Benton titlepage3

The New Testament Roman Catholic "Title Page"

Bible Studies by Dan Bilingsly 1

My Reply To Terry Benton’s Answer To Dan Billingsly’s Study On:

“The Most Misunderstood “Page” In The Bible”Dan Billingsly

(See my response embedded in each section.)

Benton writes: Billingsly’s Argument: "..the Roman Catholic church in 1486 AD arbitrarily placed the fourbooks of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John --before the cross -- (MMLJ/BC) in the New rather Old Testament byplacing an erroneous New Testament "title page" between the books of Malachi and Matthew.

Benton’s Answer:1. Everyone already knew that MMLJ were written by "ministers of the new covenant" in thenew covenant age and long after the Old Testament had been complete and nailed to the cross.

BILLINGSLY REPLIES: When the Old Testament was “finished”- its divine covenant authority in OldTestament Israel had come to an “end” at the cross and death of Christ (John 19:30; Romans 10:4). The lasttwo inspired Old Testament prophets, John the baptist was dead and Jesus was in heaven, therefore God chosefour inspired NT Christians - “ministers of the new covenant” under the supervision of the inspired twelveapostles - to write the “end” of the Old Testament historical narrative in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke andJohn. The whole inspired authority of heaven led these four men to write the “last days” of OT Israel - so thatOld Testament Jews and Gentiles all over the world could realize that the Old Testament age had ceased.

Brother Benton would have the world believe that Malachi was the last book of the Old Testament - but he -like all sectarians, is some 450 years out of touch with both the Old and New Testaments - and the truth ofthe Bible. All scripture of the Bible teach clearly that the cross and death of Christ - not the the birth of Christmarked the “end” of the Old Testament. Here are two questions that brother Benton cannot/willnot answerfrom the Bible. We patiently await his reply.

1. When did the Old Testament “end”?

2, When did the New Testament age “begin”?

2. Therefore, the "title page" never messed anyone up or confused any one.

3. No one (except Mr. Billingsly, and anyone who agrees with him today), has ever been confused by the "titlepage". It is exactly where it should be, if we were going to distinguish the scriptures of the Old Testament fromthe scriptures written by ministers of the new covenant.

Every gospel preacher knows, or should know, that the false Roman Catholic “title page” - the “title page”between the books of Malachi and Matthew - has confused every Roman Catholic priest and pope, Protestantpreachers like Billy Graham and all of their millions of members - along with many, like Benton, in the Lord’schurch. Brother Benton is doctrinally wrong, wrong, wrong!

4. No one ever thought, until Mr. Billingsly, that New Testament ministers took it in hand to write additionalattachments to the old covenant and have their new writings post-nailed again to the cross.

So sad that Benton doesn’t realize that MMLJ/BC is not a human attachment to the Bible, but the divinelyinspired record of the final thirty-three (33) years of Old Testament history.

5. The "title page" of 1486 is still much older than Mr. Billingsly’s testament of Acts 2 through Rev.22. Billingslysays that he would place the "title page" between Acts 1 and Acts 2. That would mean that history would lookback to 1995 or so(over 500 years later than even the "1486" placement of a "title page") to find when a title pagewas first placed between two chapters of the same book. Who can give that any credibility?



Brother Benton attempts to deny the Old Testament age and doctrine of MMLJ/BC by exhalting the doctrinalerrors of the Pope and his ecclesiastical court rather than accepting the clear enunciation and doctrine ofMMLJ/BC which shows Christ “born” under the law of Moses (Matthew, chapters 1-4; Galatians 4:4) andliving and teaching his whole lifetime in MMLJ/BC under the jurisdiction of the Old Testament law. The truthis, in MMLJ/BC Jesus was an Old Testament Israelite - not a New Testament “Christian.” Jesus preached theOld Testament “gospel” of the law of Moses to Israel, not the New Testament “gospel” of the death, burial andresurrection of Christ to the world of alien sinners (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

6. Evidence clearly shows that MMLJ were long considered as New Testament books, long before 1486, and longbefore the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, if we show that early writers before 250 AD (which is long before theRoman Catholic Church) believed that the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were New Testamentbooks, then we will have further proven the above argument and its author to be wrong again, and making a falseclaim that he will need to repent of, and an argument he will need to cease making.

Yes, the apostates of the 1st and 2nd centuries began to corrupt the canon of the NewTestament even as theapostle Paul prophesied. “1I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge thequick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season;reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3For the time will come when they will not enduresound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4And theyshall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:1-4).

