About Simon Magus
THE FALSE religious system began very early -- almost
with Pentecost in 31 A.D. Even in the earliest of Paulís
epistles, he informs us that "the mystery of iniquity
DOTH ALREADY WORK" (II Thess. 2:7). Paul wrote this in
50 or 51 AD The plot to supplant the Truth had already
begun. In the later epistles of Paul and in those of the
other Apostles, we find it gaining considerable
momentum. However, even though the Apostles discuss the
diabolical system which was arising, THEY NOWHERE
MENTION HOW IT STARTED. They had no need in mentioning
its beginning -- that had already been done!
The book of Acts is the KEY to the understanding of
Christian beginnings. Not only does it show the
commencement of the TRUE Church, but it equally reveals
the origins of the False Church masquerading as
Christianity. Indeed, you would think it odd if the book
of Acts did not discuss this vital subject.
The Book of Acts -- the Key
First, let us recall two points of necessary
The book of Acts was written
by Luke about 62 AD some 31 years after the True
Church began. Acts recalls ALL events which
affected, in a major way, the True Church. It
especially tells us about the beginnings of
matters relating to Church history.
Acts does NOT record every
single event relative to the Church, important
as one might think them to be.
For example, Luke doesn't mention a single thing about
the activities of the original twelve Apostles of
Christ. Yet are we to assume that they did nothing
important in the history of the Church? Absolutely NOT!
They must have done many mighty works. But we can see
from this omission that Luke recorded ONLY THOSE EVENTS
WHICH WERE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for Godís Church of the
future to know.
Notice that Lukeís geography leads him towards the
Northwest and West of Palestine. He discusses Church
history in Asia Minor, Greece and ROME. He wanted to
leave us with the truth of what was going on in the West
and North because the prophecies showed the false system
arising in these localities.
All other activities of Godís Church -- all about the
other ten Apostles, etc. -- fall into relative
unimportance because the trouble wasn't going to come
from Palestine itself. It was to come from ROME and
adjacent areas. It is no wonder that Luke spares no
pains to tell us the truth of what was really going on
in these critical areas, and that is the reason Acts
concerns itself primarily with Paul.
These are well-known principles that help us understand
the overall viewpoint of Acts.
With the foregoing in mind, read the incident recorded
by Luke, of the first encounter of Godís Apostles with a
heretic. This encounter was not with an ordinary
run-of-the-mill individual, but with one of the greatest
men in the East at that time -- Simon the Magus!
The reason Luke describes the intentions of this man so
thoroughly is the profound effect this man, and his
followers, had on Godís Church in Asia Minor, Greece,
and ESPECIALLY ROME. Actually, this man by 62 AD, (when
Luke composed the book of Acts) had caused the True
Church so much trouble that Luke had to show the people
that he was NOT, as he claimed to be, a part of the
All scholars realize that Luke tells about Simonís
beginning because of his later notoriety and danger to
In this regard, notice the comment of Hastingís
Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 496: "It
seems beyond question that Luke KNEW THE REPUTATION
which Simon acquired, and that he regarded the
subsequent history of Simon as the natural result of
what occurred in the beginning of his connection with
If we assume that Luke recorded this encounter of the
Apostles with Simon Magus simply to show that "simony"
was wrong, we miss the point completely. There is a
score of places in other parts of the Bible to show the
error of buying ecclesiastical gifts.
Luke was exposing SIMON MAGUS HIMSELF. This IS the
important point!! Luke was clearly showing that Simon
was NEVER a part of Godís Church, even though by 62 AD,
many people were being taught that Simon was truly a
Christian -- taught that he was the HEAD of the only
TRUE Christians; the Apostle to the Gentiles!
What Luke Tells Us About Simon Magus
Notice the points Luke places clearly before us.
Simon was a Samaritan, not a
Jew -- (Acts 8:9). Remember that the Bible tells
us salvation was of the Jews -- not of the
Samaritans (John 4:22).
Simon Magus greatly used
demonistic powers to do miracles and wonders
The whole population of
Samaria (both small and great) gave heed to him
(Verse 10). He was looked on as the greatest
prophet -- all Samaria BELIEVED IN HIM!
The Samaritans WORSHIPPED him
as "the Great One" -- a god. "This man is that
power of God called Great [that is the
Almighty]" (RSV. Verse 10).
Imagine it! They called him god in the flesh!
Luke is also careful to inform us that Simon had become
firmly established in Samaria as "the Great One" and had
practiced his powers " for a long time" (Verse 11)
Luke wants us to understand
that he nominally became a Christian ("Simon
himself believed") and was baptized -- that is,
he physically, outwardly "entered" the Christian
Church (Verse 13).
Simon even recognized that
Christís power was greater than his but wanted
to be associated with that great name (Verse
Simon, seeing the potential of
the Christian religion waited until the
authorities, Peter and John, came to Samaria and
then offered to pay them money to OBTAIN AN
APOSTLESHIP IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Verses
Simon Coveted Apostleís Office
Those who carelessly read this section of Scripture may
get the mistaken notion that Simon wanted only to buy
the Holy Spirit. Yes, he wanted that -- but his main
intention went far beyond. He had eyes on becoming an
Peter immediately perceived his intention and said "You
have neither PART nor LOT in this matter" (Verse 21).
The true Apostles had been chosen after Christís death
to take PART in the apostleship by LOT (Acts 1:25, 26).
Peter was telling Simon he couldn't buy an APOSTLESHIP.
Luke is showing that Simon wanted to be one of the
APOSTLES -- a top man in the Christian Church. He was
after that office. After all Simon imagined himself to
be fully qualified to be an APOSTLE, especially over the
Samaritans since they already looked to him as the
greatest religious leader of the age. However, Peter
rebuked him sternly.
Peter perceived that Simon was
in the "gall of bitterness, and in the bond of
iniquity [lawlessness]" (Verse 23).
NOTE: This verse has been misunderstood because the King
James Version fails to give the full force of Peterís
accusation. This verse when understood in the manner
Peter intended, is one of the most important of the
whole chapter. IT IS A PROPHECY! Peter knew the mind of
this man and what this man was to become. This is made
plain by Sir William Ramsay in his Pictures of the
Apostolic Church, p. 60. He says: "Peter rebuked him in
strong and PROPHETIC TERMS. The PROPHECY is concealed in
the ordinary translation: the Greek means Ďthou art FOR
a gall of bitterness and a fetter of unrighteousness
[lawlessness]í, i.e., a cause of bitterness and
corruption to others."
This makes it plain. Peter was uttering a prophecy by
the Holy Spirit. He was telling what this Simon was to
become; Langeís Commentary says:
"Peterís words, literally, mean: ĎI regard you as a man
whose influence WILL BE like that of bitter gall
[poison] and a bond of unrighteousness [lawlessness],
or, as a man who has reached such a stateí." (Vol. 9, p.
Not only was Simon, in Peterís time, a great antagonist
to the Church, but he would be the adversary of the
This prophecy is the KEY that opens to our understanding
the ORIGINS of the heresies mentioned in the letters of
the Apostles. Peter clearly knew Simon wouldn't repent.
Verse 22 shows that in the original.
Gall of Bitterness Defined
It is also interesting to note Peterís statement that
Simon was to become a "gall of bitterness." People today
may not realize the exact meaning of such a phrase, but
no Jew in the First Century was in any doubt as to its
It was a figure of speech adopted from the Old Testament
which denoted going over to the idols and abominations
of the heathen. Read Deuteronomy 29:16-18 and see how
plainly this figure of speech is used. When the Apostle
Peter applied to Simon Magus the phrase "gall of
bitterness," he meant that Simon would be the
responsible party for the introduction of heathen
beliefs and idols into Christianity. The prophecy takes
on a new and important scope when we realize this real
meaning of Peterís prophecy.
No wonder Jude later says, speaking about the very men
who followed Simon Magus (including Simon himself): "For
there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before
of old ORDAINED to this condemnation" (Verse 4). We can
be confident that Peter recognized that Satan was going
to use this Simon Magus as the GREAT PROTAGONIST OF
The later history of Simon Magus shows that Peterís
prophecy came true in a most remarkable way.
Simon Magus Unrepentant
Even after Peterís strong
rebuke, Simon DID NOT REPENT! And Peter knew
that he wouldn't!
Conclusion: This means that Simon thought he deserved to
be an Apostle Ėif not the chief Apostle -- in the
Christian Church. He became baptized which, in a
physical way, made him ostentatiously a "member." It is
important to remember that he DID NOT REPENT of his
error. There is not the slightest hint that he gave up
believing that he had divine right to be an Apostle.
He deliberately continued in this error, with his later
followers Ėcalling himself "Christian"! It is because of
the later deceptive activities of this would-be Apostle
that Luke was compelled to show his ignominious
beginning and to reveal what Peter prophesied about him.
It is by identifying the real beginning of the great
false church system with this Simon that opens up a
whole new vista of understanding in regard to the
counterfeit Christianity which began even in the infancy
of the Church.
What Did Simon and the Samaritans
One of the most scholarly of early church historians was
Harnack, who wrote an extensive seven-volume work titled
The History of Dogma. This man is recognized as one of
the top authorities in the world on this subject.
He states: "Long before the appearance of Christianity,
combinations of religion had taken place in Syria and
Palestine, ESPECIALLY IN SAMARIA, insofar as the
ASSYRIAN and BABYLONIAN religious philosophy . . . with
its manifold interpretations, had penetrated as far as
the eastern shore of the Mediterranean" (Vol. 1, pp.
Notice he says the Babylonian religion had come
ESPECIALLY TO SAMARIA! !
