Markdown Viewer

[img]http://churchofthesonsofyhvh.org/forum/templates/illusion/images/post/post_tl.gif[/img]			[img]http://churchofthesonsofyhvh.org/forum/templates/illusion/images/post/post_tr.gif[/img]
	[size=6][color=darkred]SIMON MAGUS and the Origins of the Catholic Church![/color][/size] *What were the origins of Catholic-Babylonian Christianity? * *What was Simon Magus' religion before he met the apostle * *Peter? Where did that religion originate? Read in this article * *the detailed and documented account of Simon Magus and * **his great [color=blue]COUNTERFEIT CHRISTIANITY![/color] THE [color=blue]FALSE[/color] religious system began very early -- almost with Pentecost in 31 A.D. Even in the earliest of PaulÃ¢â¬â¢s 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 [color=blue]KEY[/color] 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. [size=5][color=darkred]The Book of Acts -- the Key[/color][/size] [size=3][color=blue]First, let us recall two points of necessary understanding:[/color][/size] 1) 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. 2) Acts does [color=blue]NOT[/color] 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 the Messiah. 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[color=blue] ONLY THOSE EVENTS WHICH WERE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY[/color] for [color=blue]YEHOVAHÃ¢â¬â¢s[/color] Church of the future to know. Notice that LukeÃ¢â¬â¢s 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 YaHWeH's 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 YEHOVAHÃ¢â¬â¢s 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 YEHOVAHÃ¢â¬â¢s 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 Christian Church. All scholars realize that Luke tells about SimonÃ¢â¬â¢s beginning because of his later notoriety and danger to the Church. In this regard, notice the comment of HastingÃ¢â¬â¢s Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 496: "It seems beyond question that Luke [color=blue]KNEW THE REPUTATION[/color] 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 the Christians." 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 [color=blue]SIMON MAGUS HIMSELF[/color]. This IS the important point!! Luke was clearly showing that Simon was [color=blue]NEVER[/color] a part of [color=blue]YEHOVAHÃ¢â¬â¢s[/color] Church, even though by 62 AD, many people were being taught that Simon was truly a Christian -- taught that he was the [color=blue]HEAD[/color] of the only [color=blue]TRUE[/color] Christians; the apostle to the Gentiles! [size=5][color=darkred]What Luke Tells Us About Simon Magus[/color][/size] [size=3][color=blue]Notice the points Luke places clearly before us --[/color][/size] 1) 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). 2) Simon Magus greatly used demonistic powers to do miracles and wonders (Acts 8:9). 3) 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! 4) 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). [size=5][color=darkred]Imagine it! They called him god in the flesh![/color][/size] [size=3][color=blue]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).[/color][/size] 1) 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). 2) Simon even recognized that the MessiahÃ¢â¬â¢s power was greater than his but wanted to be associated with that great name (Verse 13). 3) 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 18-21). [size=5][color=darkred]Simon Coveted ApostleÃ¢â¬â¢s Office[/color][/size] 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 APOSTLE! 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 the MessiahÃ¢â¬â¢s 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 PeterÃ¢â¬â¢s 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 Ã¢â¬Ëthou art FOR a gall of bitterness and a fetter of unrighteousness [lawlessness]Ã¢â¬â¢, 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; LangeÃ¢â¬â¢s Commentary says: "PeterÃ¢â¬â¢s words, literally, mean: Ã¢â¬ËI 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 stateÃ¢â¬â¢." (Vol. 9, p. 148). Not only was Simon, in PeterÃ¢â¬â¢s time, a great antagonist to the Church, but he would be the adversary of the future. 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. [size=5][color=darkred]Gall of Bitterness Defined[/color][/size] It is also interesting to note PeterÃ¢â¬â¢s 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 meaning. 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 PeterÃ¢â¬â¢s 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 [color=blue]GREAT PROTAGONIST OF FALSE CHRISTIANITY[/color]. The later history of Simon Magus shows that PeterÃ¢â¬â¢s prophecy came true in a most remarkable way. [size=5][color=darkred]Simon Magus Unrepentant[/color][/size] Even after PeterÃ¢â¬â¢s 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 -- if 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 -- calling 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. [size=5][color=darkred]What Did Simon and the Samaritans Believe?[/color][/size] 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. 