Ace Hood – Rosaries Lyrics

The Apocrypha: Is it scripture?The Apocrypha consists of a set of books writtenbetween approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ. The word"apocrypha" (απόκρυφα) means "Hidden." These booksconsist of 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom ofSolomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah,Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions toDaniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.The Protestant Church rejects the apocrypha asbeing inspired, as do the Jews; but in 1546 the Roman Catholic Churchofficially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon ofscripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon,Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. The apocryphal booksare written in Greek--not Hebrew (except for Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, apart of Judith, and Tobit) and contain some useful historical information.Is the Apocrypha Scripture? Protestants denyits inspiration, but the Roman Catholic Church affirms it. In order toascertain whether it is or isn't, we need to look within its pages.Not quoted in the New TestamentFirst of all, neither Jesus nor the apostles everquoted from the Apocrypha. There are over 260 quotations of the OldTestament in the New Testament and not one of them is from these books. Nevertheless, a Roman Catholic might respond by saying that there are severalOld Testament books that are not quoted in the New Testament, i.e., Joshua,Judges, Esther, etc. Does this mean that they aren't inspiredeither? But, these books had already been accepted into the canon by theJews--where the Apocrypha had not. The Jews recognized the Old Testamentcanon, and they did not include the Apocrypha in it. This is significantbecause of what Paul says:"Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what isthe benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, thatthey were entrusted with the oracles of God." (Rom. 3:1-2).Paul tells us that the Jews were entrusted withthe oracles of God. This means that they are the ones who understood whatinspired Scriptures were, and they never accepted the Apocrypha.Jesus' references the OldTestament: from Abel to ZechariahJesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canonfrom the beginning to the end and did not include the Apocrypha in hisreference. "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perishedbetween the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged againstthis generation." (Luke 11:51)."The traditional Jewish canon was dividedinto three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of thelast section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order--placing itafter Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this,the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewishcanon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression"from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appearstroublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentionedin the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr ofwhich we read in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. IIChron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and hishearers."1This means that the same Old Testament canon,according to the Jewish tradition, is arranged differently than how we have itin the Protestant Bible today. This was the arrangement to which Jesuswas referring when he referenced Abel and Zechariah, the first and last peopleto have their blood shed--as listed in the Old Testament Jewish canon.Obviously, Jesus knew of the Apocrypha and was not including it in hisreference.Jesus references the OldTestament: The Law, the Prophets, and the PsalmsCatholics sometimes respond by saying that the OldTestament is referred to in three parts: the Law, the Prophets, and theWritings. It is these writings that are sometimes said to include theApocrypha. But this designation is not found in the Bible. On thecontrary, Jesus referenced the Old Testament and designated its three parts asthe Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms--not as the Law, the Prophets, and theWritings."Now He said to them, "These are Mywords which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things whichare written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms mustbe fulfilled." (Luke 24:44).So we see that the designation offered by theRoman Catholics is not the same designation found in the Bible, and theirargument is invalid--as their argument is incorrect. Nevertheless, evenif it did say "writings," it would not include the Apocrypha for theabove-mentioned reasons.Church FathersDid the Church fathers recognized the Apocrypha asbeing Scripture? Roman Catholics strongly appeal to Church history, butwe don't find a unanimous consensus on the Apocrypha. Jerome (340-420),who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC church, rejected theApocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the propercanon of the Old Testament. Remember, the Christian Church built upon thatrecognition. Also, Josephus the famous Jewish historian of the First Centurynever mentioned the Apocrypha as being part of the canon either. In addition,"Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and thegreat Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha."2 So, we should not conclude thatthe Church fathers unanimously affirmed the Apocrypha. They didn't.

