Killing the "Mother of God" Myth of Antichrist
Killing the "Mother of God" Myth of Antichrist
Introduction
The Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth stand as foundational doctrines in mainstream Christianity, upheld by Catholics and Protestants alike, but not without some distinction. These serve as proof of his alleged "divinity" (in the sense that he's Almighty God) and "fulfillment of prophecy." However, upon closer examination, the doctrine unravels under the weight of textual and historical inconsistencies. While Catholics are technically more consistent in applying their theology to this doctrine, both traditional cults fail to reconcile it with biblical evidence and logic.
The Mainstream Claim
Mainstream Christianity holds that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, bypassing natural procreation, and born of a virgin to fulfill the alleged prophecy of Jesus' birth in Isaiah 7:14. Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38 are cited to support this miraculous event.[1] The Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth are said to ensure Jesus’ sinlessness and validate his divine identity as God Almighty Himself. This claim is also framed as necessary for Jesus to fulfill Messianic prophecy, thus why he is termed "the God-Man."
Catholics and Protestants diverge in how they approach this doctrine, particularly regarding its implications for Mary. Catholics elevate Mary’s role, while Protestants minimize it. Both, however, rely on questionable interpretations of Scripture, unwarranted assumptions, and are beholden to nefarious miss-translations to justify their positions. As previously stated, if the general doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth are true, then the Catholic is technically more consistent in their language. But, as I argue, both are fatally wrong.
Comparing the Pagan Sects
The Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the Theotokos—the “Mother of God”—because she bore Jesus, who is fully God and fully man. This belief was dogmatically affirmed at the Council of Ephesus in 431 CE, and it remains central to Catholic theology. The Catholic Catechism states the following: “Mary is truly ‘Mother of God’ since she is the mother of the eternal Son of God made man, who is God himself” (CCC 509). This doctrine attempts to underscore the unity of Jesus’ divine and human natures, protecting against heresies like Nestorianism, which divide Christ’s nature into two separate persons. The Nestorian understanding would be that Jesus' "Divine nature" ("God") is one person and Jesus' "Human nature" is another.
Catholics also insist that Mary’s virginity was perpetual, arguing that her unique role required her to remain pure. However, these claims go beyond the biblical text, relying on tradition rather than Scripture. Scripture plainly teaches that Mary had other children by Joseph besides Jesus[2]. Titles like “Queen of Heaven” and doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception further elevate Mary in ways that are theologically excessive and unsupported by the Bible. However, as a point of logic, considering the fact that Catholics affirm that Jesus is literally God Almighty who they say was "immaculately conceived and birthed" by Mary, they are technically correct to call her "The Mother of God." It can't be stressed enough that they're just wrong.
Protestants affirm the Virgin Birth but reject Mary’s title as “Mother of God.” Protestant leaders like John Calvin argued that while Mary is the mother of Jesus’ human nature, she cannot be called the mother of His divinity. The apologetic here is essentially, "The essence of God is un-created; therefore, Mary cannot be the Mother, or source, of God." Protestants critique Catholic veneration of Mary as idolatrous, which I heartily agree with. Catholics notoriously assign unnecessary offices and titles to Mary that are foreign to Scripture, such as "Ever Virgin," "Queen of Heaven," Mediatrix of All Graces," "Co-Redemptrix," and "Mother of God." The Protestant is correct to "protest" these blasphemies; however, given that they also uphold the unfounded notion of a Trinity and God-Man, their position creates a theological inconsistency: if Jesus is fully God and fully man, and Mary gave birth to the incarnate Jesus, it logically follows that she is the “Mother of God.” Their rejection of the title seems to stem more from anti-Catholic sentiment than from careful theological reflection. Be Anti-Catholic all you want (I am, which being interpreted is ego eimi); but it's important to be consistent and honest with the text and with history.
The Truth
The Virgin Birth is neither a Biblically mandated or accurate doctrine nor a historically credible claim. Several key points undermine its validity: the miss-translation of Isaiah 7:14, the patrilineal requirements for Messianic lineage, and evidence from early manuscripts and historical sources that Jesus’ genealogies trace through Joseph, not Mary. These have already been presented in previous studies I've done (see Footnote 1), but I'll reiterate them here.
FIRST: Isaiah 7:14, often cited as a prophecy of the Virgin Birth, has been mistranslated and misapplied. The Hebrew word almah means “young woman” and doesn't necessarily imply virginity, although it can mean that depending on context. The context of Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy given to King Ahaz about Isaiah's second child who would be a sign of God’s deliverance from immediate political threats. Given the fact that the prophecy was about Isaiah's young wife giving birth to their second son precludes the rendering "virgin"--it can only be "young woman." Furthermore, this prophecy was fulfilled within Ahaz’s lifetime. These two simple facts together show that Isaiah 7:14 has no connection to Jesus. The Septuagint’s errant rendering of almah as parthenos (“virgin”) reflects linguistic imprecision due to theological bias rather than divine foresight of the so-called Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth.
SECOND: The Torah and Prophets very clearly emphasizes patrilineal
descent for establishing lineage, as seen in Numbers 1:18: “They
declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their
fathers.” For Jesus to fulfill the Messianic prophecy of being a
descendant of David, his lineage must be traced through a human male
father. Both Matthew and Luke explicitly trace their genealogies
through Joseph, not Mary. Matthew 1:16 tells us, “And Jacob begat
Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus.” Luke 3:23
similarly begins, stating, “And Jesus himself… being (as was
supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.” Neither
genealogy shifts to Mary, and the claim that Luke’s genealogy
represents Mary’s lineage is a much later invention, unsupported by
textual or historical evidence. The Mainstream argues that the phrase "(as was supposed)" is authentic, but the Mainstream also supports the blasphemous miss-translation of Isaiah 7:14 to substantiate their myth. Therefore, it's a fair "assumption" to speculate on the credibility of the inclusion of that parenthetical statement.
