Simon Peter versus Simon the
Sorcerer or St. Peter Meets the Competition!!
This is a great expose by the late Dr. E.L. Martin.
It documents the true history of the Samaritans, the meaning of the
word "peter" in the ancient world and the "church"
that was established at Rome by Simon the Sorcerer.
"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: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest,
saying, 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. 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. Then Simon himself believed also: and
when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered,
beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Now when the
apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the
word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were
come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized
in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them,
and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through
laying on of the apostlesí hands the Holy Ghost was given, he
offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on
whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said
unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that
the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part
nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of
God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps
the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that
thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Then
answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the LORD for me, that none of
these things which ye have spoken come upon me." (Acts 8:9-24).
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.
After his encounter with St. Peter, this magician
went to Rome and by tricks and false miracles established a "Christian
church" in that city. This man can truly be considered as the
first of the age long dynasty of Popes —many coming in Christ's
name and deceiving many (Matt. 25:5).
As in the case of Patrick and Palladius, the
arch-fiend Satan took advantage of the similarities of the names to supplant one
with the other. We can be sure that Palladius took a big sack of gold with him
when he set out for Hibernia. History does not record the encounter between the
Roman and the Briton but we can be sure that St. Patrick told him the same thing
that St. Peter told Simon Magus:
"To hell with you and your money . . . for
trying to buy the gift of God......."
by Ernest L. Martin
What were the origins of Catholic-Babylonian Christianity? What was Simonís religion before he met
Peter? Where did that religion originate? Read in this series of articles the detailed and documented
account of Simon Magus and his great COUNTERFEIT CHRISTIANITY!
THE FALSE religious system began very early -- almost with Pentecost in 31 A.D. Even in the earliest of
Paulís epistles, he informs us that "the mystery of iniquity DOTH ALREADY WORK" (II Thess. 2:7). Paul
wrote this in 50 or 51 A.D. The plot to supplant the Truth had already begun. In the later epistles of Paul and
in those of the other Apostles, we find it gaining considerable momentum. However, even though the
Apostles discuss the diabolical system which was arising, THEY NOWHERE MENTION HOW IT STARTED. They had no need in mentioning its beginning -- that had already been done!
The book of Acts is the KEY to the understanding of Christian beginnings. Not only does it show
the commencement of the TRUE Church, but it equally reveals the origins of the False Church masquerading
as Christianity. Indeed, you would think it odd if the book of Acts did not discuss this vital subject.
The Book of Acts -- the Key
First, let us recall two points of necessary understanding.
1) The book of Acts was written by Luke about 62 A.D.-- 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 NOT record every single event relative to the Church, important as one might think them to be.
For example, Luke doesnít mention a single thing about the activities of ten of the original twelve Apostles
of Christ. Yet are we to assume that they did nothing important in the history of the Church? Absolutely NOT!
They must have done many mighty works. But we can see from this omission that Luke recorded ONLY
THOSE EVENTS WHICH WERE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for Godís Church of the future to know.
Notice that Lukeís geography leads him towards the Northwest and West of Palestine. He discusses
Church history in Asia Minor, Greece and ROME. He wanted to leave us with the truth of what was going on
in the West and North because the prophecies showed the false system arising in these localities.
All other activities of Godís Church -- all about the other ten Apostles, etc. -- fall into relative unimportance
because the trouble wasnít going to come from Palestine itself. It was to come from ROME and adjacent
areas. It is no wonder that Luke spares no pains to tell us the truth of what was really going on in these
critical areas, and that is the reason Acts concerns itself primarily with Paul.
These are well-known principles that help us understand the overall viewpoint of Acts.
With the foregoing in mind, read the incident recorded by Luke, of the first encounter of Godís Apostles with
a heretic. This encounter was not with an ordinary run-of-the-mill individual, but with one of the greatest men
in the East at that time -- Simon the Magus!
The reason Luke describes the intentions of this man so thoroughly is the profound effect this man, and his
followers, had on Godís Church in Asia Minor, Greece, and ESPECIALLY ROME. Actually, this man by 62
A.D., (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 Simonís beginning because of his later notoriety and danger to the
In this regard, notice the comment of Hastingís Dictionary of the Apostolic
Church, Vol. 2, p. 496: "It seems
beyond question that Luke KNEW THE REPUTATION which Simon acquired, and that he regarded the
subsequent history of Simon as the natural result of what occurred in the beginning of his connection with
If we assume that Luke recorded this encounter of the Apostles with Simon Magus simply to show that
"simony" was wrong, we miss the point completely. There is a score of places in other parts of the Bible to
show the error of buying ecclesiastical gifts.