THE APOCRYPHA, DOES IT BELONG IN THE BIBLE?The word canoncomes from a Greek word that means, “measuring stick.” Over time, the word came to be usedmetaphorically of books that were “measured” and thereby recognized as beingGod’s Word. When we talk about the“canon of Scripture” today, we are referring to all the biblical books thatcollectively constitute God’s Word.Problem: RomanCatholics argue that the apocryphal books, seven books and four parts of booksof doubtful authenticity and authority [The Roman Catholic Apocrypha consistsof: Tobit, Judith, the Additions to Ester, the Additions to Daniel (Prayer ofAzariah and the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon), the Wisdomof Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (also called Sirach), Baruch (also called 1 Baruch),the Letter of Jeremiah, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees.] belong in the cannon. Note that while Protestants call these books“the Apocrypha,” Roman Catholics actually refer to them as deuterocanonical(literally, “second canon”). Thisso-called “second canon,” however, does not have secondary status among RomanCatholics.The Roman Catholic Church decided these apocryphalbooks belong in the Bible sometime following the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther had criticized the RomanCatholic Church for not having scriptural support for such doctrines as prayingfor the dead. By canonizing the Apocrypha, which offers support for praying forthe dead in 2 Maccabees 12:45,46, the Catholics then had “scriptural” supportfor this and other distinctively Catholic doctrines.Solution: Unlike the New Testament books, which claimed to beinspired (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Peter 3:16), the apocryphal books never make that claim. No apocryphal book was written by a trueprophet or apostle of God. And noapocryphal book was confirmed by divine miracles. No apocryphal book contains predictive prophecy,which would have served to confirm divine inspiration. [Geisler and MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, p.162.]It is fact that no New Testament writer quoted fromany of the apocryphal books as holy Scripture or gave them the slightest authorityas inspired books. Jesus and thedisciples virtually ignored these books.Questions:l What does it say to you thatnot a single apocryphal book claims to have beenInspired by God?l If the apocryphal books areinspired, why weren’t the writers of these books confirmed by divine miracleslike the Old and New Testament writers?l If the apocryphal books areinspired, why didn’t they contain predictive prophecy like the Old and New Testament books?l What does it suggest to youthat the New Testament writers often quoted from the Old Testament, but neverquoted from an apocryphal book?l In view of the fact that theNew Testament writers virtually ignored the Apocrypha, do you think they viewedit as Scripture?Many church fathers, notably Origin, Jerome,Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem, denied the Apocrypha’s inspiration andcanonicity. The early Jews of Palestine,including the Jewish Council of Jamnia which met in A.D. 90, rejected the Apocrypha asScripture. Also, Philo, a Jewish teacherwho lived in the first century, quoted from virtually every Old Testamentcanonical book, but never once quoted from the Apocrypha.There are historical errorsin the Apocrypha. John Ankerberg andJohn Weldon summarize a few of these: Tobit contains certain historical and geographical errors such as theassumption that Sennacherib was the son of Shalmaneser (1:15) insteadof Sargon II, and that Nineveh was captured by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus (14:5)instead of by Nabopolassar and Cyazares….Judith cannot possible be historicalbecause of the glaring errors it contains….