15 49.0138 8.38624 1 4000 1 https://hoojewale.com 300 0
Jesus Christ

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (VIII)

0 Comments
Will it, in a way, be a ratiocinative superfluity delving into an acquiescence to the 4th century orthodoxy established theotokos (bearer of God) of Mariological title? True rationality will lead to the facticity that Mary's matrix did containerised the physical reality of the Incarnation on our terra firma. On account of this fact, yes, it is, to theotokos. But since it is pellucid enough that that which is being given birth to is actually coming into existence for the first time, the darkness of Mariological beam leading to 'mother of God' insistent hue is a non-issue. An aberrant Mariology. His preincarnate manifestations on the terra firma abound in the annals of the pages of Scripture. Having been before creationism makes Him as eternal as His Father. It is quite impossible to procreate the Self-Existing Jehovah, the Eternal One.Read More

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (VII)

0 Comments
Is there any infinitesimal inference to Marian maternity of God in Simon Peter's Holy Spirit's inspired scriptural transcriptions? A mother will always be older than her progeny even if she dies at age fifty and her son goes on to clock the hundredth year in his own life time. No wonder Goddess Madonna continues to clutch on to Baby God! She is older than the Ancient of days! That, Pope Francis (if you care to know), is the implications of your Christokos! Your false declarations make Mary the mother of the One who has neither beginning nor ending. Had your Madonna been before the beginlessness of the Ancient of days? Does she have the capacity of eternity to containerise the Self-Existing, Eternal, Holy One of Israel? Impossible!Read More

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (VI)

2 Comments
Quite a scatological mind of an individual it will take to disdain the faith and exemplary character of Mary, the mother of Jesus; but when one peruses the Pauline hall of faith (Hebrews chapter eleven), Mary is not accorded a mentioning, neither as the Catholicism engendered 'mother of God.' The Holy Spirit did not even direct Paul to do an insertion of her name somewhere in-between verses 39 & 40 to produce a couching like: "God having provided some better thing for us, through the divine matrix of Madonna of the blessed perpetuity of virginity, that they without us should not be made perfect." Mary, to Catholicism, would have been the co-Perfecter of the faith of Christians if Hebrews eleven has an inclusion of her name. Read More

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (V)

0 Comments
In the year 1198, Catholicism gave Mary the titles: co-redemptrix, advocate, auxiliatrix, adjutrix, mediatrix, believing that as the mother of Christ, she should share in His official responsibilities. I have a question? Who decides who shares in divine attributes, man or the Divinity? Do we call this ecumenical decision an acute scriptural indigence on the part of Catholicism or a blatant gibe at Scripture? Do we not know whose job it is to distribute ecumenical offices in Acts 13:2 “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them?”Read More

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (IV)

0 Comments
Marian epithets of Catholicism were never handed down to Catholic fathers. These epithetic Mariolatry are the scriptural paradoxicalities of Romish rumination. They are not Pauline, Peterine or Johannine. They have no backing of the twelve-pillared Apostolic offices of the upper-room event (ten days after Christ’s ascension) of nascent Church. They crept in from outside the Church of the Living Jesus. It probably began with St. Irenaeus of Lyons, in the second century A.D. He called Mary the "second Eve" because through Mary and her willing acceptance of God's choice, God undid the harm that was done through Eve's choice to eat the forbidden fruit.Read More

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (III)

0 Comments
One of the scriptural bizarreness of Catholicism is the cultic mother-and-child established indoctrination. Quite a paganistic occultism. This is a Nimrodic (or Nimro-semiramic) importation of paganism into the Church of Jesus. Nowhere in Scripture is it (mother-and-child) found. This is an apodeictic representation of Nimrodic Baal worship of his wife, Semiramis, and Tammuz their son, whose deified stance concludes the apish trinitarian concept of Baalism. Satanism conspiracy took it from Babel to Egypt, the next global world power. There, in Egypt, the mother and child assumed the sobriquet of Isis and Horus. Is it not over two thousand years ago? How could the baby Jesus still remain a baby? Catholicism should tell me, in fact, us, when that baby of Madonna will be weaned! Read More

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (II)