And why not? The Samaritans were largely Babylonian by
race. The Bible tells us in II Kings 17:24 that most of
the Samaritans had been taken to Samaria from Babylon
and adjacent areas. Later on, Ezra informs us that
others who were mainly of Babylonian stock came to
Samaria (Ezra 4:9-10). These people amalgamated their
Babylonian religious beliefs with some of the teachings
from the Old Testament. But they NEVER DEPARTED
basically from their own Babylonian-Chaldean religious
If anyone doubts that these Samaritans practiced
outright paganism under the guise of YHVH worship, let
him read the extraordinarily clear indictments recorded
in the inspired Word of God (II Kings 17:24-41).
A Brief History of the Samaritans
There were originally five Babylonian tribes who had
been transported to the area where Northern Israel once
lived before Israelís inglorious defeat and captivity by
the Assyrians. When these five tribes moved INTO the
vacant land of Samaria, they brought their Babylonian
and Assyrian gods with them. After a short while in
their new country, they were ravaged by lions. They
interpreted this punishment as coming upon them because
they failed to honor the god of the new land -- not
realizing that there is only One Great GOD, who is not
confined to any one land. These Samaritans didn't have
sense enough to realize that the True God of the land
had sent Israel into captivity because of their
calf-worship and their introduction of Phoenician
They asked the Assyrian king to send back one of the
priests of Israel to teach them the former religion in
order that the plague of lions would be stayed.
The Israelitish priest who was sent to them taught the
religion of Northern Israel. Remember that the priests
of Northern Israel were NOT Levites. At the time of
Jeroboam, the true priests of God were forced to flee to
Jerusalem and Judea (II Chron. 11:14). Jeroboam set up
his own form of religion with the calves at Dan and
Bethel (I Kings 12:28-30). He moved the Holy Days from
the seventh to the eighth month. He made priests of the
lowest of the people, those who were NOT of Levi (I
All of these acts of Jeroboam were outright violations
of Godís law. It was from the time of Jeroboam down to
the time of Israelís captivity, that the majority of
Israel was NOT worshipping the True God at all!
Jerusalem and Godís temple had been repudiated, and
paganism had been introduced on a grand scale. When
these transplanted Babylonians who were being afflicted
by lions in Samaria asked for a priest of the former
people -- THEY GOT ONE!
But that priest was one of the former calf-worshipping
priests of the rebel Israelites. He was almost as pagan
as the Babylonians themselves!
This priest of Israel taught the Babylonians (now called
Samaritans) to adopt the former worship of the Northern
Israelites. The priest taught them to revere YHVH as the
"God of the Land." Thus, these Samaritans finally took
upon themselves the NAME: The People of YHVH; but their
religion was outright paganism -- a mixture of
Israelitish calf-worship and Babylonianism -- just as
Simon Magus later was eager to appropriate Christís
NAME, but continue his pagan abominations!
Notice what God says about the final condition of these
"So these nations feared the Lord [calling themselves
Godís people], AND served their graven images, both
their children, and their childrenís children: as did
their fathers [the Babylonians], so do they unto this
day" (II Kings 17:41).
These people called themselves the worshippers of the
True God, but were actually Babylonian idolaters.
What Deities Did the Samaritans Worship?
It will pay us to notice the gods and goddesses that
these forefathers of Simon Magus brought with them to
Samaria. The people from the City of Babylon adored
SUCCOTH-BENOTH; the Cuthites: NERGAL; the Hamathites:
ASHIMA; the Avites: NIBHAZ and TAR-TAK; the Sepharvites:
ADRAM-MELECH and ANAM-MELECH.
The first deity is SUCCOTH-BENOTH, a goddess. It was
Semiramis in the form of Venus. Listen to Jones in his
Proper Names of the O.T., p. 348. He says the name
signifies "Tabernacles of daughters." It means: "Chapels
made of green boughs, which the men of Babylon, who had
been transported into Samaria, erected in honor to
Venus, and where their daughters were PROSTITUTED by the
devotees of that abominable goddess. It was the custom
of Babylon, the mother of harlots, and therefore HER
SONS DID THE SAME THING IN SAMARIA." What about the god
NERGAL of Cuth? We are informed by McClintock and
Strongí s Encyclopedia that the name signifies "the
great man," "the great hero" or "the god of the chase,"
i.e., the Hunter. In other words, as the Encyclopedia
further points out, he was a form of NIMROD. This
Hunter-god was honored by the people of CUTH for Arabian
tradition tells us that CUTH was the special city of
NIMROD (vol. VI, p. 950).
The next god was that of Hamath: ASHIMA. Jones shows us
that he was the great pagan god of propitiation, i.e.,
the god who bore the guilt of his worshippers (p. 42).
This god was the pagan REDEEMER -- the OSIRIS of
Egyptian fame or the dying NIMROD.
The Avites worshipped NIBHAZ (masc. -- the god of HADES)
and TAR-TAK, "the mother of the gods". This
last-mentioned goddess was supposedly the Mother of the
Assyrian race, or, as Jones says, she was SEMIRAMIS (see
The fifth Babylonian tribe worshiped pre-eminently two
gods. ADRAM-MELECH and ANAM-MELECH. The first was the
"god of fire," the Sun or the Phoenician Baal (Jones, p.
14); the second was "the god of the flocks" or the Greek
HERMES, the Good Shepherd (p. 32).
(It is self-evident that these gods and goddesses were
the major Babylonian deities, and at the same time, the
very gods and goddesses which the Roman Catholic Church
deifies today as Christ, Mary, etc.)
Simon Magus grew up in this mixed-up society. The
Samaritans called themselves the people of the True God,
but religiously were practicing Babylonians. Simon
himself was a priest of these people (the word "Magus"
is the Chaldean/Persian word for "priest"). Thus, in the
encounter of Peter with Simon Magus, we find the first
real connection of true Christianity with the Chaldean
priest who was prophesied to bring in its false
Next, we will see how Simon Magus managed to startle the
Roman world with his plan to bring in one universal
religion under the guise of Christianity.
Simon Magus Begins
History comes alive with the startling story of how
Simon Magus -- branded a FALSE PROPHET by the book of
Acts -- established HIS OWN UNIVERSAL church! SIMON
MAGUS was a Babylonian priest. He was a part of the
Babylonian community that had been living in the land of
Northern Israel ever since the Northern Ten Tribes were
carried away captive by the Assyrians. God tells us that
these Samaritans, as they were called, were claiming to
be the true people of God while at the same time
practicing many heathen rites which came directly from
Babylon (II Kings 17:41).
This was the type of religious environment in which
Simon Magus was born. This was the environment in which
he commenced his own ministry and was finally proclaimed
the "great one . . . the great power of God" Ė that is,
God Himself (Acts 8:9-10).
He so swayed the whole of the Samaritan nation that all
gave heed to him -- they did for a very long time
(Verses 9-11). But when he saw the potential of
Christianity, he endeavored to buy an apostleship in the
Church. Peter rebuked him sternly.
Simon Magus and HIS Universal Church
Simon Magus, after his rejection by Peter, began to
fashion his own "Christian" church -- a church of which
HE was head -- a church designed to completely overthrow
the True Church of God. His idea was to blend together
Babylonian teaching with some of the teachings of Christ
-- especially to take the name of Christ -- and thus
create ONE UNIVERSAL CHURCH! But a church with
Babylonianism as its basis.
Harnack, a church historian, states that Simon Magus
"proclaimed a doctrine in which the Jewish faith was
strangely and grotesquely mixed with BABYLONIAN myths,
together with some Greek additions. The mysterious
worship . . . in consequence of the widened horizon and
the deepening religious feeling, finally the wild
SYNCRETISM [that is, blending together of religious
beliefs], whose aim WAS A UNIVERSAL RELIGION, all
contributed to gain adherents for Simon" (Vol. 1, p.
Simon can be classified among the major group of
so-called Christians (and Simon called himself such),
called by Harnack the: "decidedly anti-Jewish groups . .
. . They advanced much further in the criticism of the
Old Testament and perceived the impossibility of saving
it [that is, the Old Testament] for the Christian
UNIVERSAL RELIGION. They rather connected this
[universal] religion with the cultus-wisdom of BABYLON
and SYRIA" (VoI. 1, p. 246).
With this background, we can understand why Peter so
strongly rebuked Simon for his Babylonian ideas. Peter
prophesied that this was the man who was to be the "gall
of bitterness, and bond of iniquity" to the True Church.
Simoní s attitude was corrupt in the extreme!
The Bible shows he had been working through demons. And
yet, he finally called himself a "Christian." Dr.
McGiffert, speaking of Simon Magus, says: "His effort to
rival and surpass Jesus very likely began after his
contact with the Christians that Luke records. His
religious system was apparently a SYNCRETISM of Jewish
and Oriental elements" (Hastingís Dictionary of the
Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 497).
Simonís Later Activities
To read all the material that the writers of the second
to the fourth centuries wrote about this man and his
followers, would literally take days. He has been called
by many of them "the father of HERESY," and, apart from
the Bible, the amount of literature devoted to him and
his activities, shows he lived up to that title. Some of
the following authorities to be brought forth were
eyewitnesses of many of the things mentioned, and they
were writing to others who were likewise eyewitnesses.
Much of the testimony to be mentioned is conclusive and
cannot be set aside.
With this evidence of Simonís activities after his
rejection by Peter, we will clearly be able to see why
Luke thought it most important to tell the real
condition of this man, proving that he was in actuality
NEVER an Apostle of Christ. In this regard, notice the
comment of Hastingís Dictionary of the Apostolic Church,
Vol. 2, p. 496: "But it need NOT be supposed that when
Simon broke with the Christians HE RENOUNCED ALL HE HAD
LEARNED. It is more probable that he carried some of the
Christian ideas with him, and that he wove these into a
system of his own. This system did contain some of the
later germs of Gnosticism. Thus he became a leader of a
retro-grade sect, perhaps nominally Christian, and
certainly using some of the Christian terminology but in
reality anti-Christian and exalting Simon himself to the
central position which Christianity was giving to Jesus
Simon Magus Blends Paganism With
What Simon did was to bring the Babylonian and Greek
religious beliefs into a form of Christianity in order
to bring about, as Harnack says, a UNIVERSAL [Catholic]
"The amalgam of paganism and Christianity which was
characteristic of Gnosticism, and which was especially
obvious in the Simonian system, is readily explicable in
the teaching of Simon Magus, who, according to the story
in Acts, was brought into intimate contact with
Christian teaching without becoming a genuine member"
(Ibid., p. 496).
