Pope Myth, Part IVa Inset, Lord vs. Satan: SupCtHeaven;

Back in the first century AD, there was no such thing as "Catholicism". Believers didn't even call themselves "Christians"; unbelievers gave them that name. Back in the first century AD, believers were in an uproar, fighting amongst themselves, because Christ made a New Testamentary Contract with Father about a year before He went to the Cross. This New Contract set aside the Mosaic Law in favor of something entirely new, built upon HIMSELF. That change was necessitated by Jewish rejection of Christ during the First Advent; else, according to God's Rules of Allotting Time, the world should have ended. So time would have stopped, had Christ not Invented A New Covenant for a New Bride Father would Choose To Create: "Church". This invention and election, occurs in Matt16:18. It is ratified in John 17:20-21; the changeover to the new covenant is explained in detail by Paul and whomever was the writer of Hebrews (who wrote just after Paul died). The apostle Paul was first given the parameters of that change; he faced opposition and even persecution, from Peter, James, and the Jerusalem church, not to mention his fellow Jews who remained unbelievers. Peter and James finally realized Paul was right. James was executed by his fellow Jews (and maybe Jewish Christians) as a result. Peter was in Babylon then, among Jews who'd lived there maybe since 586BC; he'd moved there from Antioch, owing to persecution of Christians in the wake of Paul's arrest, release, later re-arrest and execution in Rome (68AD) by Nero.

In short, there was no cohesive "Christian faith" in the first century AD. Everyone was splintered. It was in the second century that "Christian" became an eclectic, apostate amalgamation of many pagan Roman sects, eventually forming a religious institution with its own hierarchy. According to the last two chapters of Cary's History of Rome (1965 edition), by 180 AD what we call "Catholicism" had stabilized: having driven out, killed, or otherwise defeated, the competing sects. You can trace all this out in Gibbon, Mommsen, and other writers of early Roman and church history. As you know, the victor always gets to rewrite history. But the victor was Satan, not Catholicism. So what follows is indeed about how popism is a provable lie, a myth -- but it's really, a satanic conspiracy. The Catholic Church is just blind, as all humans are. Don't blame Catholicism, just learn from its blindness how Satan&Co. so easily trick us all.

So: even though you'll see in this page why it's a lie to claim Bible authorizes a pope in Matt16:18 or anywhere else, that does NOT mean the papal office should be abolished. People have the right to choose their own spiritual leaders, and that right is very much in the Bible as we all know, i.e., Eph4:11. You can see the spiritual freedom rules throughout both OT and New, i.e., not everyone listened to the prophets or rabbis, ALL of whom had restricted territories of operation, i.e., Hosea was prophet to Israel; but Isaiah, to Judah; the Levites were severally assigned to given cities. So if you wanted to be under a prophet, you voted with your feet. In the NT, all the apostles had given territories: Paul to the Gentiles, but the 12 including Peter, to the Jews. No one writes to the Gentiles until after Paul is executed by Nero. Paul's rules to Timothy included the congregation choosing who would be their pastor. Same remains true, ever since.

So if people want to be Catholic or anything else, no one on earth has the right to gainsay them. Of course, this spiritual freedom rule means God would never authorize a pope, either. But it also means that if people want to SET UP a pope for themselves, that is their free prerogative. Obviously, the Catholics want to do that. No one can gainsay them voting that for themselves. The evil is to claim that they are the "one true faith" with the RIGHT to rule on earth. But then again, we have many such groups claiming to be the only "right faith" in the world. And all are evil for that reason, Revelation 17 update on the Tower (really ziggurat) of Babel. Only God gets it right. Best we can hope to do, is keep auditing our faith for errors. Religion won't admit error: Satan invented religion in Genesis 3, Tower of Babel, phallic and ascetic cults, Rev17, "harlot" imagery in OT and New, idea of spiritual fornication. And man is free to choose it. That's what the Angelic Trial is all about -- do you pick God's Plan.. or Satan's?

Watch this playlist in HD fullscreen. To do that, you first must start the video (Youtube keeps changing its players badly). Hover your mouse over it to see the controls. I annotate my videos, so be sure to set Annotations ON, and you can see the text without fullscreen, but it's better fullscreen. Videos can all be downloaded at the downloads section.

As you watch, notice how you must lie against all the Christ-is-Rock-of-Salvation verses Bible, to call any pope claim valid. It's criminal, sorry. Those videos trace how that lie was invented IN THE LATIN TEXT, by twisting grammar conventions on case endings. Very clever, very bald, so any Catholic who can read Greek is a liar. No kind words can be said for a whole denomination which cuts Christ's head off.

Extensive videos on this are also in vimeo, starting here, but that whole channel is devoted to exposing the lies you can prove yourself by reading the 'church fathers' in their own words. Those videos are in the above Youtube list as well, until 11/8/13; after that, only the vimeo list has the vids. So the vimeo link takes you to a book which was a dissertation TRACING how the pope lie got started, and that author is much kinder than I am, about the process. (Those vids are in the Youtube playlist above.) Sorry, criminal coverups make my blood boil. 1800 years of lying that keeps on keeping on, deserves censure in the strongest terms. Think of the lives lost, the money wasted, the people who will lose faith, all due to a power-mad elite who can't afford to fix past mistakes. Be Catholic, but be Biblical: well, to do that, you have to reject most of the Vatican arguments!

The Peter-is-head claim is thus easily proven false, embarrassing us all; proving as well that we don't give a flip about the Bible, and thus we don't love God, either. So mankind's hypocrisy is laid bare. To wit:

• GENDER HOAX: The Greek genders in Matt16:18 prove Christ, not Peter, is the Head of a Body of Believers called "Church"; people, not a religion.
• DATE HOAX: dates of alleged 1st-century popes versus dates of NT books prove Peter couldn't be a pope, nor were any of the others.
• BIBLE FACTS HOAX: Related topics in the New Testament prove popism is anti-Biblical on every count, and that Paul not Peter, was in Rome during the relevant years. You can even see these facts plainly in translation, don't need to be a Greek-geek. So the only reason we don't know, is that we don't read.

Concerning the fact that time would have ended, see the Synopsis in the "Timeline" link at pagetop, which is Mirroring.htm, another PartIVa inset regarding how God creates, credits, and debits time owing to believers on earth. Time is granted or ended based on Believer Voting. That webpage is quite long, but the Bible verses and math are all empirically testable. Mirroring.htm has two companion pieces, a spreadsheet and a Word doc, to help speed comprehension and testing: links to those companion pieces are at the beginning of the Synopsis. Accordingly, the claim that time would have ended will only be summarized in this webpage.

As to the claim that Christ's Voting for Church trumped Satan in the Trial, search on the word "Mistrial" throughout Part IV; read page 25 of TenWaysThisTimelineDiffers.doc, and the "MISTRIAL" link of "Paradox of Merit" (link at pagetop). I apologize that the "Mistrial" thread is so scattered, but I didn't know about it when first writing up the Thinking series, though my pastor kept on saying (for decades!) that if Satan could stop God from even fulfilling ONE Promise, Satan would win. (See, I get lazy with Bible, too.) In legal terms, that's a Mistrial Verdict: but I didn't recognize the legal meaning until 2004, four years after the Thinking series began. As time passes I'll try to coalesce the material. A brief summary of Mistrial follows below.

As to the claim that a new contract was created by Christ in Matt16:18 et. seq., my pastor has taught that doctrine for over 50 years, and others have, too. Book of Hebrews is quite helpful: it walks you through the contract changeover, demonstrating that His pre-Israel "King-Priest" contract (i.e., in Ps110) is the juridical basis for the switch. Because Bible is often mistranslated and uses specialized vocabulary, because readers who got it already knew about the changeover (so much information is taken for granted), you should read Hebrews at least a dozen times in a translation you best understand, breathing 1Jn1:9 as needed: constantly ask Father for understanding, proof, etc. as you read. We get the term "New Testament" from the Book of Hebrews (he kaine diatheke, in Greek). What one section of Bible treats axiomatically, another section of Bible presents in full. That's why you need all of Bible, not just some. Most of the NT is on the new contract. But some books are easier to grasp in translation than others. Hebrews and Ephesians are flagship books on the topic, as well as 1Jn, and John Chaps 14-17. All of 'my' Part III and IV webpages are on this new contract, as well; a brief summary will follow below.

Right away you should notice one thing: if people couldn't get a Bible, they couldn't know that what they were taught, was a satanic lie. Further, those who had Bibles, were given so much other stuff to do, they didn't get much time to study. Same problem existed in the OT: the Bible as then written would go LOST right inside the Temple, where it was kept. Now, that provokes a kind of empathy for people buying into Catholicism for so long. But frankly, even in the OT and during the Dark Ages, when people wanted to know Bible, they could get it. But they didn't want it, most of the time. So you had breakouts during the Dark Ages and afterwards, of Back-to-the-Bible movements, many of them goofy in their doctrines: but you can't stop being goofy, until you GET BIBLE. So we are all still responsible for our disinterest. After 1889 there is zero excuse, for that's when Samuel Tregelles unintentionally forced the Vatican to publish its own original-language manuscripts, called Codex Vaticanus. So for over a century we've had FREE access to the Real Bible, and look how few of us know those original-language texts, today. So we in the 21st century have a lot to answer for. Very disinterested, very much liable to Divine Discipline. If you don't study God's Word, then you can't know God, so you can't discern a satanic lie. Simple as that.

Briefly, the "DIOS" acronym summarizes how Satan's lies fool humans into defining "God" foreign to the truth in Scripture. So if you do not know BIBLE, you will fall for the lie. Falling for the lie proves you hate God's Word, and Satan wins points in the Angelic Trial (i.e., God will agree to punish). Hence a satanic lie is always blatant, having these "signature" characteristics: Derision, which is Imbalanced to Obfuscate Christ and thus make foreign Substitution that replaces Christ with something Blatantly Derisive.

