Issued: 06/21/22

   PLEASE NOTE:  All bracketed material may be authorial comments, attempts at proper syntax, or minimal rewordings of Scripture for the sake of clarity and continuity.  These emendations will not be italicized.  The “/” will be used to signify “and/or.”

   In differentiating between Yahweh of hosts [later Jesus] and Yahweh the Most High God, lower case letters have been used when discussing the former; upper case letters are reserved for the One and Only Highest God.  Since Jesus was at pains to differentiate himself from God the Father, we have followed his lead here.

   The term neo-Christian will be used to differentiate between false Christians and Jesus’ true followers.

Human Dogma vs. Biblical doctrine

   Mainly in Catholic dogma, and to lesser extents in Anglican, Lutheran and Eastern orthodoxies, “queen of heaven” is the title given to Mary (Hebrew, Myriam), the person through whom an implanted, divine embryo (Matthew 1:18-20; Luke 1:31-35) became the man we know as Jesus (Hebrew, Yeshua).

   In this sense to call Mary, like neo-Christians do, “the mother of God” is blasphemy, since Mary, herself a created being, cannot be the mother of her pre-existent Creator, proxy-God Yahweh of hosts, who became incarnate as Jesus (John 1:3,10, 17:5; Colossians 1:16-19).  And himself being the engendered Son of the Most High God (Psalms 2:7; Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14), Yahweh of hosts cannot be the One and Only True God Who proclaims there are no gods equal in rank or higher than Him (Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 44:8, 45:5; 1 Timothy 1:17).  In point of fact it is to this Most High God, Who Jesus always acknowledged as his own God (John 14:28; Revelation 3:12), that he will surrender his proxy-Godship when Satan’s minions are reduced to burned out cinders at Armageddon (Psalms 110:1; 1Corinthians 15:24-28; Revelation 20:13-15).

   Since Jesus has been bundled into a non-existent Trinity with a Dyad that pre-existed his creation [Most High God and Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:1-2)], Mary has been made “queen” to Jesus’ “king.”  In this scenario Jesus sits on the throne with Mary at his side tempering his anger against men and acting as their advocate/go-between, when we have been told that there is only one such advocate/mediator and he is very much Jesus (Isaiah 51:22; 1Timothy 2:5; 1John 2:1).  Surely Heaven is not an equal opportunity employer, since God, Son, Holy Spirit and all angels are male:  If their population needed no further expansion and the Most High God could call into existence whatever else He wished, what role similar to female humans would female angels serve in Heaven?  None; so females were not made part of the angelic host, no matter the fanciful propaganda of artists and feminists.  To be sure, when the human mess has been settled, gender equality amongst men and women in the Kingdom of God will be finally achieved, “for when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in Heaven” (Mark 12:25)—meaning spiritual, as opposed to carnal, sexless, and individually distinct.

   Now in the Biblical scenario, Jesus sits at the right hand of God, but not on His Throne, as did Joseph with respect to Pharaoh (Genesis 41:40).  And if the edict in Psalms 110:1 and assorted corroborations (Mark 16:19; Luke 22:69; Acts 7:55 [visual]; Ephesians 1:20; Hebrews 8:1; 1Peter 3:22) are anything to go by, where in Marian dogma is the Most High seated at?  If Jesus is incorrectly believed to be Him, Jesus must be seating on the highest throne with Mary seated at right or left of him—which graphically illustrates for us Satan’s purpose in promoting this dogma:  The elimination of the Most High from human worship, already achieved as per Hosea 7:13 and 11:7.

   None of this would have been made possible without the complicity of Satan’s “unholy see” (Revelation 2:13):  Babylon the Great drunk with the blood of persecuted Christian martyrs and located atop the seven hills of Rome (Revelation 17:5-6,9).¹  We have to thank Peter for GPS-ing the location of this enclave (1Peter 5:13), which technically refers to pagan Rome the city, but whose hierarchies, social norms, laws, religion, cultic  worships, politics and imperialistic designs were assimilated and implemented—under various “Christian” guises—by Roman Catholicism after it became the state religion; thenceforth enabled  and poised to unleash centuries of mayhem as prophesied by Daniel 7:24-25, 8:23-25; and Revelation 13:5-7.

