St. Peter of Rome is really Simon Magus the Sorcerer!

The great false church system of Rome had its beginning in the day of the apostles of Christ. Unfortunately, this conflict did not go its separate way but mixed in to one religious system. This is why there are so many pagan ideas and doctrines in the Roman Catholic Church. Some crept in over time but many were there from the very beginning. The first conflict between early Christianity and false religion of paganism was recorded in the book of Acts, Chapter 8. This quarrel happened between a pagan high priest named Simon Magus and the apostles Peter and Philip. We first hear of Simon Magus in Acts Chapter 8, verse 9-25


Verse 9: But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used
Sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:
10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.
11 And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.
12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God,
and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Then Simon himself believed also: And when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs, which were done.
14 ¶ Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the
Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: Only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was
given, he offered them money,
19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the
Holy Ghost.
20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: For thy heart is not right in the sight of
God.
22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine
heart may be forgiven thee.
23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and [in] the bond of iniquity.
24 Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things
which ye have spoken come upon me.
25 And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.
What happened in these sixteen verses? Was this just a one-time event that took place or something that Luke decided to document? The confrontation that took place here, in Jerusalem, not long after the death and resurrection of Jesus, can be easily overlooked as just one of those things that may have been relevant to the time. But what really happens here? The incident that took place between Simon Magus and the apostles sets the stage of many of the epistles of the New Testament and the early entrance of apostasy into the early church. The person that is mentioned and that we need to concentrate on is Simon Magus and how he transformed himself into the first leader of the false world wide religious system, the Catholic Church.

The reason Luke recorded this encounter with Simon has far-reaching effects. As Hasting's explains, the important reason was that "Luke's well-known plan of describing THE FIRST MEETING between Christianity and rival systems" (Hasting's Bible Dictionary., p. 498). Luke gives in detail the principal character who established the so-called Christian counterpart of the Truth in the Apostles' 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!

The Book of Acts, however, performs its purpose in exposing who started the whole apostasy. God leaves it to the epistles. Revelations and the Gospel of John describe the heresy and even the Old Testament prophesied of the church falling away from the truth. We are certainly NOT left in doubt concerning its abominable teachings. There is hardly an epistle that does not mention the religions teaching of Simon Magus. Even the scholars who have studied Church History have seen that almost ALL of the references in the New Testament expose the errors in the first age of the Church and are directed exclusively to Simon Magus, or his immediate followers. A few of these examples will be given later and will show that already the existence of a shadow church that was gaining strength and disrupting the true teachings of Christ.

WHO IS SIMON MAGUS?


We see in Acts 8:10-11, "This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries". Simon is clearly stated as being one who practiced magic and paganism. One also needs to note that he is not just a pagan but also a leader of the pagan church, since he has misled and bewitched many people with sorcery. Simon most likely heard the news about the risen Christ directly from the apostles and possibly from Jesus Himself.. Instead of accepting the message of salvation as a gift, he desired to buy this power for his own use. Simon wanted to use the power of the Holy Spirit, most probable for personal gain and profit thus take the Lord name in vain.


Did Simon go his way after his strong rebuke from Peter? No, he did not. In fact, he considered himself to be a Christian. Several historians note this. With this evidence of Simon's 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. He wanted to prove that he was in actuality NEVER an Apostle of Christ. In this regard, notice the comment of Hasting's 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 is a mixture of pagan ideas wrapped with Christian names and identities.


We further find in Schaff's 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. 566).


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. 244).


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" (Hasting's Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 497).


One point that should be noted is there is a mixing of several religious ideas. This is one of the identifying characteristics of the beast of Rev. 13 that is identified as the Roman Catholic Church. Revelation 13:2 "Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion."


The four beasts used to make up the beast are the same four beasts, Daniel saw in vision in Daniel 7. As a matter of fact, papal Rome inherited from each of these pagan empires some of their basic identifying traits that we still see practiced in this modern day false system of religion, the Roman Catholic Church. From Babylon, the lion the papacy inherited a pagan priesthood; from Medo-Persia, the bear sun worship; from Greece, the leopard human philosophies; and from the dragon, Pagan Rome, its power, seat and great authority. As stated in Rev. 13:2 the mixing of these pagan ideas of the Roman catholic church had its onset from the very beginning. From this Simon Magus who was well versed in all of these abominable doctrines and false system of worship created the early Catholic Church. These abominably doctrines can be traced back to the very beginning throw Simon Magus.


