Issued: 07/09/22

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.

   In Genesis, we find sacrificial norms later enshrined in Mosaic Law.  Abel offered burnt offerings pleasing to Yahweh; Cain, wanting to do his own thing, failed in the attempt.   Instead of asking Abel for a sheep to get back into Yahweh’s good graces, Cain killed Abel for making him look bad (Genesis 4:2-8).  Until Enosh was born 235 years later, men sidetracked Yahweh (Genesis 4:26, 5:1-6).  If, as Solomon contends, history is a record of “been there, done that” human behaviors not tempered by past experience (Ecclesiastes 1:9-11), we may assume that during those 235 years Satan insinuated his own pantheon of false gods until the Flood came and wiped the world of antiquity from existence.

    Which was again the case when out of Noah’s children, the world was repopulated (Genesis 10:1-32).  It was from these generations that gods—male, female, animal-shaped, triune—proliferated; we know of them thanks to archaeological findings and surviving texts.  Maybe Scripture was edited to mirror this reality:  As nothing remained from the world of antiquity, Scripture made no mention of false deities then; but after the Flood when idolatry proliferated globally, the ancient Israelites were put on notice regarding alien gods, Baal, Moloch, Marduk [all variations of “lord”], Ashtoreth, and the unnamed queen of heaven (Exodus 34:13; Leviticus 18:21, 20:2-3; Deuteronomy 7:5, 16:21; Jeremiah 19:5, 32:35, 44:15-30).  Needless to say, these gods and goddesses had their counterparts in different forms and guises across world religions—courtesy of Satan to contradict the claims of the only Divinity (Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 45:5).

   Jesus made it clear that salvation came from the Jews (John 4:22), having been chosen in antiquity not because of admirable moral qualities, but because of the promise made to the Patriarchs and because Israel in terms of might registered as a blip amongst powerful contemporaries (Deuteronomy 7:6-8, 9:4-6)—something we should remember when hearing Jews brag about their “chosen” status.  Yahweh’s “choice” had more to do with His desire to prove that no matter how His agenda seemed to lag behind, He would prevail at the end (Isaiah 46:10; 1Corinthians 1:27); a choice ultimately taken away from Jews and placed squarely on Christians.  Thus by the time the Israelites entered Canaan until the coming of Jesus, and from Jesus’ death to end-times, Satan was empowered to switch the positions of his gods/goddesses on the chessboard of history, metamorphosing and upgrading them to suit nationalistic/religious exigencies.

   Jeremiah 50:2 links Bel [short form for Baal, “lord”] with Marduk, who is depicted in ancient mosaics as a dragon [surprise!↔Ezekiel 29:3; Revelation 12:9] and credited in ancient mythology with creating the zodiac that astrologers use as a form of divination punishable with incineration at Armageddon (Deuteronomy 4:19, 18:10-14; Isaiah 47:13-14).¹  Baal is also linked to Ashtoreth in Judges 2:13, 10:6, 1Samuel 7:3-4 and 12:10 as collaborators of an illicit worship.  The Phoenicians worshipped Ashtoreth under the name Astarte, where she was the female deity associated with Baal.  Thus we see an inextricable link from Marduk↔Baal [Bel]↔Ashtoreth [or Asherah, her graven form]↔queen of heaven mirrored in Marian worship, where “Mary” is the revamped goddess-queen co-ruling with Jesus, the true Lord.

   Rather than react with anger at this suggestion, consider the evidence.  Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any of the attributes heaped on Mary by human dogma.  Nowhere in the Synoptic Gospels is Mary given a starring role like the luminaries of yore; rather hers is a cameo performance delimited by the Holy Spirit as chronicler (2Peter 2:21) and Jesus as casting director.  Surely if Mary had been everything her devotees claim her to be, she would have had a prominent role in Jesus’ ministry; but as this was not the case, we must assume Jesus was texting future disciples that Mary-centered worship lacked his endorsement—already stated in Jeremiah 44:15-29 but foreknown to be dismissed by future devotees of the queen of heaven.

