Bible lesson # 11: Pope: «Divine Mother birthed Jesus». Bible: Antichrists rejects humanity of Jesus.

The Pope claims the Son of God took flesh from divine sinless Mary. Wrong. The Son of Man, the humanity of Jesus came from His human Jewish mother. And unlike her Son she sinned and needed to be saved by the divine resurrected Lord.

Catholic idoltry and worship of claimed to be divine Mary
Catholic idoltry and worship of claimed to be divine Mary

On Sunday, in the Italian city of Castelgandolfo, the Pope again promoted the divinity of the Catholic Mary.

As normal, the Pope does not quote a single Bible verse when He tries to present the Roman Catholic Mary as the Jewish Mother of Jesus. He cant do that. Either he will be forced to misquote the scripture, or he will have to twist scripture out of context.

Here are some examples:

The Pope:

«Let us pray to the Blessed Virgin to help us nourish ourselves in faith, with the Bread of eternal life, to experience already on earth the joy of heaven»

The Truth:

The Bible says that there is only one Mediator between God and Man, and that is Christ Jesus. And if there is only one, the Pope is promoting sin by asking us to pray to whoever Catholic Mary might be.

The Pope:

«In turn, at the end of her earthly existence, the body of the Virgin Mary was assumed into heaven by God and allowed to enter the heavenly condition».

«Mary was ascended to the place from which her son descended. Of course, this language, which is biblical, expresses in a figurative way something one can only draw close to through certainly far from easy concepts»

The Truth:

The end of the Earthly life of the Mother on Jesus is unknown. But it is more than very unlikely, and hardly impossible, and a shame to even suggest, that the Gospel writes would exclude such an important event as the ascending of Mary into Heaven, if it ever took place. Its not there, not mentioned in the Holy Bible. Not even in the Catholic Bible. Let us therefor focus on Jesus, who appeared to 500 witnesses, and ascended into Heaven from Month Olives in Jerusalem.

The Pope:

«Well, from whom did the Son of God take his flesh, his real and earthly humanity? He took it from the Virgin Mary. God took her human form to enter into our mortal condition»

The truth:

It was the Son of Man who took his flesh from his Jewish Mother. That makes her the Daughter of Man, not the Queen of Heaven. The Pope twists the scripture, to lift up Catholic Mary to divinity. Born without sin. To claim the divinity of created beings is forbidden worship of the mortal. Jesus was not born by a divine mother. He did not even receive the Holy Spirit in his Earthly birth. That happened first when the Messiah was baptized.

The Son of God him self was completely human, when He walked on Earth in flesh. When the Pope claim his mothers origin as a sinless divine being, because she gave flesh to Jesus, the pontiff denies Jesus earthly humanity.

This is the fruit of the spirit of antichrist.

2 John 1:7

«Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist»

69 thoughts on “Bible lesson # 11: Pope: «Divine Mother birthed Jesus». Bible: Antichrists rejects humanity of Jesus.

  1. Nowhere did anyone of importance in the Catholic Church say that Mary is divine. You need to prove that statement or retract it.

    And why is it unthinkable that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven? There are precedents in the Old Testament. And also in the Apocalypse. The woman in Chapter 12 is Mary.

    Ivar, your theology of Christ’s 100% humanity and 100% divinity is flawed.

    1. Dear David.

      Thanks for this comment. Good to have you back on this site.

      If Catholic Mary was born without sin, she does not have Eve as her mother. In Genesis 3:20, the Bible says Eve is the mother of all the living. The Bible says all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God. That includes Mary, the Mother of Jesus. The Pope promotes Mary as divine, a «Mother of God» who lived on Earth, doing everything right all the time, not sinning. If so, she was not human. She is fiction, and invention by Rome.

      This is the truth.

      1. Dear David.

        Shalom, and thanks again for commenting.

        You claim that the women in Revelation chapter 12 is the Mother of Jesus. You are wrong. The women the Jewish Apostle John is telling us about, is the nation of Israel, who gave birth to the 12 tribes of Israel.(The people of Israel). Read about Joseph`dream, the son of Israel (Jacob, the first man named Israel). In His dream, he saw 11 stars. He him self was the 12th. The truth about the Catholic Mary, you will find in Revelation chapter 17. The image of this woman fits perfectly to the relationship between her and the Papal system.

