Pope Myth: Church Father Hall of SHAME

An archive of brainout's vimeo video descriptions and playlists (to go along with the dumped videos in the event vimeo pulls them down with all of the playlists and text).

Also archived in here are a few FrankForum posts relevant to the Pope Myth / Church Fathers topic.

The lying, lousy, Bible-ignorant Church Fathers will be the theme of this channel. No one who praises these awful people, can competently read Bible.

Wow, that's a strong statement. So it better be backed up with proof, huh. I started doing just that, back in my Youtube 'Pope Myth' playlist, which is housed in PopeMyth.htm. Eventually, ALL those videos will be ported here. Right now, I've already ported some to vimeo, to illustrate Paul's scathing prophetical sarcasm in the GGS 11 series, against those very 'fathers'. Yeah, fathers of apostasy.

But apparently more needs to be shown, so this channel will house live sections from these bilious liars who wouldn't know the Bible if it bit them. So you can understand better, how apostate Christianity is, today.

For if someone praises obvious liars, then that person either a) has no discernment, hence no Holy Spirit (so is carnal, even if saved); or b) never actually READ what those liars wrote, and so is a hypocrite. Take your pick.

We need to clean house in Christianity, or God will clean us out. Cleaning starts by admitting these horrible people of the past, only fathered the lies many still cling to, this day.

NOTE: Episodes posted from 11/08/13 onward are in vimeo ( http://vimeo.com/channels/churchfathers ), not Youtube.

Proof from Bible the 'pope' thingy is a myth. For 'petros' means 'chip', versus Petra meaning BEDROCK, so in Greek you'd never confuse the two. OT verses use Petra in contexts solely to mean Christ as Rock of Salvation (or evocative of that meaning). So no confusion, when Christ says Petra: He means Himself. These videos are embedded in my http://www.brainout.net/PopeMyth.htm , which gives you more proof from Bible and Church Father writings, that this 'pope' thingy is INVENTED ex post facto, beginning in the 3rd century AD.

In 1st-century Latin, the words are lapis and scopulum, respectively. So Peter would be called 'Lapis', and Christ would be Scopulum. Again, no confusion between the two.

But a clever 3rd century Latin INVENTION of 'petrus' nicely confuses the two, making it look like 'petram' is but another gender for the same word. Well, if you really know Latin that cheap gambit doesn't work either.

In short, the word is invented to COVER UP the fact that Christ is pointing at HIMSELF, never Peter, when He says 'upon THIS Rock'. And the inventors relied on the readers being lousy at remembering Latin Grammar rules, mixing up genders. So while the smart reader would know that Petram and Petrus CANNOT BE the same word (gender mismatch), the unschooled would just go by sound-alike.

What utter chicanery, chopping Christ's Head off and calling it holy! For 2000 years!

Popism is an invention, just like the Latin word. So this series walks you through all the Bible verses using the term, so you can see for yourself, the invention.

This isn't to say Roman Catholicism has no right to exist; but it is flat lying to base its claim on Matthew 16:18. A lie that will never be admitted.

So they will never be admitted to maturity. Saved maybe, but mature, never, Col 3:25.

Then we take a video trip to a catholic website summarizing key quotes by the so-called 'fathers' on apostolic succession, to show how in their own words, they prove liars. Copious documents by these apostates claiming to have the true faith are provided as links in the video descriptions, so you can read their tripe for yourself. Commentary comparing what THEY say versus Scripture, is also provided. You won't believe it's so bad until you read it for yourself. (I didn't, anyway.)

Next, book review of Robert Lee Williams' 'Bishop Lists', his rewritten dissertation, showing how the so-called list of early popes, came to be invented. The so-called 'church fathers' invented a list of who THEY thought good teachers, to fight other Christians and make Christianity look 'old' to Rome; by Constantine, they came to call this personal-opinion list, hallowed. Ooops.

Playlist ends with 'Rethinking Catholic Claims' subseries, informal commentary on RCC claims versus history and Bible.

You can proof all this yourself. Videos walk you through the source material. Don't take my word for it, DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK.

The 'Calvin's Poison' video also has many source text links, so you can see for yourself how his lie was promulgated, and how RCC doctrines infected Calvinism, and hence most of Christianity even until today.

DO HOMEWORK. Or, be fooled.

The Retarded 'Church Fathers'
brainout | 21 Mar 2017, 21:54

Read their vile twistings of Scriptures and outright lies for yourself, in their own words:

I was looking to see where the meter and text in Mark 13 for particular phrases would be echoed in the mindset or phrasing of the time marked by the meter, and if it were possible to find when Bible mss were disseminated.

Apparently Michael III (842-867) donated many Bibles to one of the churches, but I can't tell for sure, since the term is 'New Testament relics'. So in trying to chase that meaning down, I found this bilious piece of trash by the American Bible Society: Centennial Pamphlets: Ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople : the New Testament among the Greeks

So even today, the same sickness pervades.

The reference to Michael III is in footnote 53, Chapter 9, p.233 of the pdf of a translation of Scylitzes, Full text of "John Skylitzes. A Synopsis Of Byzantine History (trans. By J. Wortley) ( 2010)"

Syriac Bible translation history and related stuff, 523-645 AD
brainout | 24 Jan 2017, 10:36

This link (as a subset of the history of the Syro-Phoenician church) seems unusual, so I thought I'd park it here: Chart of the Syro-Phoenician Church from 525 A.D. till 1724

Jerome's writings/translations in chrono order, w LINKS to them

I just found this, much better than newadvent.org, listing in chrono order when Jerome wrote what, including the translation work or commentary work. Very important for any of our metered timelines, as the Western world would be using his translation (well, mixed with Old Vulgate) for the next 1000 years. Even today, the Vulgate we have is largely his translation. So his spiritual development would matter a bunch to seeing how others were hampered or helped in their studies.


Julius Africanus' writings
brainout | 17 Mar 2017, 20:09

This is the guy who first put Peter on a pope list at the behest of Demetrius of Alexandria, as explained in my videos, here: https://vimeo.com/channels/churchfathers/79847850

This link, is to his 'Chronography', evidence the jerk never could read THE BIBLE which has a full chronology of everything BUT how old the Earth is (cuz Bible doesn't ever bother to say that). Notice how clearly the guy cannot read even the Genesis 5 begats: Sextus Julius Africanus after 221 CE

Desafortunadamente, you can't get his 'Cesti' for free, but you can search on it here, sample search given: Cesti: The Extant Fragments (page 18)

1 PopeM + 36/72, KJVOB : KJV's Matthew 16:18, makes Peter, Pope

How KJV decapitates Christ and puts Peter's head at top. How only the Codex A family (Siniaticus, Alexandrian-related) preserved the right Greek text.

For a better retelling of Codex A's dramatic history than I say in the videos (the way I tell the story might be misleading) -- see this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus.

So much for the claim that Textus Receptus is 'less' Catholic!

2 PopeM + 37/72, KJVOB : KJV's Matthew 16:18, makes Peter, Pope

Here's Tischendorf's own account of how he found it: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/discovery.html

So much for the claim that Textus Receptus is 'less' Catholic! Full playlist on Petra/petros is here: PopeMyth.htm. That webpage has more information about how to prove the pope thingy is a lie invented in the 2nd century AD. The playlist is also here in Youtube, my 'brainout PopeMyth'. The Youtube playlist videos are fewer and longer than those in bliptv, but contain the same material. (Once, bliptv was easy to use and clearer; then it became a nightmare; so I'm porting my bliptv videos here to Youtube.)