[In 2 Maccabees] there are also numerousdisarrangements and discrepancies in chronological, historical, and numerical matters inthe book, reflecting ignorance or confusion. [John Ankerberg and JohnWeldon, Protestants and Catholics: Do They Now Agree? p.59]Questions:l Does God make mistakes?l Do books inspired by Godcontain mistakes?l Did you know that historyand archaeology are true friends of the Old and New Testaments because they verify numerouscustoms, places, names and events in Bible times?l Did you know, by contrast,that the apocryphal books contain many historical errors?l What does that tell youregarding whether the Apocrypha is inspired by God?The Apocryphacontains a number of unbiblical doctrines, such as the doctrine of the mass (2Maccabees 12:42-45; compare with Hebrews 7:27), the notion that the world wascreated out of preexistent matter (Wisdom of Solomon; compare with Genesis 1and Psalm 33:9), the idea that giving alms and other works can make anatonement for sin (Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 3:3; 3:30; 5:5; 20:28; 35:1-4;45:16; 45:23; compare with Romans 3:20), the invocation and intercession of thesaints (2 Maccabees 15:14; Baruch 3:4; compare with Matthew 6:9), the worshipof angels (Tobit 12:12; compare with Colossians 2:18), purgatory and theredemption of souls after death (2 Maccabees 12:42,45; compare with Hebrews9:27).Because we knowthe Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, and because the apocryphalbooks contain doctrines that contradict the Old and New Testaments, we concludethat the apocryphal books are notthe Word of God, because God does not contradict Himself.TESTS OFCANONICITYThe issue of theApocrypha relates directly to the question of canonicity. When the church formally recognized whatbooks belonged in the canon, there were five primary tests that were applied:1. Wasthe book written or backed by a prophet or apostle of God?2. Isthe book authoritative?3. Doesthe book tell the truth about God and doctrine as it is already known byprevious revelation?4. Doesthe book give evidence of having the power of God?5. Wasthe book accepted by the people of God?Measuring theApocrypha against these tests shows that the Apocrypha falls far short of theOld and New Testaments. The books werenot written by prophets or apostles of God. The books do not ring with thesense of “thus saith the Lord.” The bookcontradict doctrines revealed in the pages of the Old and New Testaments.The Holy Spiritof God is truly the divine author of Scripture. Though He used erring humans as penmen, He superintended them as theywrote, keeping them from all error and omission. Scripture has final authority because it is adirect revelation from God and carries the very authority of God Himself(Galatians 1:12). What the Bible says,God says. The Scriptures are the finalcourt of appeal on all doctrinal and moral matters. This is what Protestants call sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”).Jesus said,“Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). He never said “tradition cannot be broken.” Jesus used Scripture as the final court ofappeal in every matter under dispute. Tothe Sadducees He said, “You are in error because you do not know the Scripturesor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). Hetold some Pharisees that they invalidated the Word of God by their traditionwhich has been handed down (Mark 7:13). Jesus informed them, “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to thetradition of men” (Mark 7:8). To thedevil, Jesus consistently responded, “It is written…” (Matthew 4:4-10).Following Jesus’lead, Scripture alone must be our supreme and final authority.Questions:1. Wouldyou please read aloud Mark 7:8 and 7:13, where Jesus is speaking to somePharisees?2. Whatis Jesus’ attitude toward tradition here?3. Wouldyou please read aloud Colossians 2:8?4. Accordingto this verse, is it possible for human traditions to lead people astray?Often you mayhear that it was the Roman Catholic Church that gave us the Bible. This simply is not true. The canon of Scripture was being establishedin the very days that the Bible was being written, before the Roman CatholicChurch was even in existence.The Lord Jesusused the Scriptures as His final court of appeal. As noted above, Jesus said, “Scripture cannotbe broken” (John 10:35). To the devil,Jesus consistently responded, “It is written…” (Matthew 4:4-10). Jesus affirmedthe Bible’s divine inspiration (Matthew 22:43), its indestructibility (Matthew5:17,18), its infallibility (John 10:35), its final authority (Matthew4:4,7,10), its historicity (Matthew 12:40; 24:37), its scientific accuracy(Matthew 19:2-5), and its factual inerrancy (John 17:17; Matthew 22:29).

THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OFMARYProblem: Roman Catholics believe that in order for Mary to be an appropriatehabitation for Christ, God had to preserve her from the corruption of originalsin (Adam’s sin). This doctrine, calledthe “Immaculate Conception,” was officially defined in A.D. 1854. Pope Pius IX in the Ineffabilis Deus declared that “the most Blessed virgin Mary, inthe first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege grantedby Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the humanrace, was reserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealedby God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”[Pope Pius, IX, Ineffabillis Deus]In Roman Catholictheology, then, Mary had no sin nature and was absolutely free of all blemishof sin. As well, she was free from every personal sin for the duration of herlife. Mary was never subject to thecurse, being “immune from all sin, personal or inherited.” [Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis]Solution: Mary is blessed among women,but not venerated above women and all humanity. The biblical fact of the matter is that Mary had a sin nature just asall other human beings do. That is notto say that Mary was a bad person, or that she was a bad a sinner as everyother sinner. But she definitely had asin nature and was in need of a Savior. She knew this to be true of herself (Luke 1:47).It is theconsistent testimony of Scripture that every single human being, with the oneexception of Jesus Christ, whose conception was by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35),has been born into the world with a sin nature. Romans 5:12 tells us that “through one man sin entered into the world,and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because allsinned”. We are assured that “all havesinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). “There is none righteous, not even on; thereis none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turnedaside…there is none who does good, there is not even one” (Romans 3:10-12).Scriptureindicated that Mary was in need of redemption, as are all other people (Luke1:47). She even presented an offering to the Jewish priest as prescribedarising out of her state of sin (Luke 2:22-24; Leviticus 12). The implication is clear: Mary is not holy bynature. Mary is just like the rest of uswhen it comes to being a sinner in need of a Savior.On a historicalnote, it is highly revealing that it was not until the Council of Trent in A.D. 1547 that the Roman Catholic Churchproclaimed the sinlessness of Mary as dogma. Further, most of the significant doctrines concerning Mary have beenpromulgated in little more than the past 100 years. [Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago:Moody Press, 1989), p. 531.] If thesedoctrines were really true, then they would be reflected in the pages ofScriptures, as opposed to emerging over 1500 years after the fact.Questions:l Didyou know that Mary’s alleged sinlessness was not proclaimed as dogma by theRoman Catholic Church until A.D. 1547?l Ifthis doctrine were really true, don’t you think it would be reflected in thepages of Scripture, as opposed to emerging over 1500 years after the fact?THE PERPETUAL VIGINITY OFMARYProblem: Jesus’ birth from the womb ofMary was unique in a number of ways. Forone thing, Roman Catholics tell us that Mary, unlike all other human women,suffered virtually no pain during the birth. She was apparently exempt from the curse God spoke to Eve as result ofthe fall: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you shallbring forth children” (Genesis 3:16). Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott says that “Mary gave birth in miraculousfashion without opening of the womb and injury to the hymen, and consequentlyalso without pains.” [Ludwig Ott, Fundamentalsof Catholic Dogma, p.99]Further,following the birth of Jesus, Mary perpetually remained a virgin. She neverengaged in any sexual relations with her husband, Joseph. [James McCarthy, The Gospel According to Rome, p.192.] As for those verses in the NewTestament that make reference to Jesus’ brothers (for example, Matthew13:55,56), Catholics often argue that in reality they were Jesus’ cousins.Solution: The idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin, that is she remained avirgin following the birth of Jesus, is directly contradicted by the biblicalaccount. Indeed, in Matthew 1:25 we readthat Joseph “kept her a virgin untilshe gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus” (emphasis added). The word untilimplies that normal sexual relations between Joseph and Mary took placefollowing the birth of Jesus.Further, whenJesus spoke in His hometown, some of the people there inquired, “Is not thisthe carpenter’s son? Is not His mothercalled Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?”