243, 244). [size=3][color=blue]Notice he says the Babylonian religion had come ESPECIALLY TO SAMARIA! ![/color][/size] 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 teachings. If anyone doubts that these Samaritans practiced outright paganism under the guise of YaHWeH worship, let him read the extraordinarily clear indictments recorded in the inspired Word of YEHOVAH God (II Kings 17:24-41). [size=5][color=darkred]A Brief History of the Samaritans[/color][/size] There were originally five Babylonian tribes who had been transported to the area where Northern Israel once lived before IsraelÃ¢â¬â¢s 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 religion. 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 YEHOVAH 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 Kings 12:31). All of these acts of Jeroboam were outright violations of YEHOVAHÃ¢â¬â¢s law. It was from the time of Jeroboam down to the time of IsraelÃ¢â¬â¢s captivity, that the majority of Israel was NOT worshipping the True God at all! Jerusalem and YEHOVAHÃ¢â¬â¢s 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 YaHWeH as the "God of the Land." Thus, these Samaritans finally took upon themselves the NAME: The People of YaHWeH; but their religion was outright paganism -- a mixture of Israelitish calf-worship and Babylonianism -- just as Simon Magus later was eager to appropriate the MessiahÃ¢â¬â¢s NAME, but continue his pagan abominations! Notice what YaHWeH God says about the final condition of these Samaritans -- "So these nations feared the Lord [calling themselves YaHWeHÃ¢â¬â¢s people], AND served their graven images, both their children, and their childrenÃ¢â¬â¢s 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. [size=5][color=darkred]What Deities Did the Samaritans Worship?[/color][/size] 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 StrongÃ¢â¬â¢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: [color=blue]ASHIMA[/color]. 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 [color=blue]OSIRIS[/color] of Egyptian fame or the dying [color=blue]NIMROD[/color]. The Avites worshipped [color=blue]NIBHAZ[/color] (masc. -- the god of [color=blue]HADES[/color]) and [color=blue]TAR-TAK[/color], "the mother of the gods". This last-mentioned goddess was supposedly the Mother of the Assyrian race, or, as Jones says, she was [color=blue]SEMIRAMIS[/color] (see p. 354). The fifth Babylonian tribe worshiped pre-eminently two gods. [color=blue]ADRAM-MELECH[/color] and [color=blue]ANAM-MELECH[/color]. 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 [color=blue]HERMES[/color], 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 the Messiah, 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 counterpart. [size=5][color=darkred]Simon Magus Begins UNIVERSAL Church[/color][/size] History comes alive with the startling story of how Simon Magus -- branded a [color=blue]FALSE PROPHET[/color] by the book of Acts -- established HIS OWN UNIVERSAL church! [color=blue]SIMON MAGUS[/color] 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. YEHOVAH God tells us that these Samaritans, as they were called, were claiming to be the true people of YEHOVAH 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" -- that is, [color=blue]YEHOVAH[/color] 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, after his rejection by Peter, began to fashion his own "Christian" church -- a church of which [color=blue]HE[/color] was head -- a church designed to completely overthrow the True Church of YEHOVAH God. His idea was to blend together Babylonian teaching with some of the teachings of the Messiah -- especially to take the name of the Messiah -- and thus create [color=blue]ONE UNIVERSAL CHURCH![/color] 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 [color=blue]BABYLONIAN[/color] myths, together with some Greek additions. The mysterious worship...in consequence of the widened horizon and the deepening religious feeling, finally the wild [color=blue]SYNCRETISM[/color] [that is, blending together of religious beliefs], whose aim WAS A [color=blue]UNIVERSAL RELIGION[/color], all contributed to gain adherents for Simon" (Vol. 1, p. 244). 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 [color=blue]UNIVERSAL RELIGION[/color]. They rather connected this [universal] religion with the cultus-wisdom of [color=blue]BABYLON and SYRIA[/color]" (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. SimonÃ¢â¬â¢ 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 [size=3][color=blue]SYNCRETISM[/color][/size] of Jewish and Oriental elements" (HastingÃ¢â¬â¢s Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 497). [size=5][color=darkred]Simon Magus and Gnosticism[/color][/size] 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 SimonÃ¢â¬â¢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, proving that he was in actuality NEVER an apostle of the Messiah. In this regard, notice the comment of HastingÃ¢â¬â¢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 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 Christ" (Ibid). Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul or France, wrote that Simon Magus was[color=blue] "the FATHER OF GNOSTICISM"[/color] -- see the Introduction to Work Against Heresies. Adding to this, author Jacques LaCarriere elaborates -- ...in its beginnings, in the first centuries when Christianity itself was fighting for its survival and seeking its own path, Gnosticism could still create the illusion that it was a Christian doctrine. It could do so on two essential counts: first, because of its content, since it borrowed a number of elements from the teaching of the apostles and the texts of the Gospels; second, in its form, for in the early days it was preached by men who, [color=blue]LIKE THE APOSTLES[/color], travelled the highroads of Samaria, Palestine, Syria and Anatolia, and, in many places, came into direct confrontation with the disciples of Jesus. The most ancient of these wandering [color=blue]GNOSTIC PROPHETS[/color] is known to history as [color=blue]SIMON MAGUS[/color] (The Gnostics. E.P. Dutton, NY: 1977. P. 44). A description of Gnosticism, found in the Encyclopedia Britannica, shows how remarkably it conforms to the practices of modern Roman Catholicism -- notice! These little Gnostic sects and groups ALL lived in the conviction that they possessed a secret and mysterious knowledge, in no way accessible to those outside, and not based on reflection, on scientific inquiry and proof, but on revelation. It was derived directly from the times of primitive Christianity; from the Saviour himself and his disciples and friends, with whom they claimed to be connected by a secret tradition, or else from later prophets, of whom many sects boasted. It was laid down in wonderful mystic writings, which were in the possession of the various circles (Liechtenhahn, Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus). In short, Gnosticism, in all its various sections, its form and its character, falls under the great category of mystic religions, which were so characteristic of the religious life of decadent antiquity. All alike boast a MYSTIC REVELATION and a DEEPLY-VEILED WISDOM. As in many mystic religions, so in Gnosticism, the ultimate object is individual salvation, the assurance of a fortunate destiny for the soul after death....And as in all mystical religions, so here too, HOLY [color=blue]RITES and FORMULAS, ACTS OF INITIATION AND CONSECRATION[/color], all those things which we call[color=blue] SACRAMENTS[/color], play a very prominent part. The Gnostic religion is full of such sacraments. Indeed, sacred formulas, NAMES AND SYMBOLS are of the highest importance among the Gnostic sects (1943 edition. Vol. 10, p. 453). The Encyclopedia goes on to show that early Christianity and Gnosticism had a magnetic attraction for each other: ...the essential part of most of the conceptions of what we call Gnosticism was already in existence and fully developed before the rise of Christianity. But the fundamental ideas of Gnosticism and of early Christianity had a kind of [color=blue]MAGNETIC ATTRACTION[/color] for each other. What drew these two forces together was the energy exerted by the universal idea of salvation in both systems. Christian Gnosticism actually introduced only one new figure into the already existing Gnostic theories, namely that of the historical Saviour Jesus Christ....Above all the Gnostics represented and developed the distinctly [color=blue]ANTI-JEWISH[/color] tendency in Christianity....In approximately all the Gnostic systems the doctrine of the seven world-creating spirits is given an anti-Jewish tendency, the god of the Jews and of the Old Testament appearing as the highest of the seven (1943 edition. Vol. 10, p. 454). The importance of sacraments and mystical ideas, such as we find in the Catholic Church, have their source in the Gnosticism of the first few centuries of our era: The Gnostic religion also anticipated other tendencies. As we have seen, it is above all things [color=blue]A RELIGION OF SACRAMENTS AND MYSTERIES[/color]. Through its syncretic origin Gnosticism introduced for the first time into Christianity a whole mass of sacramental, mystical ideas, which had hitherto existed in it only in its earliest phases. Gnosticism was also THE PIONEER OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH in the strong emphasis laid on the idea of salvation in religion. Finally, it was Gnosticism which gave the most decided impulse to the consolidation of the Christian Church as a church. Gnosticism itself is a free, natural-growing religion, the religion of isolated minds....Its adherents feel themselves to be the isolated, the few, the free and the enlightened, as opposed to the sluggish and inert masses of mankind degraded in matter, or the initiated as opposed to the uninitiated....This freely-growing Gnostic religiosity aroused in the Church an increasingly strong movement towards unity and a firm and inelastic organization, towards authority and tradition. An organized hierarchy, a definitive canon of the holy scriptures, a confession of faith and a rule of faith, and unbending doctrinal discipline, these were the means employed. A part was also played in this movement by a free theology which arose within the Church itself, a kind of Gnosticism which aimed at holding fast whatever was good in the Gnostic movement, and obtaining its recognition within the limits of the Church (Clement of Alexandria, Origen). -- Encyclopedia Britannica, 1943 edition. Vol. 10, p. 454). The