Shameless Popery’s picture of Mary the “new ark” (left) compared to photos of pagan idols taken by the MackQuigleyReport at Vienna’s Kunsthistorisches Museum (right).
Worshippers of Mary Exposed!
The folks at “Shameless Popery” are going all out to catapult Mary into the Trinity – or at least it would seem that way.
They want us to think Mary is the New Covenant’s Ark, the Temple-Gate of Christ, and the Builder of Christ.
Sheela Na Gig idol (sheelanagig.org (c))
Of course, this hallows Mary’s vagina as the holy of holies – the exact spot where man meets God – the old pagan sex cult represented with a Christian guise.
Isn’t that shameful?
Well No, not to Shameless Popery – they are dead serious about it.
Could it get any worse? YES!
They allege further that Christ – who is the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45) – has his mother Mary as the Sinless New-Eve! So Mary is now both wife and mother of her own son – as was Semiramis, Queen of Babylon, also known as Isis or Ishtar.
Thus incest becomes a sublime religious doctrine – by the son of God and his mother?! Could there be any blasphemy more sickening??
Old heathen lies misrepresented as being “Christian” doctrine by the Shameless Popery folks in the name of Roman Catholicism.
What a Satanic mess!
Mary is a human being, not a goddess. The Bible does not say that she was born sinless nor that she lived a sinless life. In fact, Mary lost the child entrusted to her, and then lied publicly about who his father was – obvious sins (Luke 2:48-49). She also tried to interrupt Christ while he was talking to other people, so he pretended he didn’t even know her – “ Who is my mother?” and said that he considered those listening to him as his mother and brothers instead! (Matthew 12:47-49; Mark 3:32-34). The Bible says that it is appointed for everyone to die, and there was no exception made for Mary – she died just like everybody else does. Mary hoped in God’s salvation, like every lost sinner must: “And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” (Luke 1:47).
But the Lord Jesus Christ is sinless because he is God.
Who would claim that Mary is sinless, she never dies, she is the “mother of all living” and the “Builder of Christ” unless they actually think that she is a god??
These Marian fanatics are engaged in religious make-believe of the most devilish sort.
Mary is not the “New Ark”
Shameless Popery (“SP”) claims that just as there was an ark under God’s covenant with the Jews, so there is an new ark for the New Testament, and that ark is allegedly Mary.
SP’s “proof” relies heavily upon incidental similarities between the time the ark was retrieved by David after remaining 3 months in the house of Obededom (2 Samuel 6:2-14), and the time Mary spent 3 months at Elizabeth’s house (Luke 1:39-45,56).
Since both the ark and Mary spent 3 months in an area of Judah – and both stories contain a moment of rejoicing, it allegedly means that Mary must be the new ark.
Certainly the stories contain a few elements that are similar, but that doesn’t mean there is any equivalence between them. Things like this arise from common themes that simply create suggestive spiritual connections between the stories.
The stories don’t prove that Mary is the ark because there are too many dissimilarities and hanging threads between them.
In 2 Samuel the ark was stolen by the philistines – did Mary ever get stolen by anybody? In 2 Samuel the ark killed thousands of people when it was touched – did Mary kill anybody? In 2 Samuel David attempted to retrieve the ark incorrectly by a wagon, and later retrieved it correctly on the shoulder’s of Levities. Is there any similarity to Mary? In the story of the ark, a trumpet is blowing and six steps were taken and oxen were sacrificed before David danced. Where is this in the story of Mary and Elizabeth? And so on through the stories – many such dissimilarities appear.
But when the Bible has a true typology, nearly every recorded detail will match – showing that God wrote the story as “history in advance”. For example, nearly every feature of Joseph’s life recorded in the book of Genesis prefigures Jesus Christ. Joseph’s entire story is clearly foretelling Jesus Christ, and the analogy never breaks down at any point. That is how you can tell a true “type” from things that are only common spiritual themes.
