slumber to my eyebrows Until I find a place for Lord Jehovah and a tent for the God of Jacob.

God remembers the suffering of David “Lord Jehovah, remember David and all his affliction”. He vows He will not ascend until He first descends and finds an earthly vessel, a tabernacle for a dwelling “for the God of Jacob” Who is Christ.

And this dwelling houses is for the God of Jacob (Christ) which is specifically announced to be in Bethlehem: “Behold, we heard it in Ephrata and we found it in the fields.” This is the Angelic Proclamation to the Shepherds where the shepherds heard of it (the Ark) in the Shepherd’s Fields in Bethlehem “Behold, we heard it in Ephrata and we found it in the fields.”  

Therefore, this Ark pertains to the one Who housed Christ. This would be Mary when She arrived in Bethlehem Ephratah. God even had angels proclaim to shepherds to “go up to Bethlehem Ephratah” from the Shepherds Fields when she gave birth to the Messiah.

As the text so clearly reveals, there was only one “dwelling for the Mighty One of Jacob” that is “the ark in Ephrathah [Bethlehem]” where God commanded “do not reject Your anointed one” Who can only be the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of the living God housed in His Mother’s womb.

The rarely read Psalm 132 has a typological meaning that the “LORD” (Christ) who “arises” in the resurrection and ascends to the right hand of the Father will not rest until He dwells in the “ark” which is later taken up after He completes His mission fulfilling the suffering of David “Lord Jehovah, remember David and all his affliction.”

This ark was what held the Word of the New Covenant which is Christ Himself Whom was found for Him a tabernacle (Mary) and was heard of in Bethlehem’s Shepherd’s Fields.

So He ascends and this tabernacle, the tent that housed Him (Mary) will also be assumed to heaven which is His house: “I shall not enter to the roof [top] of my house; I shall not ascend to the mattress of my bed …”  

And may I remind, throughout the Psalms, David’s contemplations are Christ’s.

From this there is no escape; this prophecy is as powerful as Micah 5. But it also speaks of Mother Mary. This is why many of the later scholars like Albert Barnes and other interpreters finagle the meaning claiming “Much difficulty has been felt in regard to this verse”; but all Bible scholars knew that the apostolic succession church believed the Ark was Mary and they did everything in their power to cover it up.

Unless we have the right piece of the puzzle we cannot interpret or even find the true Christ. To find Him, you must also find the Ark. Yet many interpret this Ark to be either a box or Jesus. But the box never rested in Bethlehem. Jesus is not the Ark as Psalm 132 clearly reveals for we would have two Messiahs.

However, Jesus did reside in Mary’s womb. Can any Christian deny that? But God forbid we examine this one because this became a major controversial topic only in the 19th century onwards and when many were deceived, they finagled the meaning and the Ark was strictly interpreted as Jesus.

But the Bible is a puzzle where any wrong piece will distort the entire image.

The world is filled with millions of babies who do not know how to put a simple puzzle together

By missing this crucial piece no one can put the prophetic puzzle together.

So lets find other pieces many miss and get back to this hotly debated topic, keeping in mind that the first hotly debated topic ended up with only Noah winning while the earth with its entire population drowned to death (truth is not a majority vote).

“Remember David and all his affliction.” Psalm 132 speaks of David’s afflictions where the text swings from heaven towards earth and then earth towards heaven. This type of expression has a purposeChrist asked Paul: “why do you persecute me?” Paul asked, “Who are you, Lord?” And Christ responded: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting”.

Paul was abusing Jesus yet he was not, directly that is, but here we have Jesus from Heaven itself is now on earth and is speaking to Paul, on earth, and is saying that He is being actively persecuted by Paul!

No one can fathom this unless the church on earth is linked to heaven and this access is the continuation of the Incarnation of Christ on Earth and is why scripture seems to jump between heaven and earth as we see in Psalm 132 as well as in Revelation 11-12.

This corporate unity between heaven and earth is well etched throughout scripture and involves much persecution:

“When the dragon [serpent] saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.” (Revelation 12:13)

So here we have a woman also being persecuted just as Jesus was persecuted. Is she in heaven or on earth? Scripture usually combines the earthy saints with the saints in heaven as one sphere.

Yet so crucial is this prophecy in Revelation 11-12. It is the fulfillment of the most ancient of prophecies in Genesis 3:15:

“I will put enmities between thee [Lucifer] and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”

Here, I will instantly get an objection; ‘stop teaching Mariology, this is a Catholic translation, all the other translations including the Hebrew says “His seed”‘.

True. But such a comment is repeated millions of times by people who lack wisdom. Does the translation by St. Jerome make any difference? In Revelation 12, the devil persecutes her seed:

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Revelation 12:14,17)

Here she is a single individual with multiple individuals (seed) being persecuted and in all translations it is ‘her seed’.

And so by persecuting her seed, she too is being persecuted just as described in Revelation 11-12. But it is also Christ Who is being persecuted just as He told Paul “why do you persecute Me“. Persecuting the saints or the Woman is just as persecuting Christ Himself as He so clearly described in Matthew 25.

This should establish the final peace treaty between Protestants and Catholics and so ‘blessed are the peace makers’; in this case this would be me. Success at last.

Therefore, Genesis 3:15 speaks of the “seed of the woman” as well as the seed of Christ. This would be Mary’s seed (plural seed) in a corporate way and is also Christ’s seed. Any doubts about this just read Isaiah 53:

“he [Messiah] will see his seed [offspring] and prolong his days” (Isaiah 53:10).

We also find Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 explained fully in Wisdom 2. He will see His seed and all this is in the context of a suffering servant who suffers, and by extension His seed also suffers; the Church that does not suffer is not the true Church.  

Unless one understands that the church is corporate and it collaborates with the church in heaven above, while it suffers on earth below, they are not of Christ’s Church. Unless one accepts that Genesis 3:15 speaks of Isaiah 53 and of the Ark of Revelation 11-12, and of Psalm 132, it is impossible to join His Kingdom.

But where do we find that Ark in Revelation 11-12? It is in plain view for all who seek:

“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple.” (Revelation 11:19)

And to interpret the context regarding this Ark as if it is strictly the box, Christ or Israel presents the same dilemma as in Psalm 132.

At this point chapter 11 ends and chapter 12 begins. But the Bible was not written with chapter divisions—they were added in the 12th century. When John penned these words, there was no division between chapters 11 and 12; it was a continuing narrative. And what did John say immediately after seeing the Ark of the Covenant in heaven? Here it is:

“And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child” (Revelation 12:1-2).

This ‘Ark‘ that was seen in the heavenly Temple was a ‘woman’ who “brought forth a man child” (v.5); these are two separate individuals and she too is persecuted just as the man child is.

But this same Ark (the Woman) in Psalm 132 accompanies Christ Himself: “Arise, O Lord [God], and go to your resting placeyou [Christ/God] and the ark of your might [that housed God on earth]… For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it [Zion] for his [God’s] dwelling place: This is my resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it.”

“Arise O Lord and go” Him and His ark. This Ark where God dwelt was assumed up in heaven and is resting with Messiah after His ressurection “go to your resting place, you and the ark of your might” in “Zion”.  

Did God assume a box into heaven? And how is this “Zion” on earth, in Jerusalem, especially when it says that Christ ascended to Zion and that this Zion is His “resting place forever.” He has His ark with Him. This “Zion” is the very “Mount Zion” in Hebrews 12 where we approach “Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to Godthe judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect [saints], and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant…”

One cannot be of the Kingdom and ignore the connect to the heavenly Mount Zion. It is impossible.

One can never interpret the New Testament or the Old Testament without having both testaments shed light on each other.

On the road to Emmaus even the two of the disciples were conversing when Jesus joined them He opened up the Scriptures (this would be the Old Testament) and interpreted all “the things concerning himself”. Christ, Himself, sets up the rules on how to do exegesis by looking back to the Old Testament to understand what is happening in the New. One can never isolate Psalm 132 regarding the Ark from the Ark of Revelation 11-12. It is impossible to ignore. St. Augustine said, “the New Testament is concealed in the Old, and the Old is revealed in the New.” This is known as typology.

Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, even the Church from its inception laid the foundation by using typology in their biblical exegesis. This is what the first Christians did when searching for a defense against the Jews and heretics to show the truths about this woman, and thereby about Christ. Asking for direct quotes and direct references without typology is the way of the heretic who demands certain words be present to satisfy his scoffing.

So who is this woman? The catch 22 Jesus-style question is this; if this suffering woman being chased by Lucifer is “Israel” these must then contend with Isaiah 53 in which “the suffering servant” must also be “Israel“.

Answering this completely debunks any anti-Catholic argument since this is exactly what the Jews argue till this day for they too emphatically contend that Isaiah 53 is regarding Israel and not Jesus. This interpretation renders Jesus as Messiah to be obsolete.

To strictly apply the woman as “Israel” will also render Christ’s seed (His church) also obsolete. This will force all objectors to convert to Judaism. Even the Jews cannot easily interpret Psalm 132 unless they assume that a box was assumed to heaven.

One cannot have it both ways. And with such faulty interpretation one can easily twist the verses where we have no virgin birth  arguing over the Almah versus Bethula which the Jews love to make such arguments.

Clicking to read modern Jewish arguments against Christianity are no different from clicking and reading modern Protestant arguments against Catholicism; both use the same methods. They both apply the same approach in order to avoid the obvious.

But why doesn’t God just make Himself plain!? Why would the Holy Spirit simply not instruct one of the biblical writers just jot: “the Ark is the Woman Mary, the Mother of Jesus”? After all this virgin birth is the salvation of the Jews and the gentiles!

This question in itself solves a mystery. Nowhere are any of these mysteries made clear in the Old Testament. But strangely, the Jews translated Alma (young maiden) to “Virgin” in the Greek Septuagint centuries before Christ. Why? It is because these translators had the Holy Spirit guiding them. They knew something we didn’t. Perhaps they knew that God will choose the unusual meaning over the usual expectations of man.

This is why I would rather trust the great men of God over any modern Bible translator. This is why I’d rather trust St. Jerome who translated the Bible from the Septuagint which has been the major source for Jesus and the Apostles.

If it was good for Jesus it should be good for us.

Jesus was aided by the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea just as St. Jerome was aided by a wealthy Roman aristocrat, Paula and he stayed in a monastery in Bethlehem and he completed his translation there. He used the Septuagint which the Jews translated in Alexandria, yet the mainstream Rabbinical Judaism rejected the Septuagint as invalid because of what were ascertained as mistranslations since it supported Christian theology. They insisted that Almah can never pertain to a virgin and they denounced the Septuagint even though they all used it before and during Christ. Today many evangelicals reject the Septuagint.

Even after the Jews had such division over Mary which came way later on when Protestant Christians in the nineteenth century became divided between two spheres arguing over the perpetual virginity of Mary. One side still argues that the perpetual virginity of Mary is an invention of human tradition while the ancient side argues that it is in the Bible. They began questioning; did Mary have relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus? Is it usual that a husband and wife live together without sex?

As it seems, we should never discount the unusual choice. But instead of speaking plainly God tells us that:

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18).

The Greek word ‘sunerchomai’, translated as “came together” by the naked eye seems to refer to sexual relations until we find that ‘sunerchomai’ occurs 33 times in the New Testament, and only once (1 Cor. 7:5) is a sexual interpretation even possible. This becomes as unusual as the “alma” (maiden) and “bethulah” (virgin) controversy.

Today’s Evangelical would definitely go for ‘bethulah’ (maiden) to imply ‘virgin’ just as the Catholic would.

So why didn’t God plainly say whether Joseph “knew her” or “didn’t know her” and had His children live in relative peace and harmony? Why would God rather watch us from above split, squabble, bicker and even kill each other?

But this is how God divides sheep from goats, tares from wheat. Even if God gave all the answers, the tares will find a way to cause division no matter how plain the text is. The tares are known for their divisive approach to everything holy.

Even in Matthew 1:24-25, which says that Joseph “had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus,” the word “until” seems to indicate that after the birth of Jesus there were normal marital relations. However, the Greek word heos which is translated as until, does not imply that anything happened after Jesus‘ birth, nor does it exclude it. In Luke 1:80, in reference to John the Baptist it states: “The child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the desert until the day of his manifestation to Israel.” Does this mean that once he appeared publicly he left the desert? No. The Baptist as we know from Scripture was a monastic who still lived in the desert after that. Therefore, Joseph, they say, had no relations with Mary even after she bore a Son. The Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For instance, the Greek text of the Septuagint says in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” This obviously does not suggest that she had children after her death.

Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man. So says one side of the argument. The other side says that Mary had her “firstborn son” must imply that she had a “second” or even a “third” son. But the term prôtotokos, “firstborn,” as applied to males is recognized to have a unique legal  meaning. In Exodus 13:2, the Lord says: “Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine.” Moses, in Exodus 13:12, adds: “You shall set apart to the Lord all that first opens the womb.” Firstborn does not necessitate there is, or there is not, a second born.

The lazy servant would read: “And She brought forth Her first-born Son” (Lk. 2:7) and conclude that she must have had others while the wise understands that the “firstborn” does not refer to Jesus’ birth order, the word ‘protokos‘ would be better translated as “firstborn of God” describing the supreme importance of his birth.

And scriptures validate this: “He is “the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature” (Col. 1:15) and “The faithful witness, the first begotten of the dead” (Apoc. 1:5) Who was the first to rise to immortal life “the first born into the world” (Heb 1:6); “the firstborn of the dead” (Col 1:18) … the one who has primacy over all.

Therefore, God’s church is a structure and Christ has primacy over all since He is the first born of all creation.

But the lazy servant would counter and say that God Himself said, “Israel is my son, my firstborn” (Ex 4:22) yet the wise replies that Jesus is the New Israel, while salvation came through the Chosen People Israel, now salvation comes through the newborn Jesus, the firstborn of Israel.

God just did not want to be plain in order to divide wise from lazy which is exactly what Christ proclaimed: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 26:52)

If Joseph and Mary never had sexual relations, why didn’t Matthew simply write, “He knew her not until the day of his death”? This way everyone will turn Catholic. Or why didn’t He say “He knew her after she bore a son”? This way two billion Catholics will turn Evangelical.

So the text isn’t that cut and dry. On such issues He does not speak plainly and nor does He accept phone calls for an interview to ask Him. Instead, He has us debate these issues ad nauseam while He watches from above at the wrong foolish side that didn’t get it and the wise who did.

As it seems, in Gods ways, even amongst his institution, there is always two sides, one is right while the other is wrong, Cain got it wrong and Abel got it right.

But how does one know who got it right or who got it wrong?

The answer to this is simple; the one who got it right is always hated by the side that got it wrong. Finding the hatred is key. Finding out who attacks and who defends reveals tare from wheat.

Even Galatians 4:29 confirms: “the sons born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit”.

This in itself is prophetic for the whole of scripture is prophetic; the one that attacks is the tare and the one that is attacked is the wheat for the tares saps the wheat and wares it down

So which interpretation attacked the other? The Church from its inception believed in the apostolic tradition regarding Mary until the 19th century. Historically, who attacked who?

The wise sees clearly that the text is not so clear while the unwise demands clear text and he mocks and attacks the wise for failing to do so always asking ‘chapter and verse’.

In Matthew 13, Scripture said: “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us”.

And from the plain English it seems that Mary did know Joseph. After all where did these “brothers” and “sisters” come from? So we think that finally God made Himself plain.

But He didn’t. He later on throws in a monkey wrench. The text was written in the socio-cultural milieu of the authors of the New Testament. In Judaism the use of the word “brother” (adelphos) could be referring to actual siblings or to non-siblings. And then we find in Mark 15:40, where they are said to be the sons of some Mary, one of the women watching the crucifixion who was never identified as the mother of Jesus.

Nowhere in the New Testament are these “brothers” of Jesus also identified as “sons of Mary”. James and Joses are two of the “brethren” of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 13:55, so this woman is clearly their mother, not the Mother of Jesus. This “other Mary” (Mt 28:1) is mentioned in John 19:25 as “Mary the wife of Cleophas”, the “sister” of Jesus’ mother Mary (“sister” here probably refers to a sister-in-law, since they are both called Mary).

Why couldn’t God make Himself plain and say “His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, the sons of Mary mother of Jesus“?

In Mark 6:3, the people of Nazareth identified Jesus as “the son of Mary.” Some argue that this is not necessarily to allude to Jesus’ virginal conception, but to possibly deny Jesus since people in Nazareth suspected or knew that Jesus was not Joseph’s child alluding he was illegitimate. Christian history argues that “the Son of Mary” in Mark 6:3 is a phrase which in that culture denoted the only child of a widow. And Mary is always called simply “the mother of Jesus”, never “the mother of Jesus, James, Joses, Simon, Judas and their sisters”.

What we do know is that the vast majority of the Fathers of the Church believed that Mary’s virginity remained post partum and the few who denied the perpetual virginity was considered a heretic like Helvidian and Hegesippus and these became extinct. So if these two were the true Church, Jesus then failed to ‘build His church’ until the 19th century arrived. Yet the closer we get to the end, scripture states that the church will become more heretical. How is it then that the most heretical generation is now most holy accurate?

Christians did not find it an obstacle to consider Jesus’ adelphoi as his cousins, step-brothers or half-brothers. All churches adopted that point of view–be it the Catholic one, the Orthodox one, or even the Reformation one (with Luther and Calvin).

What would shock most is that it was only until the nineteenth century, when people thought that they were smarter and so biblical scholars began to question the consensus in the name of the historical-critical method of interpretation.

Sounds surprising? It isn’t. But this is the truth. And here we are told to believe that the Church has always got it wrong for 20 centuries.

But more important than all this diatribe. We are of the seed of Christ, but we are also of the seed of Mary for we call her “our Mother”.

The Bible itself seems to leave many issues open for speculation. But the question is why? Why didn’t God make it so plainly conclusive in the Bible?

The answer to this again is simple. Typology and allegory are at times the only weapon we have to thwart the heretic and is why Christ Himself alluded to this when He was asked: “Why do You speak to them in parables?” (Matthew 13:10) and Christ responded clearly:

“Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given . . . . And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will see and not perceive, for the heart of this people has grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their heart and turn, so that I should heal them’ (Matthew 13:11,14,15).

This is how wheat and tares are divided.

In fact, scripture is clear that without a “mother” or an “altar of sacrifice” there is no church. John allegorically describes (as Ezekiel described) the measuring rod to measure the temple:

“And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein [around an altar]. But the court which is without the temple [without an altar of sacrifice] leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles [pagans]: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.” (Revelation 11:1-2).

This “Altar” and “woman” in Revelation 11-12 is a major clue. If this “altar” was in a rebuilt Jewish temple, Hebrews 13:10 makes a compelling argument:

We [the true church] have an altar from which the [Jewish] priests in the [temple] Tabernacle have no right to eat.”

This is clearly no altar for the Jews who reject Christ and without a literal altar there is no church.

If such an altar was spiritual to signify Christ or the Cross, why would the Jews have no right to spiritually feed on Jesus or the old rugged cross? Therefore, you either have “an altar” and a “mother” or you don’t. And if you don’t; you are left out of the temple of God.

John is very clear on this and in fact he ties this whole story of Revelation 12 to the Ark of the Covenant in Revelation 11. If this “ark” is a literal ark to be placed in a Jewish temple, how could this verse fit:

“Return [repent], faithless Israel,’ declares the Lord, ‘I will frown on you no longer, for I am faithful,’ declares the Lord, ‘I will not be angry forever … I will choose you—one from a town and two from a clan—and bring you to Zion. Then I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will lead you with knowledge and understanding. In those days, when your numbers have increased greatly in the land,” declares the Lord, “people will no longer say, ‘The ark of the covenant of the Lord.’ It will never enter their minds or be remembered; it will not be missed, nor will another one be made. At that time they will call Jerusalem The Throne of the Lord, and all nations will gather in Jerusalem to honor the name of the Lord.

He brings them to the Mount Zion of God where Jerusalem is finally redeemed and there will be no talk of a literal Ark. Unless one has the correct piece of the puzzle, no matter what one does to gymnastically twist it, the puzzle will not fit and the whole structure would look awkward.

That piece is the corporate responsibility where heaven and earth cooperate and where the Church has an altar, a mother and a presence of Christ on earth to be with us in the Eucharist until the close of the age. After all “His name shall be called Emanuel” which is “God with us”. This presence is not just the first coming or some pie in the sky, but an actual presence. It is either God is always with us or He is not. He said: “I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world“. (Matthew 28:20) How is Christ with us until the end of the world? One cannot argue “the Holy Spirit”.

But the puzzle was already put together a thousand times over from the first century onwards. The Church are the Christians who see the woman, Mary, as the crowned queen;

“Then a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and with the moon under her feet, and on her head was a crown of twelve stars … the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent … And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Revelation 12:1, 14,17)

The dragon was wroth with the Queen woman (thats one part of this equation) and went to make war with the remnant of her seed (this is the other part of this equation) and these have “the testimony of Jesus Christ“.

This alone completely abolishes the argument that the woman is the earthly Israel but is Mary with her seed, the Israel of God.

As John clearly stated, “the court outside the temple” “outside the altar” who do not have an altar, are the Christians that were not tested (measured), but will be left out as lazy servants.

The Church Christ founded as soon as He departed is a structured, visible Church where deacons and priests were approved and blessed, where Mary was honored and where an Altar was clearly used from New Testament times until now. A Christian in the first century cannot choose to accept Christ but not join this visible Church at the time. This is impossible and no scholar has ever proven that churches were independent from one another; they all were part of a hierarchy.

To reject that church in the first century meant you rejected Christ Himself. It meant that you are left out. You cannot divide between the two. Had a self-appointed pastor started a denomination then, this would go against what Christ said “I will build my church” which is a single universal church that encompass the whole earth.

How it started was simple: “He appointed twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach” (Mark 3:14).

Do you see this “He appointed”?

Was anyone in the entire Bible self-appointed? Never. You would never find such a thing in the entire scriptures.

One might argue that it was Christ Who appointed these and not some church hierarchy. Really?

From Christ “the first born” (He is the head) Jesus appointed others: 

So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on themSo the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.” (Acts 6:2-7)

So what if some follower of these men decided to start his own church purchasing some real estate downtown Jerusalem, would this suffice? Never. This renegade would be the church-rebellion. Every ordained minister had to be “presented” “to the apostles” for approval and the laying of hands to bless them. Without the hierarchical blessing they are out of the temple of God. Barnabas and Paul went to Derbe, a city in the Roman province of Galatia in Asia Minor where:

 “They preached the gospel in that city and won a large number of disciples. Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said.” (Acts 14:21-22)

Without hardship, they would not enter the Kingdom of God. Then “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.” (Acts 14:23)

Do we find anywhere in scripture where the converts in Lystra, Iconium and Antioch on their own accord ‘appointed elders’ (priests)? They had to be “appointed” as scripture states.

To self-appoint oneself would have been unthinkable. Everyone who was appointed was appointed through a hierarchy where Christ is the head. Therefore, any renegade or self-appointed priest would not be part of the Church or the Kingdom of God.

The Church then, and just like it is in the apostolic-succession churches today did not practice liberal independent capitalism. They shared and were part of a communal structure just as we see today in the apostolic succession:

“There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.” (Acts 4:34)

And there are even many clues in scripture as to who the renegades (the tares) were and how they believed and thought. During the time of Jesus, the protesters of the day were the Sadducees who protested much. Their main difference was that they rejected the Oral Law (Holy Tradition) which was set throughout the ages and was passed down and taught by the Pharisees just as Paul taught “brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” (2 These 2:15)

Whether by word” was not a written scripture.

But besides oral tradition, even the Church, stemmed out of the Pharisees and not the Sadducees. Converts from the Sadducees are never found in scripture. From Genesis to Revelation, the whole story of God’s people is always a divide between Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, wheat and tares, sheep and goat, trustworthy servants who aided in Christ’s suffering and unworthy servants who said “Lord Lord” yet He rejected them …

Today’s self-appointed pastors are no different than the Sadducees.

But even the story of the Sadducees is in itself prophetic. Everything in Scripture is prophetic. These had lesser books than the Pharisees and were strict sola-scripturists and they saw the written Torah as the sole source of divine authority. In Acts 4 it was the “Sadducees [who] came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead.” (Acts 4:1-2) Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. 

And today self-proclaimed pastors are running roundabout with seven missing books claiming to fully accept the resurrection of the dead, yet these offer one caveat; when it comes to the saints in heaven, they deny they are living and claiming that these are “dead”. The saints become ‘dead’ when it comes to the intercession of the saints. So the saints are ‘dead’ when scripture itself proclaimed that they are truly ‘living’ “to be absent of the body is to be present with the Lord”.

This is a major contradiction which reveals that to miss one piece of the puzzle is a disaster.

They only speak of substance when it comes to the corps when Christians ask for the intercession of saints. Then they speak of the spirit yet they ignore the substance in the Eucharist.

But the testing is on its way. In fact, we have seen it already and recent history proves the apostolic succession’s interpretation. We see globally from Egypt to Poland, that it is the Apostolic Succession churches that are persecuted by the millions. What is the number of persecuted Protestants in the last century? Again, John describes this by taking a measuring rod to measure (test) the temple:

“And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure [test] the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple (the true church) leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.” (Revelation 11:1-2).

Notice the theme of Revelation 11-12, the seed of the woman is the one chased by Lucifer for persecution. The temple is being trodden for 42 months. Notice the “altar and them that worship therein” are the only ones ‘measured’ (tested by fire of persecution) while the tares who have no altar are left without.

But this is in itself prophetic; it is amazing to see that John through the Holy Spirit foreknew that such a divide will exist in the last days where a huge portion of what constitutes the church (temple) would have no altar of sacrifice and in fact such an altar is mocked daily by protesters calling it sun disk and accusing it to be pagan while they completely ignore that in Revelation 11-12 the true seed (the true church) are of the Queen Woman.

That should be astounding to any true seeker of Christ. No wonder why Christ demanded we search with all of our hearts, strength and mind.

And how could such mockery of Christ, His Altar, His Presence and His Mother be included in the Kingdom? John makes perfect sense. These are not brethren unless they repent. Yet Revelation 11-12 is clearly and primarily the Church (who see the woman, Mary, as the crowned queen) since “the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent … And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Revelation 12:14,17)

“The court outside the temple” are the Christians that were not protected and are taken away by the serpent and not destined for persecution and will be subject to Satan’s deception during that same time (Revelation 12:17).

One cannot put the pieces of the puzzle without understanding that the Ark is Mary, the Woman is Mary and the Altar is the Eucharistic sacrificial altar and that both Jesus and Mary have the Church as the seed of both Christ and Mary and that Antichrist comes to stop the “grain offering” and that the priests in Joel 2 weep since “The grain offering [Bread] and the drink offering [wine]. Have been cut off from the house of the Lord [the Temple]; The priests mourn, who minister to the Lord … Alas for the day! For the day of the Lord is at hand; It shall come as destruction from the Almighty” and in  Daniel “he will stop the sacrifice and grain offering” involves the desecration or the prohibition of the Eucharist for if we knowingly consume what is desecrated or reject to consume the Body of Christ then we have desecrated the very Temple of God.

Today we see countless of renegades demean Christ’s mother, Altar, Incense and all. Cain mocks the pleasant smoke to God’s nostrils. So would the King Who was born in Bethlehem, and Who declared that the one without proper garments to enter hell, all of the sudden He allows someone to treat His mother as an incubator and give her a lesser status from a queen?

Impossible. One must put on their best attire in Christ’s wedding and have ample oil in their lamps. We are dealing here with the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. I weep writing these words and I tremble as I contemplate God’s mysteries and His awesome Wisdom. I witnessed His very footsteps and I denied Him more than thrice. Have mercy on my soul O Son of David a sinner.

St. Jerome who dwelt in Bethlehem learned Hebrew and defended the honor Queen and Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. In his The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, Against Helvidius, St. Jerome replied to that Helvidius the heretic, who had denied the Perpetual Virginity:

“You have set on fire the temple of the Lord’s body; you have defiled the sanctuary of the Holy Ghost from which you are determined to make a team of four brethren and a heap of sisters come forth. In a word, joining in the chorus of the Jews, you say, ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? The word  would not be used if there were not a crowd of them.’ Pray tell me, who, before you appeared, was acquainted with this blasphemy? Who thought the theory worth two-pence? You have gained your desire, and are become notorious by crime.”

Even the existence and the ending of Helvidius is prophetic for in the end of days these will arise who completely lack knowledge and would hate knowledge claiming that ‘it is not about knowledge’ while God Himself said that “my people are destroyed for the lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6).

One cannot dare today tell any woman, unless they are a fanatic Muslim, that she is nothing more than a “functionary,” used by her husband to bear a son destined to die as a Muslim martyr. But the Divine Son of God? With Christ we have all the multitudes of heretics are daily daring to say this of only one woman; the marvelous Woman, the Immaculate Conception!

These would make a web of confusion which takes the wise ample work to reveal their deception.

Scripture is written in a way that the scoffer will choose the faulty comprehension. Scripture is no biography or a historic record but is a teaching. The lost would read Christ and His disciples picking a few kernels of wheat, the lost would see this and say ‘Jesus was hungry’ while the prudent and the wise would see a much grandeur event regarding the Bread of the Presence.

Christ revealed the big picture in that very event:

“Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” (Mark 2:25-26)

Notice that our Lord mentions here, this bread is not just any bread, but was “the bread of the Presence”.

The presence of what? The presence of God. God is with us. This bread was also in the Ark of the Covenant just as Christ was in the Ark of Mary, where God was present. The Disciples were picking grain, which would be the ingredient for the “grain offering,” the Sacrifice in the Last Supper. It is this same Sacrifice of which Christ said, “This is my body, which is given for you.” (Luke 22:19) Had this not been such a crucial event and had this been strictly as a memorial, why would God Himself shake the heavens and the earth when this sacrificial offering is hindered by Antichrist? 

Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church declare that the Real “Presence” of the Christ-God is in the Eucharist, which is that grain sacrifice prophesied by the prophet Malachi; and this Real Presence, this is what Christ foretold when He referenced “the bread of the Presence” which David had eaten.   

The lazy understands that the world was condemned by the participation of a man (Adam) a woman (Eve) and a tree (of the knowledge of good and evil) and a snake (Lucifer); but the wise will look further to see that it is also redeemed by the participation of a man (Christ the New Adam), a woman (Mary the New Eve), and a tree (the Cross) where the seed of the woman would finally crush the serpent’s head. This crushing is also in the very theme of Revelation 11, 12 and 13 which continue to tell the same story: “And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast” (Revelation 13:3) and this theme is in Judges 8:21 where Gideon as a type of Christ crushes the “crescent ornaments” while the Woman crushes the moon under her feet which is the crushing of Satan’s kingdom which is indeed through Christ but also includes His body, the Church (Zechariah 14) “and all the saints [the church] with You”. “All the saints” must then also include St. Mary, a woman.

The lazy servant would read when Christ told His mother “Woman, behold your son” as if Jesus was simply minimizing His Mother as a last will and testament he passed her to John to simply care for her.

The wise looks at this and sees the “Spiritual” Motherhood proclaimed by Christ Himself from the Cross: “Behold thy Mother” (Jn. 19:27) as a momentous declaration which St. John recorded:

“Now there stood by the Cross of Jesus, His Mother, and His Mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus, therefore, saw His Mother, and the disciple standing, whom He loved, He saith to His Mother; Woman, Behold thy Son. After that, He saith to the disciple; Behold thy Mother. And that hour the disciple took Her to his own. Afterwards  Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, said; I thirst” (Jn. 19:25-28).

“After that, He saith to the disciple; Behold thy Mother.” This ends all arguments.

Mary is now the mother of John. So important was this that in the midst of His Passion, Jesus gave Mary to the Church, represented by St. John. It was only then that all things were accomplished.

