Don’t Believe These Stories about the Beast of Revelation

Revelation 13:1,2

You might wonder why I write articles identifying mistakes other Christian teachers make, and why I instead don’t focus on what we can all agree on. The main answer is because I represent God. Is that all God wants us to do, all agree on what the Bible says? Because that’s what some brick and mortar groups of Christians do it causes their false conclusions to be bantered back and forth ad infinitum. The second answer is, I see no need to repeat correct information I know your teachers are already teaching you. A teacher’s job is to get new information into minds of students while correcting mistakes, constantly assessing students to see how well both those things are taking place. A teacher’s job is not to rehash what students already know, except when doing so to help retain information. And since your teachers constantly repeat the same information, I see no reason to repeat what they cover that is correct.

Despite the warning below, every teacher I’ve heard teach what this beast of Revelation 13:1,2 represents has failed to heed it:

 I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. Revelation 22:18,19

In their minds most Christians have combined this character with Bible characters from other books, turning this beast into something it isn’t. But maybe the biggest danger there is that diminishes warnings in those other books, getting believers to fail to heed those other warnings. Because they don’t even know what those scriptures are really warning them about. Other Christian teachers claim to have identified this beast, which means Christians following them won’t be able to recognize this beast once he actually appears. Who benefits from those outcomes, God or Satan?

The best identifying characteristics of this beast are described in Revelation chapter 18:

7 “Why are you so amazed?” said the angel. “I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and ten horns.”

8The beast that you saw—it was, and now is no more, but is about to come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. And those who dwell on the earth whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world will marvel when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet will be.

9This calls for a mind that has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. 10There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while.

11The beast that was, and now is not, is an eighth king, who belongs to the other seven and is going into destruction. 12The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but will receive one hour of authority as kings, along with the beast. 13These kings have one purpose: to yield their power and authority to the beast.

14They will make war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will triumph over them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and He will be accompanied by His called and chosen and faithful ones.

15Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute was seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues.”

Setting aside scriptures that teach Satan gives this beast power, what is its source of power that people can see? Look at verses 12 and 13; the source is the power and authority of 10 kings. The number 10 in scripture does not always have a literal meaning. Sometimes it stands for the total number of something. So either literally ten governments or a complete representation of the earth’s governments will give this beast its power. Verse 11 says the beast is an eighth king that belongs to seven other kings. Who are the other seven? Look at verse 10. “There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while.” Here John speaks of kings that dominate his area of the world in different ages. That’s why this beasts looks like a conglomerate of the beasts Daniel described, while Daniel was describing governments that dominated that part of the world in different eras. Read Daniel chapter 7.

The title king does not necessarily mean a single person, but a governmental institution. For instance, one of the kings this beast will spring from is ancient Greece. Verse 11 reads, “The beast that was, and now is not, is an eighth king, who belongs to the other seven.”  While included as one of the kings of verse 10, the ancient Grecian government consisted of city states, each with their separate governing arrangements. So like ancient Greece, described as a king in verse 10, this eighth king which is the beast under consideration is not necessarily an individual. And that is one of the biggest mistakes most Christian teachers teach about this beast. Most of them claim he is some single individual and a special antichrist that gains control over the whole world. That might or might not be. But if it’s not, can you see how those believers might not even identify this beast, once it is given authority by those other kings?

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach this beast represents the United Nations. Ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses that comment and write articles online are still upset about the fact that for ten years Watchtower was a non-governmental organization member inside the United Nations. Their involvement was to help fight for religious freedom alongside other religious NGO groups. And I see nothing wrong with that. So are these ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses still buying into the Watchtower teaching about this beast, or is it they just despise its hypocritical involvement? I don’t know. But for illustration purposes let’s assume the first. If they believe the United Nations is this beast, but it turns out not to be the beast, won’t that belief make it difficult for them to spot the beast once he arrives, because of their preconceived notion? And why does that matter? Let’s go to Revelation chapter 13.

1Then I saw a beast with ten horns and seven heads rising out of the sea. There were ten royal crowns on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads. 2The beast I saw was like a leopard, with the feet of a bear and the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.