dualistic element found in Gnosticism is also prevalent in the Catholic Church. The Encyclopedia Britannica explains -- The conception of a resurrection of the body, of a further existence for the body after death, was unattainable by almost all of the Gnostics, with the possible exception of a few Gnostic sects dominated by Judaeo-Christian tendencies. With the dualistic philosophy is further connected an attitude of absolute indifference towards this lower and material world, and the practice of asceticism. Marriage and sexual propagation are considered either as absolute evil or as altogether worthless, and carnal pleasure is frequently looked upon as forbidden. Then again asceticism sometimes changes into wild libertinism. Here again Gnosticism has exercised an influence on the development of the [Catholic] Church by way of contrast and opposition....It was just at this point, too, that Gnosticism started a development which was [color=blue]FOLLOWED LATER BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.[/color] In spite of the rejection of the ascetic attitude of the Gnostics, as a blasphemy against the Creator, a part of this ascetic principle became at a later date[color=blue] DOMINANT THROUGHOUT ALL CHRISTENDOM[/color] [read, Catholic Church]. And it is interesting to observe how, e.g., St. Augustine, though desperately combating the DUALISM of the Manichaeans, yet afterwards introduced a number of dualstic ideas into Christianity, which are distinguishable from those of Manichaeism only by a very keen eye, and even then with difficulty (1943 edition. Vol. 10, p. 454). S. Gusten Olson, in The Apostasy of the Lost Century, adds the following: "Gnostic DUALISM nevertheless made such heresies [as Simon Magus'] [color=blue]APPEAR TO BE CHRISTIAN[/color]. As the author of The Rome of the Early Church, on page 36, noted: '...when the great tide of these Eastern beliefs encountered the pure stream of the Gospel, it [color=blue]MUDDIED THOSE WATERS[/color] with this distorted conception of life. Christianity has never recovered..." (Nordica SF Ltd. England. 1986, p. 101). Olson goes on to show how the early Church in Rome compromised with its conscience and gave in to the national worship popularized by Simon Magus -- In an age when Christianity, even the Gentile version, was a prohibited religion, it is not surprising that the Church in the Imperial City soon found itself pastored by bishops who compromised with their conscience and with the national worship which "was not held incompatible with foreign cults" (The Student's Roman Empire, Murray, p. 577). "It is one of the paradoxes of history that the State-cult of Rome...proved THE MODEL for the organisation of institutional Christianity..." (Phases in the Religion of Ancient Rome, Bailey, p. 275). Bailey explained also that Christianity in its [color=blue]TRADITIONAL FORM[/color] was [color=blue]INFLUENCED BY MYSTERY RELIGIONS[/color] and contemporary philosophy. The Greek and Latin fathers failed to distinguish between the character of apostolic Christianity and that of the Roman Church in the latter half of the second century (ibid., p. 114). [size=5][color=darkred]Simon Magus Blends Paganism With Christianity![/color][/size] 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] religion. "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 SchaffÃ¢â¬â¢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). 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. 514). Again, what do the histories tell us SimonÃ¢â¬â¢s 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, p. 516). 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. [color=blue]HE WAS CALLING PAGANISM BY THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY![/color] "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" (HastingÃ¢â¬â¢s Bible Dictionary, p. 498). The reason Luke recorded this encounter with Simon was its far-reaching effects. As HastingÃ¢â¬â¢s explains, the important reason was that of "LukeÃ¢â¬â¢s 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 apostlesÃ¢â¬â¢ 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! [size=5][color=darkred]Who History Says This Simon Became![/color][/size] "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.) [actually, 42 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 Ã¢â¬ËSimoni deo SanctoÃ¢â¬â¢ (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 JustinÃ¢â¬â¢s 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 JustinÃ¢â¬â¢s account. Those who want to reject these clear statements have nothing in their favor. Justin is clearly giving us fact! HastingÃ¢â¬â¢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." 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 JustinÃ¢â¬â¢s day (152 A.D.), people were still giving regard to it. There are many other accounts of SimonÃ¢â¬â¢s 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). [size=5][color=darkred]Simon Peter AND Simon Magus in Rome?