Luke was exposing SIMON MAGUS HIMSELF. This IS the important point!! Luke was clearly showing that
Simon was NEVER a part of Godís Church, even though by 62 A.D., many people were being taught that
Simon was truly a Christian -- taught that he was the HEAD of the only TRUE Christians; the Apostle to the
What Luke Tells Us About Simon Magus
Notice the points Luke places clearly before us.
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 demonic 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 Samaritans 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). Imagine it! They called him god in the flesh!
5) 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).
6) 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).
7) Simon even recognized that Christís power was greater than his but wanted to be associated with that
great name (Verse 13).
8) 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).
Simon Coveted Apostleís Office
Those who carelessly read this section of Scripture may get the mistaken notion that Simon wanted only
buy the Holy Spirit. Yes, he wanted that -- but his main intention went far beyond. He had eyes on becoming
Peter immediately perceived his intention and said "You have neither PART nor LOT in this matter" (Verse
21). The true Apostles had been chosen after Christís death to take PART in the apostleship by LOT (Acts
1:25, 26). Peter was telling Simon he couldnít 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.
9) Peter perceived that Simon was in the "gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity [lawlessness]"
NOTE: This verse has been misunderstood because the King James Version fails to give the full force of
Peterís accusation. This verse when understood in the manner Peter intended, is one of the most important
of the whole chapter. IT IS A PROPHECY! Peter knew the mind of this man and what this man was to
become. This is made plain by Sir William Ramsay in his Pictures of the Apostolic
Church, p. 60. He says: "Peter rebuked him in strong and PROPHETIC TERMS. The PROPHECY is concealed in the ordinary
translation: the Greek means Ďthou art FOR a gall of bitterness and a fetter of unrighteousness
[lawlessness]í, i.e., a cause of bitterness and corruption to others."
This makes it plain. Peter was uttering a prophecy by the Holy Spirit. He was telling what this Simon was to
become; Langeís Commentary says: "Peterís words, literally, mean: ĎI regard you as a man whose
influence WILL BE like that of bitter gall [poison] and a bond of unrighteousness [lawlessness], or, as a man
who has reached such a stateí." (Vol. 9, p. 148).
Not only was Simon, in Peterís time, a great antagonist to the Church, but he would be the adversary
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 wouldnít repent. Verse 22 shows that in the original.
Gall of Bitterness Defined
It is also interesting to note Peterís statement that Simon was to become a "gall of bitterness." People
today may not realize the exact meaning of such a phrase, but no Jew in the First Century was in any doubt
as to its 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 Peterís prophecy.
No wonder Jude later says, speaking about the very men who followed Simon Magus (including
himself): "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ORDAINED to this
condemnation" (Verse 4). We can be confident that Peter recognized that Satan was going to use this
Simon Magus as the GREAT PROTAGONIST OF FALSE CHRISTIANITY.
The later history of Simon Magus shows that Peterís prophecy came true in a most remarkable way.
Simon Magus Unrepentant
10) Even after Peterís strong rebuke, Simon DID NOT REPENT! And Peter knew that he wouldnít!
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
What Did Simon and the Samaritans Believe?
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
He states: "Long before the appearance of Christianity, combinations of religion had taken place in
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).
Notice he says the Babylonian religion had come ESPECIALLY TO SAMARIA! !
And why not? The Samaritans were largely Babylonian by race. The Bible tells us in II Kings 17:24 that most
of the Samaritans had been taken to Samaria from Babylon and adjacent areas. Later on, Ezra informs us
that others who were mainly of Babylonian stock came to Samaria (Ezra 4:9-10). These people
amalgamated their Babylonian religious beliefs with some of the teachings from the Old Testament. But
they NEVER DEPARTED basically from their own Babylonian-Chaldean religious teachings.
If anyone doubts that these Samaritans practiced outright paganism under the guise of YHVH worship, let
him read the extraordinarily clear indictments recorded in the inspired Word of God (II Kings 17:24-41).
A Brief History of the Samaritans
There were originally five Babylonian tribes who had been transported to the area where Northern Israel
once lived before Israelís inglorious defeat and captivity by the Assyrians. When these five tribes moved
INTO the vacant land of Samaria, they brought their Babylonian and Assyrian gods with them.
After a short while in their new country, they were ravaged by lions. They interpreted this punishment as
coming upon them because they failed to honor the god of the new land -- not realizing that there is only
One Great GOD, who is not confined to any one land. These Samaritans didnít 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 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 Godís law. It was from the time of Jeroboam down
to the time of Israelís captivity, that the majority of Israel was NOT worshipping the True God at all!
Jerusalem and Godís temple had been repudiated, and paganism had been introduced on a grand
When these transplanted Babylonians who were being afflicted by lions in Samaria asked for a priest of the
former people -- THEY GOT ONE! But that priest was one of the former calf-worshipping priests of the rebel
Israelites. He was almost as pagan as the Babylonians themselves!