• Derision of Christ, Church, and the spiritual life into complicated rotelike observances, ceremonies, special days, etc. Thus one is so occupied with these pettinesses, one must emote, chant, move around, etc. Exact same tactics as the Pharisees used, as the Egyptian religions used. You're too busy to ask, "What SENSE does this make?" For, it doesn't. If you think about what you're doing, you'll realize you're being mocked, for everything you're doing, is pretty stupid. Stupid clothing, stupid movements, stupid rituals, stupid days, stupid taboos, stupid chants. Just like the pagans did in ancient times. You don't live your secular life that way, so why all these crazy things in religion? As if God were crazy, get it? And oh how good YOU are, if you believe in Him anyway (see the signature derision)?
• Imbalance away from Word, to works, emotion, getting high on ritual and human approbation. Here, you work your buns off, go through all these movements, and boy oh boy you are watched by others for conformity. Praised if you do, tsk tsk'd if you don't. Big emphasis on MONEY, and the more you give, the more you are 'approved'. Harlot, honey! Notice how therefore people and feelings and appearances and do's all become your 'god'.. instead of God. Only the sound of His Name, is actually learned. See the imbalance? All body and no soul, 2Tim3:5.
• Obfuscation of Bible, first by kidnapping it for nearly 18 centuries, else claiming to ADD to Bible, e.g., "ex cathedra" pronouncements. Else, inculcative twisting of all Bible's words so that you can't read Bible even when you get it. Bible is one big fuzz ball as a consequence. Here, you are told what is and is not holy, and all the telling is quite fuzzy, but the 'respectable' voice tones sound good. When you ask questions, you get fuzzy answers. So after some time being fuzzed over so much, you stop asking or thinking about it. Just fit in. See the obfuscation?
• Substitution of elites replacing Christ.. in the very name of Christ. This makes people depend on the elites, so Bible is not consulted. It also kills the realization that every believer is his own priest, and thus has his own responsibility to learn the Word (still under a teacher, but it's not elitist). Reversal, substitution -- now the elites are your god, instead of God. You are too 'low' to learn anything yourself. They are high, and oh so holy. See the Reversal, the Substitution? This is the most devastating part: if you are too low, you have NO CHECK on what you are told. If only 'they' can tell you what God says, then you'll never have a clue if what they say, is right. Would a Real God do that to you? No!

  A quick perusal of the Gospels even in translation proves that all four of the above DIOS characteristics were rife in Judaism too; and the Lord excoriated them at every turn. But then, we don't even peruse the Gospels, or we'd stop aping what was wrong with the Jews back then. It's easier to just fit in with people. Who cares what the Bible says.

  All this DIOS got accomplished, by blasphemous and provably wrong usage of Matt16:18. So it behooves us to see how such a lie could be believed for so long, huh. This is not to bash Catholics. They don't mean to blaspheme Christ. Their very blindness is itself evidence of the blindness of all of us. They get to be the poster boy example, only because the blindness is so easy to prove. Once you see the proof, then you can take the same paradigmal characteristics, and see how blind we humans are in many other things. We're all in this blindness, together. We all are so uninterested in the Word of God that we get duped (albeit in other ways), just as much as Catholics --

Greek of the Matt16:18: "kagw de soi legw hoti su ei petros ["little rock", chip, male noun], kai epi tautei tei petrai ["big rock", bedrock, cliff, female noun] oikodomesw mou ten ekklesian kai pulai hadou ou katischusousin autes." Greek didn't capitalize, but rather wrote all words in capital letters, so if you have Greek text with "Petros", that's some later scribe's invention.

English: "Now I declare you are Little Rock [=Peter]; in fact, upon This Big Rock [=Christ], I will build My Church [female gender, Greek equivalent of synagogue]; even the gates of Hades will not defeat it (lit., her, matching gender)." Notice Christ is NOT calling him by his name, which is Kephas (Aramaic), but is playing on the meaning of his name, which is "little rock", a stone. So you should translate the verse the way the Greek renders it (since in other Greek verses Kephas is used, when he's called by name). So, that's what I did here. There is a kind of adoption connotation. The Lord is telling Peter he's saved, part of Him. But it's not a renaming; the renaming happened back when they first met (John 1:42). And it's spelled with a "K" in Greek (no "c" in Greek language). It's a very tender, affectionate verse. Even more so, when you realize the HUGE COMMITMENT He's making when He says it.

Latin Vulgate: "et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam"

In Latin of Christ's time, a rock is not "petrus" or "petra", but "scopulus" for big rock, and "calculus" or "lapillus" for little rock -- in short, Latin was not used in the Vulgate, here. Instead, they transliterated from the Greek. Notice how clever, to mask the size of the two very different rocks, via transliteration. Even so, Latin words have a given gender, so even in this transliteration, the masculine petrus would become petrum (masculine accusative), not petram (feminine accusative). So anyone reading petrus=petram is making a Latin grammar 'mistake', too. So even if you didn't know Greek, petrus and petram are not Latin words, and they are not of the same gender, so they are NOT the same Rock! You have to flunk kindergarten Latin and kindergarten Greek -- or be a liar -- to claim they are the same object.

Greek of 1Cor10:4, where Paul uses Petra=Christ: "kai pantes to auto pneumatikon epion poma epinon gar ek pneumatikes akolouthouses petras he petra de en ho christos"

Douhay-Rheims translation (official English Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, 1610): "And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.)"

It's a rather bigger meaning that Christ opts to make the Cross FAR WORSE upon Himself to pay for billions of added people, than whether He'd appoint some sinner in charge of a religion. But we only see the latter 'meaning', so we miss the former TRUTH. We'd not be here but for Christ's Election in Matt16:18! Oh, but we don't know that! It's covered up with a man's head! Kill me now. Yeah, and Satan's mightily glad for this coverup, for then it's not repeated generation after generation, how the Lord SAVED THE TRIAL and snatched victory from defeat at the last minute. But at what a rise in BridePrice? Incalculable! If you were Satan, you'd want to cover up your defeat, too. How deftly he did it.

So how did we Protestants also screw it up for centuries, because we essentially accept the Catholic interpretation, lol? Laziness. We do know the Catholic usage is wrong. It's common knowledge among Protties. But do we change the translations to reflect what we know? NO! And why didn't God alert us? Well, God won't give you understanding of His Word when you are in a state of sin per 1Jn1:6,8,10. That's why so many Christians are dufuses: they don't regularly use 1Jn1:9. So I breathe it constantly, lol. That's why to some people, 'my' webpages seem so 'smart'. Yeah, not my brains, baby! So you go get God's Brains, too: make it an instinctive habit to breathe 1Jn1:9, so you can escape the dufus history of Christendom!

You know, people get royally ticked off if you tell them they are wrong. But it's sure okay to misuse Bible, huh. We must respect people's 'interpretations' and 'opinions', but Mangling The Bible is okay, huh. No wonder God won't alert us more often to the many mistranslation and misteaching errors we routinely make in pulpits and documentaries (you just try to find a documentary which gets Matt16:18 right). Why should God bother? His Word gets oodles of lipservice, but ZERO respect! It's positively disgusting that we trash the Word in translation and teaching so much, yet are soooo offended if someone makes even the smallest hint of criticism at us. So Satan&Co. mock us, and we deserve it.

Okay, but why is it so important to distort Matt16:18? Three topics behind this: 1) Time was running out due to Israel's rejection, so Christ had to INVENT a new Bride, even as He had to invent a higher Spiritual Life to do what the Mosaic Law could not do, pay for sins (theme of Hebrews Chapters 5-10). 2) This new Bride would be based on his pre-Israel contract with Father, an award for defeating Satan in the Angelic Trial (ibid and chapters 1-2). 3) Therefore, the contract for Bride would have nothing in common with Israel, except that Israel had been the first Betrothed, but turned the offer down (ibid and Hebrews Chapters 3-4,10:18ff, 11:39, see also Romans Chaps 9-11). These topics are covered in detail in Parts III and IV, so what follows below is but a brief summary so you can see underlying context of Satan's burlesque.

Gist of the Time Problem: Matt16:18 is why you and I are breathing. In that verse, Christ COMMITS TO PAY for billions of people who otherwise would never be born. Time was supposed to end with the generation of His 1st Advent. Time's end had been forecast ever since David died in 963BC; that with Messiah's being cut off (Dan9:26), there would follow another 57 years of history, during which the Tribulation would come; then, the Millennium, a 1050-year period which Christ also purchased while He was here. That meant all time would end (including the 50-year voting period following the Millennium), in 1144AD. All this was known since 963BC. But since Israel rejected Christ, the only way History Could Continue was for Him to Vote for a New Bride. Which He does, in Matt16:18, ratifying His Vote in John 17:20-21, just before He was arrested. So Paul was the guy God chose to explain this new "Church" body of believers born from Matt16:18 (which Paul quotes, in 1Cor10:4). Last Adam and Last Bride. The Head is the Husband. No earthly head. He paid for billions more people yet future relative to 30AD, as Father might choose to exist. Has zippo to do with religion of any kind. Has everything to do with the fact we're alive. For more information on Israel knowing in advance when time would end, see Mirroring.htm, another inset to Part IVa.