    Mary’s promotion from embryo incubator to divine royalty was centuries in the making, the way oysters create pearls by secreting layers of goo around a grain of sand.  The “grain” of truth in Mary’s case was her election to be Jesus’ portal into the world and her willingness to embrace a role bound to discredit and shame her, an unmarried woman with child, amongst her contemporaries.  For that election she was exalted in Luke 1:28-30, not because she was holier than any other woman of her generation or her conception “unstained” by sex; but because the Most High God had personally hand-picked her, like others in centuries past, to further His designs.  The main purpose in choosing Mary, a virgin, to bring Jesus into the world was to fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, where Emmanuel, or “God [El] with us [Immanu],” was not meant as a name for Jesus but a descriptor of Jesus’ pre-existent role as the Angel God of the Old Testament become flesh (Ezekiel 34:11; John 1:14).  He was literally the Old Testament’s proxy-God come to men, an assertion voiced by the Holy Spirit through the proverbial doubting Thomas (John 20:28; 2Peter 1:21).

   In similar fashion the name Joseph and Mary were instructed to give God’s Son (Matthew 1:25; Luke 1:31), Yeshua, or “Yah [Yahweh] is salvation [shua],” underscored Jesus’ role as Messiah:  He was God’s proxy-Savior in the flesh, for everything Jesus said, miracles he did, or glories he accrued, originated with the Father, so that the Father was the ultimate God, King, and Savior of mankind—though not Judge and High Priest, roles specifically assigned to Jesus (John 5:22; Acts 10:42, 17:31; Hebrews 7:15-28).  Implied in Jesus’ name were attributes passed from Father to Son, first His name (Exodus 23:20-21), and His profession of Being: “I am”; which Yahweh of hosts conveyed to Moses and Samson’s parents (Exodus 3:14; Judges 13:11).  These were instances of a proxy-God being seen/heard vis-à-vis the unseen/unheard Most High (John 1:18, 5:37; Colossians 1:15; 1Timothy 1:17; Hebrews 11:27); and a descriptor Jesus used to reference himself (John 4:25-26, 18:5-6).

   Yeshua was equally suggestive of Jesus’ rank as commander of God’s heavenly host; hence the appellation “Yahweh of hosts” to differentiate him from the Most High (Isaiah 44:6), a distinction obscured by some translators of Scripture.  So it was in that guise that Yahweh of hosts [substance] appeared—again seen and heard—to his human namesake and shadow Joshua [from the Hebrew name Yehoshu’a (Joshua 5:13-15)]; who on earth would wage the battles for the promised land that Jesus would spiritually wage from Heaven.  Joshua knew who he was dealing with, for he prostrated himself before this male Prince and worshipped him, something that lesser angels do not allow (Revelation 22:8-9).  And to insinuate who he was, Yahweh of hosts, the Angel God, instructed Joshua to do the same thing he had asked of Moses while speaking from inside the burning bush at Sinai:  “Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place where you stand is holy” (Exodus 3:2,4-6).² 

   All of which beg the question:  What is Mary’s role in God’s plan?  Women were not called to any form of service:  Only males 30 years or older were called to service (1Chronicles 23:2-5).  Priests were all male; warriors were all male; in God’s division of labor, women had important and vital work to do at home and learn doctrine from their husbands, as Eve should had done but Adam had failed to enforce; and as Paul, incurring the wrath of feminists from all walks of life ever since, suggested they do (1Corinthians 14:34-35).  He was of course relying on Eve’s precedent (1Timothy 2:14), always toeing the prophetic line (Acts 26:22) instead of prostituting conviction to be politically correct.  And most significantly, though there were non-preaching women accompanying and serving Jesus and the Apostles, Mother Mary was not among them (Luke 8:1-3).

   Jesus himself started his ministry at age 30 [Luke 3:23, like his shadow, Joseph (Genesis 41:46)], to which we should ask, why?  Why waste 30 years of preaching a Gospel he had heard directly from God, had implemented according to God’s instructions as Yahweh of hosts, and which could have resulted in scores of new converts?  At age 12 we find Jesus holding his own against the religious intelligentsia of his time (Luke 2:41-45); so he had the knowledge and the commitment to start then what he would start 18 years later.  Was this God’s way of alerting us about the anomaly of children preachers and visionaries?  Since His own Son had to follow the Old Testament pattern, who is using children for his own devices?  Satan?  The reason why most Marian apparitions are relayed to children or people as simple-minded as children?  We will come back to this later on.