        This is the truth.

  2. […] Bible lesson # 11: Pope: «Divine Mother birthed Jesus». Bible: Antichrists rejects humanity of Jes… – view page – cached #RSS 2.0 News that matters » Bible lesson # 11: Pope: «Divine Mother birthed Jesus». Bible: Antichrists rejects humanity of Jesus. Comments Feed News that matters Love will never fail American Jew Gertrud Stein: «Give Hitler the Nobel peace prize» Shimon Peres: «Iranian nuclear bomb like a flying death camp» — From the page […]

  3. Ivar, your interpretation of what Catholics believe is wrong. Mary is a creature. God saved her from sin. Mary cannot be full of grace, as Luke tells us, and still have sin. Also, obviously, there are exceptions to the passage in Hebrews…I believe you could even name one…Jesus. Also, young children do not have the capacity to sin. When a 6 month old child dies, he/she is without sin. Thus we believe that God preserved Mary. Also the scriptures tell us that nothing sinful can be in the presence of God. This tells us that God would not be born of a sinful woman.
    Mary and the doctrines about were not ‘invented’ by Rome. She was revered before the Gospel had gotten that far.

    Your reading of Revelation and that taught since it was distributed by the Catholic Church are different. Which is understandable, since you’ve been cut of from the one Church of Christ for centuries.

    1. Dear David.

      Good to have you back on this site.

      You wrote:

      This tells us that God would not be born of a sinful woman.

      My comment:

      Its insane to claim that God has a mother. Our Father in Heaven and His Son has no beginning, and no end. Jesus the Messiah was surely born by a sinful woman, into flesh and full humanity. Still, he committed no sin. Since the Bible says that all have sinned, and fallen short of the Glory of God. Mary is a created being, the daughter of Eve, a sinner like all of us.

      That children do not sin, from were have you got that from? Sin is sin, even among people who do not have a clue what sin is all about. All have sinned. That includes all children, born in sin, into a sinful World. God cursed His creation, when Adam and Eve sinned. All created beings are cursed, and needs to be saved by Jesus.

      1. Is Jesus God? Jesus has a mother. Mary. Jesus is God. Mary is the mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

        Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God “in the flesh” (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.
        Regarding Eve, she was created sinless. She disobeyed, and sinned. Mary was created sinless as well, but she obeyed.

        If you don’t know it’s a sin, it isn’t a sin. By not understanding this, how the Church of Jesus, the Catholic Church, teaches it, you show that you don’t have any understanding of our faith. I believe that, in order to disagree with something, you have to have some knowledge of what they believe. Children cannot sin until they have some knowledge of what is right and wrong. If a two year old child takes a candy off the shelf, the child knows no better, and is not stealing. It’s different for the mother, if she sees the child doing it, it’s her duty to admonish the child and make reparation. But the child does not sin.
        Even if you don’t like that example, a mentally handicapped child cannot sin. Neither can a child born comatose.

      2. Dear David.

        Before the Law of Moses was given, sin was sin. The Law made us aware of sin. Sin started the day Lucifer rebelled against God, and was kicked out of Heaven.

        Romans 7:25
        Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

        Romans 7:5
        For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.

        Dear David. You have a sinful nature from when? From your birth i guess, and you are still a slave to the law of sin. Till the day you repent, and except faith in Jesus alone, as the righteousness of God the Father.

        Romans 6:23
        For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

      3. There’s a difference between original sin and actual sin. Original sin is washed away at baptism. “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).

        Lucifer, Adam and Eve all had one thing in common. They had knowledge that what they were doing was wrong. A baby, a mentally handicapped person these have no capacity to sin. Mother Mary was preserved from sin. You cannot be full of grace and sinful at the same time.

        The Fathers of the Church taught that Mary received a number of distinctive blessings in order to make her a more fitting mother for Christ and the prototypical Christian (follower of Christ). These blessings included her role as the New Eve (corresponding to Christ’s role as the New Adam), her Immaculate Conception, her spiritual motherhood of all Christians, and her Assumption into heaven. These gifts were given to her by God’s grace. She did not earn them, but she possessed them nonetheless.