0 Comments
Luke 1:46, 47 “And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47) And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” Mary’s admittance of needing a Saviour is an indication of her spiritual indigence. How could God’s own mother crave for a soteriological stance? Whoever seeks for divine salvation must be a sinner. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” [Romans 3:23]; Mary, the natural biological daughter of Heli, was born a sinner. I hope the past Popes, and especially the extant Pope Frances is not unaware of the scriptural facticity of Mary’s sinful birth, ergo, cannot be God’s Mother and consequently a Goddess!Read More

CATHOLICISM AND MARY (I)

4 Comments
Could Mary have given birth to Christ, God the Son? One can only beget a one coming into the existence of creationism for the first time. Of truth is the fact that there is nothing too hard for the LORD to do. But it is also a crystal pellucidity that it will amount to spiritual incongruity for a creature to beget the Author of creationism. The simple fact is that the begotten is actually coming into existence for the first time. If Mary did beget the Ancient of days then she was nothing less than a Goddess (with capital 'G'): for Jehovah's deity is of the true living God. Should Mary be a Goddess the Apostolic ink would have had it couched in God's protocol. Christ's eternal being would have ceased. He would have to be brought under a new beginning of existence. Read More

Tithes Revisited (six)

0 Comments
On account of death, the first high priest from Levi, that is Aaron, was replaced. Up until the time of Pauline scripting of the Book of Hebrews, death had brought about an ineluctable replacements to that office. But of Melchizedek, whose natural genealogy the Scripture is silent about, is absolutely antitypical to the office of the Lord Jesus. The Holy Spirit, through Paul, teaches that this king-priest Melchizedek, said to be figuratively living, undying like the eternal Jesus, continues to receive tithes. How is this possible? It is a theological issue. Melchizedek signalizes the true High Priest, even the Initiator of the Old and the New Testaments, the Lord Jesus, the Alpha and the Omega; the One who was, is, and is to come, the Almighty.Read More

Tithes Revisited (five)

0 Comments
All these giving, done in faith, are actually business transactions with the Possessor of heaven and earth. For the simple fact that tithes, originally given out of faith, and in theological facticity that Jehovah is the Possessor of the universe and heaven, and an offer devoid of any legality, most definitely makes it an act of faith, without which no man receives anything from God. "The just," the Bible points out, "shall live by his faith" (Habakkuk 2:4). Christians are connected to their God by faith alone. What about a rich man like Solomon, does he need to tithe, having all his financial needs and wants answered? A Solomon-rich person is still a needy individual. The word of God, "But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body" [1Corinthians 15:38] is what gives the dead rotten seed of faith (your money) the desired body. The seed sown will take care of childlessness, ill health, ignorance, weakness, security et cetera. Amen.Read More

Tithes Revisited (four)

0 Comments
Abraham was not prompted by the legalism of Mosaic Law. Abraham did not handover the tithes of his volitional drive to Aaron who, together with every priest of his progeny, did die (read verse 8). He paid it to the Melchizedek i.e. the ‘immortality’ in representation of Christ. If the appropriation of faith in Jesus is what makes one a Christian, then it is quite germane to say that Abraham's faith in Jehovah makes him a Christian. Jesus, in Melchizedek, received the tithes from Abraham, a type of a Christian. Abraham’s tithes was not of an extraction of legality. Read More

Tithes Revisited (three)

0 Comments
"If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ." Moving towards the didactic crescendo, Paul reminds them of the legal claim he possesses, more than the Old Testament priesthood, over the tenth part of their substantial worth. 13) "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 14) Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." The tithes that have been brought to the temple form a good part of the things found on the altar of the Temple. God's storehouse has not crumbled. Or has it?Read More

Tithes Revisited (two)

0 Comments
When the Temple curtain tore in two at the death of Jesus, the Holy Spirit left the Jerusalem Temple. After the Pentecostal inaugural establishment of the Church, HIS place of assemblage with God's children had always been the Church auditorium. That which was put in the storehouse must continue lest we be found guilty of "robbing God." Amen. 'Storehouse' of Malachi 3:10 is ôtsâr (o-tsaw'): 'a depository.' Three verses prove that ôtsâr is of the temple. Malachi 3:8, "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings." If a refusal to handover tithes and offerings constitute robbery of God's property, and I give out only my offerings am I not a thief in tithing? Selah!Read More

Tithes Revisited (one)

0 Comments

           The legalism of Old Testament, concerning tithing, which they employ, does not hold any argumentative water at all. Abraham, who first offered his tithe did not have to comply out of any religious and coercive straitjacket terms. Father Abraham gave it out of sheer faith. Now we can comfortably say that God had no choice but to give an imprimatur to an idea solely envisioned by faithful Abraham, to bless HIS Israelites.

