Webseries & Related Links: |Home Page| |God's System| |Introduction, assumptions| |Part I, Overview| |II, 'then'| |III, 'NOW'| |IVa: Church Alpha basis| |IVb, 'Body'| |IVc, Conflict| |IVd, Destiny| |V, Trib-Mill| |App: Satan's Strategy| |Trial Sum: Paradox of Merit| |Kingship: Due.Dilig.Disclosure| |Infinity-finity Dichotomy| |DDNA solves Dichotomy| |Spir.Pathology (viral dDNA results)| [Timeline]
Pope Myth, Part IVa Inset, Lord vs. Satan: SupCtHeaven aka, the Trial of Human History.. aka, Did God err?

God's Script: NOW, versus "Later"
Why does our "NOW" end with a Pre-Trib Rapture? Says Eph1: Because Bride is Completed!
Matt22:9 -- Vashti refused: go find Esther!

Internet sites on Early Christian 'Church Father' Writings (more are in the Multi-Religion Index link in Testing Section on my Home Page): Latter-rain.com and earlychristianwritings.com
Intra-Page Links: | Purpose | | Satan's DIOS Hoax | | Matt16:18 Gender Hoax | | Date Hoax | | NT book dates | | NT Facts Hoax | | Basic Questions | | 1. Petra vs. petros | | 2. Only Christ has Keys | | 3. No pope in Bible though ruling WHILE Bible being written? | | 4. Peter not to Gentiles, but Jews | | 5. No apostolic Succession, 1Cor15:1-10 | | 6. Paul's not a pope? | | 7. Peter doesn't call himself pope? | | 8. "chips" like Peter? | | 9. Peter didn't get to write Word till Paul died? | | 10. Mark's not a pope? | | 11. No one writes Romans except Paul? | | 12. Bible says Peter never in Rome | | 13. No Bible written by popes? | | 14. Roman Church damned in Rev17 (8 subq's) | | 15. God didn't have John appoint successor | | 16. Vine and Branches succeeds, not popes | | 17. 1Clement contradicts 1&2 Cor -- to the same audience |
Purpose: How Satan&Co. Fool Us (not to bash Catholicism)

If you'd rather first hear the 24-minute introductory audio of six objections to Roman Catholicism, download (usually by right-clicking 'Save Link As') http://www.brainout.net/MaryImmaculateAddendum.WMA. You can also download it from the video description to my video titled 'Mary Immaculate Bloopers' in my 'brainouty' channel on Youtube. What follows below, focuses only on the first objection, the claim of 'pope'.

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.

The Start of It All: due to Israel's rejection near Passover 29AD, Jesus the Christ Voted to Create and Pay For Billions Of Future People -- like you and me -- in Matt16:18. His Vote TRUMPED Satan In The Trial. So this defeat of Satan is masked for centuries, by alleging Matt16:18 makes Peter the head of a Revelation 17 religion, right down to its Institutional RELIGIOUS and POLITICAL Colors. Thus Satan advertises his authorship OF that religion, so no believer can excuse his ignorance: even the colors of Revelation 17 are aped (17:3-4). People don't live for centuries, demons do. So people can be blinded, fooled for centuries, if they don't know the Bible. Not one person born would ever knowingly blaspheme Christ. But almost anyone is too lazy to read Bible.

Watch this playlist in HD fullscreen. To do that: select '720p' when you see '240p' or '360p' button display when the video starts. Then select the four arrows at far right of the player ribbon, to make fullscreen. You have to watch in Youtube now, as most browsers disable Adobe Flash:

Click here for the Youtube Playlist.

As you watch, notice how you must lie against all the Christ-is-Rock-of-Salvation verses Bible, to call any pope claim valid.


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:

This webpage summarizes the proof re the three hoaxes, above. Before we go through the proof, more must first be said about how Satan advertises his lies; that material follows in the leftmost paragraphs below.