        The key to understanding all these graces is Mary’s role as the New Eve, which the Fathers proclaimed so forcefully. Because she is the New Eve, she, like the New Adam, was born immaculate, just as the First Adam and Eve were created immaculate. Because she is the New Eve, she is mother of the New Humanity (Christians), just as the first Eve was the mother of humanity. And, because she is the New Eve, she shares the fate of the New Adam. Whereas the First Adam and Eve died and went to dust, the New Adam and Eve were lifted up physically into heaven. God granted her freedom from sin to make her a fitting mother for his Son.

      4. Dear David.

        You wrote:

        There’s a difference between original sin and actual sin. Original sin is washed away at baptism. “Baptism . . . now saves you,

        My comment:

        Who saves an infant? The faith of the priest, or the faith of the parents? What if the priest is a hypocrite? Was Jesus baptized as an infant? When was Jesus baptized? Did He set the example for his followers?

      5. This is the beauty of sacramental life. It’s Jesus that saves the infant, in spite of the priest or parents. Why does it matter whether Jesus was baptised as an infant, Ivar? He instituted the sacrament as an adult. He did participate in the Jewish form of this sacrament as a child.

        If you’re questioning the validity of infant baptism, Christ calls all to baptism, not just some. Acts 2:38-39 shows this. In Matt 19:14 Jesus says “Let the little children come unto me” which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.

        Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

      6. Dear David.

        Your Bible verse:

        Colossians 2:11

        In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ.

        Again you are quoting a scripture out of context. The circumcision done by Christ, has nothing to do with Baptism.

        It has to do with adults putting off of the sinful nature. That is all about repentance. Thats why the Bible says: repent or perish. An infant can not repent. Thats why John the Baptist said: Repent and be baptized. And you brood of wipers, first show me fruits of repentance. A poor little infant is excluded even from showing such fruits.

        Let me tell you who you are, David, by quoting a verse from Stephen in context to our debate:

        Acts 7:51
        “You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

      7. You’re so wrong all along, Ivar, what is your authority???

        There are so many cases of the apostles baptizing whole households, how can this be non-scriptural???

        Where is your authority, and who gave you the ability to judge anybody’s heart???

        I know beyond a doubt what my Lord Jesus Christ has taught. It’s been the same for 2000 years.

      8. Dear David.

        The word infant is mentioned both in the Hebrew old testament (Tannakh) and the New Testament. Why is the word infant never mentioned in connection to baptism? Since its so important for God, that we should be baptized. – Do you remember your own baptism?

        If not:

        Who else, than wicked men told you that its not important for a man to remember, face and experience his own baptism?

        The same baptism, that our Master, role model, whom we are called to reflect surely will remember forever?

        David. Repent, than go to the river and get baptized.

      9. See what you know about me??? I do remember my baptism, very well.

        Our children have their baptism at birth, then they are taught and given first Eucharist, then taught more and confirmed in the faith by the Holy Spirit.

        Ivar, let me ask you a question. Where does it say that you have to be immersed in the water to be baptized? When Peter, our first Pope, converted and baptized 3000 people on Pentecost, where do you think they were immersed?

      10. Dear David.


        How can a child have its baptism at birth? The word Baptism (baptiso) means immersion. John the Baptist, was John the Immerser. He immersed people in the River Jordan. Jesus was immersed when he was 30 years old.

        Dear David. You can not enter the Kingdom of God, without being born again. An infant have just been born. He will have to be born again by the Holy Ghost, the day the infant have grown up, and stop listening to wicked men and demons. Born again by water and Spirit. Read John 3, and have a blessed day.

      11. A child that is baptized is literally born again, first from his mother’s womb, and second through the living waters of baptism. When he is confirmed he is born again in the Holy Spirit.

        Baptizo also means washing up. Why do you continue to try to revise the language. Baptizo has more than one meaning. Nobody is saying that immersion is wrong. You are saying that infusion is wrong. But the word clearly means more than one thing.