Mary consented not just to become the Mother of the Redeemer of mankind, but implicitly to become the Mother of the Redeemed and is why the church on earth are “the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Revelation 12:14,17)

Why “remnant”? Because her seed are mostly in heaven and are partially on earth from whatever remnant serving the last three and a half years. The devil persecutes her seed (the Ark’s seed)  the seed promised in Genesis 3:15 “seed of the woman” and the “seed of Messiah” as declared in Isaiah 53: “he [Messiah] will see his seed [offspring] and prolong his days” (Isaiah 53:10) and even Abraham’s promise “I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore” (Genesis 22:17). The Jews isolate chapters to argue that the suffering g servant in Isaiah 53 is Israel yet the theme stems from Isaiah 49:

Listen, O coastlands, unto me [God]; and hearken, you people, from afar; The LORD has called me [The Son] from the womb; from the body of my mother [Mother of God] has he made mention of my name.” (Isaiah 49:1).

So far, we have kept it purely scriptural. This is so clear “the body of my mother [God’s mother]”. Even Luke mentions Elizabeth’s womb housing John:

“and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb” (Lk 1:15)”.

God, the Holy Spirit, was using Mary as His physical temple to carry Messiah symbolized in the Ark in Hebrews 9:4, as the “little urn,” which “held the manna” (bread of life/Christ).

Therefore, one cannot isolate saying that this is one thing while it is completely another somewhere else. Isaiah 49:1, Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Wisdom 2, Zechariah 12, Revelation 11,12,13 all have the same theme that is: these verses are mainly regarding the Messiah and by extension His seed and Mary’s seed in a church that is orchestrated in heaven emulated on earth with hierarchy and order so that the two (church militant on earth and the church triumphant in heaven) are connected where we access heaven by approaching the men made perfect, the spirits of the first born, the angels and the head; Jesus Christ our mediator as clearly described in Hebrews 12.

Everything in scripture must tightly fit like a glove and without interpreting all the pieces through typology nothing will ever fit.

St. Ambrose (+397), Father and Doctor of the Church stated:

“But Mary did not fail, the mistress of virginity did not fail; nor was it possible that She who had borne God, should be regarded as bearing a man. And Joseph, the just man, assuredly did not so completely lose his mind as to seek carnal intercourse with the Mother of God.” (De Inst. Virg., VI, 44)

So the Church wasn’t like we see today as if some can decide to start their own churches, yet all these were considered throughout history as outside the Altar of God. The Ebionites in the second century, sort of like the Messianics of today adhered to the observance of the Jewish Law where as result some rejected, the virginal birth of Christ, though all rejected His pre-existence and Divinity and denied Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

Eusebius (+ 341) wrote against them as well as St. Epiphanius (+403), Father of the Church (Adversus haereses):

“Was there ever anyone who dared pronounce the name of holy Mary without immediately adding the title Virgin?”

The church is a single church, a lighthouse that while it falls away, God always preserves a remnant:

“You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”


  • Julie LaBrecque

    Super-duper, can’t wait to finish it!!! I should have known that today’s Sunday special would pertain to Our Queen Mother! Protestants will have to scratch their heads on that one – because they never have any time set aside to honor her — how do they suppose they obey the 4th commandment??? Beautiful Walid, simply beautiful.

    • Grandmere

      The St. Paul Center for Biblical Studies is running a series of free lessons on this very subject.

      • Paul

        During the time of David, Moses, etc. “Ark of the Covenant” was the seat of the “Shekinah” glory of Jesus Christ in His pre-incarnate from, in also ruling over the earth through the nation of Israel. Thus, the phrase “Ark of the Covenant” came to be an unmistakable symbol for this special status bestowed on of Israel that Christian theologians refer to as “Mediatorial Kingdom”. Israel ceased to be a “Mediatorial Kingdom” when as in Ezekiel 11:22-23 the “Shekinah” left the so called “Ark of the Covenant” “

        Ezekiel 11:22-23 “Then the cherubim, with the wheels beside them, spread their wings, and the glory of the God of Israel was above them. The glory of the LORD went up from within the city and stopped above the mountain east of it.”

        Today in Israel, evidently Jesus Christ is not setting of David’s throne for the “Mediatorial Kingdom” to have been re-established. If there is anything similar, it is … as echoed in the words of Apostle John in

        Rev 1:5, 6 “Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and has released us from our sins by His blood, who has made us to be kings and priests to His God and Father

        Conclusion : So, if one carryover the same meaning ascribed to the “Ark of the Covenant” in ancient times to its reference of Revelation 11:19 it apt to conclude that it is a sign in heaven signalling the soon re-establishment of the long awaited “Mediatorial Kingdom” as in ancient days.

        • “During the time of David, Moses, etc. “Ark of the Covenant” was the seat of the “Shekinah” glory of Jesus Christ”

          Well Paul, let me ask you this, when Jesus was in Mary’s womb, would you not consider that the Shekinah Glory of God was in Mary’s womb? Its a simple yes or no answer.

          This, especially true when you read:

          “and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb” (Lk 1:15)”.

          So, again, when Jesus was in Mary’s womb, would you not consider that the Shekinah Glory of God was in Mary’s womb?

          • infowolf1

            The Shekinah Glory is a visible manifestation. Maybe Jesus was glowing in her womb but she wasn’t glowing herself and He wasn’t remarkable for such manifestation before the Transfiguation. and Luke 1:15 is NOT ABOUT JESUS IT IS ABOUT JOHN THE BAPTIST said by Gabriel to John’s father the priest Zachariah.

          • kensme

            It might be prudent to spend some time in research to gain a better understanding of the true meaning of the Shekinah. First of all. the hebrews contrived the word to describe the extremely bright and over powering light where the spirit of God dwells. It was seen, per the bible, on named mountains, the ark, by ezekiel, moses, Israelites in the Exodus, the two temples holy of holies. This link will help you get started.

          • Grandmere

            Waving the word “contrived” is like waving a flimsy cape before a bull. Run, Kensme, run!

      • Julie LaBrecque

        And yours truly signed up for it….I have the DVD set – it is truly a magnificent
        Production – our parish did the set during Lent – after Stations of the cross and our Lenten Meal. Dinner and a movie!! Miss you….

      • Kkdgrace

        Online? Link?

        • Grandmere
          • Jeff Benton

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You will love this…. I spent a half hour or so trying to find the 7th vid 🙂 🙂 🙂
            You know… the one that comes out the 15th LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL 🙂 🙂 🙂
            I am truly an idiot hahahaha….

          • Grandmere

            You may be an idiot, but you are my idiot. I remain your ever lovin’ Grandmere. Are you up for a phone call today?

          • Jeff Benton

            I am home and not getting tired at the moment… It’s been real good the past few days so call whenever…

          • Kkdgrace

            Ah! Many thanks! God bless!

    • I am hardly done with Psalm 132. Please review my comment to Anthony.

      • Julie LaBrecque

        Told my deacon about this Magnum Opus – am going to print it out and send him hard copies plus send the link. This is stunning.
        FYI – was shocked to see LIFE magazine ( while in checkout line at store) has a beautifully issue dedicated solely about Mary in art – it’s beautiful, bought an extra copy to give to my beloved priest.

    • elopes

      This protestant is no longer protesting 😉

      • susan

        Yay! 😀

      • Julie LaBrecque

        What?? I’ covered in goose bumps – please tell more!!!

        • Grandmere

          Another one steps aboard! Halleluiah!

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Wow – I tried calling – no answer :)) today is Vern’s b-day – what timing, huh?

          • Grandmere

            I was on the phone with Jeff. Checking in to see if I could help. Call me tomorrow. Love you both!

          • Julie LaBrecque

            I’m thinking we need a Vanna White or a Tattoo to come aboard – keep us straight on all those who have come aboard – we’re getting so many converts that we might to get rid of flotsam and jetsam.

      • Grandmere

        Well go ahead and elope with us. The ship is sailing for the Mediterranean. The work is hard. Prepare to sweat. Prepare for joy!

      • Welcome aboard!

      • Kamau41

        Praise be to God! Welcome to
        the very narrow road.

  • Beautifully written. Amen.

    • Looks like we were operating on similar wavelength, Constantine.

      • In reading Psalm 132 in it’s entirety, it is clear that this is a summary and prophetic oracle of God’s covenant with David that was ultimately fulfilled with the birth of Christ.

        We see how the Blessed Virgin became the ark of the new covenant as the original Ark of Covenant once housed the Ten Commandments, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the manna to signify Christ would be born of the Blessed Virgin being a Lawgiver, the eternal High Priest, and the Bread of Life.

        The rest of Psalm 132 is about the Church cooperating with God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit:

        For the LORD has chosen Zion; he has desired it for His habitation: “This is my resting place forever; here I will reside, for I have desired it. I will abundantly bless its provisions; I will satisfy its poor with bread. Its priests I will clothe with salvation, and its faithful will shout for joy. There I will cause a horn to sprout up from David; I have prepared a lamp for my anointed one. His enemies I will clothe with disgrace, but on him, his crown will gleam.

        • Julie LaBrecque

          How do protestants deal with ‘its priest I will clothe with salvation’ – juxtaposed with ‘its faithful will shout for joy’ – pretty much dispels their false notion that their is no ministerial priesthood. Luther screwed this up so bad….

          • Yep.

          • Ceirwyn

            Generally? Universal priesthood.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            You missed the distinction mentioned in scripture – OT too prophesied of eunuch/priests who would minister —

          • Just for you, dear sister, I will flesh out a blog post.

      • Kamau41

        The timing for this blog couldn’t be better. I’m glad you posted it here too.

        Kodos to you and DVL.

  • Jeff Benton

    Thanks Walid!!!
    I fully agree with that statement from St. Ambrose… Only I may have taken it a bit further… I may have pointed out that those focusing on the carnal are indeed truly still so so sick, that their arguments are fully based on their own lusts and they should probably hit their knees in true repentance before sin takes them to death…

    One aspect of teaching that I am having trouble with however is the teaching by those on EWTN where they plainly say that Mary was always without sin…
    (I am not talking about intercourse here) ((Indeed anyone who thinks that may want to hit their knees with a quickness))
    I have no position YET on her being sinless her entire life one way or the other…
    I do not say “she had to be a sinner at some point in her life”
    Nor do I say “she was without sin her entire life”
    I am fully aware of the magnitude of Gods might…

    AGAIN this has nothing to do with the carnal stuff that extremely carnal peeps always jump too first…
    What troubles me is the only argument I have found for her being sinless her entire life here on earth is entirely flawed…
    The argument goes like this… She carried God in her womb, her blood was mingled with the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, Therefore her blood could have no sin in it because Jesus Christ had no sin in him…

    The flaw is this… Her blood had no sin in it… Therefore BOTH of her parents were sinless because their blood mingled with hers… And that means that all 4 of their parents were sinless, and that goes back exponentially all the way to Noah, and on back to Adam…
    Anyone can see the flaw in that argument…

    Can ya help me out here??? Is there another argument ya can make to help me out on this??? My current hypothesis is that she may have, or may have not at some point honked her camels horn in unjust anger at someone on the road going too slow and blocking her way… I just dont know… But the current argument that she never did and why it must be that way is flawed at best…

    Do not get me wrong… I know she is sinless NOW and at every moment after the resurrection of her son, Jesus Christ…. Thats not what I am asking about at all… It’s the entirety of those 33 years or so before that, and the entirety of her parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc… etc… all through history all the way back to Adam for her bloodline that makes me wonder here…
    Not one of em ever even honked their camels horn in unjust anger at someone, or any number of other sins that we all have fallen for???
    Even David sinned is my point… How can this teaching be???
    Surely I have missed something or it must be wrong…

    • Brenda

      Really good questions, Awaiting someone more knowledgeable than myself to answer you, My only guess would be that she was simply that obedient and had that strong of a will to follow what was good and pure at all times.

      • Jeff Benton

        Yep… My best guess is that it has zero to do with actual blood down through the ages, and everything to do with where Mary’s heart is in relationship with God… The argument they use to justify this may be wrong is what I am saying… Not the sinless part… But I may be wrong about this too…

    • Nan

      Nothing is impossible with God.

      The Church teaches and Mary herself says she is who was the Immaculate Conception. Why would she have told St. Bernadette that she was the Immaculate Conception if that wasn’t true? God created her without sin.

      You’re thinking with your tiny human brain, not realizing that He can do as He pleases and if Mary needed to be without sin, then she was; note also that she was consecrated to God and lived in the temple. It is she who wove the veil that tore.

      • Jeff Benton

        I am trying to be nice these days so…
        How ya came to conclude that I dont believe in the virgin birth is beyond me…
        And also as for – Nothing is impossible with God??? maybe ya missed where I said what you are saying while you are accusing me of not understanding it???
        “I am fully aware of the magnitude of Gods might…”

        Trust me… My tiny human brain gets what you are saying…
        Unfortunately you didnt even see the question I actually asked…

        “God created her without sin”
        is a long long way from –
        Her blood was sinless, it had to be, because Jesus Christ’s blood was sinless, and it mingled with hers…

        You cant see that the latter implies a sinless line of exponentially expanding numbers of peeps all the way back to Adam???
        There is where my question lies… Nowhere else…

        • Nan

          I made no mention of the virgin birth, but referred to the Immaculate Conception, which is Mary, who was conceived without sin. This is Dogma of the Church, that all Catholics must believe.

          A lot of people share that confusion.

          Do I recall correctly that you’re a protestant?

          I’ve never heard the explanation that you cite about Mary’s blood; from a Catholic perspective it all hinges on God creating her without sin. Where have you heard it? To me it sounds like a means of diminishing Mary but again, I’ve never heard it before.

          • Jeff Benton

            Mother Angelica on EWTN… In her defense, I dont think they have time to go into depth on things that are confusing to some folks like me… So dont take it out on her… As far as I can tell, she was and is pretty awesome…

          • Nan

            No worries on Mother Angelica. I’ve heard many good things about her. She was trying to explain for those who need an explanation and we’re free to take it or leave it.

            My recommendation would be to discard her explanation if it causes you confusion. My old yoga teacher would say random things during class and anyone asking would get “if you don’t understand it, then it’s not for you” as a response. That has helped me with many things.

    • Vinny Zee

      Not sure if I am answering it here, but will try. I am borrowing from what I think is a well written tract on this, “Mary the Mother of God,” by Luke Hart. I don’t recall I have heard, until recently, much to do about the mingling of the blood. I had a friend who was a big Joseph Prince fan and ever since he started reading and following him, “the blood” in every conversation is a huge topic. I am not saying his the one who is precipitating this, but the mingling of the blood of Mary and Jesus is not something I recall being part of our discussions on Mary the Theotokos. According to Catholic belief, Mary, like every other childborn of Adam’s seed, needed to be redeemed and was redeemed. She, like all of us, could obtain grace, sanctity, and salvation only through the merits of Jesus Christ. It is as true of her as it is of
      us that there is no salvation but in Jesus Christ and there is no other name besides his in which we can be saved (Acts 4:12).

      In relation to the redemption of mankind, Mary’s position was obviously unique and it should not be surprising that her personal redemption by her divine Son was unique. In her case, at the very first instant
      of her existence in her mother’s womb, she was preserved and kept from falling into sin, the infection of original sin. She was conceived immaculate by her mother — free from sin and endowed with the grace of Christ by reason of the anticipated merits of his passion and death. The preservation of Mary from inheriting the state of original sin is commonly called her Immaculate Conception.

      What this does NOT mean:

      1. Her virginal conception means Christ did not have a human father
      2. Mary was not conceived by her mother in a miraculous manner, without marriage relations with her husband.

      What this does Mean:

      1. As far as Mary’s parents were concerned, she was
      conceived in the natural manner of human reproduction.
      2. In the natural manner, Mary would have been
      conceived without the grace of God and would have inherited the
      original sin.
      3. God SAVED her from Original Sin because of the part she was to play in his divine plan.

      The faith of the Catholic Church in the Immaculate Conception is thus simply expressed: “The Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first moment of her conception, by a singular privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, our Savior, was preserved from all stain of original sin.” You and I get saved in the same fashion as her, but after our birth. She got saved in the same fashion as you and I, but before her birth. Mary, you, me, we all needed a savior. This is why she rejoiced in God her savior.

      The absence of any stain of original sin in Mary is the important element in her Immaculate Conception. When Adam fell, we are not in a state of grace and is figuratively called a “stain.” The absence of God’s grace means the absence of holiness. Catholics do believe this state of loss is repaired by the
      spiritual regeneration effected by Christ through the sacrament of Baptism. Mary, however, never bore this stain, but from the first moment in which her body and soul were united, she was in a state of innocence and divine friendship.

      “Thus the woman and her seed will enjoy a complete victory over the serpent whose head will be crushed. Complete victory over the devil can only mean complete victory over sin and its consequences. The complete and unqualified victory of the Son and his mother, who is associated with him in the promised victory, would not have been realized if Mary had been
      subjected to sin and the devil at any time. Sin in Mary would have opposed her to God, not to Satan. But God promised complete opposition between the woman and Satan, and through her seed, complete victory over him. God fulfilled this promise by preserving her from original sin.”

      God said there would be enmity. I don’t know if this conversation ever happened, but I think of the conversation with God and Satan over Job. Could you imagine how Satan would be reviled if he objected over Mary’s sinlessness, perhaps objecting that all humans are supposed to have sin? (These thoughts are mine). However, just thinking.

      Again, don’t know if I answered your question.

      • Jeff Benton

        Hey thanks!!! That answered some questions I had forming from Nans answers…
        Appreciate it a lot 🙂 🙂 🙂

    • AnthonyM

      Mary was conceived without stain of original sin. Hence the name of the feast day ‘Feast of the Immaculate Conception’. That is how Mary was saved, she was kept from sin. While Mary’s parents were holy, and are declared saints, they were not immaculately conceived, and did not need to be, for God to begin the work of salvation thru Mary.

      • “Mary was conceived without stain of original sin.”

        This is what I love about true Catholics. They know the truth without having to dig deep into the scriptures. It is in their psyche and in their heart because God promised that it would be so. In Jeremiah it is clear that the law will be in their HEARTS.

        “Mary was conceived without stain of original sin” can also be deduced from Psalm 132 (DR Psalm 131). Here is the Greek in its translation word for word:

        8 Ἀνάστηθι, Κύριε, εἰς τὴν ἀνάπαυσίν σου, σὺ καὶ ἡ κιβωτὸς τοῦ ἁγιάσματός σου.
        Let you arise, O Lord, into the rest of you, you and the ark of the holiness of you.

        When I wrote this article I only gave a glimpse from what I gleaned. There is much work to be done on this most phenomenal Psalm to write an entire book.

        If you look above in the Septuagint Greek which really expresses how the Jews prior to Christ viewed this Ark it makes even a better case; the Ark here in the Septuagint is the Ark of Holiness. Sanctified. Free of Sin exactly as you stated “Mary was conceived without stain of original sin.”

        The only Catholic interpretation I found was by Taylor Marshal who have three or four lines interpretation of accurate interpretation. There is virtually no interpretation I found by Catholics regarding these verses. The Douay Rheims renders the verse:

        “Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified.”

        This Ark was SANCTIFIED. PURE. HOLY. END OF STORY. “without stain of original sin.”

        It gets even worse for anyone to argue that Mary had sin since NO ONE can even argue that the ancient Ark had ANY stain. All throughout the Testament the Ark was never defiled. Even when the Romans and Antiochus desecrated the Temple, but NEVER the Ark. Why? Because God protected the Ark. It was built PERFECT to house GOD in the Shekinah Glory. No serious theologian whether Protestant or Catholic can argue that the Ark had any stain for even the Protestant would dare argue that God when He entered the Ark of the Covenant that there was any stain in it for this was His dwelling place.

        While many would validly use arguments that Mary is “full of grace”, this is the most valid argument making Mary free of sin, this addition by studying and examining how the Jew in ancient times translated the verse make absolutely no way to argue how the Jews felt about the Ark of God and even the Virgin birth which they etched in the Septuagint translating Almah as “VIRGIN” which the Protestants rely on only the Septuagint to make their case for a virgin birth. This validates the Septuagint even in Protestant eyes.

        2 Maccabees (1 & 2) even documents the hiding of the Ark by Jeremiah who promised that it will be returned (probably what John wrote about Mary returning) but it was hidden so it can never be stained.

        • AnthonyM

          Valid, thank you for your reply, there is more info and insight in it to keep.

        • Ozibarb

          “the ark was sanctified, pure, holy, end of story.”
          those disagreeing would do well to remember Uzzah

        • Kamau41

          There is so much to unpack and learn just from Psalm 132. Truly amazing…

        • Doc

          Not to parse words, but sanctified could also be an act after the fact: Mary was not necessarily born sinless but the stain of sin could have been removed by a deliberate act by God after her birth too. I don’t see it necssary for her to have been born without sin in order to be the ark, as long as God removed the sin nature deliberately as part of the process to make her the ark. Sort of like turning a piece of coal into a diamond. It doesn’t diminish the final product to know that the diamond was not always a thing of beauty; in fact it enhances the beauty in my mind.

          • Ceirwyn

            This is where I was going, but you’ve stated it much more eloquently.

          • Grandmere

            Why don’t you and Doc just join hands, shout Alleluia, and make the leap?

          • Julie LaBrecque

            You’ve turned the heat on your skillet a bit early.. like it!

          • Julie LaBrecque

            God must have meant for this for you – just happened to pick this episode of Fr Collected the exorcist on YouTube go tongue 19:00 mark and listen to what he says about the demons when he asks Mary to show up during the exorcist – you ought to listen to the entire video, lots of good stuff, for sure go back to about the 17:00 mark, write down the binding prayer he gives, also the website auxilliumchristain org that he suggests we sign up for and join for deliverance prayers. Here’s the link

          • Doc

            Someday I’ll tell you about my encounter with a very evil spirit and how only calling upon Jesus saved me from it. Authentic. The worst terror I’ve ever felt in my life, and an obvious deliverance when it was gone.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            I believe – don’t think for a minute they I don’t – still would love to here about it – maybe some day we all ( those of us in the US) pick a central location and meet each other in person?

          • Doc

            I would only retell the story in a situation where I would not be calling glory to myself. I would retell it in a situation where it might help a believer’s faith or cause a non-believer to accept Jesus.

    • Grandmere

      She was full of God’s grace. Full to overflowing.

      • Kamau41

        Amen, Grand!

      • Fr Christopher P. Kelley, DD

        “ke-kharito-men-e” (St Luke 1:28) as St Gabriel the Archangel addresses her, is from the root word, *kharis* = grace, favor; but here, it is in the PERFECT Participle form. It may better be rendered,
        “*Perfected* in Grace” — God had already done something in her that needed nothing further to be done.
        “FULL of Grace” nearly catches the angelic expression. It bears repeating:
        Hail, Mary, FULL of Grace! The LORD is with Thee! Blessed art Thou among women! and Blessed is the FRUIT of Thy Womb, JESUS!”

      • AnthonyM

        Yes. The angel addressed her with a new title, not as Mary, but as ‘Full of Grace’.

    • Ceirwyn

      Romans 3:23. If Mary was sinless, why would Jesus need to be sacrificed for our sins? Clearly she would be an example of a perfect person who didn’t need Jesus. Christianity explodes on itself if you go the Mary-never-ever-sinned route.

      Check out Genesis, and look at the 3 parts of man God created (check the original words). Humans, by God’s definition are also triune beings, and thus are in His image. Then Adam ate the fruit and and his Zoe died that very day, just as God said that he would die that day (not years from now). Every human born after that was only 2/3 functional as their Zoe was dead, and that’s why it says his sons were “in his own likeness, after his image”, and not the image of God anymore. This is why Christ *had* to come through Virgin Mary in the first place.

      • Jeff Benton

        I get Romans… Trust me I get it… I get the whole of your first paragraph…

        I have no clue what your talking about in the second bit of your post though…

        Adam did indeed die that very day in Gods timescale as far as I can tell…
        2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
        What did Adam live? 900+ years or so??? I would say that is well within the day that God said he would die…

        Being raised the way I was, and having seen what I have seen, I tend to scoff when peeps say God “Had” to do anything…

        There is a lot more going on here than meets the eye…
        This is not some game I am playing between Catholics and Protestants and the wickedness causing strife between them…

        It just isn’t…

        I crave God more than anything else… Period…

        But I’ll tell ya this…
        God could indeed make Mary sinless from conception if he so chose to do so, and still require Jesus Christ to be crucified…
        Even you know that… For if he couldn’t, God wouldn’t be God now would he???

        Whether you like it or not, Mary is very important… Why else would the evil one hound every one at any mention of her so harshly if she were not???

        Tell me… Why did the wicked one place so much importance on Mary, that he felt compelled to mimic her in almost every false religion he ever made to lead men astray???

        I will not fall… Have no fear… Jesus Christ has got this one…
        I’m just trying to understand many many things on a deeper level…
        And I am trying to do so in the middle of a desert…
        It’s a bit harder at the moment…

        • Doc

          Good points about Mary. Why would Satan waste his time with her?

          • Grandmere

            I am shocked that you approved Stanley’s comments. Do you really agree with him or are you struggling with what Walid has presented?

          • Doc

            Who is Stanley? I was responding to Jeff Benton and his comment that somehow Satan sees Mary as important, so maybe we should too.

          • Grandmere

            Stanley made a reply to Julie LaBreque and you up voted it. It is below, a day ago. Julie was replying to Ceirwyn. Stanley replied to her and you up voted Stanley’s comment. It is right there.

          • Doc

            Oh, I see it. I voted it up because I see his reasoning. I stand by that. Have a problem with it? Why not politely present your case instead of pontificating?

          • Grandmere

            I don’t have to be polite to people who refer to Mary as some kind of a “vessel”. No. I do not.

          • Doc

            I am sorry if I hurt your feelings or your faith. That was not my intent, Brother. I probably have not read other posts by stanley and I perceive he must be very unpopular for other posts?

            It comes down to this: was Mary used by God to birth Jesus and then her mission was complete? Or did she become a perpetual advocate in Heaven for the believers?

            I think I’m stating the two opposing views correctly. I’ve read posts from both perspectives and I try to maintain an open mind so I apologize if I’ve offended you.

          • Grandmere

            Doc, I’m okay. Just keep an open heart and whatever other people say about Mary, don’t fall for that “vessel” business. Let that word make your ears perk up, because whatever they say after that is never respectful. Mary was the first Christian. Just let that sink in.

      • Julie LaBrecque

        Mary never sinned –PERIOD – end of discussion. If you are worried about this ‘Christianity explodes on itself’ scenario, why are you worried about what the world thinks? You might as well change the whole story because most of ‘ the world’ would say; ,,’ why didn’t your God just forgive everybody rather than making someone die a torturous death? The world history conform to US, not us for them. God’s ways are NOT man’s ways.

        • Doc

          I won’t jump into the argument as to whether Mary sinned or not. The Power of God is sufficient to make her sinless or simply completely full of grace and forgiven. Either way God prepared His vessel for His Son’s arrival.

          • Grandmere

            Then stop up voting people like Stanley and S-T-O-P calling Mary a vessel! Would you refer to your mother as a vessel???

          • Doc

            Don’t tell me what to do.

          • Grandmere

            You did it. It is here for all to see. Ahh. I know what you will do. You will go back and delete your up vote and deny you ever did it. But Walid will know that I am not lying. You, Spicey Ray and Godson Arun up voted Stanley’s comment. So now I am telling you what NOT to do. Don’t even try to change your up vote. Now you have to live with it.

          • Doc

            You are actually wrong. I stand by my voting up his post. Stanley, whether I agree with him or not, makes some well-reasoned points. I have no intention of deleting my up vote. I AM GLAD I DID IT. Feel better?

            Now, please, if you have an argument against his post that is well-reasoned I will give your post an up vote too.

            Get it? I am a STUDENT. I am not taking sides. I will give credit where I think it is due.

            Therefore there is no reason to attack me personally. In fact, your obvious anger worries me. Is your faith somehow threatened by my up vote? I am sorry for that. But instead of attacking me please disagree with me and let me read your beliefs. You may convince me otherwise.

            Thank you.

          • Grandmere

            Don’t worry. Just keep an eye on Stanley. He’s a heretic. He denied the divinity of Christ. Check it out

          • susan

            Grandmere, I will up ore a comment because I think disquis will show them I responded. I do that when I want to have a discussion. Honestly I haven’t figured out why some replies show up and some don’t. So I just wanted you to know that the motives behind an up vote aren’t always known. 🙂

          • Grandmere

            That was not the case. I will refrain from further comment. I want what is best for him always.

          • susan

            Okay Grandmere. 🙂

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Vessel??? Wow.

          • Doc

            I just don’t understand the offense taken at describing Mary as a vessel. Every Christian is a vessel for the Holy Spirit. Why do catholics take offense at calling Mary a vessel? No disrespect is intended I just wasn’t brought up to give Mary any special reverence, other than the fact that she is blessed above all women. It disturbs me that catholics treat it almost as blasphemy, as if Mary were a deity. This is the primary stumbling block I have to becoming catholic. It’s very disturbing.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Dignity – define for us.

          • Doc

            What? I don’t understand where you’re coming from.

            Let me clarify further: I was brought up to believe Mary is in the same category as Moses, Isaiah, John the Baptist, et al, but was not imbued with special status as if she were a queen.

            Now, reading Walid’s works I’m able to change my view of Mary sufficient to believe the following:

            1. The woman in Revelation is Mary, and she has apparently been given the honor to crush the head of the serpent.

            2. I have no problem believing she remained a virgin.

            What I have trouble with:

            1. That she was sinless. I was brought up to believe only Jesus is sinless.
            2. That Mary was immaculately conceived. I believe only Jesus was accorded that because that is part of His divinity and why only by his Name are we saved.

            I regularly listen to EWTN (shocking for someone raised a Protestant although I don’t claim the moniker). Yesterday I thought I clearly understood the priest hosting the show to say that we must go through Mary to get to Jesus.

            I have a REAL problem with that. I do not think that is true at all.

            I will keep an open mind, but realize that it will take literal divine correction to get me to believe that.

            So I hope that clarifies things. I love my catholic and so-called Protestant brothers and sisters and mean no disrespect to anyone’s beliefs.

            I am here to LEARN, and to UNDERSTAND, and to believe the truth.

            But I will not hold back where I think I must speak.

          • Grandmere

            You may certainly pray directly to Jesus.

          • Doc

            AMEN, Brother! And do so frequently. Jesus is the ONE, the ONLY, and the joyous Way to the Father!

          • Grandmere

            Here is another prayer for you. All to often we are tempted to dump a basket of “requests” without asking for what we need the most.

          • Doc

            My favorite:

            “Dear Jesus, thank You for loving me so that you suffered torture and died for me that I might have eternal life even when I did not deserve the least of Your mercies.”

          • Julie LaBrecque

            It is truly sad that your protestant Sunday School never delved too much into the base of the New Covenant: that would be, the Old Covenant. EVERY King of Israel from Solomon forward, installed their MOTHER as the Queen Mother of the Kingdom (aka the ‘Gebirah’) – she sat on a Throne AND wore a Crown – AND she was an intercessor for the King’s subjects – don’t believe me? Go read 1 Kings 2:19 for yourself, especially taking note the King BOWS to his mother. – “So Bathshe′ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni′jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right.” Dont’ forget – Adonijah was Solomon’s brother – but even he, went through the mother. Do you know understand the Wedding at Cana – and Mary’s intercession for the ‘wedding party’? Jesus MUST obey His mother lest He violate the 4th commandment _ and protestants like to quote the moniker “WWJD”?, yet they NEVER honor Mary as Jesus did and does. The actual word for ‘honor’ in the 4th commandment is actually more akin to ‘glorify’ your mother and your father.