We further find in Schaffís History of the Church a
reference to this Simon Magus. He says: "The author, or
first representative of this baptized HEATHENISM,
according to the uniform testimony of Christian
antiquity, is Simon Magus, who unquestionably
adulterated Christianity with pagan ideas and practices,
and gave himself out, in a pantheistic style for an
emanation of God" (Apostolic Christianity), Vol. 2, p.
Simon only used the name of Christianity to bring about
his own desired ends. The Dictionary of Religion and
Ethics says that Simon was "a false Messiah, who
practiced magical arts and subsequently attempted, by
the aid and with the sanction of Christianity, to set up
a rival UNIVERSAL [Catholic] RELIGION" (Vol. 11, p.
Again, what do the histories tell us Simonís doctrines
consisted of primarily?
"Two independent traditions profess to preserve the
teaching of Simon, the one betraying the influence of
Alexandrian allegory, the other of Syrian and Babylonian
religion" (Dictionary of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 11,
It is no wonder that Luke hits hard at the infamy of
Simon -- for Simon claimed to be a Christian -- even an
Apostle -- and yet was preaching Babylonian paganism. HE
WAS CALLING PAGANISM BY THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY!
"Evidently the Simonian heresy always had a Christian
tinge. This made it more dangerous to Christians than a
gnostic which did not affect any Christian influence.
Luke therefore would be anxious to disclose the true
circumstances that accounted for the origin of the sect
-- circumstances highly discreditable to Simon"
(Hastingís Bible Dictionary, p. 498).
The reason Luke recorded this encounter with Simon was
its far-reaching effects. As Hastingís explains, the
important reason was that of "Lukeís well-known plan of
describing THE FIRST MEETING between Christianity and
rival systems" (Ibid., p. 498).
Luke gives in detail the principal character who
established the so-called Christian counterpart of the
Truth in the Apostlesí days. This is the reason the
Apostles in their Church letters many times mention the
false system as ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, but fail to
describe its origin. They didn't have to. That was
already done RIGHT AT THE FIRST by Luke!
Who History Says This Simon Became!
"When Justin Martyr wrote [152 A.D.] his Apology, the
sect of the Simonians appears to have been formidable,
for he speaks four times of their founder, Simon; and we
need not doubt that he identified him with the Simon of
the Acts. He states that he was a Samaritan, adding that
his birthplace was a village called Gitta; he describes
him as a formidable magician, and tells that he came to
ROME in the days of Claudius Caesar (45 A.D.), and made
such an impression by his magical powers, THAT HE WAS
HONORED AS A GOD, a statue being erected to him on the
Tiber, between the two bridges, bearing the inscription
ĎSimoni deo Sanctoí (i.e., the holy god Simon)"
(Dictionary of Christian Biography, Vol. 4, p. 682).
That these things actually happened CANNOT BE DOUBTED!
Justin was writing to the Roman people at the time and
they could certainly have exposed Justinís credulity if
what he said was not so. And, that a statue of Simon was
actually erected is definite, for Justin asks the
authorities in Rome to destroy it!
There are many writers, who lived in Rome itself, who
afterwards repeated Justinís account. Those who want to
reject these clear statements have nothing in their
favor. Justin is clearly giving us fact!
Hastingís Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol 2, p.
496, states that there is "very slight evidence on which
to reject so precise a statement as Justin makes; a
statement he would scarcely have hazarded in an apology
addressed to Rome, where every person had the means of
ascertaining its accuracy. If he made a mistake, it must
have been at once exposed, and other writers would not
have frequently repeated the story as they have done."
At the time of Claudius, it was illegal to erect a
statue to any man as a god or greatly honored person
unless the permission of the Emperor and the Senate had
been secured. The statue was still standing in Justinís
day (152 A.D.), people were still giving regard to it.
There are many other accounts of Simonís traveling to
Rome and becoming one of the great gods to the city and
to the people of Rome. There are records which show that
Simon "prophesies that Rome will be the scene of his
crowning glory, when he will be adored as a god"
(Dictionary of Religion & Ethics, Vol. 11, p. 522).
Simon Peter NOT With
Simon Magus in Rome
Later, about the fourth century, a flood of works came
out about Peter encountering Simon Magus in Rome and
overthrowing him. But these works are clearly fiction.
Almost all scholars realize the absurdity of maintaining
such a thing. In the first place, it can be Biblically
shown that Peter The Apostle was NEVER in Rome when
these fictitious writings say he should be.
It was NOT Simon Peter who went to Rome to become
Apostle to the Gentiles, but the SIMON in Rome was SIMON
That Peter the Apostle was not with Simon Magus in Rome
is made plain by the Encyclopedia Biblica, col. 4554.
"The attempt has been made to meet this by pointing out
that church fathers mention the presence of SIMON in
Rome while at the same time NOT speaking of
controversies between him and PETER. This is indeed true
of Justin [one of the earliest witnesses -- 152 A.D.]
who knows nothing of any presence of Peter in Rome at
all, as also of Irenaeus."
Not only did Justin feel that Peter was NOT in Rome at
the time, but his deliberate silence shows he didn't
want to perpetrate such fiction. After all, Justin lived
very early in the history of the church, and the legend
of the Apostle Peterís being in Rome HADNíT GOT STARTED
YET! Continuing with the Encyclopedia Biblica about
Justinís reference to SIMON MAGUS: "One part of this
tradition -- that about Simonís presence in Rome -- he
[Justin] found himself able to accept [in fact he held
it to be confirmed by the statue, which he brought into
connection with Simon]; the other -- that about Peterí s
presence in Rome -- he was unable to accept" (col.
Of course Justin was unable to accept the latter
teaching. The fact is, Simon Peter was NOT in Rome. It
was another Simon who went there -- SIMON MAGUS, the one
bringing "Christianity" to them in the guise of the old
Babylonian mystery religions. Simon came to Rome with
the grand idea of stablishing a UNIVERSAL RELIGION in
the NAME of Christianity! And what is remarkable, he did
Next, we will see how Simon Magus became later confused
with Simon Peter and how he cleverly brought into
"Christianity" the mystery religions of Babylon.
Peter Was NOT The
Here are TEN solid, Biblical proofs that Peter was not
at Rome. Mark each in your Bible and understand them
well, so YOU will not be deceived.
THE PRIMACY of the Roman Catholic Church depends upon
one fundamental doctrine: the claim that Peter was the
first Bishop of Rome and the founder of the Roman
The teaching of Catholic historians tells us that Simon
Peter went to Rome at the same time as Simon Magus in
order to thwart his evils. This was during the reign of
Claudius. After successfully combating the Magus, they
tell us, Peter assumed the Roman bishopric and ruled it
until the Neronian persecutions of 68 A.D., during which
Peter was supposed to have been crucified upside down on
Vatican hill. This is the basic story and Catholic
writers never shirk in attempting to defend it. Some of
them say that this general account is one of the most
provable of historical events. But is it?
The fact remains, many ecclesiastical authors of the
second century, Justin Martyr among them, give
information completely negating Peterís supposed Roman
bishopric. This is admitted by virtually all scholars Ė
except conservative Catholics (Ency. Biblica, col.
4554). But, more important than this, the records of the
True Church of God -- the writings of the New Testament
-- absolutely refute the Roman Catholic claim.
It is time that the world gets its eyes open to the
truth of this matter -- the truth, which is clearly
revealed in the Word of God. The Apostle Peter was NEVER
the Bishop of Rome!
The Bible Teaching
There are ten major New Testament proofs which
completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome
from the time of Claudius until Nero. These Biblical
points speak for themselves and ANY ONE of them is
sufficient to prove the ridiculousness of the Catholic
claim. Notice what God tells us! The truth IS
PROOF ONE: We should consider Christís commission to
Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics,
because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief
minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised
"The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He
that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of
the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the
Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8).
Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was
Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief
Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the
Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASNíT Peter!
"And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to
be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or
office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and
Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should
go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision"
Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile
Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a
preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the
PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles!
This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head
of a Gentile community.
PROOF TWO: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans
that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter.
"I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the
Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the
offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom.
Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter.
He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was
Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles
obedient, by word and deed."
PAUL Established Only TRUE Church at Rome
PROOF THREE: We are told by Paul himself that it was he
-- not Peter Ėwho was going to officially found the
Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto
you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be
established" (Rom. 1:11).
Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED
officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics
would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten
years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense!
Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul
established the Catholic Church! But these proofs are
given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for
PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church
PROOF FOUR: We find Paul not only wanting to establish
the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that
his policy was NEVER to build upon another manís
foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the
gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD
UPON ANOTHER MANíS FOUNDATION" (Rom. 15:20).
If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years
before this statement, this represents a real affront to
Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had
never been in Rome before this time to "found" any
Peter Not in Rome
PROOF FIVE: At the end of Paulís Epistle to the Romans
he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but
never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 -- read the
Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why
didn'tít he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasnít there!
PROOF SIX: Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he
was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand
trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in
Rome heard of Paulís arrival, they all went to meet him.
"When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to
meet us" (Acts 28:15).
Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among
them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been
in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important
Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing
of Peterís meeting with Paul.
Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!
PROOF SEVEN: When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the
first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews
together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and
testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23).
But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders
claimed they knew very little even about the basic
teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ĎĎas
concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is
spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain
to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of
God. Some believed -- the majority didn'tít.
Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter,
who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been
preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before
this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish
leaders have known so little about even the basic truths
This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome
prior to 59 A.D.