   After Acts 1:14 none of the original Apostles or Paul bothered to mention Mary; and though her champions see her personified in Revelation 12:1-17, this “woman clothed with sun” is a symbol for the Heavenly Jerusalem, mother of all Judeo-Christians (Galatians 4:26), interchangeable with the Church sustained by God for “time and times and half a time” = 42 months = 1260 days (Revelation 12:6,14, 13:5).  If we then apply Ezekiel’s 4:6 conversion factor of 1 day = 1 year, we are talking about 1,260 years the human Mary could not possibly have lived; nor was she the mother of the faithful that Satan warred against (Revelation 12:17).

   Legitimacy comes from the male progenitor, for which reason Abraham is father to all Judeo-Christian faithful; and this not because he was an exemplar of moral rectitude, as his apologists argue, but because he believed God’s promise sight unseen, which is the essence of the faith God rewards (Romans 4:1-3; Galatians 3:6-9,29; Hebrews 11:6).²  As far as Mary is concerned, she bore Jesus but contributed nothing to his genome [if any], his sense of mission, or his Scriptural mastery (Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:31-35, 43-49; John 12:49).

   Mary’s enduring appeal lies exclusively on her being a mother, for motherhood is one of the most powerful archetypes cherished by men.  While Yahweh the Father and His Son/proxy-God, Yahweh of hosts, come across as harsh and vindictive in the Old Testament [which has to do with failure to interpret Scripture correctly]; and in the New Jesus as heavenly ruler does not mollycoddle his followers (2Corinthians 12:7-9; Galatians 6:17), Marian apparitions portray an ever-suffering mother loving men more than their Creators and Saviors seem to be.

   It is a clever ruse as well as perennially effective, not only in switching spiritual loyalties but in creating the impression that, no matter how far transgressors push the envelope, there is always a chance they will get away with anything as long as “mom” intercedes on their behalf.  God is all about reforming human immorality and turning on the heat when reform is resisted; “Mary” is about appeals to reform but undermining it by firewalling divine unwillingness to compromise with patches of enablement.

   What follows is a perfunctory examination of a few notable Marian apparitions; to wit, Guadalupe, Mexico, in 1531; La Salette-Fallavaux, France, in 1846; Lourdes, France, in 1858; Fàtima, Portugal, in 1917; and Medjugorje, Bosnia-Herzegovina, in 1981.  No one apparition is examined in depth or significance; rather, the objective is to point out similarities as well as forbidden, cultic elements introduced in each which contradict/spin Scripture.  In terms of historical facts, research is left to the reader.  Suffice it to say that on locations where pagan gods had been worshipped, neo-Christians erected their shrines to those gods now given Christian veneers and new identities.

   For example, Notre Dame stands on the site where a Celtic Madonna bearing a child in arms was worshipped; in Poland, a linden tree is associated with “Mary,” one of many wayward shrines under trees in places considered sacred before the advent of Christianity.  Which brings to mind Deuteronomy 12:2; 1Kings 14:23; 2Kings 16:4, 17:10-11; Jeremiah 2:20, 3:13; and many other accusations by God that His people were hell-bent—figuratively and literally—in consorting with demons at such locations (1Corinthians 10:19-20).  This was not a “Jewish” problem:  The Israelites of antiquity foreshadowed religious abominations mirroring future Christian practices; for in Judaism today or even of Jesus’ time, though blinded to the reality of his Messiahship, there are/were no cults to any heavenly queen.  Marian worship is one of Satan’s “darts” that hit Christendom’s spiritual bull’s-eye.

Deceptions at Guadalupe

   Tepeyac Hill, where the Guadalupe apparitions took place, is part of the Sierra de Guadalupe mountain range and so higher than the surrounding terrain.  Tepeyac Hill was a Pre-Columbian site where an indigenous Aztec mother goddess was worshipped.  At the time of his first vision, Juan Diego, an indigenous Mexican and devout Catholic neophyte, was en route for religious instruction at a Franciscan mission.  Juan Diego exemplifies the lack of Scriptural sophistication that all Marian seers have in common:  His faith was church-taught and by default “in the bag.”