            If 1 Kings 2:19 still isn’t enough for you, look at Jeremiah 13:18 “Say to the king and to the queen mother:
            “Take a lowly seat, for your beautiful crown has come down from your head.” IF you will study the Kings of Israel as I have alluded to, there is a lot more there, this is just all I can recall from memory.
            Please give me the name of the priest that said you have to go through Mary to get to Jesus. – I hope you aren’t inflating what he said/meant. I have personally done a 30 day consecration to Mary – I will tell you, the closer you are to Mary, the closer you are to her Son. IF it ever finally breaks through your resistance, you entire demeanor will change. I will also warn you that IF you attempt the consecration to Mary, the devil WILL assault you.
            Maybe you are not one to study the teachings of exorcists, but I can tell you that the 2nd (Ithink its the 2nd) step performed in an Exorcism is to invoke the SAINTS to intercede. I will also relay from the exorcists, that IF the exorcist specifically asks for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin during the exorcism (this besides the intro 2nd step), the demons BEG for her not to come – for you and I to think WE can figure out the spirit world at the expense of ignoring/ dismissing what EXORCISTS report would be shortsighted, myopic, and quite frankly, stupid.
            Now – here are some names you can google on youtube to listen to:
            Fr Chad Ripperger – Adam Blai (he is an adviser to exorcists) -Fr Gary Thomas – 3 books written by Fr Gabriele Amorth, Top Vatican Exorcist, performed 70,000+ rituals. Satan HATES MARY – just as God stated.

          • Doc

            As for the priest on EWTN: I was driving and I readily admit I might have missed his meaning, but it sure sounded like he told a caller we have to go through Mary to get to Jesus. I don’t know that I caught his name. I sure can’t remember it now. It was a call-in show around the 5 to 5:30 Mountain Time period if that helps.

            I very much study demonology and exorcisms. Frankly, that subject is what got me interested in catholicism in the first place since the demons seem to respect the power of God through the rite of exorcism. And I don’t doubt Mary or one of the saints can participate if they so desire.

            As for your Old Testament references, this is the first time I’ve heard of these, so I’ll have to study this further.

            Jesus obeying the Fourth Commandment? Interesting perspective worthy of consideration.

            I am not beyond convincing on most matters–just that it isn’t going to be easy in some areas.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            What I have trouble with:

            “1. That she was sinless. I was brought up to believe only Jesus is sinless.” ANSWER: So why do you believe what you were taught to believe when it is TOTALLY contrary to the teaching of Christian History? Do you honestly think that no theologians existed until your forefathers showed up 500 years ago? How can 2,000 years of teaching be ditched in favor of the latest news that is contrary to it? Your stated issue is on par with the progressives who believe that the Constitution is a living instrument that is to bend with the times – not to what the Founding Fathers intended, but to what suits the new interpreters. I hope you realize that your stance with Doctrine is no different
            “2. That Mary was immaculately conceived. I believe only Jesus was accorded that because that is part of His divinity and why only by his Name are we saved.”
            ANSWER : Then you believe that the Divinity of Jesus overran His Humanity. Doc – this is serious heresy – please rethink what you believe. What you believe is that Jesus had to exert no effort to not sin. Heresy – pure Heresy – scripture states that Jesus learned obedience from what He suffered – Hebrews 5:8. All this heresy to avoid giving any honor to Mary – do you realize in all this you are flat denying what God did for her? That’s horrible Doc, plain horrible. Why did God state in the OT that He would cause people to call her blessed? Do you know where THAT scripture is – or did your protestant Teaching neglect that as well. Seems funny that they never taught this stuff – like they had an agenda to keep any and all due honor to Mary from happening – do you realize this is/was the work of the devil?

          • Grandmere

            Please show her at least the respect you show for your own mother. She was the most important person in Jesus’ life. Just think about it.

          • Grandmere

            Well Doc, I guess you will have to search for a greeting card for somebody special. Happy Vessel Day. I’m sure she will just cherish it.

      • Are you going to correct our interpretation of Psalm 132 or are you gonna sit here writing up a whole new article?

      • Grandmere

        Are you kidding? Jesus had to go to the cross because, even though his mother was sinless, everyone else on the planet was sinful. And all their descendants are sinful. Why take something so elegant in it’s simplicity and make it mind numbing in complexity?

        • All I needed to do to destroy heresy is to sic the women on the heretics by elevating a woman: Mary. Theo was going roundabout exposing women’s lib and such to only gain rock throwers chasing him on Facebook. Ahhhh, the old fox (me) can generate the perfect plan. The perfect conspiracy 😉

          Mission accomplished.

          • Kamau41

            You have accomplished it so very well. Absolutely love it.

        • Ceirwyn

          How do we know that though, if Mary is mysteriously sinless without needing salvation for some inexplicable reason? It seems to me, making her sinless makes her inhuman, and obliterates the lesson for us in her willing submission to God as an ordinary person. She becomes alien and exceptional and not a role model for “normal” people. Her example becomes unattainable (at least if I’m understanding what some believe correctly).

          Scripture is clear on humans being sinful and unacceptable in their own power alone. Enough that if Mary were born sinless, someone would have mentioned that in scripture somewhere.

          • Grandmere

            This all stems from one thing. You either doubt or refuse to accept that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. If you don’t want to take Walid’s word for it, chew on these for a while. If you are still unconvinced, or not moving in the direction of belief, just say so and stop arguing with us about it. Here is the study. It’s free and in video form. I will no longer debate this subject with you. Take it or leave it.

          • Grandmere

            Was Jesus sinless? Does that make Jesus inhuman?

          • Ceirwyn

            Jesus was both God and man though. Mary would be fully human.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            So His divinity [email protected] his [email protected]? Heresy

          • Taurnil Oronar

            She still had free will and unlike Adam and Eve choose to follow God’s Word. She was just as “human” as the rest of us.

          • Kelly Ann

            ” How do we know that though ”
            If you read the article you will find the answer to that very question, Mr Shoebat spelled it out very plain.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Song of Songs 6:8-98
            “Sixty queens there may be,and eighty concubines,
            and virgins beyond number; (9) but my dove, MY PERFECT ONE, is unique, the only daughter of her mother,
            the favorite of the one who bore her. The young women saw her and called HER BLESSED; the queens and concubines praised her.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            [email protected] Eve born sinless ???

        • Kamau41

          Exactly, Grandmere.

      • Kamau41

        Patrick Madrid, who is a great Catholic Apologist, wrote this article back in the early 90s that should help clear things up and it totally validates and corroborates well with Walid’s article.

    • Julie LaBrecque

      I think you can also stumble on Christ’s conception – how was He kept from the stain of original sin – how many generations back — you see the point – glad to see you hanging out with us again!

    • Kelly Ann

      As Lord Jesus himself asked ” where there be any faith left when I return .”

      • Jeff Benton

        Thanks Kelly Ann 🙂 🙂

        Thats a pretty cool post there!!!

        And I imagine that even as Jesus Christ called out the Apostles and disciples and the crowds for having little faith on occasion, he will do the same to the rest of us when he comes in clouds of glory LOL!!!

        Mat 16:8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?

        Mat 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

        That being said…

        We Might want to take into consideration though, if things that strike us as a lack of faith may indeed just be someone attempting to seek out the truth, especially if that peep or those peeps may indeed be peeps who are in almost constant battle with deceptive forces that seek to lead many astray…

        If we haven’t really, and I mean really, fought in hand to hand combat with dark powers that sometimes cloth themselves with deceptive light, and whom could crush us all if it were not for Jesus Christ, then we might want to take that into consideration…

        Indeed, even one, just one of em, not even clothed deceptively in light, but as a snake, beguiled the very first of us (Adam and Eve) and caused the fall of all…

        Sometimes our perceptions of where we see a person is at, through a limited and indeed primitive form of gathering that knowledge, As in through reading their words in their writings, can become skewed from nothing more than an assumption of what they mean, as opposed to what they really mean… And there are a whole bunch of other ways we can miss the mark too…

        Just wanted to throw that out there 🙂 🙂 🙂

        • Julie LaBrecque

          Will this soothe your mind?
          Song of Solomon 6:8-9Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
          “One is my dove, my PERFECT ONE is but one, SHE is the only one of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her. The daughters saw her, and declared her MOST BLESSED: the queens and concubines, and they praised her.”
          This MUST be Mary.

    • Julie LaBrecque

      The Immaculate Conception of Mary

      The Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is the belief that God preserved Mary from any inclination to sin, the inheritance of original sin passed on to all mankind from our first parents, Adam and Eve. The belief of the Immaculate Conception of Mary says nothing about Mary and personal sin (Rom 3:23).

      Christian belief holds that every human being through faith and through baptism is freed from sin – original sin and personal sin – through the grace of Jesus Christ. Roman Catholic Christians simply claim that Mary was the first one to whom this was done.

      The basis for the belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary can be found in the Biblical revelation of holiness and the opposite of that state, sinfulness.

      God is revealed as perfect interior holiness.

      Is 6:3″Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts!” they (the Seraphim) cried one to the other.

      No sin or anything tainted with sin can stand in the face of the holiness of God. “Enmity” is that mutual hatred between Mary and sin, between Christ and sin.

      Gen 3:15I will put enmity between you (the serpent, Satan) and the woman (Mary), and between your offspring (minions of Satan) and hers (Jesus); He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

      For the birth of God as a human being, God was interested in the condition of the mother’s womb. For even a great, but imperfect, judge of Israel, Samson, God was directive about the state of the mother during the pregnancy. The request for the mother to be pure is repeated for emphasis.

      Judges 13:3-4 An angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, “Though you are barren and have had no children, yet you will conceive and bear a son. Now, then, be careful to take no wine or strong drink and to eat nothing unclean.” Judges 13:7 “But he (the angel) said to me, ‘You will be with child and will bear a son. So take neither wine nor strong drink, and eat nothing unclean. For the boy shall be consecrated to God from the womb, until the day of his death.’ ” Judges 13:13-14 The angel of the LORD answered Manoah, “Your wife is to abstain from all the things of which I spoke to her. She must not eat anything that comes from the vine, nor take wine or strong drink, nor eat anything unclean. Let her observe all that I have commanded her.”

      How much more would God be interested in the state of His own mother’s womb!

      The salutation of the Angel Gabriel is different from the usual angelic greeting. It indicates that Mary was exceptionally “highly favored with grace” (Greek: charitoo, used twice in the New Testament, in Lk 1:28 for Mary – before Christ’s redemption; and Eph 1:6 for Christ’s grace to us – after Christ’s redemption).

      Lk 1:28And coming to her (Mary), he (the angel Gabriel) said, “Hail, favored one (kecharitomene)”Eph 1:4-6(God) chose us in him (Jesus), before the foundation of the world, to be holy and without blemish before him. In love he destined us for adoption to himself through Jesus Christ, in accord with the favor of his will, for the praise of the glory of his grace (echaritosen) that he granted us in the beloved.

      Note that the angel’s salutation preceded Mary’s acquiescence. Mary was already highly favored. God’s grace was not given in time after Mary accepted the angel’s word. The Church believes that this grace was given from the very beginning of Mary’s life. It is clearly grace because at the time of Mary’s conception she could have done nothing to earn it.

      The constant faith (paradosis) of the Church attests to the belief in the special preparation of the holiness of the person of Mary to bear in her body the most holy person of the Son of God.

      Post-Apostolic:Implicitly found in the Fathers of the Church in the parallelism between Eve and Mary (Irenaeus, Lyons, 140? – 202?); Found in the more general terms about Mary: “holy”, “innocent”, “most pure”, “intact”, “immaculate” (Irenaeus, Lyons, 140?-202?; Ephraem, Syria, 306-373; Ambrose, Milan, 373-397); Explicit language: Mary – free from original sin (Augustine, Hippo, 395-430 to Anselm, Normandy, 1033-1109).Celebrations:Eastern Church: celebrated a Feast of the Conception of Mary in the 8th to the 9th Century;Western Church: celebrated a Feast of the Conception of Mary in the 12th Century; A record of the feast in the 11th Century in Great Britain; in the 12th Century in Normandy;Record in many churches of a Feast of the Conception of Mary in France, Germany, Italy and Spain in the 12th Century (Bernard, Clairvaux, 1090-1153).14th Century:Was noted for the opposition to the Immaculate Conception from some of the great doctors of scholasticism. The celebration of the feast was not denied though. The difficulty arose from the meaning of the universal redemption through Christ.15th Century:Franciscan theologians solved the difficulty. Christ, the most perfect mediator, preserved Mary from original sin by an equally perfect act of healing. Duns Scotus (Scotland, 1266-1308) explained that the Immaculate Conception came through God’s application of the grace of Christ beforehand.From 15th Century:The Feast was universally celebrated; and christian piety introduced an oath to defend the belief in the Immaculate Conception to be taken not only by Religious, but also by non-Religious and at the Universities (e.g., Paris, 1497; Cologne, 1499; Vienna, 1501)From the 17th Century:The clause “to the shedding of blood” was added to the oath taken to defend the belief in the Immaculate Conception.1854Pope Pius IX, infallibly defined, ex cathedra: “The Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, and in view of the foreseen merits of Jesus Christ, the savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin.”

      Nonbelievers and enemies of Roman Catholic Christianity often accuse the Church of creating the belief in Mary’s freedom from original sin “the Immaculate Conception” in 1854 (as the Church named the belief of Mary’s immediate entry, body and soul, into Heaven, “the Assumption” in 1950) when the truths were defined. Such an error is equivalent to saying that before Adam named the animals and birds of creation in Gen 2:19-20 they did not exist. Or that before the early Church in her Ecumenical Councils named the belief of three persons in one God “the Trinity” and the belief that there are two natures, human and divine in the person of Jesus Christ “the Incarnation,” the truths did not exist.

      In naming the content of Divine Revelation after God has revealed it to us, the Church reflects a long Biblical tradition and practice.

      By Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl.
      Catholic Biblical Apologetics, © Copyright 1985-2004, Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl

      Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture texts are taken from the New American Bible with Revised New Testament and Revised Psalms © 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

      Email comments to [email protected]

      Last Updated: July 16, 2004

  • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

    Well done sir!

    Almost prepared for the fight, he who is armed and ready is victorious even before the fight begins:-)

    • Grandmere

      At long last. OCA is here! My faithful warrior in battle!

      • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

        I’m here, I had to go through Great Lent, and Pascha, and a journey to Russia and back, before I could get myself ready for the conflict to come

        • Grandmere

          Sounds like Michael on the way to see Daniel! LOL. Come row with us for a while. We need your calm, steady fortitude.

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            I’m much calmer, much more courageous. After my adventures in Holy Russia, that great and beloved, sublime and terrible Nation, i’ve no fear whatsoever.

          • Стефан Евгений

            I came back with Hope in my heart. I saw all the changes.

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            Moy Brat’, moy Drug’, (Nim nogah pa Russkie:-)), it was better than I had dared hope, but much remains to be done.

          • Стефан Евгений

            OCA, If you buy property, then you can apply for citizenship.
            It took 3 generations to wreck Russia, and 3 more to repair all the damage to the soul of the Russian people.
            I went to Christmas liturgy at a Train Station, of all places.
            Russia is the only place I saw chapels in Train Station and Airports.
            So Thrilled you got to go and see with your own eyes.
            They tease me that the way I speak Russian is old. and my English speech pattern drives them nuts. Funny thing brat, Russians say I’m American, and Americans say “how Russian” when the eat my food or see my huge Icon corner 🙂

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            I can relate to that, lol.

            Btw, I love ”Herring without a fur coat”, although it looks like something out of a science fiction movie)))

          • Стефан Евгений

            I like the pork feet in aspic, Kholdets, It freaks out Americans lol.

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            Yes! :-)))

            Kholodets with Vodka, the best:-)))

    • DeusLoVult

      Indeed, sir! And the Lord shall give us strength in the coming battle.

      Psalm 144:1 “Blessed be the LORD, my rock,
      who trains my hands for battle,
      my fingers for war;”

      Also, your statement has summoned a quote from Sun Tzu to the forefront of my memory.

      “Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.”

      God bless, OCA. Glad to have you present with us once more. 🙂

      • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

        Glad to be back:-). And yes, i’ve ‘baptized’ Sun Tzu and brought his insights into the fight)))

        • DeusLoVult

          Ah, very good, sir. Then God grant us wisdom that we might know ourselves and our enemies in order that we should excel them in every battle.

          Here, for you, sir. 🙂

          • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

            Thank you, my good young friend:-)))

    • Kamau41

      Long time no hear OCA. You are here rowing along side, strong and steady.

      • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

        Yes I am, and there is much to do.

  • Jeff Benton

    Whoever helps me out with my question… Just know ya gotta go slow and plain with me… I am dense at best lol…
    Gotta run for a few…
    Will check back a good bit today for this question is important to me… I’ll be on another tab watching vids on Ignatius for a bit…

    • Cuzick

      See if this view from the Orthodox Church helps.”

      • Jeff Benton

        Hey thanks… Good stuff for sure… Love that last paragraph the most I think 🙂 🙂 🙂 the one above the asterisk one 🙂 🙂 🙂
        But my question actually has to do with the reasoning behind the Sinless nature of Mary… Not the sinless nature of Mary…
        The whole reason they gave for it threw me for a loop… Not the fact of… The reasoning behind it…
        So why do prominent Nuns on EWTN say that her Blood was without sin, when that argument implies that her parents, grandparents, and all on down through the ages were sinless too… All the way back to Adam… it has a flaw in it’s reasoning…
        Not that she was sinless or not… I fully believe God almighty can make anyone sinless… As in fact he surely did 🙂 🙂 🙂 I was asking about highly respected peeps views on HOW this came about…
        Do ya see now?

        • richinnameonly

          Maybe their line of reasoning in the sinless blood stance is that the pure blood of Jesus completely overpowered or cleansed the blood which would have been his inheritance, were he just a normal man. Just guessing.

          • Jeff Benton

            Could be… Im just doing a lot of guessing too… which is why I hope that Walid or any of the old timers here have a more concrete answer than I currently have…

          • Brenda

            You have inspired me to be brave and ask something too, which I always felt silly about not understanding: When people say Jesus will come back does that mean literally and will many people witness that or just special priest? Or does it mean the faith will come back and nobody will actually meet Jesus in the flesh here on earth? Maybe it was covered here at some point but it’s a huge website to shift through.

          • Jeff Benton

            The way I read it it is literally and spiritually>>> and as lightning flashes from the east to the west, all will see it literally, and even those who are asleep (passed on) will see it spiritually… which is really really literally…
            I cant remember everything in Scripture as well as others here can…
            So others will be able to answer you even better than I 🙂 🙂 🙂

          • Brenda

            Thank you Jeff, that sounds right to me.

          • susan

            I wonder the same thing too, Brenda. :).

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Literally – and in His glorified flesh. Every eye will see Him.

          • Doc

            I believe this too. I wonder if somehow a global technology will be involved with this, or if “every eye will see” through supernatural means.

          • Grandmere

            I heard John Corapi say something very much like this when he was teaching the catechism on EWTN. It sounds good but it is biologically incorrect. The blood of the mother and the developing child do not mingle. Oxygen and nourishment from the mother’s blood are transferred to the child via the placenta.

          • Raph Sebastian

            I agree, nutrients and oxygen are transferred via osmosis and diffusion respectively. Joseph Prince and his hogwash is scientifically not possible.

          • Grandmere

            Thanks, Raph.

          • AnthonyM

            And off on a tangent here, but I recently read about fetal-maternal microchimerism, where the childs DNA lives on in the mother, and influence the mother for years. Just amazing what goes on in mothers. Another reason mothers feel extra close to their children.


          • Стефан Евгений

            Jeff, I’m going to be the odd man out and say Orthodox don’t THINK the way Catholics do.
            We reject the idea of “original sin” That there is a genetic mark in the blood, is a Gnostic Idea.
            This is from Fr James Bernstein.
            This mistaken view is an outgrowth of the false doctrine prevalent among non-Orthodox churches that the guilt of Adam’s sin committed at the Fall is passed on from generation to generation to all mankind. This is called “the inheritance of the guilt of original sin.” This is a non-biblical teaching that neither the Jews nor the Orthodox Christian Church have ever held, either in biblical times or today.
            Virgin Mary’s sinlessness throughout her earthly life
            This article uses the Hymns of the Orthodox Church to explain the sinlessness of the Theotokos.


          • Jeff Benton

            Woh!!! Very cool indeed… I may start looking into the Orthodox a bit deeper… Got all 3 links open and bookmarked…
            Will dig into em in a couple of hours…

            Trying to figure out how I can download some vids on Mary now from the Catholics so I can follow along, study, and play em back to back on my own video player whenever I have time to study them, – – –
            without “signing in” “being on their webpage that plays the encrypted files” and a whole slew of other nonsense that drives most peeps away before they ever get started…
            Protestants may be even worse about that type of thing…
            It is rampant these days…

            Personally, At times I think it is just another tool that the wicked ones put into the minds of men to limit the amount of time true Christians can study the things of God…
            But that’s just my opinion, and doesn’t mean it is so…

          • Julie LaBrecque

            To whom did Jesus give the keys?

          • Luther?

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Probably while he sat on the pot – since that was where Ol Marty received his revelations.

          • Kamau41


          • Julie LaBrecque


          • Tim Lahay (dead now) wrote an entire disgusting book how he worships God in sex and while he is on the pot. Demonic. I recall sharing the same pulpit with this heretic and I exposed his errors and the folks lined up afterwards to buy my books while they were found wanting.

          • Grandmere

            So Tim got “left behind” at the book table? Nice work, Chef!

        • Julie LaBrecque

          Genesis 3:15 is the key here – if Mary had even a taint of sin, then she was NOT IN ENMITY with Satan – and this state of ENMITY was placed by God Almighty – let’s not think Him capable of having fouled that promisd up.

          • Jeff Benton

            A whole lot of folks like to focus on “her seed” and miss “thy seed” altogether…
            This is war…
            Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            So do you ‘get it’ now? Picture this : a samurai being defeated by an equal or greater samurai – this is the expected outcome, ergo, the losing samurai has not even a morsel of humiliation. Now picture this : the same samurai defeated by a young woman – so the samurai is defeated, but this time he suffers endless torment of humiliation for having been defeated by the hands of a woman, a ‘lesser’ opponent . In the first scenario, the analogy is of God defeating Satan. The second scenario is that of The Woman defeating Satan — biblically speaking, to have someone under your feet is to have defeated that person/entity. God uses the weak to confound the strong. Satan will forever have to endure humiliation for having been trounced by a Woman. Isn’t God great???

          • Jeff Benton

            I understand that…
            And Vinny, Grandmere, and Johnno took care of the blood mingling question…
            I really dont know what ya meant when ya said
            ” if Mary had even a taint of sin, then she
            was NOT IN ENMITY with Satan – (etc..)”
            Because the enmity was not only between her seed and lucifer but also Eve herself and every one in between that was born of Eve… And it is painfully clear that we have enmity with satan… Even those of us with original sin…
            What I am saying is… whether there is original sin or not (as in the case of Jesus Christ who had none, and the rest of us who do) there is enmity…
            So that kind of threw me for a loop…
            Trust me… there is enmity between me and satan lol… And I for sure was born with original sin…

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Everybody is not in ‘ enmity” with Satan – this word connotes total and infinite warfare’s/hatred- — so that’s not us, we have succumbed to Satan – in fact, we are born children of wrath – and anytime we sin we are in friendship with Satan – not in enmity. Use the analogy/typological method and quit banging your head!!! The first man and woman were created/born immaculate – how could the last man and last woman be born in a lesser condition than the first?
            Here’s another nugget to ponder – Before the fall Eve’s name was WOMAN – her name became Eve only after the fall – so WOMAN, when pertaining to the Adam/Eve union, implies an immaculate condition – now recall, Jesus ONLY addresses His mother as WOMAN (St John 2:4, St John 19:26) – and just as the first woman was ‘Taken’ out of the first man, Mary is ‘Taken’ from the new Adam.

          • Doc

            As if He told Mary, “Take care of my light work.” I like it, I like it.

        • Jeff my friend,

          If you examine all Protestant writing about the Ark, it was always described as sinless.

          Although they thought the Ark was Christ, it still reveals how this Ark is completely sinless because it was made of gold (holy) and wood (human)

          This missing that the Ark was Mary and them describing the Ark as sinless completely debunks everything Protestants grew up with.

          Mary was conceived without stain of original sin. This can also be deduced from Psalm 132 (DR Psalm 131). Here is the Greek in its translation word for word:

          8 Ἀνάστηθι, Κύριε, εἰς τὴν ἀνάπαυσίν σου, σὺ καὶ ἡ κιβωτὸς τοῦ ἁγιάσματός σου.

          Let you arise, O Lord, into the rest of you, you and the ark of the holiness of you.

          When I wrote this article I only gave a glimpse from what I gleaned. There is much work to be done on this most phenomenal Psalm to write an entire book.

          If you look above in the Septuagint Greek which really expresses how the Jews prior to Christ viewed this Ark it makes even a better case; the Ark here in the Septuagint is the Ark of Holiness. Sanctified. Free of the stain of original sin.

          A baby is free of sin. Why would it be difficult to see that some have no sin? Who went up with the chariot to God? How can one go up on a chariot to heaven when scripture clearly states that no unclean can enter heaven?

          “Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified.”

          This Ark was SANCTIFIED. PURE. HOLY. END OF STORY. “without stain of original sin.”

          It gets even worse for anyone to argue that Mary had sin since NO ONE can even argue that the ancient Ark had ANY stain. All throughout the Old Testament the Ark was never defiled. Even when the Romans and Antiochus desecrated the Temple, but NEVER the Ark. Why? Because God protected the Ark. It was built PERFECT to house GOD in the Shekinah Glory. No serious theologian whether Protestant or Catholic can argue that the Ark had any stain for even the Protestant would dare argue that God when He entered the Ark of the Covenant that there was any stain in it for this was His dwelling place.

          While many would validly use arguments that Mary is “full of grace”, this is the most valid argument making Mary free of sin, this addition by studying and examining how the Jew in ancient times translated the verse make absolutely no way to argue how the Jews felt about the Ark of God and even the Virgin birth which they etched in the Septuagint translating Almah as “VIRGIN” which the Protestants rely on only the Septuagint to make their case for a virgin birth in the Old Testament. This validates the Septuagint even in Protestant eyes.

          2 Maccabees (1 & 2) even documents the hiding of the Ark by Jeremiah who promised that it will be returned (probably what John wrote about Mary returning) but it was hidden so it can never be stained.

          • I’d like to add that the Ark became Holy when it was properly consecrated in accord with the instruction Moses received.

            In the Law, every first born that were from the womb were consecrated to God. Thus, Mary was consecrated to God just as Jesus, while being fully God and fully Man, was consecrated as well since His parents did all the offering to the Lord in accord to the Law.

            That’s why I love how St. Irenaeus explained how Mary became the Last Eve since the First Eve, being a virgin, disobeyed, and brought death to the world, therefore, Mary balanced the scale, being a virgin, obeyed God and brought life into the world.

            Everything is balanced.

          • Blimey…

            The Ark became consecrated and the Glory of Israel descended upon the altar, aka the Mercy Seat.

            The Blessed Virgin, as the Ark of the New Covenant, became consecrated had the Glory of God descending upon her and into her womb.

          • Jeff Benton

            Hey Walid and thanks!!!! So much good information from everyone here including yourself!!!
            God willing, I will be spending a lot of time studying a whole boatload of info presented in your article, and the comments…

            I am truly glad you are all here…

            I can not, by any strictly human means, absorb, research, study, prove, and validate everything written in just this one comment of yours here in a matter of hours or even days… Much less everything written in all the comments and your article to boot…

            So let me touch on one thing right off the bat…

            When I first started to seek God, I saw immediately a bit of error coming from a lot of protestant pastors in the pulpit from time to time…

            Wait let me back up… Even when I say when I first started to seek God needs to be defined… For truly I tell ya, even my sin from birth was nothing more than a reaching for God, and wildly missing the mark… By FAR missing the mark…. For what was all that perversion and iniquity, but a search for something to make me whole, but looking in all the wrong places???

            So now I have to go back and define sin from birth ay??? now I have to define what I mean, when what I am saying is that even from birth, I was full of selfishness and was self-centered in the extreme…
            Ya see how this expands exponentially???

            So lets just skip all that and let me explain that I mean – when I first started going to church for real -…

            When I first started to go to church for real, I saw a lot of pastors saying things from time to time that were in error…
            I saw it in Sunday School teachers, in pastors, and in Church members who were just members and not deacons or pastors…
            Almost all of it was due to assumptions… Peeps just assumed things, and from then on out, it was true for them no-matter what…

            And the very first place God put a burning in my heart to seek, was the writings closer to the time of Jesus, and long long before Jesus was ever born of Mary…

            Indeed the very first place God sent me was to the book of Enoch, and the Assumption of Moses…
            Now almost side by side with that, God sent me to Teresa of Avila, Julian of Norwich, Origen, and many many many others…

            Indeed it was Origen that he used to show me my encounter with Jesus Christ was indeed valid… Not that I needed Validation, but he showed me that I was not alone in what many “normal” peeps who never experienced such would consider weird and too outlandish to be true…

            It was Teresa of Avila that he used to validate my experiences in meditation and prayer, and show me that the things that “normal” peeps would consider weird and too outlandish to be believed, were indeed experienced by others who were far more knowledgeable and wise than I was (or am too)…

            I could go on and on and on…
            Everything I was led too showed me, without me needing to be shown, that I was on the right path…
            I only had one major setback, about 2 or 3 years into this journey, wherein I almost succumbed to my sinful nature and the wiles of the evil one, and indeed I reached for darkness in one minute, in one second — before I stopped and ran crying and destroyed to the guide I had at that time and fully confessed that I was too ashamed and not even worthy to enter his home and didn’t deserve to live any longer…

            He quickly, I believe with the holy spirit, set me right…
            So with just one major setback in 10 years or so, from 1999 to 2010… Thats not bad ay??? Even Peter went through such ay???
            🙂 🙂 🙂

            Everything went smoothly after that up until 2010…
            At which point someone, (whether it be God or the evil forces I have no clue) began to remove and indeed reform the places I was drawn to meditate and pray at, to where I no longer had access to them…
            then in late 2010, the holy spirit seemed (let me stress this – SEEMED – ) to no longer be guiding me… then things went downhill fast… And I have never been through such trial in my life….
            Understand that you are talking with someone who has been in such places and circumstances that I cannot even mention them in a public forum…

            This stuff from 2010 to today has been progressively worse than anything I can even imagine… And to top it off, I just recently had a dream that if I make it through whats coming next, I will face nothing worse till the end of my days…
            You cannot even imagine how my heart dreads this…
            I am already in hell, and worse is coming…
            My tears they fall like rain…

            The saving grace is this… Jesus tells me that I should rejoice and be exceedingly glad… For these very trials confirm my entrance into His Kingdom…

            I put on a good act do I not??? Have you been able to tell when I am laid up and bedridden due to my God given heart problems??? Have you been able to tell when I am so completely destroyed in Spirit that I no longer wish to live???

            I tell ya I put on a happy face and laugh… Not due to anything in me… But from the Grace of Our lord Jesus Christ and the knowledge that not only am I going through this to refine me for entrance to his Kingdom, but also in the knowledge that he will NEVER let me go… These very trials that I dread and fear prove it…

            But back to the point at hand… and that is protestant writings…
            God has not led me to seek out the writings of luther or others… Indeed I have no clue what all the reformers say…
            Nor do I care…
            Not because of any lack of willingness to search such things out, but due to the fact that I haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of the writings and Holy Spirit filled words of those I was originally led to seek out…

            So as to the one thing I have time to touch on lightly in this one comment form you –

            “If you examine all Protestant writing about the Ark, it was always described as sinless.” –

            I want to let you know that I do not currently have the time or means to do that…
            Not only do I not have all their writings (many of which will have a good bit of error in them if they are like the preachers and layfolk I have witnessed)…
            But even if I took the time and treasure to get them and study them, I would be neglecting my duty to seek a way out of the desert I am currently in and have been in for 7 years…

            SEVEN YEARS…

            I hope you can understand now why it is that I stick around and appreciate all you, and everyone else here does…

            Now that is just one tiny part of one comment from you that I have barely touched on at all, while inserting a very brief overview of where I am at without even going into any depth in that either…
            See what I mean???

