CHRIST

and the

CHURCH
Book 1

dictated to
Franz Schumi
1898-1905

Christian Theosophical Script

Nr. 58.1

Translated from German to English in 2020

 Is the pope the successor and representative
of Peter?
The Roman Church knew how to work early on to gain the honour of being the first Christian church
in the world. In order to achieve this, their bishop had to be considered and called the fully true Vicar
of Christ and thus also the true successor and representative of the Apostle Peter. And indeed, all
prestige, all power, all presumption of the Roman See in the Catholic Church up to the present day is
based solely on the fact that, stiff and firm, as if this were a truth founded and proved on primordial
sources - claims that the Bishop of Rome is the successor in the chair of the apostle Peter.

This assertion has even become an article of faith, for whoever does not believe this, that Peter was
appointed by Christ himself as the visible head of the whole "battling" Church, and that St. Peter in
this primacy over the whole Church has constant successors, and the Roman Pope is not by "Divine"
right the successor of Peter in this very primacy - let him be cursed. (See: Canon XIV and XV
according to the infallibility of the Pope).

The word "battling" Church they borrow from Christ's words: "I have not come to bring you peace, but
a sword." (Matt 10:34)

Yet here Christ meant the "fight against the 'lust of the flesh', and says in another place about the
sword of war: "Whoever takes up the sword shall perish by the sword." (Rev. 13:10)

The second word: "By the power of the Divine word" is unfounded, and is based on the papal title:
"Holy Father" which Jesus carries as God in heaven (John 17:11) and the Pope on earth, as if there
were two equal ranks!

"May he be cursed." Jesus said: "do not curse, but bless" (Rom 12:14; Matt 5:44), but the Pope
curses in each of the 21 canons of infallibility and in all other canons where something is commanded
to be believed. Usually the Roman Catholic clergy say: “Listen to my teaching and don't look at my
actions" and that is what is happening here: We curse all who do not believe us, but we do not care
about the effect of the curse; for not every voice goes to heaven.

In order to check the Roman dogmas for their inner truth, the people lack the necessary knowledge,
the Latin language in which the old church history books are written and the necessary knowledge to
clarify all the phrases; nor - in their indifference and traditional habit of faith - do they feel the least
interest that they could imagine the importance of this question and its consequences for the truth of
faith.

The others, the clergymen, for their part leave the matter as it is, as they quite well understand that
the voice of the individual does not do anything, on the other hand they gladly leave everything
untouched, as they are kept in good livelihood and in carefree existence by this faith, without having
to work - but on the other hand, to avoid all the consequences that would follow such an investigation
and publication. Yes, they are wise enough to refrain from doing anything to avoid being deprived of
their carefree existence.

So, these are the main reasons why there is almost no light at all in Roman Catholic circles whether
Peter was in Rome or not. But whether this is praiseworthy, to allow every fairy tale to be told as
truth like [unto] a small child, is something that everyone can answer for themselves, according to
their own knowledge of the matter. I for my part give you the answer as it is historically proven and
as the Lord has announced it to me on my request in this historical truth that has not yet been
thoroughly explained. This question falls into two parts and it namely asks:

1. Was Peter ever in Rome?

2. If he was in Rome, was he also a bishop of the Christian community there?
The Acts of the Apostles, which could give us information about this, only goes into the year 63 after
Christ's birth. According to the narration of the papal historians (cf. Patuzzi, Geschichte der Päpste p.
22), Peter came to Rome in the year 42; but the Acts of the Apostles, which at the beginning speaks
so much and so widely of Peter - says not a word about this so important journey!

It is certainly proven that Paul was in Rome and suffered martyrdom here under the Emperor Nero; at
the same time as Peter - the papal historians add - after Diario Romano in 67.

Paul was in Rome for three years after the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 28:30,31) and from there he
wrote letters to various spiritual communities and people, in which he names several of his friends
and followers; but he did not write a word about Peter.

If he had been in Rome as a "bishop", it would not be possible for Paul to avoid talking about him, if
only to complain about him for not supporting him in his work, because he explicitly said that those
whom he names "are only my helpers in the kingdom of God, who have become a consolation to
me". (Col 4:7-14) So Paul does not write that Peter was ever in Rome at his time.

Paul also does not say a word about Peter being a favourite, but he is equal to the other apostles. (2
Cor 11:5; -12:11,12)

The Roman-Papal historians also overlooked the fact that Peter - as a disciple of Jesus - left his wife,
children and house, (Matt 8:19,20) but later took his wife with him again (1 Cor 9:5) and also the son
Mark, (1 Peter 5:13) because as a bishop he had to have his own household, wife and children,
which should have been the model of the church, otherwise the teaching of Christ according to the
instruction of Paul (Timothy 3:1-7) would forbid him to be a bishop, i.e. a supervisor of the church.
Paul tells us that the apostles were accompanied by their wives (half-brothers of the Lord and Peter -
1 Cor 9:5). Where are the women and children of our Roman Catholic bishops and the whole
priesthood, because according to Jesus' own teaching through Paul, no clergyman - not even the
deacon - was allowed to be without a wife and children. (Tit 1:5-6; Tim 3:1-13) Are these followers of
the apostles, who forbid what Christ commanded through apostles?

The strict papists base their assertion of Peter's presence in Rome on the first letters of Peter. (1
Peter 5:13) In this letter it says: "Greetings to you who are chosen with you in Babylon and my son
Mark". The lords want the city of Rome to be understood here as Babylon.

This joy can be granted to them without harm; but whether this will be an honour to them is not our
business to investigate, but I am merely stating the sources according to which Rome is really called
Babylon in spiritual terms and these are:

In the 17th chapter of the Revelation of John, the "great whore" is mentioned. (Rev 17:1 - "Whore"
spiritually means all courtship with the world, so every desire, lust, lustfulness, opulence, luxury and
all worldliness that is to have and allowed for money) This great whore lives in the city that lies on
seven mountains (Rev 17:9), which means the great city of Rome (both in Roman times and under
the world-domination of the popes), for this one had the kingdom over the kings on earth, (Rev 17:18)
and this city is called Babylon, i.e. "confusion", a dwelling place of devils and a place for all unclean
spirits. (Rev 18:2,10)

However, under "Babylon" in the first letters of Peter is not meant Rome, but Baghdad in Syria, which
we will see below.

