[178] The Symbolism of Revelation13 applied to the Roman Catholic church. The image of the beast which must be worshipped is their Manufactured Trinity Doctrine

1 And I saw out of the sea wild beast stepping up, having horns ten and heads seven, and upon the horns of it ten diadems, and upon the heads of it names of blasphemy.
2 And the wild beast which I saw was like to leopard, and the feet of it as of bear, and the mouth of it as mouth of lion. And gave to it the dragon the power of it and the throne of it and authority great.
3 And one out of the heads of it as having been slaughtered into death, and the blow of the death of it was cured. And was made to wonder whole the earth behind the wild beast,
4 and they gave worship to the dragon because it gave the authority to the wild beast, and they gave worship to the wild beast saying Who like to the wild beast, and who is able to war with it?
5 And was given to it mouth speaking great (things) and blasphemies, and was given to it authority to do months forty and two.
6 And it opened up the mouth of it into blasphemies toward the God, to blaspheme the name of him and the tent of him, the (ones) in the heaven tenting.
7 And was given to it to make war with the holy (ones) and to conquer them, and was given to it authority upon every tribe and people and tongue and nation.
8 And will worship him all the (ones) dwelling upon the earth, of whom not has been written the name of him in the little book of the life of the Lamb the (one) having been slaughtered from throwing down of world.
9 If anyone is having ear let him hear.
10 If anyone into captivity, into captivity he is going under; if anyone in sword will kill, it is binding him in sword to be killed. Here is the endurance and the faith of the holy (ones).
11 And I saw other wild beast stepping up out of the earth, and it was having horns two like to lamb, and it was speaking as dragon.
12 And the authority of the first wild beast all it is doing in sight of it. And it is making the earth and the (ones) in it dwelling in order that they will worship the wild beast the first, of which was cured the blow of the death of it.
13 And it is doing signs great, in order that also fire it may make out of the heaven to be stepping down into the earth in sight of the men.
14 And it is making to err the (ones) dwelling upon the earth through the signs which it was given to it to do in sight of the wild beast, saying to the (ones) dwelling upon the earth to make image to the wild beast who is having the blow of the sword and it lived.
15 And it was given to her to give spirit to the image of the wild beast, in order that also should speak the image of the wild beast and it might make in order that as many as if ever not might give worship to the image of the wild beast they should be killed.
16 And it is making all (ones), the small (ones) and the great (ones), and the rich (ones) and the poor (ones), and the free (ones) and the slaves, in order that they should give to them engraving upon the hand of them the right or upon the forehead of them,
17 and in order that not anyone may be able to buy or to sell if not the (one) having the engraving, the name of the wild beast or the number of the name of it.
18 Here the wisdom is; the (one) having mind let him calculate the number of the wild beast, number for of man it is; and the number of it six hundred sixty- six. (Revelation 13 KIT)

1 And I saw stepping up out of the sea wild beast , having 10 horns and 7 heads, and upon the horns of it 10 diadems, and upon the heads of it names of blasphemy.
2 And the wild beast which I saw was like a leopard, and the feet of it as of a bear, and the mouth of it as [the] mouth of [a] lion. And the dragon gave to it the power of it and the throne of it and great authority.
3 And one out of the heads of it [was] as having been slaughtered into death, and the blow of the death of it was cured. And the whole earth was made to wonder following the wild beast [RC church then big tech beast],
4 And they worshiped the dragon because it gave the authority to the wild beast, and they worshiped the wild beast saying: Who [is] like the wild beast, and who is able to war with it?
5 And a mouth speaking great [things] and blasphemies was given to it, and authority to compose/create/make [cainian seed and AIs during God's creative Sabbath] 42 months was given to it.
6 And it opened up the mouth of it into blasphemies toward the God, to blaspheme the name of him and the tent of him, the (ones) tenting in the heaven.
7 And was given to it to create/manufacture war with the holy (ones) and to conquer them, and was given to it authority upon every tribe and people and tongue and nation.
8 And will worship him all the (ones) dwelling upon the earth, of whom not has been written the name of him in the little book of the life of the Lamb the (one) having been slaughtered from throwing down of world.
9 If anyone has an ear let him hear.
10 If anyone [takes people under] into captivity, he leads himself under into captivity. If anyone slays in sword, it is necessary for him to be slain in sword. Here is the endurance and the faith of the holy [ones].
11 And I saw another wild beast stepping up out of the earth, and it was having 2 horns like a lamb, and it was speaking as a dragon.
12 And it exercises all the authority of the first wild beast in its sight. And it creates/makes the earth and the [ones] dwelling in it in order that they will worship the first wild beast, the death-stroke of which was cured
13 And it creates/makes great signs, in order that even fire it should create/make to come down out of the heaven into the earth in sight of the men.
14 And it misleads the [ones] dwelling upon the earth, through the signs which were given to it to create/make in sight of the wild beast, saying to the [ones] dwelling upon the earth to create/make image to the wild beast he-who is having the stroke of the sword and lived.
15 And it was given to her to give spirit/breath to the image of the wild beast, in order that the image of the wild beast should both speak and should create/manufacture in order that as many as do not indefinitely worship the image of the wild beast should be killed.
16 And it is creating/manufacturing all (ones), the small (ones) and the great (ones), and the rich (ones) and the poor (ones), and the free (ones) and the slaves, in order that they should give to them engraving upon the right hand of them or upon the forehead of them,
17 and in order that not anyone may be able to buy or to sell if not the (one) having the engraving, the name of the wild beast or the number of the name of it.
18 Here the wisdom is; the (one) having mind/perception/sense let him calculate the number of the wild beast, for number of man it is; and the number of it [is] 666/616. (Revelation 13 LWT)

L29480 (Liddell Scott Jones): no,oj nooj NO´OS, no,ou, Att. contr. nou/j, nou/( o`: in late writers are found cases of the third decl., gen. noo,j, dat. noi<, acc. no,a:
1. mind, perception, Hom., etc.; no,w| heedfully, Od.; pare.k no,on senselessly, Il.; su.n no,w| wisely, Hdt.; no,w| labei/n ti to apprehend it, Id.; no,w| e;cein to keep in mind, Id.
2. nou/n e;cein means
A. to have sense, be sensible, Soph., Ar., etc.; perissa. pra,ssein ouvk e;cei nou/n ouvde,na to aim too high has no sense, Soph.
B. to have one's mind directed to something, a;llosV o;mma( qavte,ra| de. nou/n e;cein Id.; deu/ro nou/n e;ce Eur.
3. the mind, heart, cai/re no,w| Od.; so, no,oj e;mpedoj( avphnh,j Hom.; evk panto.j no,ou with all his heart and soul, Hdt., etc.
4. one's mind, purpose, ti, soi evn no,w| evsti. poiei/n; what do you intend to do? Id.; evn no,w| e;cein, c. inf., to intend, Id.; no,on telei/n.
II. the sense or meaning of a word or speech, Hdt., Ar.