   Ever the supreme polyglot, “Mary” revealed herself to Juan Diego’s in his native Nahuatl as the ever-virgin mother of God.³   “Mary” instructed Juan Diego to go to the local bishop and express her wishes that a chapel be erected in her honor so she could help those in distress—which begs the question of why she could not help the needy without need of chapel, like God and Jesus do?  The answer, of course, is that a chapel is a magnet for believers to wallow in idolatrous worship until end-times (Revelation 9:20-21).

   As was to be expected, the bishop did not take Juan Diego seriously.  “Mary” told him to go back and repeat the request.  The bishop wanted proof.  “Mary” furnished it by making Castilian roses appear on a rocky outcrop where only cactus and scrub grew—let alone the fact that it was winter and such roses did not grow in Mexico.⁴   Juan Diego picked up bunches of roses and wrapped them in a cactus fiber cloak [tilma] he was wearing.  When he unfurled it before the doubting bishop, the now iconic Guadalupe image was imprinted on the cloak:  A pregnant woman, dark-skinned like indigenous Mexicans, eclipsing a blazing sun [upstaging Jesus?↔Revelation 22:16)], standing upon a crescent moon, partially evoking the image described in Revelation 12:1.

  To this day the basilica that bears her name is the most visited Marian shrine in the world [10 million+ a year], where pilgrims can see and worship Juan Diego’s tilma.  Naturally, all of this is done in violation of the Second Commandment:  “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.  You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, Yahweh your  God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Exodus 20:4-6).  And as we have been told, he who violates one point of the law violates all (James 2:10)—meaning that besides dismissing Jesus’ warning (Matthew 5:19), whatever prayers are entrusted to Guadalupe’s image never reach the ears of God (Proverbs 28:9; John 9:31).

   While the Invisible God demands that men abstain on pain of death from worshipping visible images/idols, Guadalupe’s “Mary” ensured that devotees court that fate.

Deceptions at La Salette-Fallavaux

   This mountainous area in France where “Mary” appeared in 1846 is 3,225–7,881 feet above sea level; and so one of those “high places” proscribed in the Bible.  The seers on this occasion were two children, a boy and a girl, who had been minding cows and found “Mary” seated on a rock bitterly crying.

   In the chronology of supposed Marian apparitions, La Salette introduced a switch from adult seers to children, perhaps as a spin to Jesus’ remark in Mark 10:14.⁵   In 1214 Dominic of Osma allegedly received the concept of the rosary from “Mary” during one of her apparitions.  In 1531 there was the already discussed 57-year-old Juan Diego.  In 1830, “Mary” targeted Catherine Labouré, a 24-year-old novice in a convent [thus in the “bag” as well], who was entrusted with the “mission” of striking a medal based on the model “Mary” showed her [spinning Hebrews 8:5?].  “Mary” assured Catherine that those who wore the medal around their necks would receive great graces.  By 1832 the medals were selling like hot cakes.

  La Salette was further evidence that Mary favored striking wardrobes, not in keeping with the norm of John the Baptist or even Jesus himself, who practically homeless and poor did not wear flashy clothing or did laundry on a regular basis (Matthew 3:4, 8:20).  Later on we find Paul asking for a cloak he left behind at Troas (2Timothy 4:13), apparently unable to buy a new one.  This may sound crass but these men whose grooming habits could not have been up to par were not on the same league with apparitions giving off rosy scents and wearing color-coordinated attires.  For what can be gathered from Scripture, heavenly beings are partial to white (Daniel 10:5↔Revelation 1:13; John 20:12; Revelation 7:9,13, 15:6, 19:8); flashy wardrobes are associated with the opposition (Matthew 11:8; Revelation 17:4).  Not even the woman of Revelation 12:1, who Marian devotees claim to be “Mary,” is in Technicolor.