Even though there is only one event that was recorded by Luke, it would not be unreasonable to assume that Simon had heard the apostle on several occasions. He likely also spoke with many of the new converts of the new church. It could be said that Simon Magus had great interest in spiritual matters and most likely was very well versed in both Jewish teaching and that of the new Christian church. Simon had mixed Judaism, early Christianity and Babylonian, Greek. Paganism into one religion and appointed himself as the leader. Here we see the well documented mixing of religions from several historical sources and The Bible itself. What did he do with this new religion?


Did Simon stay in Jerusalem as the head of his own little cult? What were his plans for this new mixing of religions?
History shows that Simon Magus did not stay in Jerusalem but moved to Rome. 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. At that time, Rome was the chief city of the world. With Rome as the center of the world it would only make sense that Simon Magus would move to Rome to spread his new religion a mixture of pagan beliefs and Christian doctrine.


Simon Magus' move to Rome is noted in several historical writings. His goal as stated by historical records was to create a universal church, "Religion". A little side note that many are aware of is the meaning of the word catholic. The word catholic means universal. The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou -- throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics. Yes, the correct meaning of the Catholic Church is the Universal Church.


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" Harnack, a church historian (VoI. 1, p. 246).

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 `Simoni deo Sancto' (i.e., the holy god Simon)" (Dictionary of Christian Biography, Vol. 4, p. 682).


Hasting's 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


We see this quote from Justin Martyr and from Hasting's "Dictionary of the apostolic church" that Simon Magus was in Rome about the year 45A.D., this is further stated by his birthplace, a village called Gitta. It is also stated that Simon Magus was honored as a GOD, due to his magical "demonic powers that were witnessed".


From these historical accounts we see that indeed Simon Magus was in Rome and was the head of his own church "Universal catholic". In many of these accounts we also see that Simon Magus was also consider by many to be God. Does that not fall in to place that the first pope aka Simon Magus was considered to be God. There are several places in The Bible that show that the Church of Rome would committee the sin of blasphemy and demand worship from men. (Rev,13:1),(Dan,7:11)(Rev14:11)…


In John 10:33, The Bible clearly gives the definition of blasphemy, "…a mere man, claiming to be God". The list of blasphemy coming from the Papacy would fill volumes of books. Here are just a few examples:


"The pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under a veil of flesh." The Catholic National, July 1895


Here are some incredible claims that appear in a Roman Catholic dictionary, by Lucius Ferraris, entitled Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Vol. VI, and pgs. 438, 442 article "Pope." and The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 edition, Vol. VI, p. 48 speaks of this book as "a veritable encyclopedia of religious knowledge," and "a precious mine of information."


"The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God."


"The pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having plenitude of power, to whom has been entrusted by the omnipotent God direction not only of the earthly but also of the heavenly kingdom."


There is no doubt that Simon Magus was called a god nor that the papacy claim that the pope is God on Earth. The list of blasphemies of the papacy are too numerous to count. There are several historical accounts that Simon Magus was called and claimed to be God. We can even see this preserved in history with the very status that was spoken of by Justin Martyr. In 1574 excavators found a fragment of marble on an island in the Tiber River with the inscription "Semoni Sanco Deu Fidio." Some interpret this as referring to a Sabine deity, Semo Sancus, but most likely it was part of the statue Justin Martyr described as having been dedicated to Simon Magus. There is little doubt in my mind that this is one of many similarities between the papacy and Simon Magus


Here is the transition of Simon Magus being considered God and the first pope and the big mistake that many confuse Simon Peter with Simon Magus. The next step to change Simon Magus to Simon Peter was with the title of a God by some of his followers. What is another name or title is there for a pagan god? 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 or title PETER. That would make Simon Magus also be formally known as Simon Peter.


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.
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 -- PETER'S BOOK (see Potter's 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") -- (Lempriere's Classical Dictionary, p. 438). 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 world. "There is in the history of every oracular temple some legend about a stone; some reference to the word PETRA" (Bryant, p. 362). The world and history is littered with many example of the term PETER used as a title for a god.