(Matthew 13:55,56).We also read thatJesus “went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and Hisdisciples; and there they stayed a few days” (John 2:12). The fact that Jesushad brothers clearly shows that Mary gave birth to other children following thebirth of Jesus.Not too longprior to the crucifixion, we find some of Jesus’ brothers taunting Him, nothaving yet placed faith in Him: “Not even His brothers were believing in Him”(John 7:5). Again, the fact that He had brothers shows that Mary and Josephgave birth to other children following His own birth.The RomanCatholic claim that references to Jesus’ “brothers” actually refer to cousinsis not convincing. It is true that theGreek term for brother (adelphos) canbe used in a sense not referring to a literal brother (for example, it canrefer to Jewish brothers, just like we today refer to our Christian brothers). Yet, unless the context indicates otherwise,Greek scholars agree that the term should be taken in its normal sense of aliteral brother.Further, therewas a perfectly appropriate word in the Greek language that could have beenused in the biblical text for “cousin” (anepsios),but this word is not used in the verses cited above. And since these “brothers” are alwaysmentioned as being with Mary, the context is clear that literal brothers are in view.Furthermore, in amessianic prophecy in the Old Testament that was literally fulfilled in thelife of Jesus, we read: “I have become estranged from my brothers, and an aliento my mother’s sons” (Psalm 69:8).Questions:l Wouldyou please read aloud from Psalm 69:8?l Sincethis is messianic prophecy, referring to Jesus the Messiah, is it not clearthat the reference to “my mother’s sons” proves that Jesus had brothers?l Sincethere was a Greek word for cousins, don’tyou think the biblical writers would have used this word instead of the Greekword for brothers when referring to James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew13:55-57)?l Sincethese “brothers” are specifically mentioned in contexts with Mary, is itnot clearthat the literal brothers of Jesus are meant?As for the RomanCatholic claim that “Mary gave birth in miraculous fashion without opening ofthe womb and injury to the hymen, and consequently also without pains,” thereis virtually no biblical support for such a view. In fact, every verse in Scripture thataddresses the birth of Jesus speaks of that birth as being quite normal, withno miracle having taken place. Jesus was“born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4), “brought forth” (Luke 2:7), delivered (Luke2:6), and “born” (Matthew 2:2). RomanCatholics are reading something into the text of Scripture that simply is notthere.Sexual relationswithin the marriage relationship bring no defilement, but are rather good andproper (see Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; 1 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians5:31). It is only sexual relationsoutside of marriage that Scripture condemns.Sex was a part ofGod’s “good” creation. Indeed, Godcreated sex, and “everything created by God is good” (1 Timothy 4:4). Butagain, it is good only within the confines of the marriage relationship, whichGod Himself ordained (see Hebrews 13:4). So there would have been no defilementfor Mary if she and her husband, Joseph, engaged in sexual relations followingthe birth of Jesus.THE VENERATIONOF MARYProblem: In view of Mary’s unique rolein giving birth to the divine Messiah, as well as the many roles the RomanCatholic Church attributes to her, along with her many alleged virtues, Mary isvenerated by Catholics worldwide. Catholics are quick to point out that the veneration they give Mary(called hyperdulia) is less than theadoration they give God (called latria),but is nevertheless higher than that rendered to angels and other saints(called dulia). [The Essential Catholic Handbook: A Summary of Beliefs, Practices, andPrayers (Liguori, MO: Liguori, 1997), p. 168.]Themost common way Catholics venerate Mary today is by saying the rosary. This is considered an “epitome of the wholegospel.”Solution: We look in vain in the pagesof Scripture for any semblance of the kind of veneration Roman Catholics giveto Mary. Neither Jesus, nor the apostlePaul, nor any other biblical writer ever exalted Mary the way Catholicsdo. As we read the Gospels, we are giventhe teachings of Jesus, yet nowhere in the teachings of Jesus do we find thatMary is exalted or venerated. In theEpistles, Mary’s name is virtually absent, and these books are precisely whereon would expect Mary’s name to be most prominent if the Roman Catholicexaltation and veneration of here were correct.Questions:l Ifwe are supposed to venerate Mary, why didn’t Jesus say anything about it in thefour Gospels”l Ifwe are supposed to venerate Mary, why is it that Mary’s name is not evenmentioned in any of the Epistles?MARY ASCO-REDEEMER AND MEDIATRIXProblem: ManyCatholics speak of Mary as the co-redeemer of humanity. They offer a number ofarguments in support of this idea. Forexample, Mary’s very agreement to bear in her womb the human-divine Messiahshows cooperation on her part with (and a taking part in) the divine plan ofhumankind’s redemption.For this reason, the Second Vatican Council tellsus, a number of the early church fathers asserted that “the knot of Eve’sdisobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound throughher disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.” Comparing Mary with Eve, they claim: “death through Eve, life throughMary.” [Pope John Paul II, RedemptorisMater, electronic media, Harmony Media Inc.]When Mary is called co-redemptrix, this is not toimply that she is on a level of equality with Jesus. Rather, she shared withher son in the saving work of redemption for humankind. She participated in the redemptive work ofher Savior-son. “Mary, who is completelysubordinate and dependent to her redeeming Son even for her own humanredemption, participates in the redemptive act of her Son as his exalted humanmother.”