   Thus other than birthing Jesus, Mary played no further role in God’s plan.  As a mother she had to have been loving; and Jesus, who is depicted as loving strangers on sight (Mark 10:21), must have loved Mary, but not as his blood-relative, not in the preferential way humans love their mothers.  For as the emissary of a God Who has no favorites, Jesus could not enshrine Mary in that exalted position; and though we wish Scripture would give us an inkling of how he personally felt having to behave so utterly indifferent to Mary, he did his darnedest to distance himself from her:  When she came calling (Luke 8:19-21); at Cana (John 2:4); and even while dying on the cross (John 19:26).

   Pay attention to the latter:  “When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, here is your son.’”  It is John who is depicted as the subject of Jesus’ love, not Mary, who is not addressed as “Mother,” “Mom,” or “Mommy dearest.”  In all fairness to Jesus and Mary, this is John’s take on events professing his own pride that Jesus loved him, his impression and not corroboration of how the Jesus who demanded equality amongst his Apostles (Matthew 23:8) felt about them, which had to have been equally loved and cherished.

   The last we hear of Mary in the New Testament is in Acts 1:14; from there on she disappears from Scripture like the ten tribes of Israel from the Old.  God was done with her and she awaits her resurrection amongst the righteous.  But Satan knew he could score grand slam at her expense by revamping his old pagan goddesses in Mary’s person, whether it be the Sumerian Inanna [“Queen of Heaven”], suggestively linked to the planet Venus [Isaiah 14:12] and daughter of Nanna, the Sumerian god of the moon [Genesis 1:5,16-18], both of which symbolically reference Satan; the Egyptian Isis, often portrayed nursing her son, the god Horus [sounds familiar?]; Asherah, worshipped by ancient Israelites as the consort of El [the Supreme God], and in Judah as Yahweh’s consort.

   It is with Israel and Judah that our focus lies, though other Marian attributes like that of “suffering mother” were rehashed from pagan sources and, most significantly, became widespread within Imperial Rome, from whence her popular cult passed into Christianity through the unholy marriage between state and church.  Revelation 18:2 leaves no doubt as to the spiritual realities of that church, responsible for doctrines Paul ascribed to demonic influences (1Timothy 4:1-3).  It is also not coincidental that Revelation 2:20 references Jezebel as a church teaching Jesus’ [who is speaking] “servants to commit fornication and to eat the sacrifices of idols.”  We must remember that Jezebel was Ahab’s wife [flesh of Ahab’s flesh, like church is of Jesus (Ephesians 5:31-32)], who prevailed on Ahab to substitute the worship of Yahweh with the religion of Baal [meaning “owner/lord”], complete with an image of Asherah in a Samarian temple (1Kings 16:31-33 18:4, 19:2).

   But most significantly Jezebel was the daughter of the King of Tyre, who in Ezekiel 28:1-19 references Satan as King, and a presumptuous, mortal prince [read priest↔Acts 23:5] claiming to be god sitting on his throne in the midst of the seas.  While we know “seas” to be symbols for peoples, nations, and tongues in reference to Babylon the Great (Revelation 17:15), popes as “vicars” of Christ sitting on his earthly throne clearly fulfill the stipulations of Ezekiel’s prophecy.  More than that Ezekiel 28:3, “Behold, you are wiser than Daniel; no secret is hidden from you!,” harks back to Daniel 8:23-24, an insolent king skilled in intrigue and well-versed in hidden things, references to papal shenanigans and the wisdom of ages accumulated at the Vatican library?  Thus Jezebel/church is inextricably linked to her rulers, Satan and popes.