I believe this leaves little doubt that the title of Peter would be given to someone that claims to be and was seen to be a god. There are just too many instances that this title has been given and used in historical accounts. This change from Simon Magus to Simon Peter is how the good apostle was mistaken to be the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
To this day, the Roman Catholic Church says that the tomb of Saint Peter is under the altar of the Basilica in Rome. "Only, the actual vault itself in which the body lies is no longer accessible and has not been so since the ninth century. There are those, however, who think that it would not be impossible to find the entrance and to reopen it once more. A unanimous request that this should be done was made to Leo XIII by the International Archaeological Congress in 1900, but, so far, without result."(www.newadvent.org ARTHUR S. BARNES)
What supposedly happen at the death of the apostle peter in Rome was that peter was crucified upside down at his own request. According to catholic tradition peter asked that to be crucified upside down stating that he was not worthy to suffer the same kind of death of his master Jesus Christ. Then he was buried under the altar witch now is the Basilica of Saint Peter's. Here is a Catholic account of what happened to Peter's body on the night of his death. In Keller's comment who think or mistakes Simon Magus for Simon Peter tell what happen at the death of Simon in Rome during the first century.
"On the night of his death on the cross Peter's 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 `vatis' means a `prophet' or `SOOTHSAYER'. In days gone by there had been an Etruscan oracle on this spot" (Keller's comment - the official comment of the Roman Catholic Church p. 368).
Keller ought to have better logic 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. This is quite a big step from not even being able to eat with gentiles to be buried is the special cemeteries reserved for the chief pagans and self proclaimed Gods or peters. 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. I personally think that the apostle Peter would not be caught dead in a pagan cemetery. Would it not make more since that the first pontiff maxims or pope be buried in this cemetery Who more to make since to be buried in the cemetery reserved for a pagan soothsayer that was masquerading around as a Christian than Simon Magus aka Simon Peter the head of the new Universal "catholic " church.


The records regarding Simon's death vary widely. Many of the stories try to incorporate some fiction from the Greek and Egyptian myths to enhance the reader's interest in this fascinating character. But the earliest records say that he was buried in Rome after a long period of great honors and deification. It is not clearly known where Simon Magus alias Simon Peter. At the judgment I'm almost sure many will be quiet surprised to find out who in really under that altar in the Basilica in Rome, and it will not be the beloved Simon peters the apostle of Jesus Christ. The great faith that is placed on what appears to many to be the apostle Peter's bones, under the altar of the Basilica, is somewhat comical. Especially in light of the lack of biblical evidence that show that peter was never in Rome. Whose bones could be under that altar? I believe that they are the bones of Simon Magus Peter aka the first pope yet this most likely will not nor could be proven till the return of Christ himself. The certainty of this is the discovery of Peters tomb in Jerusalem.

Saint Peter's tomb


A well-hidden discovery of an archaeologist is the burial place of St. Peter Jerusalem. This is documented in a book called , "Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit", printed in 1958 at the Tipografia del PP. Francescani, in Jerusalem. P. B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik, both Roman Catholic priests, wrote it. Here is a little bit of the proof that they used to document that the tomb of Saint Peter is in fact in Jerusalem. On the Franciscan monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The excavation where the names of Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found-the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jonah". This could refer to any other than St. Peter. But what makes the possibility of error more remote is that the remains were found in a Christian burial ground, and more yet, of the first century, the very time in which Peter lived. In fact noted scientist stating that he can tell by the writing that it was written just before the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D. "There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." A little side note that I had found quite strange...When an internet search is done on the tomb of Peter using the key words "Dominus Flevit" you may find a website or two, but when you do it does not last long so I suggest that you print it out fast. After all this discover of the tomb of Peter in Jerusalem is quite embarrassing to the church of Rome since it strikes at the very pillar of it faith and the idea of apostolic succession. Biblically, it has been shown that Peter was not in Rome and now archeologically, we see that the apostle Peter's tomb has been found in Jerusalem. "Copyright 1960 F. PAUL PETERSON, " This strikes at the very tradition of St. Peter's bones being under the altar at St. Peter's basilica.