Gist of how He Trumped Satan: when Israel rejected Christ, Satan should have won a Mistrial Verdict, which is also why Time should have ended with the Cross. For, then God isn't keeping His Promise to Israel of a Future Son of David Ruling forever, never mind it's her fault she didn't want Him. Not only that promise, but all the others (like the land grant, the Millennium, etc). For, there were past believers who had voted for Him. Idea is, to claim God's bad. So, by voting for a New Bride, Christ ups the ante, for billions upon billions upon billions of extra sins would exist, if more people do. The number of people was left up to Father, John 17:20-21. Thus the Trial is not over, after all. But a Mistrial issue still looms, for if claimed Evidence is not produced, then the one not producing it CHEATS. Here, that's God. So it still becomes a Mistrial, if even one of those future people paid for, doesn't exist. So if Satan can mask what "Church" and "Bride" and "Head" are, then He can (so he thinks) manipulate God into having to judge the world.. and cancel Time itself, just as he almost succeeded in doing, during the First Advent. That's a real possibility, for God conditions time on believers growing sufficiently. For Time to continue, there only needs to be one believer awarded time each 490 years: Adam then Jared then Enoch then Noah then Abraham then Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, then Moses then David then (via David) Temple then Christ paid for ALL time prior to 30AD. And, a small group of believers worldwide voting for God enough during the intercalated voting periods (between two 490-year periods, principle of Daniel 9:2). But it's possible such a person won't get developed. If not, Time ends. Time also ends if mankind is too negative i.e., the Flood: but for 8 people, the world would have ended.

Gist of the New Bride Contract: Back in eternity past, the central Decree was to Create Christ, Eph1, Isa52:13, Ps110, 1Tim2:5, Gal3 "seed" clause. So that meant, what Roles would He consent to 'play', once Human? One of them was the Bright Morning Star, to defeat Satan (theme of Heb Chaps 1-2). As a result, He'd have 'children' (Heb2), which meant a Bride (passim Betrothed and adultery-complaint theme in the OT, plus Isa53:10-12). So once He "arrived" down here (Heb10:5), He had to vote separately as Humanity, what He wanted. He determined His Own Spiritual Life, and those terms thus govern our own spiritual life contract. That contract is Eph4:13, His Own Royal, King-Priest Maturity Level. It's a Thinking Life, Thinking toward Father, Royal-Priestly, therefore (1Pet2:5,9, Rev1:6, 5:10). Essentially, 'looking' at God and monitoring your thoughts, learning and living on Bible 24/7 like He did (i.e., Matt4:4). Yikes. A summary tabulation versus Israel is in the "Bridal Contract" link of Part IVa. All of Part III is dedicated to its provisions. Unbelievably higher than Israel ever had. It's a Mistrial if the NUMBERS of these spiritually-mature people, don't complete as paid for in Advance. Rapture is based on Promised People Completed, not on historical events, prophecy, or time. Because that's the nature of the contract, "as many as", John 17:20-21.

The above three issues about time, the trumping, and the Trial numbers, are interwoven with the fact we are unseen Witnesses in the Angelic Trial, itself. Hebrews 11:1 in the Greek tells you this plainly, so of course it too is egregiously mistranslated (see Heb111.htm). Followed by, a roster of past OT Trial Witnesses, to show that the issue is Word Believed, Christ-on-Trial, Evidence Unseen (essential translation of Heb11:1, the header topic of the chapter). People are, unbeknownst to them, put in the Trial Docket to demonstrate the inviolability of Word You Live On versus everything else. Winning in that Unseen Testimony begets a crown (you inherit a kingdom you'll own for all eternity), 2Tim4:7-8: so you'll know if you win, before you die. So here we see yet another, interwoven threat: if the Testimony doesn't complete, it's a Mistrial. And here you thought the devil had horns and a tail. Try instead, an Armani suit. And so he is suitor to the human race, to get them into his Fake Church, so he can prevent the Testimony from completing, owing to no one remaining who wants to testify (kinda analogous to the Genesis 6 infiltration, except it's into our souls, not bodies).

So, since Christ invented Church to keep mankind alive, it's important to mock Him. That's what Revelation 17 is, a mock, fake, "mystery" (moniker for Church, in the NT). Invention of New Body by Christ, becomes invention of New Religion by Satan -- tares replace wheat! So Satan considers the Lord mocked, if His Head is replaced with Peter's in Matt16:18, the verse recording the Lord's Commitment for the billions of extra souls which we humans all are (including all future unbelievers, remember). The believer is thus mocked for not caring to learn and thus notice the different Greek gender and the LXX fame of "Petra": most spectacularly, the "Bedrock" (not merely "rock") that Moses struck to give the people water. Same "Petra" rock later became the base for the Ark in the Holy of Holies (on Mt. Moriah later renamed Zion, where Abraham almost sacrificed Isaac). So when Christ says "epi tautei tei petrai" in Matt16:18, He's pointing to HIMSELF, as we just saw in the "Gender..Hoax" subsection. The masculine-gender "petros" is a play on Peter's name, a diminuitive, meaning "chip", from which we get "Little Rock". Chip off the Block, way of saying Peter is saved, in Christ forever.

So it's really important to mask the real meaning of Matt16:18, so that people will buy the Fake Church, and thus not be saved (because you are only saved if you only do John3:16, NO OTHER VERBS). Lots of people who buy into the Fake Church, at some point merely believe Christ paid for their sins, so are saved; the satanic goal is to keep them spiritually childish, afterwards. Thus Satan delays the completion of the Evidence, and maybe can stop Time altogether. Meanwhile, because man has to be responsible for his own screwups, the blatant misuse of Matt16:18 and its matching to Revelation 17, mocks. So no one has any excuse, for buying into it.

Note how bald the signature: gender mismatch, easy to spot, kindergarten Greek or Latin. The layman won't spot it so easily, but the teachers sure should. Yet century after century, even Prottie teachers either won't fess up about the egregious mistranslation of Matt16:18 in English Bibles, or don't know about it. Next, Rev17 is a biography of Catholicism, right down to the colors. The Gospel was added-to, with the result that the Catholic 'gospel' of you having to be baptised in the Church to be saved.. saves no one. Atop that, the historical barnacling of pagan religions, incorporating much of their customs and tenets, is a fact of church history as every reader of Gibbon knows. That's what harlots do: they wear (and shed) whatever it takes to get customers. The sheer incompetence of "Good Friday" despite Matt12:40-41, boggles the mind. Count backwards from Sunday and you get Wednesday, not Friday. See how in-your-face is the satanic signature? And we don't care. Or we'd not be deceived so many centuries. Again, it's not the Catholics, but ALL of us who are to blame. There's no excuse for this: we don't look into Bible. So we are rightly deceived.

This pope lie is therefore a good example of how quickly Satan duped negative Christians beginning immediately after the Crucifixion; and, of how his strategy ensnares us all. Believers right after the Crucifixion, were largely Jews. Paul and the Jews were at loggerheads, because God changed the Covenant due to Matt16:18, and even believing Jews resisted that (Peter, James, the Jerusalem church). There was no "Catholicism" for another two centuries, and it began its morphing with the Jerusalem Church; it developed further with the apostacy we call "the Church Fathers" at the very time God was giving John, but not any of those 'fathers', Bible to write. Humans can't possibly manipulate the entire world and all this history; only Satan&Co. are that powerful. So the RCC is not being bashed. Rather, we all have been burlesqued by Satan&Co. It's important to keep that in mind, as you read the disturbing, easy-to-verify evidence, below.

Christ paid for everyone, 1Jn2:2. God made us into His Own Righteousness the very nanosecond we first believed in Christ, 2Cor5:21, Eph1:13, Rom10:9-10 (in Greek), John 3, Eph2, scads of other passages. So blamesmanship is obsolete; 2Cor5:14-21 is instead our new Royal Lifestyle, 2Pet3:18. We can throw away all the guilt questions, Rom5:1-5, 8:1-4. So if you can, try to keep remembering that the game changed due to Christ. No more blame-game, but instead, Gain-Game. His Gain, going to us. So when you read what follows, look only for the blame, in order to better see the GAIN. We do doo-doo, Satan 'helps', but God converts it all to good, Gen50:20, Gen45 (longer explanation), Rom8:28 (principle applied to growing believers in Church).

Consider, if you will, what the Roman Catholic Church lists as its popes, with their reigning dates. (Table comes from Encarta 2004, but its source was the Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Next, consider the dates NT books of the period were written. It's long practice in God's Word to write about a thing years after the events covered; or, when large numbers of people want it immediately, so logistically writing is the better medium. The idea is to leave behind a testament (as in testimony, even more than 'legacy') which survives the author. So these books are Affadavits of Official Divine Communication, no matter how much later written versus spoken. God the Holy Spirit recalls facts to the mind of the author; He teaches the author What Message To Craft from them. Hence there will always be a Rhetorical Style used for teaching the Communication. God's Word is precise and precisely multilayered. So, one author is given to stress some things, but to leave out other things. This makes for better learning. So, there are multiple authors with multiple rhetorical styles and hence lessons, in each Book: idea of telling the same information from multiple angles, weaving in new information or new ways of looking at the information previously given, so you can learn better. There are reasons for every jot and tittle in the crafting of each Book. No detail is unimportant, but obviously there is also a hierarchy of importance. You'll tear your hair out if you don't breathe 1Jn1:9 while reading Scripture: especially, the Gospels.

For the tables below, I copied the book dates from my New Scofield KJV Bible (Oxford University Press, 1967, hardbound). I don't agree wholly with the dates, but Scofield does better homework than other versions; especially, they must be more right about Matthew, not Mark, being the first Gospel written. Mark's style is too axiomatic, written to an audience already familiar with the other Gospels.