            OK – I am off to finish the – by now surely cold – tea I put on to steep before I started writing this… And thats if I am not too dizzy and dont pass out from my God given heart problems (which I rejoice in) as I make my way down the stairs…

            In Jesus Christ…

          • Darren Neufeldt

            Jeff, I just want to say Thank you for sharing what you did, Hang in there and it will get better. I hope you don’t mind, but I said a prayer for you.

          • ace

            Jeff, May God bless you Mary keep you. Some issues are only resolved by prayer and fasting – literally fasting for serious physical issues like cancers and blood conditions, to say nothing about emotional and spiritual issues.

            Whether this is your issue or not, a simple search on fasting and cancer will get you some starting information. It seems that fasting resets the immune system.

            My personal experience of hard fasting, like maybe just water, coffee, tea, maybe some whey protein was quite difficult and a bit intimidating (by comparison, 2 meals a day and not eating between meals was much easier). If you cannot do this, but have a family member who would be willing to do it on your behalf, that would also be great. Like I said, both medical research and practice of early Christians supports this.

            For example the Didache says “Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you.” and regarding baptism, this line appears: “…But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you

            Wow! I think the early Christians were giants and I am a wuss by comparison, although with God’s help I continue to try to get stronger. I’m not sure what you should do beyond going to Mass as frequently as possibly and availing yourself of confession (and maybe spiritual direction). I present to you the thought of fasting or having someone fast for you for your consideration, but only you can decide.
            I will pray for you too, and I think you are on the right track with doing your best to trust God and endure under affliction, even though you are spending much time in bed. If you can’t go to weekday Mass, can you watch it on EWTN? Can you search for information on spiritual communion on-line if you are not familiar with this practice?

            God be with you, my friend…

  • infowolf1

    the statement you ascribe to Jehovah, about not taking rest until etc., is what Jehovah quotes DAVID as saying, so this passage has no bearing on your interpretation, and Ephratah having heard of it doesn’t mean it was in Ephratah. However, it might be relevant as a hint to where the physical ark is hidden now. The argument for Mary as Ark is supported other ways, though I think it was Irenaeus who interpreted the Ark as representing Jesus not Mary, because the gold was inside and out of the wood, like His divinity permeates His humanity without either being changed. The idea of Mary as Ark developed later. Both interpretations could be valid depending on how you look at it. The Lord and His Ark might mean Jesus and Mary, or Jesus and the physical Ark or The Father and The Son Incarnate as Ark and taken up to heaven after His REsurrection.

    • Grandmere

      Wolf, I give up. Good bye.

      • Стефан Евгений

        This is what St Seraphim had to say.

        Though the enemy and devil seduced Eve, and Adam fell with her, yet the Lord not only granted them a Redeemer in the fruit of the seed of the woman Who trampled down death by death, but also granted us all in the woman, the Ever-Virgin Mary Mother of God, who crushes the head of the serpent in herself and in all the human race, a constant mediatress with her Son and our God, and an invincible and persistent intercessor even for the most desperate sinners. That is why the Mother of God is called the “Plague of Demons,” for it is not possible for a devil to destroy a man so long as man himself has recourse to the help of the Mother of God.
        Conversation with Motovilov

    • You read the article and still wildly missed the mark.

      • infowolf1

        I agree that The Ark can represent Mary, and that whether it does or not she is extremely important, I believe Jesus resurrected her and assumed her alive into heaven and I pray to her at times. I am Orthodox. But these verses have more than one possible interpretation,

        • No.

          “However, it might be relevant as a hint to where the physical ark is hidden now.”

          This is what you wrote. There is a reason the physical ark was never found.

          Here is another translation of Psalm 132:6-7:

          “We heard of it in Ephrathah; we found it in the fields of Jaar. “Let us go to his dwelling place; let us worship at his footstool.”

          This is the hint of the shepherds who would be told where to find the Christ with His mother, the ark. I completely gets what Walid is saying.

          • “I completely gets what Walid is saying.”

            To me when I read the Psalms I am simply re-living my youth when we marched in weddings and watched how the tribes sang (Shoebat means the tribes, the branches) and it was all about David and Solomon and bringing the bride to the bridegroom. So when I read the Psalms, its a breeze. These are songs and poems which we are VERY accustomed to that nature of expression.

          • Beautiful expression, “Bringing the bride to the bridegroom.”

            That would mean our Mother has the best seat of honor in watching her children become Christ’s bride.

          • NO WONDER!

            No wonder why Jesus’ first miracle was at the wedding in Cana when His mother interceded for the wedding party. That is PROPHETIC!

        • Julie LaBrecque

          Your are not Orthodox. You are whatever suits your fancy.

          • Previously she stated she was charismatic pentecostal. She even mocked the birth of Christ in another comment regarding the story of Onan’s “wasted seed” mocking how this could be the line where Christ came from.

            This is no Orthodox, not even a charismatic Pentecostal Evangelical. This is someone who is in disguise and is dishonest and believes not in Christ. Its an impostor and for years I put up with them reveals my patience. So finally it is wolf be gone. There is no room for dishonest people who cover up who they really are.

          • David G

            If the dissenters of late would come onto your website and give a honest, logical argument for real debate, I would be more inclined to give a listening ear, but that is not why they come here. I see no benefit to you or any of the commenters on your website for the vitriolic dissenters to remain. As far as I am concerned, the majority of us are here on your website because we want to learn, plain and simple as that. I do not comment or enter into debate because I am not a very good debater nor am I strong enough in the scriptures to quote chapter and verse and so my comments are meant to be supportive. I am usually one of the loudest parents at a sporting event cheering on my kid and their teammates, it is how I see myself on your website.

          • Grandmere

            At the end of a long, hard day we look up to see David G waiting by the door. His kind eyes and gentle ways comfort us.

          • Doc

            Get ’em, Sheriff!

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Wow —

      • Стефан Евгений

        T, All churched Orthodox know this Ikos 12 of the akathist hymn.
        Priest: While singing to Thine Offspring, we all praise Thee as a living temple, O Theotokos; for the Lord Who holdeth all things in His hand dwelt in Thy womb, and He sanctified and glorified Thee, and taught all to cry to Thee:

        Rejoice, tabernacle of God the Word:

        Rejoice, saint greater than the saints!

        Rejoice, ark gilded by the Spirit:

        Rejoice, inexhaustible treasury of life!

        Rejoice, precious diadem of pious kings:

        Rejoice, venerable boast of reverent priests!

        Rejoice, unshakable fortress of the Church:

        Rejoice, inviolable wall of the kingdom!

        Rejoice, Thou through whom victories are obtained:

        Rejoice, Thou through whom foes fall prostrate!

        Rejoice, healing of my flesh:

        Rejoice, salvation of my soul!

        Rejoice, O Bride Unwedded!

        • Ahhhhh finally the Orthodox interpretation. Refreshing.

          • Стефан Евгений

            One only has to listen to the hymns we Orthodox sing to get it. It is so simple the Educated never grasp it.
            Here is a side by side view of scripture to prove it.

            and you can hear the Nuns sing.

          • Darren Neufeldt

            That was beautiful singing, and the verses that go with it was the icing on the cake.

          • Стефан Евгений

            Darren Here is a couple of links that Translate what the Nuns are singing.
            Here is the Hymn in English and Greek… Ok don’t open the vid on that page the singing in English is awful .
            Here is a better one in Greek.

      • Julie LaBrecque

        I think that must be her job because she sure is good at it.

        • Always reading what is presented and completely misses the point. I almost banged my head on the desk when I read the comment.

          I guess this is the one fish to be tossed back in the sea.

  • Methusalem

    This is great! When I read the title, I was expecting The Ark had been probably found beneath The Temple Mount.

    The ARK = ZION = MARY

    I’m going to read this for the coming week, repeatedly. Thanks, Walid!

    • “This is great! When I read the title, I was expecting The Ark had been probably found beneath The Temple Mount.”

      Remember, fishing demands a shiny Salmon egg so that the fish trout bite.

  • Brenda

    Love the ornate and pretty alter, in these days with so much ugliness around you gotta love and admire something like that, On it’s own it can make you want to become a catholic. This is a really pretty picture too, Love it.

  • infowolf1

    The Genesis prophecy – the reason all other translations say her seed will crush the serpent’s head, is because the Septuagint, the Samaritan and the Masoretic say HER SEED will crush the serpent’s head. Jerome was criticized for this mistranslation into Latin and someone figured he must have been influenced by some corrupt manuscript, but he had studied all three categories, Septuagint in Greek, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Masoretic Pentateuch, and he still did this so he just plain lied. I pray to Mary at times, and I am Orthodox, but the fact is that only Jerome’s influence creates this particular translation.

    • “he [St. Jerome] just plain lied”

      I never liked you Wolf. Never will. For you accuse without evidence. A lie is when one knows that they are not telling the truth and is why your name is fitting: wolf.

  • infowolf1

    This is a very good teaching, but it would be better (I notice this several times in other articles) if you would quote the Bible from it in front of you, and not from memory. The Luke 1:15 quote is not about Jesus Christ but John the Baptist. A protestant noticing these error will be inclined to dismiss the whole Marian subject.

    • While the Catholic Church does not teach that that John the Baptist was Born without original sin, but it is a belief among Catholics since in Luke 1:13-15 it says: “Do not be afraid, Zechari’ah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth; for he will be great before the Lord,and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.”

      The Holy Spirit does not fill those who are still in a state of original sin that is the privation of the sanctifying grace which unites us with God. A soul filled with the Holy Spirit is a spirit united with God and thus not deprived of sanctifying grace.

      And so I used it to make an argument that this too fits the Messiah who is greater than John. And if John had an ark, what about Christ’s Ark?

      Welcome to Catholicism 101.

      • Doc

        I agree with you totally except I do not think John was born without original sin, just that his faith was so great and he was so surrendered to the Will of the Lord that it was credited to him as righteousess, much like Abraham.

    • ace

      This comes from Origen (c.185-c 254), one of the Church Fathers:

      Jesus, who was in [Mary’s] womb, hurried to sanctify John still in his mother’s womb. Before Mary arrived and greeted Elizabeth, the child had not leapt in the womb, but as soon as Mary had spoken the word that the Son of God in her womb had suggested, the child [John] leapt with joy, and at that moment Jesus made his precursor his prophet… There is no doubt that she [Elizabeth] who was then filled with the Holy Spirit was filled on account of [John] her son. No, only when John, enclosed in her womb, had received the Holy Spirit [by the presence of Jesus in Mary’s womb], only after his sanctification, was she filled with the Holy Spirit…”

      So, what do we see here? The grace of the Holy Spirit comes to John the Baptist from Jesus through the presence of Mary.

  • Vinny Zee

    You’ve done so many well, but going to have to say as of today this is your best work to date! So very much enjoyed this. I think when you wrote on this a few years ago, I don’t recall Psalm 132 being alluded to. If it was, it wasn’t as prominent. This time around, it really laid a firm foundation to the doctrine for others to understand what we are saying on Mary. Without a proper theology of Mary, one ends up ultimately with a wrong theology of the person and nature of Christ.

    One thought on why the Holy Spirit simply did not instruct one of the biblical writers just jot: “the Ark is the Woman Mary, the Mother of Jesus?” I think later you nailed it, the tares debate scripture and debase the holy things anyway. I would add, the Holy Spirit did have the church instruct us on this. He gave it to us by Holy Tradition. He then gave us the inspired writing of Paul, “Hold fast to the Traditions you have been taught,” 2 Ths 2:15. Jesus sheep listen to his voice. Catholics listen to the whole voice, the holy writ and the holy tradition. Many will not listen to the voice of tradition. They cling only to the written, but even this they debate to their own destruction.

    It is truly meet to bless you, O Theotokos, ever-blessed and most pure, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, without defilement you gave birth to God the Word. True Theotokos we magnify you!

    • “years ago, I don’t recall Psalm 132 being alluded to.”

      Vinny, when Christ came it was the least paid attention to writ that became the most important writ. And so it will be regarding the second coming and the coming of the woman in Rev 11-12.

      “They cling only to the written, but even this they debate to their own destruction.”

      Good point. This is why Christ used the Septuagint because it had the growth of knowledge later on interpreted and out into the translation since it was men of God through the Holy Spirit who wrote the Septuagint and is why Christ used it. St. Jerome is a similar case. As I said, I’d rather trust a saint than a scholar.

      “It is truly meet to bless you, O Theotokos, ever-blessed and most pure, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, without defilement you gave birth to God the Word. True Theotokos we magnify you!”

      Look at you Vinny. You are ready for the war. Battle Speed.

      • Vinny Zee

        I had what I thought were trusted friends telling other loved ones, “Satan is speaking through him” (meaning me.) Hmm, interesting, I think I recall someone else in scripture doing good and being accused of having a demon. Yes Walid, it truly is a war with numerous battles. The struggle is against pride, anger, resentment and doubts. We all must pray for one another.

  • Jeff Benton

    Wonder how France falling into the hands of Germany and islam will shape up over the next 5 years…

    • AnthonyM

      I expect there is a rough road ahead. Parcours.

    • Tom_mcewen

      Simple, Troy had a hundred Greek soldiers inside a wooden horse and France has eight million who don’t need a horse they are already inside the city gates. They need to put Le Pen’s picture on the back of milk cartons in case they need someone to look for her. Macron is a burnt out lightbulb on the path to Oblivion.

      • Jeff Benton

        Any one willin to go, or send their kids off to fight in Europe at this point is a drateR… Im talkin Full drateR…
        I dont give a rats hiney what our whiny politicians say at this point… Me and mine aint goin…
        Anywhere in 100 miles or so of our coast is my new standard for defending our freedom…
        I cannot fix stupid… Nor will I try…
        Here or even close to here??? sure thing…
        Over there???
        Not a chance…
        They didn’t learn last time… so…
        So be it…
        Let em sort it out themselves…
        If they win against all odds, we will have a friend again…
        If they lose???
        We have a huge target with no chance for collateral damage LOL…

        Had a fella I rescued out of a flood once… Didn’t mind helpin at all… Even at my own risk…
        But I doubt I would have done anything more than watch him float off if I pulled him out and he jumped back in HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
        Same thing applies here…

        • Jeff Benton

          Well… I guess after they lose and I can kill or capture everything that moves me and mine will be willin to go LOL…

          • Brenda

            We have so many of our own issues here right now that it’s hard for me to envision us being able to save anyone else. There’s so much racial division, ideologies, hate groups, sanctuary cites, School issues and on and on so much that it seems like we could end up being be too busy here to have enough men to go around.

        • Tom_mcewen

          I hope you know D-Day in French history is not June 6, 1944 but June 14, 1944 when the French CIC landed and asked to take command of all allied troops in France.

          • Jeff Benton

            LOL… bet that went over well 🙂 🙂 🙂
            Well, it’s kind of like this… I’ll be happy to go when all the fools who voted themselves into this mess have either fought and won, or lost and all been killed…
            That way I can kill or capture everything that moves…
            Libs are real real big on having no collateral damage… so it’s best I wait till they win, or are all dead, so I have a clear field of fire and wont be able to hurt their “feelings” with any collateral damage LOL…

      • Grandmere

        I stand in awe of your synapses. Can I borrow a couple sometime?

        • Tom_mcewen

          I am impressed with the Catholic saints who have talked about France and Italy in a brutal civil war that turns France into an ocean of blood. But to be accurate it is not a civil war but a war against Invaders who now have gained such a strong foothold that brutal war is required. A small fire can be put out but left alone it can burn London, Paris, Berlin and even Rome. Like Jesus said on the mount, Every (sin) word and deed must be paid for by blood and suffering, no exceptions. Except for born again Protestants as we are told.

  • AnthonyM

    Great! I enjoyed getting ‘schooled’ on the Shoebat Sunday Specials. After Mass and the Eucharist it is a good ending to the day.

    Catholics will be harder to deceive by the antichrist, as we have the Pope. Protestants on the other hand will be easily misled.

    One piece I do not understand “the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent”. I’ve heard it is describing airplane wings taking Jews to Petra, but that is not it. Could it be referring to the flight to Egypt, Old and New Testament, or East and West Churches, or church militant on earth and the church triumphant in heaven?

    How marvelous that God the Son took on human form and entered into our existence. Out of his great love for us, he took on our form, and destroyed death and brings us to eternal life. What a blow that must have been to the devil, who thought he had irreparably destroyed God’s creation by introducing sin and death, only to find that creation had been redeemed by Christ who took on human form and became man, died, but then rose again. The devil could not have seen that restorative act of incomparable love coming, and his ‘jaw’ must have hit the floor as that plan unfolded before his eyes.

    • “the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent”.

      “And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days … and the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

      The interpretation is usually nearby. Here the Antichrist as described in Daniel would prohibit the real food: Eucharist. “that they should feed her” is her seed for 3.5 years.

      The Eucharist will be consumed in hidden places, the wilderness, desert where food (communion) is scarce since Antichrist causes a spiritual starvation.

      Just ask yourself, how many hate the Eucharist. How fast are Eucharist haters growing. How many hate the Woman. How many dishonor her.

      Believe it or not, the hatred of Mary being our Mother and the Mother of God and the Eucharist is more expressed amongst anti-Catholics way more than Muslims.

      • Julie LaBrecque

        True – very true (last statement).

      • Tom_mcewen

        Excellent connection to the abolition of the grain offering.

        • Its simple Tom. The verse is speaking about feeding the woman which is Mary’s children since only the ones who call her Mother are the only ones who consume the Eucharist food and is why the verses are constructed this way.

          • Brenda

            Walid I am going to send you a quick email on why this hits home with me personally, you will get a link with proof even, It’s a bit personal for me, and I will keep it short and you will see why it’s something I don’t go around telling people about, They wouldn’t get it.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            My personal opinion is this – If you love the Eucharist, and KNOW that it IS Jesus – body, blood, soul, and divinity, it is natural and instinctual to LOVE Mary – we know that it was from her body and her blood in which the Saviour became OUR brother – in flesh and in blood… He became one of us THROUGH HER – I don’t think too many Christians EVER ponder that – its like they ‘know’ it, but to ponder and live a mystery produces a reality of a magnitude that is almost indescribable – one that is light years apart from the reality that exists from giving one’s mere assent.
            From her flesh came His flesh, flesh that was truly as human as is yours and mine, and from that, He now gives US that flesh, divinely imbued now with all the glory of heaven, Shekinah glory indeed ( 1 Kings 9:3, heart and eyes), so glorified that we mere mortals could barely stand in its presence were it not hidden beneath the veils of bread and wine – and protestants dare ask why we bow and kneel before it? Scripture states that at the name of JESUS, every knee should bow. Do they?
            I would use the following example to use as an analogy – Husband ‘A’ states to his wife that he loves her. He goes about their entire marriage proving to her and to the world of his assent to love her – he keeps every vow made on their wedding day.
            Husband ‘B’ states to his wife that he loves her. He keeps every vow that he made on their wedding day. He will send her flowers or bring home a box of fancy chocolate for her every now and then; He hugs her and whispers how special she is to him; he tells her how he could not live without her; he serves her breakfast in bed for their Anniversary, and he takes the vacuum from her hands so she can rest her feet a bit.

          • Great analogy. I give a similar analogy but in reverse. A husband who says he loves his wife but refuses to do anything with her or for her. Would that husband be true in his love? Of course not. The same goes for some of these who comment about Jesus yet they do not obey much of what He sent us through the Book and through the Church.

      • AnthonyM

        Very true many hate the Eucharist, in s[ite of what Jesus said about it, in his own words. So they deny his words. Mary also, how they expect to profit from that is beyond me, unless their end goal is destruction.
        P.S. Theodore did an excellent video on Euroscepticism.

    • Doc

      I have heard that the “wings of a great eagle” could have to do with the U.S. The eagle is the symbol of America, and it could be possible that the U.S. military, led by a Christian, uses its planes to hide the woman.

  • You act as if we believe that:

    “Mary was Jesus Christ”

    “She did die on the cross”

    “She created the Son of God”

    “She would rejoice of anybody who elevates her to be Goddess”

    “This is what Catholics believe”

    I can’t say it any other way, but had St, Thomas More been around he would tell you off in a harsh way.

    But this is exactly what you insinuated we believe. Any ancient saint would tell you that you are a slanderous piece of work.

    You did not take any effort to offer your interpretation of Psalm 132 or anything that was written.

    What you wrote is nothing but pure slander.

    • eagle

      I’m surprised Walid you even answered me back , I already know how angry you can get when the different point of view is shown , i’ve watch the Catholic Church for many years , they do elevate mary , scripture can be extremely hard to interpret, that is why we have so many different names across so many churches in this land, because the truth is very hard to fine , I am a little bit more than just what you think I am . What i know is Mary’s heart , she knew who her son was , and I know she would never wanted the position man has put her in, through some of your writings you are correct , but I see the influence the Catholics that had, there’s so much more he would give you if you would ask . You have been put in a good position for the Kingdom to lead many into salvation . What lies under scripture is not always what it seems . Only the pure in heart will see the truth… and that is my wish for you .

      • ” I already know how angry …”

        As soon as I read this I stopped reading any further for this is always the accusation I get from your type for they try to paint everyone who debunks them with “anger” just because they failed to answer an article which expounds on Psalm 132 which you never addressed but changed the subject. People who always change the subject are bigots for bigots never answer a question but they always change the subject.

        I will leave you to your vises. Enough said for there is no worth in saying anymore.

      • Brenda

        Oh boy, It’s like your telling a Master Mechanic that he doesn’t know how put together an Erector Set, That’s how far off you are on this.

      • Tom_mcewen

        You speak truly scripture is very hard to interpret, that is why this morning there are 48005 Protestant confessions interpreting scripture in 48005 different ways, yours is just another one. What do you think about Luther’s interpretation of scripture, Good or Bad? He like you interpreted scripture so that the Bible said, Jesus committed adultery with three women one the woman at the well two the woman caught in adultery and last with Mary Magdalene. Was he wrong, if so prove it, with Protestant theology. We have always venerated Mary, from the beginning, worshipped Christ and the Eucharist which is his body and listened to the liturgy which birthed the Bible 360 years later, first the church then the Bible. Protestantism got rid of the church as a channel for truth as you stated and came to venerated the Bible. The Bible is now idol worship and this Bible has fractured the Protestant belief in Christ into 85% agnostics and atheists in Europe. Is this the result you wanted in 1517AD, because that is what you got. Milk is for the children and meat is for the adults and Walid gave you meat and you spit up milk.

  • If what you wrote is sin, then count me in as a sinner 🙂 great comment and well put.

  • Vinny Zee

    I think you completely missed the article or failed to read it in its entirety. The entire article is about, “Mary was Jesus Christ mother.” What you failed to do, and what the article clearly did, was put the theology behind exactly what that means. If it stated in the gospel of St. Luke, “Mary was Jesus Christ mother and nothing more,” then 2000 year later some guy by the name of Walid would not write an entire article explaining 2000 years of church history about what it means for Mary to be the mother of Christ. However, you make a pretty bold statement about what she would or would not be ashamed of, but not sure where you are getting that from.

  • Tom_mcewen

    Mary is like a bone trapped in the throat for Protestants, you can’t really forget about her. Our relationship with the holy family is as a family. Jesus can be seen two ways as a fearful Greek God or a brother we relate to both Mary and Jesus as family we love. Protestants relationship is not so simple. Their picture of Jesus is a jaelous God who

  • Darren Neufeldt

    One of the things that I like about this place is that a simpleton like myself can usually understand it in one reading. I say “usually” because sometimes I get confused as I read and it takes a few readings to sort it out. Thus I start around 1:00pm and finish at 6:20pm. If anything, I have to thank you Walid for helping me grow in my love for the Blessed Virgin Mother all the more and in turn helping my faith grow as well, so, Thank you Walid, and may God Bless you all the more for it.

    • “Thus I start around 1:00pm and finish at 6:20pm.”

      This proves that you are a digger of wells, like Jacob.

      The only ones who get a well and drink are the ones who are willing to DIG and pour much effort.

      This is a good trait.

      As Theo says, the ones who usually become Catholic/Orthodox are the ones who like to DIG.

      This is why I have zero hope for Facebook fanatics.

      • David W

        Very true chef. There are alot of P&W bands, but congregants seem to have an allergic reaction to history and geography (and a raging hatred for HOLY SMOKE– It is easy to see these Calvinists cheering on the eugenicists and Muslims if they decide to burn and desecrate Catholic and Orthodox parishes.

    • Tom_mcewen

      I personally would like to thank you for thinking deeply and reading in depth about what is not important to the world but is important to heaven.

      • Darren Neufeldt

        Thank you Tom, is there a version or Bible inparticular that I should be looking at? I’ve read the Protestant Bibles, I’ve read Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (got a lot of Ah-ha moments with this one), I’ve read the RSV with full Apocrypha (again some ah-ha moments), and I’m currently reading the NRSVCE.

        • Tom_mcewen

          If you can learn the vocabulary of Elizabethan English stick with the Douay-Rheims, the scholars were well trained and it is excellent in beauty and rhythm. I personally am jealous, I lost mine in a move and Czech is not over stocked with them. Look on line for a glossary. Maybe the Jerusalem Bible, but if you can stick with the Douay-Rheims. Nothing modern, the translators were aware that reading and comprehension has fallen and targeted that level.

        • ace

          OK, personal opinion, for what it’s worth, I like RSVCE and NABRE. There are, IMHO, some issues with NRSVCE, so be cautious. DRA and KJV (but not NKJV) have some poetic turns of phrase, and DRA has some very good commentaries in Haydock and Challoner. The OSB (Orthodox Study Bible) is worth reading and I would prefer it to the Jerusalem.

          [Here’s a quirky piece of trivia to know about the DRA: Sometimes it says “corn” where we would otherwise read “wheat”, like in Mt 12:1 “At that time Jesus went through the corn on the sabbath: and his disciples being hungry, began to pluck the ears, and to eat.” And, if you read St. Augustine, and maybe some other Church Fathers, they will also say “corn” instead of “wheat”. What we know of as “corn” was domesticated in Latin America, not the Middle East, so, what’s the solution? Einkorn wheat was the “finest wheat” of the Pharaohs, and was originally domesticated in Egypt. Curiously, it is very low in gluten, and most people with gluten intolerance (except those with the most severe cases) have no problem with this wheat. So, just remember, sometimes “corn” or “korn” is really “einkorn wheat”.]

          You may also want to familiarize yourself with this Greek interlinear site: and with the Blue Letter Bible At BLB, you can cut and paste the Strong’s numbers you see in the Greek Interlinear and find out where a Greek word appears elsewhere in the NT, but unfortunately not the OT (No, you don’t need to know Greek, but if you play around with these 2 sites, I’m sure you will figure it out; pretty fun and interesting.)

          Good Catholic Biblical Commentaries include the Navarre Bible Commentary (RSVCE), the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (RSVCE) (NT and separate volumes OT), and Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (NABRE, separate volumes for separate books of the bible). There is also, of course, the CCC.

          The Coming Home Network has a read the Bible and the Catechism in one year guide which is a free download here:

          For a daily devotional, the Carmelites have, IMHO, the best daily Lectio site corresponding to the Gospel reading for the day (If you don’t know what Lectio Divina is, there is an explanation there too):

          • Darren Neufeldt

            Thank you Ace, I’ll look into these sites.

    • Vinny Zee

      Darren there is nothing wrong with taking the bible at face value. In fact, that is what we do as Catholics. We take the whole of scripture and look at all of the possibilities. We don’t read one verse of scripture and build an entire dogma out of it. We often get accused of not following scripture. Nothing could be further from the truth. Catholics believe the whole of it. So when it says “eat my flesh and drink my blood” we do not do verbal judo around the verses and try to make it be metaphorical. When the angel said to Mary, “hail full of Grace” we don’t parse the Greek 20 different ways to say she was something other than full of Grace. Some doctrines took centuries for the Church to work out. The Church fathers didn’t write daily devotionals and pass them out to their local congregation. Things were debated and discussed in different regions and ultimately many were worked out in councils. So if you think corporately about the bible (if I understand it correctly how you are using the term) then good for you. This is exactly what we do.

      • Darren Neufeldt

        I have been trying to look at the whole of the Word and not just a verse here or there for a few years and I post a daily reading to a Google+ group in the hopes that everyone there does as well (this is what brought me to become Catholic). Every once in a while I glean from the Word what Walid has been teaching just not as in depth as he is able. Where I struggle is with what is to be taken as face value and what is not, or rather has different meanings. I always want to take the Prophecies at face value and I know that some are that way, it’s the other where I struggle. In the examples you mention as fact I believed in the Body and Blood as the Catholics do when I was Evangelical and it always bothered me that they used soda crackers and grape juice, the “Hail full of Grace” however I was blinded too as I truly needed work done to accept, and may the Holy Queen Mother forgive me for what I have said about her only being blessed and nothing more. I guess only time, research, and following the teachings of the Saints, Church Fathers, and Walid Shoebat will truly be the answers that will teach me to read the Bible in the Corporate fashion where necessary. Thank you Vinny for what you wrote, it helped me in a way that I can’t explain.

        • Vinny Zee

          What kind of resources do you have of the church fathers? What other type of theological resources do you have? These are always a good place to assist us as they often help us to have an idea of what the fathers have also taught on something. Look at the immaculate conception. This was not finalized and promulgated as doctrine until 1854. There was a pretty large consensus of belief on this doctrine, but not always. There were fathers who had different thoughts on it too. So in this way and my point on this is when you said, “what I have said about her only being blessed and nothing more;” there were church fathers who did not either fully grasp or fully accept her immaculate conception. However, it was not dogma in those days, so they were free to question it. The bigger issue for us is denying it after we have learned the dogma. We all have to use our intellect and we do use it. We are God’s creation. We are not some inanimate object being stuffed with faith as the Calvinist would want us to believe, (“irresistible grace”). They divorce us from the free will God created in us. We all need grace and mercy Darren. Can any human mind really fully grasp the Trinity? When the church defined this for us, it in essence also defined what we cannot believe if anything. We cannot think of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were modes (sebellianism) or that Jesus was just a man (arianism) or some other heresy. So while trying to fully comprehend all that the Trinity is by time we leave this earth may not always be possible, at the same time, we should fully accept all the church has taught on it and this is what keeps us from error or heresy.

          • Ahhh Vinny the wise. One of the best well diggers on this ship.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Didn’t you know? Converts are always the Best!!!

          • Thats true. Its because when the enemy comes we simply throw Bricks at them 🙂

  • infowolf1

    To need her to be immaculately conceived in order to not pass on original sin, likewise her parents would have to have been immaculately conceived to not pass original sin on to her. This sort of thing sort of limits God. To be rendered free of original sin for Jesus’ purity’s sake, she need only be cleansed of such just before His conception. or indeed, not at all, but rather miraculously it was blocked from Him.
    An Orthodox writer pointed out that this doctrine detracts from her, making her personal sinlessness a necessary result of her freedom from original sin, and not indicating any personal virtue of her own.
    Also, all the ancient writers who are cited to support it, when the statement is read in context it doesn’t indicate immaculate conception and in some cases additional statements go against this.

  • Thank you brother David G. Glad to be of service.

  • Raph Sebastian

    Excellent post!