So from the direct contemporaries, from the eye- and ear-witnesses, we have absolutely no true and
valid testimony of Peter's presence and episcopal office in Rome.
Let us therefore look for others, for the more remote witnesses.

Clement I, Bishop of Rome (elected 91, died 100 A.D.), a disciple of the Apostle Peter ( according to
papal history - Father Jesus denies the truth of these statements) writes in one of the two letters to the
Corinthians and tells about Paul and Peter and the martyrdom of both. He says there:

"Peter endured persecution not once, not twice, but several times by the unjust zeal of his enemies,
and through this martyrdom, he entered into eternal glory.”

Here we speak only in general terms of Peter's sufferings, but nowhere is it even mentioned in a
single word that Peter had been in Rome, and that he had been a Roman bishop, but that he had
endured his martyrdom in Rome.

The bishop Dionysius of Corinth appears as a witness round about the year 160 - died 200 AD. He
tells us that Peter and Paul founded the church in Corinth together and from there they went to
Rome, worked together and died there.

The untruth of this witness is as clear as daylight. Firstly, Paul himself assures us that he alone was
the founder of the church in Corinth - especially in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th chapter of his first and in
the 1st chapter verse 19, of his second letter to the Corinthians - where he names those who
preached the Gospel to the Corinthians:

"For", it says, "The Son of God Jesus Christ, who is preached among you through us, through me
and Silvanus and Timothy" etc.

Paul furthermore shows himself as the sole leader in the Corinthian congregation in those two letters
in which he excommunicates and reinstates, gives commandments on marriage, advise on virginity,
facilities for the celebration of Holy Communion, for preaching, praying, prophesying, etc. in the
assemblies of that city, and in doing so, does not utter a single word about Peter. Likewise, the rest
of what Dionysius says about Peter, his presence in Rome and his death there is untrue, as the
sources mentioned so far and those to follow, demonstrate.

Around the year 200 A.D., an elder from Rome named Caius stood as a witness. He tells us that in
Rome they even show the places where Peter and Paul died and were buried, namely where Peter
was resting in the Vatican; Paul, however, on the road to Ostia.

So they started early on to make propaganda for a story that never happened, but where stubbornly
insisted on as being the truth over time.

The unsewn robe of Christ, about which the warriors drew lots, has multiplied from one to five copies,
because there is one each in Argenteuil, in St. Jago, in Rome, in Friuli and in Trier, and everywhere
there is the papal bull of authenticity! Which one is the real one?! Such robes that multiply in this
way - certainly not one.

It is not conceivable how they could have arranged such an excellent tomb for Peter, who after all
had to be condemned as a criminal by the pagan court, and so close by the imperial gardens, by the
great circus where the festive games of the Romans were held?

Finally, how is it that all the writers and witnesses who preceded Caius by 200 years did not say a
word about it, and only almost 200 years after that, Caius the first and only one to give us news of it,
and such specific news at that? From what sources, from what informants did he receive his reports?

Origen 254 and Eusebius of Caesarea 340 both tell us that Peter was crucified upside down at Rome
at his own request, because he, in his humility, despised being too much like his Lord and Master.

These two writers are the basis, as we will see below, of where the Roman Church got it's Peter-story
from. One can conclude from this that popular tradition circulated about the murder of Peter, only the
place where it happened, was no longer known.
Pope Liberius (352-366) drew up a papal register and let Peter reign for 25 years, 1 month and 9
days (from 42 - 67). This adds up: because Liberius was an "infallible" heretic in his actions against
and for Arianism and as such was later "canonized".

Jerome (died in 420), in Cathalogus Scriptor, Explesiast, lets Peter die on the cross in the 14th year
of the reign of the Emperor Nero, that is in 67 AD.

The citation of the old church writers of the so-called church fathers was done for the sake of science,
but it is questionable. How can men who lived 50, 100, 150, 200, 300, 350 years later and far away
from the place of the apostle's ministry know and testify to anything reliable, since we know from our
own time-epochs that all news from far away, when it goes from mouth to mouth, is completely
distorted and adorned with fables?

We stick to Sacred Scripture, because despite a minor defacement by the Popes etc., it is, along with
the new Father's Word, the only reliable source which, according to Thomas Aquinas (S. I. qu. 1 art.
8), "is the first source of faith from which every doctrine must be proven if it is to claim validity".

The first Roman bishop was, according to documented unanimous old tradition, Irenaeus (died in
202), Eusebius (died in 340), Rufinus and the apostolic constitutions of the IV century, Linus,
mentioned in the 2nd letter to Timothy 4:21, was a pupil of Paul. (Father Jesus denies this; it is also
nowhere to be seen in Acts)

Peter's Episcopate
Weak and miserable is the testimony and evidence of whether Peter was ever in Rome, but the
evidence is no better when one asks whether Peter held a bishop's office in Rome. The testimonies
are - instead of proving - only contradicting and negating, while the counter-evidence spreads the
light of truth, before which the dark lie must give way.

Biblical and Divine Evidence

After these discussions, we come to the decisive sources which are authoritative, because they are
reliable - for every historical fact is above all a testimony of the contemporaries: because eye- and
ear-witnesses are always, as far as the truth of the facts is concerned, the very best and usually the
only reliable sources; if they were not somehow biased and working for their own purposes, as the
Roman priestly historians have done here and there. (compare the Isidorean Decrees; the forgery of
monastic documents started in the 9th century etc.) Our sources are now the following:

The next and certainly the only valid testimony about our two questions, would be the Acts of Luke.
But dear reader, take the New Testament only once - in Latin, German or Greek all together - in your
hand, open the Acts of the Apostles there, turn the pages from early morning until late at night and
spell out all 28 chapters with their 1005 verses with the greatest diligence, from the first to the last
words you will not find the slightest reference to Peter's presence in Rome, in that there is mention of
Peter only up to chapter 12, and that is up to the story of his liberation from prison (year 44). The rest
of the second part of Acts, from chapter 13 to the end, deals exclusively with Paul and ends with
Paul's arrival in Rome.
But by drawing on and comparing different sources, a light and insight can be gained into the fact that
at last every doubt disappears and the truth emerges clearly and proven, as the following source
studies show.
The year 34 A.D. Not long after the stoning of deacon (or almsman) Stephen, which according to the
Bible took place publicly in the year 34 A.D. on the feast of Easter (between 22-28 April) (cf. Acts 6, 9
to ch. 8, 4; Graßmann, Geschichte des Gottesreiches II [History of God's Kingdom -Tr], vol. 109), the
conversion of the young man (i.e. a young, still unmarried man who was a carpet maker by
profession, (Acts 18:3) followed. Therefore the term 'youth' here does not mean a beardless boy, as
little as disciple or pupil [German: Jünger] of Jesus means a schoolboy, the 'disciple' Peter was in the
year 33 fifty years old and nevertheless a 'disciple' or 'pupil') Saul from Tarsus in Sicily. Saul was
[then] 35 years old according to the message I was given by the heavenly Father (Jesus was called
God the Father according to His Spirit of Love, God the Son of God according to His Wisdom, the
Holy Spirit according to His Divine Omnipotence); and his conversion before and at Damascus took
place on August 26, year 34.

