Rome - Mary Did Not Have Monthly Periods
God warns us of those that would pervert the bible for their own evil ends, as 2 Peter 3:16 says, "WHICH THEY THAT ARE UNLEARNED AND UNSTABLE WREST, AS THEY DO ALSO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, UNTO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION."
As Rome worships a false Jesus, Rome also worships a false Mary. The pagan heart of Catholicism will try to destroy any bible truth in it's efforts to justify Romish idolatry. The article, "Where Angels Fear to Tread," by Mr. Bryce Sibley at the Roman Catholic University of Dayton, Ohio, tries to answer the ridiculous question, "Did the Blessed Virgin menstruate?" Rome has to prove this did not happen to Mary in order for her to remain "immaculate."
Enough lies are in Mr. Sibley's article to warrant a small booklet, but I will focus on two blatant scriptural twistings:
1. John 1:13 in the Authorized Version says, "WHICH WERE BORN, NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD." Mr. Sibley (not naming the supposed 'Greek Text' he uses) translates it, "he who was born, not of bloods," to change the meaning to that of a bloodless (and fluidless) birth of Christ, therefore keeping Mary pure!
Go check your concordance, "WHICH" should be translated, "WHICH," or "WHOM," not, "he." And, "BLOOD" is singular, not plural.
2. Luke 1:35 (AV) says, "THEREFORE ALSO THAT HOLY THING WHICH SHALL BE BORN OF THEE SHALL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD." Once again, Mr. Sibley subverts the word of God to his own liking as he translates it, "That is why the one who will be born holy will be called the Son of God." Sibley sees the "born holy" to refer to Mary birthing Jesus in a holy manner, thus maintaining her purity!
As to the "OFFER OF SACRIFICE" that Mary makes in Luke 2:24 because of her giving birth, Mr. Sibley, in a repeat performance of Genesis 3:1, when his master the serpent got Eve to doubt the word of God by saying, "YEA, HATH GOD SAID," denies the plain truth of the bible by saying Mary was, "still ritually pure from her virginal birth," and really didn't need to offer the two turledoves, or pigeons.
I can only say to Mr. Sibley and his priestly masters the same thing Paul said in Acts 13:10 to the sorcerer Elymas, "O FULL OF ALL SUBTILTY AND ALL MISCHIEF, THOU CHILD OF THE DEVIL, THOU ENEMY OF ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS, WILT THOU NOT CEASE TO PERVERT THE RIGHT WAYS OF THE LORD?"
Is it a sin to be a Catholic? Absolutely yes! May Catholics repent and confess the sin of goddess worship, forsake Rome, and receive Christ by faith ALONE.
As Rome worships a false Jesus, Rome also worships a false Mary. The pagan heart of Catholicism will try to destroy any bible truth in it's efforts to justify Romish idolatry. The article, "Where Angels Fear to Tread," by Mr. Bryce Sibley at the Roman Catholic University of Dayton, Ohio, tries to answer the ridiculous question, "Did the Blessed Virgin menstruate?" Rome has to prove this did not happen to Mary in order for her to remain "immaculate."
Enough lies are in Mr. Sibley's article to warrant a small booklet, but I will focus on two blatant scriptural twistings:
1. John 1:13 in the Authorized Version says, "WHICH WERE BORN, NOT OF BLOOD, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD." Mr. Sibley (not naming the supposed 'Greek Text' he uses) translates it, "he who was born, not of bloods," to change the meaning to that of a bloodless (and fluidless) birth of Christ, therefore keeping Mary pure!
Go check your concordance, "WHICH" should be translated, "WHICH," or "WHOM," not, "he." And, "BLOOD" is singular, not plural.
2. Luke 1:35 (AV) says, "THEREFORE ALSO THAT HOLY THING WHICH SHALL BE BORN OF THEE SHALL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD." Once again, Mr. Sibley subverts the word of God to his own liking as he translates it, "That is why the one who will be born holy will be called the Son of God." Sibley sees the "born holy" to refer to Mary birthing Jesus in a holy manner, thus maintaining her purity!
As to the "OFFER OF SACRIFICE" that Mary makes in Luke 2:24 because of her giving birth, Mr. Sibley, in a repeat performance of Genesis 3:1, when his master the serpent got Eve to doubt the word of God by saying, "YEA, HATH GOD SAID," denies the plain truth of the bible by saying Mary was, "still ritually pure from her virginal birth," and really didn't need to offer the two turledoves, or pigeons.
I can only say to Mr. Sibley and his priestly masters the same thing Paul said in Acts 13:10 to the sorcerer Elymas, "O FULL OF ALL SUBTILTY AND ALL MISCHIEF, THOU CHILD OF THE DEVIL, THOU ENEMY OF ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS, WILT THOU NOT CEASE TO PERVERT THE RIGHT WAYS OF THE LORD?"
Is it a sin to be a Catholic? Absolutely yes! May Catholics repent and confess the sin of goddess worship, forsake Rome, and receive Christ by faith ALONE.
posted by Robt. B. at 1:36 PM
<< Home