   In point of fact the apparition at La Salette wore a white robe studded with pearls,⁶ a gold colored apron, and white shoes and roses about her feet.  Roses were a winner at Guadalupe, so they were reprised here and in latter apparitions.  “Mary” gave each child a secret in their Occitan dialect, whereupon the gig was up.  The children told of “Mary’s” appeal for people to return to God; on the 150^th anniversary of the apparition, John Paul II asserted that La Salette was a message of hope by the intercession of the “mother of mankind.”  If Abraham was father to a specific subset of people in terms of true faith, why not make “Mary” one better by eliminating arbitrary distinctions?

   At La Salette as at Guadalupe, “Mary” wore a crucifix hanging from her neck, hinting at her connection with the rosary.  More productively, La Salette scored a basilica in her name on top of a truly high place.  For some reason she did not demand this earthly foothold, perhaps knowing that men on their own would do her the honors.

Deceptions at Lourdes

   “Mary” appeared to 14-year-old Bernadette Soubirous for a total of 18 apparitions at a grotto just outside Lourdes, at an elevation of 1,329 feet.  This apparition favored subdued attire:  a white veil, blue girdle, a golden rose on each foot and a rosary of pearls fully displayed, for Bernadette was into rosary recitations.  On her second appearance, “Mary” preempted the completion of Bernadette’s first decade, a set of ten Hail Mary’s, preceded by one Lord’s Prayer and followed by one Glory Be—the last misappropriating Matthew 28:19 to reinforce false Trinitarian dogma.

   Jesus, of course, brought no rosaries with him.  As the incarnated, Old Testament God who had forbidden idolatrous amulets (Psalm 31:6; Isaiah 3:18-20; Ezekiel 13:18,20), Jesus had enough on his plate dealing with spiritually bankrupt religiosity.  He did, however, warn that people who encouraged forbidden practices would answer for it (Matthew 28:6-7).  Also God the Father demanded to be worshipped in spirit (John 4:23) and prayer (1Peter 3:12), both immaterial [faith] as opposed to material means, for He was no genie attuned to incantations but receptive to displays of obedience (1Samuel 15:23; John 9:31).

   The only prayer Jesus taught was the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:9-13, which he did preamble with the admonition “not to use vain repetitions like the pagans” (Matthew 6:7).  In other words keep prayer short and focused on basic doctrine:  Exalting God; obeying God; trusting God for sustenance and protection; and applying the tit-for-tat system in terms of forgiveness—all implying that appeals to others than God had no business being uttered.  Jesus’ may have been referencing worshippers in religions outside his purview, where prayer beads are used to count sets of prayers, chants, or mantras offered to assorted divinities.⁷   Thus it can be argued that rosaries, a form of prayer beads, have a pagan origin.

   The Hail Mary prayer initially borrows from Gabriel telling Mary about Jesus’ conception and the honor God has bestowed upon her in Luke 1:26-31; then the perennial blasphemy, “mother of God,” becomes enshrined, as well as the attribution that Mary has the power to pray for sinners until the moment of their deaths.  As explained before, dead people can do nothing for the living (Ecclesiastes 9:6); Mary’s resurrection will take place at Jesus’ second coming (1Thessalonians 4:14-17); and the notion that she was assumed into Heaven is papal dogma.  Hence the Hail Mary is a hodgepodge of Scripture laced with blasphemy and contradiction.

   Bernadette, however, was no Scriptural sophisticate; we can surmise this from the fact that she sprinkled holy water at “Mary” the way Professor Van Helsing used it against Dracula:  to ward off evil.  This mindset is not exclusively hers:  Pius IX claimed the rosary to be a weapon against demons.⁸

   To make 18 long apparitions short, let us tick off some points of interest:

   1) On the third apparition [18 February], “Mary” asked Bernadette in her native Occitan [Bernadette’s French was poor] to have the goodness to return for the next 15 days.  Such politeness made later sycophants go gaga over this display of humbleness, for it was not the custom to talk to lower class peasants like Bernadette in that fashion.