This priest of Israel taught the Babylonians (now called Samaritans) to adopt the former worship of the
Northern Israelites. The priest taught them to revere YHVH as the "God of the Land." Thus, these
Samaritans finally took upon themselves the NAME: The People of YHVH; but their religion was outright
paganism -- a mixture of Israelitish calf-worship and Babylonianism -- just as Simon Magus later was eager
to appropriate Christís NAME, but continue his pagan abominations!
Notice what God says about the final condition of these Samaritans.
"So these nations feared the Lord [calling themselves Godís people], AND served their graven images,
both their children, and their childrenís children: as did their fathers [the Babylonians], so do they unto this
day" (II Kings 17:41).
These people called themselves the worshippers of the True God, but were actually Babylonian idolaters.
What Deities Did the Samaritans Worship?
It will pay us to notice the gods and goddesses that these forefathers of Simon Magus brought with them to
Samaria. The people from the City of Babylon adored SUCCOTH-BENOTH; the Cuthites: NERGAL; the
Hamathites: ASHIMA; the Avites: NIBHAZ and TAR-TAK; the Sepharvites: ADRAM-MELECH and
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 Strongís Encyclopedia that the
name signifies "the great man," "the great hero" or "the god of the chase," i.e., the Hunter. In other words,
as the Encyclopedia further points out, he was a form of NIMROD. This Hunter-god was honored by the
people of CUTH for Arabian tradition tells us that CUTH was the special city of NIMROD (vol. VI, p. 950).
The next god was that of Hamath: ASHIMA. Jones shows us that he was the great pagan god of
propitiation, i.e., the god who bore the guilt of his worshippers (p. 42). This god was the pagan
REDEEMER -- the OSIRIS of Egyptian fame or the dying NIMROD.
The Avites worshipped NIBHAZ (masc. -- the god of HADES) and TAR-TAK, "the mother of the gods".
This last-mentioned goddess was supposedly the mother of the Assyrian race, or, as Jones says, she was
SEMIRAMIS (see p. 354).
The fifth Babylonian tribe worshiped pre-eminently two gods. ADRAM-MELECH and ANAM-MELECH. The
first was the "god of fire," the Sun or the Phoenician Baal (Jones, p. 14); the second was "the god of the
flocks" or the Greek HERMES, the Good Shepherd (p. 32).
(It is self-evident that these gods and goddesses were the major Babylonian deities, and at the same time,
the very gods and goddesses which the Roman Catholic Church deifies today as Christ, Mary, etc.)
Simon Magus grew up in this mixed-up society. The Samaritans called themselves the people of the True
God, but religiously were practicing Babylonians. Simon himself was a priest of these people (the word
"Magus" is the Chaldean/Persian word for "priest"). Thus, in the encounter of Peter with Simon Magus, we
find the first real connection of true Christianity with the Chaldean priest who was prophesied to bring in its
Next, we will see how Simon Magus managed to startle the Roman world with his plan to bring in one
universal religion under the guise of Christianity.
Simon Magus Begins UNIVERSAL Church
History comes alive with the startling story of how Simon Magus -- branded a FALSE
PROPHET by the book of Acts -- established HIS OWN UNIVERSAL church!
SIMON MAGUS was a Babylonian priest. He was a part of the Babylonian community that
had been living in the land of Northern Israel ever since the Northern Ten Tribes were
carried away captive by the Assyrians. God tells us that these Samaritans, as they were
called, were claiming to be the true people of God while at the same time practicing many
heathen rites which came directly from Babylon (II Kings 17:41).
This was the type of religious environment in which Simon Magus was born. This was the
environment in which he commenced his own ministry and was finally proclaimed the "great one
. . . the great power of God" -- that is, God Himself (Acts 8:9-10).
He so swayed the whole of the Samaritan nation that all gave heed to him -- they did for a
very long time (Verses 9-11). But when he saw the potential of Christianity, he endeavored
to buy an apostleship in the Church. Peter rebuked him sternly.
Simon Magus and HIS Universal Church
Simon Magus, after his rejection by Peter, began to fashion his own "Christian" church -- a
church of which HE was head -- a church designed to completely overthrow the True Church
of God. His idea was to blend together Babylonian teaching with some of the teachings of
Christ -- especially to take the name of Christ -- and thus create ONE UNIVERSAL
CHURCH! But a church with Babylonianism as its basis.
Harnack, a church historian, states that Simon Magus "proclaimed a doctrine in which the
Jewish faith was strangely and grotesquely mixed with BABYLONIAN myths, together with
some Greek additions. The mysterious worship . . . in consequence of the widened horizon and
the deepening religious feeling, finally the wild SYNCRETISM [that is, blending together
religious beliefs], whose aim WAS A UNIVERSAL RELIGION, 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
much further in the criticism of the Old Testament and perceived the impossibility of saving
it [that is, the Old Testament] for the Christian UNIVERSAL RELIGION. They rather
connected this [universal] religion with the cultus-wisdom of BABYLON and SYRIA" (VoI. 1,
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. Simonís attitude was corrupt in the
The Bible shows he had been working through demons. And yet, he finally called himself a
"Christian." Dr. McGiffert, speaking of Simon Magus, says: "His effort to rival and surpass
Jesus very likely began after his contact with the Christians that Luke records. His religious
system was apparently a SYNCRETISM of Jewish and Oriental elements" (Hastingís
Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 497).