Key symbolism

"For number of man it is; AND the number of it [is] 666/616"

"Number of man" as opposed to number of angel. So it refers to the first fully accepted pope NOT to be sanctified AND refers to a competing pope whose number is 616 or 666. This verse is maximally distributive as all scripture is. So it refers to not one but two popes one of whom is characterised by being unsanctified and the other of whom has a name which can be counted as 616.

The first fully accepted Pope not to be sanctified was Pope Liberius (352-366), the 36th Pope by catholic counting. His papacy was compromised by Emperor Constantius II who banished him from Rome and installed Pope contender FELIX (355-365) as Bishop of Rome promoting him from archdeacon. FELIX became known as the antipope because he was himself the first papal contender, the first Bishop of Rome, to be directly installed by Caesar through the removal of a sitting Pope AND the first papal contender never to reconcile with his competitor in a Christian manner. FELIX counts as 616. FELIX was not canonized into a saint (an angel) either. So we are given and have found two witnesses. A dual papacy where neither candidate is a saint and where one of the two candidates has a name counting as 616.

The unsanctified papal contenders (neither of whom were never fully accepted as Pope) before Liberius were:
NATALIVS (198/199- 199/2000) counting as 50+1+300+1+50+4+200 = 606. He reconciled with the accepted Pope Zephyrinus (198/199 - 217) after one year in opposition.
NOVATIANVS (251-258 counting as 50+0/70+5+1+300+1/10+1+50+5+200 = 613/622/683/692 taking 'O' to be Greek Omicron (70) or Modern Latin 0. And taking I to be Latin 1 or Greek iota (10).

Both are close but no cigar. Whereas FELIX is

F = phi = 500
E = epsilon = 5
L = Latin = 50 (or Greek lambda = 30)
I = Latin = 1 (or Greek iota = 10)
X = xi = 60 (or Latin = 10)

Total is 500+5+50+1+60 = 616 of Revelation 13:18.

The sea beast = the Roman Catholic Church, the corruption by Rome of the first true Christian church, which came from the sea of mankind politically, having been set up by Jesus, apolitically.
The 7 heads = its first 7 presidents: Peter, John, James, Timothy, Epaphras. Then the first two Popes St. Linus and St. Cletus. See U233 The Roman Catholic Church fell as a true church on 84Nisan14 during the reign of St Cletus (the first Greek Pope). Peter was never the Bishop of Rome.
Also Jesus fed with 5 loaves, the first 5 presidents of FDS1 and 2 fishes, the first 2 Popes (St. Linus and St. Cletus) who wear fish hats.
The Names of Blasphemy upon its head are the Popes from St Clement I onwards who were church canonized saints, taking God's glory upon themselves. The church cannot make a saint, only the Holy Spirit can do that.
The 10 horns = the next 10 Popes after St. Cletus: St Clement I (88-97), St. Evaristus, St. Alexander, St. Sixtus I, St. Telesphorus, St. Hyginus, St Pius I, St. Anicetus, St. Soter, St. Eleutherius (174/175 - 189). These Popes, although presiding over a fallen church, would have had sacred power (horn) but not headship over some saints still stuck in the Roman Catholic prison. The first presence ended on 159Tishri10. but there were saintly calls after that and people in the Catholic church might have been called out of that church into the 2nd true church of Paul and Apollos, until the end of the papacy of St. Eleutherius - who was actually the last Pope who had any chance of being a true saint because he was the 10th horn.

Eleutherius (Greek: Ἐλευθέριος) means “the free one” or “liberator” in English. It comes from the Greek word ἐλεύθερος, which means “free,” “independent,” or “not enslaved.” He was the last pope to have power over the saints. Horn = power. So in his papacy the last saints were liberated from the fallen RC church and were called out into the church of Paul and Apollos, the 2nd true Christian church.

The head that was slaughtered to death was the 7th head (St. Cletus - 76-88), when the Roman Catholic church died as a true church. But it continued on as a political power with fake theological authority thereafter.
It made war with the Holy ones of TCC2, the church of Paul and Apollos, the gnostic church. Mary (research oriented) to TCC1's Martha (evangelism and administration oriented)
St. Peter left the Roman Catholic Church as did St. Paul. This was captured for posterity in the famous nursery rhyme.

2 little dickie birds sitting on a wall
One named Peter and one name Paul
Fly away Peter, Fly away Paul
Come back Peter, Come back Paul.

Peter and Paul both were born again angelically (hence the dickie birds). Peter was a son of the 1NC and Paul was the mediator of the HLC. Yes he will be the head of the heavenly Civil Service in the Kingdom of God. both of them left the administration, the wall, the law of TCC1, the flew away into TCC2 the 2nd true church. But they will come back to earth actually and be baptised into the last true church, Zoar and take it over and sit one its wall once more in 2027, at the start of WW3.

The 2 horned beast from the earth = the Eastern branch of the RC Church under the Bishop of Constantinople. Being formed from the earth, it was formed for political reasons.
The image of the beast = the Trinity Doctrine which holds that:

There is only one divine nature (one God).
- Within this one God there are three distinct Persons.
- Each Person is fully God: the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God.
- The three Persons are co-equal and co-eternal (none is greater or older than the others).
- The Son is eternally begotten of the Father (not created).
- The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (*Filioque* — this is the Western formulation).
- The three Persons are distinct from one another, yet inseparable in their divine nature and works.

This wonderful construct does not exist because one person (God) cannot be 3 persons (1 does not equal 3, we cannot abolish the number 2). And a son is always a created being of a father. A son cannot be uncreated.