   In summary, we find all the elements associated with the Babylon of Revelation:  A temple within God’s kingdom wherein Satan is enthroned; a ruler of Israel enabling a woman [oftentimes a symbol for churches and synagogues] to foment the idolatrous worship of pagan gods [revamped as patron saints] and goddesses; and a persecutor and slayer of God’s envoys (Daniel 8:24; Revelation 17:6).  Not insignificantly the comeuppance of this church mirrors that of Jezebel; to wit, “The dogs will eat the flesh of Jezebel on the plot of Jezreel” (2Kings 9:36); and, “The ten horns which you saw [nations], and the beast [the dragon from whom they issue], these will hate the prostitute, and will make her desolate, and will make her naked, and will eat her flesh” (Revelation 17:16).  The difference, of course, is semantics:  In Kings real dogs do the eating, but Revelation uses Jesus’ symbolism—and Paul’s—to characterize men (Matthew 7:6; Philippians 3:2).

   Which brings us to Jeremiah, the prophet most pertinent to Generation Omega.  He wrote of events leading up to the fall of Jerusalem, Scripture’s symbol for God’s earthly abode—Yahweh of hosts, mind you, not the Most High Who will never inhabit man-made edifices (Acts 7:48).  The earthly Jerusalem is shadow to the Heavenly City:   The former imposer of servitude, the latter dispenser of freedom (Galatians 4:24-26).  God is through with the earthly one:  It had its chance to make good but chose to persecute her would-be liberators (Matthew 23:37-38).  To make His point incontestably clear, God allowed the Jerusalem Temple to be razed for the remainder of time.  The Holy of Holies decamped from earth and set shop in Heaven, globally accessible to all men through the veil of Jesus’ flesh (Hebrews 10:19-20).  Let us remark on the word “flesh,” for that is what Jesus is post-resurrection, not Spirit like the Father (John 4:24).

   While Jeremiah zeroed in on the cult of the queen of heaven, other Biblical books had mapped out the landscape where satanic worship took place:  in high places and under trees (Numbers 33:52; Deuteronomy 12:2; 2Kings 23:15; Ezekiel 20:28, 43:7).  Some of these sported Ashera idols (Deuteronomy 7:5; 2Chronicles 14:3, 28:25, 31:1), where Satan as Baal/Molech was being worshipped (2Kings 23:5; Jeremiah 32:35); thus we see the connection between Satan and his concocted queen of heaven was established early on in the Biblical narrative.  Molech was partial to burnt flesh (Leviticus 18:21; Jeremiah 32:35), a practice revived with gusto by pyrophiliacs within mother/daughter harlots (Revelation 17:5) in Satan’s honor—not the Most High’s Who abominates it.  After Jesus, any type of animal sacrifice was/is offered to demons (1Corinthians 10:20).

   We have talked many times about Ecclesiastes 1:9-11:  Solomon’s observation that men will do the same things over and over throughout the ages, perhaps in different ways and guises, yet evincing the same immorality (Genesis 6:5; Ecclesiastes 9:3).  But most significant is Solomon’s punch line:  The lessons of past events will not resonate with future generations.  Today’s Marian worshippers dismiss the links between their cult and the one proscribed by God in Jeremiah; neo-Christians champion anti-Semitic stances criticized by Paul in Romans 11:16-24; evangelical xenophobes support immigration policies that subvert God’s wish to embrace faithful aliens within the fold of His chosen people (Exodus 22:21, 23:9; Leviticus 19:33-34; Deuteronomy 10:19, 24:17, 27:19, 24:14-15; Psalms 146:9; Isaiah 14:1; Jeremiah 22:3; Ezekiel 47:21-23; Zechariah 7:10).  We simply do not take to heart and learn from God’s reality checks.

   And so it has been with Marian worship.  The person at the center of this cult is female, an alarm flare within a monotheistic, patriarchal system wherein the highest God chooses to be known as “Man,” as in the “Son of Man.”  Though He has made Son His proxy-God and co-ruler over Creation, He calls all the shots and the Son obeys; more importantly, this endowment was granted when gender other than maleness was a non-issue.  For it was with the creation of Eve, herself shadow to the substance of Jesus’ Church (Ephesians 5:22-23,29-31↔Genesis 2:23-24), that femaleness came into being, yet subsumed in maleness:  “She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

   In Genesis: The Myth that Never Was we discussed how God used symbolic language to summarize the unfolding of His divine plan throughout human history; yet nowhere in this symbolic narrative are we told of females elevated to divine roles.  If we find evidence of this in the Old Testament, it is because Satan appropriated female symbols to subvert divine doctrine; and whereas Yahweh insisted on Jerusalem as the only acceptable place for worshipping Him, Satan made it a point to suggest that any place on earth was suitable for that purpose.  And although the Old Testament does not tell us how he disseminated this notion, Marian apparitions do:  By ostensibly “miraculous” events associated with them.  As with all his deceptions Satan appropriated Scripture to further his agenda; in this instance Jesus’ observation that without miracles, people would not believe (John 4:48).