A satanic conspiracy is always blatantly signed, to prove authorship; thus whoever believes its lies, has no excuse. Because it doesn't take much research IN BIBLE, to prove what's a lie. Satan's strategy is always to make God 'foreign' to us. So, a good acronym to display that fact, is "DIOS". Pretending you didn't know Spanish, the meaning of "DIOS" would be 'foreign' to you. So the Appendix (link at pagetop) has a "Grand Strategy" section which elaborates on what "D-I-O-S" means.

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.

The 'popism' lie accomplishes specific DIOS objectives:

Witness the Matt16:18 DIOS Gender-Grammar Hoax,
how we all don't do our Bible homework!

See how easily Peter's head replaced Christ's in the Vulgate and in English Bibles? All it took was misuse of a capital, and misuse of gender, and voilá! Christ is replaced! So not just the Catholics are stupid, huh. This is royally embarrassing to all of us, because Greek petra is used 104 times in Bible (video shows that), most of which are in the LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, from which the Lord and apostles extensively quote). But look in any English Bible -- especially if it claims to be translated directly from the Greek, lol -- see how they just follow along with the Catholics, never looking at the Greek! Notice how clever: so long as the SIZE of the rock is obscured and you translate petros as Peter rather than "Little Rock", you can Mask The Meaning, hooray! So now you can even translate 1Cor10:4 to show the (Big) Rock=Christ, yet no one will catch it! They've been inculcated with the idea Peter is the head of the Church, so see the derision? This verse contradicts that claim! What brilliance. Satan&Co. sure know how to manipulate an outcome, and we poor soppy humans are none the wiser. Because, grammar bores us. Yeah, God bores us too, obviously.

Let's thus see how this blatant kindergarten grammar gender error makes the Matt16:18 satanic signature particularly deft: since Christ invented His Own Spiritual Life and Church, Satan invents a Fake Church to Substitute, Rev17 replete with Fake Head from Matt16:18! As usual, you'd have to know Bible, to see that signature. That's the burlesque. So if you read Greek, you have zero excuse for claiming Peter is a 'rock', lol. 2nd century folks could read Greek, so they just flat lied to everyone -- and no one cared. Nyaah nyaa-ah nyaahnyaah nyaah, foolish human, you can't see us mock you since you don't know your Bible.

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.

So look how clever Satan&Co. are, to mask Christ's Most Important Vote, the Very Reason You and I are alive today. The Roman Catholic Church's interpretation of Matt16:18 makes Peter a pope, head of the Church, and "Church" is also redefined as a RELIGION, not a body of believers -- another misuse of the Greek text. See? That 'interpretation' (incompetence or lie, let's no longer be coy) Totally Derides Christ. Totally Imbalances our reading of the verse. Totally Obfuscates the verse, and then most of all, Substitutes out Christ, for Peter. See the DIOS usage? So, think: you just know there's never been a Catholic who intends to blaspheme Him. You can bet most popes never desired to blaspheme Him. Thus is the satanic nature, not human nature, of the conspiracy evident: humans are blind to the blasphemy. Hence, other errors quickly follow, and Bible had to be sequestered lest the truth be known. Again, this sequestration was too successful, to blame the RCC (though it avidly sought to persecute those who had independent copies of Bible). To this day, Bible disagrees with everything the RCC says, and its 'gospel' of you needing to be baptised by it, is a lie above all lies. You are NOT saved if you believed that. So get saved, now: just 'do' John 3:16, don't add anything. Then you'll be in heaven forever (no purgatory, either, that's another lie).

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.

Ok: you got your thinking and sleuthing caps on? Let's roll up our sleeves and consider the the last two hoaxes, about Dates and Bible Facts.


Date and NT Bible Facts Exposing Popism as a Hoax

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.)

Pope NamePope Reign
St. Peter42-67AD
St. Linus67-79AD
St. Anacletus (aka Cletus)79-92AD
St. Clement I92-101AD

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.