No Mention of Peter in Paulís Letters
PROOF EIGHT: After the rejection of the Jewish elders,
Paul remained in his own hired house for two years.
During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the
Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the
Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome
during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The
obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision
PROOF NINE: With the expiration of Paulís two yearís
imprisonment, he was released. But about four years
later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner
to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of
Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these
circumstances at length in II Timothy.
In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II
"At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men
[in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid
to their charge."
This means, if we believe the Catholics, that Peter
forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much
present at Rome during this time! Peter once denied
Christ, but that was before he was converted. To believe
that Peter was in Rome during Paulís trial, is
PROOF TEN: The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that
Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though
Catholics say he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me"
(II Tim. 4:11).
The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had
been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles
FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but
at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me."
Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!
Where Was Peter?
Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at
Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in
Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council.
About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got
into differences with Paul because he wouldn't sit or
eat with Gentiles.
Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do
with Gentiles in 51 A.D.!
Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of
Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that
Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED.
Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there
were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christís
time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find
him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars
writings are strongly Aramaic in
flavor -- the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of
course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect.
At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome,
the Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. The evidence
is abundant and conclusive. By Paying attention to Godís
own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the
Bishop of Rome! PAPAL
SUCCESSION IS NOT FROM PETER!
Elevating his personal teachings above the Bible, and
preaching a "no-works" doctrine of salvation, Simon
Magus soon had a universal, popular following.
Deified by the Romans, he was buried on Vatican Hill.
Read how it happened in this article.
SIMON Magus, just like his Samaritan forefathers,
deliberately blended together the teachings of Babylon
with Biblical phrases.
One of his main intentions was to appropriate a
Christian vocabulary to the Babylonian ceremonial
system. In other words, he kept on with his heathenism,
but now called his system "Christian" in origin.
To legitimately introduce paganism into the Church he
had to explain away many passages in the Old Testament
which forbade idolatry and contact with the abominations
of the heathen. This he quite cleverly did. His primary
method of explaining the Old Testament was to allegorize
Magus Degrades the Bible
If this wasnít sufficient to explain it away, he would
repudiate it as being of less value than the present
will of God which was supposedly being revealed to him.
In fact, he got to the place of doing away altogether
with the Old Testament by teaching that its doctrines
were meant to enslave people and that its commandments
were too grievous to bear. "Irenaeus states that Simon
taught, that the Jewish prophecies [the Old Testament]
were inspired by the creator angels; therefore, those
who had hope in him and Helen NEED NOT ATTEND TO THEM,
BUT FREELY DO AS THEY WOULD; for that men should be
saved according to his grace, and not by any intrinsic
quality of their own, but by the accident of these being
ordered by these creator angels WHO HAD MERELY WISHED TO
ENSLAVE THOSE WHO HEARD THEM" (Dict. Of Christian
Biography, vol. 4, p. 683).
The Dict. of Religion and Ethics had this to say about
this cardinal doctrine of SIMON PATER. "Simon taught
that the precepts of the law and the prophets were
inspired by angels [lesser beings] in the desire to
reduce men to slavery, but those who believed in him and
Helen, since they were delivered from the sinister
tyranny of the law, were free to act as they would. For
men are saved by grace and not by good works. The
antinomianism of the Simonians issued in LIBERTINE
conduct and A COMPROMISE WITH HEATHENISM" (vol. 11, p.
Letís go on. "But he [Simon] promised that the world
should be dissolved, and that those who were his own
should be redeemed. And accordingly, HIS PRIESTS,
Irenaeus tells us [yes, Simon established a priesthood],
led lascivious lives, used magic and incantations, made
philtres, HAD FAMILIAR SPIRITS by whose aid they were
able to trouble with dreams those whom they would.
They had IMAGES of Simon and Helen, in the forms
respectively of JUPITER and MINERVA" (Dict. of Christian
Biography, vol. 4, p. 683).
Simon Honored as Jupiter
People who had demonistic powers as Simon did, were
honoured as gods in the first century -- even sacrifices
were offered to them. Does this seem unlikely? Then read
Acts 14:11-13. After seeing the great miracles that Paul
and Barnabas had done through the Holy Spirit, Luke
says: "When the people saw what Paul had done, they
lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of
Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness
of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul,
Mercury." Then the priest of Jupiter came out to offer
Paul and Barnabas "rent their clothes" at such action.
What would SIMON MAGUS have done? Or rather, what did
Simon Magus do? He let the Roman Senate with the
approval of the Emperor Claudius deify him as a god and
erect a statue to him. And, the people who followed
SIMON called him JUPITER --at the same time calling
themselves Christians. The statue that must have been
dedicated to Simon was in the likeness of the chief god
of the pagan world -- the god that desolated the Holy
Place in Godís temple Ė Jupiter Capitolinus.
The Hebrews honoured and regarded the number seven as
recorded in Godís law -- that is, kept the seventh day,
the seven holy days, etc., -- but Simon and his
followers made a distinct change and honoured the number
eight instead (i.e. the eighth day -- which becomes the
first day of the week). (See Ante-Nicean Fathers, vol.
7, p. 379.)
The Death of Simon Magus
The records regarding Simonís death vary widely. Many of
the stories try to incorporate some fiction from the
Greek and Egyptian myths to enhance the readerís
interest in this fascinating character. But the earliest
records say that he was buried in Rome after a long
period of great honour and deification.
It is not clearly known where Simon Magus alias Simon
Pater or Simon Jupiter was buried. But this much is
known. The place of burial for ALL prophets and holy men
of the Romans was in the sacred cemetery on Vatican
Hill. This much is certain.
Notice what Werner Keller in his The Bible as History
says about the so-called burial of the Catholicsí Peter.
(Before reading Kellerís statement, let us remember that
he is a thorough-going Catholic and firmly, himself,
believed that the Apostle Peter was buried in Rome.
However, the Bible shows nothing of the kind. Now, letís
read Kellerís comment Ė the official comment of the
Roman Catholic Church):
"On the night of his death on the cross Peterís
followers BURIED his body. As in the case of Jesus on
the hill of Calvary it was wrapped in linen and secretly
taken to a PAGAN BURIAL GROUND on the Via Cornelia,
behind the stone structure of the arena. This PAGAN
CEMETERY lay on a knoll called VATICANUS: the Latin word
Ďvatisí means a Ďprophetí or ĎSOOTHSAYERí. In days gone
by there had been an Etruscan oracle on this spot" (p.
What an admission!
Keller ought to have better sense to know that this
Peter buried in this cemetery, of all places, could NOT
be the Apostle Peter. In the first place, Peter was a
Jew, and they had to be buried in their own cemeteries.
And even if by a happen-chance a Jew could be buried in
a Roman cemetery, it is most unlikely that a Jew --
especially one who attacked the Roman religion as the
Apostle Peter did -- would ever have been allowed into
the most holy of pagan cemeteries! This cemetery was
reserved for prophets, soothsayers and the great ones of
pagan Rome. It would be as sensible to say that Hitler
could find a place of burial in Westminster Abbey. And
too, can you imagine TRUE Christians searching out a
PAGAN CEMETERY -- the chief one Ė in which to bury the
chief Christian Apostle, the inveterate enemy of
This place, of all places, could not be the place of the
Apostle Peterís burial -- even if he had been in Rome.
But, there is really no better place for the burial of
SIMON MAGUS. He had been, and was being, honoured as a
god -- not only by the people of Rome, but even by the
Emperor and the Senate.
Yes, Keller and his Catholic friends have undoubtedly
found a SIMON, but not the Apostle Peter.
Catholic Church Accepts SIMON MAGUSí
We have the record of history which tells us that
Simonís teaching spread like wildfire -- especially in
Rome where he was honoured as a god. In fact, after
going there he made that city his headquarters. But let
us recall that the followers of Simon called themselves
Simon steadfastly adhered to this. In fact, it finally
became the desired name for his followers to use. The
names Simonians and Samaritans began to die out in the
2nd century A.D. Justin tells us that some were still
going by the parent name in his day (152 A.D.). But by
the time of Origen (220 A.D.), he states that there were
hardly 30 people in the world which went by the parent
name. Yet Eusebius, who lived about 100 years later,
said they were indeed still numerous all over the world.
The fact is, they were divorcing themselves from the use
of the name SIMON or Samaritans because by the fourth
century their names were beginning to have an odious
connotation to them. Nonetheless the Simonians were very
much around -- this time with the name of "Christian."
And we have the exact testimony of Eusebius himself (325
A.D.) that these people were flocking into the Catholic
Notice what Eusebius says, after stating that Simon
Magus in the days of the Apostles received baptism and
feigned Christian belief: "And what is more surprising,
the same thing IS DONE EVEN TO THIS DAY by those who
follow HIS most impure heresy. For they, after the
manner of their forefather, SLIPPING INTO THE CHURCH,
like a pestilential and leprous disease GREATLY AFFLICT
THOSE [a great number of people] into whom they are able
to infuse the deadly and terrible poison concealed in
themselves" (Eccl. Hist., II, ch. I, sect. 12).
This is amazing testimony, for Eusebius is telling us
that these people were now "Christians" and that they
were corrupting the entire church as a pestilential
disease which hits the whole body. Eusebius later
maintains that the chief troublemakers were being
expelled from the Catholic Church. But how could they
expel all of them? Almost the whole church by this time
It is not to be supposed that all of the early heretical
sects were direct branches of the Simon Magus religion.
By the end of the first century there were at least 50
minor sects. The Simon Magus group represented several
of these sects, but not all of them. The truth is, the
Simonians, whose headquarters were at Rome, finally
absorbed ALL these minor sects by the fifth century.
Simonism IS Catholicism
It is also true that even some of the Catholics (in
Eusebiusí time) were unwilling to go all the way and
accept the SIMON MAGUS doctrines of IMAGES, PICTURES,
INCANTATIONS, etc., but within another hundred years,
history shows the bars were let down completely.
But in Eusebiusí day, he even balked at their bringing
outright images into the churches and worshiping them.