3One of the heads of the beast appeared to be mortally wounded. But the mortal wound was healed, and the whole world marveled and followed the beast. 4They worshiped the dragon who had given authority to the beast, and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who can wage war against it?”

5The beast was given a mouth to speak arrogant and blasphemous words, and authority to act for 42 months. 6And the beast opened its mouth to speak blasphemies against God and to slander His name and His tabernacle—those who dwell in heaven.

7Then the beast was permitted to wage war against the saints and to conquer them, and it was given authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation. 8And all who dwell on the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the Book of Life belonging to the Lamb who was slain.

9He who has an ear, let him hear:

10“If anyone is destined for captivity,

into captivity he will go;

if anyone is to die by the sword,

by the sword he must be killed.”b

Here is a call for the perseverance and faith of the saints.

11Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth. This beast had two horns like a lamb, but spoke like a dragon. 12And this beast exercised all the authority of the first beast and caused the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose mortal wound had been healed.

13And the second beast performed great signs to cause even fire from heaven to come down to earth in the presence of the people. 14Because of the signs it was given to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived those who dwell on the earth, telling them to make an image to the beast that had been wounded by the sword and yet had lived. 15The second beast was permitted to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship it to be killed.

16And the second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, 17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark—the name of the beast or the number of its name.

18Here is a call for wisdom: Let the one who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and that number is 666”

Since this beast hyperbolically will have everyone in the world following him while he blasphemes against God, it becomes critical that Christians living then can recognize what’s actually happening. It is obvious most of those following won’t realize who they are actually following.

The whole of Revelation is figurative. For instance the number 666 in verse 18 stands for something. It is not a literal number. So if Christians are waiting around thinking they will see, or get assigned, a number to follow this beast, they might start following it without realizing what they are doing. And that is the danger of false teachers. False teachers lead Christians to accept their teachings, as absolute truths, leading Christians after themselves.

And Christ warns, “Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” Matthew 15:14


How to Identify the Antichrist-and Who Is the Man of Lawlessness

The antichrist John wrote about is not the same as the Man of Lawlessness Paul wrote of. One of John’s quotations defining antichrist reads, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, refusing to confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist,” 2 John 1:7. Since every reasonable person acknowledges Jesus was born in the flesh, let’s concentrate on that second name John gave him, “Christ,” to determine what John meant by confessing his “coming in the flesh.”

Christ means anointed or chosen when translated in English, the same meaning as Messiah in Hebrew. So the name Jesus Christ carries with it the idea that Jesus was the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. Any person who refuses to acknowledge that is an antichrist, according to John. That includes all atheists.

The Man of Lawlessness Paul wrote about is something entirely different. Since the Man of Lawlessness sits down inside the temple of God, he could not be the antichrist John spoke of. Paul wrote, “So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God,”( 2 Thessalonians 2:4). If he would sit down in a pagan temple, he might have been John’s antichrist. But since he sits in the temple of God he could not be. Because sitting in the temple of God is sitting inside the Christian congregation.

The temple of God no longer has anything to do with a temple made by human hands. Do you not know that you yourselves are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple,” 1Corinthians 3:16,17. So the Man of Lawlessness sits among the Holy ones of God, the saints.

In scriptures below Paul continues to identify this Man of Lawlessness:

3Let no one deceive you in any way, for it [the coming of Christ and the rapture] will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed.4He will oppose and exalt himself above every so-called god or object of worship. 5Do you not remember that I told you these things while I was still with you? 6And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but the one who now restrains it will continue until he is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of His mouth and annihilate by the majesty of His arrival. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8

In verse six Paul wrote something was restraining the Man of Lawlessness, at that time. That shows this Man of Lawlessness was present, at that time; but his identity wasn’t recognized by the congregation per verse 8. What was Paul referring to in verse 5, when he wrote about things he had previously told them? Note this comment Paul made to Ephesian elders:

29I know that after my departure, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number, men will rise up and distort the truth to draw away disciples after them. 31Therefore be alert and remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears, Acts 20:29-31

Though Paul told those words to elders in Ephesus, his intense concern strongly suggests he warned all congregations he visited. Those scriptures in Acts 20 also cite Paul as the restraint on that type of lawlessness. Since Paul was that restraint, The Man of Lawlessness probably arose soon after Paul’s departure.