        Again, I bring the example of the 3000 converted in Jerusalem. They were all converted…and all of their families which infers women and children. And the context suggests that they were not immersed, but infused.

      12. I was already baptized. IT would do no good to be baptized again, because once you’re baptized, you’re always baptized. It’s permanent.

    1. Dear David.

      Thanks for this question:

      Acts 2:40-42

      With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

      The Bible does not give any concrete location for the mass Baptisms. The Bible does not say if it was on the same place, or these 3000 people were baptized on different locations during the day. So we need to read this with an open mind.

      But what we know, is that there were big crowds that wanted to be immersed by John in the River Jordan. In his days, the river was big and powerful. Lots of water.

      Mark 1:5
      The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

      1. From Jerusalem to the Jordan is an awfully long way to get 3000 people to walk…

        They were converted and baptised in Jerusalem. What happened in Mark took place before Jesus started his public ministry, and was only the baptism of the water, not the spirit. When Jesus was baptised in the Jorday, he himself blessed the water.

        At any rate, there was no place in Jerusalem where they could baptise 3000 people by immersion in one day…3000 unwashed people…you might say in the pools in the temple, but this would have also rendered their drinking water unpotable. Also, those who live in the dessert, or in the Arctic who want to be baptized, what would you have them do???

        Immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, “[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner.”

      2. David.

        You wrote.

        From Jerusalem to the Jordan is an awfully long way to get 3000 people to walk…

        My comment:

        You are again deadly wrong, and you are guessing. Why dont you give me Bible verses. So I can give you verses of people who were not only walking with Jesus. They walked, so eager to get saved, that they even forgot to bring with them food.

        There are people today, who walk tens of miles barefoot in Africa to get to Church. In my island, people got up at 4 am in morning, and went by boats over open ocean to get to Church on time at 10 am.

        The normal way of going from Jerusalem to the Jordan, was to use donkeys. They would not get tired. Its only downhill….

  4. I’m not guessing. You’re right, they could have walked a day’s journey to the Jordan.
    But these were converted in Jerusalem and baptized that day. It does not say they were immersed. It doesn’t say they were infused. It doesn’t say in the Jordan (that would be a pretty important piece to leave out!) It says they were baptized.

    You still need to account for places where people don’t have the water resources to get baptized by immersion. Infusion is acceptable. There is never a place that requires immersion.

    BTW, have you ever seen how slow a donkey travels? Here, you are guessing. And even if it is downhill, you have to walk back, too, which would be…uphill…Besides, you really think there were enough donkeys for all those people?

    BTW, most of the accounts of the Sermon on the Mount, the people had used up all their food before Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes. They didn’t forget to bring food, they sat there and listened to him for three days.

    1. Dear David.

      You have complete left all the roots of your «Masters» Jewish faith, and do not know what you are talking about.

      How did Jews do their ritual washings? How do the Jewish youth get «baptized» today? Do you know anything about the Judaism that Jesus of Nazareth was teaching and following, the Law that he did not come to change but to fulfill?

    1. Dear Bill.

      Shalom. I thank my Master to using you to bless me today. I am His servant, and wants to bless other servants of His that would like to know the truth, and stand up for the truth. May Jesus bless you and keep you. Amen.

  5. Hey good stuff…keep up the good work! I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part, people lack substance but, I just wanted to make a quick comment to say I’m glad I found your blog. Thanks,)

    A definite great read…

    – Bill Bartmann

  6. Hello! Now I came across your site and examine it with interest.I looked where I can find more information about you, but not found. I want to ask you what religion you confess, Messianic Jew are you or … I hope it is not very personal and you will give me the answers. I want to learn more about you and will be happy if you give me your Skype or any contact. Thank you, and excuse me for my english 🙂

  7. Hi there!

    About your discussion on baptism. I don’t believe that you have to be immersed in order to be baptized. I was baptized by the pouring of water not immersion and I’m just as saved as any other Christian out there.

    Could it be possible that when the 3000 were baptized that it was by pouring and not immersion? Just throwing out an idea here.