Notice what he finally says of these "Christians" of
SIMON: "Simon was the author of all heresy. From his
time down to the present those who have followed his
heresy have FEIGNED the sober philosophy of the
Christians, which is celebrated among all on account of
its purity of life. But they nevertheless have embraced
again the superstitions of idols, which they seemed
[ostentatiously] to have renounced; and they fall down
before pictures and images of Simon himself and of the
above-mentioned Helena who was with him [that is, the
images of JUPITER and MINERVA -- the Catholics do
exactly this today]; and they venture to worship them
with incense and sacrifices and libations" (Eccl. Hist.
II, 13, 6).
What clear and revealing statements! Eusebius is not
talking about what he considers distinct heretics
outside the Catholic Church. He is talking about the
MAJOR group IN THAT CHURCH which was continually adding
more and more on a large scale. He attributes these
evils to the "Christians" who followed SIMON MAGUS. They
were so active in his day INSIDE THE CHURCH as to give
him grave concern.
But what happened?
Did the few Catholic leaders of the fourth century who
abhorred outright IDOLATRY manage to persuade the masses
to give it up and turn away from the SIMONIANS (now
called Christians) who were the cause of it all?
The answer from history is NO!
The Simonian "Christians" won out. Imagery, idolatry and
paganism Ė became the Universal Church just as planned
in the very beginning by SIMON MAGUS
-- or by the Devil who possessed him.
Can we now understand why God, through Luke, devotes a
whole section of Acts to warn us of this manís origin.
He was NEVER a part of the Church of God, NEVER!! But
he, and his followers -- from clear history -- have
succeeded in bringing in their UNIVERSAL religion -- a
pagan blend, called "Christian"!
Magus Counterfeit Marked Throughout New Testament
WHILE the book of Acts gives us the KEY which shows the
beginnings of the false religious system under Simon
Magus, it does not describe its activities in any great
detail. The Acts, however, performs its purpose in
exposing who started the whole mess. God leaves it to
the epistles, Revelation, and also the Gospel of John to
describe the heresy IN DETAIL. We are certainly NOT left
in doubt concerning its abominable teachings.
The Chief Books of Expose
There is hardly an epistle that does not mention the
religion of Simon Magus. Even the scholars who have
studied Church History have clearly seen that almost ALL
of the references in the New Testament epistles exposing
the errors in the first age of the Church are directed
exclusively to Simon Magus, or his immediate followers.
Schaff's History of the Church says the following about
Simon Magus and his doctrines: "Plain traces of this
error appear in the later epistles of Paul (to the
Colossians, to Timothy, and to Titus), the second
epistle of Peter, the first two epistles of John, the
epistle of Jude, and the messages of the Apocalypse to
the seven Churches."
"This heresy, in the second century, spread over the
whole church, east and west, in the various schools of
Gnosticism" (Apostolic Christianity, vol. 2, p. 556).
But to single out the one Apostle who seems to have made
the most deliberate and planned attack on the false
Christianity of Simon Magus -- we must look to John.
Take his Gospel for instance. While he records a history
of Christ's ministry, he has an entirely different
approach to the subject than the other three.
John wrote late. Times had changed. John knew that the
teachings of Christ were being corrupted by a well-known
plot to destroy the TRUTH. To understand John's approach
to his Gospel we must be aware of his endeavour to
expose this false system which had arisen and was
Notice how John constantly hits at the necessity of
keeping the commandments of God. Why? Because the false
system was preaching LIBERTINE doctrines.
Notice also John's particular geographical settings for
his Gospel. He was the one who mentions Christ's meeting
with the woman of Samaria. John is clearly striking home
at something in this Samaritan incident that the Church
of his time NEEDED to know.
All the other Gospels mention SAMARIA about five times,
and even then only casually or in order to give a simple
geographical indication. But, when we get to John,
writing years after the others, he devotes more space to
matters in SAMARIA than is done in all the rest of the
New Testament put together. He had a definite and
precise REASON for doing so.
John is noted for his plan of "tying up" or "capping
off" the Gospel accounts of Christ so as to give the
Church a well-rounded Gospel -- bringing in the extra
points which were necessary for our knowing.
Also, John's epistles are jam-packed with specific
information regarding the conspiracy to overthrow the
Truth. But yet, none of these works of John mentioned
above represent his LAST efforts to warn the Church of
that conspiracy which was very much present. John's last
witness to God's Church before his death was the book of
Christ gave His last written message of WARNING of this
system through John in Revelation! He tells us
specifically the VERY NAMES OF THE SYSTEM TO WATCH in a
remarkable and hidden way. Hidden, and yet SO PLAIN once
the KEYS are understood. God certainly does NOT leave
His Church in the dark.
The Book of Revelation
This book is perhaps the most important towards our
study of SIMON MAGUS' Christianity. Why? Three clear-cut
1. The book of Acts gives us the PAST history of the
Church. It tells us about Simon Magus who started the
false system. Without the book of Acts identifying the
MAN behind it all, the activities of that false system
as recorded in the epistles becomes obscured and in some
So, the book of Acts is vitally important! !
2. The epistles then come on the scene, describing the
false system. With the epistles, the incident of SIMON
MAGUS in Acts represents dynamite!!
Each section of Scripture is designed to fulfill
specific duties. It is when we understand those duties
that the Bible really makes sense.
3. Now to the all-important book of Revelation. While
Acts describes the beginning of the false system; the
epistles nail down its doctrines and describe its
activities; the Book of Revelation next comes to the
foreground showing the false system's PROPHETIC HISTORY
THROUGH ALL ERAS OF THE CHURCH. We must remember that
Revelation intends to show us "things which shall be
hereafter." This is its duty -- and it marvelously
performs what it was intended to do.
The Seven Churches of Revelation
This section of Revelation gives a big KEY. It describes
a brief prophetic history of the Church until the coming
of Christ. But also -- and this is important -- it
continually shows the false system with which the TRUE
Church would come in contact. Though different names are
used to describe the corrupters of the Truth, careful
study shows Christ is referring to ONE general false
system -- perhaps with ramifications, but nevertheless
ONE system which will counter the True Church in its
And in regard to this, Christ tells us in the plainest
of words what people it will be, who represent this
false system. He tells us it will be SAMARITANS! That
is, it will be Samaritans, alias Christians or, plainly,
the followers of SIMON MAGUS!
Christ gives us double witness of this identification in
a most remarkable way. What He tells us in Acts of SIMON
MAGUS being the beginning of the diabolical scheme, He
reinforces by telling us in Revelation that Simon's
followers will make up the false system until Christ
returns to this earth. Remember that Dr. Schaff,
speaking of Simon Magus, says that "plain traces of this
error appear in . . . the messages of the Apocalypse to
the seven Churches."
But before seeing these clear references, I must say
that the material to follow would have been in the past
classified as ABSURD in the extreme, but recent
discoveries put a whole new complexion on the matter.
Let us see.
Christ identifies the people behind the false system
with several names, but these are simply different names
of the same system. Notice this. In two distinct AGES of
the Church we read of these people with a distinct
"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan,
which say they are Jews, and are not, but do LIE;
behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy
feet" (Rev. 3:9).
This is a promise for US today in the Philadelphia
Church. We also read of these false people called by
this same name afflicting the Christians of the Smyrna
church era (Rev. 2:9). The identification is repeated
TWICE and both are describing conditions hundreds of
years apart. Now the question remains:
WHO ARE INTENDED? The answer is so clear. They are
Samaritan-Christians, that is, the followers of SIMON
MAGUS the Samaritan!
Look again at this verse ". . . . which say they are
Jews, and are not, but do LIE. . . . "
If we would take that expression out of its Biblical
context and, for example, place it into an ordinary
secular work written in the first century, that
expression could IDENTIFY only one people -- and
especially if a Jew was doing the writing: THE
The Samaritans were the only distinct people in the
world in the first and second centuries who said they
were Jews, and yet were NOT Jews and they knew it. The
Samaritans were LIARS!!
Notice what Josephus said at the end of the first
century -- just about the time John wrote Revelation. He
is speaking of the Samaritan nation: "When the Jews are
in adversity they [the Samaritans] deny that they are
kin to them, and THEN THEY CONFESS THE TRUTH; but when
they perceive that some good fortune hath befallen them,
they immediately PRETEND to have commune with them,
saying, that they belong to them, and desire their
genealogy from the posterity of Joseph, Ephraim, and
Manasseh" (Antiquities, XI, 8, 6).
This is plain history! The Samaritans, if to their
advantage, called themselves Jews. But they were LIARS!
They knew better. Their own records showed they came
from Babylon and adjacent areas. This is exactly what
the Old Testament says. They were clearly Gentiles.
Josephus continues about these Samaritans: "And when
they see the Jews in prosperity, they PRETEND they are
changed and allied to them, and call them kinsmen, as
though they were derived from Joseph, and had by that
means an original alliance with them; but when they see
them falling into a low condition, they say that they
are no way related to them, and that the Jews have no
right to expect any kindness or marks of KINDRED from
them, but they declare that they are sojourners, that
come from OTHER countries" (Antiquities, IX, 14, 3).
Now this should begin to make sense. At the time of
Simon Magus it was clearly an advantage to the Samaritan
followers of Simon (and Simon himself) to call
themselves JEWS. Why? ALL the prophecies stated that
Christ and Christianity would come from the Jews. There
was no way around this. So Simon went over to the
time-honored custom of his Babylonian ancestors and
contemporaries of calling themselves Jews WHEN IT WAS TO
The Jews, however, never had any real association with
these Babylonian imposters. Even when Christ discussed
matters with the Samaritan woman at the well, she
acknowledged -- with amazement because Christ, a Jew,
talked with her -- that "the Jews have no dealings with
the Samaritans" (John 4:9).
But even though the Samaritans were Gentiles, they
consistently lied about their origin when it was
profitable to them.