All NT books are written by Paul unless otherwise denoted (i.e., Matthew wrote Matthew, obviously). Note carefully the chronology. Books are arranged in their traditional Bible order, which is not chronological (same problem, as for the OT); so it's easy to miss the chronology. It's important to know Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles, not the Jews (so is not one of The Twelve), and since his ministry is so wide, he writes the letters currently. Pauline book dates in parentheses are my pastor's revised dates, taken from Lesson 1555 of 1992 Spiritual Dynamics. He maintains Paul had a 4th missionary journey. All post-Paul/Temple books are in italic bold, red font (which show up strong gray, when printed); Paul's books are not centered in the table, to make them easier to pick out.

More relevant date data to consider...

• Paul was in Rome during his final imprisonment by Nero. Paul was executed by Nero circa 68AD, and Nero killed himself a few months later.
• The Temple in Jerusalem (aka '2nd Temple' or 'Herod's Temple') was destroyed by Titus (adopted son of new emperor Vespasian) in August 70AD. The seige had lasted off and on since 64AD, but was tepid. From May-August70AD, it was a house-to-house battle, with at least two legions overrunning the walls. Because, Vespasian had just become emperor in AD69, so Titus needed to come home. Masada had occurred during these years, also.

• Peter wrote 1st and 2nd Peter from Babylon (see end of 1Pet), and wrote to all who were of Paul's 'turf', i.e., the Galatians -- which means Paul was already dead when Peter wrote.
• At the end of 2Peter, Peter speaks of Paul in the past tense, and recommends Paul's letters as Canon; so, should be diligently studied by the readers of Peter's epistle (end 2Pet).
• John, who wrote the Gospel of John, 1-3John, and the Revelation, was exiled to Patmos by Domitian circa 95 or 96AD, and was given Revelation directly by God while there. John's other books were written while he was still free, so were written in the '90's, sometime.

Next, let's list what, if anything, BIBLE says about the RCC's listing of popes, or about the office of pope. Because, if this pope office is directly from God, then God ought to have talked about it, since NT Scripture was still being written and compiled at the time these popes allegedly ruled. If the "pope" can speak ex cathedra -- which means his word in that status is as holy as the Bible -- then the Bible ought to have some of his words, in it. Or at least, authorize that function. If not, well.. then you have to ask yourself who's arrogating to himself a role which God never authorized. We all can claim to speak for God, 1Jn4:1-6 -- but NOT infallibly.

• Peter, of course, wrote 1 and 2Peter. In the "basic questions" below, we'll go over stuff about Peter.
• "Linus" is only mentioned in passing in 2Timothy 4:21. "Linus" was a common name, probably derived from the complimentary Latin verb, lineo, to make straight. So we don't know WHICH "Linus" this is. Verses like 2Tim4:21 appear in all the epistles, as closing greetings, for believers known to the readers of the letter. Further, no one has anything written by this "Linus", whether pope or non-pope, to use to further identify him. But someone named Linus was in Rome at the time PAUL wrote. It really sticks out that an anonymous person is claimed to be a pope. If anonymous, you can't check anything.
• "Cletus" or "Anacletus" is nowhere in the Bible, as a name. I checked the English translations, the Latin Vulgate, and the Greek text. Latin has no "k" words. Greek has no "c" words (the "c" existed in Latin, not Greek, and the "k" existed in Greek, not Latin). However, "kletos" with an eta is a verbal adjective from the aorist passive participle of kalew; meaning, a believer with stress on his being "called" by God, quintessential election/inheritance word in the Greek. Stresses that only God can call you to an office, too: see verses like Romans 1:1, a standard introduction of author identity and authority. So we don't know who Cletus was. Anacletus would mean "called again", technically. Again, It really sticks out that an anonymous person is claimed to be a pope. If anonymous, you can't check anything. This is like catching a kid with his hand in the cookie jar, sorry. On an audit, if someone makes up data that doesn't stand up under audit you have to conclude he manufactured the data to pretend something was there. Two alleged popes and there's nothing they wrote, and NO mention of them anywhere in Bible?

• "Clement" is mentioned only once in the Bible, in Phili4:3, so was in Rome during Paul's first imprisonment (60-62AD, or 62-64AD, depending on what scholarly work you consult). Again, "Clement" is a common name, a Latin name (clemens) meaning mild, kind, merciful: term survives until today in English as "clement" or "inclement" weather. So, since people like to give their kids nice names hoping that will cause their character and lives to be nice; since in Christianity it was a practice to refer to people only by their first names (especially if the audience knew which one was being referenced), we don't know if this "Clement" was Clement I. Of course, as with Linus, the Roman Catholic church claims these two verses are talking about each pope. Much more about "Clement" will be covered in the rest of this webpage. About the citation in Bible, it stinks due to its DATE: the Philippians reference is circa 60-64 AD. So if this is the same "Clement" as 1Clement, then Clement was something like 70-100 years old when he wrote it. 1Clement doesn't sound like a 70-100-year old's; letter is very immature, fawning, pseudo-religious and pushy. He has no clue what's the spiritual life, doesn't know about the new covenant, got nothing out of reading book of Hebrews (i.e., 1Clem40-41). The prayers are bilious, compared to Bible. This isn't a pope, this is a spiritual adolescent spouting verses in a chatroom; hope he finally grew out of that stage. Contrast the style and pace of 1Clement with 1Jn or Revelation. Oh: bring Pepto-Bismol. By contrast, John's are very mature letters, full of grace and true understanding (not mindless parroting) and yes John was probably near 100 years old at the time. What's cool, though, is you get from 1Clement a good backgrounder on what people faced, post-Paul. 1Jn's tone of warning against the religious strawman believer who thinks he's in the light, makes much more sense now. 1Clement is the perfect example of such a strawman. Nice, too, that in his adolescence he quotes so much Scripture, we can see it in some volume. Poor guy just didn't yet know how to use it, that's all. God bless the Corinthians for being smart enough to kick out folks like him, how ironic is 1Clem 46:9ff! Yeah, at that time they stuck with the Apostles, not seditious usurpers like Clement!

• There are no other mentions of these individuals or any others by the same names, anywhere in Scripture. Bible has a habit of mentioning people as an honorarium, i.e., the begats in Genesis 5 are a hall-of-fame roster, pre-Flood. Bible repeats names and events to stress importance, and to add a little more perspective to a multi-faceted teaching. Also, it leaves out information to stress irrelevance, unimportance, or to skip over something you should know already. So people left out, are left out because not germane to the teaching of a passage; or because they are not in the class being honored; or, because they are being DIShonored by being passed over. This latter is usually pointed, so you discover it by recognizing the Bible should say something, but does not. The omission hits you in the face, as we'll see below. Still, you never ASSume a particular reason, without a lot of thought, especially when it looks like the Bible is pointedly DIShonoring a person, by not mentioning him. Vetting these reasons for omission is the task of textual criticism and hermeneutics. But omission is always as important as inclusion. God has a reason for everything He tells us and everything He leaves out. Gloss over nothing, when studying Scripture.

• The office of pope is nowhere in the Bible; there is no comparable office anywhere in the OT or the NT, so there is no precedent for it. Bible only grants Limited-Territorial Boundaries for every spiritual office, precedented since the Levites. This means Bible would have to create a brand-new office and explain its precedence, so to define its parameters, for any kind of popism. Apostleship was not a papal office, but rather a MISSIONARY one. The terms "presbuteros", "episcopos" and "diakonos" were all terms used since the OT for collateral officials who attended to administrative affairs in the Law, and all of these are quasi-secular. The apostolos ("one sent", meaning head missionary), had charge over his group. But in the Bible's NT, an apostolos could only be appointed directly by God, and this criterion was even more narrowly defined as seeing the Resurrected Christ: 1Cor15:1-10 shows that criterion being used. Disciples were not the same as the apostles. Nor, were the writers of Canon.
  So even the apostolos had limited authority within the Church, and a prescribed territory: Paul wasn't supposed to interfere in Peter's territory, and vice versa. (This is a major running theme in the NT, so you can't list all the references for it. 1Cor talks about it a lot, since the Corinthians were dividing over who was 'their' leader, i.e., in 1Cor1:12, 1Cor3:4-6, 22, Chap4. Acts 15 and 22 are on this topic, the problem of Paul having his own territory. Romans 14:4 and 1Cor10:29 show the basic principle; Rom15:20, 2Cor10:16.) Paul wasn't an apostle to the Jews, and God sent him in chains to Rome for having DISOBEYED God's territorial rule, Acts 22. Same, for Peter and the others. This is typical of missionary activity, even today, the concept of a given territory. Hence the terms "presbuteros" (elder), "episcopos" (overseer) and "diakonos" (food-servant/diplomat) were sometimes used to describe an apostle's authority; later, the pastor's authority (pastor office replaced the apostles' office, Eph4:11 Greek and all of Timothy). So the last-appointed apostle was Paul, and the last living apostle was John. Peter was an apostle. Mark and Luke, who were closely associated with Paul (and Mark, with Peter as well) were not apostles.

• "The Twelve" were never apostles to Gentiles, but only to the Jews. This rules out popism immediately for Peter, at least until Paul died. Paul was appointed by God and by the Jerusalem church to go to the Gentiles. Check the Scripture, yourself. James, probably the first of the non-Gospel epistles, is written to Jews, not Gentiles (Jas1:1). Acts 22 and "the twelve" references in Paul will help you, as well as Acts 15, Galatians 2, 1Cor15:1-10. Also, you'll notice that no one ELSE writes to the Gentiles after the issue with Paul is settled in Acts 15. There, in an abominable proof about how screwed up the Jerusalem church was, a letter was crafted to say how the law applied to the Gentiles. But Paul never followed it, which is why the Jerusalem church persecuted Paul wherever he went. It was with fake hypocrisy that they lured him back to Jerusalem (using James to do it), so to rope him into sponsoring a Nazirite vow, so to try to kill him on the steps of the Temple (Acts 21ff). James ended up supporting Paul, after Paul was shipped in chains to Rome, which was why James got martyred (precisely how, is so covered with goofy myth, you can't completely say).