  • ace

    Did anyone mention this typology? In 2 Samuel 6, the ark remains in the house of Obededom the Gittite (in the hill country outside of Jerusalem) for three months before being brought into the City of David. In Luke 1, after the annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary by the angel Gabriel that she will conceive by the Holy Spirit, she is also told that her kinswoman Elizabeth has conceived in her old age and is now in her 6th month. Mary, now with Jesus in her womb, now the new ark of the covenant, goes off to see Elizabeth to help her with the rest of her pregnancy and remains with her for about three months.

    At the end of Revelation (the Apocalypse, the unveiling), in chapters 21 and 22, in the New Jerusalem, there is “…no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb… and the glory of God is its light (the Holy Spirit), and its lamp is the Lamb (Rev 21:22-23). The new temple is the Trinity; three Divine persons in one God. The ark, as described in Rev 11-12 is also a person, the Blessed Virgin Mary, as Walid and countless Church Fathers and others have described…

    Jesus is true God and true man. Mary had to be Immaculately conceived without trace of original sin for God to use Mary’s DNA and become flesh without original sin. We who eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus, body, blood, soul, and divinity consume God’s divinity which became one with the Blessed Virgin Mary’s immaculate humanity, and are her seed and offspring; those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.

    • ace

      Here’s some other typology:

      In Luke 1:43 Elizabeth says: “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” and, in 2 Samuel 6:9 David says: “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?”

      In Luke 1:44, John the Baptist leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb, and in 2 Samuel 6:16, King David leaps and dances before the Lord.

      • Jeff Benton

        Pretty cool!!!!

        • ace

          And more:

          The angel appears to Zechariah the Priest in the Temple, standing on the right side of the altar of incense (Luke 1:11) to announce the Baptist’s birth. Gabriel appears to Mary in her own home. She is a sanctuary and is overshadowed by the power of the Most High recalling the cloud which covered Sinai, which settled over the tent of meeting, and which filled the Temple when Solomon consecrates it.

          And look at prophecy fulfilled by Mary from Zech 2:10-11: “Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for lo, I come and I will dwell in the midst of you, says the Lord. And many nations shall join themselves to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people; and I will dwell in the midst of you, and you shall know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you.” Mary is the representative of Israel as daughter Zion and God indeed dwells on earth in the house of Mary’s body (compare this with Solomon’s dedication of the Temple in 1 Kings 8:22ff); the hidden presence of God in the temple of her body.

    • susan

      Ace did you watch any of Theodore’s videos? The ones where he was probably 14 years old or so? I think YouTube removed them all :(. Anyway, years ago I came across one he did on typologies of Mary. It was the first time I’d ever heard of such a thing. It was truly amazing. I went around in bible study and told anyone who would listen to me about typologies and Mary. They hadn’t heard of it either. Theodore explained it in great detail. One of these days I’m going to ask Maria what she read to him when he was in her womb. 😀

  • Kamau41

    What an absolute beautiful, triple masterpiece work, Sir. Well done.
    Here are also the beautiful words from St. Anthansius of Alexander:
    “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides.” Homily of the Papyrus of Turin.
    -St. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373; the main defender of the Trinity and the deity of Christ against the 2nd century Arian heretics.)

    • David W

      And Clement of Alexandria (reposed before the reign of Constantine):

      “O Mysterious wonder! There is only one Father of all, only one Word of all, andd the Holy Spirit is also one and He is everywhere. There is but one Virgin Mother. I like to call her the Church..she is both virgin and mother–immaculate as a virgin and loving as a mother. She calls her children and feeds them with holy milk: the Word, a child.”

      • Kamau41

        Beautiful words from St. Clement.

  • Shane Bass

    Amen! God Bless the Holy Queen Virgin Mother! And Her Son our Lord Jesus Christ!

  • Kamau41

    Fantastic comment, Johnno. Absolutely wonderfully written.

  • Jeff Benton

    Very cool… You and Vinny Zee and Grandmere have laid the blood mingling fallacy I heard on EWTN to rest… Thank you all bunches… and thanks to everyone else with other insights too 🙂 🙂 🙂

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Awesome group they are…

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Is Mary higher than you?

    • Jeff Benton

      hehehe… That one should cause that eagle to land and think for a minute…

      • Julie LaBrecque

        Looney tunes always have to peep in and make a mess

    • Tom_mcewen

      What does the Protestants think of the statement that Christ her son say about blessed rather are those who hear word of God and obey it. They divide the statement into two parts to bring a first slap to shame the woman Mary, when Jesus is actually praising her for her fiat. Of hearing the word of God and then of her free will obeying it. There is something really hateful in that dividing and distortion​ of Christ’s very words.

      • Стефан Евгений

        He called his mother Lady in Greek, but they get hung up on Woman as a put down.

        • Tom_mcewen

          Anything that will degrade His mother of honour is done. This constant degrading of Mary increases my belief she is important to evil and it’s companions as a target.

          • susan

            When they stop the grain offering and sacrifice the only thing left will be the rosary. No Mary. No rosary.
            Could that be why?

          • Tom_mcewen

            Well, the Soviets had AK64 “Suspicion of the intent to harbor anti-soviet thought.” was designed to make the Suspicion that you even thought of God a crime. The religious sisters who died in the death camps made rosaries, in all that horror and death it must have been of the highest importance.

          • Стефан Евгений

            Tom, It’s like they go out of their way to trash her. Not a good idea to trash a Jewish boy’s mother.

            proddies are good at using the bible as a weapon, but never actually read it with comprehension. They quote it at us like we never heard it before.

      • Grandmere

        Five SNAPS

  • susan

    I love these Sunday Specials! My knowledge keeps growing and it’s so edifying to see the patterns of God throughout all the different books written by different authors at different points in history. And now we have just one Psalm on which Walid can write a book! :D. Amazing! I never thought about the wheat and the tares and how God uses His word to sift us. Hace you thought about selling these as bible studies? It would be another way to help finance your family and ministry. :D.

    And I’m tired of these heretical sects demanding we “just believe” except when it comes to Mary’s purity, her sinlessness. Then we have to give every line, verse and dot of scriptural proof. And they still reject it. We don’t know the exact details of how the Holy Spirit mingled within the womb of Mary either. Yet they’ll accept that one. Truth is they already have the spirit of antichrist within them. Or at the very least deceiving them.

    • “And now we have just one Psalm on which Walid can write a book! :D”

      Here is why such a book will destroy Protestantism. Think about it. Protestants have written countless commentary about the Ark being Christ. They have made the Ark PERFECT because Christ was PERFECT.

      And if someone quotes EVERYTHING they wrote about the Ark and put it in light of Psalm 132, it COMPLETELY DEBUNKS ALL THEIR DEBATE, ALL THEIR STRUCTURE AND ALL THEIR FAULTY THEOLOGY FROM THERE OWN WORDS.

      Get it?

      • susan

        Walid, you certainly are destroying the works of the devil! :D.
        Here’s hoping more Protestants will examine the faulty theology upon which their 40,000 denominations is based. It’s time to examine the roots. The roots that began 2000 years ago with the Apostolic church that Jesus started. If you’re not confessing your sins to a Priest and eating the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ as He commanded then how can you claim to be His?
        Walid I just feel this urgency. Even if we have ten years left, there are some who will die tomorrow. Some next week. Some next month.

        Did they make it to heaven? Or did they trust in those which Jesus said:

        11:52 (RHE) Woe to you lawyers, for you have taken away the key of knowledge. You yourselves have not entered in: and those that were entering in, you have hindered.
        Matthew 23:13 (RHE) But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for you yourselves do not enter in and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter.

        Jesus said over and over and over that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood. He knew what he meant. The 70 that left Jesus saying it was “too hard” knew what he meant. Why is it now, all these years later, that it doesn’t mean what Jesus said it meant. This is a salvation issue.

  • KD,

    The problem with being spot on is that they only recognize it after the disaster. When Noah was right about a coming flood, unfortunately there was no one who remained to tell him ‘spot on’.

  • Give it some time. It won’t happen very soon but it is coming.

  • True, Mary is Jesus’ mother, thus making her the Mother of God as Elizabeth recognized.

    True she did not die on the cross, nonetheless, she suffered horribly as any mother would when their children suffer. A prophecy that a few would study, “[…] a sword will pierce even your own soul—to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed,” (Luke 2:35).

    Every whipping Jesus received, Mary felt it. Every spit…every slap…every taunting…Mary felt those.

    Every pounding of the nails…it was as if Mary received those nails herself.

    When the spear pierced Jesus’ side, she felt it too.

    When you degraded her as you have done, you revealed your own heart.

  • Are you going to answer the thread in the article about Psalm 132 or are you going to throw up on the deck of this ship what throw up you swallowed before which you keep re-throwoing up your whole life because you keep swallowing your own vomit?

  • Doc

    QUOTING: That piece is the corporate responsibility where heaven and earth cooperate and where the Church has an altar, a mother and a presence of Christ on earth to be with us in the Eucharist until the close of the age. After all “His name shall be called Emanuel” which is “God with us”. This presence is not just the first coming or some pie in the sky, but an actual presence. It is either God is always with us or He is not. He said: “I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world“. (Matthew 28:20) How is Christ with us until the end of the world? One cannot argue “the Holy Spirit”.


    I have to challenge you (in love of course), Brother Walid: if this does not refer to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then how can it remain true even when the Antichrist puts an end to the Eucharist?

    I want to point out that I am all in favor of receiving the Eucarist and I do believe it has supernatural power, but I am of the opinion that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit exists in each Christian also, and I believe the phrase “I am with you always” can only refer to God being inseparable from the believer because He dwells within.

    What say you?

  • Doc

    QUOTING: “Had a self-appointed pastor started a denomination then, this would go against what Christ said “I will build my church” which is a single universal church that encompass the whole earth.

    How it started was simple: “He appointed twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach” (Mark 3:14).

    Do you see this “He appointed”?

    Was anyone in the entire Bible self-appointed? Never. You would never find such a thing in the entire scriptures.”


    This is the problem I have with Protestantism: literally anyone who claims to have a “Word from God” can go start a church. I do not believe it was so from the beginning.

    Good write-up.

    • ace

      Yeah, as Paul tells Timothy (2 Tim 4:3-4) ” For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

      Also, they either conveniently forget how Christ entrusted the keys to Peter or they do gyrations in their thinking to explain away the meaning of the keys which clearly resembles Is 22:20-22 where the keys are taken from Shebna and given to Eliakim. And what is the meaning of the keeper of the keys? It’s the second in command, the prime minister, the one who wields the authority of the king when the king is absent (but himself remains subject to the king).

  • Doc

    QUOTING: “And today self-proclaimed pastors are running roundabout with seven missing books claiming to fully accept the resurrection of the dead, yet these offer one caveat; when it comes to the saints in heaven, they deny they are living and claiming that these are “dead”. The saints become ‘dead’ when it comes to the intercession of the saints. So the saints are ‘dead’ when scripture itself proclaimed that they are truly ‘living’ “to be absent of the body is to be present with the Lord”.”


    The controversy about not wanting to pray to saints in the Protestant world has more to do with fear of idolatry than the belief that the saints are “dead.” Protestants very much believe the saints are alive, but praying to them is considered giving God’s glory to another. Protestants believe that only God should be prayed to. Now, I understand the catholic view that praying to saints is roughly the same as asking your Uncle Bob still in the flesh to pray for you, so I am not ignorant of the other view.

    As far as saints being “dead” so to speak, if I am not mistaken only the Seventh-Day Adventists believe that “dead” people are asleep in the grave until resurrection day. Even many Protestants consider them a “cult”.

    • Ceirwyn

      This. What you see from protestants is fear and respect for obeying God, in much the same way praying to Mary is respectful for Catholics. They just show it differently.

      • “What you see from protestants is fear and respect for Gods teachings in scripture,”

        • David W

          The Protestants have so much fear and respect, they removed 7 books from the Bible. And Luther’s respect for God’s Word involved relegating the books of James and Esther to kindling.

          • ace

            Martin Luther quotes:

            “to my mind, it [the book of the Apocalypse/Revelation] bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character…Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.” (Sammtliche Werke, 63, pp169-170, ‘The Facts About Luther’, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p203)

            “We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any.” (Lecture at Wittenberg, 54, 424-425)

            “The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.” (‘The Facts About Luther’, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p202) And also: “The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” (Ibid.)

            “If your Papist annoys you with the word [‘alone’-Romans 3:28], tell him straightaway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *ss are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by; the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is doctor above all doctors in Popedom.” (Amicable Discussion, I, 127, ‘The Facts About Luther’, O’Hare, TAN Books (1987), p201)

            “St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me.” (Enlangen, Vol. 61, p 422)

            “Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me” (Luther’s Works, Erlangen ed., 61:422)

            “Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous,
            must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” (Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107)

            Luther expressed that he had: “greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ.” (Table Talk, 2397b) and equally blasphemous, he dared to say regarding God: “I look upon God no better than a scoundrel” (Weimar, Vol. 1, Pg. 487. Cf. Table Talk, No. 963)

            “It does not matter how Christ behaved – what He taught is all that matters.” (Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126).

            “If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out – chase yourself to the Jews” (Letter to Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, American Edition, Luther’s Works, vol. 48, pp. 281-82) “I will not have Moses with his Law, for he is the enemy of the Lord Christ” (Tischreden (Table Talk), L.C.12.s.17) “Moses must ever be looked upon with suspicion, even as upon a heretic, excommunicated, damned, worse than the Pope and the devil” (Commentary on Galatians) “If we allow them – the Commandments – any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies” (Comm. ad Galat, p.310)
            “When the devil comes to tempt and harass you . . .indulge some sin in hatred of the evil spirit and to torment him . . .otherwise we are beaten if we are too nervously sensitive about guarding against sin . . . I tell you, we must put all the Ten Commandments, with which the devil tempts and plagues us so greatly, out of sight and out of mind.”
            (Table Talk in De Wette, 5.188; De Wette was a Protestant scholar who collected the most significant sayings of Luther in several volumes) “We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart” (De Wette, 4.188)

            “If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly . . . as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. . . . No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.” (Letter to Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, American Edition, Luther’s Works, vol. 48, pp. 281-82)

            “Do not ask anything of your conscience; and if it speaks, do not listen to it; if it insists, stifle it, amuse yourself; if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away. Conscience is the voice of Satan, and it is necessary always to do just the contrary of what Satan wishes.” (J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants qu’elle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 248)

            “What harm could it do if a man told a good lusty lie in a worthy cause and for the sake of the Christian Churches?” (Lenz: Briefwechsel, Vol. 1. Pg. 373.) “To lie in a case of necessity or for convenience or in excuse – such lying would not be against God; He was ready to take such lies on Himself” (Ibid. p375)

            “It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.” (Trischreden, Wittenberg Edition, Vol VI, p160)

          • Grandmere


    • ace

      Yeah, just like some are so found of quoting “Except a man be born again”, and “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit”, while totally ignoring “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you“.

      • susan

        You know what makes me really sad. Is I think some Protestants would be willing to accept this teaching if their ministers were able to consecrate the bread and wine. But they’re not willing to change churches. And they’re not willing to tell their sins to a Priest. It’s too shameful. Yet without humility and obedience one cannot follow in the footsteps of Jesus.

  • Doc

    QUOTING: ““But Mary did not fail, the mistress of virginity did not fail; nor was it possible that She who had borne God, should be regarded as bearing a man. And Joseph, the just man, assuredly did not so completely lose his mind as to seek carnal intercourse with the Mother of God.” (De Inst. Virg., VI, 44)”


    This is perhaps the best argument I’ve read for the perpetual virginity of Mary. Once consecrated to God, I think He would have desired her to remain so, and not be “unconsecrated” by relations with Joseph. In other words, it appears that once the Holy Spirit had impregnated Mary, she effectively became God’s wife and He surely would not have given her to another man.

    Wow. Heady stuff. Would love to read the comments on this.

    • ace

      Exactly! “Beloved Daughter of the Father, most holy Mother of the Son, august Spouse of the Holy Ghost” – St. Paschal Baylon (A similar formulation by Blessed Titus Brandsma [who IMHO should be the patron saint of Catholic Journalists] and others).

  • Apparently you are not paying any attention. The article deals with your issue which proves you did not read much. Therefore, you must deal with the argument made by the article which debunks your proposed theory. So you need to counter and debunk what was proposed as an answer instead of doing the typical regurgitating.

  • Apparently you are not paying any attention. The article deals with your issue which proves you did not read much. Therefore, you must deal with the argument made by the article which debunks your proposed theory. So you need to counter and debunk what was proposed as an answer instead of doing the typical regurgitating.

  • Doc

    I’m not one to plead “sola scriptura” but why is there not even one manuscript stating that Mary was born without sin? Or is there and it’s been suppressed?

    • And why isn’t a single manuscript in the Hebrew Old Testament stating that the woman was a VIRGIN?

      • Doc

        Well, didn’t you cover this with the word that can either mean “young maiden” or “virgin?” I’m convinced this was answered already. Wasn’t the Septuagint based on very early Hebrew manuscripts that the Jews later repudiated when they went back and re-translated the Old Testament into what the King James Bible was based on? Or am I leaving something out? In other words, wasn’t the Septuagint based on RELIABLE Hebrew texts and the later King James Bible based on a later, less reliable Hebrew Old Testament. I hope I’m not confusing different events, here.

        • You didn’t get it Doc. You already answered your question Doc “why is there not even one manuscript stating that Mary was born without sin?”

          Since a young maiden within marriage age constitutes a virgin, an Ark with GOLD (holy) and wood (human) means it is sinless. It was symbolic of no sin so much so that the Protestants thought it to be about Christ Himself.

          In other words, the Protestants inadvertently deified Mary while they accused the Catholic of deifying her.

          • Doc

            I don’t know. Perhaps I am missing something. I’ll reread it.

          • Don’t worry about it. I’ll do another Sunday Special and put my mind into ‘western mode’ and write it up where you will get it 100%

          • Taurnil Oronar

            I think I prefer the eastern mode.

  • Grandmere

    This what happens when people interpret scripture for themselves.

  • Psalm 132 says it ascended to heaven. Is that where the Ark is hidden?

    You sound like a fiction book now. Makes a great Indiana Jones movie.

    then the Ark is described by Evangelicals symbolic of “Messiah”. How did the Ark hide when God ascended and the Ark?

    How will you deal with that one? Tell us?

    All Protestant commentators say that the Ark is symbolic of Christ. Was the Israelites worshipping the Ark. What about the Protestants who elevated the Ark as well as a symbol of purity and sinlessness since it gold (holy) and wood (earthly)?

    Now you have a serious problem on your hand.

  • Kkdgrace

    “This should establish the final peace treaty between Protestants and Catholics and so ‘blessed are the peace makers’; in this case this would be me. Success at last.”
    Lol! LOVE THIS….including the picture that follows.
    Thank you for the detailed article, especially the many referrals to Scripture to back your main thesis. IMO, we need more articles of like nature, especially in terms of the “meat” contained in this current reading. This is not “light” material….it is perhaps one of the best- in our current age- at articulating the Church’s historic beliefs about the role/person of the Virgin Mary. Many individuals- those not steeped in the doctrines and theology of the Apostolic Faith- have mucho problems coming to terms with ingrained beliefs and accepting what has historically been taught by the Church. Why? Because those in the Protestant church are not given much- if any- information concerning the history of the Church…..especially information about beliefs that have been held century upon century. It’s pounded into their heads that this is false and a sin, and they have no realization that the views they have been taught and are espousing are fairly recent in the history of the Church. That’s why I love all of the Scriptural references, explainations, and notations of the early Church Fathers. Lots of challenging info for others to mull over and truly consider…. most especially those who have such difficulty with this view and express such vehement opposition.
    Thanks again for such an in-depth read. God bless!

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Why are you reading into the text – are you God’s appointed? If God were so concerned, as you proscribe, about ‘man’s propensity to idolize things other than Him’ – then what reason can you give us for why He allows Gold to exist? Why does He allow any form of money? Did not Jesus state that you cannot serve God and serve MAMMON? You see, all you have is your man-made religion because way back, men began ripping apart the Church that Christ built – and THEY BUILT THEIR OWN CHURCHES ) I emphasize the plural because there are over 40,000 different denominations now, none of YOU can even agree on doctrine!!!! Men building their own churches, pretending to be the one that CHRIST BUILT – THIS IS IDOLATRY AND YOU CAN’T SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES.

  • “If Mary is Mother of God, where does that leave Christ?”

    It makes Christ The Son of God and it makes Mary the Mother of God and it makes God the Father the Father of Christ.

    Your argument sounds like a Muslim argument who asks: if Jesus is God where does that leave God?

    “Yes, Mary and other Saints are to be revered”

    How? How do you ever the saints? I presume you will answer “as the Bible reveres the saints”.

    Well lets take a look how the Bible reveres the saints. Its in the article. Did you read it? No. Because have you read it you would not ask this question.

    First of all, Psalm 132 says “Arise O Lord and go” Him and His ark. This Ark where God dwelt was assumed up in heaven and is resting with Messiah after His ressurection “go to your resting place, you and the ark of your might” in “Zion”.

    First you need to answer: Did God assume a box into heaven? And how is this “Zion” on earth, in Jerusalem, especially when it says that Christ ascended to Zion and that this Zion is His “resting place forever”?

    He has His ark with Him. This “Zion” is the very “Mount Zion” in Hebrews 12 where we approach “Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect [saints], and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant…”

    So have you approached the “firstborn who are enrolled in heaven”? How about “the spirits of the righteous made perfect [saints]”?

    You have never approached these in Mount Zion with any of your requests. You simply take your requests to your friends and pastors and have them intercede because some heretic told you that the saints are “dead” when the Bible says “absent of the body is present with the Lord”.

    “as God has used them amazingly at various points in history and culture for his plans”

    Aha… how did God used the saints? You have saints in the Bible that went straight to heaven on a chariot and the Bible says that “no unclean will enter it”. These saints were pure.

    Are you pure?

    “but by focussing all attention on saints, it needs to be pondered whether the glory due God and his saviour is diluted.”

    God ordained holy relics in the temple and called them “holy” did the Israelites worship the relics? Where the relics God?

    God resided in a box. Israel bowed towards that box.

    Did Israel worship the box because they bowed to it?

    Try answering that one, but you have a lot of homework already just with what I gave you.

    So pray about it. Contemplate what I wrote here and do not just zip through it because this is how the lazy servants do things.

    Okay? I want you to make it to heaven.

  • ” Jesus himself must be the ark and the new covenant of his blood the commandments.”

    Then explain to us Psalm 132. It seems that not a single person was able to interpret it for us. Not even Barnes Notes.

    So since you know all the answers we are all ears.

    “the author of this article is so craftily proving it out.”

    Okay. I am a crafty crook send by the devil and an agent of the Vatican. I will keep my mouth shut and let you, the saint speak and teach others.

    So start interpreting.

    What happened? Talk. Why are you so silent?

    I am waiting?


    Echo echo echo.

    Hello lo lo lo lo (echo echo echo)

  • Then why do you not bone up and answer Psalm 132? Why give us the booklet on salvation which we all know?

    Isn’t understanding Psalm 132 part of our salvation? Isn’t the Bible all about Salvation?

    Why then can you not interpret? Does not the Bible say to “be ready to give an answer”?

    Well, answer then and stop changing the subject.

  • Ceirwyn

    Actually you are correct, I meant tripartite, not triune. My mistake.

  • 1Bobby8

    If Mary is the Mother of God and the Church is the Body of Christ, than it only stands to reason that Mary is the Mother of the Church. It’s that simple…Another masterpiece article by Mr. Shoebat.

    • Kamau41

      Amen that bro. Bobby!! It’s really that simple to understand.

      • 1Bobby8

        God bless you brother Kamau.

  • ace

    I hope you read Walid’s response first, but really nothing can dilute God’s glory or the glory which is his due. But, think about it, God takes delight in his creation and in his family, the Most Holy Trinity, 3 persons in one God. It is a great mystery, because God does not think like us. From a human perspective, who would allow their child to go through humiliation, suffering, and death for the sake of others? A person might be proud of their son going off to be an Army Ranger, a Navy Seal, or a combat Marine, but most would not tell their child this is their mission in life, but rather support them if that is what they choose (or not, praying that they choose something else). Even so, supporting a child to put their life in harm’s way for a cause, is quite different than telling them to seek out death or allow their own death for the cause.

    And then we have someone like Saint Paul saying (Col 1:24) “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church“. What were the suffering of St. Paul before he was finally martyred? He tell us (2 Cor 11:24-28) “Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches.” And, also (Gal 6:14, 17) “But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world… [of course, Paul died by crucifixion, but less we take the glory of the cross merely spiritually, he goes on to say] Henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.”

    OK, the church is Christ’s body and, as the servants of Christ, the saints in heaven and those working to be saints on earth continue to glory in the sufferings [Walid did a good job in pointing this out if you read carefully – “Only the true church suffers.]. Do you seek and pray to find the narrow way? This is it! But why would the saints in heaven care what happens to us? Didn’t they work (and suffer) enough here? Go read Colossians chapter one where it says Christ is the first born of all creation, he is the head of the body , the church. Those who eat the body and blood of Jesus become one in His body, or, to put it another way, we become their family and they are our family and the blood in the tribe runs thick and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit glory in us watching out for each other, they are not narcissistic attention hogs, but yes, we children recognize that we can’t do anything without them and so we give them the glory which is their due.

    Still, the Blessed Virgin Mary is the new ark of the covenant and the preeminent saint of saints. But maybe somehow that is just a hard concept for you to grasp, so, if you will put your biases aside for a minute and go look at a complete bible, the Catholic bible (maybe RSVCE at Bible Gateway or DRA), I will show you an example of the saints in heaven praying for us on earth from the OT (2 Maccabees 15:11-16) Judas Maccabeus is preparing his men for battle and he speaks of Onias a high priest who had been murdered (see chapter 4) and Jeremias, the prophet, both now in heaven: “He armed each of them not so much with confidence in shields and spears as with the inspiration of brave words, and he cheered them all by relating a dream, a sort of vision, which was worthy of belief. What he saw was this: Onias, who had been high priest, a noble and good man, of modest bearing and gentle manner, one who spoke fittingly and had been trained from childhood in all that belongs to excellence, was praying with outstretched hands for the whole body of the Jews. Then likewise a man appeared, distinguished by his gray hair and dignity, and of marvelous majesty and authority. And Onias spoke, saying, ‘This is a man who loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah, the prophet of God.’ Jeremiah stretched out his right hand and gave to Judas a golden sword, and as he gave it he addressed him thus: ‘Take this holy sword, a gift from God, with which you will strike down your adversaries’.”

    We do wish you to gain understanding and enter heaven and the tribe of God and the saints, the first of which is the Blessed Virgin Mary.

    • susan

      Beautiful Ace! Everywhere I turn Mary’s children are responding with deep understanding and explanations to help those who have not been properly introduced to the Queen of Heaven, our Mother Mary. My sponsor first explained Mary to me with “God and sin, don’t mix.” He couldn’t put His holy Son in a sinful woman. Therefore God made her sinless and kept her full of graces so she would continue in that sinless state. Can you imagine what might have happened to Jesus had Mary fallen into sin again as Eve had? The other thing I learned about Mary is that she is a MOTHER. A mother does not try to steal glory from her Son. She doesn’t put the spotlight on herself. She loves her Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. She knows we NEED Him. She steers us to Him. She prays for us. Just like she noticed the wine had run out and brought that to Jesus’ attention, she also brings our needs to Jesus. Now some may object and get offended at this point. They make excuses why Mary is not necessary. Maybe she’s not necessary. But God determined she was necessary. So I’ll stick with God’s point of view on this matter and not the naysayers. It pleased God to give His Son Mary as His mother. And it pleased Jesus to share His mother Mary with us. She brings the details of our lives to her Son.

  • Kamau41

    Instead of attacking, why don’t you people bone up on Church History/the Fathers?

  • Moab’s Ark is what Psalm 132 is about? Funny, but your wrong suggestion is probably the best answer I’ve gotten so far from the other side.

  • You don’t know how to look that up? How old are you?

  • Can you stop littering? Your comment is here and its unnecessary graffiti.

  • Vinny Zee

    We never said she wasn’t saved from sin. She was saved from sin just like you and me. She, like all of us, could obtain grace, sanctity, and salvation only through the merits of Jesus Christ. It is as true of her as it is of us that there is no salvation but in Jesus Christ and there is no other name besides his in which we can be saved (Acts 4:12). You and I get saved in the same fashion as her, but after our birth. She got saved in the same fashion as you and I, but before her birth. Mary, you, me, we all needed a savior. This is why she rejoiced in God her savior.

    In relation to the redemption of mankind, Mary’s position was obviously unique and it should not be surprising that her personal redemption by her divine Son was unique. In her case, at the very first instant of her existence in her mother’s womb, she was preserved and kept from falling into sin, the infection of original sin. The faith of the Catholic Church in the Immaculate Conception is thus simply expressed: “The Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first moment of her conception, by a singular privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, our Savior, was preserved from all stain of original sin.”

    The absence of any stain of original sin in Mary is the important element in her Immaculate Conception. Remember, Jesus had two natures, human and divine. He was God, this is where he got his divine nature, which is without corruption. However, how did he inherit his sinless human nature? This is what the doctrine explains. This is what you must explain to us then if you reject her immaculate conception.

  • A bigot never answers the question and always changes the subject.

  • We spy at every comment before we approve it to see what we can glean for the Mossad 😉

    • ace

      …but the director has to report to the “keeper of the keys” (prime minister), who has to answer to the chief. Everything has a chain-of-command, yet some convince and deceive themselves to think they are ex nihilo ; – )

    • ace

      …or Gulen who, like Erdogan, reportedly has Jewish ancestors. You know,there is tradition of the Fathers that the AC will be of Jewish extaction (some say from the tribe of Dan; Gen 49:17, Jer 8:16, ) (Sts. Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Augustine, Prosper, Gregory the Great, and Theodoret). BTW, did you see this:

  • Grandmere

    Now that was unmerbad.

  • Kamau41

    Go do your homework and look it up.

    • Ahhh 41. You knew not to give oil to the lazy virgin. They need to get their own oil.

      • Kamau41

        That’s right!

  • Jason,

    Thanks for bringing my attention to when I spoke at your church. I recall one church that persisted on the King James. I prefer the Hebrew and the Greek. These are the originals.

    Now. Do you know what a refutation is?

    Okay let me give you an example:

    Mr. A: In this world there is only one sun
    Mr. B: no there are many suns

    Mr. A: please explain to us by evidence where are these other suns?

    Mr. B: Just look at the stars.

    Who won the debate?

    Obviously Mr. A for it was obvious he was speaking of his sphere while Mr. B was completely talking about a different issue.

    This is exactly what you are doing.

    Apparently you are not paying any attention. You must deal with the argument made in the article. So you need to counter and debunk what was proposed FROM the article instead of doing the typical regurgitating. In other words, you need to quote a portion of the article and refute it.

    Do you understand that?

    You are changing the subject. For example, you are bringing up the Two Babylons which has been debunked a thousand times over.

    Here, I will deal with one issue. You stated:

    “The queen of Heaven was a pagan deity based on the pagan Babylonian goddess Semiramis and her son Tammuz (Ezek 8:14). ”

    This is a bad argument.

    Jesus in the Bible is called Morning Star.
    Lucifer is also called Morning Star.

    Does that mean Jesus is Lucifer?

    But what you are ringing up is not what I discussed.

    My quest is YOU explain Psalm 132. Can you do that? You haven’t.

    Now what you wrote here is plain silly “The queen of Heaven was a pagan deity based on the pagan Babylonian goddess Semiramis and her son Tammuz (Ezek 8:14). ”

    Ralph Woodrow, who authored a book paralleling “The Two Babylons” by Alexander Hislop is an excellent case-in-point. Both Hislop and Woodrow – amongst many others like Dave Hunt – wrote some of the most influential books that supported such a myth, which was etched into the minds of millions of Protestant and Evangelical Christians. While Hunt’s book “Woman Rides the Beast” is so easily refuted, Woodrow’s confession should shed light on how these over-hyped, half-baked books are flawed.