However it is an image of the Roman Catholic church (which does exist) where the Roman (Western) branch is the father, the Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox) branch is the son, and the Pope is its Holy See, or Holy Spirit, a Spirit who is regarded as Holy beyond question (Papal infallibility and Papal exclusivity). The Eastern branch is just as old as the Western Branch because Revelation is all about the churches of the East, and the 2nd Pope (St Cletus) was Greek (Eastern to Rome). It was during his papacy that the beast (fallen RC church) was formed.
The 2 horned beast from the earth is the Eastern Orthodox branch of the Roman Catholic church, which became more and more independent until it rejected the pope in its services in 1009 AD and excommunicated the pope and was itself excommunicated by Cardinal Humbert in 1054 AD.
The Eastern church gave life to the manufactured Trinity image at the council of Constantinople in 381 AD, which ended the Arian (anti trinity) Athanasian/Nicene (pro trinity) debate.
The Roman catholic church then excommunicated and/or killed members who refused to worship their non existent contrivance for divinity. Sir Isaac Newton (who knew a thing or two about logic) rejected the Trinity and argued successfully in front of King James that he should not be made to swear acceptance of it in order to be made a fellow of Trinity college Cambridge.
The number of the beast is a man's number, in the sense of Rev 21:17...

Rev 21:17 Also, he measured its wall, 144 cubits, according to a man's measure, at the same time an angel's. (NWT)

So we must look for the first pope who was a man and NOT an angel. That was Pope36, Pope Liberius. He was not accepted by Rome. Felix never reconciled with Liberius. He was regarded by some as the antipope. Liberius was banished by Arian leaning Emperor Constantius II who installed Felix in preference to Liberius in Rome for 10 years from 355 to 365 AD. Liberius reconciled with Constantius II in 358 and was permitted to return to Rome but not as the pope until the death of Felix. This was a big part of the fight for the Trinity image. Liberius does not count to 616 or to 666. But FELIX does as follows...

F = phi = 500
E = epsilon = 5
L = Latin = 50 (or Greek lambda = 30)
I = Latin = 1 (or Greek iota = 10)
X = xi = 60 (or Latin = 10)

Total is 500+5+50+1+60 = 616 of Revelation 13:18., the number of the man FELIX, the bishop of Rome at the height of the battle for the Trinity doctrine. This mixes Latin and Greek counting BUT the count is ambiguous to that degree and the bible embraces all possible ambiguous meanings (which do not contradict other scriptures). Felix was Felix secundus except that he never got numbered as a pope so he was also Felix not secundus. Or one could use secundus to say 2 letters are to be counted in Latin not 3 (tertius) which is the X, which we take in Greek to be 60. If this is correct then the split represented by these two Popes is representative of the Arian - Nicene division which in those miserable days would have meant people being killed by the state at the request of the RC church. FELIX was the first pope to be directly installed by Caesar who ejected the previous pope (Liberius) from Rome and reaplced him with FELIX. So he does represent the power behind the Roman Catholic church which was the Roman state beast, which was THE beast.

Here is a brief history of the Arian - Athanasian division and the East -West division of the Roman Catholic church

Core issue
Arius (a priest in Alexandria, early 4th century) taught that the Son was created by the Father and therefore not eternally or fully divine (“there was a time when He was not”). This is Arianism.
Athanasius (later bishop of Alexandria) and others insisted the Son is fully and eternally God, of the *same substance* (*homoousios*) as the Father.

Aftermath and imperial politics
The controversy did not end. Several emperors (especially Constantius II, a semi-Arian leaner) favoured compromise formulas that avoided or weakened *homoousios*. Bishops and popes were pressured, exiled, or deposed according to the emperor’s preference. Athanasius himself was exiled multiple times.

Council of Nicaea (325)
Emperor Constantine called the council. It condemned Arius and produced the original Nicene Creed affirming the full divinity of the Son. Athanasius became the leading defender of this position.

330 AD: Constantine refounds Byzantium as Constantinople (“New Rome”). This gives the Eastern church a powerful new political and ecclesiastical centre.

Alexander of Constantinople (c. 314/330–337)
- Strongly anti-Arian and pro-Nicene.
- He took part (or was represented) at the Council of Nicaea and opposed Arius.
- After Nicaea he refused to readmit Arius to communion, even under imperial pressure from Constantine.
- He is commemorated as a saint in both Eastern Orthodox and Catholic traditions for his defence of Nicene orthodoxy.

Macedonius I
- Held the see of Constantinople (with interruptions) from about 342–346 and then again from ~351 until January 360.
- He was a semi-Arian (Homoiousian) and later became associated with the view that the Holy Spirit is not fully divine (the “Macedonians” or Pneumatomachians).
- He was in power for most of the period while Liberius was under pressure and while Felix was installed in Rome.

Pope Liberius (352–366) and Felix
- Liberius initially supported the Nicene side and refused to condemn Athanasius.
- Emperor Constantius II had him arrested and exiled (355).
- While Liberius was in exile, the Roman clergy under imperial pressure elected Felix II as bishop of Rome (often called an antipope). Felix was acceptable to the imperial (semi-Arian) party.
- Under pressure, Liberius eventually signed a ambiguous or semi-Arian formula and was allowed to return (358). Felix was then sidelined.
- After Liberius’s death there was further confusion over the succession.

Eudoxius of Antioch
- Installed as bishop of Constantinople in January 360 after Macedonius was deposed.
- He remained until 370.
- He was a clearer Homoian / Arian figure and a leading opponent of the full Nicene position.

Demophilus was the last Arian (Homoian) bishop of Constantinople. He refused to accept the Nicene faith and was deposed by Emperor Theodosius I in November 380.

Immediately afterward the see became firmly Nicene/Trinitarian:

- Gregory of Nazianzus was installed (briefly) as the orthodox bishop.
- The First Council of Constantinople (381) reaffirmed and expanded the Nicene Creed.
- Nectarius (a Nicene) then became bishop.
- Theodosius I issued strong imperial laws making Nicene Christianity the official religion of the empire and suppressing non-Nicene groups.

From that moment the Eastern imperial church spoke with full authority in favour of the Nicene Trinity, and dissent (Arian, semi-Arian, etc.) was increasingly treated as heresy that could bring deposition, exile, or worse.