A Clarification of the Father for Doubters of

the Reference
22 July 1900

Today people believe only what they read from ancient scriptures such as the Bible and reject any
revelation that does not come from the Holy Scriptures.

This kind of sceptical Christianity proves that such sceptics do not live according to My teaching,
which My apostles and disciples handed down to posterity through the New Testament. It is
decidedly no bravery of wisdom (1 Cor 1:19-20) against My words, which I give through My media,
once called prophets and prophetesses, to take a stand and declare them to be these people's own
products.

I once spoke through prophets, but also through simple people, for example, Simeon and Hannah in
the temple (Luke 2:25-36) and the four daughters of the disciple Philip. (Acts 21:9)

I once said to My disciples: "I am with you all days until the end of the world". (Matt 28:20) If only My
apostles were meant by this, I would have had to say I am with you as long as you live in the world,
because My apostles did not wait for the end of the world, but they died like all other human beings
after the end of their earthly period of flesh-testing and teaching. From this, everybody can see that I
spoke in general for all My children who live according to My teaching. Because only with these I
deal and these hear My prophetic voice. (2 Peter 1:19; Paul to Gal. 1:11-12)

I am the spiritual Father of all people of the world and no-one is preferred with Me, because My own
Spirit dwells in every single human (I Cor 3:16; -6:19; II Cor 6:16; Rom 8:11) and therefore I cannot
possibly love people differently because they are all from Me and are guided by Me. When therefore
some are preferred that I communicate with them through the inner word, then it is not to say that
they are worth more to Me than other people, but such fulfil the conditions set for them to reach the
kingdom of God while others, with whom I cannot communicate as ‘Father’, still live too worldly and
stick their soul too strongly to matter.
You are not to doubt that I have contact with My children who love Me, but recognise that you do not
yet fulfil these living conditions through which I also could have contact with you. Only by following
My teaching and walking in My footsteps, you will also be able to have contact with Me because I
was, and am and will eternally be the same Father to whom you can reach through the virtues of
Jesus (John 14:6 - compare also Acts 2:16 ff; because this great time has already begun. Jesus'
virtues can be found in the Christian Theosophical Prayer Book). Amen!
The year 37 A.D. - "Saul, after his conversion in the year 34, stayed then three years mostly in
Damascus, and preached the Christian doctrine so powerfully, that in the year 37 A.D., the
unbelieving Jews came after him to kill him (Acts 9:23-24) and Arèta, the governor of the king, had
the gates of the city guarded, that he might seize him. But Saul was lowered in a basket from a
window in the city wall, escaped from them (2 Cor 11:32) and went to Jerusalem to see Peter. (Gal
1:18) He stayed with Peter for 15 days and talked with him and Jacob, the son of Alphaeus, but he
did not see other apostles. (Gal 1:19) And as Saul was praying in the temple, the Lord told him to
leave Jerusalem and appointed him to be the "Apostle for the gentiles", as Saul himself tells. (Acts
22:17-21) He also began to quarrel with the Greek Jews, but since they wanted to kill him, the
disciples sent him to his birthplace Tarsus in Sicily in 37 AD (Acts 9:30 - Grassmann 1 c. 109.)

The year 43 and 44 AD. The story of the apostle Peter from 43 to 44 is the following: Peter often
went from Jerusalem to the surrounding cities and towns, healing the sick and converting the Jews.
So he also went out in winter-time in the year 43, namely to the sea coast and came to Lydia. (109)
He healed there the gout-plagued Aeneas, raised Tabitha from death in Joppe and lived in Joppe with
the tanner Simon until the end of February 44. (according to Father's announcement; - compare Acts
9, 32 - 43; - Grassmann 1 c. 109 (559).

In Caesarea there was a God-fearing captain of the Italian army named Cornelius, who - at his
request - was informed by an angel that his prayer was answered. Then Cornelius sent three
messengers to Peter at God's command and asked him to come to him; at the same time, Peter
receives in a rapture the command three times not to defile what God has cleansed, so at the
beginning of March 44, he goes with the messengers to Cornelius, preaching salvation to him and his
comrades and behold, the Holy Spirit fell on all who listened and now Peter could not refuse to
baptize them. (Acts 10:1-48) The Jewish Christians in Jerusalem confronted Peter because of this,
but he convinced them that the Gentiles are also called to the kingdom of God. (Acts 11:1-18 -
Grassmann 1.c. 109 (560).

Year 44 A.D. During the Passover feast of 44 AD, which lasted from 22 to 28 March, the Jewish king
Herod Agrippas (Antipas) I had the brother of the evangelist John, Jacob the elder, killed, but
imprisoned Peter. But an angel freed Peter, who showed himself to the church and then immediately
left Jerusalem to escape the persecutions of Herod.

Herod then moved to Caesarea, but here, when the people gave him divine glory, and he did not give
glory to God, he was punished by God with worms and died soon after Passover 44 AD (Acts 12:1-
25; compare Antiquities of Josephus 19:8. 2 and bark. Judaic 2, 11:6; Grassmann, Gesch. des
Gottesreiches II. Vol. 109).

The question is, if Peter had been in Rome continuously since the years 42 to 67, how could he have
been captured in Jerusalem in the year 44 and thrown into prison?

This is the first proof of the untruth of Roman history.

Year 48 A.D. The years 44 and 51 prove that Peter was in Jerusalem at this time.