Most protestant teachers claim this Man of Lawlessness is yet to arrive on the world stage. But if that Man represents prominent members controlling other members inside their organizations that claim should be expected. Because the Man of Lawlessness would not self-identify in his church. He might not even be aware he fits that description. Coupled with the belief the Man of Lawlessness is not yet identifiable is the teaching the end to the Man of Lawlessness must come soon after he’s revealed. That is within an adult’s lifespan. Because teachers believing that teach the “Man” is only one person.

If true that means we aren’t able to identify him inside Christian denominations today. However, the scripture doesn’t say that his end comes soon after he’s revealed. The word used to describe when his revealing happens is “then,” which denotes a sequence in events and not a time length. And there is no indication he is destroyed soon after he’s revealed. The scripture only states Christ will destroy him, without saying when that happens. Those facts open up the possibility he could exist for centuries.

And then [after the restraint is removed] the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of His mouth and annihilate by the majesty of His arrival,” 2 Thessalonians 2:8.

In Paul’s words to the Ephesian elders he was warning them personally. Those were not words of warning to some Christians he never met, some two thousand years after he died. He warned them individually, with tears. If the warning was for some future generation there would be no need to warn each of them. Just writing it down would have been sufficient for future generations. But that’s not what he did. Paul told them, “Therefore be alert and remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears,” Acts 20:31

Because most members who gain authority in the church do so within hierarchical structures that already controlled Christians, this is no single man who brings about this condition. The Man of Lawlessness consists of groups of men. Just as Paul spoke, “men will rise,” and not just as individuals.

When the scripture claims the Man of Lawlessness will be revealed Paul meant revealed to Christ’s anointed church. Since he sits down inside the congregation with the saints, while members are following him as they should be following God, then obviously there are many who are not aware of his identity. Members of Christ’s church would not follow someone they knew to be the Man of Lawlessness. So this revelation must only come to those made aware of his presence by Holy Spirit. They recognize it, but not the whole congregation of Christians. This select group is not granted the authority to correct the situation, not by their church hierarchy, or by God. Hence Paul’s warning was with some tears.

They misrepresent the teachings of Christ, drawing his disciples to themselves.

That should be enough to help you identify this figurative Man. Only then will the information benefit you. If you use it as Jesus did. You see the exact same condition existed within the Jewish religion. “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:20 (Christ)

Paul was writing about an apostasy from leaders inside Christian congregations that grows until it is clearly seen by Christ’s true church. It grows so large that it seats itself in controlling positions over many Christians. Paul was one of the chief Christians that stopped apostate leaders from dominating congregations while he lived. The other apostles also served to restrain apostasy. After the apostles died there was no single person, or single group, inside the Christian congregation as a whole to restrain false teachings from strong elders who eventually asserted themselves, forming clergy/laity classes inside denominations. So in some churches or whole denominations Christians are only acceptable members if they follow the beliefs, right or wrong, of their clergy. Those clergy members have established themselves as gods over members inside the temple of God. Paul wrote,“So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God,” 2 Thessalonians 2:4. But when Christ comes he will destroy them. Read Matthew chapter 7.

2 Thessalonian 2:3 confirms that this Man of Lawlessness is synonymous with apostasy inside the Christian church. That verse uses the Greek word apostasia, translated apostasy in English. This Man is not some leader outside the church, as most Christian denominations claim that this Man of Lawlessness will come to lead the whole world. He never leads the whole world. Instead he only leads Christians away from following Christ to following his (their) words.

Because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them. 11For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie, 12in order that judgment will come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness. (2 Thessalonians chapter 2)

The Greek apostasia (apostasy) has nothing to do with being gathered to Christ or the departing of the Holy Spirit as I heard one Christian claim. And many teach that after the Christian church is raptured, then this Man of Lawlessness reveals himself. I don’t know if they believe that from translating the word apostasy, like the fellow I mention above, or not. They also claim it is God’s church that acts as a restraint preventing the revealing of the Man of Lawlessness. That teaching contradicts Paul’s words that the Man of Lawlessness is revealed before Christ’s return, and before the rapture.