Book NameYear Written
Matthew50AD
(Gal 4:4 refs Matt 2
as if everyone long knew it;
so Matthew was written pre- 44 AD)
Mark68AD
Luke60AD
John95-90AD
Acts (by Luke)60AD
Romans57-58AD
1 Cor56AD (57AD)
2 Cor57AD
Galatians49 or 52AD (55AD)
Ephesians60AD (62AD)
Philippians60AD (63AD)
Colossians60AD (62AD)
1 Thess51AD (53AD)
2 Thess51AD (53AD)
Book NameYear Written
1 Tim64AD (65AD, from Macedonia)
2Tim67AD (68AD, from Rome)
Titus65AD (66AD, from Nicopolis)
Philemon60AD (62AD)
Hebrews 68AD (unknown author, post-Paul)
James45-50AD
1Peter65AD (I think it's post-Paul)
2 Peter66AD (I think it's post-Paul)
1 John90-95AD
2 John90-95AD
3 John90-95AD
Jude68AD (Lord's brother, succeeded after
James was murdered. Jude is in exile,
so I think it's post-Paul)
Revelation95AD

More relevant date data to consider...

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.

Now, let's ask some basic questions.
  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.

Now you can begin to understand why it was so hard to get a Bible for centuries, once the Roman 'bishops' got entrenched. Read the history of how we got our Bible, sometime. It's a kidnapping story, more dramatic than anything you've ever read. And real history, too. I bet some of the greatest heroes of the Church will be those anonymous monks and caretakers of Scripture. One of them secreted what we call Codex Sinaiticus in his cell, which Count von Tischendorf was able to acquire; another original-Bible text was being used for LIGHTING FIRES, to keep the monastery warm. Yeah, they loved Bible alright.. like you love the trash!

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!

In sum, the apostacy which began sometime in 30AD, was so rampant by the 90's AD, Canon got finished. Same story, as what ended the OT. We didn't want God enough anymore, so we get the sign of Jonah: silence, but Bible teaching. So this webpage isn't written to bash Catholics -- but to bash all of us! Stupid misuses of Bible continue today among the non-Catholics, too. If we claim to love God, we should learn His Word better, and "test the spirits", as 1Jn4 warns. We clearly weren't doing that, in the 90's AD; we clearly have done very little of that learning, ever since. You can't find a documentary or encyclopedia on a Biblical topic which properly quotes and interprets Matt16:18. There's no excuse for such a gaffe, since that Petra=BedRock is the Holy of Holies, over which now the Dome of the Rock, sits. So the above recap of the horrible apostacy which happened in the 1st century is no different, today. Mea maxima culpa.
Footnote on Mark's Gospel

This section will be rewritten later, so at present sounds choppy and hurried. Goal here is to sketch out when it was written and why.

According to scholars, Peter called Mark "my son" in 1Pet5:13. "Son" in those days, meant heir apparent, especially if not of the bloodline. It was also a term of affection, as in spiritual son (a Hebraism). By the way, this is yet further indication that Peter outlived Paul, for John Mark was supposed to come with Timothy to Paul (see 2Tim4:11ff). Mark's Gospel being written 68AD then, could be just after Peter's death. But it's not written from Rome, baby. For Timothy was released from Roman custody after Paul was executed (Heb12:23). Hebrews was written from Rome or at least "Italy" (ibid), by an unknown author who had been trained under Paul. Book of Hebrews makes no mention of any successors or popes, but rather that joe average believer is in the Royal Priesthood of Christ, which replaces the Mosaic Law (main theme of the book). Mark doesn't differ at all from that, and in fact dovetails with Book of Hebrews' imminency-of-Temple-destruction theme via his frequent usage of Greek term "euthus": "immediately", "right now", "suddenly", shorthand for wake up, stupid! [I'm not convinced that the "Mark" at the end of 1 Peter, is the same as John Mark, who is attributed as the author of the Mark Gospel. Something's fishy about the claim that the two are the same person, but I need more time to investigate it. So here I'm 'going with the flow', the majority opinion (what a dangerous thing to do), that the two Marks are the same person. The majority opinion is so wrong on Peter not knowing Greek -- they think he didn't know it well, they don't get his wordplay, his penchant for hupo-prefixes and stone words, and his penchant for political incorrectness -- that I am queasy about their opinion on the two Mark referencess being the same person. Especially, since they keep on claiming that Mark got his material from Peter, rather than from the Holy Spirit, aaarrgghh. Absent 1Jn1:9, all the degrees on the planet only make you more foolish, still. Moses knew what Adam said; so by that same Holy Spirit, Mark knew what happened, too, and didn't need Peter. Either you believe in God, or not. You believe in His Word or not. And if it's HIS Word, HE talks about it to the writer. VPI is real.]