    Woodrow stated:

    “As a young evangelist, I began to preach on the mixture of paganism with Christianity, and eventually I wrote a book based on Hislop, titled Babylon Mystery Religion (Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Assn., 1966). In time, my book became quite popular, went through many printings, and was translated into Korean, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and several other languages. Hundreds quoted from it. Some regarded me as an authority on the subject of ‘pagan mixture’. Even the noted Roman Catholic writer Karl Keating said, ‘Its best-known proponent is Ralph Woodrow, author of Babylon Mystery Religion.’ … As time went on, however, I began to hear rumblings that Hislop was not a reliable historian… As a result, I realized I needed to go back through Hislop’s work, my basic source, and prayerfully check it out.

    As I did this, it became clear: Hislop’s ‘history’ was often only an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths … The subtitle for Hislop’s book is ‘The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife’. Yet when I went to reference works such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Americana, The Jewish Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia, The Worldbook Encyclopedia – carefully reading their articles on ‘Nimrod’ and ‘Semiramis’ — not one said anything about Nimrod and Semiramis being husband and wife. They did not even live in the same century. Nor is there any basis for Semiramis being the mother of Tammuz. I realized these ideas were all Hislop’s inventions … While seeking to condemn the paganism of Roman Catholicism, Hislop produced his own myths … Take enough names, enough stories, and enough centuries; translate from one language to another; and a careless writer of the future might pass on all kinds of misinformation … Building on similarities while ignoring differences is an unsound practice. Atheists have long used this method in an attempt to discredit Christianity altogether, citing examples of pagans who had similar beliefs about universal floods, slain and risen saviors, virgin mothers, heavenly ascensions, holy books, and so on.

    As Christians, we don’t reject prayer just because pagans pray to their gods. We don’t reject water baptism just because ancient tribes plunged into water as a religious ritual. We don’t reject the Bible just because pagans believe their writings are holy or sacred.

    …If finding a pagan parallel provides proof of paganism, the Lord Himself would be pagan. The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in His hand (Ps. 75:8). Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14). Pagans worshiped the sun; the Lord is the “Sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2). Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called “the bright and Morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Pagan gods had temples dedicated to them; the Lord has a temple (Rev. 7:15). Pagans built a high tower in Babylon; the Lord is a high tower (2 Sam. 22:3). Pagans worshiped idolatrous pillars; the Lord appeared as a pillar of fire (Exod. 13: 21–22). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Ps. 91:4).

    I realized that citing a similarity does not provide proof. There must be a legitimate connection … Hislop says, for example, that the “round” wafer used in the Roman Catholic mass came from Egyptian paganism. For this he cites a statement in Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians (vol. 5, 353, 365) about the use of thin round cakes on their altars. When I checked Wilkinson’s work, however, he also said the Egyptians used oval and triangular cakes; folded cakes; cakes shaped like leaves, animals, and a crocodile’s head; and so on. Hislop failed to even mention this.

    While condemning round communion wafers as images of the sun-god Baal, Hislop fails to mention that the very manna given by the Lord was round. “Upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing….And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat” (Exod. 16:14–15, KJV, emphasis added). Round is not necessarily pagan.”

    But my quest is simple: interpret Psalm 132.

  • ace

    The Word is a person, not confined to a book; a living and active person. Faith comes by hearing, not just from what is written (2 Tim 2:2; 2 Tim 1:13; 1 Pet 1:25; Rom 10:17; 1 Cor 15:1-2; Mk 16:15; Mt 23:2-3). The bible alone is not even a biblical concept. We are to hold fast to the traditions handed down whether orally (by word of mouth) or in writing (by letter) and to shun those who do not act according to the traditions (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Thess 3:6). The Bible tells us that not everything Jesus did is contained in it (Jn 21:25; Jn 20:31). The Bible encourages us to read it (2 Tim 3:16), but also cautions against private interpretations (2 Pet 1:20; 2 Pet 3:15-16).

    The Bible canon was established by the Catholic Church at the Synod of Hippo in 393 A.D. and contained seven Old Testament books which Jesus, the apostles, and the NT writers knew and relied on. The sealed canon was inappropriately removed by Protestant Reformation leaders who lacked authority to do so. Here’s a list of citations from the Deuterocanonical books (what Protestants called the Apocrypha) either quoted or used by Jesus and the NT writers: (Curious enough to verify and search? Try DRA, NABRE, or RSVC at Bible Gateway)

  • Tom_mcewen

    It has two attributes, the most important is that it is an idol that is worshipped, or treated as a God and the second aligned with the first is it must be carved. Protestantism has a over broad definition of an graven image this includes objects that are not idols nor worshipped as idols nor as God. God directed Moses to place two angels of God on top of the ark, they were not worshipped as God, nor God whereas the golden calf was worshipped as an idol. It is not the object but the attribute assigned to it as an idol or a God. So when what the Catholic Church calls the gospel in stone to instruct the majority of Christians the gospel to those who could not read is not an idol nor treated as idol. The horror is not a sin nor does it violate any commandments. Any more then having a statue on your desk of a ballerina or a child having a doll is violating a commandment.

    • Doc

      Great answer.

  • “I don’t read every article you write until the end (too much for my Western mind)”

    I understand. You mean no offense. But people who do not dig do not make wells and therefore they do not drink.

    I can make the shovel, but I can’t make you dig.

  • Grandmere

    Hi Stanley, … well as long as you want to quote Stanley’s teaching and not the word of God, what is the point of responding?

    • AnthonyM

      Double Snap!!

  • Grandmere

    Go elsewhere. You will get no converts here.

  • Grandmere

    We have heard your sermonette hundreds of times. You will find plenty of fertile field elsewhere. Leave here. Go there.

  • Vivienne,

    You did not read the article at all.

    • Several people have expressed more interest in knowing where the original Ark is while ignoring Psalm 132 hinting at Mary as the Ark of Covenant.

    • Fr Christopher P. Kelley, DD

      I’m not familiar with the translation of Ps. 132 used at the outset; but I note that v.11 is mistranslated – seriously:
      BETEN, the Hebrew word, is NOT EVER “loins”! It occurs 68x in the Hebrew. 8x = “body”; but 30x= “belly” & 30x = “womb.” It is therefore easy to see its general sense, what part of the “body” is naturally meant by the Hebrew word.
      So when God spoke to David about David’s much Greater Descendant, God said, “Of the Fruit of thy WOMB shall I set upon thy Throne.”
      Now, one cannot say such a thing of a Descendant in the Male Line, but in the Female Line.
      In other words, God told David that Messiah would be born of a DAUGHTER of David. That is, Maryam! The virginal conception of JESUS is hinted at here.
      Of course, St Elizabeth declared, “BLESSED is *the Fruit of thy Womb*!” to Maryam, when she came to visit (Lk 1:42). She then uses an expression that will escape many who do not understand the Jewish reverence for the Sacred Name:
      “Why is this [privilege] granted to me that the Mother of my LORD should come to me?” (1:43)
      A Jew of that time would *never* use the term, “LORD”, EXCEPT for GOD. Elizabeth is declaring plainly that MARYAM is the MOTHER OF GOD, come in the Flesh, within her Womb.
      [See also 2Sam.6:9 – where David asks a similar question — in reverent fear!]
      Maryam stays “three months” in the home of the priest Zachariah & his wife Elizabeth (certainly long enough to care for her in childbirth, and attend St John’s Circumcision). (Lk 1:56)
      This fulfills the prefiguration when David put the Ark of the Covenant aside in the home of Obed-Edom (a Levitical priest) for three months (2Sam.6:11). All could see that the home of Obed-Edom was “Blessed” by the Presence of the Ark. Then David no longer feared the Ark, but proceeded — with more care this time — to take it up to Jerusalem.
      The Ark contained threee things (Hebrews 9:4): The Jar of Manna (Bread of Heaven), Aaron’s Rod (Sign of High Priesthood), & Tables of the Law (God’s Word written by His Finger on Stone). Now Maryam’s Womb contained Him Who Is the Bread of Heaven, the Great High Priest, & the Word of God made Flesh.

      Thanks for your elegant exposition, Walid! It deserves to be widely read & received.
      Of course,

      • If I recall correctly, Father, Jews would not dare utter the actual name of God and would insert “Adonai” where it is read “LORD” or “GOD” as they recited the words of the Law.

        Nonetheless, I believe that because both Joseph, Jesus’ foster father, and Mary were both of the lineage of David, it still satisfy that from David’s own body would come One to seat on the throne forever. More importantly, since David is also of another royal lineage, Judah, it fulfills another ancient prophecy uttered by Jacob on his deathbed to Judah, “The scepter will not depart from you,” (Genesis 49:10).

        • Fr Christopher P. Kelley, DD

          Careful, about St Joseph! St Irenaeus of Lyons, writing about 190AD, ‘Adversus Haeresibus’ (Against the Heresies), notes that St Joseph came from the line of Solomon -> Jeconiah {aka, Jehoiachin} the king captured & taken to Babylon. (2Kgs 24:15) [Cf. St Matthew 1:11.]
          St Irenaeus points out that Jeremiah calls this king “Coniah”
          (Jer. 22:24ff). The Prophet then proceeds to pronounce a curse, that “none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David…” This includes St Joseph. IF Jesus were the biological son of St Joseph (which, of course He is not), then the curse would have descended to Him, TOO!
          [Iren. Adv. Haer. V:21:9]
          Being the Son of Mary, and not the “offspring” of Joseph, He is free of that curse, of course.

          None can say that St Irenaeus did not know the Scriptures!

          The “New Shoot” from the “stump of Jesse” is through David’s son, Nathan. None from that line had ever sat upon the Throne of Daivd in Jerusaelm. Maryam’s line from David is through Nathan (– named for the Prophet who caught David in his sin)! (Lk. 3:31)
          “Heli” appears to be a “nickname” form of Joachim, her father, who is thus the “father-in-law” of Joseph (cf. Lk 3:23). {The nickname can be explained, but would take unnecessary space here.}

          • I did say “Jesus’ foster father.” The fact that St. Joseph came from Solomon still validates, somewhat I’ll admit, my argument that he is still from the lineage of David.

          • Fr Christopher P. Kelley, DD

            Yes, I noted that; my quibble was the suggestion that St Joseph would still make possible the LORD coming from “David’s own body.”
            The Lineage of St Joseph was public knowledge, especially in Nazareth. This was likely a Maccabean-era Judean “Colony” or “Settlement” (to use the modern, abused term!) in the Galilee. The name most likely comes from “Netzer” – “Branch” in Hebrew, & probably implies that its residents were mostly from the House of David, where the expectation of a New Shoot, or Branch, was focused.
            It was necessary that Jesus be associated in the public mind with the House of David — in biological fact through His Mother, but in the eyes of the (uninformed & shallow) public, this Inheritance would be assumed to be through His purported “father”.
            Maryam, being the Heiress of her ag`ed parents — an only Daughter — the Law required that she be married within her own Tribal inheritace {Num. 36:8}.

          • Exactly. Remember there was a controversy after the establishment of the Law when several daughters approached Moses. They asked what was to happen in the event if a father failed to “sire” a heir, that is a son, and Moses brought this to the Lord, and received the answer.

            So, the royal mantle transferred to Jesus through Mary. I suspect to make the birth of Christ legitimate in the eyes of the religious elite, Joseph was foreordained to marry Mary, and we find in the Gospel that Joseph took Mary, who was with Child, to his hometown to be registered with his wife and Child.

            It is amazing to see how God perfectly set up a plan and executed them with flawless perfection so that Christ could be the only One to cancel the animal sacrifices out of the Law.

            I use the legal term, cancel, instead of abolish because in the court of legal opinion, the word cancel denote to physically draw a line through the legal ordinance to signal the end of that ordinance.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Fr Kelley BACK – and what perfect timing!!!

          • Love having him dropping pearls of wisdom.

          • “It was necessary that Jesus be associated in the public mind with the House of David — in biological fact through His Mother”.

            Excellent point. Well put.

          • Grandmere

            Yes. Isn’t that the reason he had to go to Bethlehem for the census? I don’t get it.

          • Yep, and you wanna know something else?

            “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
            Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
            From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
            His goings forth are from long ago,
            From the days of eternity,” (Micah 5:2).


        • Fr Christopher P. Kelley, DD

          I think it would be safer to say that any “royalty” in Judah lay dormant until David, whose father’s clan was of Judah. Judah (the man) did Influence his brothers, for the saving of Joseph; but he was not their “ruler.” (Gen. 37:26) Judah “led” his brothers back to Joseph in Egypt, & volunteered to stand in for Benjamin, & take the imprisonment & slavery they expected would fall upon Benjamin, in Joseph’s ruse (Gen. 44:14-, 18-, 33-. So Judah’s willingness to suffer is highly significant, as it led Joseph to disclose himself to them. (Gen. 45:3). But Judah is not yet “royal” — until David.

          • Come, Father, let’s reason together. Judah is archetype of Christ. Look at what you wrote of Judah and place Christ there. It is why it is Judah whom “shall be praised,” as Jacob uttered. After all, the Hebrew root of Judah is “Yah” meaning praise. It is why Christ is called the Lion of the Tribe of Judah since lions are considered to be king of the beast.

      • Fr. Kelly

        When you speak, I listen. I have read this in the Douay Rheims as well and know of this translation. You are absolutely correct. The hebrew בִטְנְךָ “Batnak” is “your womb” and we use the same word in Arabic. This pertains to a woman since a child is in the womb of a woman.

        The first I read Psalm 132 it resonated for me since the way its written is how I grew up and how the folk spoke. It all made sense to me.

        Your addition is a piece of the puzzle that is remarkable and I do much appreciate it. The next time I address this issue I will include what you have written.

        You have blessed us as usual.

        • Fr Christopher P. Kelley, DD

          Thank you, Walid!
          I grew up with a Jewish gal, from grammar school through high school. She went to Israel for a few years, where she was an announcer on V.o.I. She spoke Flawless Hebrew. When she came back to CA, we met, around Hanukkah… She tried to chide me about the Virgin Birth, & such, saying ‘almah’ is not “a virgin” in Hebrew, but “a young woman of marriagable age.”
          I said to her, “N., what Jewish father do you know who would not defend — with his very _life_! — the purity of his daughter?! The Septuagint was translated by *Jewish* scholars, centuries before Jesus was born. THEY used the word ‘Parthenos’ to translate ‘almah’. They used it because there was no doubt in anyone’s mind that ‘Parthenos’ (like the Parthenon in Athens – temple of the Virgin goddess Athena) meant a biological *virgin.* The Septuagint was held by *Jews* at the time to be “more inspired” than the Hebrew text, because of the miracle of its translation. God used the Translators to add depth, & specificity, to the prophecy of Isaiah.”
          I then went on to delve into “beten”/Womb, & Ps. 132. She confessed that I was correct, and that the Word of God to David spoke of a *Daughter* of David giving birth to the Messiah.

          • Fr. Kelly,

            Psalm 132 in my view is in itself an Ark of His might for by it anyone can destroy Protestantism.

            Imagine all the commentaries written by the Protestant theologians describing the Ark an analogy of Jesus and therefore they said it was gold and wood signifying deity and humanity …

            With all the different analogy they gave the Ark, they deified Mary especially since Psalm 132 differentiated between Christ and the Ark since we have two individuals Who got into the elevator to the third floor “Arise you (Christ) and the ark of your might (Mary) two separate individuals.

            And by that the Protestant elevator will break its cable and will come down crashing at the basement 🙂

      • Стефан Евгений

        Fr Chis, it’s so lovely to hear from you.
        Thanks for your translation. I wish now that I kept my Greek and Russian books, I gave them to my church when I moved from DC. I can always count on you Father for a proper translation.

        • Julie LaBrecque

          Aren’t we the luckiest blog in the world!!! Beside our super-duper home team, we have not only Fr Christopher Kelley, we have also been graced with Br Andre Marie !!!

          • “Aren’t we the luckiest blog in the world!!! ”

            Its where all the rejects can come together and where Rescue Christians is not just about aiding Christians but SAVING SOULS.

    • Julie LaBrecque

      Nothing new there.

      • “Nothing new there.”

        I was alluding to the souls you helped find the truth. I was complementing thy efforts.

    • Kamau41

      Crazy how some people just never change.

  • “I am reading post that say that Mary’s blood mingled with the sacred Blood of Jesus.”

    Where did I say this in the article? Nowhere.

    So please. Do not put words into my article and tell us what Psalm 132 is all about.

  • “My question is how do we ascertain that Mary ascended into heaven. Where in the Bible does it say that?”

    You are asking questions. You are not giving answers to the question that are written in the article. Explain Pslam 132.

    “I was a Catholic for a good portion of my life however the idea of praying to anyone other than through Jesus was unbelievable to me.”

    Then tell us what is Hebrews 12 all about?

    We are all ears. Awaiting the words of the master of theology.

    Tell us how have you approached Mount Zion (heaven)?

    “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.” (Hebrews 12:22-24)

    You have “come” is not future. It is present. How do you come to Mount Zion?

    This is the whole goal and process of salvation, that is, to transform us striving to become “the righteous” who are “made perfect”. This is the communion between the Church Militant on earth and the Church Triumphant in heavenly Mount Zion, where the saints, angels and The Trinity reside.

    This is the strive of the Christian.
    While most are consumed with the earthly Mount Zion, they forget; the Heavenly Mount Zion where the saints reside “in My Holy Mountain” and not “on My Holy Mountain”, with the saints, the angels and with Christ, and from their the angels will sound the Trumpet of God: “Blow the trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm in My holy mountain!” (Joel 2:2).

    This is the place which in Hebrews speaks of heavenly Mount Zion which is the goal of the Christian to come to God through his continual access and a lifetime supplication to connect to the Heavenly Mount Zion.

    In Hebrews 12:1, he says, “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses . . .”

    What witnesses? The Saints. We are surrounded by a cloud of these witnesses, the holy Saints of God are present with us even now, not only present, but surrounding us, encouraging us as it were in our race which has been set before us and are assisting us. No where in Scripture do we find that the saints’s death means that they are not present with Christ in heaven (2 Cor 5:8) (Hebrews 2:14-15) (John 3:16).

    Hebrews 12 cannot be undermined. In our prayers we ultimately come to Jesus the mediator through coming to Mount Zion. All verses must flow and match perfectly. While all prayer ultimately go to Christ but we approach “innumerable angels,” “assembly of the first born,” who already “enrolled in heaven,” and “spirits of the righteous made perfect”. This includes His Ark (Mary) who comes from heaven because she was assumed to heaven.

    Shall we remind again of Psalm 132: “Arise, O Lord, and go to your resting place, you and the ark of your might … For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his dwelling place: This is my resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it.”

    We accept it because God “desired it”. There is no need to twist the Scriptures to fit a mindset that only came in the twentieth century.

    It becomes impossible to avoid Mary since the same earthquake in Revelation 11:13 (similar to the seventh blow of the trumpet in Joshua 5) Christ stands on the earthly Mount of Olives (Zion) in Zechariah 14, which occurs as a result of the seventh trumpet “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened and within his temple was seen the Ark of the Covenant and there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and earthquake and great hailstorm and a great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven.” (Revelation 11:19)

    All this was covered for you in the article. But yet here you come to change the subject which is the usual of all who defected from the true faith.

    • Fr Christopher P. Kelley, DD

      JESUS *ascended* into Heaven (Acts 1) – “on His Own power;”
      (HE is God the Son.)
      Maryam was *assumed* (taken) into Heaven by God’s Power, —
      not her own.

      • Julie LaBrecque

        There you are!!! Awesome !!

      • You are correct Fr. Kelly. I typed it quickly without thinking. I was running to a doc appointment. Thanks for checking.

  • Now you sound like a Catholic. Especially that you took the Catholic defense with the Jews when it comes to this subject. You used the arguments that church fathers used.

    “we have to accept the customs and practices of the Jewish faith and lifestyle that this young maiden would not have had sexual intercourse before marriage.”

    You even accept the traditions.

    Enough said.

  • “Walid is not interested in the truth”

    Not being interested in Bull or the desire to eat dung does not constitute what you stated.

  • God be with you brother Anthony. Tell us how it goes in your RCIA. Some do not teach the truth. I have had one who was recommended to read a bad book written by a bad priest.

  • ace

    The Protestant Bible in an incomplete canon. But, OK, I don’t think you agree. Still, I think Walid already answered your question when he said:

    During the time of Jesus, the protesters of the day were the Sadducees who protested much. Their main difference was that they rejected the Oral Law (Holy Tradition) which was set throughout the ages and was passed down and taught by the Pharisees just as Paul taught “brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” (2 These 2:15)

    “Whether by word” was not a written scripture [at the time].

    But besides oral tradition, even the Church, stemmed out of the Pharisees and not the Sadducees.

    I suggest that you read up on the Sadducees, if unfamiliar beyond knowing that they are mentioned in the Gospels, because this is a very important clue, and you should not just place all the 1st century Jews into one category, as you wouldn’t place all present day people who call themselves Christians into one group.

    I’m curious as to your understanding of why Jesus cleansed the Temple? The Jews had to bring unblemished sacrifices to the Temple and often had to travel a great distance to get there. Your animal, even if initially unblemished, might become injured on the journey, or something small like a dove could die on the way there, so the markets were necessary. So what was the problem? There were other markets for sacrificial animals in the area, some on the Mount of Olives. The problem seems to have been a few things: First of all, the animals had to be bought with Jewish money and the money changers were using the opportunity as a way to make profits. Secondly, the Sadducees, had established their market (cornering the best and most convenient spot among all markets) in the outer Court of the Gentiles and excluded the Gentiles from entry. Thirdly, Jesus was not only consumed by zeal for the house of God which was to be a House for all Peoples, but he was also acting in a prophetic role by demonstrating the coming destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 A.D. (review all the actions of the OT prophets; they didn’t just speak, but they also embodied actions which were metaphors for the message). OK, the bible doesn’t spell this all out for you, but this extra-biblical study does enrich one’s understanding.

    In a broad sense, the markets in the most convenient location, in the Court of the Gentiles, the exclusion of the Gentiles from the outer courtyard, and the self-enrichment of the Sadducees through their usurious exchange of money were all forms of idolatry which is putting anything before God; making it into a false god, which is the point Julie was trying to make.

    Incidentally, to expound on this point, 666 appears in the OT in reference to Solomon, who received 666 talents of gold in a single year (1 Kings 10:14, 2 Chron 9:13). Solomon, after receiving the gifts of wisdom and knowledge, turned away from God. He had a fleet of ships, controlled great economic wealth, and received riches from many nations, including the kings of Arabia, and governors of the land. He gathered to himself chariots, horses, and foreign wives. He had a throne with beasts (lions and a calf’s head in back) and led people back into idolatry by building idols and high places for the gods of his foreign wives. The beast which comes from the earth and has horns in the book of Revelation has the economic power to control buying and selling (similar to the power of the Sadducees at the time of the Second Temple). The beast is ridden by a woman which symbolizes the influence or allure of foreigners away from following God (but we could also say today all the false justifications people give for divorce or, look at Turkey’s Erdogan wanting to establish an Imperial Harem…).

  • Doc

    I’m assuming you imply that the Eucharist is somehow what is described here. Reading carefully, I do not think the Eucharist is an offering to Mary, or at least I have never heard or read it described as such. I think rather catholics believe it fulfills the claim by Jesus that one must “eat My flesh and drink My blood.” I hope I described that accurately.

    Of course, it requires faith to believe that the Eucharist is actually the Presence of the Lord, but there is anecdotal evidence that it has supernatural power. I’m content to say that it is from God.

  • Grandmere

    If Jesus emptied himself of “Deity power and attributes” How did he heal the sick, raise the dead, turn water into wine, feed thousands with a few fish and two loaves of bread, produce a coin from the mouth of a fish, cast out demons, read peoples minds, walk on water, command the wind and the waves and so much more. You say “complete human”. We believe in the hypostatic union.

    • Julie LaBrecque

      Rubbish = just like “Rexlion” thought – I stored his quote ……stupid people.

  • ace

    You say: “Psalm 132 was based on David and Jacob (Israel).” What makes you so sure as to imply that’s all it was about? After the Resurrection, before the Ascension of Jesus, Jesus appears to the apostles and has a talk with them during which he says: (Lk 24:44) “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” So, does the Bible say that the psalms were about Jesus? (In fact the whole Bible from the beginning is about Jesus, the Word of God.) And, if Jesus was born of Mary, why would the psalms not speak of her as it relates to Jesus?

    And, before this chat with his men in the quote from Luke above, the story of the walk to Emmaus with 2 people is described where the resurrected Jesus gives the best Bible study ever. Still, those receiving the great teaching don’t recognize Jesus until he blesses, breaks bread, and gives it to them. What is going on here? Well, I guess Jesus really meant what he said in the Bread of Life discourse (John 6). In Jn 6:53-56 Jesus said: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

    And, while bible verses were not initially numbered, you do see the first Protestants in the Bible in John 6:66 where it says that, “After this [the Bread of Life talk], many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.”

  • susan

    Lol. I loved the expression on the child!



  • Kamau41

    Ok, show us the truth then, big mouth. Show us what you got.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Sir – kindly – what is your reason for stating that the Bible has to state it? Surely you know that the Church existed long before any of the letters of what the Catholic Church called the “New Testament” were even written – and centuries before all the letters were compiled into what you call the “New Testament” – and it was the Catholic Church that decided with THEIR OWN GOD-GIVEN AUTHORITY what books WERE the “Bible” – this did not occur until the 4th-5th century, Council of Hippo, Council of Carthage, and Council of Rome – 73 books, all Canonized by the Church that you don’t believe in. SO ……………they taught, per Jesus’ words St. Matt 28:19 – they simply taught, and what they taught, the converts were required to give their FULL assent to – the NT actually states that the CHURCH is the pillar and bulwark of TRUTH – per St. Paul, Timothy 3:15 – so if the Church SAYS it is the TRUTH, then it IS the Truth!! Jesus declared that whatever THEY BOUDN ON EARTH WAS BOUND IN HEAVEN – that is IT – PERIOD. Just for further ‘proof’, Mother Mary appeared to Catherine LaBoure in 1830 and declared herself to be the Immaculate Conception – she who was born without sin. Catherine LaBoure, now St. Catherine LaBoure is one of 250 bodies of Catholic Saints whose bodies have not suffered corruption. Had St. Catherine lied, her body could NOT remain in an incorrupt state. The medal that was struck to commemorate the appearance is known as the Medal of the Immaculate Conception, now known simply as the Miraculous Medal because of the thousands of miracles, especially conversions of Jews, to the medal.
    To believe everything that is taught by the Church is to have faith in Our Lord – and is to truly become as children – He emphatically declared that the Gates of Hell would NOT prevail against His Church. Luther messed up badly – so did Korah and Co. No Church started by mere man can hold a candle to that built by the Master of the Universe. God Bless

  • Julie LaBrecque

    To (hopefully) settle your issue with intercession/dead peopl – think of this, a book written long after Moses and Samuel had died, and long before any teaching about the resurrection, we find in Jeremiah 15:1, God stating the following:” Even if Moses and Samuel stood before me, my heart would not be toward this people: cast them out of my sight….”. Now think about what God implied from what was stated – He implicitly stated that IF Moses and Samuel were to plead for someone/some people, He would allow it. Why would God imply that the dead could intercede for the living unless they could? Another OT example is in 1 Samuel 31, verses – in which the Israelites FASTED for the DEAD – for seven days – That is SCRIPTURE – twist that one all anyone wants, these, the Chosen people of God, fasted for the dead. Go to the very next page in your Bible and you will find ANOTHER Biblical account – 2 Samuel 1:17-27 esp v.26 :”I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me….” Now – David directly spoke to Jonathan – who was dead. We have Jeremiah and a former high priest interceding for the Israelites in 2 Maccabees 15:14
    ‘Onias then said of him, “This is a man who loves his fellow Jews and fervently prays for the people and the holy city—the prophet of God, Jeremiah.” ‘ There is more, hopefully this will help you clear the hurdle —

  • susan

    I keep reading the same nonsense from you people. What denomination of the 40,000 are you from? Do you actually STUDY the bible? Or do you do a word search for Queen of heaven and then give it YOUR own meaning? You people are so careless with your slander of Jesus’ mother!!! The “Queen of heaven” in Jeremiah was the Assyro-Babylonian Ishtar, goddess of fertility, whose worship was introduced under King Manasseh and was revived after Josiah’s death. Cakes shaped like stars (Ishtar was identified with the planet Venus) were offered in her honor.
    Do you see how wrong you are? This is why the church IS the authority and not any susan or Larry or Jane that has a bible, flips it open and “claims” to have a word of knowledge from God.
    By your “logic” we wouldn’t be able to eat star shaped butter cookies sprinkled with sugar at Christmas time because thousands of years ago people made star shaped cakes and offered them to Ishtar. Never mind that God used a STAR in heaven to guide the wise men to His Son. All in heaven and earth belongs to God. It’s His. He created it. Give God thanks and enjoy your star shaped cookies. And rejoice that we have a real Queen in Heaven who prays for us. 😀

    There’s no excuse for not researching what the church teaches. We have the Internet at our fingertips. Quit judging without hearing both sides of the story. Jesus will hold you accountable for your sins of omission. Look it up. You’ll see.

    • ace

      Great reply!

  • Julie LaBrecque

    You, sir, would have NO ‘Word of God’, WITHOUT CATHOLIC TEACHING & AUTHORITY- How can you trust even ONE BOOK of the Bible if you can’t TRUST everything that the CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES? SHE, by her OWN GOD-GIVEN authority, decided WHICH books WERE the Word of God, and WHICH books WEREN’T. To add insult to injury, your ancestors DITCHED 7 BOOKS – and that’s where your trust is – Sola Scripture? Why don’t you believe Scripture? St. Paul stated THREE times that you MUST follow TRADITION AS HANDED DOWN – Is St. Paul trustworthy? Well, he also penned 1 Tim 3:15 that states that THE CHURCH is pillar and bulwark of TRUTH. Maybe you forgot that JESUS SAID: “Whatever YOU BIND on earth is bound in heaven; whatever YOU LOOSE on earth is loosed in heaven. And maybe you forgot that Jesus gave charge of the Church to PETER – only THE POPE has the Keys to the Kingdom. If you don’t understand the gravity of having the keys is, I highly suggest an immersion study of the OT – its there.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Where does the Bible state what books are supposed to be in the Bible ? Where does the Bible state that God gave His authority for the Catholic Church to decide which books were to go in the Bible. Perhaps you prefer the method of Islam which thinks that their ‘sacred’ texts dropped out of heaven and fell onto leaves.
    From your comment here, you obviously DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE.
    Also, can you provide PROOF that the ‘first Christians’ did not do this – your statement belies your inability to think critically.

  • “to dig ”

    “I am still digging ”

    These were the words I was looking for. Soon you will find the well.

    When John penned the Apocalypse he prophetically described the temple as a court and then you had the altar.

    Why did he do that?

    The key was in the article. Perhaps you missed it:

    “And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein [around an altar]. But the court which is without the temple [without an altar of sacrifice] leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles [pagans]: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.” (Revelation 11:1-2).

    There are some close to the Altar (in the court) these are the Protestants and there are others in the Altar.

    The ones in the Altar are measured (tested by persecution). This sifting will cause many (you) to come to the Altar.

    This “Altar” and “woman” in Revelation 11-12 is a major clue. Hebrews 13:10 makes a compelling argument:

    We [the true church] have an altar from which the [Jewish] priests in the [temple] Tabernacle have no right to eat.”

    Currently you have no altar of sacrifice.