[Mark Miraville, Mary: Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate pp. Xv-svi. See alsoWhite, Mary-Another Redeemer? P. 118]There are other titles given to Mary in RomanCatholicism. For example, she ispresently in heaven in the role of “Queen of Heaven and Earth.” This title is due in no small part to heralleged role in man’s redemption. And asQueen of Heaven and earth, she can answer our prayers. [The Immaculate Conception, Apostolic Constitution, Pope Pius ix, Ineffabilis Deus, Dec. 8, 1854]Mary is also sometimes called “Mediatrix ofGrace.” Catholics typically argue thatwhile Jesus is Mediator between man and God; nevertheless, Mary holds asecondary mediatorship that is subordinate to that of Christ. Mary’s role as “mediatrix” is said to carrytwo important connotations, according to Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott: “1.Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces by her cooperation in the Incarnation. And2. Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces by her intercession in Heaven.” [Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp.212-213.]Solution: Scriptureis clear that there is only one mediator between man and God and that is JesusChrist. No secondary mediatrix isneeded: “There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the manChrist Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). When this one Mediator died on the cross, it wasnot Mary who offered Him to the Father, but rather Christ “offered Himselfwithout blemish to God” (Hebrews 9:14). This is important, for Roman Catholics often place great weight on theirclaim that Mary offered Jesus to the Father at the cross.Jesus is the single Savior of humanity, and thisin itself is something that eternally distinguishes Jesus from Mary. For, indeed, the Scriptures are clear that only God can be the Savior. God Himself (Yahweh) said in Isaiah 43:11:“I, even I, am the Lord; and there is no Savior besides Me” (Isaiah43:11).When we consider the biblical doctrine of theRedeemer, one thing that becomes very clear is that it is closely connected tothe doctrine of the Incarnation. Humankind’sredemption was completely dependent upon thehuman divine union in Christ. If Christthe Redeemer had been only God, He could not have died, since God by His verynature cannot die. It was only as a manthat Christ could represent humanity and die as a man. As God, however, Christ’s death had infinitevalue, sufficient to provide redemption for the sins of all humankind. Clearly, then, Christ had to be both God andman to secure man’s salvation (1 Timothy 2:5).Further, we must note that the Redeemer asportrayed in Scripture is absolutely sinless (Hebrews 4:15) Jesus’ unique qualification as Redeemer is precisely whatdisqualifies Mary in any role as a co-redemptor, because 1) Mary is a merehuman being (she is not divine or even exalted), who 2) is defiled by sin(Romans 3:10-12,23; 5:12), and who 3) herself is in need of the Redeemer (Luke1:47).THE ASSUMPTIONOF MARYProblem: Roman Catholics teach that when Mary’slife on earth was over, she was bodily assumed into heaven. Indeed, Pope PiusXII on November 1, 1950, proclaimed this as Church dogma: “The ImmaculateMother of God, Mary ever Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life wasfinished, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven.” [Catholic Church History, electronicmedia, Harmony Media Inc.] It is arguedthat because Mary was full of grace (Luke 1:28) and because she was preservedfrom original sin, she was also kept free from the consequences of son, namely,corruption of the body after death. [Hardon, Pocket Catholic Dictionary, p. 32.]Solution: There is virtually no scriptural supportfor the idea that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven at the end of her earthlylife. Even Catholic theologian LudwigOtt admits that “direct and express scriptural proofs are not to be had.” [Ott,Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.208.] But because the Roman CatholicChurch teaches the doctrine, we are told that it is true. Because there is noteven of hint of Mary’s bodily assumption in Scripture, and because thisdoctrine did not even become dogma for the Roman Catholic Church until themiddle of the twentieth century, we can assume it is not true, but is rather aman-made doctrine.