So although the ark contained the ten commandments, Aaron’s rod, and a jar of manna – it didn’t contain God (SP thinks that it did, but this shows how he has no sense, God doesn’t dwell in little boxes that men make – Isaiah 66:1-2). Yet Mary’s womb did contain Jesus Christ the son of God, and the testimonies in the ark have a typology to Jesus Christ. There is no justification for extrapolating these limited sort of spiritual connections further because the typology breaks down. Yet there is a similarity in that the old ark gets no credit for the things put inside it, and the ark is eventually done away with entirely: “… in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.” Jeremiah 3:16.
If Mary has any limited similarity to the old ark, then learn to give her no credit for what was merely place inside her, and learn that things God uses temporarily are done away with once the Jesus Christ has arrived. Jesus Christ is no longer in Mary’s womb – so Roman Catholics need to grow up and stop venerating her.
Let us repeat this for emphasis because it seems that Roman Catholics don’t yet understand the significance: Jesus Christ is not in Mary’s womb any more!
Notice that Mary’s alleged typology to the ark is 100% by proxy – relying entirely upon Christ’s direct typology to the ark. Jesus Christ is the new manna, the rod of David, and the Word of God, and the one in whom we take shelter (like Noah’s ark), and the one we go to to hear God speaking to us (as it was to be above the blood sprinkled mercy seat on top of the ark – Exodus 25:22). He is like the new ark. Mary has no claim to this title at all because she gave birth to Christ and … (ready for it?) … he is no longer inside her!
We go to Christ, not to Mary.
So Roman Catholics are deceived by devil when they call Mary the “new ark” – they are completely ignoring the reality of the man Christ Jesus (not the “little baby infant”) who alone is mediator between God and man.
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” 2 Timothy 2:5.
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12.
Mary is not the Builder of the New Temple
The next wild allegation of SP is that Mary should be given credit as the “Builder” of the New Temple which he says is her baby, Jesus Christ – therefore she is worthy of more honour than King David who wasn’t allowed to build a temple.
Where should we begin in pointing out all the fanatical heresies in this mad raving? Is there time and space enough!?
The gist of SP’s claim is that God promised the Jews a future temple, and that Jesus Christ claimed to be that temple when he said,
“Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.” John 2:19-21.
[Of course there is great irony in SP quoting these verses where Jesus said "this temple" when he used "this" as actually speaking of himself - because later Jesus said to Peter, "this rock" in Matthew 16:18 and no Roman Catholic to this day realizes that Jesus was actually speaking of himself - even though it was he himself that descended into hell and had victory against its gates (Acts 2:31; Rev. 1:18)]
Now the Roman Catholics are great ones for putting everything that is true all together in an ungodly jumble of incoherent nonsense – creating a big lie. So, of course, SP goes and gathers every future “temple” reference in the bible and proceeds to pretend that they are all the exact same thing. He overlaps spiritual, historical, and doctrinal applications of the different coming temples until he can justify his wild claim that Mary “built” them all when she gave birth to Jesus Christ!
Holy Places: God makes them, God leaves them.
If everything in the universe was holy there would be no need for any temples, God would simply reveal himself outright everywhere to all creation. However, were that to happen today, everything would be burned up and destroyed “For our God is a consuming fire.” Hebrews 12:29, quoting Deut 4:24. And one day in the future that is exactly what will happen: “Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?” 2 Peter 3:12. After that happens God remakes everything new and it is of then written, “And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.” Revelation 21:22.
So on that day of universal holiness, from the city of New Jerusalem, God reveals himself openly to his creation. There is no temple except for him – he is the temple – his servants shall “shall see his face” REv. 22:4.
Now who in their right mind can even imagine the workings of the sick mind of the papist idolator who dares think that Mary – a first century Jewess woman – is the Builder of “the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” !??
You see when they called Mary “mother of God” they were not kidding around. They think she is the supreme goddess – the maker of God Almighty. What monstrous ambition these pagans have for their little statuette! Who does she think she is? Does the word L-U-C-I-F-E-R ring any bells?
“I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” Isaiah 14:14.