Simonís Later Activities
To read all the material that the writers of the second to the fourth centuries wrote about
this man and his followers, would literally take days. He has been called by many of them
"the father of HERESY," and, apart from the Bible, the amount of literature devoted to him
and his activities, shows he lived up to that title.
Some of the following authorities to be brought forth were eyewitnesses of many of the
things mentioned, and they were writing to others who were likewise eyewitnesses. Much of
the testimony to be mentioned is conclusive and cannot be set aside.
With this evidence of Simonís activities after his rejection by Peter, we will clearly be able
to see why Luke thought it most important to tell the real condition of this man, proving
that he was in actuality NEVER an Apostle of Christ. In this regard, notice the comment of
Hastingís Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 496: "But it need NOT be supposed
that when Simon broke with the Christians HE RENOUNCED ALL HE HAD LEARNED. It is
more probable that he carried some of the Christian ideas with him, and that he wove these
into a system of his own. This system did contain some of the later germs of Gnosticism.
Thus he became a leader of a retro-grade sect, perhaps nominally Christian, and certainly
using some of the Christian terminology but in reality anti-Christian and exalting Simon
himself to the central position which Christianity was giving to Jesus Christ" (Ibid).
Simon Magus Blends Paganism With Christianity!
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 Schaffís History of the Church a reference to this Simon Magus. He
says: "The author, or first representative of this baptized HEATHENISM, according to the
uniform testimony of Christian antiquity, is Simon Magus, who unquestionably adulterated
Christianity with pagan ideas and practices, and gave himself out, in a pantheistic style for
an emanation of God" Apostolic Christianity, ol. 2, p. 566).
Simon only used the name of Christianity to bring about his own desired ends. The
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 Simonís doctrines consisted of primarily?
"Two independent traditions profess to preserve the teaching of Simon, the one betraying
the influence of Alexandrian allegory, the other of Syrian and Babylonian religion"
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. HE WAS
CALLING PAGANISM BY THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY!
"Evidently the Simonian heresy always had a Christian tinge. This made it more dangerous to
Christians than a Gnostic which did not affect any Christian influence. Luke therefore would
be anxious to disclose the true circumstances that accounted for the origin of the sect --
circumstances highly discreditable to Simon" Hastingís Bible Dictionary, p. 498).
The reason Luke recorded this encounter with Simon was its far-reaching effects. As
Hastingís explains, the important reason was that of "Lukeís well-known plan of describing
THE FIRST MEETING between Christianity and rival systems" (Ibid., p. 498).
Luke gives in detail the principal character who established the so-called Christian
counterpart of the Truth in the Apostlesí days. This is the reason the Apostles in their
Church letters many times mention the false system as ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, but fail
to describe its origin. They didnít have to. That was already done RIGHT AT THE FIRST by
Who History Says This Simon Became!
"When Justin Martyr wrote [152 A.D.] his Apology, the sect of the Simonians appears to
have been formidable, for he speaks four times of their founder, Simon; and we need not
doubt that he identified him with the Simon of the Acts. He states that he was a
Samaritan, adding that his birthplace was a village called Gitta; he describes him as a
formidable magician, and tells that he came to ROME in the days of Claudius Caesar (45
A.D.), and made such an impression by his magical powers, THAT HE WAS HONORED AS A
GOD, a statue being erected to him on the Tiber, between the two bridges, bearing the
inscription ĎSimoni deo Sanctoí (i.e., the holy god Simon)" Dictionary of Christian
Vol. 4, p. 682).
That these things actually happened CANNOT BE DOUBTED! Justin was writing to the
Roman people at the time and they could certainly have exposed Justinís credulity if what he
said was not so. And, that a statue of Simon was actually erected is definite, for Justin
asks the authorities in Rome to destroy it!
There are many writers, who lived in Rome itself, who afterwards repeated Justinís
Those who want to reject these clear statements have nothing in their favor. Justin is
clearly giving us fact!
Hastingís Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol 2, p. 496, states that there is "very
slight evidence on which to reject so precise a statement as Justin makes; a statement he
would scarcely have hazarded in an apology addressed to Rome, where every person had the
means of ascertaining its accuracy. If he made a mistake, it must have been at once
exposed, and other writers would not have frequently repeated the story as they have
At the time of Claudius, it was illegal to erect a statue to any man as a god or greatly
honored person unless the permission of the Emperor and the Senate had been secured. The
statue was still standing in Justinís day (152 A.D.), people were still giving regard to it.