We saw early that Simon Magus went to Rome to start a Universal Church.
We also see that Simon Magus was a self proclaimed God were the title of Peter was given. There are also several traditions that do not fit with The Bible but are common today with the papacy. What is the link that I hope to show with Simon Magus and the title of Peter? That Simon Magus was called Simon Peter " Simon the self proclaimed God", after he moved to Rome and setup a false universal religion with himself as the head of that church. I believe that it would be safe to say that Simon Magus is the Simon Peter of Rome that is called the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church and not the apostle Simon Peter of The Bible.


I believe that the above quotes say it all. They say that the Simon Magus "Peter" who proclaimed to be a false Messiah "God" with the cover of Christianity to set up a Universal "catholic" church. This is the catholic first pope and the beginning of the church of Babylon that has affected history. Paul saw this also "Thess 2:7-1O, "...the mystery of iniquity doth already at work...".


Here is a list of a few writings that we may want to keep in mind as we read the New Testament. These show that there is a false church in the shadows of the true church. The beginning of the false church was already starting. The falling away was in direct competition and conflict with the apostles and the true teachings of Christ.


2 Corinthians11: 4 "For if some one comes to you preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached"
Gal 1:7 by 53 A.D. another teaching at work
The whole book of Colossians was probably devoted to counter-act the teaching of the church of Simon Magus. When you read the book of Colossians there seems to be many basic doctrines addressed that should already be a common knowledge from their Jewish neighbors. Paul uses many Jewish examples and references specifics such as feasts and holidays. We can tell that they have been exposed to a biblical culture previously, but they seem to have lost some basic doctrines of Gods plan of salvation and Christ. This is because of the teaching of Simon Magus in direct conflict with the gospel that was being teachings he apostles.


The book of Jude was to warn that the idea of the false church was affecting the true church and they were even among the church itself, pretending to be the body of Christ's church.
In the book of Daniel where it speaks of the Roman Catholic Church it is shown that worship and the false church is going to be cloaked within the true church of God. The book of Daniel also points to where the fourth beast, the Catholic Church, is to arise.
The book of Acts says a lot by what it does not record in the travels of the twelve apostles. It seems that ten of the apostles are rarely ever mentioned, and that great detail is given to the apostles Paul and Peter. The travels of the apostles Paul and Peter is given most detail about where they went to spread the gospel. If the apostles' travel were traced on a map it would point to Rome and the surrendering area. Why were the other ten apostles' travels not followed very close at all? The reason is simple. The physician and apostle, Luke, knew and understood from the book of Daniel where this false church would come from… the Roman Empire. From the book of Daniel in Chapter 2,7,8 and Chapter 11, Luke understood that the false church was to rise out of Rome. Realizing that the false church was to rise out of Rome Luke gave special attention to the travels of Paul and Peter to show where they were and to document where they spread the gospel. With this close attention to details of Paul's travels we have a warning from prophecy regarding where the false church was to come from, and when, and how the false church started, and how it came in to direct conflict with the true church. This is why the apostle Luke did not track the other apostle travels directly.
When you read through the epistles, it seems to cover some basics doctrines. I believe this is due to the false church that was already at work as stated by apostle Paul.

The main point that I hope to bring your attention is evidence that all points to the rise of the false church and that Simon Magus was the head of that church.
These are just a few examples that should be kept in mind when you read through the New Testament and if you run across something that almost seems out of place or just too basic. It is most likely due to Simon Magus or his teaching at the time of the apostles. With this new understanding of the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church already in place and having an affect on the true teaching of the gospels you will have some insight to the true meanings of an open to discussion verse.


It is with this evidence that I hope to show that is the idea of Apostolic Succession is based upon the wrong Simon Peter. The Simon Magus Peter that is in fact an impostor and self-serving pagan high priest is the true beginning of the Roman Catholic Church. One of the main pillars of the Roman Catholic Church is the idea of that Apostolic succession is foundation of the Catholic Church. This is false and is based upon the wrong Peter. This is their claim to power and they claim makes them the true church. The only thing wrong with this idea is they have the wrong Simon Peter and it is leading many from the truth of God's word.

reply to post by Locoman8


Very interesting. I gave it a quick read.