Notice that the woman at the well carried on the fiction
of kinship with the Jews when she said, "Art thou
greater than OUR father Jacob, which gave us the well?"
(John 4:12). They claimed to be a type of Jew, but they
This is made plain by Christ Himself when He first sent
forth the twelve. He charged them: "Go not into the way
of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans
enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel" (Matt. 10:5, 6).
Pretty plain, isn't it? The Apostles were to go to the
Jews and Israel -- but not to the Gentiles or
Samaritans. The Samaritans were plainly Gentiles -- NOT
With the foregoing in mind, let us now go back to the
two identifying scriptures in Revelation. The whole
matter becomes so plain when the KEY about Simon Magus
and the Samaritan-Christian heresy is realized. "Behold,
I will make them of the synagogue of Satan [inspired by
Satan himself], which say they are Jews, and are NOT,
but do LIE; behold, I will make them to come and worship
before thy feet" (Rev. 3:9).
The synagogue of Satan are those "Samaritan-Christians"
-- the followers of Simon Magus.
The phrase "which say they are Jews, and are not, but do
lie" could easily be set off by brackets, for that is
the way John intended it. He meant only one people --
the "Christian" Samaritans.
The Other Churches of Revelation Two and
When we now look at the other indications about this
heretical system, the Simon Magus (and followers)
identification becomes exact. Look, for example, at the
Ephesus Church era. Notice the group they had to
counter. "And thou hast tried them WHICH SAY THEY ARE
APOSTLES, and are NOT, and hast found them LIARS" (Rev.
Now, if we let the Bible be our guide in understanding
this matter, it shows only one man who heretically
sought an APOSTLESHIP and never repented of His desire
to have that office -- it was Simon Magus. History shows
us that Simon established his own "Christianity" with
his own apostles.
And also, notice this important point. Compare the
statements about the Samaritans -- "Which say they are
JEWS, and are NOT, but do LIE" (Rev. 3:9) -- with our
present scripture under discussion "which say they are
APOSTLES, and are NOT, and hast found them LIARS" (Rev.
The only differences are the words "JEWS" and
"APOSTLES." But -- if we get the point at which John is
driving -- he is saying that these people were calling
themselves JEWISH APOSTLES, but that they were all
The Female Counterpart of Simon
It is well-known that the history of Simon and his
religion is connected with the old Babylonian idea of
the male and female religious principles.
Simonís Helen (alias Semiramis) figured high in his
It would seem odd if the book of Revelation didn't
mention something of the female side of the false
system. However, Christ seems to emphasize the male
portion of the system in six of the Church eras -- the
genders are all masculine. But, when He comes to the
Thyatira era, Christ switches remarkably to the female
part. Yet, there are not different false systems being
discussed, but only the various divisions of the ONE
It is when we come to Thyatira that we find the system
described under the symbol of a woman -- the woman
Jezebel. This analogy was deliberately chosen for many
obvious reasons. Reasons so plain that Johnís first
century readers could not help but comprehend what he
was talking about.
We must remember that John was writing to seven literal
Churches all contemporaneous with one another, and he
was using language or symbols with which they were
acquainted. We, of course, realize the prophetic meaning
of the seven churches, but we know that John also had
distinct and pertinent messages to the seven
congregations which existed in his day. By keeping this
obvious fact in mind, the real truth of what John was
talking about is made clear to us today.
First, we notice that John says this "Jezebel" called
herself a "prophetess" (Rev. 2:20). There must have been
a particular false prophetess which had caused Godís
servants to commit fornication and to eat things
sacrificed to idols. By looking on this "Jezebel" as
having been contemporaneous with all the heresies of the
other Churches -- and that these heresies were in
reality only ONE false system which originated with
Simon Magus -- we can then easily see that this
"Jezebel" can be equated with the "Female Principle"
which Simon introduced into his "Christianity." None
other than Simonís Helen -- the reclaimed temple
prostitute from Tyre. Helen WAS a prostitute -- what
better type of person is there who could so expertly
"teach" and "seduce My servants to commit fornication,"
literally as well as spiritually?
Simon Magus came in contact with a priestess of Tyre who
had been a temple prostitute. The Samaritans worshiped
SUCCOTH-BENOTH who was the goddess VENUS. Her devotees
continually prostituted themselves. It was their
religious duty to do so.
This woman was overawed by Simonís demonistic power and
was persuaded to follow him -- to live with him -- to
become the female principle, the necessary counterpart
to his claim as being a type of male deity. Relative to
this, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 25, p. 126,
quoting from Justin states: "And almost all the
Samaritans and a few among the other nations,
acknowledge and adore him as the first god. And one
Helen, who went about with him at the time, who before
had had her stand in a brothel, they say was the First
Thought that was brought into being by him."
This is interesting because Justin was himself a
Samaritan -- born and reared in the country. He
certainly knew his peopleís native traditions and
teachings. What he says agrees exactly with the New
Testament revelation of how the Samaritans regarded
Simon. They actually called him the "great power of God"
(Acts 8:10). It is because of this that they believed
him to have creative powers. He himself said he created
Helen, his female companion whom he later elevated to a
"Irenaenus, Theodoret, and Epiphanius agree in
identifying Simon with the Supreme God and Helena with
ennoia, the first conception of his mind and his agent
in creation" (Dict. of Religion of Ethics, vol. 11, p.
What blasphemy!! But this is what he taught everywhere
he went Ė and under the guise of Christianity.
There always had to be the Man and Woman divinities in
paganism. Or, to make it plain, Nimrod and Semiramis.
Now notice what the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
says about this teaching of Simon which he took to Rome
and they accepted: "The original of Simonís Helena is
the moon-goddess of Syria and Babylonia. In the
Clementine Recognitions Helena is always translated
ĎLuna.í The theory that Simon was accustomed to borrow
from paganism IS CORROBORATED by the assertion of the
Fathers that he and Helena were worshipped by their sect
with the attributes of ZEUS and ATHENE and received the
cult-title ĎLordí and ĎLadyí (i.e. our Lord and our
Lady)" (ibid. p. 518).
As stated before, it was Simonís plan to bring about a
UNIVERSAL religion under the powerful name of
Christianity. Remember that Simon NEVER gave up the
His followers were called Christians. In amalgamating
the pagan Babylonian religious beliefs with
Christianity, he placed himself at the head Ė the
personification of the chief pagan gods of old, and
Helena as his companion in creation, the personification
of the female deities. The name Helena for his consort
fit his plan exceptionally well.
"There existed a wide-spread cult of the moon goddess in
Syria and Egypt under the name Helene; she was
identified with Aphrodite, Atargatis, and the Egyptian
Isis, who was after represented with Horns to betoken
her relation to the moon. One feature of the myth of
Helen can be traced to the very ancient connection of
the religion of Osiris with Syria. According to legend,
Isis spent ten years at a brothel in Tyre during the
course of her wanderings in search of the scattered
limbs of her husband. The imprisonment of Helen (Simonís
Helen) is then only a variant of the many myths relating
the degradation of the Queen of Heaven" (ibid.).
How important these observations are, for Osiris was
clearly Nimrod and Isis was Semiramis. Thus, Simon Magus
said that he had been the power that motivated Nimrod
and that Helen was Semiramis -- the Queen of Heaven.
Now let us carefully note that Simon brought his "Female
Principle" from the City of TYRE. And who was the
original Jezebel -- the woman who seduced Israel to
worship BAAL? She was the daughter of the king of the
Sidonians whose capital city was TYRE. (I Kings 16:31).
The original Jezebel was also from TYRE.
And not only that, Helen claimed herself to be the
creation of Simon Ė that it was Simon who brought her
into existence (Ency. Britannica, vol. 25, p.
126). She was, in a sense, the daughter of Simon. But,
the original Jezebel WAS THE LITERAL DAUGHTER OF THE
KING OF TYRE (I Kings 16:31).
The Gospel of John
With all of these things in mind, we can see why John
hits hard at the Samaritans in his Gospel, as well as
the book of Revelation. He was the only Gospel writer
who mentions the incident of the Samaritan woman at the
well. He saw it absolutely necessary by his time, for
Actually, the whole incident at the well is of relative
unimportance if it was simply put there to show us that
Christ could perceive that the woman had had five
husbands. But there was MUCH more to it than that. If we
will carefully notice what the conversation between this
Samaritan woman and Christ was, we will see that John is
giving the DEATH BLOW to the claims of the "Christian"
-- Samaritans of his day -- the anti-Christ system.
Since these false Christians DID NOMINALLY REGARD Christ
as the (or perhaps better) A founder of the "Christian
Church," John tells them what Jesus informed the
"Ye worship ye know not what"
(John 4:22). Christ meant by those words that
the Samaritans were NOT worshiping the True God
at all. They were worshiping something foreign
to the God of the Bible. It was the Devil.
"We know what we worship: FOR
SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS" (v. 22). We can see
why John saw the necessity of explaining what
Christ really said on this matter. Christ said
the JEWS would give forth salvation, NOT the
Samaritans -- and He was even talking to a
Samaritan at the time. John put this here
primarily to show that Simon Magus, the
Samaritans and his followers, were in COMPLETE
error in their grandiose claims.
And to further emphasize the true Messiahship of Christ
-- who was a Jew -- John records that one whole city
even of the Samaritans recognized Jesus as the Christ
(vs. 39-42). He was showing that some of the people in
Simonís own home-ground knew that Jesus Christ and the
Jews were responsible for salvation.