There are many other accounts of Simonís traveling to Rome and becoming one of the great
gods to the city and to the people of Rome. There are records which show that Simon
"prophesies that Rome will be the scene of his crowning glory, when he will be adored as a
god" Dictionary of Religion & Ethics, Vol. 11, p. 522).
Simon Peter NOT With Simon Magus in Rome
Later, about the fourth century, a flood of works came out about Peter encountering Simon
Magus in Rome and overthrowing him. But these works are clearly fiction. Almost all scholars
realize the absurdity of maintaining such a thing. In the first place, it can be Biblically
shown that Peter the Apostle was NEVER in Rome when these fictitious writings say he
It was NOT Simon Peter who went to Rome to become Apostle to the Gentiles, but the
SIMON in Rome was SIMON MAGUS!
That Peter the Apostle was not with Simon Magus in Rome is made plain by the Encyclopedia
Biblica, col. 4554.
"The attempt has been made to meet this by pointing out that church fathers mention the
presence of SIMON in Rome while at the same time NOT speaking of controversies between
him and PETER. This is indeed true of Justin [one of the earliest witnesses -- 152
who knows nothing of any presence of Peter in Rome at all, as also of Irenaeus."
Not only did Justin feel that Peter was NOT in Rome at the time, but his deliberate silence
shows he didnít want to perpetrate such fiction. After all, Justin lived very early in the
history of the church, and the legend of the Apostle Peterís being in Rome HADNíT GOT
STARTED YET! Continuing with the Encyclopedia Biblica about Justinís reference to SIMON
MAGUS: "One part of this tradition -- that about Simonís presence in Rome -- he [Justin]
found himself able to accept [in fact he held it to be confirmed by the statue, which he
brought into connection with Simon]; the other -- that about Peterís presence in Rome --
he was unable to accept" (col. 4555).
Of course Justin was unable to accept the latter teaching. The fact is, Simon Peter was
NOT in Rome. It was another Simon who went there -- SIMON MAGUS, the one bringing
"Christianity" to them in the guise of the old Babylonian mystery religions. Simon came to
Rome with the grand idea of e stablishing a UNIVERSAL RELIGION in the NAME of
Christianity! And what is remarkable, he did just that!
Next, we will see how Simon Magus became later confused with Simon Peter and how he
cleverly brought into "Christianity" the mystery religions of Babylon.
Peter Was NOT The First Pope!
Here are TEN solid, Biblical proofs that Peter was not at Rome. Mark each in your Bible and understand
them well, so YOU will not be deceived.
THE PRIMACY of the Roman Catholic Church depends upon one fundamental doctrine: the claim that
Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and the founder of the Roman Church.
The teaching of Catholic historians tells us that Simon Peter went to Rome at the same time as Simon
Magus in order to thwart his evils. This was during the reign of Claudius. After successfully combating the
Magus, they tell us, Peter assumed the Roman bishopric and ruled it until the Neronian persecutions of 68
A.D., during which Peter was supposed to have been crucified upside down on Vatican hill. This is the
basic story and Catholic writers never shirk in attempting to defend it. Some of them say that this general
account is one of the most provable of historical events.
But is it?
The fact remains, many ecclesiastical authors of the second century, Justin Martyr among them, give
information completely negating Peterís supposed Roman bishopric. This is admitted by virtually all
scholars -- except conservative Catholics (Ency. Biblica, col. 4554). But, more important than this, the
records of the True Church of God -- the writings of the New Testament -- absolutely refute the Roman
It is time that the world gets its eyes open to the truth of this matter -- the truth, which is clearly revealed in
the Word of God. The Apostle Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!
The Bible Teaching
There are ten major New Testament proofs which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome
from the time of Claudius until Nero. These Biblical points speak for themselves and ANY ONE of them is
sufficient to prove the ridiculousness of the Catholic claim. Notice what God tells us! The truth IS conclusive!
PROOF ONE: We should consider Christís commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to
Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to
"The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the
apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8).
Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief
Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASNíT Peter!
"And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift
or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we
should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9).
Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am
appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."
PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to
become the head of a Gentile community.
PROOF TWO: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not
"I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up
of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16).
Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was
Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed."
PAUL Established Only TRUE Church at Rome
PROOF THREE: We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter -- who was going to officially found
the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be
established" (Rom. 1:11).
Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the
Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius.
Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the
Catholic Church! But these proofs are given to illustrate that it
is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated
with ANY Church at Rome.
PROOF FOUR: We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church
at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to
build upon another manís foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach
the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER
If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this
statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement
alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time
Peter Not in Rome
PROOF FIVE: At the end of Paulís Epistle to the Romans he greets no
fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once!