Let no one deceive you in any way, for it [the coming of Christ and the rapture] will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed” 2 Thessalonians 2:3

The point is “apostasia” can be translated as a departing. But that word here means leaving the truth about Christ after a person, or a complete church, was already in the truth with Christ. The churches Paul started accepted the truth about Christ when he established them and as long as Paul taught them. He said when he left their situation would change. When? After his departing according to his scriptures. There is no reason to believe “after” means two thousand or more years after Paul died.

These quotes below from speak to what apostasy means in 2 Thessalonians 2:3:
2 Thessalonians 2:3 N-NFS
GRK: ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον καὶ
NAS: you, for [it will not come] unless the apostasy comes
KJV: there come a falling away first,
INT: shall have come the apostasy first and

646. Apostasia
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
falling away, apostacy
Feminine of the same as apostasion; defection from truth (properly, the state) (“apostasy”) — falling away, forsake.

Because this Man of Lawlessness threatens the church by misleading some members while ostracising others, he could not be someone that first appears after the church is raptured. According to scripture he must come and influence members inside the church, Christ’s anointed church, while the church is present on earth doing Christian works.

The idea that the apostasy comes before the church is gathered to Christ has nothing to do with the length of time in between those events. The events are separate as Paul states. His point is that the first must come before the second. He made no mention that the second event occurs soon after the first event. He spoke instead of the sequencing of the two events. The whole Bible does this many times about various events. You can see it from the creation account, from the Genesis 3:15 prophecy and many other statements in scripture. To assume this sequence in 2 Thessalonians speaks of the apostasy coming, and then right after that the church must be raptured and the world ends, is reading into that scripture what it does not say.

That apostasy that gained control after Paul died still permeates Christendom today. It is, and historically has been, only obvious to those who are informed by Holy Spirit. Because other people who believe they are following Christ are instead following some of its teachings inspired by demons and fallen humans. See 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 and 2 Corinthians 4:4:

9The coming of the lawless one will be accompanied by the working of Satan, with every kind of power, sign, and false wonder,10and with every wicked deception directed against those who are perishing, because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them.11For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie,12in order that judgment will come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness.” 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

Paul in 2 Thessalonians and in other scriptures was warning those he spoke to not to be deceived by these apostate leaders in their churches. The apostasy he spoke of as coming was only coming to the CHURCH, because only people already inside Christ’s church could defect from Christ’s words. You cannot leave a place you were never in. You cannot forsake a belief you never had.


First notice that in vs6 Paul claims these Christians he wrote to knew what was restraining the Man of Lawlessness, and that his lawlessness was already at work. That fact shows this could not be a single man as many Christians claim. Because no single man lives from the day of the apostles until Christ comes to destroy him and the world. Second, note Paul’s scripture(vs4) does not say he sits himself down in the temple of a false god. It says he sits down in the temple of God. So he sits down inside the Christian congregation, since anointed Christians were described by Paul as God’s temple. The Man of Lawlessness’ appearance is associated with a rebellion. Where would this be? Obviously inside the churches he sits inside. Those that are part of his group rise themselves above every so-called god, and object of worship, thus demanding Christians follow them. If congregants under their authority are to remain labeled Christians and treated fairly by these apostate leaders, some leaders demand obedience to their rules and doctrines, biblically right or wrong. They claim obedience to their ideas is necessary to follow God. Thus they lead Christ’s sheep after themselves, unwittingly declaring themselves a god, in God’s eyes.


Was Peter the Rock Christ Built His Church On?

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18

Peter was the first Christian who preached the gospel to Jews to see Holy Spirit fall on them (Acts chapter 2). Then he added Samaritans to Christ’s church. They received the Holy Spirit also (Acts 8:14-17). And finally, Peter was the first Christian to preach to Gentiles who received Holy Spirit (Acts 10:34-48).

So the Bible record certainly shows Christ gave Peter that assignment of being the apostle to open the way of salvation to all three groups, through preaching Christ’s gospel. I say that because Christ, as leader of his church, and part of its god (Father and Son), he certainly knew in advance who would first preach to each group even before he sent his Spirit upon them. When Peter preached to the Samaritans John was with him sharing that message, and when he preached at Pentecost other Spirit anointed Christians were present, but it was Peter’s speech that moved some in that Jewish crowd to repent and accept Christ.