  Moreover, you find no one among the apostles writing again to the Gentiles, until Paul is dead (Peter, Jude, John). So if apostle to the Jews, Peter is not a pope over Gentiles. If there should have been a pope, then it should have been Paul. If there was apostolic succession, which we know there wasn't, since there were 13 apostles living during this time; if there had been apostolic succession to the Gentiles, then Paul was first, followed by Peter, followed by John. And no one follows John. (The Lord has the keys in Revelation: verses on that are covered in the "basic questions" section, below.)

  By the way, from the time of Paul's first imprisonment onwards, Jerusalem erupted. Rome finally had to intervene, beginning about 64AD. You can read Josephus for an accounting, or whatever other material you respect. So that means the apostles for the Jews had to disperse, if they hadn't left Jerusalem already: Matt24 would have been too obviously, 'turned on.'

• CHRIST ALONE IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH, there is no on-earth head: Eph1:10 and 4:15; Col1:18 & 2:10,19 (v.19 is echoed in Eph4:11-16); Eph5 (esp. v.23); Eph1 (whole chapter, the BASIS of His Headship); 1Cor11:3, 12:31 ("huperbale" wordplay, Greek). The Sole Headship of Christ is actually the main theme of 1Cor, Ephesians, and Hebrews (latter uses priesthood terminology to express His Headship and is backdropped by the Angelic Conflict and imminent destruction of the Temple). Excepting the Greek wordplay in 1Cor (that book is severely mistranslated), you should be able to see His Sole Headship theme in translated Bibles on these verses. It's really everywhere, since He is Messiah. Sonship means Headship. There was no on-earth headship in the OT, either, so if one was newly-created, Bible would have to provide a lot of information about it. 1Timothy and 2 Timothy, the two primary books on how church is to be institutionally constructed, have no such information. Rather, the setup is for local churches, which Paul was starting up and serving, during his ministry. See also Revelation 1-3, which lists multiple churches to whose pastors ("messengers", usu. mistranslated "angels" in English Bibles), John is instructed to write. At that time, allegedly Clement was pope: so why wasn't Clement given the instructions to write, if a papal office even existed, let alone was it valid? See, this whole pope idea is fishy.

• The "you" in Matt18:18, is PLURAL in the Greek -- so all the apostles received the power to open and shut (see also Matt16:19-20). But Christ Has All the The Keys Again in Rev1:18, 3:7. So no one but Him opens and shuts. Again, more on this will be covered below. Point is, the interpretation made of this verse is contradicted by Scripture, wholly: all you need to do is search on "key" or "keys" pan-Bible, to see that. Again, a blatant attempt to replace Christ with Peter, proves that the verse usage is a flat lie. Peter must be screaming from heaven, "Stop this!"

• It has always been a long-standing rule in the Bible that God's Word is Supreme Authority. What contradicts the Word is not from God, since Perfect God does not contradict Himself. So any "tradition" would have to be properly sourced in the Word, to even be allowable. God of Bible excoriates twisting its precepts into "doctrines of men", i.e., in Isa1:13, Zech 7, Matt15:9, Mark 7:7, Col2:22, 1Tim4:1 (called doctrines of demons). So it's a serious thing, to say something is Biblical or not: every day I want to cancel these websites, for fear I'm misrepresenting what Bible says, even though I'm merely reporting what I've learned, mostly as a way to learn better (not to convince anyone); so of course my report, carries no authority.
  How much more grave, when a claim of authority is made! Jeremiah 23:25 is but one of many verses in that book and other Bible books which declaim the severe penalty for falsely claiming to speak for God. So if a pope claims to speak for God, whoa: if what he says disagrees with Scripture, then not only he but the hearer is to blame, for believing him. See all of Jeremiah Chaps22-28 on this topic, so you get a fuller picture of the parameters. If someone claims to speak for God, the reader is supposed to TEST what he hears, no matter WHO the person is, 1Jn4. Canon is demonstrably closed (Hebrews 1, and Revelation makes it quite clear, in 22:6-21, see RevPlay.htm's first few screens). But even so, anyone claiming to speak for God is supposed to be tested: whether claiming to be a pope, some brainout writing a webpage.. or even your own 'certainty' that you 'heard' Him. And the only way to test is via Scripture. If Bible disagrees, then the speaker is mistaken, crazy.. or speaking for 'the other side'. So should be disregarded.

  When authority abuses power, it is given very wide latitude by God, since authority is being wielded by a human, and all humans err. The one in authority errs bigger, because his authority makes him bigger. So you won't see bolts of lightning hit authority which errs. What happens instead, is that the authority is given enough rope to hang himself, and God the meanwhile makes even the errors, bless those under that authority. So if our parents or teachers or leaders screw up, we needn't hate them or resent them or crusade against them. In fact, if we do those things, we get punished, and big-time. I learned this the hard way. For God is the God of authority and Justice, so we who are NOT authorities, should never try to redress any injustice by trying to topple an authority. We who are authorities, should be extremely circumspect about how we use that authority. For God will not send us bolts of lightning. We are expected to live on the Word, and by it gain the correction and wisdom needed, to handle whatever life He graciously grants us. Christ is the Top, and voluntarily went all the way to the true bottom, the Cross, so no low-ness in life is demeaning. No high-ness in life, is self-aggrandizing. God alone is important and worth knowing. All else, is but a tool to learn Him better. For all of us.

  The meanwhile, one is to test anything claimed by an alleged or real spiritual authority. Even if popism were true, it would have to be tested. Even though it is false, people who accept its claimed authority, have that right. Same is true for any authority, really: if you are accepting someone's authority (i.e., in your church, job, home) then unless it's a valid thing to get out, you must obey. If you get out, you don't try to topple that authority, Romans 13.

1. As we saw in the "Gender..Hoax" section, the most famous Greek Old Testament moniker for Christ, is "Petra"; as in, 'Rock of my salvation'. It first signified the Rock from which wandering Israel drank, twice (see also 1Cor10:4). Same kind of BedRock on which the Anchor of the Holy of Holies, the Ark used to sit, on which Isaac was almost sacrificed. Christ Himself used this famous term which all Israel knew in Matt16:18, pointing to Himself, of course -- "on This Bedrock". So how can it be twisted to mean Peter, who's a mere "petros" in the same verse, a CHIP of Petra. Well, we saw how in "Gender.. Hoax". The Vulgate transliterated the Greek, so the SIZE differential was erased. That's how this horrible blasphemy of Peter replacing Christ as head, occurs. All translations of every language I can read in my Bibleworks 5 ape the Vulgate, as if the original-language Greek text didn't exist. So much for the claim of a fresh translation! Talk about satanic conspiracy! They ape the capitalization and the gender errors (which eliminates the size difference), though the Greek never capitalized (letters are all one size in the oldest original-language texts)! Satan blinds us all! Only Young's Literal translation recognized it's not a name, petros: but mistranslated both terms, "rock"! Yikes! Satan's laughing his head off! Understand, I have translations of Bible going back as far as Luther Bibel and Geneva, both of which are Prottie. And they too messed it up! So too, all the modern ones! Gonna be a lot of embarrassed Bible scholars in heaven. It's not as if we didn't widely know about the screwup usage RCC makes of this verse: it's one of the reasons for the Reformation, for crying out loud! But the translations weren't FIXED! Please kill me! This is as bad as the capitalization of pros in James 4:5! THEY ALL FLUNK FIRST YEAR GREEK!

2. ONLY Christ has the keys and the power to open and shut, bind and loose, in Revelation. Matt18:18 is in dative plural, so Peter is not the only "keys" recipient. Moreover, Matt16:18-20 isn't some gatekeeper who decides who goes into heaven, only Father would say who is and is not saved! No one human has Omniscience into the soul, for crying out loud! Only Christ has those Keys. See Revelation 1:8, 3:7-8, Rev9:1, 20:1-3. See also Isa22:22, 28:16, Zech6:12-13 which Christ allusively quotes in Matt16:18; also, 1Cor3:9-11, Eph2:19-22, Eph3:10, 5:25-32, Col1:18, 1Tim3:5,15; Heb3:3-4, Rev21:14. I really don't know how it's possible to be more arrogant than to say some human being has the power to say who gets saved and who doesn't. That puts the person on par with Christ Himself.

3. If God wanted popes, why aren't they even mentioned in the Bible, since Bible was still being written? There never was one authority. Even the number of apostles, was 13: Paul being the last one God appointed; James, being 2nd-to-last, see 1Cor15:1-10. The one Peter appointed by lot, God replaced with James. So God sure didn't consider Peter a pope. See Matt 10 on who were the apostles, and see end of Acts 1:19ff on the blasphemous lots thingy Peter did (we all have bad hair days). You don't dictate to God who God should choose, ever. So if there were a papal office, God would have to set its parameters, and directly appoint the first one. Christ didn't do that, the Holy Spirit didn't do that.

   Here's where omission is very important. Notice that NT never has a verse where someone wrote a pope, or talked with a pope, or got instructions with a pope; there are no Bible quotes from any popes talking about anything or going anywhere. For a guy who allegedly has the "keys" to decide whether you go to heaven or not -- a power only GOD has -- funny, no mention of such an important person anywhere in the NT? Paul is in Rome most of this time, but we see Peter visit him in Asia, then Peter goes to Antioch, then to Babylon -- but Paul, is in Rome. Ok, why then doesn't Paul have any conversations with any popes? Surely they would be important high spiritual people to work with, no? LOL nothing on the allegedly highest-spiritual-leader-on-earth, in Bible, not even a quote or passing mention of something such an illustrious person said? And people buy popism? Yikes! Do you see the mocking in this omission? By Satan &Co.? For if we knew our Bibles, this omission of such an 'important' person is downright dishonoring. Of course, it's not dishonoring IF NO SUCH PERSON EXISTED.