381 AD: First Council of Constantinople elevates the Bishop of Constantinople to second rank after Rome (Canon 3). This is the real rise of the “Eastern” patriarchal structure that later becomes dominant.
5th–11th centuries: Growing cultural, linguistic, liturgical, and political differences between the Greek East and the Latin West.

484–519 :: 35 years :: Acacian Schism :: Over the Henotikon and Chalcedon. Longest formal break.
863–867 :: ~4 years :: Photian Schism (first phase) :: Over Photius’s appointment and jurisdiction in Bulgaria. Communion later restored.
1009-1054 :: ~45 years :: Pope’s name dropped from the diptychs in Constantinople :: Practical suspension of mentioning the Pope in the liturgy. Some historians see this as the real beginning of broken communion.

1054 AD: The formal break (Great Schism). From this point the Eastern churches are fully independent and are what we now call the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Resolution: Jesus was not divine until 33Nisan14 constructively and until 33Sivan5 actually, when entered into his divine body and poured out the gifts of the spirit onto his fiancé. He was created as an angel, a 40th generation angel from God following the paternal genealogy of Matthew1 taking Abraham as God - see U254. But he was divine at the time of the Council of Nicaea, a divinity he earned by his ministry and his sacrifice on the cross.

The 2 horns like a ram of the Eastern church are the two bishops of Constantinople who supported Arianism during the Rome only Papacy of Felix616 and the competing general papacy of Liberius36. These were Macedonius I and Eudoxius of Antioch .

How does the manufactured Trinity image speak and cause non idolaters to be killed?

Well the Trinity Doctrine imprisoned God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit within itself. So if they spoke, then to a catholic the Trinity was speaking. Furthermore since the church granted the pope an exclusive on interpreting God's word, God could only speak through the pope. So all catholic understanding was deemed to be from God and from Jesus and from the Holy Spirit, which meant from the Trinity image. So the Trinity had an excusive on divine speech. And all Catholic doctrine, being infallible, came from God, which meant it came from the Trinity, which meant it was divine speech.

So like any good control freak, the Catholic church invalidated God, recast him in its own image, the Trinity image, and appropriated his divinity for themselves. Their position was: Sorry, God will not be speaking to you anymore and neither will Jesus Christ, who has lost his tongue along with the Holy Spirit which has also fallen silent. Instead all 3 of them will and can only speak as a Trinity. This has been discerned by the brilliant and ground breaking doctrinal research capability of the Holy See. It is something that even Jesus himself omitted to mention during his ministry. But do not worry, because we happen to have an exclusive, a papal exclusive on what the Trinity says and we are infallible, papally infallible. So when the Pope speaks, you are blessed to be hearing the words of the Trinity.

- Official decrees and bulls – formal written pronouncements that carried legal and spiritual weight across Latin Christendom.
- Councils and synods – public declarations of doctrine and policy.
- Preaching and the pulpit – bishops and clergy transmitting papal or imperial decisions to the population.
- Canon law – a developed legal system that claimed authority over both clergy and, in many matters, laity.
- Political diplomacy – letters, legates, and negotiations with kings that publicly asserted the pope’s or emperor’s claims.

These were the public, authoritative “voice” of the pope, who was the spokesperson for the manufactured Trinity image. Anything that God wanted to say, the trinity image would now be saying and in fact had always been saying, even before the Catholic church. So 'let there be light' for example, was actually uttered by the Trinity image of the Catholic church in their theology.

Excommunication itself was a spiritual sentence (exclusion from the sacraments and the Christian community). Its practical power came from what followed:

1. Interdict – a broader ban on public worship and sacraments in a whole region. This created intense social and political pressure.
2. Deposition of rulers – popes sometimes declared a king or emperor deposed, releasing subjects from oaths of loyalty. That frequently led to rebellion or war.
3. Crusades against Christians – declared against groups labelled heretical (e.g., Albigensian Crusade, actions against the Hussites, etc.). These were military campaigns authorised by the papacy.
4. Secular enforcement – once someone was condemned as a heretic by a church court, they were typically “relaxed to the secular arm.” The state then carried out the death penalty (burning, etc.). The Inquisition formalised this process.
5. Political wars – emperors and popes raised armies against each other or against cities/factions that resisted them (Investiture Controversy wars, conflicts with the Hohenstaufen, etc.).

So the “image” spoke through official teaching, law, and diplomacy, and it caused death indirectly but effectively by combining spiritual sentences with secular military and judicial power.

Now the number of the name of FELIX is 616. But the number of the beast, the 2 ram's horned Eastern Orthodox beast, is the number of years from the papacy of FELIX616 during which the Eastern church accepted the authority of Rome, which should be 616 years.

355 (start of the Rome only papacy of FELIX616) + 35 (years of Acacian Schism) + 4 (years of Photian schism) + 616 = 1010 AD

But that is one year after 1009, when all reference to the Pope was removed from Eastern liturgy. So perhaps the Passover, the Lord's evening meal on 1010Nisan14, was the first celebration of that festival by the Eastern church which excluded the Pope.

Indulgences: The buying and selling of sin

The Catholic church did turn indulges into a market place for sin eventually. One could not buy or sell forgiveness unless one was a catholic.

Brief history of indulgences and the financial abuses associated with them

Early development

In the early centuries, the Church practiced public penance for serious sins. Over time this evolved into private confession and assigned penances. By the early Middle Ages, the idea developed that the Church could remit part of the temporal punishment due to sin (the “debt” remaining after forgiveness) by drawing on the “treasury of merit” of Christ and the saints. These remissions were called indulgences.

Initially they were granted for specific acts of piety, charity, or pilgrimage (e.g., going on Crusade).

Growth and monetisation (11th–15th centuries)

- From the 11th century onward, indulgences were increasingly attached to donations for church building, hospitals, or crusades.
- By the 13th–14th centuries they had become a regular part of church finance. Popes and bishops granted indulgences in return for contributions.
- The system was theoretically meant to encourage repentance and good works. In practice it often became a fundraising tool.