   2)  On the ninth [25 February], Bernadette was instructed to drink and wash at the fountain “Mary” pointed at, which was a puddle more mud than water.  Bernadette scratched the ground until the water became clearer; drank from it and went home.  A day later the now famous spring started flowing.

   3)  On the thirteenth [2 March], “Mary” asked for a chapel to be built on the spot.

   4)  On the sixteenth [25 March], Bernadette, prompted by a skeptic priest, asked “Mary” for her name.  After being asked four times, “Mary” answered that she was the “Immaculate Conception.”

   Let us parse each.

1) It did not occur to anyone that though come from heaven, Jesus felt equal to human beings in matters of faith (Luke 6:40; John 6:51; Hebrews 2:10-12); that he treated rich and poor alike; and that any form of distinction was contrary to what he stood for (Galatians 3:28).  Why the hoopla over “Mary’s” disarming modesty?  Easy:  Church teaching had made Jesus distant and demanding, while here was “Mary,” visiting royalty eschewing protocol, and commuting between heaven and earth telling men she had their back—fodder for a public relations’ campaign.

2)  The now world-famous spring at Lourdes has been credited with assorted healings:  Both the ill and the healthy hoping for a spiritual boost either bathe in or drink from it.

   Water cures appear in Scripture in two places:  2Kings 5 and John 5:1-4.  In 2Kings 5, Naaman was a commander in the Syrian army who had leprosy.  Naaman was told that Elisha could cure the disease; hearing of this, the king of Syria sent letters to the king of Israel demanding Naaman’s cure, whereupon the latter went into a tizzy believing he was being set up.  Elisha stepped up to the plate; Naaman came to his home for consultation; and while Elisha did not bother to face him, he sent word that Naaman needed seven dips in the Jordan in order for his flesh to be restored.  Naaman went away angry arguing that if his cure depending on river-bathing, Syrian rivers were better suited than all the waters in Israel.  Naaman’s servants pointed the obvious:  He had nothing to lose by trying; so Naaman relented, dipped in the Jordan as Elisha had suggested and was cured—with the added bonus that his flesh became like that of a little child.

   Now this is not a tale of full-blown faith.  Naaman was already in Israel; he was not a worshipper of Yahweh; and he was prevailed upon to obey Elisha not because he believed in Elisha’s holy status, but because the odds for a cure were 50-50 and why not take them?  Thus Naaman is not an exemplar of faith in God without proof; quite the opposite:  He became wishy-washy believer, requesting an exemption from Yahweh’s displeasure while assisting his king in bowing before a pagan God (2Kings 5:18).

   The pool of Bethesda affair is more in keeping with cures at Lourdes­—another spin? John 5:1-4 tells us that a multitude of sick people watched the pool for the tell-tale sign that an angel was stirring the waters.  Whoever dipped first was healed—in other words, first-come, first-and-only served.  Who the angel was we are not told but it could not have been one of God’s, for the entire premise at work is one of opportunism and not spiritual merit:  Hitler could have dipped first and be cured.  Jesus himself could not effect miracles in the absence of faith (Matthew 13:58); and when he did, he cured many people at once in any one crowd.  Thus Bethesda has a whiff of sulfur about it; and Jesus’ action rebuffed its operational principle:  He healed the one man who for many years had waited for a cure but could never make it to the water in time (John 5:5-8)—transferring focus from the presumed healing powers of water to God’s compassion.

   What the criterion is for cures at Lourdes, some reported to be legit and many questioned, is anybody’s guess; frankly, we do not want to go there.  But the fact that they take place at a shrine that violates divine mandates is enough to surmise they have nothing to do with God.

3)  Another shrine in another high place—rather a complex of shrines.  Lourdes is open to the public from 6 am to 12 pm Monday through Sundays; and is one of the most-visited Marian shrines [5 million+ people annually] in the world, accessible by train and bus from major city hubs.