Mark probably wrote his Gospel after Paul's (and probably Peter's) death to counter speculation, to reassure readers Mark himself had been there through it all, and yes, the Gospel is true. It makes sense that the roundup of Christians which captured Paul would capture Peter also, especially if the Babylonian government needed a favor from the Roman Caesar. 64AD-70AD is the leftover 'week' from when the 1st Temple ended, so had to be measured back to Israel. [The First Temple ended 126 years before its own 490 time was up. God measured back only 119 years (70+49) in Daniel 9; the remaining 7 could have run concurrently with the 70th week of Dan9:27, had Israel been positive to Messiah. But they weren't. So it got measured back to them after Messiah repurchased time (by dying at the end of the 69th week). Details on this are in the Timeline link at pagetop. The latter makes more sense more quickly, if you've FIRST read through Part IVa. It's a complex story.]

What a scathing Gospel Mark writes! Telling you at once how the world was at the time he wrote it, just before the Temple was destroyed: to a parallel apostate generation of those in the prior generation had rejected Christ. Only this time, it's the Christians who don't believe in Him. You know that for the simplest of reasons: the Jews wouldn't be interested in hearing another Gospel. But every Christian would have poured over its details for 30+ years, at this point. Plus, the 40 year judgement period is about up, and they wonder what to think. Plus -- as you'll see in the Gospel itself -- people at the time Mark wrote were themselves hung up on miracles. Which weren't forthcoming, at this point. What was forthcoming, was a lot of persecution. Read also the Book of Hebrews, which was written at roughly the same time.

There's a lot of stupid controversy over the Mark Gospel. Instead of reading the content to see if God wrote it, people agonize over where Mark got his information, positing he got it from Peter. Sheesh: when God is the Real Author, the brilliance of the word usage is like a signature. Any Author Signs His Work. So just Look At The Content: doesn't matter if Mark wasn't an eyewitness for all of it, just like it didn't matter for Luke or even Moses (who obviously wasn't in the Garden of Eden). Divine Authorship proves itself. God Himself says you test Scripture WITH Scripture. So, then do that, and you'll have zero doubt God wrote the Gospel of Mark. Zero doubt thereby, about the counterfeits which are not Canon, but even today, still pretend to be.

It's very clear God the Holy Spirit had Mark write it, just like all other Canon books are very clearly different from all counterfeits. Moreover, you have to be already very familiar with the prior Gospel reports as well as the OT, to grasp the scathing warning thickly threaded throughout Mark's spectacular re-telling; for, it also predictively focuses on OT judgement metaphors as its conceptual framework (esp. after Chapter 9). For Mark is telling far more than a ho-hum, heard-it-all-before Gospel. No, this is a vibrant, double-entendre story, using the actual Gospel; but applied to the time he wrote it, a generation later. Kinda like an NT Deuteronomy, God has Mark interpret for his post-Paul (and probably post-Peter) audience why the Rapture hasn't come: because people still can't bear His Word. They still only want the razzle-dazzle of the miracles, despite all the witnesses of even the demons the Lord had to repeatedly shut up. And they want to be Pharisees, just like that first generation, who crucified Him. So he tells the story vividly: since after all, most readers just want bread and circus, and can't bear to really learn anything. Well, soon they will get more supernatural evidence, showing God's "490" plays right on time.. when Rome destroys the Temple! (Note how brusquely he handles the Temple's demise in Mark 13, and compare what's stressed and interpretatively quoted, versus other Synoptic accounts.) To make sure the audience 'gets it' that God is doing the telling (i.e., it's not a sermon), God the Holy Spirit provides information you don't get in other Gospels. So you know Who the Real Author and Warner is. So any fake popery should be on guard, see.