3 PopeM Rock is Christ Never Peter

Proof from Bible that 'pope' is an anti-Biblical INVENTION by apostate Christians around the time of Commodus, forward. Pan-Bible petros verses: Ps 103:12; Job 30:6; Obad 1:3; Isa 2:19, 21; 7:19; 57:5; Jer 16:16; 28:25; 30:10; Matt 4:18; 8:14; 10:2; 14:28f; 15:15; 16:16, 18, 22f; 17:1, 4, 24, 26; 18:21; 19:27; 26:33, 35, 37, 40, 58, 69, 73, 75; Mk 3:16; 5:37; 8:29, 32f; 9:2, 5; 10:28; 11:21; 13:3; 14:29, 33, 37, 54, 66f, 70, 72; 16:7f, 20; Lk. 5:8; 6:14; 8:45, 51; 9:20, 28, 32f; 12:41; 18:28; 22:8, 34, 54f, 58, 60ff; 24:12; Jn. 1:40, 42, 44; 6:8, 68; 13:6, 8f, 24, 36f; 18:10f, 15ff, 25ff; 20:2ff, 6; 21:2f, 7, 11, 15, 17, 20f; Acts 1:13, 15; 2:14, 37f; 3:1, 3f, 6, 11f; 4:8, 13, 19; 5:3, 8f, 15, 29; 8:14, 20; 9:32, 34, 38ff; 10:5, 9, 13f, 17ff, 21, 23, 25f, 32, 34, 44ff; 11:2, 4, 7, 13; 12:3, 5ff, 11, 13f, 16, 18; 15:7; Gal. 1:18; 2:7f, 11, 14; 1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1

The false claim is that Christ means Peter in Matt16:18 when He says 'upon this rock'. Greek word for 'rock' is 'Petra.' So what does 'Petra' mean? So in this video we tour the 104 times Petra is used in the Bible. First 40 minutes walk you though each verse; last 20 minutes provides a review set to music. Oh: all the times Petra is used in the Bible, it only means God, Christ -- or some big hunk of rock, cliff, cave (refuge!) DEPICTING Him. Right before your eyes, famous verses like Rock of My Salvation are seen to use the famous Petra.

So Christ uses Petra for HIMSELF in Matt 16:18, just as He uses Son of Man from Dan7:13 to mean Himself. Is Peter the Rock of your salvation? NO. Rather, in the tandem Petros Lie videos, you'll see Peter's name Kephas=Chip=Stone (common names for men even today) -- uses Greek diminuitive 'os', so 'petros' always means 'little rock'. As in, Part OF Big Bedrock=Christ -- definitely not any head of any church. There's only ONE Head, Christ, 1Cor12. And He surpasses the Body, in 1Cor12:31's clever Greek.

Which Peter knew, since he was alive when RCC today maintains he was made pope. So why didn't Peter inform us of his status? Why did no one treat him as a pope? PopeMyth.htm goes through those issues. But video sticks to the proof that Petra never can mean 'peter'. So Christ doesn't mean Peter when Christ says, 'upon this Rock': He refers to HIMSELF, just as other Petra Bible verses do.

So we see from Bible how apostate Christians invented the lie that Matthew 16:18 makes Peter head of Church. You have to KNOW Greek and Latin to see how bald a lie. Colossians 3:25!

Catholicism began with power-grabbers like that vomitable 'Clement' who wrote the Corinthians at the very time Revelation 17 was penned on Patmos. So are you surprised, someone TRANSLITERATED Petra to create a new Latin word 'Petrus', to make both words in Matthew 16:18 look like one ADJECTIVE? Then REPLACES real 1st-century Latin words like 'lapis' for stone (petros, in Greek, Peter's nickname) and 'scopulum' for bedrock (petra, in Greek, Christ's nickname)? And then put the invented 'petrus' into then-being-written Latin 'Vulgate', too?

As you'll see in the Petros Lie videos, some scribe went through the Greek OT and transliterated PETRA with an invented Latin 'petra' to pretend the latter was a real Latin adjectival substantive. But lol, he did a bad replacing job: the scribe wasn't thorough enough to cover his tracks; he left real Latin words intact in some verses. So you KNOW it's an invented lie in the Vulgate -- if you know even high-school Latin and Greek. So Rome has its lying hand in the cookie jar, preserved by its own Vulgate. Which Vulgate lie you'll see live, in the Petros Lie videos.

The Latin lie is very old now. And just as bald, unforgiveable as when invented, relying on people not knowing the Latin words or grammar rules about matching gender. That lie will never be admitted, even as today the lie of Good Friday persists. Christ said THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS. But they cut off his Head in Matthew 16:18, putting Peter's on top, so why not also truncate Christ's Own Death, His Own Words about HOW LONG He was in the Grave?

The 1517 et seq. Redefamation just added popes and Rev17 harlots, Calvin thinking himself foremost among them, claiming that Rev17 was a promise his sect would replace Rome, getting that from reading Daniel 9. Oh yeah, see today's 'apostles', 'special messengers' who 'receive revelations', etc. Infesting Youboob and the world. So 1st century Christianity went into the toilet; so even now, it stays there. The goofball activities Luke wryly recorded in Acts, persist even today. For Christians are human, and love the lie, still.

4 PopeM The Petros Lie aka how to invent a pope from Bible Text!

Of course everyone's a pope nowadays, so what follows is paradigmal for many other sects who manipulate Bible to garner power/authority. Aka, twist it into whatever the salesman wants to sell...

You must be familiar with the grammar role of gender in Greek and Latin nouns versus adjectives, to get the full impact of the deft lie crafted here:

  1. TRANSLITERATE rather than translate Matthew 16:18's Greek PETRA (meaning 'bedrock', used 104 times in Bible, always related to Christ, as shown in the Rock is Christ video) -- as if 'petra' were a real Latin word. (It provably wasn't.) Change Greek petros (meaning little rock, chip, stone) into PETRUS. Thus PETRA and PETRUS look like two (adjectival) versions of the same noun.
  2. BACK TRANSLATE the OT into Latin using your newly invented 'petra' as if it was always a Latin word, and thus entrench your new word into the Latin vernacular. Change the real Latin words that SHOULD have been used for the Greek 'petra' like scopulus, saxum, rupes to a Latinized 'petra' when you translate; take advantage of the fact these Latin words are all masculine nouns, but Greek petra is only a feminine noun. Do this back-translating especially when the Greek text uses petra, so it looks like your newly-invented Latinized word has the same meaning.
  3. Use Latinized 'petra' also for all appearances of Greek petros (10, in OT -- shown in last 10 minutes of this video), so it will look like petros=petra. Be sure also to use Latinized 'petra' as the (wrong) translation for other Greek small-stone words like lithos and chalixz, so that GREEK petros will look the same as GREEK petra. But ooops -- be consistent, because if you slip up and properly translate the Greek nouns with valid Latin words like lapis, saxum, etc. you'll alert the reader to those REAL Latin words, and he'll suspect your invention, given how you HAWK Matthew 16:18. (Vulgate messes up just enough so this gambit is exposed; like the LXX Genesis 5 joker who manipulated siring ages, but then tired out and botched the job!)
  4. By contrast, restrict your invention of Petrus to a capitalized name, and only to the NT -- never use it in the Greek sense, lest you alert the reader to recall GREEK petros really means 'chip'. Trust the reader not to recall Greek, and discourage him from learning it so he won't find out. Bandy the Latin translation as 'inspired', so he'll feel he doesn't need the original (like the KJVO, today).
  5. So after a century or so, even lexicographers -- especially the Catholic ones -- will overlook this Latinized invention and translate the very different Greek words as if they were the same. So the sham takes on a patina of respectability over the centuries; those who catch the lie will know to keep silent or risk trouble.
  6. The ignorant who want the religious lie anyway, thus get to keep it. A lie which was furthered by the following inventions: http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_peter's_presence_in_rome.htm. Pay very close attention to wording. You can tell the text claiming Peter was in Rome, is ambiguous or planted (not sure by who), esp. since the Bible CONTRADICTS, i.e., end of 1Peter, Galatians 2, Book of Acts. If Peter had gone to Rome, Luke or Paul would have recorded it, duh. And Paul complained everyone deserted him in Rome, and didn't ask for Peter, but for Mark, 2Tim4:11. Pwned!
  7. God, of course, continues to rescue those who want Him rather than religion and its many lies.

Note: this video compiles the original Summer 2008 'Petros Lie' videos in bliptv. You can instead view or download them from the vid desc to the Petros Lie Trailer at the end of this playlist. Those videos are quite short. I left out the bliptv 'lapis' video as there are many more lapis verses than that video shows.

For a fuller proof, search on 'rock', 'rocks', 'stone', 'stones' in any English Bible, and then compare Hebrew, Greek, Latin text.

The goal here is to show how a Bible lie is made. Non-catholic Christian sects play the same games with their own pet doctrines. You can find similar pandering in any Christian sect.

So 1John4:1-6 is vital, lest God punish you for buying a lie, 1 John 1:6,8,10, 5:16.

It's heartbreaking, how Christians never check the Word of God!

4b PopeM Christ is Rock Never Peter (old trailer)

This video is replaced by the original full version now posted in Youtube. View whole series in webpage context and in order: PopeMyth.htm.

Gist: Pan-Bible Proof that Matt16:18's "Rock" ONLY refers to Christ, never Peter. Greek Petra is used 104 times in Bible, and nearly all references are directly or indirectly terms for Messiah. You'll see that yourself, as this video series goes through each such verse.