In the book of Acts Peter had a vision that stated that "what God has cleansed you must not call common" NKJ or "What God has called clean do not call unclean"

Do you not believe that Peter would then evolve his views so as to know that being buried in a "unclean" cematary does not matter anymore in light of the vision. The Book of Acts Chapter 10

The whole claim is that Peter was buried in Jerusalem and Simon Magus was buried in Rome. Peter himself was not clean for he denied Christ 3 times on the day of Christ's death. The only clean spirit of man is Jesus Christ for all other men die as sinners.

reply to post by Locoman8

OK...so we are not a New Creation in Christ Jesus then as St Paul said in Galatians.

Your interpretaion seems to fly in the face of the Pauline Revelation who wrote most of the New Testament.


Your interpretaion seems to dicredit St. Peter's vision as well..."what God has cleansed let no man call common"



[edit on 10-6-2008 by whiteraven]

You are missing the whole point in this discussion. Why dont you go back and read the whole thing. Simon Magus and Simon Peter were two different people. The catholics of today believe that St. Peter was the apostle Peter when in fact it was Simon Magus who chaged his name to Simon Peter. You are concentrating too much on calling me in a nutshell, "anti-Peter" though I'm not. I may have used the wrong terminology when saying that Peter was not clean. He was cleansed through the spirit of God. Your argument is stemmed from the fact you say being burried in an unclean place such as a pagan burial site doesn't matter if you are cleansed through Christ. This is an irrelevant part of the discussion because it get's off-topic. This topic is to identify the person who disguised himself as St. Peter to create the catholic church and to make sure that Peter, the Apostle's identity is not mistaken. Read the entire thread and get a better understanding.

Excellent post. I'd "star and flag it", if I know how.

Very interesting hypothesis, ESPECIALLY when it uses some of Rome's own writings that bolster it. It would explain some of the pagan ideas that crop up in Roman Catholicism.

To star and flag. Simply click your mouse on the star outline above my first post to star it. To flag it, there is a little box on the left just before my first post with a red flag and it asks you to flag it. Click on "flag post". That's it. Thanks for the recognition. If you like that, you should check out my thread about God's Holy Day Plan and the truth about Christmas, Easter, and Sunday worship as well as my thread about the Truth about the Rapture and the truth about "thief in the night" and the Harlot Woman of Revelation. Just click on my name and visit my profile. it has a list of my threads. God bless.

Do you think Nostradamus's prediction regarding the antechrist Mabus could be related to this pagan/sorcerer Magus?

Yes I understood the main point of the post...the two Simon Peter's...I took a course on this at a college in Fort Worth taught by a guy named Winkie Pratney...

Sorry for jumping off topic.

I Flagged your thread yesterday in order to reread it today which I have done partly....I looked up some of your references.

I always found it fascinating that John had written that there are many anti Christ's among us already. I also found it fascinating that Paul had referenced the iniquity that is already at work in the early Church.

I find the fact that the Bible as we know it was not compiled together as we know it until well after the Catholic Church was established to be even more fascinating in light of the traditions of the early church.

The fact that the early church survived without a “book” and without having a building to meet at (although some homes were used) I believe testifies to the power of the Holy Spirit and fulfills the words of Christ…namely where two or more are gathered…

This seemed to fly in the face of Fundamentalist belief....that is that the Bible is wholly, truly, The Word of God and how dogmatic many seem to hold this very American view of Christianity. The early church had more of a personal relationship with God. That is they held to the idea that they hear the voice of the Shepard and the voice of a stranger they will not follow. Those who proclaimed to hear this voice were persecuted and martyred by various Christian denominations. (Not only the Catholics burned people, drowned persons etc...Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc took part in this after the reformation.

It would seem that the Catholic Church was not the first to use the Bible as a weapon against the common man. The tradition of using the words of the prophets to kill the prophets were used by the Sadducees, Pharisees and this tradition has been carried on by many other denominations such as the Baptist's and John Knox Presbyterian church.

Having read and of course purchasing Foxes Book of Martyr’s I was appalled to see the various Christian Denominations hurl hatred toward each other to the point of murder because there belief system was different then some other denomination.