    1. Dear SK.

      Shalom, and welcome to this site. The word baptizo means immersion. John The Baptist was John the immerser. If people could be baptized by the sprinkling of Water:

      1. There was not reason for John to baptize people in the Jordan river.

      2. John could have stayed in Jerusalem, and «baptize» people everywhere in the city.

      3. The people of Jerusalem did not have to come the long way to the Jordan to get baptized.

      I am a Baptist in regards to baptism. I follow the only example that can be positively confirmed in the Bible. I am not legalistic or orthodox in this matter. The thief of the cross was saved by Jesus, and was taken to Paradise (Heaven) without being baptized. People will be saved in the middle of a desert, when no water can be found.

      But I feel we should not take His mercy for granted. Jesus was immersed by John in the Jordan River. I have copied the Biblical baptism. You have not.

    2. Baptizo also means “washing”. Those people in Jerusalem were baptized immediately, it does not say that they took a half-day journey of 25-30 miles through rocky terrain and then got baptized. They were baptized by sprinkling because immersion would have polluted the water supply of the entire city. John’s baptism was water alone. The baptism of Christ is baptism by water and spirit. It does not need full immersion.

      Ivar, I like how you pick and chose what you like from each denomination and create your own. That means you are the pope of the Church of Ivar. Congratulations on your ascendency.

      1. Dear David.

        Shalom to you also.

        John the Baptist was surely not John the «Washer».

        Jesus was baptized with full immersion in the Jordan River. Roman Catholics are not baptized with full immersion. Thats the truth…..

        Since baptism with full immersion is Biblical, it can never be denied to be the truth.

        Can you give me one, only one positive confirmation from the Bible, of baptism of an infant?

      2. Your wrong about Catholics, many of us are baptized with full immersion. But it never says anywhere that it’s necessary.

        Infant baptism? Oh yes! When Peter baptized the 3000 (by infusion, not immersion), he baptized 3000 and their families. Women and children included.

      3. Dear David.

        You wrote:

        «Peter baptized 3000 and their families. Women and children included».

        My comment:

        Does the Bible really say that? Or are you adding to the scripture?

        In my Bible, Peter asks people to repent and be baptized. I am sure infants were not able to listen and understand the Gospel.

      4. “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16).

        Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

        The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).

        In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that “he and his wife were baptized,” but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

        In Peter’s case, though, it is implied.

      5. Dear David.

        If I say or write: «I took my whole family our for dinner yesterday evening…»

        How do you know that included an infant?

        You might like to believe there was one, or you might presume.

        The infant would not have been aware of it under any circumstances.

        The Bible tells in plain text that an Jewish infant shall be circumcised. There is no argument about this. Since the word «infant» is mentioned 23 times in the Bible (NIV Version), six times in the New Testament, I guess God of the Bible could just have told Virgin Mary. «Take your infant, and baptize him».

        God the Father did not. The circumcised Jesus was 30 years old when He has baptized (immersed), with full immersion in the River Jordan.

      6. Dear David.

        Shalom, to you.

        There is a lot of things the 10 commandments do not forbid. And there was a lot of things Jesus did not say.

        I asked you for a positive confirmation: «Go and baptize an infant». Since the Bible says that people need to repent and than get baptized, people who do not obey the Word will have to explain to God. You do not have to tell me why you cant to this. As you have correctly said earlier, I am not you judge.

        In the Great commission, Jesus told us to baptize all people, and teach them all that He have told us. To be able to do that, we need to have focused listeners to our message. When people hear the Gospel, some of them will start to believe and obey. An infant can not do that.

        Yes, Jesus placed his hands on them, and blessed them. But He him self was not immersed (baptized) when He was 0,5 years, or 5 years of age. He was 30 years when He went to the Jordan to be immersed by John.

      7. Again, avoiding the question, Ivar. But the answer, just so you know, is that the Bible does not forbid child baptism.

        But by your logic above, a severely mentally handicapped person cannot be baptized. Also, if we’re to follow exactly what Jesus did, we’re to wait until we’re 30 years old. What happens to those adults who die before they are baptized? By your logic, they cannot enter heaven.

        When Peter preached under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost he was speaking to a Jewish audience (Ac 2:5–35). Peter announced, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children” (Ac 2:38–39). The Jews would have been dismayed had the New Covenant not included their children, especially since it was promised to them, and the New Covenant was to be an improvement over the Old in which they were included.