      “Mary” is the star at Lourdes; her Son has been relegated to the supporting cast; and since Catholics believe Jesus to be God (Hosea 7:13), the Most High is entirely left out of the equation (Hosea 11:7).  Rosary at the grotto of the apparitions is recited daily at 3 pm; there are candlelit processions memorializing the 4^th apparition [19 February].  Bathing at the spring takes place morning and afternoons during 2 ½ hour-periods.  Water [usually 1 oz] from it has been bottled and can be bought from Catholic purveyors; prices vary depending on shipping, manufacturing, and “mining” costs—i.e., manually filling up the bottles.  A rose-petal twist-off cap and relief image of the apparition may be featured, along with labels as guarantees of origin and warnings not to drink the water—which of course some people do expecting spiritual benefits by osmosis.  Where is Christian doctrine in all of this (Matthew 10:8)?

    We know that before Jesus set up shop in Heaven where he now officiates before the Father (Hebrews 9:24), Jerusalem was the only earthly shrine the Father chose to endorse:  Every other place of worship was taboo—or else! (Deuteronomy 12:13-14; 2Chronicles 6:6).  Furthermore men get antsy when they cannot see their divinities, the “out-of-sight-out-of-mind” situation we find in Exodus 32.  If congregants want idols instead of the real McCoy, religious leaders will provide them, as well as the delusion the switcheroo is honky-dory with God (32:5-6).  Of course this is all pipe-dreaming:  “The day when I punish, I will punish them for their sin” (32:34).  Not to worry.  “Mom” is in their corner.

4)  The dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not reference Jesus, whose conception was indeed untainted by the sin Catholics believe passes from Adam to men through sex.  Adam’s sin did not involve sex:  It was disobedience to God’s will.  Sex is one of those human behaviors wrapped up in layers of theological guilt; whereas in the Bible, the only problem with sex—at least for men—is that God becomes less of a priority when female pheromones waft in their desires (Deuteronomy 7:3-4; 1Kings 11:3-5; 1Corinthians 7:32-33).  Like money, sex is not intrinsically evil:  The use men make of it, is; which judging by Genesis 6:1 continues unabated to this day amongst royalty, politicians, celebrities, role-models and common folk—admired and envied by non-participants at large.

   When applied to Mary, the notion implies that she was firewalled from sin from the first instant of her conception, meaning that parental contributions were zapped of Adamic impurities so that her embryo was made purity-ready.  This came out of the Council at Ephesus in 431 CE when Mary was declared “the mother of God,” for someone so close to Jesus could not be impure.  The notion was clearly articulated in the 12^th Century when it was argued that Christ’s redemptive grace prevented sin from reaching Mary’s soul.  By 1854, four years before Lourdes, Pius IX issued a bull that the doctrine was revealed by God and thus to be firmly believed by all Catholics.  In 1858 “Mary” clinched the nomination by identifying herself not as Jesus’ mother or the queen of heaven, but as the Immaculate Conception.

    Whatever anyone wants to make out of Lourdes is his/her prerogative; but it is incontestable that Lourdes’ reason for existing contradicts Scriptural norms.  That it involves miraculous events does not legitimize it:  God-sanctioned deceptions are a matter of record (1Kings 22:20-22; Matthew 24:24; 2Thessalonians 2:9-12).  On the one hand men are warned to shun worship as practiced at Lourdes and given Scripture to know the difference (Deuteronomy 30:11-20); on the other, God allows Satan to deploy deceptions in order to test men’s obedience (Deuteronomy 13:1-3).  Following Paul’s formula of letting “God be found true, but every human being a liar” (Romans 3:4), the choice is clear since salvation is granted by God, not Mary.  And if her apparitions were genuine, she would be reaffirming that self-same fact her Son preached.

   If there is grace at Lourdes, it is the “coup” variety, as in coup the grȃce, for there Jesus’ truth was dealt another death blow propelling Christianity into the abyss of unstoppable apostasy. 

¹ Which brings us to the preposterous argument that the Magi searching for Jesus were astrologers.  That unbelievers should say this is understandable, but professors of faith?  Can they believe that the God Who never changes and never contradicts Himself would forbid the practice and later use it to announce Jesus’ birth?