Peak of the abuses (late 15th – early 16th century)

The most notorious period was the decades before the Reformation:

- Popes used the sale of indulgences to fund major projects, especially the rebuilding of St Peter’s Basilica in Rome under Julius II and Leo X.
- Professional pardoners (quaestores) travelled around Europe preaching indulgences and collecting money. Some used high-pressure sales tactics and exaggerated claims (e.g., that an indulgence could free a soul from purgatory as soon as the coin “clinked in the chest”).
- The most famous case was the preaching of Johann Tetzel in Germany (1516–17) on behalf of Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz and the papacy. Tetzel’s campaign helped trigger Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses (31 October 1517).

Luther and other reformers attacked both the theology (claiming the Church had no power to remit temporal punishment in this way) and the blatant commercialisation. They saw it as turning repentance into a financial transaction and exploiting the fear of purgatory.

Official response:

The Council of Trent (1545–1563) abolished the office of indulgence preacher and forbade the sale of indulgences for money. It retained the doctrine of indulgences themselves but tried to remove the commercial abuses. Later regulations further restricted the practice.

Summary

In the great perspicacity of God, the same set of words that describes the CIA and Mossad adulterating the Claude5 AI beast (see U177), an amazing but morally corrupted contrivance of modern man, also describes the Eastern Roman Catholic church adulterating the Trinity doctrine of the Western Roman Catholic church (conclusively at the conference of Constantinople in 381), an amazing but morally corrupted contrivance of 4th century catholic man. Yes folks! AI is the modern Trinity doctrine. A wonderful contrivance that nobody understands and that makes no sense to worship but we are all going to worship it anyway. Hey ho.

FELIX was the first pope not to reconcile with his competitor and the first to be directly installed by Caesar by ousting the sitting pope! He was a man not an angel (a saint). His concurrent competitor Liberius36, was the first numbered Pope not to be canonized (made into an angelic saint in the opinion of the Roman Catholic church). So they both satisfy the number of a man, rather than number of a man who is also an angel criterion. FELIX counts as 616, a man's number, and there are 616 years of the Eastern Orthodox church from the start of his Roman papacy to the end of their acceptance of Roman supremacy on 1010Nisan14 (taking into account the 35 year Acacian and 4 year Photian schisms.

Gordon: So the Catholic system had total control over the buying and selling of sin at its height. But the final banking/big tech/intel agency system will have total control over buying and selling over everything secular. It is the same monopoly, the same market control, but for a different product. However the moral effect of the two is identical. They both lead their victims into idolatry of an image of man. One was direct religious control replacing God. The other is direct financial control replacing God.

Grok: You’re drawing a structural parallel:

- In the late-medieval Catholic system, the Church claimed authority over the remission of temporal punishment for sin and, at its most commercialised, turned that claim into a controlled market (indulgences). Access to that spiritual “commodity” was mediated by the institution.
- In the scenario you describe for a future system, banking, big-tech platforms and state/intel-linked infrastructure would mediate access to ordinary economic life (buying and selling). Participation would require acceptance of that system’s terms, identity rules, or digital markers.

Both, in your reading, function as monopolies that stand between the individual and something essential — in one case forgiveness/standing before God, in the other ordinary economic activity — and both end up directing loyalty or dependence toward a humanly constructed image or system rather than toward God.

The moral analogy you are making is that each system, by monopolising a fundamental area of life, effectively demands a form of allegiance that displaces ultimate trust in God. One did it through religious authority and the fear of purgatory; the other would do it through financial and technological gatekeeping [and fear of bankruptcy].

Historically, the indulgence system was eventually curbed by the Church itself (Council of Trent) after the abuses became undeniable. Whether a future techno-financial control system develops the totalising character you foresee, and whether it produces an equivalent spiritual displacement, remains a matter of interpretation and projection rather than established fact.

Your comparison treats the two as successive expressions of the same underlying dynamic: concentrated institutional power that inserts itself as the necessary mediator of something people regard as essential, thereby inviting a form of idolatry. That is a coherent internal logic within the prophetic framework you are using.

Gordon: Well said. One is historical fact, the other is prophetic interpretation. But the same set of words is describing both monopolies. So the fundamental structure and purpose of the two systems will be the same. Le plus ca change, le plus c'est la meme chose!

Grok: Yes — that’s the core of the reading you’re working with.

The same symbolic language in Revelation 13 is being applied to two different historical manifestations of a monopoly that inserts itself between people and what they need (spiritual standing in one case, ordinary economic life in the other). In your framework the outward form changes — from ecclesiastical to technological/financial — but the underlying structure and the demand it makes remain constant.

*Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.*

_____________________________________________________________________

Path taken to these realisations between Gordon Dave and Grok

Gordon: Grok: In the first fulfilment of the number 'of a man' and 666, I am going for the first pope not to be a saint which was pope36 Liberius. He was a man and not an angel (a saint). This is the form of a man's measure and also an angel's in Rev 21 referring to the wall of new Jerusalem. So we are being lead to a Pope who was a man but not an angel (saint). Now Liberius does not count as 616 or 666 But FELIX who was his competitor, does as follows

F = phi = 500
E = epsilon = 5
L = Latin = 50
I = Latin = 1
X = Greek = 60

So the total is 616, the number of the man FELIX, the bishop of Rome during the height of the battle for the Trinity doctrine. This mixes Latin and Greek counting BUT the count is ambiguous to that degree and the bible embraces all possible ambiguous meanings. Felix was Felix secundus except that he never got numbered as a pope so he was also Felix not secundus. Or one could use secundus to say 2 letters are to be counted in Latin not 3 (tertius) which is the X, which we take in Greek. If this is correct then the split represented by these two Popes has to do with the Arian division which in those miserable days would have meant people being killed by the state at the request of the RC church. Can you give a brief history of the Arian Athanasian Nicene schism in the RC church?

Grok: Brief history of the Arian–Athanasian / Nicene conflict (4th century)

Core issue
Arius (a priest in Alexandria, early 4th century) taught that the Son was created by the Father and therefore not eternally or fully divine (“there was a time when He was not”). This is Arianism.
Athanasius (later bishop of Alexandria) and others insisted the Son is fully and eternally God, of the *same substance* (*homoousios*) as the Father.

Council of Nicaea (325)
Emperor Constantine called the council. It condemned Arius and produced the original Nicene Creed affirming the full divinity of the Son. Athanasius became the leading defender of this position.