      8. Dear David.

        You wrote:

        What happens to those adults who die before they are baptized? By your logic, they cannot enter heaven.

        My reply:

        Absolutely not. I have said the very opposite. The thief on the cross was not baptized, still he entered into Heaven. How come? Simply because He repented. An infant can no repent. You are saved when you surrender to Jesus, and are washed with the blood of the Lamb.

      9. But there’s absolutely nothing that says a child cannot be baptized. See, we know that baptism is an act of the Holy Spirit, it has little to do with the person being baptized. So whether a person is a child, adult or whatever, baptism is effective because the Holy Spirit comes down on the person.

      10. Dear David.


        With your kind of logic, there is no point in obeying the Word of God. We do not need to walk in the likeness of Christ, and do what He have told us to do. Like being baptized with the same baptism as His.

        We can basically do whatever we want, and long as the Bible does not explicit tells us we can not do this. Its call relativism, and it fits well with the Catholic faith.

        Man can not bring the Holy Spirit into any person. God choses the time and place, neither the priest, nor the Church. That doctrine that man can command the Holy Spirit into an infant is a product of man made religion.

        John the Baptist had the Holy Spirit from his infancy. And He was born a Jew!! and not baptized. I can give you many examples.

      11. Ivar, when God does not want us to do something, he says so. He didn’t demand that we be baptized the same as he was. He knew that there are places on earth that have very little water, and so he allows us to use a little water for a baptism. All are not graced with the water you are. How do you think they baptize in the Sahara Desert, for example, or near the North Pole, where it’s too cold for someone to be immersed?

        Where did I say a man could command the Holy Spirit into an infant??? God sends the Holy Spirit when we are baptized, and it doesn’t matter how much water you use. You clearly need English lessons for us to be able to communicate better.

      12. Dear David.

        You wrote:

        Where did I say a man could command the Holy Spirit into an infant??? God sends the Holy Spirit when we are baptized.

        My reply:

        Since John the Baptist was not a Christian, neither was King David: How did they receive the Holy Spirit without being baptized? Did the Holy Spirit come on the command of men, priests, bishops, parents, or was it a move by God?

        Since it is men who set up the time for a baptism of an infant, how can men deceived that the Holy Spirit will enter the infant?

        If a man in the middle of the Sahara desert, or on the North Pole except Jesus the Messiah into His heart, who can say that God can not come and make him born from above? As the thief in the cross, a man is saved in that moment of repentance, not in their baptism ritual set up by religious men.

        David; Its always possible to twist what I am trying to tell you. And the Bible twisting and religious stuff has been going on for 1500 years in the Catholic Church. Neither do the spirit within you permit you to listen to the truth, nor will you obey the scripture as they are written.

        When a man is saved, He would like to do a couple of things:
        1. Get baptized
        2. Obey the Word of God, to honor God.
        3. Separate him self from paganism and religious stuff, that mock`s God of the Bible.

        If a religious man finds the truth on the North Pole, he might be inside a ship. There might be a place where He can be immersed.
        Crippled and elderly people are often immersed in their own bath tubs in their houses. Even in the desert there are oasis.

        But If a man who is saved and washed by the blood of he Lamb, does not reach a place for immersion, He will surely enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Just like the thief on the cross. Amen.

  8. 2nd paragraph:Men do not command the Holy Spirit, Ivar, we all know that. That’s my point. Priests pray for the Holy Spirit to come down.
    3rd paragraph:so you’re saying that baptism isn’t necessary? That contradicts what you said about requiring immersion…see, we also believe in the baptism of desire, which requires nowater at all…
    4th paragraph:That’s where you’re way off about me, Ivar. See I have experienced many protestant faiths, and found them all in error before ever coming to Catholicism. I was baptized (as an infant) into one church, then my parents didn’t like something that was said or heard, so we left to another protestant faith, then to another. I fell away from all of them and explored others, even some non-Christian. None of them rang true. Once I started studying the Catholic religion, I could see logically how it came to its present form. I know that the Spirit brought me to the truth.

