Tuesday, November 23, 2010

The Little Horn


And yet, he has NOT answered directly! He presents a French translation of Rev. 13...

I present a standard Roman Catholic translation of Rev 13.

...which speaks of "La Bête" but there is no mention of "Pope" (English) here nor even "Pape La Bête" (which would be French, and not proper grammar). So all he has done is altered Scripture and improperly mixed languages while doing so.

There's no mention of "Pope" in Roman Catholic prooftexts for the papacy like Mt 16:18-19. Yet that doesn't prevent them from talking about Pope Peter.

Could "The Beast" be a pope? Doubtful. It would be an anachronism to assign something or someone coming from Vatican Hill as coming from Rome.

And it would be anachronistic to prooftext the papacy from Mt 16:18-19 or John 21:15-17. If Catholics can prooftext the papacy, so can Protestants. We just have a rather different set of prooftexts (Dan 7, Dan 11; 2 Thes 2; Rev 13).


  1. I'm guessing you've seen Turretinfan's post on the topic of the papacy.


  2. Steve is the person who helped me find the pdf upon which that post is based.