Companion "Petros Lie" series is also a must-see, as Peter's name comes from "petros", a CHIP, which is a very different word versus Greek PETRA, meaning BEDROCK, MOTHER ROCK -- i.e., the rock of the Temple Mount, which used to be the Holy of Holies location of the Ark.

I'm not against the Catholic Church, but when any denomination maligns Christ by egregious misuse of Bible, that should be admitted. Basically, instead of translating the Greek into Latin (Vulgate) they instead TRANSLITERATED the Greek petra, pan-Bible. Latin had other words for cliff, stone: none of which (except rarely, lapis) are used in the Vulgate.

So instead of using an existing Latin word, they instead invented a NEW Latin word bastardized from two very different Greek words. So to make a single LATIN word with both gender endings, AS IF IT WERE THE SAME WORD. Thus one substitutes Christ with Peter, lol! After a hundred years or so, the Latin imposter word will be in common use, and how nice -- everyone will forget its origin, caring not at all to check what the REAL Bible says.

In transliteration, the distinction between the two nouns is lost. Clever way to lie, if you don't know Greek. Obvious lie, if you do know.

Christ is thus maligned, His Head cut off: Matt16:18 is the very reason why there has to be a pre-Trib Rapture. Christ had to intervene and invoke His Kata-Melchizedek priesthood to create a new entity He names "Church" (play on synagogue, Greek equivalent) -- to saveTime itself. Else Time would have stopped, since the Jews rejected Him. That's why Rapture: all Time would have ended, so our ending can't now be predicted, Hebrews 11:39-40. More about this is in the "How God Orchestrates Time" video: its video description provides links to webpages with Bible backup.

Of course, people won't recognize the real meaning of Matt16:18 if they don't study it. Which they couldn't even do for centuries, since RCC kidnapped Scripture.

So you're faced with an uncomfortable conclusion: either Roman Catholic Church, starting with the so-called 'Church Fathers', continually lies about Matt16:18's meaning; or it continually flunks first-year Greek AND Latin rules on noun gender: for again, Peter's name is a diminuitive, masculine gender; but the "Rock" referred to in the verse, is feminine gender; so "Rock" cannot refer to Peter in either Greek OR Latin; but only to Christ, as the search will amply demonstrate. This search is in the full version of the video, in this PopeMyth playlist on Youtube.

4c PopeM Proving Petros (Pope) Lie (old trailer)

This video is replaced by the full version in HD on how Matthew 16:18 was kept intact, and the Old Latin +Vulgate were 'doctored' to invent a new Latin word to mask the Greek in that verse. So read this description to get downloads and info.

The full version is simply search in Vulgate on petra, and on what should have been the Latin translations for both petra and petros in Greek. Amazing, the results.

Main webpage on this topic, which shows how the Pope thingy was an invention of the 2nd century AD, is in PopeMyth.htm.

Idea is to show how Vulgate cleverly transliterates Greek petra AND petros to mask the difference between those famous since-Homer Greek words, instead of translating them with the Latin equivalents. Latin did have translation equivalents for the Greek words; Vulgate sometimes uses the true Latin equivalents, so you can tell it was deliberate, when they instead TRANSLITERATE occurrences of petra and petros in the Greek, with the invented petrus in Latin. Very bald.

I'm no conspiracy buff, and am not even personally anti-Catholic; anti their false doctrines, yes. I have my own missal from the year I was born, okay? See it live, in my Mary Bloopers video.

Even so, only idiots believe the 'Roman conspiracy' nonsense. Still, Rome has its hand in the cookie jar, masking the truth about what Matthew 16:18 means. Very convenient, let the Latin rules on case endings bastardize the original Greek meaning of petra versus petros in Bible and Greek lit. No kind way to phrase this, sorry.

5 PopeM Apostolic Fathers Of Apostasy: Clement

How did the harlotry of 'apostolic succession' actually begin? As a usurpation gambit. We have a profuse record of it, in the writings of the so-called 'Church fathers' who authored it. As shown previously in the Petros Lie and Rock is Christ videos, they doctored the Vulgate to cover up the real Greek meaning in Matt16:18. But before that, they did something else: claim to be the 'heirs' of the apostles. Cleverly. With dulcet tones. Satan was nice in Matthew 4, too.

How could such a thing happen, when the Bible is adamantly AGAINST this idea, 1Cor15, end of the Gospels, Matt 23, Mal1:6, Ephesians 4:11-16, and esp. Matt16:18? Well, both Jews and Christians expected the Millennium in 94AD, just as predicted since Moses in Psalm 90. Never mind, that as a consequence of Israel rejecting Him, the Lord said He would build Church UPON HIMSELF, Matt 16:18.

In Ephesians 2 Paul thus shows Two Walls, after indexing his Greek to Moses Psalm 90 meter in Ephesians 1:3-14, to show a series of what-if-Rapture happens, since Church is in the Daniel 9:26c time bubble of history, the 62nd week. So Paul's meter also maps to Daniel's.

So when the Millennium didn't come by 94 AD, but John was instead exiled on Patmos, Christians became jaded; thus 1John's warning came true front and center; thus began the usurpers, aka (ahem) the 'Church Fathers'.

Witness beginning in this video, the cold-hearted power grab by so-called Clement of Rome, when John was newly exiled to Patmos or dead. Read his words for yourself, here: https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html. Bring Pepto Bismol!

So while 'Clement' is snubbing John (who Clement NEVER MENTIONS in his 'letter' to the Corinthians), God is snubbing 'Clement' -- reserving Rome for the nastiest chapter in the Bible, Revelation 17. Or, maybe Clement wrote afterwards. Either way, it's clear from Bible that the so-called 'apostolic succession' is a lie, proven even in the 'fathers' own words. In this video, we focus on Clement.

Subsequent videos will take these 'fathers' in order, showing what God had John predict in Revelation 17, came true. Of course, you should read them yourself. Start here: https://christian.net/pub/resources/christian-history.html#fathers. Download the whole 1600-page library here: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.pdf

Notice how profuse their 'piety', their overstress on glorifying the apostles in order to insinuate THEMSELVES, just like Jude 9-12 warned.

From time immemorial such power grabs have occurred. Kings die, leaders die, usurpers claim to be the rightful heirs, and take over. Happened in Israel, happens in Church; here we have a full history of 'fathers' in their own words, their diarrhetic abuse of Bible, showing us how they did it.

Read them for yourself at either ccel.org or earlychristianwritings.org. If you have BibleWorks 8, use the Resources-then-Backgrounds tab for 'Early Christian Fathers', and start reading.

Bring Pepto-Bismol.

When people TRASH the Word of God, they shouldn't be treated nicely, 2John 9-11, 2Tim3:5-7, Titus 1:12-14, 3:10.

Associated webpages PopeMyth.htm and LvS4a.htm#SyncopTrib. Latter is a historical review of post-Cross fallout leading to these 'fathers'.

6 PopeM Fathers of Apostasy: Ignatius

Note the odd facts/claims of the so-called 'church fathers'

  1. Rev 2:9-10, 88AD: the Lord tells the Smyrnan faithful the devil will throw them into prison 'for 10 days'. He next assures them that if they remain FAITHFUL TO DEATH, they win the crown of life (book of James' theme). So then the UNfaithful wouldn't be arrested and die.. right?
  2. Scholars often deem the 10 days, years.
  3. Ok, then: 10 years later is 107AD. Ignatius, born c.30AD, is 'bishop' of Antioch; Polycarp, born c.65AD, is 'bishop' of where? Smyrna.
  4. Polycarp is reported by modern scholars to have been under the 'blessed Ignatius' (Polycarp's Epistle to Philippians, Chap X) when young. Where? Smyrna!
  5. Polycarp writes, 'alms deliver from death' (ibid). Alms? So why the Cross?
  6. Irenaeus, born c.120 AD, claims to have been under Polycarp in "Against Heresies", Book 3 Chapter 3 point 4. Where? Smyrna!
  7. Of course, Irenaeus there also relates Polycarp's story on how Apostle John (who then must be 100+ years old), somehow got back in Ephesus AFTER Patmos, and was in such spry health but bad temper, he went running from a bath-house upon hearing the heretic Cerinthus just entered it (ibid)! Wow! Almost as good as Hegesippus' yarn on how Apostle (& Lord's half-brother) James galavanted inside the Holy of Holies, UNWASHED (Martyrdom of James, Chap 1)!
  8. Post-John -- whom Ignatius never mentions, though John allegedly was his teacher! -- Ignatius advertises himself to Trajan as a Christian in order to earn a death sentence by wild beasts, 106 (or 116) AD. So en route to Rome from Antioch, in order to turn himself in and get torn up, he writes at least 7 verbose letters. The one to the Romans is lurid; so they get time to sweat him a triumph, maybe? Not at all like Paul's content. Not at all like Matt 6:1-4!
  9. So notice: both Ignatius and Polycarp have martyrdom stories told of them, at dates WAY BEYOND the 10 years.