Christ did use Peter for those special jobs, being first to preach the gospel with the resultant Holy Spirit falling on all three groups. So is that what Christ meant by giving Peter the “keys to the kingdom,” or stating “on this Rock I will build my church?” Your belief in answering that question shouldn’t change your salvation status. Why would it? Nevertheless, you should not accept the misguided teaching that Peter, or any man except Christ, ever headed up Christ’s church.

Biblical history shows Peter was never head of the church. For example, look closely at the rest of Peter’s history in the Church, and compare his history with Paul’s church history. Scriptures in the book of Acts focus first on Peter’s preaching, and then Paul’s preaching in the second half. Other Christians are included, but the book covers their contributions far less.

What about the rest of the New Testament Bible record? What do we learn from the degree of prominence given each apostle, between these two? When we count all the pages Peter wrote, and then count all the pages Paul wrote, we see the ratio is totally lopsided in favor of Paul’s writing. Thus, so far as Christ’s whole church has been affected, Paul was certainly a more prominent leader than Peter, if you accept that their inspired writings constitute part of their church leadership. If you compare the decisions made to correct opinions about Christian living and Christian doctrines, again we see Paul offered much more correction to doctrinal thinking in his writings than Peter gave us in his scriptures. Again, which one wrote more to influence the church after they died, Paul or Peter? If Peter was first to lead Christ’s church wouldn’t it make sense his writings would be more plentiful, and more insightful than Paul’s? The opposite is true.

Is there anything in the Bible record where we see Peter leading the whole church, with the whole church following him as the appointed leader? No! The Bible record shows Apostle Paul wielded just as much authority in Christian congregations as Peter did. Paul even publicly rebuked Peter at least once for sinning. See Galatians 2:11-21. Furthermore, Paul was not directed by Peter or even by that Christian group of elders in Jerusalem. If Peter was over the Christian congregation, as leader, certainly all Christians back then would have to follow his directions. If they didn’t, he could not be a leader of theirs, because of not leading them. Paul didn’t even go to Jerusalem to meet Peter until 3 years after he had already been preaching the gospel to gentiles-Galatians 1:16-18. Paul didn’t receive permission or directions from Peter or that Jewish group in Jerusalem to do his preaching. Even after Paul met Peter his activity was still not directed by Peter. So Paul could not have considered Peter his superior. Neither could Peter have considered Paul his subordinate.

Paul publicly rebukes Peter for discrimination against gentile Christians.

There is only one occasion in scripture, that I remember, when disputes about Christian procedures and doctrines were settled, where the outcome was not decided exclusively by Paul. It was when Paul and a whole council of Christians in Jerusalem decided on an outcome together. And their decision went in favor of Paul’s opinion. That decision was not decided solely by Peter. It was over the matter of whether or not a Christian male must already be, or get, circumcised to be a Christian? See Acts 15:1-22.

The whole council in Jerusalem sent their ruling on circumcision to outside congregations.

Christ told his apostles that they have only one leader and teacher, Christ himself. What could he have meant by that, since apostles and elders taught Christian groups in the first century, while Bible writers such as Peter and Paul set some church policies in addition to Christ’s teaching? See Acts 2:42. Perhaps Christ meant that members of his chosen church would not need church rules to guide them after being baptized with Holy Spirit; since the Spirit would lead them into all things necessary for them to know. See 1John 2:27. So why all the Christian teaching and directions from Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and John? Perhaps because not all in those Christian congregations were led by Holy Spirit, or even baptized in it, as is also true today.

For Peter to accept a position of being leader of Christ’s church he would have done so in contradiction to Christ’s words:

“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” Matthew 23:9 In the next scripture Christ told them they only have one leader or teacher, the Christ. “And do not be called teachers (or leaders); for One is your Teacher, the Christ” vs 10

Peter never took on any title claiming leadership, he was never the Pope of the church, or its leader. There is no mention of that in scripture. That idea was fabricated after the apostles died. Arguing over the name Peter meaning rock, which it does, and therefore claiming he must be the rock mass in scripture cannot help justify the claim Peter took on the position of Church Father. For that claim contradicts the direction Jesus gave Peter, as cited in the scriptures above-Matthew 23:9-10.