   The Catholic counter to this is that the office of pope was not the same, back then. No kidding. It must have been so very different, no one knew these 'popes' Linus or Anacletus, for of course John never mentions them. Peter never mentions them. Jude, Luke -- no one mentions them. So whatever they may have said, must have been rather unimportant, that no one recorded what was supposed to be the highest spiritual authority, saying. Pretty rude of God, to not even give them mention, huh. Yeah, assuming they EVER EXISTED. Even more rude of God, to not give Clement a byline in the Bible, and rather have John write Revelation in the same year as 1Clement was allegedly penned. Funny how between the two letters, there's no congruence or confluence. As if one didn't know about the other: though written in the same year, or within maybe 18 months? To read Clement, you'd not know Revelation even had been written. And of course Revelation treats the Roman church as if it didn't exist, in Rev 1-3. More about all that, in #14, below.

   Here's the point: BIBLE WAS STILL BEING WRITTEN, and these popes allegedly were ruling at the very same time. When Bible talks about other stuff, there's lots of mention of contemporaneous history and people, which is why you can date the NT books. You know, for example, that Acts ended circa 60 or 62, because it ends with Paul leaving for Rome, and mentions all kinds of historical stuff you can check. So well.. an important person like a pope, should be mentioned in the Bible during the same years. Nope. So either no pope or.. God disapproves of the idea so much, it gets no mention. In which case, Peter sure isn't one of them. This is another hand-in-the-cookie-jar, dead giveaway.

4. Why are the twelve apostles only to the Jews, but Paul is the only apostle to the Gentiles? The Roman church was a Gentile church. So how could Peter be a pope, when he's not even allowed to be an apostle to the Gentiles, since -- duh -- he's among the apostles to the Jews? This is really blatant throughout Acts, even in translation. Just read Acts in your fav Bible translation, see for yourself. Satan&Co. love it when we prove we don't read our Bibles.

5. If God even wanted mere 'apostolic succession', why doesn't He bother to mention it? And why doesn't Paul? Surely Paul, who wrote most of the NT Bible, would have put it at the top of his list of items, when writing Timothy in such haste about how to select pastors and their administrative subordinates (Paul thought he'd be executed very soon). As you'll see below with respect to 1 Clement, the "presbuteros" (elder) and "episcopos" (overseer) offices were quasi-secular, local-church administrative jobs, subordinate to their pastors, not superior over them. How can anyone claim those folks were more important, than the ones to whom God Gave Canon And Teaching? See: the Timothy letters are about succession, and nowhere is the roster of succession offices above that of the local pastor. The terms are used of subordinates or of authoritative functions OF the pastor, in addition to his headship as THE teacher. It's real clear in the Greek; the terms are well-defined in the OT; but the translations aren't so bad you can't tell that nowhere is any provision for apostolic succession. nowhere for anything remotely resembling what 'pope' is supposed to be. Even the Cathars, who didn't grasp Bible all that well (they were a goofy bunch) understood that much. Many movements prior and afterwards, could read correctly even that much. Hence the Bible was confiscated, hidden, chained to altars, made too heavy to carry, etc. Can't afford to let it in the wrong hands.

   Of course, lots of Protties claim apostolic succession, too. They are also unable to read the criterion for being an apostle, you must have seen the Resurrected Christ, since only HE appoints you (it's not an election by people, lol) -- 1Cor15:1-10. And an apostle is just a super-missionary, viz, Paul. Not someone who rules over everyone. Yes, he sets church policy -- and the LAST one was John. Just ask the alleged 'successor' if Christ appeared to him personally and appointed him, k? This is so embarrassing, how we profess love for the Word and Christ -- yet will not read it. Satan&Co. must be rolling on the floor, all the time.

6. And why, since Paul was alive until 68AD, wasn't PAUL a pope? Paul would have been a flashier name to claim, and then the history would have been right. Especially, since Paul was IN Rome, and he wrote most of the NT; and we can prove God sent him to Rome (Acts 21ff)? Further, we can prove he, unlike Peter, died in Rome. Are you beginning to smell a rat? Taking Paul's data, and slapping Peter's name on it? My pastor spent a lot of time going over the Scripture in Romans, Acts, Galatians on how God wanted Paul to go to Rome and stay there, but Paul wanted to witness to the Jews instead. You can read Paul's own words about it, even in translation, in Acts 22. Paul was the only apostle ever in Rome, and the only one God sent there.. since 60 or 62AD, having appointed Paul to go, circa 57(?) AD or so (Romans 15 is where Paul starts to go wacko); though after God let Paul out, he had one last tour around Asia Minor, before Nero re-arrested and then executed him. (If I remember rightly, my pastor dates the prison epistles about 2 years later than the Scofield does, i.e., 62-64AD not 60-62AD.) However you date Paul's tenure, he spans the years Peter was allegedly there. Paul was writing at that time, so why is nothing said about Peter being there? Why is Paul deserted by all but Luke, at end of 2Timothy? Peter sure wasn't in Rome while Paul was there.

7. So why doesn't Peter call himself a pope or a BedRock, in his own letters? It would be his JOB to do so, if that were his occupation. I don't know what Greek word he'd use to call himself pope, but he doesn't call himself by any title. Rather, he tells the audience to be subject to their own pastors ("elders" in English Bibles, 1Pet5). He doesn't issue instructions to those pastors, either; doesn't set policy. 2Peter he writes when he knows he's about to die. So think: if he were pope, it would also be his job, more than anyone else's, to lay down the rules for who's to be pope after him -- God would want that, if the office of pope were Biblical. But oh -- there's nothing! See? Here omission is again important. To omit something so important is either a snub -- or, the omission means the thing does not exist, so there's nothing to write about it. You don't omit what's allegedly the Sole Arbiter of God's Word on Earth, from the Word of God. Unless of course, there is no such person. 2Pet1:20-21 says there is no such person, but rather the Holy Spirit teaches many persons -- because the Holy Spirit is the Person Who is the Arbiter. Wow: the Holy Spirit is being replaced by a mere man, in this pope claim? Of course, Hebrews 1 tells you everything comes through the Son, not a pope.

8. Why does Peter assert his audience are chips like him? 'Using lots of Greek synonyms for his LittleRock name, calling those he wrote, by those same synonyms (e.g., lithoi, chips one writes on)? But Christ is hupogrammos, the CopyBook? No assertion of papal authority, but rather a denial of it, throughout. Why is 2Pet1:20-21, written as it is? Sounds pretty anti-pope: as if to counter the claim Peter even was one. Note the plural of "men". Not he himself, alone.

9. Moreover, if Peter was the first pope, why didn't Peter get to write what John or Paul got to write? Peter didn't even get to write a Gospel. That fake book called the "Gospel of Peter" is sooo slapstick even a kindergartener can see through it. Much more, once you know the Greek of the two valid letters provably from Peter. For Peter has his own distinctive style, focusing on hupo-prefixed and stone-cutting words, much Attic Drama Greek vocabulary and wordplays -- a consummate writer who loves 'non-kosher' Greek. The Mad Magazine style of the alleged "Gospel of Peter" is really quite funny. And stupidly so, kinda like those who claimed they saw the Virgin Mary washed up on a girder under a Chicago freeway. It got such an audience, even NBC's Dateline went out there and did a little piece for its show: it was just before or after the Pope died. Wow, thousands of people sludged down the hill, putting daisies and icon pictures by that flowing salt stain. And none of them asked, Why would the Virgin 'appear' plastered against a freeway pylon? See how we are derided! Satan&Co. musta been sick with laughter. All the wanna-be-bible books are slapstick like this, too. No substance, just titillation, certainly not something Holy God would commission be written. Edifies no one. Read it yourself!

10. Speaking of Gospels, John Mark was pretty important to both Paul and Barnabas and Peter; Mark leaves Rome with Timothy, when Paul died. God gives him to be one of the last to see Paul alive; to be close to Peter as well; even, to write a Gospel.. so why isn't Mark a pope? And why, in his Gospel, doesn't he predictively call Peter a pope, if Peter was one? See, it really sticks out that neither Peter nor Paul, but their alleged-close-associate John Mark writes a Gospel; the latter wasn't a disciple, so not an apostle, either. Rather, he was associated with Barnabas, who also came to the scene later. So where's the Divine Prediction so rife in every book of Bible, a Divine Signature Characteristic.. in Mark's Gospel, about some pope appointment; at least when talking of Peter, since scholars seem sooooo convinced Peter is the source for Mark's information (what a laugh)? For more on Mark's Gospel, click here.

11. If Rome was such a great body of believers, why does no one write to them, post-Paul? And frankly, where was this alleged 'pope' when Paul was imprisoned? He wrote Timothy that everyone but Luke deserted him: 2Tim4:16, but see context. If Peter was in Rome, where's his name..ever, anywhere in the NT? If Linus was the heir apparent, why isn't he listed first in 2Tim4:21? Doesn't seem that Linus is even among Paul's entourage, but just a believer (the entourage having deserted him except Luke, 4:11). Compare to Hebrews 13:23, so you know Timothy did go to Rome, taking Mark with him. Timothy, not 'pope' Peter. And Hebrews 13:23 sure makes no mention of any pope or apostolic successor to Paul.

    Odd, that no one writes to the Roman believers, but Paul. And that, years before he's chained up and goes there. So if any pope was there, where are the people? They cleared out of Rome from 64AD onward, Nero was busy torching them all. So NO ONE was in Rome then. This was probably when Paul got out, but I'm still trying to verify the dates.