[/color][/size] Later, about the fourth century, a flood of works came out about Peter encountering Simon Magus in Rome and overthrowing him -- is this true? Did Peter ever spend some time in Rome? Simon Metaphrastes, who lived around 900 A.D., is quoted as saying "that Peter stayed sometime in Britain; where having preached the word, established churches, ordained bishops, priests, and deacons, in the 12th year of Nero HE RETURNED TO ROME." William Cave, in his scholarly book on the lives of the twelve apostles, echoes the historian Onuphrius thus -- Onuphrius, a man of great learning and industry in all matters of antiquity...goes away by himself...and...afirms, that he [Peter]...having spent almost the whole reign of Nero in several parts of Europe, RETURNED, in the last of Nero's reign, TO ROME, AND THERE HE DIED...(The Lives of the Apostles, Oxford, 1840). Dean Stanley writes that "the vision that came to St. Peter...(2 Peter 1:14), appeared to St. Peter on this his last visit to Britain....Shortly afterwards Peter RETURNED TO ROME, where he was later executed." The word "RETURNED" in the above passages implies at least TWO visits to Rome! Can we pinpoint when they were? The historian Jean Danielou gives us a time-frame for Peter's FIRST visit to Rome -- notice! The Acts tell us that IN 43, after the death of James, Peter left Jerusalem "for another place" (Acts 12:17). He is lost from sight until 49, when we find him at the council of Jerusalem. No canonical text has anything to say about his missionary activity during this time. But Eusebius writes that he CAME TO ROME, ABOUT 44, at the BEGINNING OF CLAUDIUS' REIGN (The Christian Centuries, p. 2[img]http://churchofthesonsofyhvh.org/forum/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif[/img]. In the book Drama of the Lost Disciples, however, author George F. Jowett states that "Peter FIRST went to Rome 12 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF JESUS..." (p. 113). Since Jowett believed the Messiah died in 30 A.D., this places Peter's arrival in Rome in 42 A.D. Hippolytus, bishop of Pontus, also confirms this early visit to Rome by the apostle Peter: This Simon [Magus] deceiving many by his sorceries in Samaria was reproved by the apostle and was laid under a curse, as it has been written in the Acts. But he [Simon Magus] afterwards abjured the faith and attempted [these practices], and journeying as far as Rome, HE FELL IN WITH THE APOSTLE [PETER], and to him, deceiving many by his sorceries, PETER OFFERED REPEATED OPPOSITION (Philos, vi, 15). In her book Sacred and Legendary Art, author Anna Jameson states: "The magician [Simon Magus], vanquished by a superior power, flung his books into the Dead Sea, broke his wand, and fled to Rome, where he became a great favorite of the EMPEROR CLAUDIUS and afterwards of NERO. Peter, bent on counteracting the wicked sorceries of Simon, FOLLOWED HIM TO ROME" (p. 209). How long did Peter stay in Rome on his first visit? The Latin (Hieronymian) and the Syriac translations of Eusebius' Chronicle have Peter going to Rome in the second year of Claudius and TO [color=blue]ANTIOCH TWO YEARS LATER[/color]. The [color=blue]TWO YEARS[/color] mentioned here actually represent the time Peter spent IN [color=blue]ROME[/color] on his first visit -- according to tradition and conscientious scholarship. Following this Peter "stayed sometime in Britain" and, according to Origen (185-254 A.D.) preached in Pontus and other places to the Jews of the Dispersion. The historian Onuphrius, as recorded by William Cave, affirms that Peter "went first to Rome; whence returning to the council of Jerusalem, he thence went to Antioch...and having spent almost the whole reign of Nero in several parts of Europe, returned, in the last of Nero's reign, to Rome, and there died..." Eusebius (circa 324) remarks that Peter "appears to have preached through Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia and Asia, who also finally coming to Rome, was crucified head downwards, at his own request." When Peter finally returned to Rome in the later part of Nero's reign, he "found the minds of the people strangely bewitched and hardened against the embracing of the Christian religion by the subleties and magic arts of Simon Magus...." (Cave, The Lives of the Apostles). As a result of Peter's campaign against the heresies promulgated by Simon Magus, and the death of Simon Magus in a fall (67 A.D.), Nero (who treated Magus as a favorite) was so enraged that he had Peter cast into prison to await his return to Rome from Greece. For more evidence regarding Peter's visits to Rome, read our article Did the Apostle Peter Ever Visit Rome? [size=5][color=darkred]Peter Was NOT The First Pope![/color][/size] THE PRIMACY of the Roman Catholic Church depends upon one fundamental doctrine: the claim that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome who "occupied the episcopal cathedra 25 years 2 months 3 days. He was bishop in the time of Tiberius Caesar, Gaius, Tiberius Claudius and Nero" (The Book of Pontiffs, translated by Raymond Davis. Liverpool University Press: 1989. P. 1). The 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 crucified upside down on Vatican hill. This is the basic story and the writers never shirk in attempting to defend it. They say that this general account is one of the most provable of historical events. While the bulk of the above is true, many ecclesiastical authors of