Jesus built his church upon himself. He was the stone the builders rejected, not Peter.

Jesus said he was building his church, not Peter’s church. “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. (Matthew 16:18)

Peter’s own writing also shows the church was not built on him, but upon Christ. Peter wrote:

“For this is contained in Scripture:

This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve,
THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,” (2Peter 2:6-7)

The cornerstone the rest of the church is built on is Christ, as stated by Peter’s quote of Christ’s words. See Matthew 21:42. Also see Psalm 146:3.

Some Catholics claim the Catholic Church was the first Christian church, and so, they believe, it must have the correct biblical view on this and other matters. But Catholicism wasn’t the first Christian church. The first was a group of Christ’s followers in Jerusalem, established on the day of Pentecost in 33 AD. It consisted of Jews who had been observing their Pentecost celebration (the Feast of Weeks). Some of those converts then spread their message after returning to their home regions. Once Paul was baptized he immediately preached the truth in Damascus, and eventually went out from a Christian congregation already established in Antioch, traveling to spread the gospel-Acts 9.

Scriptures claim those early churches were providentially called Christian, not Catholic. See the Bible record, at Acts 11:26. Sometimes when writing to a specific church Bible writers would address them in letter salutations naming the locales those congregations resided in. The Bible never calls them Catholics. Therefore, the Catholic Church has no factual right to claim a first denominational standing before God.

Even though Catholicism has no supremacy over other Christians with respect to being first, some Catholics, in ignorance, claim they are the first Christian church; and because of that their leaders must have a superior understanding of scripture. Yet even if they had been first, Christ said:

People will come from east and west and north and south, and will recline at the table in the kingdom of God. And indeed, some who are last will be first, and some who are first will be last. Luke 13:29-30


Did God Need a Human Sacrifice to Forgive Our Sins?

That’s not my opinion. However, based on a consensus from the gospel teachers I’ve heard, most Christians are taught to believe God was wanting, even needing, to punish someone to forgive us for our sins. They teach God punished Christ because of you.

I don’t view God that way at all. I do understand why some do, since Christian teachers teach Christ was punished by God instead of us, without delivering a satisfactory answer telling us why God did that. The answer given by Christian teachers is that God did it to satisfy his sense of justice. Romans 6:23 reads, “The wages of sin is death.” So somebody has got to pay for your sin they teach; and therefore God punished Christ to let you live, is how the story goes. Of course we all die anyway, so that debt is paid by us despite Christ’s sacrifice. Also, that word “wages,” in that scripture, is a metaphor. Nobody pays God their own life, because they sinned. And death is not a benefit to be paid to us. Wages there means the ‘result’ of sin is death. Would that act, God punishing Christ because you sinned, satisfy anyone’s sense of justice? It’s the equivalence of you killing your son because I broke the law.

I believe scriptures prove Christ could have left earth another way. If not, would Christ ask his Father for another way to leave, saying, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done?” Luke 22:42. And since he could have returned to heaven another way, his death was not necessary for your salvation. Other facts support this belief also.

Fact #1:

Men killed Christ, not God. And since both the Father and Son live in our future, as well as our present, they knew exactly what was going to happen to Christ before he came to teach. Christ knew about his death before it happened. He knew when it would happen, and he told his apostles.

Fact #2:

Scriptures identify the only way to redemption and salvation is through following Christ. Following Christ is why God redeems us. And it’s the only way to get saved. The whole gospel of John screams this idea. But here are the most familiar scriptures among novice Bible students:

16For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. John 3:16-17

Romans 6:23 says, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Fact #3:

Christ’s teaching led to his arrest and conviction, resulting in death. But only his teaching caused you to believe in Christ. The whole world is aware Christ died, yet the whole world is not saved. Because knowing Christ died does not endear most people to him.

Fact #4:

Christ never told anyone his death was necessary for Christian salvation. At least that’s not in scripture. If you’ve seen it, tell me. But I’ve been studying scripture since 1975, and have never seen it. And his statement that the Holy Spirit would not come upon his disciples until he left is not the same point.