JESUS IS THE ONLY MEDIATOR AND SAVIORCatholics often claim that their doctrine of Mary as mediatrix does not in any way detract from, contradict, or do damage to the unique work or position of Jesus Christ. What we must examine is not what Roman Catholicism claims, but rather what state of affairs actually exists. In other words, despite what Roman Catholicism claims, we must address the issue as to whether Mary as mediatrix does detract from the unique mediatory role of Christ.Scripture is clear that there is only one mediator between man and God, and that is Jesus Christ. No secondary mediatrix is needed: “There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”1 Timothy 2:5). When this one Mediator died on the cross, it was not Mary who offered Him to the Father, but rather Christ “offered Himself without blemish to God” (Hebrews 9:14). This is important, for that Roman Catholics often place great weight on their claim that Mary offered Jesus to the Father at the cross.Jesus is the single Savior of humanity. The Scriptures are clear that only God can be the Savior. God Himself (Yahweh) said in Isaiah 43:11: “I, even I, am the Lord; and there is no Savior besides Me”. The fact that Jesus is portrayed as this Savior over and over again in the New Testament shows Jesus’ unique divinity (for example, Titus 2:13, 14). And it is through this one Savior and Him alone that “we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:14).When we consider the biblical doctrine of the Redeemer, one thing that becomes very clear is that it is closely connected to the doctrine of the Incarnation. Humankind’s redemption was completely dependent upon the human divine union in Christ. If Christ the Redeemer had been only God, He could not have died, since God by His very nature cannot die. It was only as a man that Christ could represent humanity and die as a man. As God, however, Christ’s death had infinite value, sufficient to provide redemption for the sins of all humankind. Clearly, then, Christ had to be both God and man to secure man’s salvation (1 Timothy 2:5).This is related to the Old Testament concept of the kinsman-redeemer. In Old Testament times, the phase kinsman-redeemer was always used of one who was related by blood to someone he was seeking to redeem from bondage. If someone was sold into slavery, for example, it was the duty of a blood relative, the “next of kin”, to act as that person’s “kinsman-redeemer” and buy him out of slavery (Leviticus 25:47-49).Jesus is the Kinsman-Redeemer for sin-enslaved humanity. For Jesus to become a Kinsman-Redeemer, however, He had to become related by blood to the human race. This indicates the necessity of the Incarnation. Jesus became a man in order to redeem man (Hebrews 2:14-16). And because Jesus was also fully God, His sacrificial death had infinite value (Hebrews 9:11-28).Further, we must note that the Redeemer as portrayed in Scripture is absolutely sinless. Hebrews 4:15 tells us, “We do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (see also 2 Corinthians 5:21). Just as lambs with no defects were used in Old Testament sacrifices, so the Redeemer was the spotless Lamb of God who was unblemished by sin (1 Peter 1:19).Jesus’ unique qualification as Redeemer is precisely what disqualifies Mary in any role as co-redemptor, because 1) Mary is a mere human being (she is not divine or even exalted), who 2) is defiled by sin (Romans 3:10-12, 23: 5:12), and who 3) herself is in need of the Redeemer (Luke 1:47).Whereas we look in vain for any Scripture references that portray Mary as a co-redemptor or medaitrix, we find numerous references to the effect that Jesus is exclusively man’s only means of coming into a relationship with God. Jesus Himself said, “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6). A bold Peter proclaimed, “There is salvation in on one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).When we trust in Christ only (no one else), we make an exchange: He takes our sin and makes us right with God. Our sin was laid on Christ at his crucifixion. His righteousness is given to us at our conversion. This is what Christians mean by Christ’s atonement for sin.Christ’s death and resurrection set us free from the fear of death because death has been defeated. Every person must die, but death is not the end; instead, it is the doorway to a new life in heaven. All who dread death should have the opportunity to know that hope that Christ’s victory brings.We all know that we only pray directly to God, (see John 14:13, John 15:16) you will find that we direct our prayers to Jesus (no one else).We also know that we only worship God, Jesus always accepted such worship as appropriate: Luke 5:8, John 20:28, Heb 1:6, Joshua 5-13-15, Mark 5:6, Rev 5:11.Philippians 2:10-11“…that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, andof those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”There will come a day that all angels, all prophets, all religious leaders, (including Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad, Pope, etc.), all saints, mother Mary bowing down to Jesus.