So if we review SP’s logic it starts with the fact that Mary housed Jesus in her womb – clearly a “temple” like analogy, for it is a place where God the Son chose to dwell for a time. But what happened to all the prior temples? God dwelt at Bethel – the very name means “house of God” – yet God forsook it because it became a place of idolatry: “I will also visit the altars of Bethel: and the horns of the altar shall be cut off, and fall to the ground.” Amos 3:14. God dwelt in the desert tabernacle, but it was folded up and never used again after its contents were moved into Solomon’s temple (2 Chronicles 5). But Solomon’s temple and all in it was in turn destroyed or stolen by the Babylonians because of their wickedness. It was destroyed utterly in 70 AD.
Mary may have briefly served as a “temple” for the body of Christ, but those days ended after Christ was born. And who did Jesus say rebuilt his own body – “I will raise it up.” (John 2:19). Christ says “I” himself, and not Mary, will raise up the temple of his body.
So where do their logic take them past the fact that Mary was pregnant and had a baby? It fails to move from that point, ignoring that the Holy Spirit made the body of Christ insider her, and that Christ himself rebuilt his own resurrected body. Ascribing to her any claim of credit for where the Holy Ghost of God chooses to dwell – or leave – is utterly unscriptural nonsense.
And, of course, the temple of God in this age is in the bodies of saved Christians: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” 1 Corinthians 3:16. “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?” 1 Cor. 6:19.
An actual rebuilt temple will exist in Jerusalem during the tribulation (Ezekiel 8) and also during the millennium (Ezekiel 45ff). These are going to be literal buildings and they have nothing to do with Christ’s physical body. So why did SP think they did? Because of Christ’s spiritual application of the river flowing out of the millennial temple as a prophesy of the Holy Spirit flowing out of the heart of those who believe on Christ. Once again, the Roman Catholics failed to rightly divide the scriptures.
in progress – check back later for more:
Mary’s vagina is not a Temple’s Eastern Gate !!
The RC people like Shameless Papist aren’t ashamed to repeat some of the most unseemly nonsense if they think it will defend their Vatican based cult. For example, applying Ezekiel 44:2 to Mary’s private parts:
“Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.” Ez. 44:1-2.
The assertion is that this verse is talking about Mary’s virginity and that no man is allowed to “enter” her private parts. The specious reasoning that is offered to substantiate this claim is that since Christ “entered in by” Mary’s womb, she is the eastern gate that the verse is talking about.
But wait a second – didn’t Jesus “entered in by” many different gates, doors, curtains, roads, tents, means of transportation, towns, villages, and houses? For example, Mark 1:21 says, “And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.” Does Jesus’ entrance through the doors of the synagogue in Capernaum make it the “eastern gate” of Ezekiel 44:2? A few verses later (v. 29) Jesus “entered into the house of Simon and Andrew” – is their house the “eastern gate” Ezekiel 44:2? In chapter 4 it begins with Jesus “entered into a ship” – is that the eastern gate? Etc. You get the idea.
The Shameless Papists simply claim that Mary must be the eastern “gate” because Jesus entered the world (not a temple!) through her womb – ignoring the fact that Jesus entered into many different places as well. This proves that they aren’t studying the Bible to find real answers, they are only seeking to confirm their own bias and pre-supposition. Their logic is unsound and circular.
Now notice how absurd the Catholic reasoning gets as we read further in Ezekiel chapter 44:
“It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.” Ez. 44:3.
So does Jesus sit inside Mary’s vagina to eat bread before the Lord? And does he crawl along Mary’s lap (“the porch”?) to go in and out of her womb ? This sounds like a bunch of incestuous pagan crap from the pit of hell!
This blasphemous outrage is coming from the poor blind ignorant heretics at “Catholic defence” blog. What obscene garbage – it’s complete lunacy.
Are we suppose to just tolerate their vicious profanity against God, the Bible, and the Lord Jesus Christ? There is nothing charitable about tolerating this kind of unholy dung. It needs to be denounced – and the purveyors of it condemned in strongest terms. They are rank godless heretics. They are obscene pagans. They are sick idolaters who worship a goddess demon.
…
{to be continued}
Posted on December 14, 2012