In the year 48 in the month of April, Peter stayed in Arimathea with the well-known Joseph of
Arimathea and he urged him to write the famous epistle to the Hebrews, which was written down by
his son Mark, from whom also the gospel of Mark originated. (Father of Jesus; also in the Holy Trinity
24).
 The Synod of Apostles in Jerusalem, first half
of 51 AD
In the year 51 AD, 14 years after the first journey of the apostle Paul to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1), Paul travels with
Barnabas and Titus to the great synod of the apostles in Jerusalem, where he meets with the three pillars of the
church: Jacob, the son of Alphaeus, Simon Peter and John, who at that time led the church in Jerusalem. Already
in this gathering, Jacob appears as the actual head of the church in Jerusalem. (Acts 15:1-29; Gal 2:1-10)

At this synod of apostles, Peter speaks first, gives a speech about his experiences in Caesarea, then Paul and
Barnabas report, then Jacob the son of Alphaeus takes the floor, and then the apostles and the congregation
make a decision, put the decision in writing and send it through Judas Barsabas and Silas to Antioch, according to
which the Gentiles who become Christians, are not to be circumcised. With that the question of in what way the
Gentiles become Christians is finally decided, and Paul could now begin his great missionary journeys as an
apostle to the Gentiles. (Grassmann 1. c. 109 (561)).

Here the light of truth becomes decisively apparent that Peter was never in Rome: (1) Paul tells in the
Epistle to the Galatians (1, 18) that he came to the apostles three years after his conversion to
Jerusalem and stayed there for 15 days, that was in the year 37 A.D. (2) Furthermore, Paul writes to
the Galatians (2:1) that after another 14 years he came again to Jerusalem for the Synod of Apostles.
Since this synod, as Grassmann proves in his Gesch. des Gottesreiches [History of the Kingdom of God]
II, p. 109 (562), took place in the first half of the year 51, the conversion of Paul took place 17 years
before 51, i.e. in the second half of the year 34 AD. Here at this Synod we find Peter present - who,
instead of talking about Rome or about a journey from Rome to Jerusalem, talks about his
experiences on his missionary journey in Caesarea; so Peter still lived in his home country and not in
Rome, and made his missionary journeys here, the last of which was to Caesarea.

That Peter had no preference over the other apostles, is proved by the passage in Acts 8:14 -
according to which the apostles sent Peter and John to Samaria as helpers to Philip, at whose effort
Samaria accepted the Word of God and was baptized, so that these two apostles would pray for the
baptized that they might be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

The church of Jerusalem indeed named Peter, John and Jacob as three pillars of the church, but not
as three popes. (Gal 2:9)

In the second half (according to Father's statement) of 51 AD, Cephas (Greek: "Peter") came to
Antioch and ate with the Gentiles, but when some arrived from Jacob, he withdrew and separated
himself for fear of the circumcised (or Jews). Through this, Peter seduced others and Paul took this
away from him and rebuked him in the presence of all: "If you, who are a Jew, live pagan and not
Jewish, why do you force the Gentiles to live Jewish?” (Gal 2:11- 14)

The question here is: What would Peter have done in Antioch, the capital of Syria, if he had been
bishop of Rome?! Thus we see that all news about Peter brings the opposite of what the Roman
Pontifical historians claim.

Before his capture on June 1, 58 AD in Jerusalem (Grasmann, Gesch. des Gottesreiches, II Volume
(566), that is 3 years before his arrival in Rome (see year 61), Paul had already written a long and
substantial letter from Corinth to the church in Rome in the year 57 AD, and although he mentions 30
to 40 persons in this letter who should be greeted by him, Peter is not mentioned anywhere among
them. So this is certainly a good reason to assume that Peter simply was not in Rome and was not
the bishop of Rome, because Paul felt compelled to teach the Romans, since Peter did not do so.

At Pentecost 58 A.D., which fell on May 28, Paul came to Jerusalem. On the first day (Tuesday, May
28) he visited Jacob, the son of Alphaeus (according to Father's statement), who he found at the head of
the Jerusalem church, while Peter, John and the other apostles were working outside Jerusalem. On
the 4th day, (Sabbath the 1st of June) Paul was captured by the Romans because of the religious
dispute with the Jews (Acts 21:27; Grassmann 1. c (566)), through which he, since he demanded his
hearing before the emperor, came to Rome for interrogation before the emperor in the spring of 61
AD after nearly 3 years in prison.

In this so important incident, we miss Peter in Jerusalem; and the other sources for the years 61 to
63 know nothing about Peter in Rome. It is a fatal contradiction that all simultaneous sources deny
the now so firmly asserted claim that Peter was in Rome and the first bishop there.

In the spring of the year 61 AD, Paul comes to Rome (Acts 28:14; Grassmann, Gesch. des
Gottesreiches II Vol. (562 and 567) and stays here for 2 years (Acts 28, 30), that is until [the year] 63
in his own home, with only one soldier guarding it. (Acts 28:16) He received here all who came to
him and preached the kingdom of God and taught of the Lord Jesus with all joy and without
prohibition. (Acts 28:31)

If it were true that Peter, as is claimed (cf. Patuzzi, Geschichte der Päpste p. 22), had spent a full 25
years in Rome from 42 to 67 AD, he would necessarily have met Paul there, and Paul would certainly
have heard of Peter, especially as Paul was not subject to strict custody in Rome and was in lively
contact with the Christian community in Rome, as the Acts of the Apostles has shown us above.

The meeting of these two most prominent apostles would be far too important for the book of Acts to
ignore in silence. But now Paul writes from Rome to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the
Philippians, the Colossians and Thessalonians, to Timothy and Philomene, and makes not the
slightest mention in all these letters of Peter; yes, he sends greetings to all of them to the most
prominent Christians in the congregation in Rome, but he does not send any greetings to Peter, if
Peter had been in Rome, even if he had been the bishop of the Roman congregation.

About his arrival in Rome, Paul relates the following:

Acts of the Apostles 28:15

[15] Since the brothers there (in Rome) had heard of us (that we had arrived), they came to
meet us as far as the Forum of Appius and the three Taverns. When Paul saw these, he
thanked God and took courage (again).

If Peter had been in Rome – and also Bishop - at that time, the great event would certainly have been
reported that Peter, together with the brothers, had come to meet Paul in order to greet and receive
him as the great minister in the apostolate. But there is not the slightest mention of it, although Peter
and Paul were on friendly terms, since Peter in his second epistle says:

2 Peter 3:15

He describes Paul as a much beloved brother and recommends his writings to the believers.