See Romans 16 -- read the whole chapter!
Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didnít he
mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasnít there!
PROOF SIX: Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed
as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When
the Christian community in Rome heard of Paulís arrival, they all
went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came
to meet us" (Acts 28:15).
Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would
have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions
by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing
of Peterís meeting with Paul.
Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!
PROOF SEVEN: When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he
did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to
whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23).
But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they
knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they
knew was that ĎĎas concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it
is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them
the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed
-- the majority didnít.
Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself
a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for
14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these
Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of
Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome
prior to 59 A.D.
No Mention of Peter in Paulís Letters
PROOF EIGHT: After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained
in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles
to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to
the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during
that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the
Apostle to the circumcision wasnít there!
PROOF NINE: With the expiration of Paulís two yearís imprisonment,
he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was
again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before
the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these
circumstances at length in II Timothy.
In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II 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 Christ, but that was before he was converted. To
believe that Peter was in Rome during Paulís trial, is untenable!
PROOF TEN: The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not
in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though Catholics say he was. Paul said:
"Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11).
The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome;
and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only
does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke
is with me."
Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!
Where Was Peter?
Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts
12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending
the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where
he got into differences with Paul because he wouldnít sit or eat with
Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do
with Gentiles in 51 A.D.!
Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the
Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED.
Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many
Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christís time as there were in Palestine.
It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason
why scholars say Peterís writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor --
the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used
to their eastern dialect.
At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, the Bible clearly
shows he was elsewhere. The evidence is abundant and conclusive. By
paying attention to Godís own words, no one need be deceived. Peter
was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!
A "PETER" Was in Rome Two Thousand Years B.C.!
Who was the first "Peter" of Rome? What were his successors called?
The history of ancient religion reveals the plain truth about the
original Peter of Rome. The truth about his real successors is now
clear to us -- but hidden to the world. Here is what history shows
us of the ORIGINAL Peter of Rome. The truth is startling!
THE BIBLE records that in the earliest ages, right after the Flood
of Noah, men began to rebel against the teachings of God. They began
to build cities, found religions, bring in idolatries. Pagan temples
were erected -- the Tower of Babel came on the scene. All o these
things started within the first two hundred years after the Flood.
Pagan Gods Called "Peters"
Surprising as it may sound, it is a well-known fact among students
of ancient religion, that the chief pagan gods worshipped in the early
civilizations were generally known by the name PETER. It is also known
that the priests of those heathen gods were also called PETERS. That
same name in one form or another, was even applied to the pagan TEMPLES
consecrated to those gods.
Notice what Bryant, in his work Ancient Mythology says: "Not
only the gods, but the Hierophantae [special priests], in most temples;
and those priests in particular, who were occupied in the celebration
of mysteries, were styled PATRES" (vol. 1, p. 354).
This is significant! The word PATRE is the same as PATOR or PETER
in meaning and pronunciation.
Bryant continues: "PATRE was undoubtedly a religious term . . . .
the same as PATOR and PATORA."
The ancient pagan gods, the priests who were their ministers, and
their sacred sanctuaries -- their temples -- were ALL called PETORS
or PETERS (either spelling is acceptable since vowels are fluid in
all languages -- especially the Semitic).
The Meaning of "Peter"
What did the word PATOR or PETER really mean to the ancients? Surprisingly
enough, the word is in the Bible. When Moses wrote about the Egyptian
priests, he shows they were called PETERS or "interpreters" -- interpreters
of the ancient Egyptian mysteries.
Notice Genesis 41:8. Davidson shows in his Hebrew Lexicon
that the consonantal word P-T-R (PETER) signifies "to interpret" or
"interpretation" (p. 638; of Brown, Driver, Briggs, p. 837; and Gesenius,
p. 877 and p. 843). Bryant points out that "the term always related
to oracle interpretation" (p. 308).
The pagan priests of the mystery religions were called PATORS or PETERS.
They had the power to interpret the heathen mysteries. This is further
brought out by Bunson in his Hieroglyph, page 545, where he
shows that the Egyptians -- as the Bible also indicates -- called
their "interpreters" or priests: PETR, that is, PETER.
The term PETER was one of the earliest names for the pagan gods. It
lasted as late as Greek and Roman times. But by that time the term
also took on a widespread secular meaning. It came generally to mean
"father" or "parent." But this was not its primary meaning at all.
Bryant continues: "The word PATER, when used in the religious addresses
of the Greeks and Romans, meant NOT, as is supposed, a father or parent;
but related to the divine influence of the Deity, called by the people
of the East, PATOR" (Ibid., p. 353).
In many ancient religions the father was the chief priest of the family.
That is the reason the head of the family became known as PATOR or
"father." The father, because of his priestly position, became known
as the ARCHPATOR, or, as it is commonly rendered, PATRIARCH. This
is how the term PATOR came to signify, in a secular sense, "a father."