Fact #5:

Since God knew what would happen before Christ came to preach, both Christ, and his Father, considered his death a sacrifice they were willing to accept. It was not a blood sacrifice God needed, like an imaginary Aztec god. In stories (parables) Christ directed the blame for his death at the responsible individuals. Here’s my analogy of what happened, and why:

A parent saves a child, knowing he will die in the process. That’s the same type of sacrifice Christ offered to save us. In my analogy the parent would not be killing himself because he wanted pain and death, or because, let’s assume, another relative wanted him to die a painful death. Christ didn’t volunteer to die because he wanted pain and death. And God didn’t offer him up for that purpose either. I don’t follow Christ because he died. And I don’t think you do either. I follow him because he spoke to men, and through their words he convinced me to follow him.

Now compare the analogy I wrote above, about the parent saving the child and dying in the process, with Christ’s parable about the vineyard owner who sent his representatives to collect proceeds the vineyard was producing, from the vineyard keepers, who flogged and killed them. And then finally the vineyard owner sent his son. And who killed that son? Did the vineyard owner, or those tending his vineyard? Whose will was it that the vineyard owner’s son be killed? Was it the vineyard owner’s will, or those renting out his vineyard? It’s in that way the Father and Son see the sacrifice of Christ. In Christ’s parable he was representing what part the Father, the Son, and the guilty servants of God played in the Son’s death. Here is Christ’s account of that story:

1Then Jesus began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a wine vat, and built a watchtower. Then he rented it out to some tenants and went away on a journey.

2At harvest time, he sent a servant to the tenants to collect his share of the fruit of the vineyard. 3But they seized the servant, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed.

4Then he sent them another servant, and they struck him over the head and treated him shamefully.

5He sent still another, and this one they killed.

He sent many others; some they beat and others they killed.

6Finally, having one beloved son, he sent him to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.

7But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’8So they seized the son, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.

9What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants, and will give the vineyard to others. 10Have you never read this Scripture:

‘The stone the builders rejected

has become the cornerstone.

11This is from the Lord,

and it is marvelous in our eyes’?”

12At this, the leaders sought to arrest Jesus, for they knew that He had spoken this parable against them. But fearing the crowd, they left Him and went away.”

From this story it’s clear who Christ held accountable for his death. And it was not his Father.

Below are some of the scriptures Christian teachers claim say God needed the blood sacrifice of Christ to forgive you of your sins. These words are recorded in Hebrews chapter 9:

1Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2A tabernacle was prepared. In its first room were the lampstand, the table, and the consecrated bread. This was called the Holy Place. 3Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4containing the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. Inside the ark were the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5Above the ark were the cherubim of glory, overshadowing the mercy seat. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

6When everything had been prepared in this way, the priests entered regularly into the first room to perform their sacred duties. 7But only the high priest entered the second room, and then only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.

8By this arrangement the Holy Spirit was showing that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9It is an illustration for the present time, because the gifts and sacrifices being offered were unable to cleanse the conscience of the worshiper. 10They consist only in food and drink and special washings—external regulations imposed until the time of reform

11But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come, He went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made by hands and is not of this creation. 12He did not enter by the blood of goats and calves, but He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own blood, thus securing eternal redemption.

13For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that their bodies are clean, 14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself unblemished to God, purify our consciences from works of death, so that we may serve the living God!

I once bought into the narrative taught by denominational Christianity, accepting their teaching Christ’s blood opened the way for forgiveness. However, I have come to believe those scriptures above only suggest that narrative, while actually meaning something different. Because of the barbaric act that the Jewish religious leaders had Romans enact upon Christ, God had their ancestors dramatize that act on animals. In the scriptures above, Hebrews 9:1-14, Paul compared the spilling of Christ’s blood to those animal sacrifices for forgiveness of sins. That’s clear. But the reason why he compared it to the animal blood isn’t. Also, the scripture does not specify that it was Christ’s blood that gives salvation. Instead it mentions his entering into the “Most Holy Place”(heaven), by his blood, while securing eternal redemption. And that statement is factually correct. He died a bloody death to enter into heaven. Verse 12 reads, “He did not enter by the blood of goats and calves, but He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own blood, thus securing eternal redemption.” Did the blood redeem mankind, or did Christ’s work on earth do that?