the second century, Justin Martyr among them, give information completely negating PeterÃ¢â¬â¢s supposed Roman bishopric. This is admitted by virtually all scholars Ã¢â¬â except conservative Catholics (Ency. Biblica, col. 4554). But, more important than this, the records of the True Church of YEHOVAH 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 YEHOVAH God. The Apostle Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome! [size=5][color=darkred]The Bible Teaching[/color][/size] There are eight major New Testament proofs which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome continuously from the time of Claudius until the time of Nero. These Biblical points speak for themselves and ANY ONE of them is sufficient to prove the ridiculousness of the Catholic claim. Notice what YEHOVAH God tells us! The truth IS conclusive! [size=3][color=blue]PROOF ONE:[/color][/size] At the end of PaulÃ¢â¬â¢s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 -- read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn't he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasnÃ¢â¬â¢t there at that time! [size=3][color=blue]PROOF TWO:[/color][/size] 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 PaulÃ¢â¬â¢s 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 PeterÃ¢â¬â¢s meeting with Paul. Why? Because, once again, Peter was not in Rome at that time! [size=3][color=blue]PROOF THREE:[/color][/size] 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 the Messiah. All they knew was that "as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of the Messiah on the Kingdom of YEHOVAH God. Some believed -- the majority didn't. 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 17 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome for quite some time prior to 59 A.D. [size=3][color=blue]PROOF FOUR:[/color][/size] 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 wasnÃ¢â¬â¢t there during these two years (59-61 A.D.)! [size=3][color=blue]PROOF FIVE:[/color][/size] At the end of Peter's First Epistle we read: "Through Sila, whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written you briefly, encouraging you and giving my witness that this is God's true grace. Stand firm in it! Your sister congregation IN BABYLON, chosen along with you, sends greetings to you, as does my son Mark" (I Peter 5:12-13, Jewish New Testament). While Catholics claim this refers to the city of Rome -- as Revelation 17 clearly indicates -- in this instance it is a reference to the literal city of Babylon on the Euphrates! In the Insight On the Scriptures we read -- Available evidence clearly shows that "Babylon" refers to the city on the Euphrates and NOT to Rome, as some have claimed. Having been entrusted with "the good news for those who are circumcised," Peter could be expected to serve in a center of Judaism, such as Babylon. (Ga 2:8, 9) There was a large Jewish population in Babylon. The Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971, Vol. 15, col. 755), when discussing production of the Babylonian Talmud, refers to Judaism's "great academies of Babylon" during the Common Era. Since Peter wrote to "the temporary residents scattered about in [literal] Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1Pe 1:1), it logically follows that the source of the letter, "Babylon," was the literal place by that name (International Bible Students Association, Brooklyn, NY: 1988. P. 621). Not only that, but M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, Vol. 8, p. 18 states: Moreover, as has often been observed, the countries of the persons addressed in the epistle (1,1) are enumerated in the order in which a person writing from Babylon would naturally arrange them, beginning with those lying nearest to him, and passing in circuit to those in the west and the south, at the greatest distance from him. So here, in 65 A.D., we find the apostle Peter in the city of Babylon on the Euphrates -- NOT in Rome! [size=3][color=blue]PROOF SIX:[/color][/size] In 2 Peter 1:14 Peter writes that "I know that I will soon lay aside this tent of mine, as our Lord Yeshua the Messiah has made clear to me." This is a reference to John 21:18 where the Messiah tells Peter he will die a similar death to the Messiah, that is, crucifixion. In the Historical Memorials of Canterbury, author Dean Stanley remarks that the vision that came to Peter foretelling his doom, appeared to Peter on his last visit to Britain. Shortly afterwards Peter returned to Rome where he was later executed. This places Peter in Britain in 66 A.D. "There is plenty of evidence to show that Peter visited Britain and Gaul (France) several times during his lifetime, his last visit to Britain taking place shortly before his final arrest and crucifixion in Nero's circus at Rome....Of his visits in Britain we have the corroboration of Eusebius Pamphilis, A.D. 306, whom Simon Metaphrastes quotes as saying: 'St. Peter to have been in Britain as well as in Rome" (George F. Jowett, The Drama of the Lost Disciples, Covenant Publishing Co., London: 1980). [size=3][color=blue]PROOF SEVEN:[/color][/size] With the expiration of PaulÃ¢â¬â¢s two yearÃ¢â¬â¢s imprisonment, he was released. But four years later (Autumn 66 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 Timothy 4:16. "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 the Messiah, but that was before he was converted. To believe that Peter was in Rome during PaulÃ¢â¬â¢s trial, is untenable! [size=3][color=blue]PROOF EIGHT:[/color][/size] The apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 66 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 for 25 years 2 months and 3 days! [size=5][color=darkred]Where Was Peter?