Now, Brother Benton and all other “traditionalists” - who deny the Old Testament age and doctrine ofMMLJ/BC join the ranks of all those who fight against Christ’s inspiration! Notice how Benton appeals to theuninspired and apostates of the 2nd century - Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen - rather than the doctrine of theapostles of Christ. I will take the inspired word of the apostles Paul, Peter, John, et al. - over uninspiredfounders of Roman Catholic heresy in the “dark ages”! Benton cannot find one apostle to support his error!

Brethren, Benton asks you to believe Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen who are all listed among RomanCatholic “church fathers” - rather than the apostles of Christ! We need to believe the doctrine of Christ andthe inspired apostles - and their doctrine places MMLJ/BC in the Old Testament!

Why in 1486AD did the Roman Catholic church move the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John fromthe Old to the New Testament? Because with the divine placement by Christ and the apostles of MMLJ/BC inthe Old Testament - this placed Mary completely out of the New Testament! And the 1486 move of desperationtried to legitimize Mary taking the place of Christ as Savior of the world - according to the doctrine of theRoman Catholic church.“The four dogmas of Perpetual virginity, Mother of God, Immaculate Conception and Assumption form thebasis of Mariology.[12] However, a number of other Catholic doctrines about the Virgin Mary have beendeveloped by reference to sacred scripture, theological reasoning and Church tradition.[13] The developmentof Mariology is ongoing and since the beginnings it has continued to be shaped by theological analyses,writings of saints, and papal statements, e.g. while two Marian dogmas are ancient, the other two were definedin the 19th and 20th centuries; and papal teachings on Mary have continued to appear in recent times.More Wickapedia info on Mary:

Contents1 Study of Mary and her place in the Church1.1 Context and components1.2 Maximalism and minimalism2 Mariology and Christology3 History and development4 Dogmatic teachings4.1 Mother of God

4.2 Assumption of Mary4.3 Immaculate Conception of Mary4.4 Perpetual virginity of Mary5 Other Marian doctrines5.1 Mary as Mother of all Christians5.2 Co-Redemptrix5.3 Mediatrix5.4 Queen of Heaven



How unconsciable that Terry Benton, gospel preacher among churches of Christ, asks the Lord’s church tobelieve in men whose false doctrine leads the world to believe in Mary as our Savior and Queen of Heaven!

Note: Tertullian is addressing a heresy of Marcion tampering with two testaments, when Christians had longkept the two testaments together. We observe that there were two testaments, and they were early recognized astwo important kinds of witnesses that Christians held together as a marvelous unit.

b. "This may be understood to be the Divine Word, who is doubly edged with the two testaments of the law andthe gospel — sharpened with wisdom, hostile to the devil, arming us against the spiritual enemies of all wicked-ness and concupiscence, and cutting us off from the dearest objects for the sake of God’s holy name." (Book3:14, Teretullian against Marcion)

c. "We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom wasassigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel. Since, however, there are apostolic men also,they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles; because the preaching of disciples might beopen to the suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it the authority of the masters, whichmeans that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles their masters. Of the apostles, therefore, John andMatthew first instill faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. These all startwith the same principles of the faith, so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how thatHe was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfill the law and the prophets. Never mind if there does occur somevariation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith, inwhich there is disagreement with Marcion." (Book 4:2).

Note: We observe that the "evangelical Testament", which is not the Old but the NEW Testament, has the fourgospels of MMLJ at the start of the collection even as early as the days of Tertullian.

Here is what history says about another of brother Benton’s “church fathers.”

“Saint Irenaeus (ca. 130-202 CE) was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, which is now Lyons, France. Hiswritings were formative in the early development of Christian theology, and he is recognized as a saintby both the Eastern Orthodox "church" and the Catholic "church"; the latter considers him a Fatherof the "church". He was a disciple of Polycarp, who himself was a disciple of John the Evangelist. Hisfeast day is 28 June.” (Internet on Irenaeus).