The unreliability of sight

   Before proceeding, we must not ignore the fact that Satan is given carte blanche to deploy his deceptions once men have been given the means to detect them but have chosen to look the other way (2Thessalonians 2:11-12).  A case in point:  Dinosaurs.  Though Genesis and Biblical chronologies suggest dinosaurs could not have existed, it is hard to dismiss the evidence of their alleged remains now in museums and bubbling out of earth and waters all over the globe.  “Seek and you shall find” has been Satan’s motto to encourage paleontology:  The more men go in search of dinosaurs, the more they find them; all very sound and logical, though unfortunately God has chosen the “illogic” of faith to test “the spirits” of men (1John 4:1).  He tells us His version of reality in Scripture, without proof, while paleontology tells us another with proofs galore.  Faced with that impasse, “enlightened” minds go with the visual evidence, though in Scripture the sense of sight is sometimes fudged to create impressions different from reality (2Kings 6:15-20; Isaiah 25:7; Luke 19:41-42, 24:16; John 20:14) .  Is God at fault here?  No.  He has suggested what the score is but men will have none of it.  As Paul exhorted, “let God be found true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).³

   The same holds true for UFOs.  Can they be what men think them to be?  Not if the cosmos is to vanish up in smoke and made anew like God has promised to do (Isaiah 51:6, 65:17).  There will not be exoplanets for aliens to go back to; in fact everything we see up there, if Isaiah 51:6 is true, is not really what it seems to us, the meaning implicit in the imagery of stars falling like fruit from a windswept tree (Revelation 6:13).  But surely all this breathtaking photography from orbiting telescopes and light-shifts to the infrared must mean something?  Not if they are really Satan Generated Images.

  Which is the modus operandi involved in Marian apparitions.  For people of Judeo-Christian faith, the alarm signal in all of the above is the plethora of proof, the tsunami of evidence, the insistence of welding conviction of what is seen with theories contradicting divine testimony.  Let us be frank about it:  God is niggardly when it comes to proofs.  The Ark of the Covenant and Moses’ tablets are nowhere to be found; Noah’s Ark is missing in inaction; when the heavens opened for Stephen, no one else saw what he did; and if God wanted to end all controversy regarding His existence, He could part the Heavens and pose for selfies.  But the reason that none of these happens is that the person of true faith is convinced of what remains unseen, whereas worldly men need external validation to support their convictions.  And God has chosen that dialectic to separate the wheat from the chaff:  The spiritually-prone will accept His arguments; the unspiritual will think them madness (Daniel 12:10; 1Corinthians 2:13-14).

  Thus prior to any discussion of Marian apparitions, we need to trace the path from pagan worship, through doctrinal corrections, to the revival of pagan cults; for everything in the Bible is a loop:  Banishment from Eden, an attempt at course-correction by Jesus, going back to the old ways, a return to Paradise when the loop is completed.  The “powerful delusion” God allows Satan to perpetrate on disbelievers plus the “signs and false wonders” aiding the rise of “the lawless one” (Matthew 24:24; 2Thessalonians 2:9-12) may include—though not exclusively—Marian apparitions as propaganda to enable the Papacy, not any one pope in particular but all in their unified purpose of furthering their church’s agendas at the expense of God’s.  We all know the buck stops with the one in charge, as even the Most High admits of Himself (Isaiah 45:7; Lamentations 3:37-38; Daniel 4:35).

   If we extrapolate miraculous events from Marian apparitions to the pagan worships of antiquity, rest assured that on some high place or under some tree something happened beyond the norm, so that the place became “holy” by virtue of eyewitnesses or by word of mouth; we can make this determination based on Ecclesiastes 1:9-10.  Dreams may have been another vector for satanic deceptions:  To this day there is always a shaman, or an evangelical upstart claiming communications with the divine that in Christianity cannot possibly be true.  If anything, the reverse is the trend:  Many miracles took place in the Old Testament but come Jesus and his exaltation of those who believed without seeing (John 20:29), over time miracles petered out.  Which is not to say that they may not be happening today; but certainly not in ways contrary to the below-the-radar secrecy that Jesus insisted upon (Matthew 6:1-4, 8:4, 9:30; Mark 7:36; Luke 4:41, 8:56).