[/color][/size] A summary of Peter's life shows exactly where he was during the 25 years the Catholics claim he was a bishop and the first pope in Rome. [size=3][color=blue]In 42 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4).[/color][/size] Following this, Peter travels to Rome where he stays for two year (42-44 A.D.). This is confirmed by Baronius, who writes: "Rufus the Senator received St. Peter into his house on Viminalis Hill, in the year A.D. 44" (Ecclesiastical Annals). According to George F. Jowett, "In the year A.D. 44 a Claudian Edict expelled the Christian leaders from Rome. Many of them sought sanctuary in Britain. Among those who fled to Britain from Rome was Peter" (The Drama of the Lost Disciples, p. 158). He was in Britain during the Caradoc-Claudian war of 45-52 A.D. In 49 A.D., he was again in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 50 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn't sit or eat with Gentiles. In 52 A.D. Peter left Antioch for Asia Minor. During the years 52-56 A.D. he preached the Good News of the Kingdom of YEHOVAH God throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. He meets up with his brother Andrew in Sinope on the south shore of the Black Sea. In 59 A.D. Peter and Mark are in Carthage in North Africa. They part company here and Peter goes on to Britain, while Mark heads for Rome to be with Paul. Peter arrives in Britain during the revolt of Boadicea (60-62 A.D.). Later in 65 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 the MessiahÃ¢â¬â¢s time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say PeterÃ¢â¬â¢s writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor -- the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect. Peter returns to Britain in 66 A.D. where II Peter is written. In the autumn of this year Paul is arrested and conveyed to Rome where he appears before Nero. In the latter part of the year Peter leaves Britain for Rome. On January 25, 67 A.D., Paul is beheaded in Rome. In the winter or spring of this year Peter arrives in Rome and has a confrontation with Simon Magus, who dies after a fall. In May of 67 Peter is arrested and incarcerated in the Mamertine Prison. On February 22, 68 A.D. -- after Nero returns from Greece -- Peter is crucified in Nero's circus. At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, the Bible and secular history clearly show he was elsewhere. The evidence is abundant and conclusive. By Paying attention to YEHOVAHÃ¢â¬â¢s own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome! [size=5][color=darkred]The REAL Bishop of Rome![/color][/size] [size=3][color=blue]If Peter was never the bishop of Rome -- who was?[/color][/size] According to George Edmundson, in his work The Church in Rome in the 1st Century: Jerome writes as follows: "Simon Peter, prince of the apostles, after an episcopate of the church at Antioch and preaching to the dispersion of those of the circumcision, who had believed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, in the 2nd year of Claudius goes to Rome to oppose Simon Magus and there for 25 years beheld the sacerdotal chair until the last year of Nero, that is the 14th." Now here amidst a CERTAIN CONFUSION...a definite date is given for Peter's first arrival in Rome, and, be it noted, it is the date of his escape from Herod Agrippa's persecution and his disappearance from the narrative of the Acts (London: 1913. Pp. 50-51). Now why does Edmundson refer to [color=blue]"CERTAIN CONFUSION"[/color] in Jerome's statement? What we are seeing here is the difficulty early historians had in separating the actions of the apostle Peter and those of Simon Magus. After all, the names are similar -- Peter was called SIMON Peter. When the lives of the two men are unraveled, the "episcopate" of Peter at Antioch, mentioned by Jerome, is nothing more than the time spent in Antioch BY SIMON MAGUS before he went to Rome in 42 A.D. Other references make this to be 7 years in length. Also, the 25 years Jerome assigns Peter to the "sacerdotal chair" at Rome is the time spent by SIMON MAGUS IN ROME between his arrival in 42 A.D. and his death in 67 A.D. Notice what The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge has to say -- "The 25 year episcopate of Peter at Rome is evidently due to the statement of Justin Martyr regarding the labors of Simon Magus at Rome" (Funk & Wagnall Co. NY and London. 1910). While the apostle Peter was traversing the Roman Empire, bringing the Good News of the Kingdom of YEHOVAH God to those of the circumcision, Simon Magus was ensconced in Rome beguiling and deceiving the populace with his Babylonian theology. Simon Magus was the REAL bishop of Rome -- for 25 years, 2 months and 3 days! [size=5][color=darkred]A "PETER" Was in Rome Two Thousand Years B.C.![/color][/size] [size=3][color=blue]Who was the first "Peter" of Rome?