So ask yourself: why didn't the devil imprison Ignatius, who instead scampered to Trajan, announced HIMSELF a Christian so to BE martyred? Why didn't the devil imprison Polycarp? Perhaps they are called martyrs since they weren't the Smyrnan faithful of Revelation 2:9-10? Thus to benefit Irenaeus, later 'bishop' of Lyons (southern France and Smyrna were friendly)?

Maybe that's why these 'fathers' didn't like Revelation; it was a political football for centuries, though clearly John's wry dramatic style. Augustine would later allegorize it away.

And lest you exclaim, 'how dare you, brainout!' -- ask HOW DARE THEY TRASH GOD's WORD and the apostle John?

So note how Ignatius trashes God's Word, in his own words. Use links here to access Ignatius' letters and my follow-along audio commentary:

Download text of 'Church Fathers', right-click and 'Save..as': https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.txt. Format with your favorite font, then read. Or, ccel charges a small fee to download: change 'txt' to 'pdf'. (If too little RAM, choose the 'online' option to read, but you can't search well: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html)

Search on 'Note to the Epistles of Ignatius', to go to his letters. In BibleWorks 8, click on Resources, Backgrounds, Schaff: Use double quotes for strings.

Then compare Rev Chapters 1-3, written 10 years prior; for Ignatius and Polycarp were ALIVE then, just as Clement of Rome had been.

Here's my audio reaction and comparison (with corrections). Do a right-click and 'Save..as' to download. (The files won't stream well.)

7a PopeM Fathers of Apostasy: Holy Hegesippus? Pt 1

Meet the dingdong who invented the so-called popelist RCC uses, which was really the guy's OWN OPINION of who were good Christian teachers ('bishops'), in the first century. So: did he himself know Scripture well enough to have an ACCURATE opinion of who was a good teacher? Let's see from HIS OWN MOUTH versus Bible, k?

Egg-on-face, aka how to prove you never read Bible: people praise Hegesippus as a 'Hebrew'! The guy clearly never read the OT and never learned the Mosaic Law, but Schaff praises him, and all Christendom from the early 'Church Fathers' forward praise this guy? So ALL of them never read the OT, either. Wow, that's a nasty claim, huh. Okay, then: let's see the PROOF of that claim, in Schaff's, and Hegesippus own words!

Read those words yourself, https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hegesippus.html. That's all I'm doing, here. Live, onscreen.

The ccel.org site is notoriously annoying to navigate or search, so here's its own link to Hegesippus: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.x.vi.ii.i.html. You have to press PREV or NEXT to keep reading, and the indescipherable red-lines icon at upper left (esconced in grey) is the Table of Contents, which of course never tells you what CHAPTER of a book, but only the title, or only the BOOK number, but never the title. Incompetently-designed website, but at least it's free. From ccel, you can also download the whole thing in txt format (which is rife with typos), but you can then search properly, using Word. Also can download in pdf, from them. Reading online is a pain; be sure you have AdBlock on, since the flashing ads at page bottom will distract you. (You can get AdBlock for Firefox or Chrome.)

How embarrassing, that Christendom praises this guy. Proving, Christians DO NOT READ BIBLE. 1 Clement reeks of Bible quotes inaptly used and mixed with phoenix myths, see for yourself: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.i.html. Hegesippus followed 1 Clement. He also followed anti-semitic Justin Martyr's long-winded diatribe couched in nice language, here: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.i.html

7b PopeM Fathers of Apostasy: Holy Hegesippus? Pt 2

Rambling synthesis and conclusions based on 'Bishops List' book and related Apostolic Father writings, see links:

Bishop Lists book: http://books.google.com/books?id=LLW6...

Commentary on that book re Hegesippus: https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/apostolic-succession-part-5-hegesippus.html

For the 'Fathers' obsession with Jews: sample search on 'Jew': https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html. This one is typical, claiming AGAINST BIBLE, that Church replaces Jews: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.xiii.html. No wonder they didn't want to accept Revelation.

Hegesippus, from 7a : https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.x.vi.ii.i.html or here: https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hegesippus.html

Irenaeus using Hegesippus and the former's own anti-semitism: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html and https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xxii.html and https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xvi.html. Notice how Irenaeus distorted Scripture in order to snipe at the Jews, in that last link, esp. at the end.

Hippolytus' using 'bishop list' via Africanus to suddenly FAKE Peter at Rome during Claudius, so to oust Origen, is in Williams' book. I can't find anything online. But here's his invented story of Peter in Rome: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iii.iv.xvi.html. Notice how he CHANGES LOCATION vs. Bible. Acts 8 says Peter was in SAMARIA. Justin started that lie, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vii.xiv.html. So Hippy copies Justin, not Bible.

Hippy is anti-semitic, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.ii.ii.html as if Christ said Church replaces Israel, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.i.xiv.v.html. Contrast https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iii.vii.xxvi.html. Hippy can't read Daniel, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.i.x.ii.html.

Eusebius' stuff: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.toc.html

Download the pdf of the book; it begins on pdf page 112: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.

He continues and even EMBELLISHES the Hegesippus lie, who got it also from 1Clement. Golly, does NO ONE read the OT? Here: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vii.xxiv.html

Eusebius crafts fake Jewish-related 'succession', https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.iv.html. Use the TOC (upper left red lines on gray) to see context, keep reading his claims of succession. CLICK ON FOOTNOTES to read how his claims mismatch history or Bible. See also pdf p306.

Eusebius on Hegesippus: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.ix.xxii.html, but see also pdf p.293, 304

For his anti-semitism, see pdf pages 135,184, 186, 271-273,278; p220 (he shoots himself in the foot about Claudius), 231 (on James, but p271 he contradicts), 242 +252 (Origen invented the Peter crucified upside-down thingy); his undiscerning acceptance of wild signs told by Josephus, 282-3.

He continues the lie of Peter in Rome, here: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vii.xv.html

He continues the lie about John, starting pdf p308.

7c PopeM Fathers of Apostasy: Holy Hegesippus? Pt 3

Critical point in this video: APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION in Bible, is based on Greek verb APOSTELLW, which is equivalent to 'power of attorney'. The POA reverts to the GRANTOR on death of the grantee, so there CANNOT be any such thing as apostolic succession UNLESS CHRIST HIMSELF does the DIRECT appointing. Which He did, 1Cor15:1-10. That's why Christ HAS all the keys in Rev 1. The 'succession' has ended, and the GRANTOR (Christ Resurrected) can't die.

Else, continued review of how Irenaeus, then Hippolytus, finally Eusebius 'adopt' Heggy's arbitrary popelist chrono, and how they manipulate it. Rest of video points flow from that, i.e., even if you allege apostolic succession from Abraham based on faith, then the TEST of succession is whether you do what Abraham did, John 8. How you cannot claim succession from Israel, since per Hebrews 5-10 (esp. 7:18), the Mosaic Law was ABROGATED.

Download Church Father writings in pdf: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff?show=worksBy. First 10 volumes 'anf' are Anti-Nicene Fathers (pre-Eusebius). Then for Nicene Fathers, go here and pick from page middle, http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html; for Eusebius Church History only, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201. He talks about Hegesippus in many places, so when you download the pdf, search on 'Hegesippus'.

Bishop Lists book: http://books.google.com/books?id=LLW6...

Commentary on that book re Hegesippus: https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/apostolic-succession-part-5-hegesippus.html

7d PopeM Fathers of Apostasy: Holy Hegesippus? Pt 4 (end)

Concluding synthesis of Bible,Dr. Williams' 'Bishop Lists' book, and 'church father' claims about apostolic succession. Video focuses on Eusebius' use of the list; he claims 'church' is an unbroken line of faith, founded on Abraham. OK, we can empirically test that: did Eusebius et al do what ABRAHAM DID? What did Abraham do?