12. Why didn't Peter even write to the Romans? Why was Peter in Jerusalem and Antioch and Babylon, and you can't find Scripture saying he even ever set foot in Rome? Look at the audience at the beginning of 1Peter: it's to the churches in ASIA, Paul's old stomping ground. So how can Peter be the pope of Rome, and not in Rome, and yet isn't writing to them? This is a really critical year for Christians, persecution was bad under Nero -- shouldn't Peter be writing to his own pope-dom? And surely persecution was bad, since Peter is NOT there: 1Pet5:13, shows he's in Babylon, sending greetings of the Babylon church -- to the ASIAN churches? And not to those at the center of the persecution, the Roman believers?

13. If God wanted popes, why are the letters during circa 64AD-96AD -- Timothy, Titus by Paul, followed by Hebrews, Jude, Peter, John, Revelation -- so strident about false teachers, and written by several hands, but never by an RCC-listed pope? Nor TO the Roman church? For we've already established that Peter wasn't a pope.. but the other ones on the list -- where are the Bible books by them? Moreover, why doesn't the RCC claim Paul or the other Scripture writers as popes? Could it just be possible that everyone contemporaneous knew these people were NOT popes, that in fact no such office existed? So they dare not claim anyone who wrote a Bible book? I mean, you've looked at the Greek of Matt16:18 by now, and researched it over the Greek OT to see what a blasphemy it is to use that verse to claim something about Peter. Ok: but why not claim the other ones? Maybe because there were no other ones. It's never good to claim some relic or article 'proves' someone's existence. On the other hand, you can well prove the existence of persons by the volume of what's said ABOUT them by other persons. So we got zippo said on Linus and Anacletus. The lone "Linus" Bible verse doesn't tell you which Linus it is, so it's disingenuous to just assert it's "pope" Linus. I can look up "brainout" in dogpile and find 100 motorcycle-related sites ("brainout" is a motorcycle term).

14. Most Important: If God wanted popes, why does He give John the Revelation in the very same year (96AD) 1 Clement was supposedly penned? Why didn't God give it to 'Clement'? If you read Clement 1 ("Epistle to the Corinthians") and then Revelation Chapters 1-3, 17, you'll easily see God's answer to the Corinthians (and others) was: FLEE THE ROMAN CHURCH. Can't miss it. Revelation circulated, k? God is warning believers to flee the Romans just like Christ warned everyone to flee in Matt24, Mark 13, Luke 21; all these tie to Dan9. In short, there was a intra-Christian anti-christ (see also 1Jn2) set up within the 'temple' of the Body of believers. Really bald analogy. Whole new face gets put on Rev17 in the context of what those apostate Church Fathers were doing. Here's a quick link to the Clement I letter: CLICK HERE to read it. Quiz on it, follows below.
    1. Where's Peter? Ok, after you finished reading that LONG letter.. did ya notice that nowhere in 1Clement is there mention made of Peter being the first Pope? Nothing about Linus, or Cletus either, huh. Search on "Peter", see for yourself. I mean, if Peter had even written Clement; if even Paul had written Clement -- wouldn't Clement make use of that? Oh, but there's .. nothing.
    2. Where's Any Prior Pope? Did ya notice that nowhere in 1Clement is there mention of the alleged-prior, popes? Search on their names, see for yourself.
    3. Why isn't Clement a self-confessed Pope? Does even Clement call himself a pope? No, he's trying now to claim some kind of overseer right, based on the apostles (unnamed, of course) foreseeing who to empower, in 44:2 et seq!
    4. Where's any Pope's writings during the first century, other than this maybe-Clement? There's no guarantee that Clement 1 was written by anyone in the first century, let alone by anyone really named "Clement". "Clement 1" might be fictitious. The usage of the LXX of Isa53:11 was interesting, but it had been a favorite verse of Christians. Do you begin to question whether the whole 'pope' thing isn't crafted long after, even Clement? Linus never wrote anything -- so if Linus had been a pope, shouldn't he have written something? Where is anything about 'Anacletus' or 'Cletus'? Wouldn't Clement use their names, if he was their successor? So maybe someone invented their names some years later? Something is very rotten in Denmark, huh. In modern parlance, it's called a "hoax". A very old hoax. Now with respectability, since of course good deeds are everywhere touted. Along with the tyranny, just as 'Clement 1' was trying to impose on the Corinthians. What a long-winded guy. Forget about all those novels and P-2 claims of RCC machinations. This Pope one is blatantly provable! But no one questions it? How do these people get away with it, century after century? Because We Hate God So Don't Read His Word. Simple as that.
    5. Where's the agreement by the Corinthians? If Clement 1 was really a pope, why does he have to argue with the Corinthians to get control over them (last half of the letter, preceded by excessive flattery and scripture quoting). If he had authority, he could just assert it. That is very telling. Look: if popes went back to Peter, three generations later when 1Clement is written, popism would be a well-established procedure. Clement was the fourth, allegedly. There would be no arguing, there would be orders. Moreover, he wouldn't have to reason with them about apostolic succession, etc., it would already be well-known. He's trying to convince them to submit to him. If he were really a pope, he'd just order it, not reason with them. Of course, if he's trying to become a pope -- i.e., the first one, not the fourth -- then there would be no established procedure from Peter et. al, and he'd have to do some very smooth talking.

    6. If God wanted popes, why isn't the Church of Rome even mentioned, in Revelation 1-3, as if it didn't exist? Why no mention of it at all, until explaining Satan's strategy, in Revelation 17; and there, the Roman church is depicted derisively ('mystery' is NT shorthand for Church, but the one at Rome is mocked as a "harlot", the OT designation for anti-God religion)? A pointed omission of something known to exist is God's not-so-nice way of saying a thing is worthless. Watch how Cain gets left out of the accounting in Genesis; notice how so many other 'sons and daughters' don't even rate an honorable mention. This is Oriental (and Roman, for that matter) custom of haughty exclusion when the royal house disapproves.

    7. Why are the colors in Revelation 17 exactly the same as the so-called 'Church' in Rome? Why the bother to describe the seven hills (the famous moniker by which Rome was known) -- and then call it Babylon The Great, a harlot? All this, said of the area where the 'popes' were supposed to be? The chilly exclusion of Rome in the roster of Rev1-3 woulda been very noticed by the reader. Especially, if there were these alleged 'popes' claiming divine authority at the time! Coupled with the only mention of Rome being in Rev17, and in such unmistakeable and uncomplimentary terms, well -- the rejection of Rome by God, is complete. Can't be more bald. Anyone who follows Rome is fornicating with Satan, see. Really crude analogy, and based on the deeper meaning of religiosity -- so anyone religious, is fornicating with Satan. That's one of the oldest themes in the OT, going all the way back to the religious temptation Satan gave to the woman: you will be like God. Notice how it's a lust to make self like God, to be good as God -- which is the most immoral thought a person can have. Immoral, because God is infinite, and to compare self's good deeds or good works or even imagine that they deserve even a glance from Holy God, well.. it rejects Grace, to think like this. Rejects the Husband Who Bought You. Very old theme in Bible, constantly repeated in Isaiah, Hosea, Ezekiel, Jeremiah. This is what felled Israel. This is what fells Church: religiosity.

    8. Why are 1Jn-3Jn so 'obsessed' with false teachers who left, but pretend to be 'the true' Christians? Why are these ASIAN concerns, with zero mention made of Rome? Why isn't John a pope, since he's the last Real Apostle alive? 1Clement 44:2 claims apostolic succession from the apostles, in the same year the living John, writes Revelation which God gave him. Hmmm: no need to succeed someone still alive. So 1Clement sounds like usurpation, not succession. So, God usurped the Roman Church, and had the rightful last apostle, write to the Rightful Church. Pointedly. Don't know how anyone can miss this dating confluence. Even if we say 1Clement was written after John died, though John is nowhere mentioned in the 'Clement 1' letter! What, was he practicing his own 'exclusion'? It's astonishing. John's Gospel is probably the most important, for Church. None of the keywords or concepts John uses are in 1Clement. John himself is not listed even allusively, that I can find. Again, omission is important. And there's a dead silence here. At both ends. John is not dead. But he was exiled on Patmos. Odd that it's the Corinthians who get Clement's attention, they'd have been within John's territory. Not even the Vine and Branches analogy is in 1Clement. Wow. That means John 14-17 is missing from his repertoire. That's it. God is not talking to Clement, but is talking to John. Yikes. Yeah, Clement doesn't even know the doctrine behind 1Jn1:9, thinking instead you have to ask God for forgiveness, lol: 1Clem51:1 compared to 51:3, so he doesn't know what "confession" does, which means he doesn't understand the Filling of the Spirit. So that accounts for his letter, proves his abuse of Bible, i.e., using Numbers 14 to advance his usurpation goal, 1Clem54:2ff compared to 53:2-4. (Moses didn't refuse God's offer to destroy Israel to avoid sedition, lol.) Ok: now I understand why God would not speak to 'Clement' and his ilk. They are their own gods!

       Since so much of Paul, Peter, and John are missing from this guy's letter -- and especially, John -- some massive break with the Roman church must have occurred. 1Clement therefore has to be sometime in the 90's AD, more likely 95 or 96AD when John is on Patmos, else he couldn't even BEGIN to make an argument about succession, 1Clem44:2. There was NO provision for succession by the apostles; never in the Bible is such a thing done. God appoints directly. So to claim any kind of succession, is a flat lie, completely unbiblical. Bible has nothing on it at all, except the appointing of pastors which is by election of the congregations involved, theme of 1and 2 Timothy. So it now makes sense why the Real God and the real apostle remaining, John -- were not on speaking terms with the Roman church. 2Jn and 3Jn are very strident about avoiding such people, but the overall panorama of the problem, is the framework in 1Jn (thread begins in 1Jn1:6, coming up every other or every third verse after that). Now I see why.