Paul writes from Rome to the Philippians in the winter of 61 AD, that his activity in the proclamation of
the gospel to expand the Roman congregation, had good success:

Philippians 1:12-14

[12] But I will inform you, brethren, that what is happening to me has been done more to
promote the Gospel;
[13] So that it became known in the whole camp of the (imperial) bodyguard and
everywhere else that I wear my bonds (or fetters) for Christ's sake;
[14] My bonds have encouraged several brothers in the Lord so much that they dare to
proclaim the Word of God without fear.
So this report obviously argues against Peter's presence and teaching activity in Rome as a bishop,
seeing that it was only through Paul that the congregation in Rome began to spread, and it was only
through Paul's determination that others too dared to proclaim the gospel publicly. Where was Peter
in Rome from 42 to 61 - that is through full 19 years - that no-one knew anything about him nor was
there any trace of his teaching? We know Peter as a bold speaker and propagator of the Gospel of
Acts. Should he really not have dared to be seen or talk in Rome for 19 years? Here the truth and
the lie are brought to light. The Holy Scriptures punishes the Roman historians.

Paul said in the Epistle to the Romans in [the year] 58:

Romans 1:11,12,14,15

[11] I greatly desire to see you in order to strengthen you by the communication of spiritual
gifts;
[12] This is to encourage each other in your midst through your faith and mine.

This language of Paul's clearly proves that Peter was neither a teacher of religion nor even less a
bishop in Rome, otherwise Paul would not be able to speak as if to a church that had no leader of its
own. And that there was no church-overseer (bishop) or religious reader in Rome at that time, was
revealed to me by the Father Jesus. Paul continues:

[14] I am committed to Greeks and non-Greeks (Romans), educated and uneducated.

[15] Hence, in so far as it depends on me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you too in
Rome.

This promise and announcement by Paul that he is inclined to preach the gospel to the Romans,
confirms the above-mentioned enlightenment of the Father that neither Peter nor any other preacher
of the gospel was in Rome, otherwise Paul would be unnecessary in Rome. According to Father's
explanation, the Christians in Rome asked Paul to come and preach the Gospel to them; hence his
letter to the Romans, in which (verse 15, as above) he promises them that he is inclined to come and
preach the Gospel to them. After his arrest, which then happened in Jerusalem because of the
religious controversy, the Lord appeared to him by night and said: "Be of good cheer, for as you have
testified of Me in Jerusalem, you must also testify in Rome. (Acts 23:11)

Paul expressed his point of view by mentioning in the Second letter to the Corinthians and the Epistle
to the Romans, that he does not operate where others are already working.

In the second letter to the Corinthians, sent from Macedonia in the autumn of 57 AD, (on Nov. 5th 57
the letter was ready; (ChtS 64: Luther's guidance in the hereafter p. 193) and immediately sent
(according to the statement of the Father Jesus) he wrote:

2 Corinthians 10:16

[16] "So that we also, beyond you, preach the gospel and do not boast in a foreign district
of what we have brought to this point."

Or as they say these days, "to adorn yourself with borrowed plumes." The letter to the Romans
sent from Corinth in the autumn of 57 AD, says the same thing by describing its character
according to:

Romans 15:20

[20] affirmed: But I preached the gospel, not where Christ was (already) known, lest I should
build on foreign ground.
 Origin of the Roman Christian Community
According to these two firm statements, Paul would not have appeared in Rome either, if Peter or
someone else had publicly proclaimed the doctrine of Christ before him.

Although Peter was still alive when there was already a Christian community in Rome, Peter never
did or contributed anything to the establishment of the Roman Church. The Roman church began to
form after the death of Christ, when the resurrection of Christ was experienced in Rome. For there
were many people in Rome who in Christ's time were in Judea and the surrounding countryside in
various affairs and occupations. These came to Jesus’ lectures and many of them were converted
from their paganism. When they returned to Rome, they told what they had experienced, and so the
Christian faith in Rome began to spread. Individual people and whole families became Christians.

Finally the news of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ came to Rome and this brought a lot of
talk in Rome. Many told publicly that they were personally present at these lectures and had spoken
with Jesus and through this, the believers recognized each other and joined together and became a
new sect of faith.

News repeatedly came to Rome from Jerusalem about what the apostles and the disciples were
doing, and just as a Christian community was forming in Jerusalem, so also in Rome the friends and
confessors of Christianity came closer together. But they did not appoint a leader, because no-one
was sufficiently trained in the new teaching. They came together, held love-meals, prayed and sang,
but a permanent church was not established for a long time.

When Paul came to Rome in the year 61, there were certainly already many Christians, but not yet a
church bishop of Rome. He therefore speaks in his letters of the names of several Roman
Christians, but never of a bishop, because there was none yet. And Paul, as a prisoner and bound in
chains, could not be set up as a bishop, or leader of the congregation (ChtS. 64,159).

From this it can be seen that at Paul's time in Rome (61-65) neither a public teacher of religion nor a
bishop presided over the confessors of Christ.

If Peter had already been in Rome since the year 42, he as an apostle, would at the same time have
been the bishop of the congregation, and he would have refused to allow Paul to teach in his
congregation and the congregation founded by him without his permission, and another bishop or
congregational overseer would have done the same; and of Paul, quite apart from his Divine mission
(Acts 23:11), it would be characterless and contradictory to the above letters if he had now acted as a
usurper against Peter or any other church bishop who already existed.

These two epistles are too convincing for one to call Paul - in favour of Roman historiography - a
characterless man.

Reports of the Evangelist Luke

Luke the physician, (Col 4:14) born in a no longer existing village in the surroundings of Jerusalem,
was a disciple of the apostles since the year 42. He travelled on the same ship that took Paul to
Rome as a prisoner and was his collaborator (Philemon 24) in Rome.

Luke left Rome in January 63 and went back to Jerusalem, where he completed the notes on his
Gospel and Acts in 63. (According to Father's reports, Luke was stoned to death in Capernaum in
63; therefore, his Acts of the Apostles only extend to the year 63). He reports this to his friend
Theophilus, who taught the Gospel in his hometown Athens, (According to Father's reports) as
follows:
Luke 1:1-4

[1] After many have already undertaken to order and set up a narrative of the events that
have occurred among us.
[2] As we have been handed down to us by those who from the beginning were
eyewitnesses and servants of the Word (namely the apostles).
[3] So I have considered, dear Theophilus, to describe it according to the order, after
having researched everything exactly from its origin,
[4] that you may be convinced of the truth of the words you have heard (from the mouth of
Paul)

After Luke was eyewitness of Paul's arrival in Rome, as well as his co-worker in the work of God for
almost two years, he should have enumerated in his Acts the event of Peter's arrival in Rome, which
was so important for the (Roman!) Church! Yet Luke is completely silent about Peter and this is a full
proof that Peter was never in Rome, nor was he the Pope there.