Brethren, Brother Benton wants you to believe that Saint Irenaeus was not one bishop among many “bishops”in the "church" at Lugdunum in Gaul, he was THE BISHOP. Does that sound like New Testament doctrine?Neither Brother Benton nor his eldership mentioned, in their argumentation, that Irenaeus was an apostatebishop in the early Catholic "church." But he is now recognized as a “SAINT” in both the Holy RomanCatholic and Greek Orthodox churches.

d. "The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we pos-sess equally through their means, and according to their usage — I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew —whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’sform of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. And it may well seem that the works which disciples publishbelong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict account concerning these (other Gos-pels) also, for having omitted them, and insisted in preference on Luke; as if they, too, had not had free coursein the churches, as well as Luke’s Gospel, from the beginning. Nay, it is even more credible that they existedfrom the very beginning; for, being the work of apostles, they were prior, and coeval in origin with the Note:The apostolic churches recognized these four gospels early on "from the very beginning". These four Gospels



were not carried by the Jews in the Canon of Old Testament books. But, these four gospel accounts were con-nected with the kingdom, the church of Christ.Origen (185-254)

a. "And in the New Testament we have abundant testimonies, as when the Holy Spirit is described as havingdescendedupon Christ, and when the Lord breathed upon His apostles after His resurrection, saying, "Receivethe Holy Spirit;" and the saying of the angel to Mary, "The Holy Spirit will come upon thee;" the declaration byPaul, that no one can call Jesus Lord, save by the Holy Spirit." (Book I, 3).

Note: As early as Origen, long before the Roman Catholic Church, and long before Billingsly’s "1486", theNew Testament included the story of the Spirit coming down upon Jesus (before the cross) and what Jesus saidafter His resurrection. Origen clearly recognized the four gospels to be in the NewTestament.

b. "And from the New Testament also they quote the saying of the Savior, in which He makes a promise to Hisdisciples concerning the joy of wine, saying, "Henceforth I shall not drink of this cup, until I drink it with younew in My Father’s kingdom."" (Book II, XI,2).

Note: The quote from the New Testament comes from Matthew 26:26f in the record before the cross. The bookof Matthew was early recognized as in the New Testament.

c. "Let us now look also to the New Testament, where Satan approaches the Savior, and tempts Him: whereinalso it is stated that evil spirits and unclean demons, which had taken possession of very many, were expelledby the Savior from the bodies of the sufferers, who are said also to be made free by Him. Even Judas, too, whenthe devil had already put it in his heart to betray Christ, afterwards received Satan wholly into him; for it is writ-ten, that after the sop "Satan entered into him."" (Book 3, 2:1b).

Note: Look how many things are described as being in the NewTestament. These things are described in thefour gospels and not in Acts 2 through Revelation 22. Therefore, it is the case that all early Christians recog-nized MMLJ as part of the New Testament.

Origen (185-254)

a. "And in the New Testament we have abundant testimonies, as when the Holy Spirit is described as havingdescendedupon Christ, and when the Lord breathed upon His apostles after His resurrection, saying, "Receivethe Holy Spirit;" and the saying of the angel to Mary, "The Holy Spirit will come upon thee;" the declaration byPaul, that no one can call Jesus Lord, save by the Holy Spirit." (Book I, 3).

Note: As early as Origen, long before the Roman Catholic Church, and long before Billingsly’s "1486", theNew Testament included the story of the Spirit coming down upon Jesus (before the cross) and what Jesus saidafter His resurrection. Origen clearly recognized the four gospels to be in the NewTestament.

b. "And from the New Testament also they quote the saying of the Savior, in which He makes a promise to Hisdisciples concerning the joy of wine, saying, "Henceforth I shall not drink of this cup, until I drink it with younew in My Father’s kingdom."" (Book II, XI,2).

Note: The quote from the New Testament comes from Matthew 26:26f in the record before the cross. The bookof Matthew was early recognized as in the New Testament.

c. "Let us now look also to the New Testament, where Satan approaches the Savior, and tempts Him: whereinalso it is stated that evil spirits and unclean demons, which had taken possession of very many, were expelled



Irenaeus (120-202AD)

a. "For all the apostles taught that there were indeed two testaments among the two peoples; but that it was oneand the same God who appointed both for the advantage of those men (for whose sakes the testaments were given)who were to believe in God,..." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, 32:2).

Here, Benton tries to confuse the issue, it is not a question of how many covenants - but when and where Christdivides between the Old and New Testaments. Benton, this dodge won’t work - I am going to hold your feet tothe doctrinal truth of the New Testament!