But originally, it always meant, "interpreter" -- especially one of
the mystery religions.
Chief Pagan Gods Called PETERS
We have clear evidence showing that the ancient Romans called their
chief gods PETERS -- the divine interpreters. The early Roman writer
Lucilius, mentions Neptune, Liber, Saturn, Mars, Janus and Quirnus
-- all were PATERS. (See the Lucilii Fragments.) He did not mean they
were "father-gods." He meant they were gods of PETER-rank -- the chief
Lucilius doesnít exhaust the list. In fact, he leaves out JUPITER,
the "Father" of the Roman gods. But it was unnecessary to mention
him as a "PETER-god." Due to his high rank, the title PETER was actually
incorporated as a part of his name. He was called JU-PETER.
Gladstone in his work on the antiquities of Greece, shows that Jupiter
and the Greek god ZEUS were one and the same, JU-PETER was the Roman
way of saying ZEUS-PETER, the chief god of the Greeks (Homer and the
Homeric Age, vol. I, p. 287), PETER was the name that came to signify
high rank among the gods -- and among their priests
Greeks Used Term "Peter"
The Romans were not the only ones who called their gods PETERS, The
Classical Manual reveals that the Greeks used the term PETER (or its
variants) as often as did the Romans.
For example, Apollo was called PATRIUS and his followers APOLLO PATRIUS
(p. 23). Pausanius tells us that Artemis and Bacchus were called PATORA,
that is PETER-gods (Books 1, 2). Pindar speaks of Poseidon Petraios.
He says the Thessalians worshipped Neptune under this title (Pyth.
In Egypt, the Ammonian priests -- who headed one of the chief pagan
oracles of ancient Egypt -- were called Petors, as Bryant also says:
"The chief instrument (idol) in their hands was styled PIETAURUM"
(Ibid., p. 356).
This idol on many occasions took the form of a pole or upright stake
(Ibid., p. 358). The pagan god Artemis is often pictured standing
by a stone pillar which is called PATROA or PETER (Pausanius, Bk.
1). These pillars, and all the phallic symbols like them, came to
be known as PETRAS -- the sacred PETERS. (It is still common among
the vulgar to refer to the male member by its original religious name
-- PETER.) These phallic Peter-stones can be found all over the ancient
world. In fact, there is not a mention of an ancient pagan oracle
temple without some notice being given to a PETER emblem -- the sacred
Like the word PATOR -- which came to indicate simply a "father" or
"parent" -- the word PETRA came to mean any large stone. But in the
earliest times, it conveyed only the original religious meaning.
"The term PETRA came at length to signify any rock or stone and to
be in a manner confined to that meaning. But in the first ages it
was ALWAYS TAKEN IN A RELIGIOUS SENSE; and related to the shrines
of Osiris, or the Sun (Baal), and to other oracles which were supposed
to be exhibited" (Bryant, p. 359). In other words, the term PETRA
meant the sacred PETER-stone -- a stone usually phallic in design.
"Petras" in Pagan World
Notice some references to these sacred PETRAS found throughout the
At the temple of Delphi in Greece, the chief object in the ritual
was the PETRA (Pausanius, Bk. 10). At the Acropolis in Athens, Euripides
tells us, the niches which held the idols were called the PETRAE (verse
935). It is well-known that even the sacred book which was used in
the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries, was entitled "Book PETROMA,"
PETER-ROMA-- PETERíS BOOK (see Potterís Antiquities, vol.
1, p. 356).
Remember that the pagan temples were also called after the PETERS.
The temple at Elis in Greece was called PETRON (Lycophron, verse 159).
Pytho at Delphi was called PETRAessa (Olymp. Ode 6). The oracle temple
dedicated to Apollo in Asia Minor was called the PATARA and the oracle
there was called PATAReus ("Eus" means "person who, one") -- (Lempriereís
Classical Dictionary, 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).
Origin of Ancient PETER-worship
PETER-worship can be traced directly back to MESOPOTAMIA. It was there
that idolatry had its beginning. There is where the Tower of Babel
was erected. It is no wonder that in Mesopotamia we find the first
mention of a PETER-temple. In Numbers 23; 22:4-5 we read that the
false prophet Balaam was called to prophesy against Israel. Further,
in Deuteronomy 23:4, we read that this Balaam had been called from
"Pethor of Mesopotamia" -- that is, from the PETER of MESOPOTAMIA.
This Pethor or Peter (either spelling is correct) was the place of
an oracle temple. In the Dictionary of Proper Names of the Old
Testament, edited by A. Jones, we find that Balaamís PETHOR was
the sacred high place "where there was an oracular temple, and hence
called PETHOR, and PETHORA, which meant, place of interpretation,
or oracular temple. Here was, no doubt, a college of priests of whom
Balaam had been appointed chief PATORA" (p. 296).