Recap, Book Abstract (link: http://books.google.com/books?id=LLW6... )

  1. Williams traces origin of 'apostolic succession'. Begins with LEGAL LANGUAGE evidence. What language would a Greek or Roman use?
  2. Then he checks Bible for that language, finds none. Reviews what's closest, Acts 20, Titus 1, and Luke. No apostolic succession; rather, MISSIONARY succession.
  3. What about 'tradition'? None, first century. He reviews closest practices in Pauline, Jerusalem, Johanine churches.
  4. 'Tradition' first arises in Ignatius, but no apostolic succession language; rather, obeying 'bishops'.
  5. But 1 Clement argues JEWISH succession ideas to rebelling Corinthians who fire their OWN bishops. Clement is big on Church REPLACING Israel. Ooops: Jewish Succession can't match criteria for Church (i.e., Jewish succession based on bloodline, was national). So Clement makes a POLITICAL ploy. (Never mentions newly-exiled John. What a jerk.)
  6. POLITICAL theme basis for alleged continuity of 'bishops'. Oh, but bishop lists don't conform!
  7. First list, Hegesippus Memoirs (Chapter 5), 165+ AD. Only listed via Eusebius, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.ix.xxii.html. Hegesippus chose who IN HIS OPINION, was faithful to Bible. His list is aped by Irenaeus and Epiphanius. No evidence of succession, how decided, or if names were offices. List is also based on a garbled idea of Jewish priesthood, not NT. Or, on Greek 'schools' concepts, not NT. Worse, his list of 'schools', is inferred from (anti-semitic) Justin Marytr's 'Dialogue with Trypho', and Jewish Succession in 1 Clement. (Jesus was wrong tribe for priesthood, Heb 8:4. Ooops.)
  8. Irenaeus' list, next apes Hegesippus, now 170's or so. (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html) . Same 1 Clement and Greek 'schools' arguments. Why? Oh, gnostic Valentinians' own list, goes back to apostles! Still, list is not of successor apostles, but teachers deemed loyal, per Irenaeus. (One heretic claims 'back to apostles' vs. another; but Hebrews 7:18 et seq. says OT priesthood is obsolete!)
  9. Julius Africanus' list (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.v.ii.html). 217 AD. Peter-first-pope idea now invented to beat up Origen (now disgraced); dual list of bishops at Rome, Alexandria, oh! Roman 'church' is better, as suddenly Peter is first bishop in Rome, during CLAUDIUS! The very years Paul was supposed to BE in Rome (Rom 15) -- Peter apostle to JEWS, never Gentiles, never in Rome per BIBLE. Mark is listed as 1st bishop of Alexandria also during Claudius! How precocious. (Alexandria=Egypt. Where Bible never says either Peter or Mark, went.) Goal: make Origen submit to Roman church. (Oh my.)
  10. Hippolytus' list, 230's AD (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.ii.html). He 'updates' Africanus (borrows also from Irenaeus) to betray Origen, vanquish Callistus, appeal to Severans. So he's exiled and buddy Pantianus martyred, next (during 7-year warning in Paul's meter, Eph 1:9d); Alexander axed, too. (Hippy or Africanus can't count, eschew learning OT. Prefer to refute Greeks, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iii.i.i.html. So never learn the '6000' any rabbi can explain. But lying against Bible a la 1 Clement is fun. Hippy spawns HIGH PRIEST SUPREMACY: https://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html. By his own rule: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iii.vii.viii.html (page btm). For he was anti-semitic, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.ii.ii.html.)
  11. Eusebius' list is last, copies all prior. He constructs an unbroken timeline from Abraham forward, priests of Israel, Church post-Christ, a la CHURCH REPLACES ISRAEL 'doctrine' in 1 Clement. Not Bible. Eusebius' timeline designed to prove Church is old, not new. To silence pagan critics.

Of course, no succession of APOSTLES. (Christ has all keys in Rev 1, talks directly to errant pastors of John's churches, who claim to be apostles but are not, who claim to be Jews but are not, who claim to be conquerors of the people (Nikw-laus), and soon are, in Rev 17. His kingdom is NOT of this world, Church kingdom is founded on Melchizedek, not Israel, as HE is king of Israel; HE, never eligible OT priest, wrong BLOODLINE; Law was set aside, Hebrews 7-10. Peter et al. were apostles to JEWS, Paul sent to Gentiles, to Rome; last appointed apostle. Criterion? SEEING the RISEN CHRIST Who PERSONALLY APPOINTS, 1Cor15:1-10.) Ooops.

1 RCC : Rethink Catholic Claims, WHO DETERMINED BIBLE?

New subseries under PopeMyth (PopeM) playlist. Here and in 2 RCC, series premise is established; namely, the RCC claim that THEY are the authority for Christ, going all the way back to the apostles. Contrasted with history, and especially Bible.

Series will at times be nasty and nice, comparing what Catholicism claims, versus what Bible says. For GOD'S WORD is the authority, and HE personally testifies to each soul, what of His Word is accurately said, per Matt 7, Hebrews 4:12, John 14, many other passages. NO ONE is between you and God, that's the UPGRADED COVENANT we have in Christ, theme of book of Hebrews. And HE is our intercessor, no 'saints', 1John 2. GOD determines the interpretation, not man, 2Pet 1:20-21. God thus tells you, aka rewards you for seeking Him, Heb 11:6.

There were no popes ever in Bible, yet men knew it, and knew God, ever since Adam. Aha.

So where does RCC align, or depart, from Bible? And how did it get what it got? That's what this subseries explores. The other videos in PopeM cover some of the same topics in more depth and from other angles. This subseries will be mostly commentary. Related Church Father writings will be in the video descriptions.

Links relevant here:


GOD'S WORD is the authority, and HE personally testifies to each soul, what of His Word is accurately said, per Matt 7, Hebrews 4:12, John 14, 2Pet 1:20-21, many other passages.

So where RCC doesn't align with Bible -- i.e., claiming Good Friday accurate, which Bible contradicts in Matt 12:40-41 -- then RCC is WRONG, doesn't speak for God. Their claims that the three days are PARTIAL, contradicts GOD's measuring of 'evening, morning, one day' in Genesis 1. Even Eusebius knew that it means THREE 24-hour periods. Ooops. Okay, so it's an RCC mistake, shoulda called it Good Wednesday. Okay, so why doesn't RCC ADMIT the mistake, and move on? Arrogance. That's not from God, either.

So their 'authority' only extends as far as BIBLE matches what you say. No matter who you are. So if you really do have pastoral authority, God will witness to it. Every believer must CHOOSE which authority, Romans 13; God assigns PASTORS who must be ELECTED by the congregations, Eph 4:12-16, 1 Tim and 2 Tim; but ONLY THE SPIRIT makes the 'unity', Ephesians 4:5-7, John 14, 1John2, 4. The Spirit. Not, the Catholic Church, whether RCC or Odox; not the JWs or any other denomination. But, if that's who you elect for your teacher, well -- that's the responbility between God and you, thread of Romans 13-15.

For NO ONE is between you and God, that's the UPGRADED COVENANT we have in Christ, theme of book of Hebrews. And HE is our intercessor, no 'saints', 1John 2. GOD determines the interpretation, not man, 2Pet 1:20. God thus tells you, aka rewards you for seeking Him, Heb 11:6.

3 RCC : Anti-Semitism Sells Errant Theology

GIST: as RCC is founded on POLITICAL anti-semitism, it 'legates' a retarded theology, bloody persecution; thus forfeits the HIGHER LEGACY wrought for Church by Christ on Cross, as explained by 'better' (Attic kreittwn) and 'new covenant' (he kaine diatheke) in Book of Hebrews. For, RCC is focused on beating the Jews. Envy denies promises God made to CHRIST, as Israel is HIS Inheritance as well as us: TWO WALLS, Eph2, = TWO COVENANTS. Ours is better, (kreittwn), but jealousy is blind to all that.

So too blind, if need to justify 'old', to win over Jews and pagans. Eusebius crippled Romanism by founding it (wrongly) on claim of 'OLD'. Hebrews, by contrast, stresses our covenant is NEW, does NOTderive from Israel, via rhetorical OT framework of Ps 110, Melchizedek, Jer3:16, 31:31-34. Ooops.

Related links to video:

4 RCC: BIBLE is Authority, not man

Intro to the rest of the RCC subseries, which will next cover selected RCC incompetences at reading Bible. For if they can't read Bible correctly, their claims are shot down. For continuity of a LIE can be old. Everyone who is a Christian, goes back to the apostles' time in some way. But during that time, there were many apostates, viz. the complaints in Paul and 1John, in 2nd half Peter, and in Acts.

There's not a single doctrine espoused today, which is less than 2000 years old. So oldness, doesn't grant validity; pagans deemed oldness proof of truth. But Bible says Truth of a claim alone grants validity, whether old or new. And you can only find that Truth, in the Bible. Not, in men's claims about it. Claims are at best, hearsay. But we have the Source, 1Cor2:16!

