One Kingdom Too Late

White Horse Inn ^ | May 3, 2014 | Timothy F. Kauffman

[RnMomof7]

Roman Catholicism was 300 years too late to be “the stone that … became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth” (Daniel 2:35).

[This is the third installment of a three part series.]

When former Protestant, Taylor Marshall, wrote Eternal City, he sought to explain why Christianity is necessarily Roman. “The Church,” he wrote, “receives the Roman empire” from its previous custodians. But in concluding this, Marshall has mistakenly transposed two kingdoms—both of which Daniel addressed, and both of which Daniel set against the background of the rise and fall of four world empires. One kingdom is of earth and the other of heaven, and Marshall has unfortunately confused the two.

In Daniel 2, there is a vision in which there are four succeeding empires: the “head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay” (2:32-22). These represented the current and coming empires of the world—Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. As Daniel explains, the fourth kingdom starts with the strength of iron, but its feet and toes are part iron and part clay, which is to signify that the once strong kingdom “shall be partly strong, and partly broken” (2:41-43). In this vision, a stone “smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay” (2:34), which is to signify that “in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed” (2:44). We note that the stone does not strike the statue in the toes (at the division of the Roman empire), but in the feet, while it was weakened, but not yet divided. The stone is Christ and His kingdom is of heaven, heavenly.

In Daniel 7, on the other hand, the same four empires are in view, signified by a Lion, a Bear, a Leopard and “a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible” (7:4-7). Again, these are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, and again, the fourth kingdom ends up being divided 10 ways. Just as the legs of iron in Daniel 2 “shall be divided” into ten toes (2:41), this fourth beast “had ten horns.” In the midst of those ten arose “another little horn, … and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things” (7:8). This little horn, the Eleventh among the ten, is the Beast of Revelation 13, for that Beast is also given “a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies” (Revelation 13:5). Notably, this Eleventh Horn does not come up prior to the division, but with it. The Eleventh Horn is Antichrist, and his kingdom is of earth, earthly.

Because Roman Catholicism “received” the Roman empire, along with its hierarchy and its nomenclature, Taylor Marshall has assumed that Roman Catholicism represents the Stone of Daniel 2, “which smote the image upon his feet [and] became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth” (2:34-35). Roman Catholicism, so Marshall believes, is the establishment of Christ’s kingdom on earth. As we noted earlier in What the Fathers Feared Most, the Church Fathers were afraid of precisely what happened to Marshall. They were afraid that when Antichrist came, he would look so much like the church that many would be caught off guard and “be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against” (Against Heresies, Book XXX.1). Where the Fathers feared to tread, Marshall rushed in.

Part of Marshall’s error lies in his chronology. He has the Babylonian empire dominating from 587-539 B.C., the Medo-Persian empire from 539-331 B.C., the Greek empire from 331-168 B.C., and the Roman empire from 63 B.C. to 70 A.D. (Eternal City, Kindle version). We could quibble with him on some of those dates, but most egregious is his representation that the Roman Empire ended in 70 A.D., as if Jerusalem had been its capital. The Roman Empire continued long past 70 A.D., the year Jerusalem was toppled. But it was not the end of the Roman empire. And it certainly was not the beginning of Roman Catholicism, either. Roman Catholicism, as we shall see, did not even exist at the time Jerusalem fell, and would not manifest for another three hundred years.

The reader’s attention is invited to various evidences—by no means exhaustive—that show that many Fathers, Saints, and yes even Popes, were unaware of “Roman Catholic” teachings in the first few centuries after the last apostle died:

• Gregory Nazianzen believed that Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, a “chief cornerstone,” had been raised up to protect the church, and was practically invested with infallibility in order to keep the church from error (i.e., “the Spirit takes possession of one who will breathe on His behalf”), and that he had received “the charge of the whole world.” (Oration 21.7). Gregory was unaware that the Bishop of Rome held that prerogative.
• Origen believed that Mary had sinned in unbelief (Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7)—convinced that he had this on the authority of the apostles themselves (De Principiis, prol, ii.)—and was unaware that Mary was to be held as sinless.
• Pope Gregory I believed that 1 Maccabees was apocryphal, and was unaware that Rome had preserved its canonical status. (Commentary on Job, ch. 34)
• Jerome believed that Peter was “chief of the apostles” on account of his age, and that all the apostles held the keys to the kingdom of heaven, ruling as a plurality of elders. He was not aware that Peter alone held the keys. (Against Jovinianus, Book I.26)
• Pope Gelasius believed that there yet remained bread and wine after the words of consecration in the Lord’s supper, and was unaware that the elements ceased to be bread and wine. (De duabus naturis in Christo, adversus Eutychen et Nestorium).
• Augustine denied that Jesus’ words in John 6 were to be taken literally, and was unaware that Christians were to eat Christ’s flesh and drink the blood that poured from His side. (An Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8)
• Hippolytus held that Jesus was signified by the Ark of the Covenant, and was unaware that the Ark was intended to signify Mary.  (Oration on “The Lord is my Shepherd.”)
• Epiphanius rejected the use of images in worship—”being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures” (Jerome, Letter 51.9)—and was unaware of the “ancient apostolic practice” of venerating images.
• Tertullian believed that the seats at the right and left hand of Christ—once refused to the Sons of Zebedee (Matthew 20:20-23)—were reserved for the Martyrs (Scorpiace, 12). He was unaware that “apostolic tradition” had reserved that honor for Mary, the Queen Mother.