Back in those days, people knew how to read and read multi-layer meanings into what they got: all good Greek playwriting, Latin poetry, etc. was deliberately multi-entendre. Also, the very common practice of interpretative quoting and concatenation of Scripture verses, was used to make newly-relevant and explanatory a passage. Which, if the person was from God, was his JOB to do. See, everyone already knew the exact quote; what they didn't know, was the USE of it. So, you'll see the Lord constantly interpretatively use OT verses. Not verbatim quotes, but APPLIED quotes. So you took what He said, and what the original was, and you could see His Use of the verse(s). A whole lot of that goes on in Bible, and especially, in the NT. So don't mistake interpretative quotes for errors: pay closer attention to how the quote is changed when it's used (e.g., Acts 2, when Peter quotes Joel). A prophet (aka "son of man") was expected to do stuff like this, so his veracity, his coming-from-God claim, could be vetted. It's not a mistake, but a deliberate teaching style.

So, if new Scripture was being written, these would be some of the signature characteristics, to look for:

  • NEW information which the author couldn't possibly know without the Holy Spirit -- which the reader would know came from Him, since He Himself would be witnessing to the reader, even as today;
  • good interpretive quoting,
  • verse concatenation,
  • God's Signature Brilliance of Wordplay on many meaning-levels, like skyscrapers.
So THAT's how a true Bible book got validated. Everyone is supposed to ask such questions, it's not the sole provenance of some elites. So people expected all this proof, and played with what they heard, all day and night. It was also a lifestyle, even if just to entertain themselves; Scripture is delightfully witty. Far more, if they believed it was from God. So most people, rich and poor alike, played with the meanings in Scripture, all day long: after all, way back in Deuteronomy, they had repeated warnings from Moses, to do just that (which tfellin, tassels, etc. were all supposed to depict). 'Easy thing to do, if you spent your day out in the field, or riding a donkey, baking bread, sewing. So even the uneducated were far more educated in Bible, than us: look at how the poor and wretched reason Scripturally, in the Gospels. Far superior than we are, today.

So Mark's very pointed satire and sarcasm, was deeply noticed. Finely-honed. Mark 8's the theme of the book, and 8:12, its heart: okay, you wanna get sign after all this evidence? What a sign will be given! -- Himself as sign#1, and the Temple's destruction, sign#2, both of Dan9:25-26. So flee, leave this village, don't be blind, don't ignore how the Lord can care for you, don't go by what you blindly think you see! I know Mk8:12's usually translated "no sign will be given", treating "ei" plus the indicative of the future passive of didomi there, as a refusal; but you can equally read it as Jewish sarcasm for a sign they won't want -- especially, given the negative connotation of semeion. Especially, in the context of the next verses, i.e., 8:15, which would be very relevant if when Mark was writing, there were these fake popes claiming Peter as one of their own and divine authority. So Mark is refuting them and warning the faithful to stay away from these wolves in sheep's clothing. The Chapter ends with the Greek epilogue, what you should learn: take up the Cross. All, or nothing. Not miracles, not fancy powers, not religiosity, but the 'cross' of learning Him. Get fed, rely on Him. Or you will be fed to the wolves. Very timely, very comforting warning. Euthus.