Here Irenaeus recognized two testaments, and that these testaments were carried by two people (i.e., the Jewsand the Christians). I’ll bet that you can guess that the Jews did not carry PART of the testament of Christians.The Jews carried one testament (Gen.-Malachi) and the Christians carried the other testament (Matthew-Revela-tion).

b. "Now I have shown a short time ago that the church is the seed of Abraham; and for this reason, that we mayknow that He who in the New Testament "raises up from the stones children unto Abraham," is He who willgather, according to the Old Testament, those that shall be saved from all the nations, Jeremiah says: "Behold,the days come, saith the LORD, that they shall no more say, The LORD liveth, who led the children of Israelfrom the north, and from every region whither they had been driven; He will restore them to their own landwhich He gave to their fathers."" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, Ch.34:1).

We observe now that Irenaeus recognized that it was the NEW Testament that talks about God Who "raises upfrom stones children unto Abraham". This is a reference to what the New Testament says in Matthew 3. Thus,as early as Irenaeus, it was already an accepted fact that Matthew was in the New Testament.

Tertullian (145-220AD)

a. "Persons are still living who remember them, — their own actual disciples and successors, — who cannottherefore deny the lateness of their date. But, in fact, by their own works they are convicted, even as the Lordsaid. For since Marcion separated the New Testament from the Old, he is (necessarily) subsequent to that whichhe separated, inasmuch as it was only in his power to separate what was (previously) united. Having then beenunited previous to its separation, the fact of its subsequent separation proves the subsequence also of the manwho effected the separation" (Second Part, On Prescription Against Heretics, Ch.30).

Note: Tertullian is addressing a heresy of Marcion tampering with two testaments, when Christians had longkept the two testaments together. We observe that there were two testaments, and they were early recognized astwo important kinds of witnesses that Christians held together as a marvelous unit.


c. "We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom wasassigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel. Since, however, there are apostolic men also,they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles; because the preaching of disciples might beopen to the suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it the authority of the masters, whichmeans that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles their masters. Of the apostles, therefore, John andMatthew first instill faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. These all startwith the same principles of the faith, so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how thatHe was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfill the law and the prophets. Never mind if there does occur some



variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith, inwhich there is disagreement with Marcion." (Book 4:2).


d. "The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we pos-sess equally through their means, and according to their usage — I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew —whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’sform of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. And it may well seem that the works which disciples publishbelong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict account concerning these (other Gos-pels) also, for having omitted them, and insisted in preference on Luke; as if they, too, had not had free coursein the churches, as well as Luke’s Gospel, from the beginning. Nay, it is even more credible that they existedfrom the very beginning; for, being the work of apostles, they were prior, and coeval in origin with the Note:Tertullian is addressing a heresy of Marcion tampering with two testaments, when Christians had long kept thetwo testaments together. We observe that there were two testaments, and they were early recognized as two im-portant kinds of witnesses that Christians held together as a marvelous unit.


c. "We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom wasassigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel. Since, however, there are apostolic men also,they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles; because the preaching of disciples might beopen to the suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it the authority of the masters, whichmeans that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles their masters. Of the apostles, therefore, John andMatthew first instill faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. These all startwith the same principles of the faith, so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how thatHe was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfill the law and the prophets. Never mind if there does occur somevariation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith, inwhich there is disagreement with Marcion." (Book 4:2).


d. "The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we pos-sess equally through their means, and according to their usage — I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew —whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’sform of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. And it may well seem that the works which disciples publishbelong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict account concerning these (other Gos-pels) also, for having omitted them, and insisted in preference on Luke; as if they, too, had not had free coursein the churches, as well as Luke’s Gospel, from the beginning. Nay, it is even more credible that they existedfrom the very beginning; for, being the work of apostles, they were prior, and coeval in origin.

Brethren, Benton, like every Roman Catholic priest and pope he quotes, is wrong on every point he attemptsto make. Tertullian, like every other “church father” of the 1st and 2nd centuries led the way for the following.



As incredible as it may seem, many of our elders, preachers and brethren among churches of Christ arerelying more heavily today on sectarian and denominational pastors, theologians, sectarian universitiesand denominational churches for “authority” in religion, rather than on the teaching set forth inScriptures of the New Testament by Christ and the apostles.

Many of our preachers today among churches of Christ possess academic degrees from the most liberal andungodly universities in the nation and world, Many of these preacher’s libraries are filled with the commen-taries and sermon outline books from countless influential Catholic and Protestant denominational preachers.And through our doctrinally weak and biblically ignorant elders and preachers -- the false sectarian doctrinescontained in these blasphemous degrees and books have been and are continuing to flood the Lord’s churchthat can and will ultimately destroy our faith in New Testament “truth.”