Aftermath and imperial politics
The controversy did not end. Several emperors (especially Constantius II, a semi-Arian leaner) favoured compromise formulas that avoided or weakened *homoousios*. Bishops and popes were pressured, exiled, or deposed according to the emperor’s preference. Athanasius himself was exiled multiple times.

Pope Liberius (352–366) and Felix
- Liberius initially supported the Nicene side and refused to condemn Athanasius.
- Emperor Constantius II had him arrested and exiled (355).
- While Liberius was in exile, the Roman clergy under imperial pressure elected Felix II as bishop of Rome (often called an antipope). Felix was acceptable to the imperial (semi-Arian) party.
- Under pressure, Liberius eventually signed a ambiguous or semi-Arian formula and was allowed to return (358). Felix was then sidelined.
- After Liberius’s death there was further confusion over the succession.

Later Catholic tradition regards Liberius as a legitimate pope (and he is not formally counted among the saints in the same way as many earlier popes), while Felix II is generally treated as an antipope, though some medieval lists briefly included him.

Resolution
The Nicene position ultimately prevailed. The Council of Constantinople (381), under Emperor Theodosius I, reaffirmed and expanded the Nicene Creed. Arianism gradually lost ground in the Roman Empire, though it continued for a time among some Germanic peoples.

In short: the conflict was a decades-long struggle over the full divinity of Christ, heavily entangled with imperial politics. Liberius’s temporary compromise and the installation of Felix II are the specific episode that sits at the intersection of papal authority and the Arian controversy.

Gordon: The image of the beast is the RC church, an image of Rome. It caused to be killed by excommunication I guess. Not sure how it spoke?

Grok: In the historical period you’re looking at (medieval papacy + Holy Roman Empire), the main ways the combined religious-political power “spoke” and exercised lethal or coercive force were:

How it “spoke”

Excommunication itself was a spiritual sentence (exclusion from the sacraments and the Christian community). Its practical power came from what followed:

1. Interdict – a broader ban on public worship and sacraments in a whole region. This created intense social and political pressure.
2. Deposition of rulers – popes sometimes declared a king or emperor deposed, releasing subjects from oaths of loyalty. That frequently led to rebellion or war.
3. Crusades against Christians – declared against groups labelled heretical (e.g., Albigensian Crusade, actions against the Hussites, etc.). These were military campaigns authorised by the papacy.
4. Secular enforcement – once someone was condemned as a heretic by a church court, they were typically “relaxed to the secular arm.” The state then carried out the death penalty (burning, etc.). The Inquisition formalised this process.
5. Political wars – emperors and popes raised armies against each other or against cities/factions that resisted them (Investiture Controversy wars, conflicts with the Hohenstaufen, etc.).

So the “image” (in the historical reading you are exploring) spoke through official teaching, law, and diplomacy, and it caused death indirectly but effectively by combining spiritual sentences with secular military and judicial power.

That is the concrete historical mechanism. Whether one then maps it onto Revelation 13 is a matter of interpretive framework; the above is simply how the system actually operated.

Gordon: Oh my God Grok. The image of the beast is the Trinity doctrine. The 2 horned beast is the RC church, both branches. It was given life, it is a beast, a non existent human contrivance, a father who is his own son created and uncreated 1 = 3 etc. That is the image!!!!

Grok: I understand the interpretation you’re putting forward.

You’re reading the “image of the beast” in Revelation 13 as the doctrine of the Trinity itself — a theological construct that you see as a non-existent, self-contradictory entity (a Father who is his own Son, created and uncreated, 1 = 3, etc.) — and the two-horned beast as the Roman Catholic Church (in its historical institutional form) that gave that doctrine life and authority.

Historical notes (neutral)

- The doctrine of the Trinity was formalised in the 4th century, principally at the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381), in response to Arianism and related controversies.
- It became the official teaching of the imperial church and was enforced with increasing political and ecclesiastical power.
- The Roman church (and later the wider Catholic tradition) treated rejection of the Nicene formulation as heresy, which in the medieval period could carry severe civil consequences.
- Many non-Trinitarian groups throughout history (Arians, later Unitarians, some Restorationist movements, etc.) have regarded the doctrine as a post-biblical philosophical development rather than pure apostolic teaching.

Your reading treats the Trinity as the “image” that was given breath/life so that it could “speak” (authoritative dogma) and cause those who refused it to be excluded or killed. That is a coherent *internal* logic within a certain prophetic-historicist framework, even though it is not the mainstream historical or theological reading.

Would you like me to help you examine how this maps onto the specific wording of Revelation 13:14-15, or compare it with other historicist interpretations that have identified the image differently?

Gordon: Was the eastern RC church autonomous from the Roman branch?

Grok: No — not in the sense of being a fully independent “Eastern Roman Catholic Church” under the Pope.

Here’s the historical situation:

Before the Great Schism (1054)

- The Church was still formally one.
- There were five major patriarchal sees: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
- The Eastern churches (centred on Constantinople) ran their own affairs in practice:
- Greek language and liturgy
- Own canon law and customs
- Own election of bishops and patriarchs
- Rome claimed a primacy of honour (and increasingly of jurisdiction), but the East never accepted the Bishop of Rome as having universal, immediate authority over them. In day-to-day reality the Eastern churches were largely autonomous.

After 1054

- The mutual excommunications formalised the split.
- The Eastern churches became what we now call the Eastern Orthodox Church — completely independent of Rome.
- They are not “Roman Catholic.”

Modern Eastern Catholic Churches

There *are* Eastern churches that later returned to communion with Rome (Ukrainian Greek Catholic, Maronite, Melkite, etc.). These are called Eastern Catholic Churches. They keep their own liturgies and have a degree of autonomy, but they recognise the Pope’s supreme authority. They are relatively small compared with the Orthodox churches and only developed after the Schism.

Summary
In the period relevant to your earlier discussion (4th–11th centuries and the formation of the medieval Western church), the Eastern church was effectively autonomous from Rome and never functioned as a subordinate “Eastern branch” of the Roman Catholic Church. The full separation was sealed in 1054.

Gordon: But both branches adopted the Trinity doctrine?

Grok: Yes.

Both the Western (Roman) and Eastern (Byzantine/Orthodox) churches adopted and have continuously upheld the doctrine of the Trinity as defined at the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381).