    How John was able to pinpoint this is rather amazing. God foreknew how the structure would look like at the end when Antichrist comes to persecute the saints. As you know, the persecution primarily is amongst the apostolic succession. During world war I and world war II you can also tell it was the Armenians and the Catholics of Poland who were tested. Nothing was happening in the court which was given to the gentiles (pagans). The true Christian is of Israel of God and spiritually is no longer of the gentiles.

    Now we come to the division (Orthodox/Catholic). God foreknew this as well. We have two lamp stands. In fact Orthodox and Catholics place two lamp stands (Candelabra).

    Even God said that He will heal and He will re-unite the stick of Judah and the stick of Joseph.

    You and I did not cause this division and today these two consider each other two lungs.

    Division is caused by man just as the temple of Solomon had idols caused by Solomon. But this would not stop you from your duty towards the temple for even Christ said to do what the Pharisees tell you to do and to not do what they do. Yet there still was the seat of Moses.

    If I visit the Vatican today and inspect it I would find things I do not like. In fact I would probably find some real wolves who camp inside and outside of her. But so what? I have my duty and they have their duty.

    But in the end, keep your eye where Christ shines and you, like the church militant must also shine on the dark places so that men can see the way.

    At any rate, wish you join us. You seem like a fair minded person. Visit for a while and get to know the folks on the deck of this ship. We do need more rowers since we will soon be in battle speed.

    • DanteRivers

      “The ones in the Altar are measured (tested by persecution). This sifting will cause many (you) to come to the Altar.”

      The Armenian genocide, the 21 Martyred Coptic Christians, the Saints in the Middle East were all factors that helped motivate me to come to the Alter.

      • DanteRivers

        Participating in the drama of “The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom” was another.

        • DanteRivers

          When you see the armies surround the Alamo, run into it.

      • And now you know the rest of the story. You were in the Altar of Sacrifice. Glad to hear that.

  • Tom_mcewen

    You are welcome. Tom

  • ace

    Wow! Walid and everyone else, do an image search for “Ark of Mercy and Madonna” to see an amazing contemporary piece of art!

  • Grandmere

    We are a hard bitten bunch of old sailors. We have been lashed all too often. That’s why our hides are so thick.

  • AnthonyM

    I thought the Holy Grail was the cup Jesus used at the last Supper. At least that is what the movies tell me. I have not heard of the Grail referring to Mary’s womb.
    But Mary was assumed bodily into heaven at the moment of her death (before bodily corruption) so no parts will be found anywhere on Earth.
    Pardon if I mis understand what was said.

  • “but personally do not believe that Mary is the Ark of the covenant.”

    Why tell me this Christopher? Why not simply tell everyone who is the Ark in Psalm 132?

    “Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life! No man comes to the father but by me!”

    If that is all what God sent us the world would be a disaster.

    What else did God say? Did He not also speak of the last rights when a priest can listen to a dying confessing sick and that he can confess to the elders and their sins will be forgiven?

    Why only choose verses to debunk other verses?

    You are using scripture to DEBUNK scripture and you are not using scripture to CONFIRM scripture.

    Why do that? Why share that Christ is the only mediator when mediation is spoken in other verses explaining how people come to the Father?

  • No offense Vivienne, I understand now. When I reply to comments it was from a section that I did not see that you were responding to another individual.

  • no problem unmergood. It was funny thats all.

  • But unmergood I have already explained it all in the article. Have you read it?

  • ace

    You and I agree on a number of things; in fact, you repeated some of the things which I had said.

    But, there is 1 sacrifice which was to continue after the Messiah came, and it goes back to the bread and wine offered by the priest Melchizedek, priest of God most High (Gen 14, see also Psalm 110 which prophesizes Jesus according to this priesthood). In fact, the priesthood of Melchizedek was the priesthood of the first-born, beginning with Adam and passed down through Noah and Shem (who some think was Melchizedek). Paul tells us in his Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 7, that Jesus Christ is a priest “in the order of Melchizedek”. So, what is abolished is the sacrificial system of the Aaronic priesthood, while the priesthood of the first-born is retained/restored. (When Jesus was presented in the Temple [see Luke 2], he was presented to the Lord as a first-born son with a sacrifice according to the law.) But there is a Davidic element here too as David first offered the todah or thanksgiving sacrifice and this sacrifice continues in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. You can see this sacrifice of thanks and praise in heaven, in the book of Revelation. But there are those who can explain the todah better (with biblical references), so start here:

  • ace

    You addressed your comments to Walid and he answered you well. I’d like to suggest you also contemplate Rev 22:1-2: “Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.” There can often be several layers in Scripture. Notice that the tree of life is on either side of the river. How can that be? It’s not growing in the river with branches extending over each side, but the tree is on both sides. Just a thought, but maybe the tree on both sides, could be that the roots are in the river of life, but the branches come up on either side; hence, the two lungs of the Church, the East and the West, the Orthodox and the Catholic. At any rate, besides reading Walid, I’d recommend “The Coming Home Network” and reading the stories and watching & listening to VIDs and podcasts of other Protestants who have come into the church (They also have a newsletter): (Also, many converts have written books.)

    Prayers and Blessings to you Travis…

  • If the Ark is Christ, how did the Ark go up to heaven as well as Christ? Its the question that baffles Protestant experts.

  • AnthonyM

    You wrote “What it does say is that all have sinned and come shorth of the glory of God- there is no one righteous, no not one!!! All from the time of fallen Adam and Eve are stained with original sin!” According to your view, Jesus sinned. Do you believe that? Your interpretation of scripture is incorrect.

  • Jason,

    I only addressed one point because all points had nothing to do with the discussion. Trust me if I did address them you would have a year’s worth of homework but I chose one to show you how much homework is involved which you failed to do with Hislop but bought into his deception about this Semiramis nonsense.

    As to your reference in 2 Ch. It simply says:

    “The LORD therefore hath performed his word that he hath spoken: for I am risen up in the room of David my father, and am set on the throne of Israel, as the LORD promised, and have built the house for the name of the LORD God of Israel. And in it have I put the ark, wherein is the covenant of the LORD, that he made with the children of Israel.”

    This speaks of setting up the Ark while Psalm 132 speaks of the assumption of the Ark to the throne of God. How come you did not explain that?

    You might quickly and prematurely say that the Ark here is Christ Who rested in Bethlehem. But this interpretation presents a major problem for Bible scholars. Take the same Albert Barnes (1798-1870) who wrote Barnes Notes, he knows that such an interpretation sets a major trap; how could this Ark in Psalm 132 be Christ when it accompanied Christ Himself in heaven?

    Pay close attention: “Rise up, Lord [Christ], come to Your resting place, You and Your powerful ark”.

    Did Jesus rest in the temple in Jerusalem forever?

    We do not have two Messiahs. There is only one.

    You failed to explain this friend.

    And what about Bethlehem?

    This dwelling houses is for the God of Jacob (Christ) which is specifically announced to be in Bethlehem: “Behold, we heard it in Ephrata and we found it in the fields.” This is the Angelic Proclamation to the Shepherds where the shepherds heard of it (the Ark) in the Shepherd’s Fields in Bethlehem “Behold, we heard it in Ephrata and we found it in the fields.”

    Therefore, this Ark pertains to the one Who housed Christ. This would be Mary when She arrived in Bethlehem Ephratah. God even had angels proclaim to shepherds to “go up to Bethlehem Ephratah” from the Shepherds Fields when she gave birth to the Messiah.

    As the text so clearly reveals, there was only one “dwelling for the Mighty One of Jacob” that is “the ark in Ephrathah [Bethlehem]” where God commanded “do not reject Your anointed one” Who can only be the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of the living God housed in His Mother’s womb.

    The rarely read Psalm 132 has a typological meaning that the “LORD” (Christ) who “arises” in the resurrection and ascends to the right hand of the Father will not rest until He dwells in the “ark” which is later taken up after He completes His mission fulfilling the suffering of David “Lord Jehovah, remember David and all his affliction.”

    This ark was what held the Word of the New Covenant which is Christ Himself Whom was found for Him a tabernacle (Mary) and was heard of in Bethlehem’s Shepherd’s Fields.

    So He ascends and this tabernacle, the tent that housed Him (Mary) will also be assumed to heaven which is His house: “I shall not enter to the roof [top] of my house; I shall not ascend to the mattress of my bed …”

    And may I remind, throughout the Psalms, David’s contemplations are Christ’s.

    From this there is no escape; this prophecy is as powerful as Micah 5. But it also speaks of Mother Mary. This is why many of the later scholars like Albert Barnes and other interpreters finagle the meaning claiming “Much difficulty has been felt in regard to this verse”; but all Bible scholars knew that the apostolic succession church believed the Ark was Mary and they did everything in their power to cover it up.

    The box never rested in Bethlehem. Jesus is not the Ark as Psalm 132 clearly reveals for we would have two Messiahs.

    The 2 Ch verses you brought was the Ark in Jerusalem and not in Bethlehem.

    You need to explain how this resting is ETERNAL:

    Arise, Lord Jehovah, to your rest, you and the ark of your might! 9 Your priests will wear righteousness and your righteous ones -glory. 10 Because of David your Servant, do not turn away the face of your Anointed. 11 Lord Jehovah has sworn to David in truth and he will not turn from it: “One from the fruits of your loins I shall set upon your throne“. 12 “If your sons will keep my covenant -this testimony that I teach them, some also of their children will dwell to the eternity of eternities upon your throne” 13 “Because Lord Jehovah is pleased in Zion and he chose it a dwelling place.” 14 “This is my rest to an eternity of eternities; here I shall sit because I desired it.”

    Pay close attention. This Ark and God dwell in ZION of HEAVEN and not Jerusalem. “Because Lord Jehovah is pleased in Zion and he chose it a dwelling place.” 14 “This is my rest to an eternity of eternities”

    The Ark you mentioned was the Ark that rested in Zion of Jerusalem. The Ark I mentioned came to Bethlehem and is dwelling in Zion with Messiah forever.

    Case closed.

  • Vinny Zee

    Can you show me from scripture where scripture declares that what a Christian believes must be explicitly stated in Scripture? Do you have a verse of scripture that shows we must only show verses of scripture for what is doctrine or what we believe? When you show me that, I will only derive every single dogma using only the specific scripture that states the dogma going forward. However, I can tell you right now, you will have a tough time defending the Trinity (no where found in any one scriptural verse), the dual nature of Christ (no where found in any one scriptural verse), prohibitions on abortion, what to think about communism, etc.

    See Stanley, as soon as you say “sola scriptura” you will lock yourself into a box theologically. We know Christ was sinless. The Catholic has never denied Christ was sinless. What the Catholic Church has declared was how his human nature was sinless. Well lets deal with the verse you offered up.

    I think you meant 2 Cor 5:21 – Paul says here Christ had no sin and Jesus became sin for us.
    Hebrews 4:15 – Jesus sympathizes with us, he had no sin
    Ephesians 2:5-8 – We are saved by Grace, it is a gift of God.
    Jesus being the eternal word of God, (John 1:1) tells us nothing about how his human nature was free from sin. It says he was in the beginning. If this verse does anything, it defends the deity of Christ. You didn’t tell me anything we already knew about those verses. It is the whole point of what I said. Christ was sinless. What you have to explain, and what the Catholic church has explained, was how his human nature was without sin.

    Did Jesus die on the cross? If you are offering up only John 1:1, how did Jesus die on the cross? Where did God inherit the nature to die so that he could rise? Its much more complicated than protestants slinging a few verses around here and there. We know Jesus laid down his life and took it up again. However, John 1:1 doesn’t explain to us where he inherited the nature to die on the cross. A proper understanding of Mary allows us to fully understand the full nature of Christ.

    “Does God’s Word teach that Mary was free from sin at her conception?”

    Does God’s Word teach that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are a Trinity?
    Does God’s Word teach that Jesus was homoousious (of the same substance of God) and not homoiousios (similar substance)?
    Does God’s Word teach that a woman can abort a baby?
    Does God’s Word teach that Jesus has one will or two wills (Nestorianism)?

    We can sit here all night with these questions. What you have to show us is that the bible explicitly teaches that one can only derive doctrine from what is written in scripture and must ignore the oral traditions and teaching authority of the Church.

    • racarrera

      I guess the Apostles and the Christians of the first three centuries after the Resurrection were not “Bible believing” Christians.

      Remedial history is necessary to understand the basic of our faith. Anything less is the province of Islam, as these people worship a book, not The Word.

      • Vinny Zee

        Amen brother. I am sitting down to respond to his newest round of attempted Protestant rabbit hole theology. There is nothing they can be taught until the Holy Spirit prepares them. Until then, it is just question and misunderstanding after misunderstanding. Thankful for your witness brother.

        • racarrera

          Anytime, brother. All one can do is laugh and remember that these folks constitute the Pro-wrestling side of Christianity.

      • Grandmere

        SNAP !

  • Hey, I remember you from your website. Hope you can drop by once in a while.

  • “If the Orthodox church and the Catholic Church are the only valid church
    bodies then what do you do with the fact that they have both
    excommunicated one another?”

    While this has been true for a while, this has been put to rest.

    Last winter, we also witnessed Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill sign a joint declaration which sparked a lot of hope for us on this site that the Great Schism will come to an end one day soon.

  • Thank you brother Andre for the link. I read it. Excellent work.

    You stated:

    ” Jeremias hid the ark in the very place where Moses could view (but not enter) the Holy Land, and he promised that it would not be seen until God will “receive them [the Jews] to mercy.” Having surveyed the various explanations of this passage …”

    What about a simpler explanation. The Ark (St. Mary) will be revealed as Apocalypse 11-12 explained? Maccabees was perhaps telling what Jeremiah told them. They understood it in their way while Jeremiah meant it in the other sense.

  • Fair enough brother Travis, fair enough,

    You are going the route of Vinny Zee. The end results of this type of well digging is the best of wells.

    I will continue my Sunday Specials.

    Be well.

  • Kamau41

    This is great, you are on the journey, Travis. Stay on this ship with us and we will continue to be praying for you.

  • OrthodoxChristianAmerican

    Orthodox Christian or Roman Catholic, ”EENS” is the Truth to both in reality, as the Fathers agree. God bless Brother Andre

  • Cuzick

    Another Block Buster Mr. Shoebat, more proof of the power of the Holy
    Spirit that is present to those that feast at the Table of our Lord in the Eucharist.

    ” The rarely read Psalm 132 has a typological meaning that the “LORD” (Christ) who “arises” in the resurrection and ascends to the right hand of the Father will not rest until He dwells in the “ark” which is later taken up after He completes His mission fulfilling the suffering of David “Lord Jehovah, remember David and all his affliction.”

    ” This ark was what held the Word of the New Covenant which is Christ Himself Whom was found for Him a tabernacle (Mary) and was heard of in Bethlehem’s Shepherd’s Fields. ”

    You have brought such clarity and more confirmation of why we as Christians should love and honor our Mother All-Holy,immaculate,most blessed and glorified Lady, the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary.

    Isn’t what God did in and through her his desire for all of us? To be a tabernacle full of the Holy Spirit, God bearers to a lost and dying world ? Aren’t we all to hold the Word of the New Covenant which is Jesus in our hearts ? After a lifetime of faithfully submitting to the work of Grace and following our Lord where ever leads us won’t we also be assumed to heaven ? No wonder Satan hates our Blessed Mother and her children .

    Satan is relentless in his pursuit to defile and destroy the Holy Tabernacles of God, his children, in taking the mark of the beast. Christianity Is At War, let us continue rowing at battle speed.

    • ace


  • Grandmere

    I hear you. I was once in your shoes. We are not going to throw you overboard.

    • David W

      If I don’t put down my coffee and row, then Grand will throw ME overboard.

  • Stanley,

    Stop plagiarizing by cutting and pasting false information from other websites and posting it here.

  • Your so full of it Stanley. I could take your exact words, take out the Pope and put “Stanley” and it ends up that you are accusing others of what you are guilty of.

    If your comment is in line with God’s word, there is no issue, however we are talking about heretical doctrines created by your comment, which are damning the souls of of it’s followers, who care more about what Stanley has taught them rather than what is found in God’s Word.
    Below are few examples of Stanley’s teaching as compare to Biblical teaching further below:


    Stanley as the head, rule all Christians

    God has entrusted revelation to Stanley

    Stanleyis infallible in his teaching.

    Stanley’s interpretation is the Word of God.

  • Poor Julie, she has to change another diaper.

    • Julie LaBrecque

      Time for the bomb – The NUCLEAR Bomb = for the most obstinate.
      Song of Songs 6:8-9
      “Sixty queens there may be, and eighty concubines,
      and VIRGINS beyond number; but my dove,
      MY PERFECT ONE, is unique, the only DaUGHTER of her mother, the favorite of the one who bore her.
      The young women saw her and called HER BLESSED;
      the queens and concubines praised her.”
      Who else could this be but Mary???

  • Christopher,

    I deleted your text because it does not deal with what was brought up that is Psalm 132.

    Please do not change the subject and deal with the chapter in Psalms 132 FRIST then go ahead and comment away.

  • Eagle,

    You write many comments , I don’t believe there’s anything I can say to you so your eyes will open , there is only one person who can do that. Stop trying to tell me what I should and should not write about and tell us your interpretation of Psalm 132. I have met you I have not listened to you speak , and yes when your active you can get attacked easily but your not active because you do not get attacked and you can have a hardened heart because of that reason .

  • A heretic would decide Judas should go to heaven while the saints go to hell. He would demand we love Judas Iscariot whom Jesus Himself condemned. He does this because he is not of Jesus. He is of Lucifer.

  • “NO ONE comes to the Father but through me.”

    But this “me” is a big word, bigger than all of us. Your pastor does intercessory prayers for you. How do you explain that? You would say “the pastor is interceding to Jesus on my behalf”.

    Jesus also said that if you did it to the least of these you did it to Me”

    Jesus also told Paul “why do you persecute ME” when Paul was persecuting the saints.

    And why do you you a single verse while you ignore all the other verses?

  • Tom_mcewen

    Jesus Christ, Stanley. Sears has sharper knives.

  • Its in the article. Did you read it?

  • Perfect interpretation Jason. “The rarely read Psalm 132 has a typological meaning that the “LORD” (Christ) who “arises” in the resurrection and ascends to the right hand of the Father will not rest until He dwells in the “ark” which is later taken up after He completes His mission fulfilling the suffering of David “Lord Jehovah, remember David and all his affliction.”

    So who was the Ark which Christ dwelt in?

    You quote Psalm 132, the very record that reveals the Ark (Mary) was assumed. The Church for 2000 years interpreted the verse this way and believed it this way even including Luther did not question the issues about Mary until the 19th century when your interpretation came along to write:

    “There is no record of Mary ascending into heaven with Jesus.”

    Sorry, I had to smile.

  • Jason “Jas0nK1611” Kunst

    Awesome Andrew

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Spirit, not His body & blood – but [email protected]/Orthodox do.

  • Very funny,

    So it was okay to call relics “Holy” in the old covenant but not in the new?

    And you use one verse about Christ being the only mediator while you ignore how that mediation functions which we amply explained a thousand times over? And you ask where the issue of the saints is in scripture while we etched it another thousand times which you can find at the tip of your finger by googling Shoebat and “saints”?

    Common man, stop repeating what all your friends keep repeating and try digging a well to drink from instead of asking for oil from the next door virgin.

    Enough said

  • Good try Kumar, try quoting the article and refuting it piece by piece instead of jotting a spec and ignoring the rest.

  • “If that had happened as you claim it would have been written in the gospels.”

    What a lame argument. Everything in the Old Testament should be in only the gospels? What about the prophets? What about John’s Apocalypse 11-12. Its there in black and white.

  • Стефан Евгений
  • Julie LaBrecque

    (Lk.16). Our father Abraham said to the rich man: “Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things” (Lk.16:25). How did our father Abraham know the evil things which Lazarus endured? How did he know the good things the rich man
    received? How did he know that the rich man’s family “have
    Mosses and the Prophets”, when he had departed from earth hundreds of years before Mosses and the rest of the prophets? How did he know all that? How could Abraham,
    of whom the Lord said: “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad” (John.8: 56), not know?

    (e) A testimony from the souls of the martyrs: St. John says
    in the Book of Revelation: “When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been [email protected] for the word of God and for the testimony for which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, ‘How long, 0 Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?’ And a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed” (Rev. 6: 9-11). Therefore the martyrs know, after their death, that the Lord has not yet avenged their blood. They cried with a loud voice to God, saying:
    “How long will You let the evil prevail on earth? Until when are
    You going to let the strong in body destroy Your children? Until
    when will they keep on shedding this blood?” How do they know all these things? They do know, and when the number of their fellow servants are completed, they will know.

    (f) The amazing story about the Prophet Elijah (2Chr. 2l): It
    is written in the Book of Chronicles that King Jehoram killed all his brothers, walked in the ways of King Ahab, built high places on the hills of Judah, caused the people of Jerusalem to prostitute themselves and led Judah astray. Then he received a letter from the Prophet Elijah who had departed from earth and ascended to heaven many years before. The
    letter he received from the Prophet Elijah read: “Thus says
    the Lord God of your father David: Because you have
    not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat your father, or in
    the ways of Asa king of Judah, but have walked in the
    way of the kings of Israel… the Lord will strike your people”

    (2Chr.21: 12-14). How did that happen? How did Elijah, after his departure from earth, know what was happening? How did he send his letter to Jehoram?

    (5) The greatness, knowledge and ministry of the saints
    (a) During his lifetime, Samuel the Prophet was consulted about a lost donkey. It was said about him: “…there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable man; all that he says surely comes to pass. So let us go there; perhaps he can show us the way that we should go” (1Sam.9:6). If the man of God, while he was on earth, knew the unseen, how much more would his soul know in heaven!

    (b) When Elisha was on earth, he perceived what Gehazi did in secret when he accepted the gifts from Naaman the Syrian (2Kin.5:25-27).

    (c) One of the officers of the King of Aram said about Elisha to his master the king: “…but Elisha, the prophet who is in Israel, tells the king of Israel the words that you speak in your bedroom”

    (2Kin.6: 12).

    (d) Elisha perceived, at the time of the famine, that the King of Israel had sent a messenger to kill him (2Kin.6: 32). If Elisha, while still in the flesh, had the gift of knowing secret things, how much more would he know in heaven after putting off his body?

    (e) Likewise, St. Peter the Apostle knew what
    Ananius and Sapphira did in secret, Acts 5

  • Julie LaBrecque

    So you reject the OT? 2 Timothy 3:16

    16 All scripture is inspired by God and[a] profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,[b] 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work

    You should know this verse spoke of the OT – the NT not in existence yet.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Revelation 8:1-4

    “When the Lamb opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour. 2 Then I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them. 3 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; 4 and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.”
    ??????????????????????????? This is from the NT sir.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Hebrews 13:17

  • You are correct Brother Andre, the word Shekina does not occur in the Bible and is from rabbinic literature. The word used for the Tabernacle is mishkan (same in Arabic Miskan), used for dwelling-place and in Psalms 132:5 “till I find a place for the LORD, a dwelling (Mishkan) for the Mighty One of Jacob” would be St. Mary’s womb.

  • I could go for ‘all the above’ which would be awesome. We shall await then and when it all unravels lets make a note we jot a comment here to see which proposal came to pass 🙂

  • No he did not Mr. Humphreys. There is zero evidence to that story and those links are void of any evidence.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Where be the bones?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    In Whose possession did Jesus give the Keys?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Jesus [email protected] not @ ghost

  • Grandmere

    I can’t believe you fell for that con man.

  • “This is just plain complication of the life giving gospel power. ”

    Never knew that the power of the gospel was a booklet. You say that you believe in the whole of scripture yet you ignore most of scripture.

  • “I’m only refuting what I believe doesn’t fit in with the test of your explanation.”

    Not true. What you do is an old trick attempting to isolate and throw a monkey wrench into the equation is hope you make it fall apart.

    Listen, theologians for two millennia accepted these verses and accepted Mary’s assumption until the 19th century which you picked up from. You are being driven by the wind.

  • Kamau41

    St. Cyprian also says these words:
    “The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled; she is uncorrupted and chaste. She knows one home . . . Does anyone believe that this unity which comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the Church and be separated by the divisions of colliding wills? He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation (On the Unity of the Catholic Church 6 [A.D. 251]).

    Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear or obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if anyone be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another (Letters 66 [A.D. 253]).”

  • Vinny Zee

    Fine Stanley, if this is how you want to address issues, then we will address them in the fashion you choose. We were discussing the immaculate conception and Mary’s assumption. But like a typical Protestant scoundrel, you will use any discussion as an opportunity to spew hatred, discord and unfortunately lies about the Catholic church, her dogmas and what Catholics believe. Normally I just ignore these. However, I am done ignoring Protestant lies. So I will address each of your points you lied about and then I will address (if there could even be space to do it) all of the heresies, cults, and errors that have been promulgated by Protestants in just the short 500 years since they have been attempting to interpret the bible for themselves.

    First off, not one of the verse you offered up on “sola scriptura” neither say anything about sola scriptura nor show “sufficient evidence” of it. In fact, in 1 Cor 15:1-4, Paul said to hold, “firmly to the word I preached” which he received. What he received orally he preached orally. These oral words confirm what is in scripture. Go to 2 Ths 2:15 where Paul said to receive the words he spoke whether orally or in writing and in 1 Ths 2:13 “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God.” His “human word” is “The word of God.” Your sola scriptura clarity test fails. There is nothing in scripture that teaches it. Stanley teaches it because some protestant reprobate told you it was that way and you believed it. That is on you.

    You told me there is nothing we should get at any time that is “input from any non-biblical sources or papal decree.” Well at the same time I noticed you confidently quote the gospels of Mark and John. Okay Stanley, using solely your “sola scriptura” and absolutely no extra-biblical sources, please provide the biblical verse(s) that tells you Mark wrote Mark and John wrote John.

    So let’s deal with your lies and misconceptions:
    1. The bishops, with the pope as their head, rule the universal Church. – For 2000 years our pedigree in apostolic succession continues. I am thankful you recognize it. You cannot put a bushel over a light like that.
    2. God has entrusted revelation to the bishops. – Lie. Revelation comes from God. He has entrusted his Church to guard what has been revealed.
    3. The pope is infallible in his teaching. – Lie. When the Pope makes a declaration ex Cathedra yes. When the pope speaks as a private theologian, no.
    4. Scripture and Tradition together are the Word of God. – Yes, 1 Ths 2:13, 2 Ths 2:15
    5. Mary is the co-redeemer; co-mediator, to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions. – We believe Mary is alive, which is what we were debating before you launched your attacks. She is among the great cloud of witnesses mentioned in Hebrews. Therefore we can ask petitions of her. If she can petition on our behalf for Grace, she is thus a “mediatrix” praying on our behalf. The problem with your terminology, as you understand it, is you accuse us of making her a co-redeemer with Christ and elevating her above him. This couldn’t be further from the truth. However most Protestants refuse to be convinced on what Catholics believe about Mary so I am stopping here, though there is more I could say.
    6. Initial justification is by means of baptism. Yes, 1 Peter 3:21
    7. Adults must prepare for justification through faith and good works. – Lie. By grace are you saved by faith, works prove the faith.
    8. Grace is merited by good works. – Lie. You cannot earn grace, this was anathematized at the Council of Trent.
    9. Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments. – Same lie. Go read the Council of Trent, you don’t know what you are talking about.
    10. No one can know if he will attain to eternal life. – Including you. Paul told us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. This is what we do. We don’t put God in a box like Calvinist do and ask people to raise their hand after they repeat after the pastor and tell them they now have eternal life.
    11. The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation. – Without us, you wouldn’t even know what the canon of Scripture was to tell you what salvation was. Paul also said in 1 Tim 3:15 the church is the pillar and ground of the Truth. Sorry Stanley, Paul wrote that 1600 years before Calvin was even alive.
    12. Christ’s body and blood exist wholly and entirely in every fragment of consecrated bread and wine in every Roman Catholic church around the world; The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the sacrifice of the Mass; Each sacrifice of the Mass appeases God’s wrath against sin; The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the sacrifice of the Mass. – It is the same sacrifice, not a different sacrifice. Are you saying the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine? If so, what does it matter, why do you worry about it? However, if you are telling me it does change, why don’t you believe it? Your argument makes no sense anyway. See my comments below dealing with the Seder meal.

    Let’s look first at some of the errors of Protestants in their continuous church splitting:

    1. The Lutheran Church was founded in Germany by Martin Luther. , an ex-monk of the Roman Catholic Church, in 1521. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America didn’t start until 1988 and Lutheranism has continued to split, not to mention the liberal Lutheran theologians who brought us the famed and heretical “redaction criticism” starting with the German Lutheran Heretic Rudolf Bultmann.
    2. The Mennonite Churches were founded in Switzerland by Menno Simons, an ex-Catholic priest, like Luther, in 1525. Another man looking to start his own church.
    3. The Presbyterian Churches were founded in Scotland by John Knox, an ex-Catholic priest, in 1560. The teachings come from the notorious Protestant Reformer John Calvin who vehemently opposed most of what Luther had to say. Within 40 years the reformation was in serious turmoil.
    4. The Congregational Churches were founded in Holland by Robert Brown in 1583.
    5. The Baptist Churches, now split into 30 or more sects with the Baptist name, were founded in Amsterdam by founder John Smyth in 1609. Most Baptist churches, to remain relevant today, have embraced serious post-modern heresies. Those that have attempted to remain faithful to Fundamentalist Baptist roots have all but shut their doors. The Southern Baptist Convention has been in one form of disarray after another.
    6. The Unitarian Church was founded in London by John Biddle in 1645. Take your pick on which heresy they teach.
    7. The Quaker Churches were founded in England by George Fox in 1647.
    8. The Methodist Churches were founded in England by John and Charles Wesley, in 1739.
    10. The Universalists were founded in New Jersey by John Murray in 1770.
    11. The Episcopal Church was founded in America by Anglican colonists. They have given protestants much to be proud about with gay marriage.
    12. “The Evangelical Church” was founded in Pennsylvania by Jacob Albright in 1803.
    13. The Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) was founded in Palmyra, New York by Joseph Smith in 1829. Protestants should be most proud of bringing back the Arian heresy onto the world stage, long after Orthodoxy finally defeated this heresy. Smith and his theological understanding were influenced by the “second great awakening” that swept the U.S.
    14. The Seventh Day Adventist Church was founded in New York by William Miller in 1831. Most notorious for his “end of the world” date setting, he was wrong every time. Can you find me a Catholic Bishop or Pope who ever date set the end of the world?
    15. The Christian Churches, (Disciples of Christ and Church of Christ), were founded in Kentucky by Barton Stone, and Thomas and Alexander Campbell in 1832. Interestingly, these believe in baptismal regeneration. I assume you think they are heretical seeing that you said, “Initial justification is by means of baptism” was a heresy taught by the Catholic church. How quickly you and your protestant brothers cannot even get a long nicely. Go check out the restoration movement within protestantism and you will see your own brothers talking about baptismal regeneration. Seeing that you don’t believe in a Pope, or leader of the visible church, except your bible on your book shelf, who is going to resolve the baptismal regeneration issue between you and your fellow protestants? Do what you guys always do, just make your own church, rent a store front, and teach your doctrines that suit you. (Besides have fun reading how many times the Restoration Movement split and split and split, a common theme among Protestants) but I digress.
    16. The Salvation Army was founded in London by William Booth in 1865.
    17. Kingdom Hall of the Jehovah Witnesses was founded in Pittsburgh by Charles Taze Russell in 1870. Known as the “Russellites, or Millennial Dawn People”, in 1916 they were taken over by Judge Rutherford, in 1916 in Brooklyn, New York and began calling themselves Jehovah Witnesses a few years later. What do you know, Charles Russell had started the “Bible Student Movement.” Doesn’t that sound so Stanley Protestant like of him, just read the bible divorced of tradition and the church. Not to be outdone by Calvin, Russell was himself a proud Presbyterian. Here is another movement the Protestants have to feel very proud about.
    18. The Christian Scientist Church was founded in Massachusetts by Mary Baker Eddy in 1879. Certainly this movement and heresies should make you feel very proud. The studious Eddy was a Protestant Congregationalist. These words of her followers as they established the Church of Christ scientist should be music to any Protestant, “to commemorate the word and works of our Master [Jesus], which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing.” Just what every Protestant wants, a Catholic-less world where they can then establish the “lost church” and “primitive church” of Acts.
    19. The Church of God is one of over 200 sects founded in Tennessee by A. J. Tomlinson in 1880. The Church of the Nazarene is one of these sects founded from the Union at General Assembly in 1919. The Evangelical Reformed Church came from the same Union at General Assembly in 1934.
    20. Messianic Judaism was founded in America. Though the roots can be traced to the late 1900’s in Europe up to the Boston Conference of the Messianic Council in 1901, the first Hebrew Christian Synagogue was formed in Philadelphia by John Zacker in 1922. However, out from this sect of Hebrew Christianity, the modern form of Messianic Judaism as we have it today originated in 1973 by Martin Chernoff. This group does not refer to itself as Christian and uses the original Hebrew name of Jesus Christ, Yeshua Messiah. Today you can find Protestants like yourself making off the wall comments like accusing the Catholic Mass as heresy, yet your churches are now crawling with “Seder” meals at Easter time to experience the last supper. Hey Stanley, did you know that Orthodox Jews believe that when they partake of the Seder they believe in the real Presence of God at their Seder? They believe the Seder today is an actual partaking of the actual passover of their ancestors and their Seder today is as if they are at the actual Passover you read in Exodus? You probably don’t because you probably use crackers and Juicy Juice at your “memorial” supper and think Christ only instituted a memorial meal. Isn’t interesting that we say the Mass is the partaking in the same sacrifice of Christ and the Jews see their Seder as partaking in the same passover as their ancestors?
    21. The Pentecostal Churches, which have thousands of sects, were originally founded in America by ex- Baptists and Methodists, in the early 20th century. The Assembly of God is one of those thousands of Pentecostal sects started in Arkansas by the General Assembly in 1914. One of my favorite splinter groups of Protestantism they think every single mainline Protestant church is reprobate, particularly because you don’t have the “latter rain” and infilling of the Holy Spirit as is evidenced by Speaking in Tongues. You all have a real battle on your hands with the Pentecostals. Let’s not mention it all got started with “private interpretation” (condemned by 2 Peter 1:20) with a private speaking in tongues.
    22. The United Church of Christ was founded in Oberlin, Ohio by a merger of the Congregational Christian Churches and the Evangelical and Reformed Church in 1959.
    23. All churches known as Non-Denominational and Charismatic Churches were formed out of the above sects that exploded within the last 25-50 years in America. Most of these espouse post-modern heresies of all types. Many of them don’t believe in leadership at all. Out of these have sprung up the ever eclectic house church movements with all forms of hippie fun type gatherings.

