St. Peter of Rome is really Simon Magus the Sorcerer!, page 3

Peter was "not clean?"

It is truly outrageous how one can conclude such type theories based on the evidence. Now I know that the evidence is hard to come by, making the whole story blurred and not easily understood, but to write such a lengthly OP and then to say such things is way off from the truth - you do not need more than a paragraph or two to convey the real truth so that people understand.

If you examine the early doctrines, there is a word play with Simon Magus and Simon Peter. It was claimed that Simon Peter called Saul a magician, so Saul made the front name of Simon Magus as an insult to Peter. It is really simple when you understand word play and the heart of the people involved with the catholic church in Judea and the one in Rome. It is really that simple.

Now I will show the you very doctrine that made Paul develop these lies before he went to the towns in Judea with his doctrines:

when the day had dawned, some one came in and said: “There is a very great multitude
waiting in the court, and in the midst of them stands Simon, endeavouring to preoccupy the ears
of the people with most wicked persuasions.” Then Peter, immediately going out, stood in the
place where he had disputed the day before, and all the people turning to him with joy, gave heed
to him. But when Simon perceived that the people rejoiced at the sight of Peter, and were moved
to love him, he said in confusion: “I wonder at the folly of men, who call me a magician, and love
Peter; whereas, having knowledge of me of old, they ought to love me rather. And therefore from
this sign those who have sense may understand that Peter may rather seem to be the magician, since
affection is not borne to me, to whom it is almost due from acquaintance, but is abundantly expended
upon him, to whom it is not due by any familiarity. - Nazarene Acts of Peter