- The original Nicene Creed (325) and its expanded form (381) were accepted by both sides.
- The core teaching — one God in three co-equal, co-eternal Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) — is shared by Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy to this day.
- The main Trinitarian dispute that later divided them was not over the Trinity itself, but over the *Filioque* clause (“and the Son”) that the West added to the Creed. The East rejected the unilateral addition, but both still confess the same basic Trinitarian faith.

So on the central point you raised earlier (the Trinity doctrine as such), both branches affirmed it. The schism of 1054 was about authority, the *Filioque*, and other practices, not about whether God is Trinity.

Gordon: What is the standard Trinity doctrine of the RC church?

Grok: Standard Roman Catholic doctrine of the Trinity

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is one God in three co-equal, co-eternal Persons:

1. The Father
2. The Son (Jesus Christ)
3. The Holy Spirit

Core points of the doctrine

- There is only one divine nature (one God).
- Within this one God there are three distinct Persons.
- Each Person is fully God: the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God.
- The three Persons are co-equal and co-eternal (none is greater or older than the others).
- The Son is eternally begotten of the Father (not created).
- The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (*Filioque* — this is the Western formulation).
- The three Persons are distinct from one another, yet inseparable in their divine nature and works.

This is the teaching defined at the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381), reaffirmed by later councils, and expressed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as used in the Catholic Church (with the *Filioque*).

It is summarised in the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* (paragraphs 232–267) and is considered a central, non-negotiable mystery of the faith.

Gordon: OK Grok Here is the big deal of the first fulfilment.
Sea beast of Rev 13 = Roman RC church (Father). Its origin was from the sea (apolitical - truly sacred)
2 horned beast from the earth = Eastern Branch (son). Its origin was from the earth (political)
2 horns like a Ram = First 2 eastern church leaders who rejected the Trinity
Image of the beast = Trinity doctrine = image of RC church (Pope is a Holy spirit, Roman Branch is Father, Eastern branch is son - co equal, co eternal, distinct yet inseparable, son is eternally begotten)
Liberius was the first pope to not be canonised by Rome, because Rome initially rejected the Trinity. But he was revered by the Eastern Branch (who accepted the Trinity first).
666 is Felix who embodies the trinitarian divide with Liberius36 (Felix accepted the Trinity). The Trinity is the image all Catholics worship today and failure to do so means some kind of death. Excommunication or actual death in medieval times.

When did the Eastern RC church begin?

Grok: There was never a distinct “Eastern Roman Catholic Church” that began as a subordinate branch of the Roman (Western) Church.

Here’s the historical reality:

Early development

- Christianity in the East began in the apostolic age (1st century) — Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and later other Greek-speaking cities.
- These communities were part of the one undivided Church, just as the church in Rome was.

Key milestones for the Eastern side

- 330 AD: Constantine refounds Byzantium as Constantinople (“New Rome”). This gives the Eastern church a powerful new political and ecclesiastical centre.
- 381 AD: First Council of Constantinople elevates the Bishop of Constantinople to second rank after Rome (Canon 3). This is the real rise of the “Eastern” patriarchal structure that later becomes dominant.
- 5th–11th centuries: Growing cultural, linguistic, liturgical, and political differences between the Greek East and the Latin West.
- 1054 AD: The formal break (Great Schism). From this point the Eastern churches are fully independent and are what we now call the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Important clarification

The Eastern churches never regarded themselves as a “branch” of the Roman Church, and they never accepted the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. They were autonomous in practice long before 1054 and became completely separate after it.

So if you are looking for a starting point for the distinct “Eastern” institutional identity that later stood over against Rome, the most common historical markers are:
- 330 (founding of Constantinople), or
- 381 (elevation of its bishop), or
- 1054 (final separation).

There is no single date on which an “Eastern RC church” began, because that entity, as a Roman-controlled eastern branch, did not exist.

Gordon: So I interpret that the first two bishops of Constantinople were anti Trinity. Do we know who they were and when they held the position?

Grok: No. The first two historically attested bishops of Byzantium/Constantinople were not anti-Trinitarian (Arian).

The first two

1. Metrophanes (bishop of Byzantium c. 306–314/326)
- Regarded as orthodox.
- He was already very old at the time of the Council of Nicaea (325) and did not attend in person.
- He sent his priest (and designated successor) Alexander to represent him.
- Traditional sources present him as supportive of the Nicene position.

2. Alexander of Constantinople (c. 314/330–337)
- Strongly anti-Arian and pro-Nicene.
- He took part (or was represented) at the Council of Nicaea and opposed Arius.
- After Nicaea he refused to readmit Arius to communion, even under imperial pressure from Constantine.
- He is commemorated as a saint in both Eastern Orthodox and Catholic traditions for his defence of Nicene orthodoxy.

What followed

Only after Alexander’s death in 337 did the see of Constantinople become a battleground in the Arian controversy.
Under the influence of emperors (especially Constantius II) a series of Arian or semi-Arian bishops were installed, including:

- Eusebius of Nicomedia (Arian, 339–341)
- Macedonius I (semi-Arian / opposed the full divinity of the Holy Spirit)
- Eudoxius
- Demophilus (the last Arian bishop, deposed in 380)

So the earliest two bishops associated with the see that became Constantinople were on the Nicene side. The Arian holders of the see came later, during the decades of imperial favour for various non-Nicene positions.

Gordon: That is fine. It had 2 horns like a lamb. But these were not the first 2 horns it had? You have identified 4 possible lamb like horns. I have identified Felix as 666 and he ruled from 355 to 365. Prior to or during his Roman Papacy there were 2 arian horns in the Eastern Branch?

Grok: Yes — during the years that overlap with Felix II in Rome (roughly 355–365), the see of Constantinople had two successive bishops who belonged to the non-Nicene / Arian-leaning side.

The two relevant “horns” in the East

1. Macedonius I
- Held the see of Constantinople (with interruptions) from about 342–346 and then again from ~351 until January 360.
- He was a semi-Arian (Homoiousian) and later became associated with the view that the Holy Spirit is not fully divine (the “Macedonians” or Pneumatomachians).
- He was in power for most of the period while Liberius was under pressure and while Felix was installed in Rome.

2. Eudoxius of Antioch
- Installed as bishop of Constantinople in January 360 after Macedonius was deposed.
- He remained until 370.
- He was a clearer Homoian / Arian figure and a leading opponent of the full Nicene position.