According to the missionary agreement made in the year 51, Peter would have had nothing more to
seek and do among the gentiles of Rome.

But what speaks most clearly is the fact that Peter, after having already been bishop in Rome for 9
years according to Roman historians, did not feel at home in Rome, but was in Jerusalem and
entered into an agreement here, which he, as a bishop among the Gentiles of Rome, did not have to
enter into, nor could he enter into, for Paul and Barnabas did not come into the area of the city of
Rome to preach, and Peter, as an apostle or bishop of Rome, if he was not allowed to convert any
Gentiles from now on, would have robbed himself of all activity and destroyed it. But this cannot be
assumed, because this presuppose a weakness in Peter, without equal in the Acts of the Apostles,
and which proved the worst testimony of Peter's teaching ability; on the other hand, if Peter had been
bishop of Rome, such a treaty would have been an open fraud on the part of Paul and Barnabas and
would have deprived Peter of his office in Rome.

One might reply to that: Peter had renounced the conversion of the Gentiles and only wanted to
convert the Jews of Rome. This objection would be a thorough failure, so listen to My answer in
advance:

Three days after his arrival in Rome, (Acts 28:17-29) Paul had the rulers of the Jews meet with him
and told them why he was brought to Rome. They answered him: "We have not received any writing
from Judea because of you, nor has any brother come who has proclaimed or said anything bad
about you. We know from this sect (of Christians) that it is contradicted from all sides. They doubted
Paul's statements, and when Paul called their attention to them through the prophets, they left him in
anger and argued among themselves about his words.

Now I ask you, has Peter been sleeping in Rome for a full 19 years from 42 to 61 instead of teaching
that the Jews in Rome did not even know the Christians and their teachings, and called them a sect
which they learned was contradicted everywhere? Can there be any greater proof of the untenability
of the assertion that Peter was in Rome from 42 to 67 and that as a bishop? He was not allowed to
convert Gentiles since 51 without being called a disloyal, characterless person and the Jews knew
nothing about him and his Christ-teaching! Where is there any more proof of Peter's presence,
activity and episcopal office in Rome?

This fact is so decisive about ‘Peter's Chair’ in question in Rome, that every contradiction falls silent
before this central light of truth.
 Father's Information
Now we hear the enlightenment which the Father Jesus Himself gave us in this often and much
disputed dark question; for this enlightenment is genuine and remains valid, even though all dark
forces would attack it, since Jesus Himself gave the testimony about Himself: "Heaven and earth will
pass away, but My words will not pass away." (Matt 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33) But Jesus'
enlightenment is as follows:

From year 33 to 57, Peter stayed partly in Jerusalem and partly in the provinces of Judea and
Galilee, where he taught and converted the Jews. But at times he also went beyond the borders of
his small homeland and worked in various cities and communities in Asia, converting Jews to
Christianity and strengthening converts and encouraging them to persevere.
Jesus relates:

Peter's Chair in Rome

The present city of Baghdad in Asian Turkey was a royal residence city in My time. Some years after
My death (namely in the year 50) the apostle Matthew came there with his companion on his journey
to India and was very well received by the king of that time and stayed with him for a whole year.

When he wanted to travel on to India with his companion, the king gave him a safe escort to the
borders of his kingdom, and so this apostle was one of the first witnesses of Me to this king and
wanted to make conversions among the Gentiles, most of whom were servants of Balaam, in the city
which was then still called Babylon, although ancient Babylon formed a large heap of rubble quite far
away from this city; But the king denied him these things, saying, 'It is enough that I and my court
know and see what we have to believe, and how we are with this belief; I and my son will take care of
the rest, for I do not want to abandon you to the boundless fury of my priests. But when these will
gradually be extinct - and I will see to it that there are no more deputies after them - it will be easier to
negotiate with the people. The two apostles were satisfied with this utterance of the king and no
longer bothered to spread My teaching among the king's people.

But within the following seven years, (at the beginning of June 57) Peter came to this king with his
son Mark anyway, was also extremely well received and also presented ideas to the king to at least
make the city acquainted with My teaching bit by bit; the king, who was very fond of both Peter and
Mark, denied this to Peter, knowing full well the spirit with which the priests of Baal were inspired, and
said especially to Peter: “See, we live here in a country which, especially further east, as far as the
great river Ganges, is teeming with all kinds of wild and raging beasts, and no less with all kinds of
poisonous weeds; But where the Lord God lets such animals and poisonous plants grow in great
numbers, there is certainly both the ground and especially the air filled with evil spirits and devils, and
these run around like hungry and roaring lions, tigers, panthers and hyenas, and seek if they could
find anyone from the human class, to devour him.

The aforementioned beasts are fierce and very evil, and can only be hunted with great danger; but a
thousand times more evil are my priests of Baal. Each one of them has at least 1000 devils in him,
and cannot easily be effectively opposed by anyone else but me with utmost severity and my
soldiers, who are for the most part Jews, Greeks and Romans, in that as king, I myself am only a
vassal of Rome, which will be known to both of you, since the Roman Empire reaches as far as the
Ganges, only after which the great Indian Empire begins, but whose borders no-one of us knows yet.”

This advice of the king pleased Peter, but he secretly felt an urge to have discussions with some and
other citizens of this city about My teaching and My kingdom, of which of course also the priests soon
received news, and to whom Peter also proposed through their messengers that they too should be
acquainted with such a blissful discourse.
Peter did not let himself be tempted to do so for a long time, especially since his son and helper Mark
had warned him seriously about it and had always said: 'Let the king be in charge of our cause, and
we will not go against the will of the Lord if we follow the king's advice', and so it remained
unchanged for a long time.

Soon after arriving in Babylon (Baghdad), Peter wrote the first letter from there on July 26, year 57
(date given by Father) (1 Peter 5:13); (for Peter had already written several letters earlier, but they
got lost), to the Jewish Christians who lived scattered in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia and Asia and
Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1), and whom he had visited, converted and repeatedly visited in his travels since
the year 35 (according to Father's statement).