So how to know? CHECK THE BIBLE. If the Bible agrees with what someone says, then fine. If not, walk away from the person, just as God warned the Jews back in Jeremiah's day (Jer 25-29). Jeremiah, had to go against his own dad, who was the High Priest (Hilkiah).

So might we. So in the upcoming RCC subseries uploads, we'll look at whether 'papa' has rightly interpreted important Bible doctrines espoused by the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, just because they made whopping mistakes, doesn't mean you should stop being Catholic. Ask GOD what you should do. My complaint against RCC is the same against all denominations: when they make mistakes, they won't admit those mistakes. You'll never see me argue they are heretics, that they aren't Christian, or have no right to exist. I have no right to say those things, only God does. But every Christian sometimes has a duty to report (not punish) anyone espousing doctrines which aren't Bible's. So first, establish before God, whether you have such a duty; do you KNOW enough to give an accurate report? If not, then shut up and pray God handle it. If you ARE supposed to report, then do it and move on. God will handle its processing.

We are not salesmen, but Royal Ambassadors stating Our Ruler's Policy. No one is between the human and God, so we state the case and move on. That's what I'm doing here, because it's now necessary, in conjunction with my 11 GGS series on Diocletian and Constantine; to explain why Paul lambasts the then-future formation of the Catholic Church, in Eph 1:10-12, which is the basis for John's writing about it, in Rev 17.

5 RCC : The Good Friday Lie

If you claim authority as God's Agent on earth, but you LIE against Him, then your authority is forfeit. By your TEACHING fruits we know you, Matthew 7. Lies, are bad fruits.

Mistakes are ok, they don't end authority; perpetuated lies, are not okay. Like, Good Friday. Initially, that was a mistake by some prelate who didn't know Exodus 12. Poor guy didn't know the distinction between regular and high sabbath. So, he didn't know Passover's start and ending days are HIGH 'sabbaths': '14' and '21' are 'sabbaths', no matter on which day-names, they fall.

Poor guy also didn't recognize John 19:31, which says Christ died on the eve of HIGH Sabbath, the REAL Passover, vs. the official Jewish calendar that ran four days fast, that year. So, the Lord could EAT the Passover (Matt. 26:17, 19; Lk. 22:8; Jn. 2:13; 12:1; 13:1; 18:28), yet BE the Passover, 1 Cor 5:7.

So the poor guy mistook the 'sabbath' references on the Lord's Death Date, as 'Friday'. And it's true; Friday at sundown becomes the regular sabbath. But THAT day, was a Wednesday, just as The Lord Told Us, in Matthew 12:40.

Now, over the years since, armies of alleged Catholic 'scholars' have twisted that verse, like they twist Matthew 16:18 to cut the Lord's head off -- to claim the 'three days and three nights' the LORD said, are but partial; hence, Friday Saturday and Sunday are all counted. But what about the three nights? There AREN'T three nights between Friday night and Sunday MORNING, when He rose, 'first day of the week', Matt. 28:1; Mk. 16:2, 9; Lk. 24:1; Jn. 20:1, 19. So the truth was, Wednesday -- Friday NIGHTS, then Thursday -- Saturday DAYS. Just like He said, in Matt 12:40.

He's the Creator, Genesis 1:1. And Genesis 1 defines the 'day' as 'evening, morning, ONE day'. Pre-Israel. So of course Israel adopted that accounting method, David creating a priesthood in 1Chron 24 based on a 24-hour day (so all 24 priestly courses each get 365.25 hours' service a year); but the RCC has to replace anything Jews do.

So the RCC, lies against Christ. For centuries. Note that: instead of admitting the initial mistake, and then say, 'Ooops, we're sorry, it's Good Wednesday', they perpetuate the lie. About the Lord's Own Death Date.

Worse, they also mask the Date's identity as True Passover, for the Jewish 360-day (wrong) calendar hadn't been intercalated that year, so Passover ran Four Days Fast; the Lord thus eating Official (but not real) Passover on the 10th day, the Exo 12 Lamb Set Aside Date. Then Dies, on True Passover. But RCC masks this Jewish Proof Of Prophecy Fulfilled, with 'Good Friday'. So the BIBLE looks bad.

Then RCC also masks Jewish Firstfruits, which starts piggybacked on the last day of Passover week, Numbers 28:26 -- as 'Easter'. So you miss the fact HE is Firstfruits (1Cor15:20-23).

In sum, RCC covers up these Jewish holidays; so you also miss the fact official Passover ran Saturday to Saturday, the year He died; but real Passover should have run Wednesday to Wednesday. That's how He could die on real Passover start, yet rise on the first day of the week, yet be 3 days and 3 nights in the Grave. For had the Jewish calendar been right, the math wouldn't work: Passover runs for a WEEK. So you know immediately, that the calendar wasn't intercalated. Bible wouldn't even have to tell you.

Bible's Math is clean (Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 26:61,63; 27:64; Mark 8:31, 10:34, 14:58, 15:29; Lk. 9:22, Luke 18:33, 24:7,21, John 2:19-20).

But RCC math is convoluted. They don't calculate Firstfruits renamed 'Easter', rightly. Bible's Exodus 12 = SOLAR YEAR, starts on vernal equinox. Then count 10 days, Set Aside the Lamb. Count four more, Slay the Lamb before sundown, eat it at sundown. Every year. Easy to calculate; ever since Adam, everyone knew vernal equinox. Israel's Birthday is Passover. But RCC instead uses a goofball lunar calculation against Bible, to derive 'Easter'. So the world has been living its lie, ever since.

The very day He paid for our sins, they deny? Isn't it bad enough they cut His Head off in Matthew 16:18, doctor the OT Vulgate to invent Latin 'Petrus', a word which didn't exist when He was here -- to make Peter into a Rock? (Greek Petros=chip, never BEDROCK = PETRA = Christ, see my 'Christ is Rock' videos on Bible Greek vs. Latin text.)

Download this description: GoodFridayLie.rtf. More on His Death Day is in PassPlot.htm. Latter also covers His Real Birth Date. That, RCC got right. So why not admit the above mistakes? Anyone with a Bible -- which RCC kidnapped for 1000 years, then God rescued it, in the West -- anyone with a Bible, can thus know, RCC lies. It Does Not Speak For God.

6a RCC : Catholic Mary Blooper ABCs

How sad, Bible refutes what RCC claims about Mary, ABC ! To wit:

  1. Mary ABSTAINED from sex UNTIL Christ was born, Matthew 1:25. Bible lists her sons, Matt 12:46, 12:49, 13:55, 27:56; Mark 3:31, 16:1; Luke 8:19, 24:10; John 2:12, John 7:3, 7:10; Acts 1:14; Jude 1 (brother of James who wrote book of James), Gal 1:19 (James brother of Christ). NB: the Jews DIDN'T accuse her of adultery over her other kids; but rather claimed Christ was born of her fornication, John 8:41.
    • BibleWorks Lexicons on ews: ewsThayer.jpg and ewsFriBDAG.jpg.
    • She'd sin to NEVER have sex with Joseph, Gen 2:24, 1Cor7:3-5, 1Tim5:14. RCC can't have it both ways: if it's a sin to REFUSE to have kids, Mary is a sinner. Christ could only be KING of the Jews, if his MOTHER had first-rights to be Queen (JEWISH lineage is via the mother). If she only bore Christ, she'd kill the royal Davidic bloodline. 'Catholic fathers' like Hegesippus (7a PopeM Fathers of Apostasy: Holy He...), cited James as the Lord's brother, based on BLOODLINE to Christ, basis for Hegesippus' (first) 'bishop' list! Ooops.
    • Can't have it both ways. Can't say James is Mary's son, ERGO 'apostolic' succession valid from James, as Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, finally Eusebius, all endorsed. Mary's perpetual virginity thus was NOT claimed, until Council of Ephesus in 431AD; that was DEMANDED by Pulcheria, Theodotian's big-sister Regent, for SHE was a virgin! Catholics fought other catholics, over that. Re the fight, see Ephesians1REPARSED.htm#y425to434, read all their underlined links. Ooops.
    • If you claim Joseph divorced, look at Gen 2:24, Mark 10:11. Jesus cites Genesis and Mosaic Law, Matt 5:31-32. RCC condemns divorce, too. But it's ok Mary espouse a divorcee before Jesus is born?
    • Fact: Mary's post-partum virginity was invented to compete with Vestal Virgins of pagan Rome, the highest female class. My Catholic 'Life of Christ' says Mary's story is 'fanciful'. In 1854, Pope Pius IX declared her sinless. See my 'Mary Immaculate Bloopers' video (description has scans of my RCC missal pages in jpg), 6b RCC Mary Immaculate Bloopers. As you'll see at 1:54 in that video, my RCC book says 'Mary herself' kindly 'appeared' at Lourdes in 1858, to acknowledge the Pope's ruling. :)