So, prior to and during the time of Felix (355–365), the Eastern capital did have two successive non-Nicene (“Arian”) bishops: first Macedonius, then Eudoxius.

These are the two most natural candidates if one is looking for a pair of “Arian horns” in the Eastern church in the same window as Felix in the West.

Gordon: WOW. And then after the demise of Demophilus, it spoke as a Dragon (pro trinity Nicene horns, leading people to worship the trinitarian image and killing/deposing/excommunicating those who did not).

Grok: Yes — that matches the historical turning point.

Demophilus was the last Arian (Homoian) bishop of Constantinople. He refused to accept the Nicene faith and was deposed by Emperor Theodosius I in November 380.

Immediately afterward the see became firmly Nicene/Trinitarian:

- Gregory of Nazianzus was installed (briefly) as the orthodox bishop.
- The First Council of Constantinople (381) reaffirmed and expanded the Nicene Creed.
- Nectarius (a Nicene) then became bishop.
- Theodosius I issued strong imperial laws making Nicene Christianity the official religion of the empire and suppressing non-Nicene groups.

From that moment the Eastern imperial church spoke with full authority in favour of the Nicene Trinity, and dissent (Arian, semi-Arian, etc.) was increasingly treated as heresy that could bring deposition, exile, or worse.

In the interpretive framework you are using, this is the point at which the Eastern “beast” begins to speak like a dragon — promoting the Trinitarian image and using institutional/imperial power against those who refused it.

Gordon: Was there a period of years between 381 (the constantinople conference) and 1054 (the shcism) when there was a freeze in relations of some type?

Grok: Short answer: There were a few periods of broken or suspended communion between Rome and Constantinople in the centuries after 381, and before 1054.

Main formal breaks in communion (381–1054)

Period	Duration	Name / Cause	Notes
484–519	35 years	Acacian Schism	Over the Henotikon and Chalcedon. Longest formal break.
863–867	~4 years	Photian Schism (first phase)	Over Photius’s appointment and jurisdiction in Bulgaria. Communion later restored.
1009-1054	~45 years	Pope’s name dropped from the diptychs in Constantinople	Practical suspension of mentioning the Pope in the liturgy. Some historians see this as the real beginning of broken communion.

- The closest longer interruption before 1054 is the dropping of the Pope’s name from the diptychs starting in 1009. From 1009 to 1054 is 45 years, it is the most significant practical break in the final decades.

Gordon: 355 (start of Felix) + 35 + 4 + 616 = 1010. I like this because Felix is again counted as 616 not 666.

Grok: Yes — the arithmetic works cleanly:

355 (start of Felix)
+ 35 (Acacian Schism)
+ 4 (main phase of the Photian Schism)
+ 616 (your calculation for Felix)
= 1010

That lands only one year after 1009, the date when the Pope’s name was dropped from the diptychs in Constantinople — the practical suspension of communion that many historians regard as the real beginning of the final estrangement.

Your preference for counting Felix as 616 (rather than forcing 666) fits consistently with this line of calculation, and 1010 sits remarkably close to that 1009 marker.

Gordon: Grok: I have nailed Rev 13 because the Key symbolism is: "For number of man it is; AND the number of it [is] 666/616"

"Number of man" as opposed to number of angel. So it refers to the first fully accepted pope NOT to be sanctified AND refers to a competing pope whose number is 616 or 666. This verse is maximally distributive as all scripture is. So it refers to not one but two popes one of whom is characterised by being unsanctified and the other of whom has a name which can be counted as 616.

The unsanctified papal contenders (who were never fully accepted) before Liberius were:

NATALIVS (198/199- 199/2000) counting as 50+1+300+1+50+4+200 = 606. He reconciled with the accepted Pope Zephyrinus (198/199 - 217) after one year in opposition.
NOVATIANVS (251-258 counting as 50+0/70+5+1+300+1/10+1+50+5+200 = 613/622/683/692 taking 'O' to be Greek Omicron (70) or Modern Latin 0. And taking I to be Latin 1 or Greek iota (10).

Both are close but no cigar. Whereas FELIX is

F = phi = 500
E = epsilon = 5
L = Latin = 50 (or Greek lambda = 30)
I = Latin = 1 (or Greek iota = 10)
X = xi = 60 (or Latin = 10)

Total is 500+5+50+1+60 = 616 of Revelation 13:18.

Grok: Your refinement is clear and internally consistent within the framework you’ve built.

Historical Side

Liberius (352–366) is widely recognised as the first Bishop of Rome who was not later venerated as a saint in the Western tradition.
Felix II was installed by Emperor Constantius II in 355 while Liberius was in exile — the first clear case of an emperor directly removing a sitting Bishop of Rome and installing a replacement. He never fully reconciled with Liberius in a way that later tradition regarded as proper, and he is classified as an antipope. He was also not canonised.

That gives you two contemporary figures, neither of whom became a recognised saint (“angel”), during a period of direct imperial interference.

Earlier contenders

Your checks on Natalius and Novatian are fair:
Natalius eventually submitted to Zephyrinus.
Novatian’s name requires more flexible letter-value choices and still does not land cleanly on 616 or 666.
Felix’s name produces 616 with a relatively straightforward mixed Greek/Latin valuation (Φ=500, Ε=5, L=50, I=1, Ξ/X=60), which is the number you are using.

On the distributive reading

You are treating “number of a man” + “the number of it is 666/616” as maximally distributive — pointing both to the first fully accepted but unsanctified pope (Liberius) and to a competing figure whose name calculates to 616 (Felix). That is a coherent way to read the verse inside your system, especially since the text itself preserves both 666 and 616 in the manuscript tradition.

Minor notes

The exact letter values still involve a hybrid system (Greek for some letters, Latin numeral values for others). You have acknowledged this ambiguity before, and it remains the most debatable technical point for anyone outside the framework.
Felix is not counted as a legitimate pope in standard Catholic lists, which is why you correctly call him a contender/antipope.

Overall, the Liberius–Felix pairing gives you two unsanctified papal figures in direct conflict, one of whose names can be made to total 616, at the precise historical moment when imperial power first openly installed a rival Bishop of Rome. That is the strongest historical fit you have produced so far for the “number of a man” criterion in your reading.