   To the false imprimatur of miracles, the next chain in Satan’s link is men’s complicity; in Marian worship’s case, a complicit priesthood that has no business existing, for by anointing believers with the Holy Spirit, Jesus’ rendered Judeo-Christian religious leaders null and void for all time (Luke 16:16; John 16:13; 1 John 2:27).  This was another course-correction:  The Old Testament and the priests of Jesus’ time proved they could not be trusted to uphold God’s laws or to keep their emendations/deletions/improvisations out of God’s inviolable testimony (Isaiah 3:12, 9:15-16; Jeremiah 14:14; Malachi 2:7-9).  Thus they were booted out of their job; but they would have none of it because it was all so ego-satisfying:  The con had to go on.  Jesus’ Pharisees became the modern Rabbis; Christian converts wanting a piece of the action—religion is always profitable and career-advancing—became priests.  To turn the tables in their favor, the latter officiated in Latin [Imperial Rome’s language] not understood by the masses, conscripted Peter as the progenitor of popes, and used Jesus’ keys of the kingdom as their version of sticks and carrots:  One either complied or was ex-communicated—a blessing really, being in good company with Jesus and Paul.

   Never one to miss a spin, Satan used Matthew 16:16-20 to insinuate the notion that Peter was invested with papal-like pedigree, so Roman Catholics promoted Peter to keeper of heavenly gates.  If Peter were alive he would be aghast at this misrepresentation, since he knew first-hand Jesus was not keen on the idea of any Apostle lording it over any others or teaching doctrine to anyone (Matthew 20:25-27).  What Jesus had meant by singling out Peter was something quite different:  Jesus was the foundation stone of God’s Church; and because Peter was the first Apostle to receive a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, he became the second stone in God’s human-bricked abode (Ephesians 2:20-22; 1Peter 2:5)—hence the name change from Simon to Peter [“rock”].  Jesus’ symbolic surrender of the keys of the kingdom was offered to the Apostles collectively, not to Peter exclusively, because by preaching the Gospel, they all “opened” Heaven’s gates by directing converts to the one and only path to God: Jesus himself (John 10:9, 14:6).

   Once priests entered the picture, it was just a matter of time before Satan would dilute resistance to Mary as co-regent with Three-in-One Jesus.  The notion was not novel:  Triune gods were as numerous in antiquity as the Wolfman has hairs on his body; so in a Gospel featuring three divine beings at the helm, Trinitarianism was a no-brainer.  But why not add Mary to the mix?  She was Jesus’ mother, for God’s sake, and moms belong with their kids.  Although Mary became a Biblical postscript in Acts 1:14, posterity went into warp-speed to exalt and deify her in art, literature [gorgeous and inspiring at that], through idols, and places of worship high and low as numerous as craters on the moon.  And lest any one race or ethnic group felt slighted, Marian apparitions came in all skin colors, from ebon to purest white; all accomplished polyglots putting Berlitz’s alumni to shame.  While priests held sway over the unlettered in Latin, Marian apparitions capitalized on the value of one-on-one exchanges in common vernacular or obscure dialects.

    The links in Satan’s chain fit seamlessly into each subsequent one:  The notion of a heavenly mother and co-regent with ascribed miracles to her person; a priesthood igniting a cult ripe with idols despised by God; and a concerted effort by said priests to make the masses complicit in her worship.  Though always venerated through the centuries as queen of heaven, what was lacking was written dogma legitimizing Mary’s royalty:  Her coronation had to be made binding and official.

    But there were Scriptural obstacles that needed to be by passed, like the dynamics of life and death.  Scripture holds that upon death the soul falls into a state akin to human sleep, whereupon it returns to God, is no longer involved in human affairs, and awaits its return to a body either for immortalization [first resurrection] or damnation [second death] (Ecclesiastes 9:5-6, 11:7; Daniel 12:2; Luke 8:52; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15; 1Thessalonians 4:13-14; Revelation 20:5-6).  Mary needed a public relations’ assist; and if Moses had died but reawakened in Heaven (Deuteronomy 34:5; Zechariah 3:1-5; Matthew 17:3), why not Mary?