Rest of Mark after that, is elaboration on what to expect. For what happened to Him, is what will happen to those who learn Him. But also, to those who do not. Stark choice, that. Kinda eliminates the thrill of seeing any miracles, huh. So to illustrate this in Chapter 9, you have scary miracles which don't continue or don't work, absent belief: the vision of the Transfiguration goes, when fear enters; by contrast, the guy's demon-possessed kid is healed, when (9:24) he asks Christ (9:29). For nothing is impossible with God. So don't get cocky (end of Chap9), and do get married; for if you divorce the Lord, as was done a generation ago, well.. watch how God will divorce Israel. Which is prophetic, by telling the history: the cause of the upcoming destruction. So you have the warning to stop being cocky toward those inferior, like children; to stop being religious or trusting in the world, like the rich young ruler was; to shed your blindness and follow him, like Blind Bartimeaus did. To stop believing in politics, like the people did; to stop being Jeremiah's over-ripe and unripe figs, like that fig tree which wasn't ready for its time of visitation. One metaphor after the next, in parallelism.

So Mark is very pointed like the Book of Hebrews, about what 'this generation' receiving Mark's Gospel (and Hebrews), will see happen. Mark's Gospel seems meant to be read in tandem with the Book of Hebrews. The first halves of the latter Book's real chapters (versus our numbering system) stress the current situation, and the last halves, how it got that way. Mark's take-off point seems to be a parallel of the situation back when Christ was here, compared to the current generation. It's a real affadavit story, but with a point current readers need to get, right away, euthus. Kinda like Hebrews 12. In the context of Paul and probably Peter's immediate (euthus, again) death, the hurry of Heb12 seems stressed.

In that context, it makes sense that Mark 16's end would be corrupted by too-eager copyists. The better MSS (manuscripts, Bible in original-language text) have no verses after v.8, except maybe 20 and that weird text about Peter. So let's try to correct that. If you keep to Mark's story line and perfunctory style post-Crucifixion, the verses which seem to be his writing, makes sense as follows. Verses in Mark's writing style, imo, go through v.15; then, pick up again at 19-20. Verses 16-18 look totally bogus, because the Lord didn't talk that way, and neither does Mark: but the counterfeit gospels all talk that way: goofy stuff. V. 19 looks genuine, so follows v.15. V. 20 looks genuine, because it uses sunergew, big Divine Actor keyword in Bible, used by Paul in Rom8:28 and by James in 2:22, which Mark would have known, and which the Lord would have stressed (God does all the work, THE theme of Scripture). Most of the MSS have "Amen" (I believe it) after v.20. So that next text about Peter getting instructions is ludicrous (it's only in the Westcott-Hort MSS), totally wrong. V.16, is bogus where it says you gotta be baptised to be saved: that contradicts all other Scripture, so someone inserted "kai Baptistheis", if the verse is even valid (verse is superfluous, and the verb-tense pairings look funny, so I doubt the whole verse). But God has a way of using even mistakes, like He does with the scribal error of kauthesomai in 1Cor13:3 (should be kauchesomai, a chi instead of a theta -- search in Part IVc for "kauchesomai", if you want details). [Nerd Note: you don't need verses 14ff to justify the Great Commission, by the way. Dingdongs who want to pretend non-whites shouldn't get the Gospel (Christ, not being 'white', shouldn't be our Savior, then?) -- are hot to claim that since Mark 16:9-20 are suspect, thus there is no Great Commission. Well, let them fool themselves -- you have to throw out the entire Bible to make that claim (else why do we have one, huh). But don't you be fooled. Sheesh: if anyone would bother to look at DNA generations for more than 15 generations, he'd realize there's no such thing as white or black or brown or yellow, anymore. We are all, muts! Wouldn't surprise me, either, if Abraham's blood isn't sprinkled over ALL the planet's population, by now. After all, blacks and whites were well intermingled among the Jews from the Exodus, forward, and comprised 2/3rds of the exodusing population. Moses married an Ethiopian, etc. Sure does help to do one's homework!]

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.