In today’s growing study of doctrinal issues and the growing divisions among us, many elders, preachers,brethren and “change agents” in the Lord’s church today are putting the “word” and “reputation” of thesectarian academic world -- especially Roman Catholic “church fathers” -- ahead of the “authority” ofChrist, the Holy Spirit and “the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42) revealed in the New Testament.

Who among us will argue, like Benton, that Christ, the apostles and the miraculous 1st century church ofChrist, the Lord’s church that possessed all of the apostles’ revelation, doctrine and autographed copiesof New Testament books, did not give and deliver to the church a divine record and list of New Testamentbooks that did not include MMLJ/BC?

Did the 1st century church that had twelve inspired apostles, divine knowledge and miraculous confirma-tion of all New Testament “truth,” unnumbered brethren throughout the Mediterranean world, thousandsof local churches, and possessed “all things that pertain to life and godliness” have the complete NewTestament or not?

Yes, the 1st century church of Christ - long before the rise of the apostate “church fathers” - had thecomplete New Testament that opened the doors of the kingdom of God and granted eternal life in Christ andhis church!

“1Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained likeprecious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: 2Graceand peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,3According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life andgodliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4Whereby aregiven unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of thedivine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Peter 3:1-4).

The question is: Who and what is right when it comes to the “truth” about New Testament doctrine, Christ theHoly Spirit and apostles as revealed in the written New Testament -- or Terry Benton? Here are fifteen falsedoctrines where Benton’s “church fathers” has led the Roman Catholic church into their doctrinal wildernesstoday.1. Holy Water - 120 AD.2. Archbishops - 150 AD.3. Nicene Creed - 325 AD.4. Latin Mass - 394 AD5. Extreme unction - 588 AD.6. Purgatory - 593 AD.7. First Pope - 606 AD8. Instrumental Music - 670 AD.

9. Transubstantiation - 1000 AD10. Celibacy - 1015 AD.11. Indulgences - 1190 AD.12. Sprinkling - 1311 AD.13. Inserted erroneous Title Page into

the Bible - 1486 AD.14. Pope’s Infallibility - 1870 AD15. Assumption of Mary - 1950 AD.



As incredible as it may seem, many of our elders, preachers and brethren among churches of Christ arerelying more heavily today on sectarian and denominational pastors, theologians, sectarian universitiesand denominational churches for “authority” in religion, rather than on the teaching set forth inScriptures of the New Testament.

Many of our preachers today among churches of Christ possess academic degrees from the most liberal andungodly universities in the nation and world, Many of these preacher’s libraries are filled with the commen-taries and sermon outline books from countless influential Catholic and Protestant denominational preachers.And through our doctrinally weak and biblically ignorant elders and preachers -- the false sectarian doctrinescontained in these blasphemous degrees and books have been and are continuing to flood the Lord’s churchthat will ultimately destroy our faith in New Testament “truth.”

\In today’s growing study of doctrinal issues and the growing divisions among us, many elders, preachers,brethren and “change agents” in the Lord’s church today are putting the “word” and “reputation” of thesectarian academic world -- especially Roman Catholic “church fathers” -- ahead of the “authority” ofChrist, the Holy Spirit and “the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42) revealed in the New Testament.

Who among us will argue that the miraculous 1st century church of Christ, the Lord’s church thatpossessed all of the apostles’ revelation, doctrine and autographed copies of New Testament books, did notgive and deliver to the church a divine record and list of New Testament books that did not includeMMLJ/BC?

Did the 1st century church that had twelve inspired apostles, divine knowledge and miraculous confirma-tion of all New Testament “truth,” unnumbered brethren throughout the Mediterranean world, thousandsof local churches, and who possessed “all things that pertain to life and godliness” have the complete NewTestament or not?

Yes, the 1st century church of Christ - long before the rise of the apostate “church fathers” - had the completeNew Testament that opened the doors of the kingdom of God and granted eternal life in Christ and his church!

“1Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained likeprecious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: 2Graceand peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,3According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life andgodliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4Whereby aregiven unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of thedivine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Peter 3:1-4).

The question is: Who and what is right when it comes to the “truth” about New Testament doctrine. Christthe Holy Spirit and apostles as revealed in the written New Testament -- or, as Benton teaches - the early“church fathers” of the Roman Catholic church? Brother Benton is wrong - the New Testament is right!MMLJ/BC, as the Scriptures teach - belong to the Old Testament - not the New Testament.

Benton titlepage3

Spiritual

Transcript of Benton titlepage3