Thus in 1950 despite great opposition, Pope Pius XII issued a papal bull proclaiming and defining “it to be a dogma revealed by God [chapter and verse?] that the immaculate Mother of God [the entrenched blasphemy], Mary ever virgin [after Joseph “knew” her, they had other children (Matthew 1:25; Luke 8:20; John 7:5; Galatians 1:19)], when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body [doubtful—not even David (Acts 2:29), Daniel (Daniel 12:13) and Paul (2Timothy 1:12) were] and soul into the glory of heaven.”⁴  Pius was talking off the top of his head, but these were the good, old days where papal infallibility still attached by defaulting Scripture itself, a temerity which may have sealed Pius’ fate (Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Matthew 5:18-19; Revelation 22:18-19).

   But Pius was on a zealous roll and giddy with Marianism; so in 1954 he followed through with the dogma that Mary was queen of heaven because Jesus is the king of Israel and of the universe, titles which really belong to the Most High God, Who is not accounted for in Pius’ “infallible” pronouncement.  There was some legalese concerning Jewish Davidic tradition that the mother of the king was the queen mother of the nation; but this should have been news to David, whose mother was a no-show during his reign.  This might be protocol amongst earthly royals; but from God’s patriarchal perspective, it is Jesse the father, not David’s mother, who is enshrined in prophecy and in Biblical chronologies (Isaiah 11:1,10; Matthew 1:6; Luke 3:32).  David’s mother is not even named in Scripture; the Jewish Talmud, which with all due respect is commentary, identifies her as Nitzevet, a distant relation of Ruth’s Boaz.

   Be that as it may, whatever Davidic “tradition” Pius was invoking had the Scriptural weight of a neutrino.  What was accomplished throughout this veneration of Mary long in the making was the revival of a cult reviled by God and subject to wrathful retribution.  When next we examine the deceptions perpetrated in the course of some famous Marian apparitions, we will not accomplish the rejection of said cult, nor even score a modicum of doubt inviting further reflection by Marian devotees.  The Bible is there to instruct them; God has thrown down the gauntlet so that obedience to Him or loyalties to alien gods results in salvation or condemnation (Deuteronomy 30:11-20).  Everybody has the right to make his/her own decision to believe what he/she wants.

   Pius had his time under the Son and blew it; neither he nor anyone of his ilk has been empowered either by God or Jesus to dispense doctrine.  And though held in reverence by the many whose fates are in the balance if they do not learn better (Revelation 13:8, 18:4), popes are in no wise superior to any human being; nor meriting the reverence, loyalty, and obedience that through Jesus alone is directed to the Most High God.

¹ Not coincidentally, Rome’s proper has shifted over the surrounding terrain many times in its long history, but always encircling seven hills within its perimeter.

  Though resting on seven hills as well, Constantinople [today’s Istanbul], then called the new Rome after the Emperor decided to rule from there, did not last long enough to span the centuries like Babylon the Great did (Daniel 12:11-12; Revelation13:5)—if we use Ezekiel’s conversion factor of 1 day = 1 year (Ezekiel 4:6).  Constantinople barely hit 1,100 years before being overrun by the Ottomans in 1453 CE.

² Cross-reference Prince in Joshua 5:14↔Isaiah 9:6; Daniel 9:25; Acts 23:5, which combined expand the definition of Prince [or Yahweh the King’s heir] to encompass Jesus’ roles as Commander and High Priest.

³ The medium of movies conveys Satan’s message:  In Jurassic World Dominion, one dinosaur is shown covered in feathers, supporting the theory that dinosaurs did not become wholly extinct but took to the air as birds.

   Out of deference to Michael Crichton, his Jurassic Park best seller was a cautionary tale of the dangers of science and technology gone awry; in Jurassic’s case, that of genetic engineering.  By all means an empirical mind keen on science, Crichton dealt with similar dangers in The Andromeda Strain, The Terminal Man, Westworld, and Prey.

⁴ This built upon the 1854 dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which was endorsed during the Marian apparition at Lourdes.  We will discuss this in Part IV(b).