The list could go on, but these citations are sufficient for our purposes. Where were the ancient doctrines that Rome “has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster“? One explanation is the concept of Doctrinal Development—a concept made necessary by the colossal gap that exists between what the early church believed and what Roman Catholicism now teaches. This does not create a problem for the Roman Catholic because Doctrinal Development allows him to find what he must—no matter how scanty or contradictory the evidence may be. Said Rev. Morris, an Anglican minister received into Roman Catholic communion in the mid-1800s, when expounding on Doctrinal Development:

“…if there are early traces of identity of belief, they may be invisible, except to the eye of a Catholic, but perfectly clear to him. For an immense number of minute expressions, observations, and practices prove to him, that the genius of his faith is what it always was.” (Jesus, the Son of Mary, vol 1., Rev. John Brande Morris, M .A., 1851) p. 28).

Another explanation, however, for the vast difference between Roman Catholicism and the beliefs and practices of the early church—the explanation we hold—is that Roman Catholicism as a religion had not yet arisen in the apostolic era, and when it did arise at the end of the Fourth Century, it was a new thing, something never before seen on earth. And of its rise we were duly admonished, for that of which the prophets warned by figure, the apostles warned by doctrine.

Paul warned about “seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils,” and those “speaking lies in hypocrisy,” forbidding marriage and requiring abstention from food God created for us to enjoy (1 Timothy 4:1-4). John’s last words in his first epistle, after warning of Antichrist, were that the children of God must “keep his commandments” (5:2), and therefore, “keep yourselves from idols” (5:21).

Until the Fourth Century, bishops and ministers were allowed, and encouraged, to marry. Even Jerome in his epistle Against Jovinianus acknowledged that this was the case (Book I.34). Additionally, images of Christ and of the saints were not used in worship, as Epiphanius so clearly protested, for such use was “contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures” (Jerome, Letter 51.9). Jovinianus argued valiantly against the new derogation of marriage, but Jerome was unmoved:

 “If we are to pray always, it follows that we must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife her due, I cannot pray. … If we abstain from intercourse, we give honour to our wives; if we do not abstain, it is clear that insult is the opposite of honour.  … Christ loves virgins more than others… ” (Against Jovinianus, Book I.7, 12)

Jerome’s hatred of marriage was so extreme that when Jovinianus objected on the grounds that the human race would come to naught, he ridiculed him—for if all Christians were continent, Jerome said, the constant labor of prostitutes and adulterers alone would suffice to fill the earth with children (Against Jovinianus, Book I.36). Citing Job 41:34, Jerome had Lucifer himself as “king … of propagation of children, and of the fertilization of the marriage bed” (Book II.4). Those are the words of a madman. His instructions on fasting were as extreme.  Lest anyone think Jerome was merely suggesting that we ought to abstain from meat and wine—which are alleged to inflame our lusts—he took 1 Timothy 5:23 to mean that Timothy was to fast from water. For his troubles, Jovinianus and many others were excommunicated from Rome for being “promoters of the new heresy and blasphemy” (Letter of Pope Siricius to the Church of Milan, 389 A.D.)

Vigilantius argued similarly against the veneration of relics and intercession of the saints, a new and foreign practice foisted upon the empire when the bones of Samuel, Andrew, Luke and Timothy were transported from Palestine. Again, Jerome was unmoved by Vigilantius’ arguments:

“Are the people of all the Churches fools, because they went to meet the sacred relics, and welcomed them with as much joy as if they held a living prophet in the midst of them, so that there was one great swarm of people from Palestine to Chalcedon …?” (Against Vigilantius, ch. 5).

If the Apostles and martyrs could intercede for the saints “while still in the body,” Jerome argued, “how much more must they do so when once they have won their crowns?” (Against Vigilantius, ch. 6). And thus did the veneration of the bones of Saints and Martyrs come upon the empire of Rome in the name of Christ.