In assessing Paul’s statements, it’s important to understand the history of the apostle Paul. Of all Christians in the first century Paul could be characterized as the number one Jewish convert. Before submitting to Christ he was a Pharisee. While that he was proud of being a Pharisee and of his Jewish heritage. Pharisee was one of the Jewish sects that most strictly followed Jewish religious laws and practices.

I believe Paul only used Christ’s blood in those scriptures metaphorically, analogous, comparing it to the animal sacrifices Jews were ordered to perform for forgiveness of sins, because God had ordered them to dramatize this horrific event, Christ’s death; and because those of the Jewish faith associated blood sacrifices with forgiveness of sins. It’s my belief that if it was not for this Jewish practice, that connection to Christ’s death wouldn’t exist, and the claim probably would not be made about Christ’s blood allowing forgiveness of sins.

Denominational Christianity believes the necessity existed for Christ’s spilled blood to forgive sins was providentially ordained in order to satisfy God’s justice. I don’t believe that. I believe the primary reason for that comparison between Christ’s death and animal sacrifices is because of what the Jews were told by God: the spilling of blood in a sacrifice meant God forgave them. That was part of the Jewish religion. Yet Christ fulfilled the Jewish religion. His followers are no longer part of it. So naturally some of the early Jewish Christians would easily associate forgiveness with the spilling of blood because of prior religious practice. Yet other aspects about that Jewish religion that some early Jewish Christians wanted to follow Paul denounced. He could have been clearer about the Jewish belief about blood sacrifice.

Yet Paul and Christ said Christ fulfilled the Jewish law. In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” And at Romans 10:4 Paul wrote, ” For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”

One scripture above also states that the blood of Christ had an effect to, “purify our consciences from works of death, so that we may serve the living God!” That means some people (Christians), respond more quickly to God because of it, just as an Israelite offering a blood sacrifice drew him/her closer to God. And that might be the reason God let Christ die, rather than to satisfy his (God’s) sense of Justice. Just a thought. I’m not raising this point as a proven fact. But many Christians sympathize with the sufferings of Christ, and as Paul wrote, it affects their conscience, turning them from sin.

The evidence I submit is the factual account of Jesus’ life. Factually, it was men influenced by demons that killed Christ, not God our Father. See Genesis 3:15. Factually the only appeasement that exists, relative to our forgiven standing before God, is that God is appeased when we, as Christians, follow Christ’s words.

The sacrifice the Father made was his allowing Christ to be killed, while knowing he would be killed when he sent him. And the Father knew this way before he sent Christ to earth to save us; thus it was a sacrifice for the Father to do that. That idea is totally different than God needing Christ to die to appease the feelings he had against us for our sins; the teaching that God needed a perfect human life to die as a ransom for the perfect life Adam gave up, to satisfy God’s sense of justice. Those biblical allusions to Christ’s blood saving us are metaphorical in nature. And Christ’s history shows his blood was only spilled because of his words. Scriptures further teach only following Christ’s words saves. See Matthew chapter 7.

While Christ’s words opened the possibility that all humans can be saved, the Bible states all humans won’t be saved. Neither by his words, or by his death. Again, this fact proves Christians are not saved because of the spilling of Christ’s blood. If that were so, scripture would teach salvation comes to all people. Which it doesn’t. So these ideas about the sacrifice of Christ’s blood appeasing God’s wrath towards mankind are bogus in nature, in that they appear to be taught in scripture, while the idea is not actually taught in scripture. Men still persecute and sometimes kill Christ’s followers too, for speaking Christ’s words. Is God using the death of martyred Christians as a propitiatory sacrifice? Of course not.

John 15:20

Remember the word that I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they kept My word, they will keep yours as well


Atonement for mankind’s sin is spoken of being significantly correlated with Christ’s death only because that was his eventuality for teaching. His teaching led to his death. But if he didn’t come to teach us, we would answer for our own sins. We all sin. Through Christ God told us, follow my son and I will pass over your sin, until I have him remove your sinful tendencies. In that way Christ gave his life as a substitute for ours, because he was killed in the process of teaching that message.