John tells us that the woman at the well had FIVE
husbands. This is to be taken literally, but isnít it
remarkable that the original Babylonian tribes which
became the Samaritans were FIVE in number -- and they
each brought their false deities with them. Thus,
according to the figurative language of the Old
Testament, these Samaritans -- who claimed to be
worshippers of YHVH -- were in reality, like the woman
at the well, committing adultery with FIVE spiritual
A "PETER" Was in Rome Two Thousand Years
Who was the first "Peter" of Rome? What were his
successors called? The history of ancient religion
reveals the plain truth about the original Peter of
Rome. The truth about his real successors is now clear
to us Ė but hidden to the world. Here is what history
shows us of the ORIGINAL Peter of Rome. The truth is
THE BIBLE records that in the earliest ages, right after
the Flood of Noah, men began to rebel against the
teachings of God. They began to build cities, found
religions, bring in idolatries. Pagan temples were
erected Ė the Tower of Babel came on the scene. All of
these things started within the first two hundred years
after the Flood.
Pagan Gods Called "Peters"
Surprising as it may sound, it is a well-known fact
among students of ancient religion, that the chief pagan
gods worshipped in the early civilizations were
generally known by the name PETER. It is also known that
the priests of those heathen gods were also called
PETERS. That same name in one form or another, was even
applied to the pagan TEMPLES consecrated to those gods.
Notice what Bryant, in his work "Ancient Mythology"
says: "Not only the gods, but the Hierophantae [special
priests], in most temples; and those priests in
particular, who were occupied in the celebration of
mysteries, were styled PATRES" (vol. 1, p. 354).
This is significant! The word PATRE is the same as PATOR
or PETER in meaning and pronunciation.
Bryant continues: "PATRE was undoubtedly a religious
term . . . . the same as PATOR and PATORA."
The ancient pagan gods, the priests who were their
ministers, and their sacred sanctuaries -- their temples
-- were ALL called PETORS or PETERS (either spelling is
acceptable since vowels are fluid in all languages --
especially the Semitic).
The Meaning of "Peter"
What did the word PATOR or PETER really mean to the
ancients? Surprisingly enough, the word is in the Bible.
When Moses wrote about the Egyptian priests, he shows
they were called PETERS or "interpreters" Ė interpreters
of the ancient Egyptian mysteries.
Notice Genesis 41:8. Davidson shows in his Hebrew
Lexicon that the consonantal word P-T-R (PETER)
signifies "to interpret" or "interpretation" (p. 638; of
Brown, Driver, Briggs, p. 837; and Gesenius, p. 877 and
p. 843). Bryant points out that "the term always related
to oracle interpretation" (p. 308).
The pagan priests of the mystery religions were called
PATORS or PETERS. They had the power to interpret the
heathen mysteries. This is further brought out by Bunson
in his Hieroglyph, page 545, where he shows that the
Egyptians -- as the Bible also indicates -- called their
"interpreters" or priests: PETR, that is, PETER.
The term PETER was one of the earliest names for the
pagan gods. It lasted as late as Greek and Roman times.
But by that time the term also took on a widespread
secular meaning. It came generally to mean "father" or
"parent." But this was not its primary meaning at all.
Bryant continues: "The word PATER, when used in the
religious addresses of the Greeks and Romans, meant NOT,
as is supposed, a father or parent; but related to the
divine influence of the Deity, called by the people of
the East, PATOR" (Ibid., p. 353).
In many ancient religions the father was the chief
priest of the family. That is the reason the head of the
family became known as PATOR or "father."
The father, because of his priestly position, became
known as the ARCHPATOR, or, as it is commonly rendered,
PATRIARCH. This is how the term PATOR came to signify,
in a secular sense, "a father." But originally, it
always meant, "interpreter" -- especially one of the
Chief Pagan Gods Called PETERS
We have clear evidence showing that the ancient Romans
called their chief gods PETERS -- the divine
interpreters. The early Roman writer Lucilius, mentions
Neptune, Liber, Saturn, Mars, Janus and Quirnus -- all
were PATERS. (See the Lucilii Fragments.) He did not
mean they were "father-gods." He meant they were gods of
PETER-rank -- the chief gods.
Lucilius doesnít exhaust the list. In fact, he leaves
out JUPITER, the "Father" of the Roman gods. But it was
unnecessary to mention him as a "PETER-god." Due to his
high rank, the title PETER was actually incorporated as
a part of his name. He was called JU-PETER.
Gladstone in his work on the antiquities of Greece,
shows that Jupiter and the Greek god ZEUS were one and
the same, JU-PETER was the Roman way of saying
ZEUS-PETER, the chief god of the Greeks (Homer and the
Homeric Age, vol. I, p. 287), PETER was the name that
came to signify high rank among the gods -- and among
Greeks Used Term "Peter"
The Romans were not the only ones who called their gods
PETERS, the Classical Manual reveals that the Greeks
used the term PETER (or its variants) as often as did
the Romans. For example, Apollo was called PATRIUS and
his followers APOLLO PATRIUS (p. 23). Pausanius tells us
that Artemis and Bacchus were called PATORA, that is
PETER-gods (Books 1, 2). Pindar speaks of Poseidon
Petraios. He says the Thessalonians worshipped Neptune
under this title (Pyth. Ode 4).
In Egypt, the Ammonian priests -- who headed one of the
chief pagan oracles of ancient Egypt -- were called
Petors, as Bryant also says: "The chief instrument
(idol) in their hands was styled PIETAURUM" (Ibid., p.
This idol on many occasions took the form of a pole or
upright stake (Ibid., p. 358). The pagan god Artemis is
often pictured standing by a stone pillar which is
called PATROA or PETER (Pausanius, Bk. 1). These
pillars, and all the phallic symbols like them, came to
be known as PETRAS -- the sacred PETERS. (It is still
common among the vulgar to refer to the male member by
its original religious name -- PETER.) These phallic
Peter-stones can be found all over the ancient world. In
fact, there is not a mention of an ancient pagan oracle
temple without some notice being given to a PETER emblem
-- the sacred stone.
Like the word PATOR -- which came to indicate simply a
"father" or "parent" -- the word PETRA came to mean any
large stone. But in the earliest times, it conveyed only
the original religious meaning.
"The term PETRA came at length to signify any rock or
stone and to be in a manner confined to that meaning.
But in the first ages it was ALWAYS TAKEN IN A RELIGIOUS
SENSE; and related to the shrines of Osiris, or the Sun
(Baal), and to other oracles which were supposed to be
exhibited" (Bryant, p. 359). In other words, the term
PETRA meant the sacred PETER-stone Ė a stone usually
phallic in design.
"Petras" in Pagan World
Notice some references to these sacred PETRAS found
throughout the pagan world.
At the temple of Delphi in Greece, the chief object in
the ritual was the PETRA (Pausanius, Bk. 10). At the
Acropolis in Athens, Euripides tells us, the niches
which held the idols were called the PETRAE (verse 935).
It is well-known that even the sacred book which was
used in the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries, was
entitled "Book PETROMA," PETER-ROMA -- PETERíS BOOK (see
Potterís Antiquities, vol. 1, p. 356).
Remember that the pagan temples were also called after
the PETERS. The temple at Elis in Greece was called
PETRON (Lycophron, verse 159). Pytho at Delphi was
called PETRAessa (Olymp. Ode 6). The oracle temple
dedicated to Apollo in Asia Minor was called the PATARA
and the oracle there was called PATAReus ("Eus" means
"person who, one") -- (Lempriereís Classical Dictionary,
Also PATRAE -- an ancient town where DIANA had a temple
(p. 438), and the oracle in Achaia was called PATRA
(Jones, Proper Names of the Old Testament, p. 296).
Examples are too numerous to mention, but this should be
enough to show that the name PETER, or its variants,
figured very high in every phase of pagan worship. These
PETER stones and temples were found all over the ancient
"There is in the history of every oracular temple some
legend about a stone; some reference to the word PETRA"
(Bryant, p. 362).
Origin of Ancient PETER-worship
PETER-worship can be traced directly back to
MESOPOTAMIA. It was there that idolatry had its
beginning. There is where the Tower of Babel was
It is no wonder that in Mesopotamia we find the first
mention of a PETER-temple. In Numbers 23; 22:4-5 we read
that the false prophet Balaam was called to prophesy
against Israel. Further, in Deuteronomy 23:4, we read
that this Balaam had been called from "Pethor of
Mesopotamia" -- that is, from the PETER of MESOPOTAMIA.
This Pethor or Peter (either spelling is correct) was
the place of an oracle temple. In the dictionary Proper
Names of the Old Testament, edited by A. Jones, we find
that Balaamís PETHOR was the sacred high place "where
there was an oracular temple, and hence called PETHOR,
and PETHORA, which meant, place of interpretation, or
oracular temple. Here was, no doubt, a college of
priests of whom Balaam had been appointed chief PATORA"
Yes, Balaam was the chief PATORA (Peter) of the PETHOR
(Peter-temple) of Mesopotamia.
It was customary for each pagan country to have a chief
oracle or tempIe. The PETHOR or PETER in Greece was
Delphi, In Egypt it was Ammon. In Asia Minor it was
Lycia -- and later Pergamos. Professor Jones tells about
the other PETHORS throughout the world. Notice: "These
Ďhigh placesí were scattered about in many parts. There
was a city of Ďinterpretationí in Acaia, called PATRAE,
and another in Lycia, called PATARA, where Apollo had an
oracle. PETHOR was in after times celebrated for the
worship of Ailat" (Ibid., p. 296).
Balaam "Chief Peter"
But Balaam came from PETHOR on the Euphrates -- the
oracle of Mesopotamia. He was no less than the CHIEF
PATORA (as Jones mentions) of the VERY HOME of idolatry
and false religion.
The very meaning of the name "Balaam" shows he
considered himself as sitting in the very chair of
Nimrod, the beginner of the mystery religions. The name
"Balaam" means in Semitic tongues "Conqueror of the
People." This was the exact proper name the Greeks used
to designate NIMROD. They called him NICOLAUS, which
also meant "Conqueror of the People."
In the New Testament we read of people following the
doctrines of NICOLAUS (Nimrod). They were called
Nicolaitanes. McClintock and Strongís Encyclopaedia
speaking of them says: "The sect of the Nicolaitanes is
described as following the doctrine or teaching of
Balaam -- and it appears not improbable that this name
is employed symbolically, as NICOLAUS is equivalent in
meaning to BALAAM" (vol. 1, p. 621).