For their defense of truth, Jovinianus was anathematized by the Church of Rome (Against Vigilaltius, ch. 1), and Vigilantius broke fellowship with Jerome and his depravities in Bethlehem, leaving without even saying goodbye (Jerome, To Paulinus, Letter LVIII.11), only to receive thunderous condemnation from Jerome by epistle. Thus did Rome suppress the voice of reason as superstitions began to multiply in the name of Christ in the Roman Empire. Indeed, this superstitious condemnation of marriage, the withholding of food and water, and the veneration of relics—these were the idols and doctrines of demons of which the Apostles had warned the sheep in advance.

And this truly signaled the rise of the Papacy, aided in no small way by the multiplicity of visions and miracles that accompanied these new teachings. As Gibbon so plainly put it in his famous Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

“In the long period of twelve hundred years, which elapsed between the reign of Constantine and the reformation of Luther, the worship of saints and relics corrupted the pure and perfect simplicity of the Christian model … But the progress of superstition would have been much less rapid and victorious, if the faith of the people had not been assisted by the seasonable aid of visions and miracles…” (vol. 2, pp. 157-158).

This was a new thing indeed, a new kingdom on earth, “after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders” (2 Thessalonians 2:9). But it was not the Stone that smote the statue of Nebuchadnezzar in the feet while the Roman Empire was still unified. No, this was a new religion that arose from the ruins of a Roman empire that was falling apart. Jesus’ Kingdom of Heaven was established at His first advent, and His Spirit was given as the means by which the unity and purity of His Bride is sustained, and His Word is her nourishment. But the Pope’s kingdom was established three centuries later, in bondage to teachings that men like Jovinianus, Vigiliantius and many others (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, ch. 2) knew very well to be contrary to the Word of God.

To that end we say that Taylor Marshall was given a choice between two kingdoms which Daniel foresaw—the first of heaven, heavenly, and the second of earth, earthly, and he chose the latter, mistaking it for the former. But Marshall’s kingdom was one kingdom too late to be the Kingdom of Heaven, and he has chosen Antichrist. What Marshall has exemplified for us is the shortcoming of a system that holds that one must first see the kingdom of Rome, and then enter it in order to be born again. But Scripture tells us of another Kingdom, a Kingdom which one must first be born again in order to see, for “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).

In closing this third section, and to close the series as well, we will simply invite the reader at this point to consider the name under which the Papacy “received the Roman empire,” in Taylor Marshall’s words. It was by the Donation of Constantine that the Roman Catholic Church received it, and in that Donation, the pope is called the “Vicar of the Son of God,” or in Latin, VICARIVS FILII DEI. We will leave it to the reader to verify our math, but the name of the man, when the Roman Numerals are summed up, is 666.

Rome makes two objections to this title, and we will counter them briefly here. First, they claim that the pope has never gone by the title “Vicar of the Son of God,” but by the title “Vicar of Christ.” We can only shake our heads here, for these are the same people who marvel that Protestants accept that Mary is the Mother of Jesus, but not that she is the Mother or God. They claim, by this, that we are Nestorians as if we were denying the divinity of Christ; and then they suddenly fly into the arms of Nestorius and claim with him that their Pope is Vicar of Christ, but not Vicar of the Son of God—as if Christ were not the Son of God! We will also note, if wryly, that the Donation of Constantine was not ultimately rejected because it donated the Roman Empire to the wrong man, under the wrong name. It was rejected because it was a Roman Catholic forgery.

The second objection is that the Roman Numerals of VICARIVS FILII DEI only add up to 664, because IV in the first word equal four, and are not to be added individually as I plus V. But this is a fallacy, for arches 29 and 54 of the Roman Colosseum are enumerated as “XXVIIII” and “LIIII.” As this helpful historian notes, “The numbers [on the arches] do not use the contraction IV [for 4] or IX [for 9].” We will also note that the Christians in the Catacombs used this same system, as evidenced by this touching epitaph:

“Aurelia, our sweetest daughter, who departed from the world, Severus and Quintinus being consuls. She lived fifteen years and four months.” (Maitland, The Church in the Catacombs, ©1857, p. 58)

In the Latin inscription, Aurelia’s age was listed as “ANN – XV – M – IIII”.

That said, we arrive at a final observation for our Roman Catholic readers:

You follow a man in Rome, the number of whose name is 666, who is the head of a religion and a kingdom that exists solely for the worship of an image, a religion that  was formed centuries after Jesus came and left, and arose at the collapse and division of the Roman empire, and who has as his assistant a False Prophet who affirms his kingdom by signs and wonders, even to make the fire of heaven come down to earth in the sight of men, who erects an image for worship, and even has the power to bring the image to life and give it the power to speak, so that it may cause those who do not worship it to be put to death, and which image is the means by which its worshipers receive a mark on their hand and forehead.

That is quite an alignment of prophecies to be fulfilled in one religion that is supposed by the world not to be Antichrist! That is not to say, however, that we believe Roman Catholics can be saved simply by leaving Rome. Not at all. One is not saved by rejecting Antichrist, but rather by believing in the One Whom antichrist purports to represent on earth. There is much more to be said on this, but we suppose an earnest Roman Catholic could do worse than Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome:

“Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were he to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be.” (Ignatius of Antioch, To the Magnesians, ch. 10).