  2. Mary knew BIBLE, was dispensationalist, as are all Jews. RCC is preterist, violates Bible and insults Mary, denying her Magnificat; it uses Bible Hebrew Meter TO DATE TIME in Greek words, a tradition dating back to Moses' Psalm 90. (I've been proving this live in Bible, since 2008.) The meter style measures Time backward then forward from 'now' to the Millennium Moses prophesied in Psalm 90. Magnificat playlist: b-out Mary's Magnificat Meter of Time.
    • If a brainout can learn it, why didn't RCC? Its 'Fathers' knew Jews expected Christ to come Year 6000, like Hippolytus (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.i.x.ii.html), Photius (via Africanus, https://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.h.html?term=hippolytus+romanus), and Augustine (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XII.10.html). Ooops.
    • In her METER, she says she's age 35 (a spinster) when she speaks. So we know she instead spent her time studying BIBLE.. like Daniel. Meter runs full circle from her age 35 back to first Chanukah, then forward to her own birth and beyond, tracing history; then, prophetically traces Her Son's Time to Millennium, her own version of Anno Domini (starting Time over, at His Birth). Zecharias and Paul ape her meter; John's Rev 1:1-3, apes Paul's. Ooops.
    • So RCC praises Mary for alleged ABSTENTION, but not for her expertise in BIBLE? RCC doesn't even know her meter, though based ON the 6000 they did know (5250, per Moses) ? Ooops.

  3. Mary COMMITTED sins. 1st, SHE says she's a sinner in Magnificat, Luke 1:47. For more on this, see the Mary Immaculate Bloopers video (link above).
    • 2nd, at Cana wedding, she ORDERS Christ to turn water to wine, John 2:1-4; He calls her 'woman', an epithet of remonstrance. Then does the miracle, so not to shame her.
    • 3rd, she again uses her status to justify INTERRUPTING Him Teaching, Matt 12:46-49 (He rebukes them, v.49), Mark 3:31-35 (He rebukes them, 33-35), Luke 19:19-21 (He rebukes them, v.21 -- cf Luke 14:26, taught earlier). Each Gospel writer variantly stresses this event.
    • 4th (understandably), she's upset to see Him hang on the Cross; so He chides her, John 19:26. Christ spoke thus to other women, John 20:15, 8:10 (Pharisees did the same, v.8:4), 4:21; Luke 13:12. Peter did the same in Luke 22:57. We use 'woman' the same way today (stressing noun). See also Luke 11:27-28.
    • Also, RCC won't grasp the Virgin Pregnancy. Spirit-ordered pregnancy is free of sin nature, which is transmitted via ADAM. So for sinless Christ, THE PREGNANCY couldn't occur via man's seed, that's all. Easy to grasp, when you read Romans 5:12. Ooops.

6b RCC Mary Immaculate Bloopers

Answering a challenge. 24-min audio on 6 objections to RCC: MaryImmaculateAddendum.WMA. Related webpage: PopeMyth.htm, which the audio mentions. The audio link is in that webpage, too. (There's a 7th objection, that RCC is anti-semitic and therefore preterist, but I cover that in other videos.)

Upshot: RCC, like every denomination, promulgates anti-Biblical 'doctrines'. But they can be corrected, without ruining the denomination. Hopefully in the 21st century, they will be. I do not advocate demonising RCC or any other denomination. But all of them need to admit past teaching mistakes, and correct them, going forward.

Here, Christ is made DEPENDENT on Mary's alleged sinlessness (directly contradicting Romans 3:23, 5:12, 1Cor15:22, and even Luke 3:23), in order to be called sinless Himself? See: false doctrine always maligns God, and violates common sense.

Someone claimed I was lying about what the RCC says, hence this video. I hereby attest that the following JPGs used in the video are scans of the actual RCC-authored Catholic Library of Devotion in my possession, which one of my Catholic relatives owned and gave me to keep. I put it on the scanner, and hit the button, resulting in the video derived from the following JPGs:

Note: these pages are listed in consecutive order, just as in the book.

PopeMyth.htm has videos and text showing the Bible mistranslation and 3rd-century invention of the Latin word Petrus to falsely claim Peter pope. It's pretty bald and embarrassing.

Anyone claiming his denomination gets all doctrine right is evil. RCC is by no means alone to blame here. Protestants also make their denominations God instead of God. But God puts His Word above His Own Person, Psalm 138:2b. So should we. So anyone NOT doing that, well.. "shun them", Paul warned in 2 Tim 3:5 (see 2Tim2:26-3:7 for full context). John says don't even say 'hello', 2John9-11.

All denominations screw up & misuse Bible. No big deal: just correct the blooper, move on. But they don't correct it, and instead COVER UP their errors or bully.

That's what happened here in RCC: they didn't understand the Virgin Pregnancy, so made up LIES about it, though Bible is very clear that the Virgin Pregnancy occurred because sin is transmitted through the GENES of Adam, Romans 5:12's aorist tense-matching (3x to show it's through ADAM, when HE sinned).

Mary is recorded as sinning several times, and called herself a sinner needing a Savior, Luke 1:47. So she's GREATER than the RCC depicts, due to her FAITH, not her virginity, lol: just imagine the pressure she faced! How intimidated would YOU be to have to raise as a son, the God-Man who'll pay for your sins?

So if only the RCC would correct its mistake, no big deal. But it won't. Then again, no other denomination will admit its errors, either. So yeah, be in a denom if God wants that: but check with Word what it teaches, and correct what's wrong as you learn it, in your head.

7 RCC : Catholics got Christmas RIGHT!

Protties flunk, here. December 25 is CHANUKAH, as I've been documenting since 2004; since 2008, in videos. CENTERPIECE OF HISTORY, this date, all Bible dates hub to it, even as they focus to Passover, when He died. Lord's Birth and death dates are the 'hub' around which God designed TIME. Hebrews 1:3 says as much (always mistranslated, should be THE TIMES or 'ages', not 'worlds').

Key to proving the Chanukah 4BC birthdate, are Exodus 12 (SOLAR YEAR accounting should have been Israel's calendar, but she messed it up); Haggai 2:21-23 (which Mary quotes in her Magnificat, a TIME POEM which uses meter to key off first Chanukah), and the fact that both Passover and Chanukah are Israel INDEPENDENCE days, which you miss if you don't value calendar on SOLAR year.

That's why Matthew uses 'star'=light=angel in Matt 2, why Luke uses angels and light in Luke 2, why Zecharias talks about light to the Gentiles, in his soliloquy -- keying off, MARY. Her accounting switches to Christ-Birthday accounting, at her syllable 160. Paul picks up on that, and keys off Mary, dating Eph1:3-14, at Christ's age 56, right before His 57th birthday. Anno Domini!

So if you were gonna pick a Rapture or 2nd Advent Date (and you shouldn't), pick CHRISTMAS aka CHANUKAH for His Arrival. For both Paul and Mary START TIME OVER, at His Birth. Exodus was a birthday present to Moses; so I'd bet money Rapture or 2nd Advent will be a birthday present to Christ. Just a guess.

Excepting the videos on Ephesians and Magnificat, all related webpages and videos are organized under PassPlot.htm#HisBday to show this story. That webpage covers how God orchestrated the Jewish calendar to depict the pattern of WORLD HISTORY, which most Jews and many Dispensationalist pastors, kinda know. But they don't know how vast is the proof of this, in Bible. I wouldn't have known either, except my pastor suddenly separated himself from the common Prottie kant that the Lord was born in the spring, since December would be 'too cold'; look up that silly argument in ISBE, k?

My pastor was getting sick with Alzheimer's in year 2000, when he broke with Prottie 'tradition', so couldn't explain why he switched to December 25. That's why I had to go looking in Bible. He said it was Chanukah 4 BC. Upset the congregation, by his insistence.

Yeah, and now I can furnish proof. In six playlists, and very long webpages documenting it all. Where to start? Depends on what angle you prefer. Suggest you use the above webpage link, reading until your eyes glaze over. It shows the comprehensive design 'fit' of the Jewish holidays, and how they depict the 'year' of human history. That's a parallel to the 'year' Noah spent in the boat, which Paul parallels in four 'quarters' (playing of Zecharias playing off Mary, both using '91' meters).