   Clearly the so-called star of Bethlehem, following the established Biblical pattern, was a symbol for an angel (Revelation 1:20), who could disappear and reappear at will so that the Magi could follow him to the manger.  It was this angel who announced to the Magi the coming of Israel’s King, not any planet or comet overhead, unless one believes that celestial bodies stop in their orbits over precise locations on earth (Matthew 2:9).

   Luke 2:9 tells us angels were actively disseminating news of Jesus’ birth that night—mind you, not to the religious elite, but to common folk.  And if Persian priests were singled out for that honor, it was a) because they knew and were willing to believe Jewish prophecy (Matthew 2:5-6); and b) because priests of Jesus’ time had become so jaded about their religious heritage that they had stopped taking it seriously.  Which being said followed Yahweh’s decision to provoke Israel’s jealousy by revealing His Messiah to the Gentiles (Deuteronomy 32:31; Romans 11:11).

   We find evidence of Jewish inconstancy in Luke 1:8-9,20; Acts 7:52-53; and Hebrews 4:2.  While people of Jesus’ time contradicted who he claimed to be as an adult (John 8:13,57), the Magi, who apparently knew better, brought the newborn Jesus not baby presents, but gifts emblematic of his messianic roles:

as King↔gold (Revelation 19:16);

as Priest↔frankincense, used in tabernacle/temple worship (Exodus 30:34-36) and symbolizing the prayers of saints (Psalms 141:2; Revelation 5:8);

and as Sacrificial Lamb↔myrrh, a gum-resin added to fluids given to the crucified to dull their pain.

   Myrrh also prefigured the consecration of Jesus’ body as the new “veil”—of his flesh— accessing the Holy of Holies in Heaven (John 19:39-40; Hebrews 10:19-20).

² Abraham married Sarah, his half-sister, which was a no-no later enshrined in Mosaic Law (Leviticus 18:11).  Also to save his skin, Abraham pretended not to be Sarah’s husband, which put her in danger of being molested by men desiring her beauty.  It was thanks to Yahweh of hosts’ intervention that she was spared that shame—not once, but twice (Genesis 12:11-19, 20:1-12).

³ The perennial blasphemy and contradicting Scripture in that Joseph did have intercourse with her resulting in Jesus’ brothers (Matthew 1:25; Luke 8:19; Galatians 1:19). 

⁴ Tradition has it has in 1529, the first Bishop of Mexico, writing to the king in Spain, prayed for “Our Blessed Mother’s” intervention in securing Christianity among rebellious natives.  He had asked for Castilian roses as a sign that his prayer would be answered. God does not take kindly to requests for signs (Luke 1:18-20).

⁵ Prophecy does not share the rosy consensus regarding children (Jeremiah 6:13; Mark 13:12).  What Jesus was driving at is children’s absence of disbelief and complete acceptance of what they are told, no matter how preposterous the lie, like Santa’s toy factory in the North Pole.  Daily newscasts, Tik Tok influencers, and parental failure to instill spirituality in their offspring fuel and evince the propensity of the young to embrace corruption and immorality.

⁶ Part of Babylon the Great’s attire in Revelation 17:4, which Jesus might have been referencing by accusing “that woman Jezebel” for encouraging idolatry among its people (Revelation 2:20).  Which in turn takes us to the real Jezebel, who knew the seductive value of dressing to the nines (2Kings 9:30).

 ⁷ Prayer beads, used in many far Eastern religions, are thought to have been brought to West Asia by migrating Hindus.  From there they found niches in many branches of Christianity and Islam.  Judaism, to its credit, never embraced them.

⁸ While demons have been told who are out-of-bounds to them (Matthew 8:27-32; Acts 19:14-16; James 4:7), rosaries are not endowed with divine powers to counteract evil.  Amulets are taboo in the Bible, especially ones connected with idolatrous worship; and that God means to eradicate them as well as their promoters (Psalm 31:6; Isaiah 3:18-20; Ezekiel 13:18,20) hardly constitutes proof of endorsement.