Historical sources confirm this claim. Eusebius of Caesarea and Julius Africanus both affirm that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke refer to Joseph. Eusebius, in Ecclesiastical History, explains that one genealogy traces Joseph’s biological ancestry while the other traces his legal lineage, possibly due to levirate marriage. Early writings uniformly treat the genealogies as belonging to Joseph, not Mary.
As I've written elsewhere (The Virgin Birth | 3),
- ”And Jacob begat Joseph and Joseph begat Iesous” (Ferrar group of Miniscules)
- Greek manuscripts coded o, f 13, I 547m, it, a, b, c, d, g, k, q all give this reading: “Joseph to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, begot Jesus who is called Christ.”
- Luke’s Gospel has a scribal addition to obfuscate these facts: “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being [as was supposed] the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli…the son of David…the son of Judah…the son of God” (Luke 3:23,31,33,38). The brackets aren’t part of the text and is an obvious editorial remark akin to how the KJV supplies italics to help bring meaning. It’s an obvious bias.
To press salt into the cultists wounds, here are scholarly quotes addressing the later development of matrilineal descent in Jewish tradition:
Shaye J.D. Cohen, in The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (1999) says,
In the Bible, descent is patrilineal: a Jew is one who is born to a Jewish father. The notion that Jewishness is transmitted through the mother is entirely absent from the biblical text and first emerges in rabbinic literature, likely reflecting concerns and circumstances of the late Second Temple or post-Temple period.
Jacob Neusner, in The Oral Torah: The Sacred Books of Judaism (1986) agrees, saying the following:
The shift from patrilineal to matrilineal descent marks a significant development in the interpretation of Jewish identity. In the Torah, lineage and tribal affiliation are determined through the father. Rabbinic insistence on matrilineal descent appears to address concerns about intermarriage and assimilation in a context where Jewish fathers may have taken non-Jewish wives.
There should be no doubt in the minds of serious, unbiased students that the Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth doctrines are later dogmas based off of Pagan mythologies that were used by the syncretic Catholic Apostates to expand their new Pagan cult. As Jesus would say of these false Rabbincal dogmas, "You teach for doctrines the commandments of men and nulify the commands of God." So do the Catholic and Protestant interlopers who don't belong to Christ.
THIRD: Jesus said in Mark 6:4 that, "A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house" (KJV). This was true for himself, as we see in the following verses:
- John 7:5 (KJV): "For neither did his brethren believe in him."
- Mark 3:20-21 (KJV): "And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself."
- Mark 3:31-35 (KJV): "There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."
- Luke 8:19-21 (KJV): "Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press. And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are e which hearthes the word of God, and do it."
We
find, astonishingly, that Jesus' own family didn't believe his claim
to be Messiah/ The Son of God. In John 7:5, it's clear that his
younger brothers didn't believe him. Why? Wouldn't they have been
told what a miracle had taken place? Didn't the family sit down for
studies in the Torah and Prophets, seeing just how obvious it was
that Mary was the one spoken of in Isaiah 7:14? Did Joseph and Mary
withhold this incredible miraculous event from them? In Mark, we find
that his friends thought he was crazy, and in the same context,
disciples told him, "You're family is outside, wishing to see
you," to which Jesus said, "My family are those
who hear the word of God and do [i.e.
"believe"] it,"[5]
thus placing his closest family outside of
that category of people. This is all very strange language and
behavior, considering Mary [allegedly] was the host of God Almighty,
who was [allegedly] aware of his purpose. His uncle Zacharias lost
his speech for the duration of Elizabeth's pregnancy because he
disbelieved that his wife would conceive in her old age--what sort of
punishment should've come upon the Messiah's own family for their own
skepticism? These questions I'm sure have answers; but the answers would stem from incredible ignorance of history and would only serve Catholic (Antichrist) bias.
Interestingly, Tertullian, in the 200s, makes this tacit admission for us in his work The Flesh of Christ, Chapter 5:
The Lord’s brethren had not yet believed in Him. [Quoting Luke.] So is it contained in the Gospel which was published before Marcion’s time; whilst there is at the same time a want of evidence of His mother’s adherence to Him, although the Marthas and the other Marys were in constant attendance on Him. In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, whilst strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent.
This depiction from Tertullian, which is presented to us foremost in the Gospels, is a radically different reality than what's depicted in Hollywood films and other TV series, where Jesus' mother Mary is always depicted as a faithful companion.
Conclusion
The Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth doctrines fail to withstand critical scrutiny. While Catholics are more consistent than Protestants in their application of their imaginary Christological principles, both traditions rely on miss-translations, speculative interpretations, and theological embellishments, with dashes of Pagan mythology, to justify their ungodly claims. Isaiah 7:14’s context and linguistic nuances disqualify it as a prophecy of Jesus. The biblical emphasis on patrilineal lineage excludes the possibility of a Messiah born without a human father. Both genealogies trace through Joseph, not Mary, further refuting the claim of a virgin-born Messiah. All of this vaporizes the satanic conceptualizations of an Immaculate Conception, Virgin Birth, Trinity, and God-Man.
__________
[1] My Previous Series: The Virgin Birth - 1; The Virgin Birth - 2; The Virgin Birth - 3
[2] Matthew 6; Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 3:31; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19; John 2:12; Acts 1:14;
[3] Shaye J.D. Cohen, in The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (1999)
[4] Jacob Neusner, in The Oral Torah: The Sacred Books of Judaism (1986)
[5] Faith Alone?