    Your last two paragraphs make my point for me. Immersion is not necessary to be saved. Baptism is. God allows baptism by infusion.

    1. Dear David.

      Shalom. You have been one of the most active with comments on this blog. But again I have to tell you. It does not matter what your or I «feel» is correct, and human wisdom is foolishness in the eyes of God. When the Bible says: We all have to hear the gospel, repent and be baptized, we have to listen and obey.

      I believe this is the truth. Regardless of what any Protestant or Catholic might feel about it. This Biblical principle is so simple, that It should have been impossible for anybody to misunderstand. No one is saved in their baptism. We are saved in our encounter with the Word of God, when we let a Jew called Jesus into our heart.

      So why be baptized?

      Its an act of obedience to the Word of God. If we desire to walk in likeness of the Messiah, we have to do what He has told us to do. To be baptized with the same baptism as His. No more issues.

      You twist the Word, and might have to pay for eternity for this. Because you say: «I will not do that Jesus said, and since Jesus did not put a ban on this, I will rather do so». Thats not to follow the Messiah. That is foolishness.

      1. Ivar, it’s not Catholics that twist the word-it’s Protestants who add and subtract and make it fit what they want to believe.

        See, Jesus commissioned the apostles, right? He sent them the Holy Spirit to protect them and keep the teachings of Jesus true. They went out and taught others and ordained them, and, by the power given to them by Jesus, laid hands on those they ordained, placing them with the same protection from error. This teaching is in one accord with the Scriptures. This teaching says that it doesn’t matter how much or how little water you use. Baptism requires water and the trinitarian formula. Jesus did not say we had to be immersed. By your logic, we can only be baptized validly if we are immersed in the Jordan River, because that would be following him totally. Jesus only told us to go forth, spread the Word, and baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
        So, to summarize: The word of God before the New Testament books were written was by word of mouth. So this word must be valid, and St. Paul declares it so in many places. He also says that Scripture is useful for teaching. He didn’t say it was mandatory. So the complete Word of God is Scripture, and the teachings of the apostles and bishops down through the ages, including the Bishop of Rome. This does not include the Bishop of Ivar. You have no authority to teach or interpret scripture, you do have authority to listen to someone who does. Not me, but a Catholic priest or bishop.

      2. Dear David.

        Shalom. There is no point in prolonging this debate. Lets close this topic. People can read their Bibles, and will be answerable to Jesus they day they face Him.

  9. Wow. Just wow.

    You do know that the three great pillars of the Protestant Reformation all subscribed to Marian Doctrine, the very Doctrine you are attacking, so I think the better question is by *what* authority do Protestants such as yourself reject this Doctrine?

    I can assure you that your entire post is flagrantly misleading and fuels a hatred and misunderstanding about the Catholic Church. The good news in this is that the things you believe to be true {if *were* true} would be cause for all Catholics to defect from their faith. The reason we are the largest Christian religion in the world is precisely b/c the accusations and claims you make are *not* correct.

    One day Scriptures will be unveiled for you and you will understand the gross misunderstanding you have towards the Catholic faith. Until then, it is fruitless to engage in a discussion with anyone who lacks even the basic element of humility when trying to understand Catholicism.

    And, for what it’s worth, when you make claims as to what Scripture means, keep this question in mind: what is *your* litmus test for interpreting Scripture? The Word of God is inerrant, we would all agree as Christians. However, how do you know that your sin-filled nature does not taint your flawed interpretation of what Scripture is saying. Before you attack the Catholic Church remember this – The RCC does not need to attack any other religion in order to stand on it’s own and has been subject to persecution for 2000 years and will continue to be persecuted as Christ warned. What does attacking my religion do to build up *YOUR* faith? It’s *VERY* unBiblical for you to attack any religion in an attempt to build yourself up and if you need basic instruction on that, read any of the books written by St. Paul.

    I think he would be very disappointed in those who spend time tearing down others.

    1. Dear Martina.

      Shalom, and welcome to this site.

      You wrote:

      The RCC does not need to attack any other religion in order to stand on it’s own and has been subject to persecution for 2000 years and will continue to be persecuted as Christ warned.