Yes, the two names NICOLAUS and BALAAM are exactly the
same in meaning -- they both point to NIMROD, the
originator of paganism. We also find that when Simon
Magus (alias Simon Peter) "Christianized" the religion
of NIMROD, John the Apostle plainly labels his followers
NICOLAITANES and followers of BALAAM. All of the
heresies mentioned in the Seven Churches are of only ONE
system -- the system of NIMROD, under the leadership of
Balaam Represents Nimrod
The name of Balaam is another name for NIMROD. But,
understand this clearly -- the "Balaam" who met Israel
on their way out of Egypt was NOT the original Nimrod.
He had been killed several hundred years before. This
Balaam merely represented Nimrod as his successor. We
are all aware that Joshua, being a successor of Moses,
was looked on as sitting in Mosesí seat. Even in
Christís time the scribes and Pharisees sat in Mosesí
seat of authority (Matt. 23:1-4).
So it was with Balaam. He maintained one of the proper
names of Nimrod to signify that he was the legitimate
successor of the Arch-Rebel. And to emphasize his
authority, Balaam could point to his headquarters as the
PETHOR or PETER of Mesopotamia. Therefore, the Moabites
in their hatred for Israel called for the chief priest
of the pagan world. They ignored the priesthood of their
own national gods -- going to the highest authority they
knew! Josephus represents this false prophet as
"Balaam, who lived by the Euphrates, and was the
greatest of the prophets of that time" (Ant. IV, 6,2).
Balaam was the successor of Nimrod -- the PONTIFEX
MAXIMUS of the pagan world. His headquarters was the
"PETER on the Euphrates" Ė the SAINT PETERíS OF
MESOPOTAMIA, the chief oracle of paganism. This is a
shocking revelation -- but one which stands the test of
the Bible and ancient religious history.
PETER-gods Come to Rome
It is well-known history that in the earliest ages, the
center of civilization was in Asia and Mesopotamia. In
later times, political power passed to the Greeks and
then to the Romans. It is also well-recognized that the
religions of Asia, by Greek and Roman times, had also
passed to the West. By the first century, the mystery
religions of the Babylonians were centered primarily in
Rome! By that time, Rome had become the chief city of
Early records mention this transference of pagan
religion from Asia right to the city of Rome. The first
century book by Virgil, The Aenid, in Imperial times
became a type of Roman "Bible." It gives the story of
one Aeneas who wandered away from Asia right after the
Trojan War and settled in Italy.
The main theme of the book concerns the so-called
"sacred task" of Aeneas: bringing the pagan gods of Asia
to Italy! Virgil spares no words in glorifying Aeneasí
journey. He shows how Aeneas brought the Romans
ORGANIZED RELIGION -- with all the pagan gods and
goddesses necessary for performing it. And most
important: Virgil constantly says that these deities
were the PATRII of Asia. (See the CIassical Manual, page
592, for full information confirming this.) These gods
and goddesses were the PETER-deities Ė the chief deities
which were destined to favor Rome and Italy above all
Asia had been the original home of the PETER-gods.
Through Virgil we find them being transported to the
doorstep of Rome. And why not? By the first century,
Rome was considered "the home of the gods." Prudentius,
an ancient Roman himself, says that there wasnít a
single pagan deity that did not in the end find its
headquarters at Rome.
Notice what he says: "There came to be one single home
for all earth-born gods, and you may count as many
temples of gods AT ROME as tombs of heroes in all the
world" (Symmachus, 189 to 197).
It could hardly be clearer! By Imperial times, Rome
became the headquarters of pagan religion. It was the
chief oracle of the world, the PETER for the earth.
The Chief Gods of Rome
There were two gods of ancient Rome which were
pre-eminently worshipped as PETER-gods. One was JU-PETER
(Zeus-Peter). The other, says the Classical Manual, was
JANUS, called PATER or PETER (see page 389). Sometimes
these two gods are confused. But they are to be reckoned
as distinct -- relative to Roman paganism of the First
Century. The latter god, JANUS-PETER, had some
interesting roles to play in the pagan religion at Rome.
These roles answer the question: Who was the original
Peter of Rome? Notice a brief history and some of the
activities of this god.
Plutarch in his life of Numa, gives us the identity of
JANUS. Originally, according to Plutarch, Janus was an
ancient prince who reigned in the infancy of the world.
He brought men from a rude and savage life to a mild and
rational system. HE was the first to build cities and
the first to establish government over men. After his
death he was deified. There can be no mistaking who this
JANUS was! This title was just another of the many names
of Nimrod. This ancient prince who was violently killed,
was later deified by the pagan religions. Because of his
high authority, he was called a PATOR or PETER.
Here are some of the religious activities of which
JANUS-PETER was in charge.
It was JANUS-PETER who was pre-eminent in interpreting
the times -- especially prophecy. "The past and the
future was always present in his mind" (Classical
Manual, pages 388 and 389). He was pictured as being
double-faced. Plutarch said this was a symbol of his
endeavor to change men from barbarism to civilization --
that is, bring them to the civilization of NIMROD. One
of JANUSí roles, after his deification as a god, was the
continuation of his sacred task of "civilizing" men.
But let us go a little farther.
Janus-Peter Had "Keys"
The PETER-god JANUS was to the ancient Romans the
"KEEPER OF THE GATES OF HEAVEN AND EARTH." "HE IS
REPRESENTED WITH A KEY IN ONE HAND . . . as emblematic
of his presiding over GATES and highways."
How shocking! The pagan Romans were calling their JANUS
a PETER hundreds of years before the birth of the
Apostle Peter. It was this JANUS who was in charge of
the "pearly gates"! The very word JANUS means "gates,"
that is, the one in charge of the GATES.
The Classical Manual continues: "Ovid speaks of him
[Janus] in the first book of his Fasti; his face is
double to denote his equal empire over the heavens and
the earth -- [does not the Pope claim the same power
today?] -- and that all things are open and shut to him
AT HIS WILL -- [he was infallible and answered to no one
for his actions, so the Pope] Ė that he governs the
universe [Catholicism], and alone possesses the power of
making the world revolve on its axis; THAT HE PRESIDES
OVER THE GATES OF HEAVEN."
Catholics Claim "Keys"
The Catholic Church claims Peter gave to it the keys of
the gates of heaven and that no one will enter into
Godís presence unless that church opens the gates. The
very word "Cardinal" means "hinge." The Cardinals of the
Roman Church are the HINGES upon which the GATE -- the
Pope -- is able to turn.
The Classical Manual continues: "the successions of day
and night are regulated by his influence; and that the
east and the west is at one moment open to his view." It
was JANUS-PETER who also controlled the calendar by his
priests. The first month of the year was named after him
to show his control over the years. So, today, we still
have JANU-ary as the first month. The Catholic Church,
like the priests of Janus, feels it has this same
authority over the calendar today.
Another Name for Nimrod
Finally, it is necessary to notice at least one more
name under which Nimrod masqueraded -- the name MITHRAS,
the Persian name for Baal, the sun god. This
Mithras-worship of Nimrod was popular and was one of the
last to plant itself in Rome, but it had a very old
theme -- outright PETER-worship. "Mithras was styled by
the nations of the East PATOR; his temples were PATRA
and PETRA and his festivals PATRICA" (Bryant, vol. 1, p.
Yes, even Nimrod under the name Mithras, the sun-god,
was called PETER!!!
Sir James Frazer tells us of this religion of Mithra --
the religion of the pagan PETER -- coming to Rome.
Notice it. "Among the gods of eastern origin who in the
decline of the ancient world competed against each other
for the allegiance of the West was the old Persian deity
of MITHRA. The immense popularity of his worship is
attested by the monuments illustrative of it which have
been found scattered in profusion ALL OVER THE ROMAN
In respect both of doctrines and of rites the cult of
MITHRA appears to have presented many points of
resemblance not only to the religion of the Mother of
the Gods but also to Christianity" (Golden Bough, St.
Martinís ed., vol. 1, p. 471).
Catholics Accept "Peter" Worship
What he means is that the Christianity of the third and
fourth centuries had already by that time inherited so
much from pagan beliefs, that this PETER-religion coming
from the East found many similarities with Roman
Christianity. The Catholics had already, by this late
date, accepted the pagan festivals of Christmas, Easter
and a host of other rituals and beliefs. Frazer
continues: "Taken altogether, the coincidences of the
Christian with the heathen festivals are too close and
too numerous to be accidental" (Ibid., p. 475).
It was this pagan MITHRAISM which gave the most to
Bryant shows that the chief name of MITHRA in the East
was PATOR or PETER -- "his temples were PATRA and PETRA
and his festivals PATRICA." Everything connected with
this ancient pagan religion can be traced right back to
the original PETER -- the original "interpreter of the
mysteries" who was none other than NIMROD. This is the
same mystery system which the Roman Catholics have
Sits in "Peterís" Chair
No wonder the Roman Catholic Church claims to sit in
PETERíS CHAIR and that the chief temple of the world is
today called SAINT PETERíS. That Church has accepted the
practices and symbols of the oldest pagan religion on
earth: PETER-worship -- the religion of Nimrod.
This pagan religion was believed and practiced before
Christ ever told the Apostle Peter and the other
Apostles that they were to have the "keys of the kingdom
of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Satan counterfeited Godís true
religion centuries before Christ came!
This was Satanís attempt to smother Godís true religion
with a counterfeit that to the untrained eye looks
genuine. He did this principally through Simon Magus
(Pater) who amalgamated all the pagan religions into one
UNIVERSAL religion and called the system "Christianity."
The Bible tells us to come completely out of this false
religious system masquerading under the name of
Christianity. We are to get back to the faith once
delivered to the saints. We can thank God for His
goodness in giving to His Church the TRUTH.