15. Why didn't God tell John who to appoint after him? Surely Revelation woulda been the place to do it. But instead God has John write to the pastors ("messenger", not "angel", for crying out loud) in the "seven churches of Asia", Rev Chaps1-3. Surely they should have been told right there and then, of succession. But no mention of succession was made. Hmmm. Maybe because the LAST-appointed apostle, was Paul, 1Cor15:1-10. Gee -- no mention there of successors, either.

16. Note what Succession God Does Specify, in John's Gospel: John14-17, Vine and Branches System, fulfilling Isa53:12, Teaching of Truth. No counterpart to Matt24, since Christ is the Temple. So if Christ is the Temple now, the Vine now, and we are the Branches of Him apart from Whom we can do nothing (note what He says to Father in John 17) -- then no earthly vicar was requested, needed, nor provided. So in John's Gospel, only stock references to the old physical Temple are given. After all, Ephesians had by then been out and about Asia Minor for a generation, with Chapter 2's central theme of Replacement Temple Built on Christ (Eph2:10 uses the Ionic dative of epi). So in Revelation, the rebuilt, physical Temple is sarcastically reviewed by the Lord, Rev11:1ff, treated as if it weren't there: the command to measure the foundation means the space is treated as if no valid building is atop it. That's an OT refrain, and always an angel is the builder or someone God empowers, directs, appoints: for only God can command Temple building. So any claim of a "Vicar of Christ" is anti-Christ. Aiming to replace Him, Isa14:13-14. In any denomination: for nearly all the 'Christian' denominations are following the same 1st-century corruptions, not just the RCC. Everyone trying to get his megachurch, who cares about what the Word actually says!

    See why we all need salvation so badly? Just like Paul says with that fabulous word "panourgia" (all-erring-urges, so to speak) in Eph4:14, that's how we all are. The right succession provided, we reject. And instead, invent our own -- even to the point of obviously reflecting Revelation 17. We learn from Bible that we learn nothing from Bible. Satan&Co. weep with laughter.

17. "Clement I" was having a very bad hair day when he wrote this letter. This last point is a mix of reactions to specific things in his letter. 'Clement' clearly didn't know any of the apostles, and he didn't have John's material. So it's highly unlikely that the Clement of Phili4:3 is the author of this 1Clement. Not all Bible was evenly distributed; no one was even talking to the Roman church after 68AD when believers LEFT due to persecution. Of course, had he really been a pope, surely he'd be first in line to receive the latest Divine Writ God isn't giving him to write. What Paul wrote the Corinthians 40 years prior doesn't seem to be in Clement's hands, either, or he'd have been too mortified to write his "Epistle". For, Paul's 1Cor15:1-10 flatly contradicts 1Clem 44:2.

    Random Observations: There's no familiarity with the apostles (well, Peter and Paul are mentioned as dead in a distant, flowery, vague way). Instead, quotes are often from the OT, James and Hebrews, two allusions to 1Corinthians (Apollos verse and 1Cor13). Very (unintentionally) mocking of Paul's letter about Head and Body, in 1Clem47:1-3, 49:5. There are no quotes from other Pauline letters, or from Peter. So if Peter had been a pope, Clement snubs him by not quoting him. Peter is talked about (1Clem5:4), not as a pope, but merely as an apostle. Same, for Paul (5:5). 1Clement quotes the Apollos verse (1Clem47:1ff) but in a bizarre manner. Two mentions of Peter, never calling him pope, one mention of Paul biographically, 1Clem5:6 -- and that's it. Since 'Clement 1' quotes Scripture haphazardly and in such meaningless volume, he didn't have an up-to-date copy of Scripture, or he'd have poured in those verses as well. And the letter is weird. Notice the flowery stress on how the Corinthians are so nice, in the beginning; the garbage about how important for men to have a good opinion of 'you' -- Bible condemns all this in the OT, James, all Paul's letters (i.e., the "eye service" warning in Eph6, Rom12:1-3, Galatians, lol all over the place). 1Clement even claims a fake bird, the phoenix, is real (1Clem25:2) -- to make a point about resurrection! It gets steadily more blasphemous, after 44:2. Then again, in 1Clem16 nearly all of Isa53 is quoted, which is valuable. Nothing from the Gospels. No mention of Matthew or Mark or Luke. No quotes by the Lord, even. But then, nothing from Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians (well, he'd avoid Galatians, that book is about grace). Nothing from book of Romans. Nothing from Jude (which would have been appropos to his topic of sedition); nothing from Titus (again, would have been relevant). So if he were a spiritual head, Someone didn't see fit to give him all the Divine Writ, available. Clement is too verbose not to use everything he had. Sorry, it's real clear he doesn't speak for God or anyone else, but his ego.

    So let's compare the Bible versus Clement idea of spiritual authority. Paul wrote Timothy and Ephesians on congregations having pastors. To sustain a pastor required free will election on who would shepard them. Hence pastors must be elected by a congregation, the office is a gift from God alone, Eph4:11. In the Bible, presbuteroi and episcopoi were administrative, never interpretating Scripture; specific Bible-defined meanings are in the OT. So the presbuteros and the episcopos never interfered with pastor's authority, (OT "teacher", modern term "rabbi"); they were subordinate to him. So too in the NT, individual pastors are "the" authority of individual churches. In the NT, pastor's office was supreme, so he had some presbuteros and episcopos functions (also sometimes diakonos, a "kitchen-help/waiter" and "diplomat"). But that only extended to the local church. Comprehensive description of the pastor's role is in Greek of Eph4:11-16. [It's always mistranslated in Bibles, so you should get the exegesis from your pastor. If you can't do that, in RightPT.htm has a retranslation from BibleWorks.]

    By human-manipulation contrast, look at 1Clement 59:1, where he's THREATENING the Corinthians, claiming to speak for God, as if they had no right to vote for their own local authority at Corinth, many miles from Rome. Bleccchh. Totally the opposite of 1 and 2 Timothy.

    According to Encarta on "Roman Catholic Church", it wasn't until 1943 that Catholics were even allowed to learn exegesis (Divino Afflante Spiritu, encyclical by Pope Pius XII). Word has been kidnapped and forbidden since Clement 1: that you can prove historically. But beginning with the collation and collection of Scripture in the mid-1800's, the RCC had to progressively relent, since so much of what it taught was being proved wrong by those God-breathed Bible texts. Since that time, RCC has fought to justify its positions from Scripture. But notice how long it took: so everyone is to blame, not merely the RCC, since every denomination goes against Bible, doesn't do its homework, and enjoins upon its congregations to believe IT, rather than God's Holy Word. So this phenomenon since 96AD continues just as God said it would, in Rev17.

    When you read the Bible talk about false teachers, and then you look into extra-Biblical writings like this "Clement 1" and Church history, you come to realize there were at least two fake 'Christian' flavors: the catholic brand, and the Christian gnostic brand. Either flavor, is hairy reading! Both stress all the same tripe, then and now. Compare for yourself. Bring aspirin.

So the Roman Catholic Church has heroes, alright -- but not the ones it promotes. Rather, the ones God protected for protecting Scripture, for our sakes. The officials of the Vatican kept Scripture under lock-and-key, until Tregelles forced them to publish their Codex Vaticanus, in the late 1800's. And that happened, because Tregelles managed to memorize that Codex. A loyal Catholic, he was allowed to view it -- but not to touch or copy from it. An acolyte or other minor official had to turn the pages for him while he read. Can you imagine? Tregelles, thus hampered, memorized as much as he could; and at night, secretly wrote down what he'd memorized during the time he'd spent standing for 8 hours each day in front of that huge manuscript! So when he published what he memorized, the Vatican was gradually forced to publish the MSS it had. Hence, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are two of our best manuscripts (aka "MSS", in theologian shorthand). And of course, those manuscripts, as the rest of the Bible, largely disprove 99% of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church (and doggone near every denomination, frankly). So we owe these folks who found these original Bible manuscripts, everything!

So here's something else you know right away: The Roman Catholic Church did not adulterate the original-language text of Bible. RCC has always been good at hoarding relics, and this manuscript (Codex Vaticanus) was one. So God used the RCC to preserve one of the best manuscripts of Bible we have. Surely, the reason they thought they were keeping it under lock-and-key, WAS to protect it. Surely, that meant studying it was very rarely done. So they wouldn't know that what it says, contradicts Roman dogma in nearly every detail (i.e., Bible proves wrong the official RCC position on how you get saved, which is in fact why we had a Reformation, based on other (smaller) original-language Bible manuscripts).

In sum, Mark is very selective about what events and what teaching to pair up and repeat; and he packages by subject, picking representative things, juxtaposing the overwhelming evidence with the overwhelming rejection. So he's parallelling events then to show what's happening NOW, at the time of writing. 'Chapter 10 onward, you have a repetition of the initial Divine indictment: but THIS time, explaining in advance why Jerusalem will be destroyed (Chapter 10ff, the "riv", in Hebrew, divorce court case, a familiar theme in the OT). Matthew's Gospel had to be the earliest one, considering it would explain the changeover from Law of Moses to 'Law' of Christ, which Paul was newly writing, back then. That would be the first thing the believers would need to know, so to tie OT to the then-building NT, and to discern the fake versus the Real 'gospels' then proliferating, "euthus". Yeah, euthus, the Greek word Mark repeats every chance he gets: meaning, The Right Way, the Straight Way, the Only Way.. right away! Hint, hint.