After reading and looking into Church history I came to the conclusion that a person’s personal belief system did not mount to a hill of beans when brought into measure with the compassion of Jesus Christ.

PS. I will give it a third read after work and dig more into your references. It is an enjoyable thread and you have done your homework.

I appriciate your input on the subject. One thing I wanted to clarify is the fact that all protestant groups (baptist, lutheran, prespetyrian, methodist) are all splinter groups of the catholics and carry some of the traditions such as sunday worship, christmas, easter, and the elimination of the holy day feasts of Leviticus 23. They also adopted the concepts of heaven and hell that the catholics taught which is if you die without Christ in your heart, you will go to the firey pits of hell but if you die with Christ in your heart you will go to heaven. Common misconception seeing that the gospel teaches that Christ is the only human to ever enter the gates of Heaven and the correct translation of hell is "grave" meaning you are dead forever if you don't repent on judgment. Thanks for the star and flag and I look forward to further discussion with you.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Nostradomas himself was a sorcerer so I don't believe in his vague prophecies. He was one of many soothsayers. Prophets are sent from God. Soothsayers are psycics and sorcerers who claim to be able to see the future or talk to the dead. Simon Magus was one of these soothsayers.

Well, I followed your suggestion to Miriam, to go to this thread.
The only reason I would even consider (I have not read your posts yet) your thesis, is that I ran across some strange evidence while researching early middle ages monks.
It has to do with the hair cut some of the monks had.
It had to do with what would come to mind if you hear the word friar.
You might think of these men with the top of their heads shaved.
It was to tell the difference between the followers of Simon and the followers of Peter.
Reminded me of reading one of your posts that I discounted as a symptom of some sort of insanity.

Simon 'Magus'... magus the singular of Magi

if i recall correctly the 3 Magi brought the baby Jesus (aka emmanuel) gifts
so Magi are not all sorcerers... the Simon 'Magus' might well have been a rennaissance thinker before the age of enlightenment came about...

in a later post reply you say that (St) Peter & Simon (Magus) were two different people... then said Simon changed his name to Simon-Peter when he got to Rome... ?

theres a lot of 'Simons' scattered throughout the Gospels...
theres Simon of Syrene thrown in for good measure,
is he too a element of Spin by the Catholic (universal) [& Apostolic] Church?


then, here's where your investigative study can be useful.
in verse 23 ; it says the phrase '...gall and bitterness...'
in describing theexpulsion of Simon Magus from the early Christian cult,
as the early christians were not yet a singular Church.
Is that term 'Gall and Bitterness' = the same term 'Wormwood' used in Revelations? (and other books)

then the Revelations of John are not futuristic unveilings of far off events, prophecied for some future time. but the revealing of the past in the eyes of John on the island Patmos, some 50 years after Simon Magus conducted his deeds in Rome....


bottom line, i'm not convinced that the Apostle Peter was in actuality Simon Magus (the sorcerer) ... whose person became the 'foundation' for the (Holy) Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church.
Wasnt it Constantine who made the HRCC what is has become?


it all seems murky, mesmerizing, and hypnotically seductive, and full of sorcery, if you ask me

I am not saying that Simon Peter and Simon Magus were the same people. I'm stating that people confused Simon Peter as being the founder of the Roman Catholic Church when in all actuality it was Simon Magus who started it. Certain church members in Rome confused him with Simon Peter.

Simon Peter= Jerusalem
Simon Magus= Rome

reply to post by Locoman8


Don't worry locoman8, I understand and am in complete agreement with what you are saying.
I emailed this to a couple of "Assembly of God" pastors I know that are telling people that Catholicism and Christianity are the same thing, one of them even admits that he enjoys attending Catholic Mass when he's out of town, he agrees with the whole kissing the cross, ect..

I would like to know if you think going to church on Sunday is bad or not though, honestly I don't think it really matters what day you worship God as long as you worship Him.

I also see nothing wrong with celebrating the pagan holidays sense I don't put my faith in those holidays, I just do it for fun, it's about like saying I shouldn't use money to pay for things because money has satanic symbols on it... Wait, maybe I should think twice about that, hmm... I just made myself think, that's weird.

Anyways, what do you think about that?

-Lahara