                It was not only a case of God knowing this in eternity of the past, HE was the One who deposited the thought into Abraham's heart. Amen.

Read More

TRINITY OF THE GODHEAD (7)

0 Comments
The High Priest went in there to represent the entire nation of Israel for the forgiveness of the year's transgressions. He stood sacerdotally before the unseen Jehovah Elohim and the Holy Spirit duly accepted the oblational approach. Without Him there is no Church administration. God's thoughts came alive in the minds of Bible writers to checkmate any contradictory scripting of the word of God because He inspired them. Only God knows the mind of God. The Holy Spirit (i.e. the burning lamp of Rev. 4:5) is there in the celestial throne room to purify God's word seven times. He is the lamp to our righteous feet before the LORD. The fire wraps us up in the righteous zeal for the Lord's use. Read More

TRINITY OF THE GODHEAD (6)

0 Comments
There cannot be four, two or a thousand of THEM: in the Godhead. Whoever thinks there are more or less than three should come with the proof of Scripture. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" [1John 5:7]. The word 'one' is heis (heis`) in the Greek, meaning: 'a neuter 'one' implying one in all things: essence, power, majesty, knowledge.’ Hebrews 12:24 reads, "And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel." The book of 1Peter 1:2 does strike the cord of the Divine accord found in the Trinity. It reads, "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.” There, most certainly, would not have been any Divine Mediation without the instauration carried out by the Trinity, through which we become recipients of the soteriological grace of the Most High. Amen! Read More

TRINITY OF THE GODHEAD (5)

0 Comments
Isaiah 42:8, "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images" is an established fact that God does not share honour and worship. Why –have you ever asked yourself–- would attributes of Divinity be shared among the Trinity? What a perfect plan of Divinity is in operation: God, the Father, sits in the celestial assizes as the absolute Judge; God, the Son, is seated as the Eternal Advocate; the Divine Witness is none other than the Holy Spirit! Read More

TRINITY OF THE GODHEAD (4)

0 Comments
There is no gainsaying the Eternal Father's almightiness even if Luke 18:27, "And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God;" is silent about it. An eminent Job could not hide the prevalent truism of "I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee" (Job 42:2). Revelation 1:8 is an unveiling of Jesus as the ‘Almighty’, the Greek of which is pantokratōr (pan-tok-rat'-ore): 'he who holds sway over all things; the ruler of all; the all ruling, that is, God (as absolute and universal sovereign).' This is the Lord Jesus whom the world would gladly see as nondescript –just one of the prophets. Read More

TRINITY OF THE GODHEAD (3)

0 Comments
In the Palestinian days of His earthly sojourn, and in fact, centuries before then, Jehovah God was seated in the holiest compartment of the temple, covered by the second veil, called katapetasma (kat-ap-et'-as-mah). God, the Father, needed not come down. Seated in Majestic Divinity, receiving worship was the Holy Spirit. Why? Because the Trinity constitutes one God. We understand from Scripture that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit, both of God the Father and of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is, therefore, not left out in the profundity of John 10:30, "I and my Father are one." Put 'I' and 'are' together and an invocation of 'I AM,' the covenant name of JEHOVAH has been established. Read More

TRINITY OF THE GODHEAD (2)

0 Comments
The LORD God will remain eternally spotless spiritually. He alone, therefore, must show His unprecedented loving kindness. He cannot, as the eternally seated One on the throne (Eternal Judge), come down to save mankind. The invisibility of the Holy Spirit would not attempt it. This leaves the seen One among the Three: the Second Member, Jesus Christ. HE is the Jehovah of legality. There is no way, according to the Scripture of theology, that any man would ever be jurisprudentially redeemed into God's eternal loving arms, as far as adjudication is concerned, if He were just One Entity. Another reason why Christ must wear the toga of corporeality is that if One of the Members does not, of necessity, assume the representative capacity of Sonship, none can ever enter the filial relationship of "Abba Father" with the Creator. Read More