      My comment:

      There is simply no truth in what you wrote. The Roman Catholic Church was formed after 325 A.D, when the Emperor of Rome claimed to have turned to the faith in Jesus. So for the first 300 years after the resurrection of Jesus, there was no Catholic Church. No pope, no marianism. The first Church was Jewish, filled up with Messianic Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah and the only way to Heaven.

      Lie`s and deception is much older than 2000 years. It started in the Garden of Eden. When a lie is told enough times, people starts to believe in them. But even if a lie is told a million times, it can never become the truth.

      1. The Pope has been in place ever since jesus said “you are Peter (rock) and on this rock i shall build my church” (this was also when the Catholic Church was founded). Peter was the first Pope and after he was martyred, a new Pope took his place. It was only after 325AD that Christianity became legal, not came into existence. Also please define marianism for me so i know what you think it is.

  10. What a deceitful Church they have to face God with all this untruth Mary was a humble sinner just like us and needs to be saved…She was favored by God….
    and that’s all I have to say about this matter.
    Better get in your bibles folks.

    1. Dear Sandy.

      Shalom. The Jewish lady we call Mary (or Miriam) was bless among men. Not blessed above men. Religious people have elevated her, and used her to create a man made religion. Thats going to cost them their eternal life.

  11. was mary baptised and lost her original Sin before jesus was born?????

    If god can preserved mary.. how come he can’t do it for every body tobe saved.. since all are just his creation…??

    why god created somebody who would revolt against him like Satan??? is he really omniscience???

    1. Dear Joel.

      Shalom, and thanks for good questions.

      The is no record of Mary the mother of Jesus being baptized before Jesus was born. And she probably did not do this

      The Bible explains that Mary offered a sin offering in the Temple. She also circumcised infant Jesus, like a religious Jew would do. The Bible explains that the Kingdom of God advanced from the Baptism of John. Mary is not listed as one of those who were baptized by Him.

      Mary was not preserved sinless. This is a Catholic doctrine, that is an invention of the Vatican. Mary was completely human, a sinner like me and you. But this religious Torah observant Jewish virgin found favor with God of Israel, and was blessed among women. Not blessed above women.

      Mary became a believer in her Son. The book of Acts list her as one of the believers. She was either baptized by her Son, or one of the students of Jesus. But there is no record of this in the Bible. No record of her life at all.

      I guess the Gospel writers was told by the Holy Spirit to avoid this topic, knowing that Rome later would fabricate stories and brand her divine and and a goddess.

  12. Dear ivarfjeld,

    Many Thanks for your reply… about the information about Mary if she was baptized before jesus was born.
    So if theres no record that Mary was Baptized before Jesus was born… How could she be free from Original Sin..? It would affect jesus status…

    1. Dear Joel.


      If Jesus has God as His Father, and a sinless goddess as his mother, the Messiah is not human. He never came in flesh. And those who claim that Jesus never came in flesh, are antichrists that has gone into the World.

      2 John 1:7
      Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

      The pope is such an antichrist. The Roman Catholic Church is the main culprit behind the doctrine of a sinless divine mother of Jesus.

  13. ivarfjeld,

    I stumble on your website. I want to ask permission to used the pictures of Mecca Stone and the picture of the tongue adorned by the catholic priest. My friend’s son has alot of question on things like this, This pictures was back up by scriptures. Is that ok if I will used this in one of our Bible Studies to enlighten the kids that are influence in school about mystical books. I believe we have alot of students out there in school that are confused about the Truth and false religion.

    Thank You,

    1. Dear Gloria.

      Shalom, and welcome to this site,

      Permission granted. I hope and pray that Jesus will use you to lead others to faith in Him. Amen.

  14. I truly believe the overwhelming number of Catholics will NOT be saved. The Roman Catholic Church teaches an entirely “different” Gospel. Restating the obvious proofs is pointless. If Catholics are saved based on what we know of that cult, then everybody is saved, which we know is not the case. Catholics are deluded to the same extent that Mormons are, just differently. So much more could be said, but what’s the point, they refuse to believe. The Roman Catholic Church is nothing more than a social/business network masquerading as a Christian Church.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s