[/color][/size] 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 Ã¢â¬â but hidden to the world. Here is what history shows us of the ORIGINAL Peter of Rome. The truth is startling! [color=blue]THE BIBLE[/color] records that in the earliest ages, right after the Flood of Noah, men began to rebel against the teachings of [color=blue]YEHOVAH[/color] God. They began to build cities, found religions, bring in idolatries. Pagan temples were erected Ã¢â¬â the Tower of Babel came on the scene. All of these things started within the first two hundred years after the Flood. [size=5][color=darkred]Pagan Gods Called "Peters"[/color][/size] 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 [color=blue]PATRES[/color]" (vol. 1, p. 354). According to Ronald R. Wlodyga in The Ultimate Source of All Super Natural Phenomena -- Ancient history reveals that the pagan deities worshipped by the Babylonians and the Greeks were known as[color=blue] PETERS[/color]. "Not only the gods but the Hierophantae (special gods), in most temples, and those priests in particular who were occupied in the celebration of mysteries, were styled [color=blue]PATRES[/color]" (Bryant, Ancient Mythology, Vol. 1, p. 354). Davidson's Hebrew Lexicon shows that the consonantal word [color=blue]P-T-R[/color] (PETER) means[color=blue] "TO INTERPRET."[/color] The priests of the Babylonian and other mystery religions claimed to have the power to [color=blue]INTERPRET THE PAGAN MYSTERIES[/color]. In the Luceii Fragments we find that ancient Romans regarded Neptune, Saturn, Mars and Liber as "gods" of [color=blue]PETER-RAND[/color] -- i.e. [color=blue]CHIEF GODS[/color]. In the first century Rome was known as[color=blue] "THE CITY OF THE GODS."[/color] All the "gods" of paganism were strongly represented there. When [color=blue]SIMON MAGUS[/color] went to Rome he bewitched the inhabitants with his "magical" (demoniac) powers and soon became known as [color=blue]SIMON PETER -- SIMON THE INTERPRETER (of the BABYLONIAN MYSTERIES).[/color] Simon...had taken the name of Jesus Christ and much of the terminology of Christianity and was using these tools to expand his own sphere of influence (Triumph Publishing Co., Altadena, CA. 1981. P. 66). This is significant! The word [color=blue]PATRE[/color] is the same as [color=blue]PATOR [/color]or [color=blue]PETER[/color] in meaning and pronunciation. Bryant continues: "[color=blue]PATRE[/color] was undoubtedly a religious term . . . . the same as [color=blue]PATOR[/color] and [color=blue]PATORA[/color]." The ancient pagan gods, the priests who were their ministers, and their sacred sanctuaries -- their temples -- were [color=blue]ALL called PETORS or PETERS[/color] (either spelling is acceptable since vowels are fluid in all languages -- especially the Semitic). [size=5][color=darkred]The Meaning of "Peter"[/color][/size] 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" Ã¢â¬â 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: [color=#ffa34f]PETR[/color], 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 mystery religions. 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 doesnÃ¢â¬â¢t 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 their priests. [color=blue]Greeks Used Term "Peter"[/color] The Romans were not the only ones who called their gods PETERS, the Classical Manual reveals that the Greeks used the term --- ### 6KILLER 2005-07-19 23:38 \| [User Profile](/od/user/1365) [color=blue]Simon the Sorcerer[/color] [img]http://www.samliquidation.com/covena3.gif[/img] [color=red](Acts 8:9-24).[/color] 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 [color=red]Simon[/color] [color=blue](the Magus)[/color] 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, [color=red]Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.[/color] 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. [color=indigo]Simon Magus[/color] [img]http://www.samliquidation.com/feuer.GIF[/img] [url="http://www.reformation.org/simon_peter_versus_simon_magus.html"][color=#0000ff]http://www.reformation.org/simon_peter_versus_simon_magus.html[/color][/url] *Right from the very beginning, Satan had his counterfeit "messiah" operating right in the true Messiah's backyard. His name was Simon Magus or Simon the Sorcerer and this man, and not Simon Peter the Apostle, went on to found the Universal Roman "church." His career was the history of Roman Catholicism in miniature. For a long time he bewitched the people with his false miracles. Since the year 800 A.D., Rome has bewitched the world with her false miracles of transubstantiation. * *Simon believed and was baptized. Outwardly he was a Christian but his belief was only superficial and he was still a pagan at heart. He coveted the apostolic office and saw the opportunity of using Christianity to make money - a business corporation masquerading as the church of Christ!! * *From Simon Magus we get the word simony which means to buy a religious office with money* ---

SIMON MAGUS and the Origins of the Catholic Church!

6KILLER [OP]