    See Stanley the only difference between you and the other Protestants I have mentioned is nothing. You are like all of these who start splinter church after splinter church and heresy after heresy. They all started from people who first broke off from Catholicism and then broke off from each other. Almost all Protestant splintering has happened within Protestantism. Men and women just like you, who think you have the correct interpretation of scripture and everyone else is wrong. You quote scripture out of context. Every time you have quoted scripture to me, it did not even support what you were saying or was so out of context, it could not even possibly be taken serious by any reputable Protestant theologian.

    I’m aware you won’t be convinced and perhaps you’ve become so hardened you can never be convinced. However, perhaps we close this with the advice of Christ to take the plank out of your own eye before you remove the speck in the eye of another. Just look around at your Protestant churches and fellow Protestants and open your eyes to how far they themselves are falling.

    • I am betting that you are pouring holy water into a can that is open on both ends.

    • Regarding the The Episcopal Church, it is why the Anglican Catholic were formed in 1977 as a reaction against the worldliness leaning TEC undertook. However, the ACC needs to come under Rome, whether it is a full communion or placed as an Ordinantie under a Roman Catholic bishop.

    • susan

      Whoa Vinny Zee. Awesome informative reply. I’m going to add this one to my list.

  • Brother Raoul,

    I wonder why you are blowing the shofar on what was repeated in the article already to simply state which position you take. You need to refute and not repeat. Psalm 132 says that God and the Ark went to heaven. How is it the Ark is portrayed as Messiah when the Ark went up where Messiah is? How do you deal with the verse? Mary assumed to heaven. Period. Please explain that one for us instead of repeating yourself.

  • ace

    Until heaven and earth pass away, you have no authority to add the word after and no authority to reach your conclusion. The Blessed Virgin Mary, Blessed for all Generations, was ever-virgin and at the Annunciation was overshadowed and impregnated by the power of the Most High, in effect espoused by the Holy Spirit. Where was the gett (divorce)? God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). Do not blaspheme! As St. Paul tells us in Romans 3:4 “Let God be true though every man be false”.

  • Grandmere

    Let me ask you a question. Were James, Joseph, Simon and Judas with Mary at the foot of the cross? What cruel sons they would be to abandon their mother at such a time! By Jewish law, they would have the responsibility to care for her. Jesus gave John both the privilege and the responsibility to care for his mother. Why do you think he picked John?

  • Kamau41


  • Julie LaBrecque

    You’re done because you are defeated.
    Please quote chapter and verse that states everyone who was taken up to heaven is mentioned in the Bible.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    I don’t see your name in the Bible Frank – do you see your inconsistent reasoning? YOU are arrogant enough to claim yourself SAINT, while refusing honor in ANY way the greatest SAINT, St Mary. Hypocrisy of the highest order. Tell me, what do you think Jesus thinks of that? Guess your Bible doesn’t have the verses about those Christians that are going to end up in the lake of fire – and those damning words were uttered by the Lord Jesus Christ. If you can’t find it, let me know.

  • Vinny Zee

    Stanley, thank you for not responding to one issue I raised to you. You keep recycling the same arguments back to me. However, if you want to go round and round, we can go round and round.
    1. When did I ever say all scripture was not given by inspiration of God? Please show me my quote where I said this.
    2. “Irrespective of the title, it is the content/substance that is inspired.” – That is utter nonsense that not even one reputable Protestant scholar would ever agree with. There are particular criteria that go into the author of a book that have guided the church (Catholic and Protestant) to know a book is inspired by God. “It is inspired because it is the word of God” says not a thing and proves nothing on inspiration. You’re going to have to go a little deeper on that one.
    3. “You will believe the RCC teachings are also inspired.” – You either have an incorrect notion of what inspiration means, but most likely and as you have consistently proven, you have an incorrect notion of what the Catholic Church believes (though you keep lying about it to everyone.) The scriptures are inspired by God. The oral tradition we are dogmatically inclined to follow is the apostolic oral tradition.
    4. “As Bible believers everything we need for salvation and holy living is in the word and needs no addition from any church.” – Good you are slowly becoming more and more Catholic as we speak. The only confusion you have is over material sufficiency vs. the formal sufficiency of scripture. Material sufficiency is that the Bible contains everything a Christian needs for salvation and holy living, which is what the Catholic church teaches. Because a doctrine is sometimes implied and not clearly expressed (i.e. the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, etc – as I explained earlier) we have been given things such as the apostolic oral tradition (i.e Sacred Tradition) and the teaching authority of the church (1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:18) to guide us in understanding the Bible. Protestants believe it is formally sufficient, in that it clearly interprets itself and that as you so vehemently express, any reliance on oral tradition or sacred tradition is to place scripture below the church or tradition. It is actually the reason you can’t stop arguing with people and I am sure when you sit around in any bible study, it is a room full of little Popes with their own spin on everything. How else can you explain nearly 40,000+ Protestant denominations. In fact, you didn’t even respond to the 25 examples I gave you in the last post. However, I suspect it is due, mostly in part, to the failure to understand the Material Sufficiency vs. the Formal Sufficiency. “You quote all these churches…who cares?” Apparently you don’t and therefore you have no concern whatsoever what it means for the generations coming after you. I do care. How pagan of me to do so.
    5. Regarding paganism, the entire world is steeped in paganism. It was in Jesus’ day, it was in the apostles’ day and it is in our day. What does Christianity do? It goes in and it brings the cross of Christ and the message of Christ to a pagan people. I think however you’ve read a little too much Jack Chick to see that we’ve incorporated pagan practices into our worship. However, it is the same argument with Protestants. The church in Acts was more Protestant like, people seated around listening to a bible study or even more Pentecostal like, everyone was being slain in the spirit and speaking in tongues. Then this pesky Catholic church came along and brought with it the gates of hell and over took the seemingly peaceful Quaker type, protestant non-denominational like churches. Then for 1200 years the Catholic Church completely paganized the church. Then the blessed and venerable Reformers came calling in the wilderness on the people to repent and they have been saving people from the grasp of the Catholic church ever since. Do I have that history somewhat correct? If I am somewhat on track, can you please point me to the protestant like writing and teachings of those first few centuries so that I can read and research them? If the Catholic church suppressed those, can you please help me understand how the true writings of the real Christians in the first and second centuries have disappeared but the writings of the pagans have remained? Also, what was the motivation for the Catholic church to have preserved in minute detail the writings of the Church they came to circumvent? I guess these parts of Protestant revisionist history always puzzled me.
    6. “if they teach what is true according to God’s word, there is no problem …our faith IS IN JESUS CHRIST ALONE.” I believe I already quoted Acts 4:12 to you in one of our discussions, there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved. This is why Mary stated she rejoiced in God her savior. “If they don’t teach according to God’s word, they should be condemned.” Let me leave you with the words of Golden Mouth himself, St. John Chrysostom, “The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path”or another attributed to him, ““The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts.” – St. John Chrysostom attributed. In closing, “I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish.” St. John Chrysostom, Extract from St. John Chrysostom, Homily III on Acts 1:12.

    Stanley, we understand our judgment awaits and the seriousness of it. We understood this long before Protestants arrived on the scene. Unless they repent, they too will perish. The warning is for us all.

    • racarrera

      You use the proper word for this person: liar.

      • Vinny Zee

        He speaks as if he not only speaks all truth but as if it is readily apparent and all agree with him. I always learn something new discussing with these people, so I am thankful at times to have them.

        • racarrera

          You’re extremely charitable. However, I do agree with you. It’s a bit like exploring the mind of a lunatic. It serves a higher purpose, namely to prevent such madness from spreading.

          • susan

            Lol. There is hope! For i too was infected with such lunacy. The cure is found in the Apostolic Church! But alas! He is of age. And as such we cannot force him into the very institution Jesus started, the one that will heal his mind, body and soul. Pride is the thicket which keeps him from discovering the door to the true church.

          • rudycarrera

            Yes, but even Pride can be conquered through prayer and patience!

          • Vinny Zee

            I guess I am a bit of a philosophical rationalist (is there’s even such a discipline). I think this is why I really enjoy someone like Clark Carlton. Also I have really enjoyed the debates between Robert Sungenis and James White. I understand and learn much clearer utilizing the rational and philosophical side of the faith. I know this is where us westerners get ourselves into trouble sometimes. Trouble in the sense of trying to rationalize and explain those things that are truly mysteries. However, for the Western Protestant, they see it as us hiding something or ducking the issues they are trying to raise. The fatal flaw here that we sometimes have to realize is that Protestants argue for the sake of arguing and it really is a work of God through the Holy Spirit that has to reveal his truth to them.

          • susan

            Please forgive me for interrupting your conversation. You and Rudy keep the pulse on Protestantism. This was me.

            “The fatal flaw here that we sometimes have to realize is that “”Protestants argue for the sake of arguing”” and it really is a work of God through the Holy Spirit that has to reveal his truth to them.”

            I argued to prove someone wrong. When they’d (Apostolic succession church members and clergy) tossed back scripture proving why they weren’t, it made me stumble. And stumbling on the highway to hell is a good thing. Sometimes it slows one down long enough to find an exit. 😉

          • Vinny Zee

            Hi Susan, clearly you are one through whom God worked through the Holy Spirit and His truth was revealed to you. This really was the point of my post. Protestants and Catholics can point/counter-point one another all night long. At the end of it, it is the Holy Spirit that has to convince one of what the truth is. I don’t remember if Rudy was Protestant before he converted to Eastern Orthodox. I was Catholic and then away from the church for over 20 years. I returned to the church through studying Orthodoxy and settled into the Byzantine Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church. I know Rudy has argued enough with Protestants to combat their lies and misrepresentations of the Apostolic faith so I know this is why he is so familiar with their errors. He was very helpful to me as I was journeying back home.

          • rudycarrera

            Ah, I quite enjoy Clark. He’s absolutely vital for converts, especially Evangelicals, to read. The four books of his helped so many to understand Eastern Orthodoxy so much better. I can’t say I enjoy James White as much, however, as I find him to be way too much of a Sophist, though I’d make popcorn and pay for a ticket to see him go up against David Bentley Hart.

            The Western Protestant suffers from the same malaise as the Muslim – they can’t imagine God being a God of love. He is a judgmental savage, a caricature of a vengeful Greek deity. If that were God for me, I would have stayed atheist.

          • Vinny Zee

            Interestingly I thought I’d love to see White up against Brad Nassif. There was a debate Nassif had on Ancient Faith Radio that was there 3 years ago, but now it is removed. It was very good. I think it was against some evangelical, but can’t remember who now.

          • racarrera

            That’s a shame they didn’t archive it. Most of the sophists today (and my brother, thank God you’re not enduring the madness that is the Breitbart comments thread) are great and talking, but poor on knowledge. Nassif is quite remarkable.

          • Vinny Zee

            I enjoy the comments here because by and large you can talk and discuss with users you know quite well and see around quite a bit. I normally don’t quote on other sites as it is usually drive-by trolls who don’t put too much thought into thinking.

  • Grandmere

    Without the Catholic Church you would be quoting the Gospel of Judas or The Gospel of Thomas. It was the Catholic Church that decided, in Council that only four of the many, many gospels floating around were valid.

  • Nonsense. Research Ron Wyatt closely and you will find no Ark discovered. Zero evidence.

  • Brother Raul,

    The attempts to make this prophecy pertains to the literal Ark at Solomon’s time is simply being together Him with the Ark to literal Mount Zion is an impossible fetch.

    The text clearly puts this matter to rest:

    “Because Lord Jehovah is pleased in Zion and he chose it a dwelling place. This is my rest to an eternity of eternities; here I shall sit because I desired it.”

    You dropped this verse. You shouldn’t have done this.

    There is no question this is the heavenly not earthly Mount Zion where the Ark resides. The Bible even confirms this:

    And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament (Revelation 11:19)

    Is this mount Zion on earth? Never.

    But it even gets better when we examine translations of Psalms 132:8 from the Septuagint:

    “Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified [made holy, sinless]. (Psalm 132:8)

    Did the Jews mistranslate the Bible from Hebrew to Greek? Impossible. They understood that this ark was protected from sin “sanctified”.
    All this leaves us with only one option: the Ark is not Christ or a box but the Woman Who housed Christ in her womb.

    Yet you reject even the Septuagint the favorite of the Jews in Christ’s time and was used by Christ.

  • Brother Raoul,

    When you write things like “even in the Septuagint, is referring to the Lord Jesus and not to Mary” yet you do not establish your case to provide evidence of what you mean, then your statement would be found wanting.

    And also here “Revelation 11:19 it must be viewed in light of Hebrews 8:5 & Hebrews 9:11-12. The Ark on earth represented the Lord Jesus Christ.”

    Yet you do not share the text and workout your argument.

    And then you transfer the discussion to Mary being sinless or not when the topic was the line in the Septuagint which states “sanctified” which you failed to address.

    And then you completely ignored and did not deal with the other verse I provided from Psalm 132 which stated that mount zion in the context was an eternal one and not what was on earth. This is where the Ark rests forever.

    This is classic avoidance.

    Please next time try to address what was presented first so we may continue a discussion.

  • ace

    Some things hidden from the wise, the prudent, and the learned are revealed to babes; the little ones; the childlike. But, no matter what, you remain dissatisfied. God saved Mary from original sin – the sin of Adam with which the rest of us are born. If a child has a cut on their chin and is taken to the ER, and the cut is glued shut, surely the doctor saved the child from stitches. If the child trips and is about to fall on a sharp object which would have resulted in a cut, but a parent catches them at the last instance, maybe even abrading their own hand, surely the parent saved the child from a cut, and likely from stitches as well. “You saved their life” is used when a child is pushed or pulled out of the street in the nick of time before being run over by a car, as well as when someone is pulled out of a pond unconscious and revived by CPR. Saving is both restoring and preventing. Similarly, brothers was also used of cousins in Jesus’ time. If Jesus had biological brothers, why were they not responsible for caring for the Blessed Virgin Mary after the death of Jesus? Walid and many others have answered your questions more than once..

  • You completely ignored, the Psalmist starts off by speaking of a place God rests which is in heaven.

    In fact, these fifteen Psalms (120–134) are the Songs of Ascents” (Hebrew: sfr hamma’iilot” “to go up, ascend” or “Psalms of the steps” “that on which one climbs,” or “steps”. 2 Chron 9:18-9:19, the word means the steps leading to the throne of the king, and Ma’alot, is describing the upper parts of the heavens.

    Allegory was a common hermeneutic even in ancient Israel. You focused on the letter of the allegory and dropped what it means, completely.

    All the ancients rejected the Psalms of Ascents to refer to the Temple on earth.

    This is your first problem. Let me explain.

    You need to read the whole context from Psalm 120 all the way to Psalm 132.

    Even the Talmud speaks of the Songs of Ascents. Sukkah 53a-b understood the whole context as “Psalms of Ascent” after a descent to earth.

    You reveal you are Messianic but you did not even try explaining how Tractate Sukkah, “Fifteen steps (fifteen Psalms) is about steps leading down from the Court of the Israelites to the Court of the Women.

    Its a ladder and you know well what a ladder insinuates (the ladder of Jacob to heaven).

    Court of the Israelites to the Court of the Women resembles God going down to a Woman. This you should agree with. This is the Holy Spirit descending to establish God’s own ascent (coming) and His visitation to Mary and he speaks of King David’s womb. The only mention in scripture about David having a womb? He is referring to his descendant, a woman with a womb.

    The choice of Zion as the “dwelling place” and the place of the Royal ark is a festival in memorial of the establishment of the royal house and its ETERNAL sanctuary.

    The text is strict. It says “Qumma Adonai limnūḥāṯeḵā; (קוּמָה יְהוָה, לִמְנוּחָתֶךָ)

    The lamed in limnūḥāṯeḵā is strictly “TO” your resting place.

    In verse 1, the Hebrew זְכוֹר-יְהוָה לְדָוִד– אֵת, כָּל-עֻנּוֹתוֹ. “fir hamma ‘alot zekor yhwh lediiwzd ‘et kol ‘unnoto”

    ‘unnoto’ is the only place we find this construct in the Bible to mean “his affliction.”

    This is a rest in heaven after an affliction (think crucifixion).

    Why a I making this ascent to be heaven as all agreed?

    Once heaven is the center, there is little room to maneuver. Then “Arise, O LORD, unto Thy resting-place; Thou, and the ark of Thy strength” is an assumption of the Ark.

    The text confirms it: “For the LORD hath chosen Zion; He hath desired it for His habitation: This is My resting-place for ever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it.”

    This “Lord” and the “Ark” are two, BOTH resting in HEAVEN.

    So you still failed to explain how you parsed the text “Arise, O LORD, unto Thy resting-place” IS IN HEAVEN adding “Thou, and the ark of Thy strength” is an assumption of the Ark.

    The context here is about ASCENDING TO HEAVEN, the LORD and the ASSUMPTION of HIS ARK. Two individuals, not one.

    Proposing what you proposed generates a major problem especially when it says: “This is my resting place forever. Here I will dwell, for I have desired it.”

    In this context, how could you argue that God would rise up from his resting place (in Zion Jerusalem) and then respond that this “Zion” is his resting place “forever”?

    Once the Ark rises and is taken and RESTS IN HEAVEN FOREVER the arguments are silenced.

    Here is why, ONCE the ARK is LIFTED it is NO LONGER RESTED.

    Therefore, “Arise, O LORD, unto Thy resting-place; Thou, and the ark of Thy strength” with “This is my resting place forever. Here I will dwell, for I have desired it” MUST HAPPEN ONLY ONCE.

    This throws a monkey wrench into all of the faulty interpretations. Anything you respond to is in checkmate, but glad that you tried.

    And then you even have a bigger problem, Psalm 132 is a “Royal Psalm,” concerned with kings and queens. Although some connect it to transporting the Ark from Kireat Jia’rim to Zion, there is no explanation why the text says “fields of Ya’ar” which is in Bethlehem. This is especially true since the text says “Ephratah”.

    So tell us: why does the text say “Ephratah” and when did the Ark rest in Ephratah?

    You are unable to answer this question. Not in a million years.

    I can. Mary is pregnant with a child. The Holy Family then seek to find a place for St. Mary’s rest. Mary (notice David’s Womb in Psalm 132:11 “Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne” this is a woman. The Hebrew Beten is strictly WOMB and now the Psalmist says “I would not rest” here depicts Mary “Until I find out a place for the LORD, a dwelling-place for the Mighty One of Jacob.“ (v.5) This is a GOD she carries.

    This has a dual meaning. Didn’t the Shepherds hear of it from the angelic host announcing it and reply to others “Lo, we heard of it as being in Ephrath” (in Bethlehem) and then went to fetch where Mary and Jesus were dwelling in a manger?

    This is why no one can interpret this unless they accept the obvious. Even the speech of the shepherds and the wisemen: “Let us go into His dwelling-place; let us worship at His footstool.” This matches exactly what we see in the new testament about the wise men but also the Shepherds:

    “the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.”

    “After they [the Magi] had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped Him”

    They came to worship at his footstool. He was in a house, a meek dwelling “Let us go into His dwelling-place; let us worship at His footstool.” Indeed they did.

    The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, although an apocryphal gospel, it reveals how they interpreted these Psalms:

    “And when the circle of three years had rolled round, and the time of her weaning was fulfilled, they brought the virgin to the temple of the Lord with offerings. Now there were round the temple, according to the fifteen Psalms of Degrees, fifteen steps going up; for, on account of the temple having been built on a mountain, the altar of burnt-offering, which stood outside, could not be reached except by steps. On one of these, then, her parents placed the little girl, the Blessed Virgin Mary”

    What I will write here, I mean no insult, just correction and rebuke from out of love for you to reconsider your response. If a questioner asked “why did Israel go up to Jerusalem’s Temple?” The simpleton would say: “they go up to Jerusalem to the temple to worship God” but the wise would say: “they go up” is Jacob’s ladder, especially because Jerusalem represents heaven.

    In connection with this “ascent” in the Psalms have also in mind the lesson of Jacob’s ladder.

    When you ask: “Where does it specifically mention in scripture that the Ark of the Covenant in heaven is Mary?”

    The wicked ask similar questions: “where does it say Trinity” and “where does the Old Testament say ‘Virgin’”? One could ask the same question “where does it specifically mention in scripture that the Ark of the Covenant is Jesus?”

    How will you answer such questions?

    A fool asks a question which takes ten wise men to answer, but a wise, instead of answering would ask a similar question and put the questioner in checkmate: where does it say that the Ark was Jesus?

    But to amuse such a question, in 2 Samuel, the Ark of the Covenant is recorded as having remained for three months in the hill country after its return from the land of the Philistines. We are told, “David arose and went” to the hill country of Judah “to bring up from there the ark of God” (2 Samuel 6:2) and the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obededom the Gittite for three months, and the Lord blessed Obededom and his whole house. Not accidentally, Luke notes that Mary “arose and went to the hill country of Judah” (Luke 1:39) where she (the Ark) remained with Elizabeth for “three months.”

    In Luke 1:48 Elizabeth calls Mary “Mother of my Lord” or “Mother of my God”. Many cringe at calling Mary “Mother of God”. To all who cringe, few even focus on how God directly announces His Mother in an explicit clear sense:

    “Listen, O coastlands, unto me [God]; and hearken, you people, from afar; The LORD has called me [The Son] from the womb; from the body of my mother has he made mention of my name.” (Isaiah 49:1).

    This is so clear “the body of my [God’s] mother”.

    If Mary was just like any one of us or if she was simply an incubator, why would Luke describe her womb similarly as the Ark was described: “and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb” (Lk 1:15)”.

    The Holy Spirit was using Mary as His physical temple to carry Messiah symbolized in the Ark in Hebrews 9:4 as the “little urn” which “held the manna” (bread of life/Christ).

    We should never read Scripture in a mechanical way to fathom it mathematically or restrict its themes to only history or allegorize where there is no allegory and literalize were there are no literals or ignore where there are allegories, which speaks of multiple literals.

    Even if one insist on Israel or the Church as the only interpretation of Revelation 11-12, or if they are still in doubt it is Mary, one cannot ignore Psalm 132: “Arise, O Lord, and go to your resting place, you and the ark of your might … For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his dwelling place: This is my resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it.”

    Yet in your response, you disconnected the verses from its primary context: God resting.

    You are modern Messianic, which means that you are inwardly Protestant with Hebraic wrappings that has little connection to the way the first Christians believed. Give me time with you and I will unravel the wrapping from Luther’s theology and what remains is Luther.

    And your interpretation here proves it. It is simply the typical interpretation of a Baptist who has no school on ancient understanding of either the Hebrew or the fathers. Try reading Hippolytus instead of paying attention to modern Messianic teachers.

    Your friend,

    Walid Shoebat

  • Brother Raoul,

    Notice how you did not answer any of the challenges and question, but proceeded to repeat what we all know and then resorted in your final conclusion to the booklet we all hear “its all about salvation” and “I object” attitude about the “perpetual sacrifice”. Mind you you say all this when you zero dealt with the ample scripture which you so much profess to love.

    The question I have to you is this: does a tare know its a tare or does it think its a wheat?

    Mind you there is only one answer: it doesn’t know its a tare, it thinks its a wheat. This is the only answer one concludes from scripture.

    However, I will expound even further this Sunday Special on this issue of Psalm 132 to explain to you what proper interpretation is supposed to look like which unfortunately you did. You are not interpreting scripture being driven from the Holy Spirit of God, but being driven from the tradition of Luther. Your criticism of the Catholic Church stems from Luther and Zwingli regardless that you do not know them because their traditions are passed down.

    If your methods are truly the primitive life of the first ‘believers’ you would answer a simple question: show us any names from 100 AD – 1500 AD that emulate your interpretations? You will not and cannot. What you will do to answer this question is to quote only what you believe is proper interpretation in the Bible.

    However, you CANNOT find any who interpreted it the way you do from the dates I provided. Not in a million years. How do you explain that? I can provide schools of ‘believers’ who interpreted the way I do.

    Therefore, you are of Zwingli and I am of Paul.

  • You will never answer a question and will always change the subject. I asked you to name Christians from 100 AD – 1500 AD who interpret as you do regarding Communion, Mary, Confession without priest … you know, your whole cult and Jewish mix with Baptist theology. Find me a copy of your concoction from history.

    Watch how you will change the subject ,,,, again.

    Do me a favor Raoul, next time your respond, please do not waste any time.

  • Raoul,

    I am done with these dialogues for even if the Fathers where in scripture itself you will twist everything. We Catholics agree on both Memorial and Sacrifice and all you people do is split the statements from the Memorial references and the Sacrifice and try to isolate everything. From Catholic Bible 101 it is clear what the fathers believed in BOTH:

    St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 A.D.)

    I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)

    Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)

    They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)

    St. Justin the Martyr (100 – 165 A.D.)

    We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.

    For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)

    Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho, 41)

    St. Irenaeus of Lyons (140 – 202 A.D.)

    …He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, “THIS IS MY BODY.” The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.

    He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)

    But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)

    If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

    When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE — flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)

    We are done. Good day.

    • I feel your frustration. They read the same sources and completely go about it the opposite way. They refuse to acknowledge the Fathers consistently accepted the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Christ and try to explain it away by using arguments like, “We must understand the historic context.”

      No wonder John 6:66 says many disciples left Jesus because it was too hard to accept.

      Next, they lock onto and focus on Jesus in saying further down in John 6 that “flesh profits nothing” which Gnostic pounces on to declare the flesh is beyond saving and why they abstain from consuming the Eucharist.

      These folks think all one has to do is believe and confess Jesus is Lord as the only, acceptable answer. They ignore gown Jesus said those who consume the Eucharist, He will rise them up in the last days.

      They ignore Joel 1:9 of the priests who mourn and laments the loss of drink and grain offerings, a clearer reference to the Eucharist BEFORE Christ, which God will promptly act to intervene and save the Church.

  • Grandmere

    Raoul, you have to remember that Walid was once a Baptist. He is now a Roman Catholic. You could no more force him back to being a Baptist than you could force him back to Islam. You need to accept him as he is and enjoy his amazing work for what it is. There are other protestants here who comment without trying to revert the site owner. Why not stop bashing your head into a brick wall. It gets you nothing but a headache.

    • “Why not stop bashing your head into a brick wall. It gets you nothing but a headache.”

      Now there is some good advice. Wish people listen.

  • Jason,

    I am not Babylon to be “measured” for you have ZERO scripture that says “Rome” but Arabia.

    John’s words ‘Babylon is fallen is fallen’ rendering it as ‘Rome’. But no Rome was ever mentioned in such a reference when Isaiah the prophet clearly pointed “Babylon is fallen is fallen” in Isaiah 21:9 as “Arabia”.

    So you apparently are unable to even read the article and refute it, not because you are a dummy, but because you love to twist he scripture.

    But if you want my response to your feeble issue you bring, I will keep you in suspense and reply to my coming Sunday Special.

    You see, suspense and patience is not a trait of the fool.

    • racarrera

      Amateur hour. It’s amazing to observe how much patience is shown with barking heretics.

  • “That has nothing to do with what I said”

    It does. You stated “You just have “philosophy and vain deceit” Daniel 5:27 KJV TEKEL ; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.” END QUOTE.

    That is an accusation that we are of Babylon. Why are you applying it to me?

    Am I Babylon? No? Is Rome Babylon? If yes PROVE IT from Scripture. Show me a single verse where God condemns Rome? You will never find it. No. Not in a million years. You will end up USING ALLEGORY.

    Yet you justify your allegory because it grows from your culture. For not in a million years I would give you a Bible and throw you in the jungle will you come up with such a conclusion. You will find Arabia as “Babylon is Fallen is Fallen” in Rev 13, 17, Isaiah 21.

    “YOU LOSE( not loose, lose)”

    You are focusing on a gnat and forgot that you have been swallowing camels.

    Here I will sum up everything for you with a simple question. You said:

    “you just assume that when it’s talking about the Ark it’s talking about Mary. You have have no scripture to support that!!! You just have “philosophy and vain deceit”

    And I can say: you just assume that when it’s talking about the Ark it’s talking about Jesus. You have have no scripture to support that!!! You just have “philosophy and vain deceit.

    I simply replaced your statement and took the name Mary out and replaced it with Jesus.

    Now what will you do? You will star quoting typology and by the time you are done. I will take your typology and show how ill interpreted it is.

    Go ahead. Make my day 🙂

    P.S: I read the Hebrew, is that better than KJV or is the KJV better than the original language? You see people who try to answer this and cannot see the wisdom behind the question, these are like a can opened on both ends where whatever I pour the water leaks to the ground and is never retained.
    Lets see how you do answer two simple questions.

  • No need to apologize brother Jason. Over here we can yell aloud and even brawl and still have a beer 🙂

  • Your funny. I like the way you try to add unrelated arguments while you avoided the main questions:

    Who does the Ark resemble?
    Take my previous question and apply “the Dead Sea Scrolls” manuscripts and send me your reply.