The Silvanus mentioned in this letter (Peter 5:12) was a converted Jew from Cappadocia who wrote
the letter and carried it to the mentioned churches, which was copied many times, because it was
distributed among the believing Jews in every church. In this letter, Peter's son Mark is mentioned,
that he stayed with his father in Babylon and greeted the mentioned churches.

From this letter we see the areas of Peter's activity since 35 to 57, that is, over 22 years. The
provinces mentioned in this letter, listed in order from east to west, are all in Asia Minor, from the
Black Sea to Cilicia-Cyprus.

If Peter had been in Rome as a bishop since the year 42, how could he address his letter from
Roman Babylon (in Rome in the Middle Ages under the rule of the popes, things were very
Babylonian and chapters 17 and 18 of the Revelation of John are directed to this Babylon) to the
congregations in the mentioned provinces in Asia Minor, if he did not found them and continuously
visited and strengthened them? For after an absence of 15 years, that of 42 to 57, the congregations
would have forgotten about him long ago, if he established them at all. It was Paul's intention to write
to the Romans - after he had already established the churches far and wide and there was no longer
any sphere of activity - to travel to Rome and from there to Spain. (Rom 15:23-24) A clue to Peter's
presence in Rome is not only given with this letter, but even completely denied, because Rome and
Italy - and not the distant Asia Minor - would have been the places of mission if Peter had resided in
Rome.

Peter had his stations of faith in Syria early on, where the capital (New-) Babylon was located, and
visited them, as the Acts of the Apostles tells us - where you meet Peter in Lydia, Galilee, Samaria,
Joppa, Caesarea, Antioch, at Tyrus and Sidon etc., that is in Judea, Galilee, Phoenicia, Syria,
Samaria, at the Black Sea - then called Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Bithnia, and under the general
names "Asia" of Peter's letter, of which many regions and places near and around the mentioned
countries are to be understood, because the apostles visited all communities where Jews lived in
order to convert them to Christianity. It will be clear to you that Peter had a very large diocese, if you
would call it by its present name, and that it was not in Italy, but in Asia.

Therefore the third great untruth of the Roman Church emerges out of this enlightenment, according
to which Peter was nevertheless in Rome and - proved by nothing and nowhere, but defiantly claimed
- to have been a bishop for 25 years in Rome (from The leadership of Dr. Martin Luther and Imanuel
Swedenborg in the hereafter by Father Jesus until their completion as great and princes in the New
Jerusalem).

After a few years, Peter went out of the city on a leisurely walk, and found there several beggars and
sick people; he gave to the poor, he healed the sick by the indwelling power of My Spirit. Several
priests of Baal also came to this miracle, recognized Peter and fervently asked him to go with them
for a while and go inland, and he listened to their many requests and faithful assurances by and
about this, because they told him that in a very near place there are a lot of sick people that no doctor
is able to heal, and if he will also heal them, they and all other priests will also accept his teaching
and destroy their temples with their own hands.
In response to this speech, Peter went with these priests and after an hour's journey, he arrived with
them in the right way at a place where there were many people suffering from fever and possessed
by evil spirits, whom he healed and even brought a dead man back to life.

But those who were healed began to praise Peter, saying, "He must be sent by the true God,
otherwise it would not be possible for him to do to us by his word alone what all our so many gods
have never been able to do.”

This infuriated the priests accompanying Peter beyond all measure; they kindly forced him, but only
outwardly, to visit with them another small place, which could be reached through a myrtle and rose
forest; In this forest they grabbed Peter, stripped him of his clothes, killed him, then hung him by the
feet on a dry myrtle tree, to which they fastened a crossbeam underneath and tied his hands to it with
ropes, and left him hanging there, and then returned to the city by another route.

But since these days Peter did not appear before the king for too long, he sent searching for him
everywhere, both in and out of the city; and it was not until the second day that he succeeded in
finding Peter in the myrtle forest, of course completely dead and very badly mauled.

But he was also informed by those who had been healed, that the priests of the city had brought him
to them in all kindness and that he had made them wonderfully healthy and also brought a dead man
back to life; after which he continued to go along with the priests and moved inland.

The king was very sad about this and had Peter buried in the king's tomb and also had the myrtle
tree brought into his tomb, but the more than two thousand priests in this city were not well off. The
king did not spare a single one of them, had them all killed by his soldiers, and then took them in
more than four hundred chariots far out into the desert, where they were thrown out of the chariots
and there served as food for the wild beasts.

But then the disciple Mark, with the help of the king and two royal trustees, began to convert the
people near the whole city to My teaching, and it did not take a year for the whole city to be blessedly
converted to My teaching, and through them soon after also near the whole country.

And I hereby give you, you My youngest disciples, on this occasion the knowledge of where and how
the first apostle's life ended in this world; thus not in Rome, still less in Jerusalem, but in the new city
of Babylon, which later on received the Saracen name Baghdad. (ChtS. II. ed. no. 10 of the Ev. Joh.,
254).

According to the communication of the dear Father, this above message was contained in the Acts of
the Apostles, which, however, had already been removed by the Roman priesthood in the 3rd
century; and so it did not appear among the writings brought to the Council in Nicaea in the 4th
century (325); therefore it is not contained in the Greek Bible either.

The murder happened according to the message of the Father Jesus in the year 59 on October 9th in
Peter's 76th year of life. With this the prophecy of Jesus in John 21:18,19 came true.

The striking thing about this story is precisely that the Roman priesthood knows the nature of death,
which they could only know from the Acts of the Apostles, and yet it is not reported in the Acts of the
Apostles, from which the historical story of the Holy See in Rome is evidence. For in Rome they
worked early on to acquire the apostolic primacy for Rome in order to boast of it.

The question: "Did Peter establish the Roman Church?" - has been extensively discussed by the
Lord in the "Spiritual Sun" (ChtS No. 3, 1st ed., chapters 140-142, pp. 240-258) and has also been
proved to have been invented there.

The second letter of Peter was also written in August 58 from Babylon (Baghdad), in which he writes
that Jesus revealed to him that he will soon die. (2 Peter 1:14)
Father gave me the following note about Paul: Paul came to Rome in the spring of 61 and stayed
there for 4 years, (because the New Testament - Acts 28, 30 - only speaks of 2 years that Paul
stayed in his own home, so it is proven that the Acts of the Apostles only goes up to the year 63,
which is also confirmed to me by Father) was captured there and was murdered during the
persecution of Christians under Nero in the year 65, when he was 66 years old.