Once you see the big picture, it will be easier to slog through the dates, Bible verses, etc. provided in the page. AFTER that, the next slogging is through the videos. Depends on whether you want to start with the minutiae, or the big picture.

Big-picture playlists are Psalm 90 Meter of Time and YMH Episode 10. Both playlists are featured (in alpha order) on my channel page.

At the other end, the 10-11 GGS series covers Paul and Mary's Magnificat meter. Many videos, and not yet done; for Paul's meter outlines FUTURE CHURCH HISTORY to the end of the Western Roman Empire, which spawned my RCC videos now, here. Currently, I'm on Diocletian-Constantine, Paul's syllables = AD years, 283-337. Like Mary, Paul uses his own A.D. accounting, which is surprisingly like ours. I can't yet explain why.

Mary's Magnificat meter is a GGS subset, and was spun off into a separate playlist. She specifically TAGS to first Chanukah, playing off Daniel 9. Word docs in the video descriptions, give you her live Bible Greek text (UBS4, BGT, pasted from BibleWorks) -- so you can vet it; I walk the viewer through that doc.

Both playlists are on my channel page.

Finally, in the Synoptics series, right now the focus is on Chanukah references in Haggai 2 which tie to Matthew 1-2, and Luke 1-2. That's been ongoing for the last ten weeks. Very little Greek used. So if you prefer translations, maybe start there.

The info is vast, testable, and conclusive. It will overwhelm you.

8 RCC : YES you name your sins -- but to Who?

Catholic Church also gets right the idea you must name your sins. Many of the priests will correctly tell you that you do NOT need to name your sins to THEM, but to God. That's 1John1:9, and it's BIBLICAL. The RCC established a Jewish-style 'confessional', rooted in the OT practice of you going to the Levitical priest with an animal or other 'sin offering', at which point you put your hand on the offering, while you named your sins and the priest slayed the animal. See my 1John1:9 playlist for the OT verses demonstrating this.

RCC, obsessed as it is with covering up Judaism, again misunderstood how the naming of sins function, changed post-Cross. 1John1:9 and the (mistranslated) 2 Peter 1:9 tell you that you name the sins to GOD, yourself. For YOU are a priest yourself, 1Pet2:5, 9. Many Catholic priests also will tell you that all believers are themselves priests, so this much is partly understood among the RCC groups. They don't all agree on anything, all the way back to the apostles. So you will get, different answers.

No problem. We have BIBLE to tell us the answers; this time, Bible reinforces the RCC claim that you MUST NAME YOUR SINS; but to God, not them. You cannot understand Bible if you don't do this. Again, see my 1John1:9 playlist for details, here: b-out 1 John 1:9 Vids

9 RCC Catholic Bible Timeline Bloopers

For well over 1000 years, RCC has been unable to tell time. Ironic proof of that just came to me from someone who sent me a link, as shown in the video. Here's the site: https://www.catholicbible101.com/bibletimeline.htm. The site is dedicated to proving WHERE IS THAT IN THE BIBLE as an apologetic of Catholic faith.

Unbeknownst to the sender, I was still reading in Bishop's List by Robert Lee Williams (link: Bishop Lists: Formation of Apostolic Succession of Bishops in Ecclesiastical Crises) how the two guys who invented the Peter-Pope-in-Rome thingy, Julius Africanus and Hippolytus, were also creating the invention to defeat the Rapture people, since it's a result of the JEWISH doctrine (which is in the Bible), about when Messiah would come.

That link also covers the convoluted 'Easter' debates and ending calculations, where the RCC forever gets Easter wrong. BIBLE says, in Exodus 12 + Numbers 28:26, that what we call Easter is Firstfruits -- a JEWISH holiday -- and it will ALWAYS occur on the 21st day after the vernal equinox. That is, if you use God's calendar, which is only SOLAR (God only accounts by BIRTHDAYS, so only solar), just as Exodus 12 says.

So the video examines both arguments, the website new and the misdating of Adam forward old, by the pope inventors. Examined with what? THE BIBLE. For back in 2004 I crunched the Bible's own numbers, which you can vet, as follows:

Download the worksheet shown in the video, which only uses Bible verses to get the dates (BC/AD conversion is done using RCC's Dionysian system): GeneYrs.xls.

For the supporting Bible verses and the Bible's own methodology of calculation, see brainoutFAQ.htm#6a (#6, covers how Daniel 9 counters my fellow Dispies; 6a is Bible methodology.) Since Bible tracks times by AGE (solar years), I but add them up.

For the Exodus in particular, see Exodate.htm. Related, is PassPlot.htm, as the grand 'year' design.

Ooops. RCC has egg on its face. Again. And will never admit it. So it deserves scant respect for covering up errors, for 2000 years. Mistakes are okay. Covering them up, is not.

PS: the Protties get the timeline wrong too, but back in the late 19th century they got more of it right, than they do now. Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE USING THE BIBLE, but not now.

Truth is, it's tedious to do the number crunching. So people took shortcuts, and instead of using Bible they used MIXED METHODOLOGIES for determining dates, with the result (duh) that their timelines never BALANCE to the Bible (i.;e., in Daniel 9).

But Bible has a full accounting both in explicit text AND in meter, so the latter agrees with the former, and you thus know you balance. Self-auditing! Ooops.

10 RCC How did Catholicism develop?

Semi-neutral video synthesizing the pagan and (misunderstood) Jewish elements of worship which gave rise to what became, Roman Catholicism. It owes its structure to Diocletian, which Constantine aped; it owes its pathos to paganism, specifically the Roman flavor (i.e., statue veneration, perpetual virginity morphs from Vestal Virgins, the most respected pagans in Rome). It owes its ethos to mangled notions of OT Jewish rituals and priesthood; which of course, RCC sought to REPLACE.

And also, to many mistakes in reading Bible; inevitable, when compete-with-the-Jews form of anti-semitism, runs the brain. All this competition morphing started with 1 Clement, got worse with Hegesippus, crystallized under Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus; and was codified by Augustine and Eusebius. The Mary cult didn't really take off until 431 under Pulcheria, who wanted to promote Mary as 'mother of God' in order to promote herself. Shameful political reason, as always, for every wind-shift in what comes down to us today as 'Catholicism', whether Odox or Roman.

Above all, it was a piecemeal development of immediate opportunism: NOT a 'conspiracy' as so many claim today. Catholicism is too dang competitive and incompetent, to form a sustained, overarching conspiracy, especially over so long a time. Their innate competitivism gave rise to opportunism and a kind of prostituting-agreement to pagan ideas, yes; but no one had enough power to spearhead and manage, some concerted, centuries-long effort -- except of course, Satan.

And we are all pawns of Satan, Protties now included. Without 1John1:9 regularly used, we are ALL satanfodder, guaranteed.

Hope you read the Bishop Lists book by Robert Lee Williams, and the Church Father writings. If not, see the other videos' descriptions in my PopeMyth (PopeM) playlist, for the links. Always investigate with SOURCE TEXTS, never take the word of hearsay. The purpose of hearsay is only to ALERT you to topics, never to be trusted on its own. In short, don't trust what 'braniout' says, INVESTIGATE the source texts. Do Your Own Homework, Audit Your Own Beliefs. :)

11 RCC Mass, Monks, and Manuscripts -- Thank God!

Thank God for those hard-working monks, the clever design of Mass content, the catechism, etc. In the Dark Ages which admittedly Constantine's new Romanism produced, on the bright side God got the Word out through these three things: Mass, the sacrificing MONKS, and Bible manuscripts.

Moral of the story? God uses anything even remotely like Bible, to good effect. So yeah, RCC/Odox are incompetent, but not 100%, and they did do some really valuable things. My ability to type in English and HAVE a Bible, comes from them. Not, because of Nicaea, which was the nadir of Catholicism, proving the 'bishops' more incompetent than five-year-olds. But instead, due to the way they packaged doctrines for illiterates to remember, the MONKS who slaved away making Bible copies in both East and West -- and probably, thus preserved history.

So let's not demonize the RCC. It has many faults, many incompetences, just like the Protties do. So no problem; just admit the mistakes, fix them. We find our broken windows of false doctrine, AUDIT and then FIX them to MATCH what BIBLE says.. and move on. No need to change denoms, just FIX what's wrong within 'yours'.

Meanwhile, God uses EVERYTHING. He makes good on it all!