“And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Clement of Rome, To the Corinthians, Ch. 32).

“Come out of her, my people… ” (Revelation 18:4)

[RnMomof7]

ping

[CynicalBear]

>>“Come out of her, my people… ” (Revelation 18:4)<<

Indeed.

[Gamecock]

PFL.

[CynicalBear]

>>You follow a man in Rome, the number of whose name is 666<<

That was a stunning revelation! Vicar of Christ ey?

[Lee N. Field]

I don’t think this is from the White Horse Inn folks.

[Gamecock]

You are right, it's not.

It's from whitehorseblog.com, not whitehorseinn.org/blog, the latter being the White Horse Inn.

For those of you who don't know what we are talking about, the White Horse Inn is a ministry discussing the ideals of the Reformation and issues surrounding the church today.

It takes it's name from the White Horse Inn in England.

The 'White Horse Tavern' or 'White Horse Inn' was in the 16th century the meeting place in Cambridge for English Protestant reformers who discussed Lutheran ideas. These discussions met as early as 1521. According to the historian Geoffrey Elton the group of university dons who met there were nicknamed 'Little Germany' in reference to their discussions of Luther.

Among those who attended these meetings were the future Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, the future Bishop of Worcester, Hugh Latimer and the reformers Robert Barnes and Thomas Bilney. The group was not confined to those associated with the reform movement of the next two decades, however, and also included future conservatives like Stephen Gardiner, the future Bishop of Winchester. Others who met at the tavern included Miles Coverdale, Matthew Parker, William Tyndale, Nicholas Shaxton, John Rogers and John Bale.

[Gamecock]

Oops, source: Wiki

[Salvation]

The author’s first sentence is in error.

Christ founded the Catholic Church on the Apostles, the first Bishops.

[Elsie]

I don’t think this is from the White Horse Inn folks.

I can ping 'em; but rarely do they accept my invitations.

[Campion]

Timmie "rocket scientist" Kauffman's insanity is clearly on display here.

Roman Catholicism, as we shall see, did not even exist at the time Jerusalem fell, and would not manifest for another three hundred years.

Really? And what is the event that marked this "manifestation"? When did it happen? Where is the outrage from all the good Baptists and Presbyterians who were around at the time?

Kauffman's "evidence" for this ahistorical assertion is a hodgepodge of cherry-picked citations from various church fathers, most of which prove that they did not have exactly the same theological understanding or devotional life as Catholics of 1500 or more years later. No kidding.

For example, citing Origen's beliefs about the Blessed Virgin proves what, exactly? Origen is not "St. Origen" because (a) he committed the sin of mutilation by castrating himself; and (b) he believed in "apocatastasis," the doctrine that all things (including the devil and his cohort) were redeemed in Christ.

Origen is NOT my touchstone of orthodoxy -- though he is useful when he reports on the beliefs, not of himself, but of the church of his day -- but is he yours?

Of course, Kauffman doesn't tell you that Irenaeus of Lyons, who is a canonized saint, and a spiritual "grandson" of the Apostle John (Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John), calls Mary the "new Eve" in his tome "Against Heresies" -- written well before Origen appeared on the scene. Does Kauffman call Mary the "new Eve"? I doubt it; it doesn't help him trash Catholicism, and that's his real religion.

Then Kauffman inexplicably starts channelling Ellen Gould White, the founder of the SDA church -- is she his touchstone of orthodoxy … ??? -- with his rant on "Vicarius Filii Dei".

Except that "Vicarius Filii Dei" is not the Pope's name (or anyone else's), so that nutty assertion falls flat. It's not even one of the the Pope's official titles. I'll grant you that it's an accurate description of (one aspect of) the Pope's office, but that's all it is.

Of course, you can play the same silly game with "Ellen Gould White" -- write the "W" as "VV," and it sums to 666. I could write a screed every bit as sensible as Mr. Rocket Scientist's extrapolating the SDA to all of Protestantism, and ending with "Come out of her, my people," but then I would be as nutty as he is.

[Elsie]

Christ founded the Catholic Church on the Apostles, the first Bishops.

How can you be SODiametrically opposed to what Early Church Fathers taught???

---

As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18

 

• Augustine, sermon:

"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327

Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.

 

• Augustine, sermon:

For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)

 

• Augustine, sermon:

And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289

 

• Augustine, sermon:

Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95

 

• Augustine, sermon:

...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193

 

• Augustine, Psalm LXI:

Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)

 

• Augustine, in “Retractions,”

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.

 

[CynicalBear]

>>Christ founded the Catholic Church on the Apostles, the first Bishops.<<

Not a chance. There is NO WAY Christ founded a "church" which includes paganism.