From this we see that the whole Roman papacy was a centuries-long historical deception created to
benefit the rule of the Roman priesthood, because it brought in much money and an extraordinary
honour, and produced the papal power of world domination, based on unfounded human statutes; for
whoever did not believe it, was cursed, excommunicated, persecuted, tortured and burned at the
stake. Therefore, in past centuries, believing in the truth of papal dogmas, even if one knew that they
were lies - at least for this world - made blessed. It was a dictate of prudence, as long as one stood
under the punishing rod of the priesthood, to keep quiet as a mouse about the contrary convictions
one had gained, in order to quietly enjoy life.

Notes on the true successor's office of an

apostle

The pope as Peter's successor

When Peter once went into the temple, a lame man asked him for alms; he said to him: "I have
neither gold nor silver, but what I have I will give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise
and walk.” (Acts 3:6)

Could a pope say that to a poor man? And he calls himself a successor of Peter! Oh you ridiculous
successor of Peter! Such a successor of Peter can only say: ‘I have a great abundance of gold and
silver, but I will not give it to you, but I give my apostolic blessing, which costs nothing - so go in
peace! If you also die of hunger on the way, your soul will nevertheless immediately come to
paradise after a three-day purgatory, where you will then be well enough.’ If a pope would say that,
he would speak the truth; but the latter would not happen because of his blessing, for if it were of any
worth, he would not give it away in vain, for priests do not distribute, they only gather - (ChtS. 42 B, II.
268).

Bishop of Rome

The (original) holy canonical law of the Roman Church expressly forbids the "Bishop of Rome" to call
himself "Prince of Bishops", "supreme priest" or the like. It forbids at all that any patriarch should
ever use the word "generally" (ecumenically), "since all patriarchs are entitled to equal honour".
(Distinct. 99, C. primae, C. nullus, C. ecce.)

The later Bishops of Rome, aspiring to supremacy, disregarded this law and showed the world that
they had received from Christ the supreme power in heaven and on earth, after which they - by
distorting the truth - brought everything under their insatiable dominion.

Pope as bearer of the title of supreme pagan priest in Rome

When Rome was still under the pagan priesthood, the high priest of this pagan religion bore the title
"Pontifex Maximus" (ChtS. 9, Ch. 74) and this title of a Pontifex Maximus is held by the Pope, and his
office is called "Pontificat"! - The proverb "Nomen est omen" is not to be denied there as false.
The Popedom

If the papacy had been the succession of the apostleship of the Original Christian Community, that is,
an epitome of the original truth from Christ, the Divine representative of love, humility, tolerance,
justice, wisdom out of love, then of Divine peace and Divine mercy, then the whole world would have
become a kingdom of God on earth and no world-power would be able to prevent this from
happening, because if the clergy had firmly insisted on the fulfilment of the Ten Commandments of
God, then a kingdom of God would have come into being out of all the kingdoms of the world.

In the Middle Ages, the papacy had indeed brought itself to great power both politically and
ecclesiastically, but it did so not on the basis of Divine truth, but by distorting the truth of its church
statutes, by which the foolish and dark world was widely struck; and what arose silently, holding the
Christian banner of truth higher than papal human statutes (or dogmas), was forced down with violent
torture and burning at the stake.

The atrocities of Roman priestly despotism finally reached its highest peak. Now Divine power
intervened and raised an apostle in Dr. Martin Luther. This apostle had the task of replanting the
Divine flag with the inscription: "Where the Spirit of God is, there is freedom" (2 Cor 3:17) and to
spread the truth from God everywhere. And now the light of truth began to shine everywhere and as
it increased and grew, so the worldly and ecclesiastical power of the pope decreased until this
present time.

But churches and sects that fight over privilege and are not yet on the pure ground of spiritual truth,
are not yet mature. It is true that the Protestant church is based on the words of the Bible, but its
servants of God are not born again as the apostles and leaders of the early Christian congregations
were, so they do not understand the spiritual meaning of the words of the Bible; hence the most
varied interpretation of Scripture, causing failure in the fulfilment of the commandments of God
according to their spiritual sense, as it was in the early Christian congregation.

And if we look at the state laws in Protestant countries, they are no better than in Roman Catholic
countries, and the transgressions of God's laws are just as much there as they are here. But why?
Because only a third of the priests are of God, two thirds of them are public servants, and they are
more concerned with their life-existence, than with God. To keep silent about the sins of the
superiors is their state cleverness; but to see to it that they lack neither food nor drink nor satiation of
appetites, desires and comfortable rest, is their wisdom, which is otherwise called worldliness.

Father's Word regarding Spiritual Leaders

1898, 4 February, Graz. Through F. Schumi

My dear children! I, your Father Jesus, tell you that you should not appoint for Me any man on earth
as your spiritual leader who bears high titles, because bearing titles proves whose spirit prevails in
such a leader for the spiritual life.

Only such leaders who humbly and selflessly acknowledge Me as the supreme and sole leader of the
hearts of men, can be a blessing to you. But he who surrounds himself with great nimbus and
splendour is not a spiritual leader according to My words: The highest shall be the servant of all.
(Matt 23:11; Mark 10:43; Luke 22:26-27) And so also the Pope is not according to My heart and My
words, but according to the wishes of those who have chosen and set him up. But the end of these
abnormal states is approaching and I will again establish an original Christian order in time. This is
what your Father Jesus Jehovah the Lord of the world tells all to whom it concerns. Amen.


Table of Contents
Is the pope the successor and representative of Peter?.......................................................................................2
Peter's Episcopate...............................................................................................................................................5
Biblical and Divine Evidence.............................................................................................................................5
A Clarification of the Father for Doubters of the Reference..............................................................................6
The Synod of Apostles in Jerusalem, first half of 51 AD...................................................................................8
Origin of the Roman Christian Community.....................................................................................................11
Reports of the Evangelist Luke.........................................................................................................................11
Father's Information..........................................................................................................................................13
Peter's Chair in Rome.......................................................................................................................................13
Notes on the true successor's office of an apostle.............................................................................................16
Father's Word regarding Spiritual Leaders.......................................................................................................17