Yes, Balaam was the chief PATORA (Peter) of the PETHOR (Peter-temple)
It was customary for each pagan country to have a chief oracle or
tempIe. The PETHOR or PETER in Greece was Delphi, In Egypt it was
Ammon. In Asia Minor it was Lycia -- and later Pergamos. Professor
Jones tells about the other PETHORS throughout the world.
Ďhigh placesí were scattered about in many parts. There was a city
of Ďinterpretationí in Acaia, called PATRAE, and another in Lycia,
called PATARA, where Apollo had an oracle. PETHOR was in after times
celebrated for the worship of Ailat" (Ibid., p. 296).
Balaam "Chief Peter"
But Balaam came from PETHOR on the Euphrates -- the oracle of Mesopotamia.
He was no less than the CHIEF PATORA (as Jones mentions) of the VERY
HOME of idolatry and false religion.
The very meaning of the name "Balaam" shows he considered himself
as sitting in the very chair of Nimrod, the beginner of the mystery
religions. The name "Balaam" means in Semitic tongues "Conqueror of
the People." This was the exact proper name the Greeks used to designate
NIMROD. They called him NICOLAUS, which also meant "Conqueror of the
In the New Testament we read of people following the doctrines of
NICOLAUS (Nimrod). They were called Nicolaitanes. McClintock and Strongís
Encyclopaedia speaking of them says: "The sect of the Nicolaitanes
is described as following the doctrine or teaching of Balaam -- and
it appears not improbable that this name is employed symbolically,
as NICOLAUS is equivalent in meaning to BALAAM" (vol. 1, p. 621).
Yes, the two names NICOLAUS and BALAAM are exactly the same in meaning
-- they both point to NIMROD, the originator of paganism. We also
find that when Simon Magus (alias Simon Peter) "Christianized" the
religion of NIMROD, John the Apostle plainly labels his followers
NICOLAITANES and followers of BALAAM. All of the heresies mentioned
in the Seven Churches are of only ONE system -- the system of NIMROD,
under the leadership of Simon Magus.
Balaam Represents Nimrod
The name of Balaam is another name for NIMROD. But, understand this
clearly -- the "Balaam" who met Israel on their way out of Egypt was
NOT the original Nimrod. He had been killed several hundred years
before. This Balaam merely represented Nimrod as his successor. We
are all aware that Joshua, being a successor of Moses, was looked
on as sitting in Mosesí seat. Even in Christís time the scribes and
Pharisees sat in Mosesí seat of authority (Matt. 23:1-4).
So it was with Balaam. He maintained one of the proper names of Nimrod
to signify that he was the legitimate successor of the Arch-Rebel.
And to emphasize his authority, Balaam could point to his headquarters
as the PETHOR or PETER of Mesopotamia. Therefore, the Moabites in
their hatred for Israel called for the chief priest of the pagan world.
They ignored the priesthood of their own national gods -- going to
the highest authority they knew! Josephus represents this false prophet
as "Balaam, who lived by the Euphrates, and was the greatest of the
prophets of that time" (Ant. IV, 6,2). Balaam was the successor of
Nimrod -- the PONTIFEX MAXIMUS of the pagan world. His headquarters
was the "PETER on the Euphrates" -- the SAINT PETERíS OF MESOPOTAMIA,
the chief oracle of paganism. This is a shocking revelation -- but
one which stands the test of the Bible and ancient religious history.
PETER-gods Come to Rome
It is well-known history that in the earliest ages, the center of
civilization was in Asia and Mesopotamia. In later times, political
power passed to the Greeks and then to the Romans. It is also well-recognized
that the religions of Asia, by Greek and Roman times, had also passed
to the West. By the First Century, the mystery religions of the Babylonians
were centered primarily in Rome! By that time, Rome had become the
chief city of the world.
Early records mention this transference of pagan religion from Asia
right to the city of Rome. The First Century book by Virgil, The Aenid,
in Imperial times became a type of Roman "Bible." It gives the story
of one Aeneas who wandered away from Asia right after the Trojan War
and settled in Italy.
The main theme of the book concerns the so-called "sacred task" of
Aeneas: bringing the pagan gods of Asia to Italy! Virgil spares no
words in glorifying Aeneasí journey. He shows how Aeneas brought the
Romans ORGANIZED RELIGION -- with all the pagan gods and goddesses
necessary for performing it. And most important: Virgil constantly
says that these deities were the PATRII of Asia. (See the CIassical
Manual, page 592, for full information confirming this.) These
gods and goddesses were the PETER-deities -- the chief deities which
were destined to favor Rome and Italy above all other countries.
Asia had been the original home of the PETER-gods. Through Virgil
we find them being transported to the doorstep of Rome. And why not?
By the First Century, Rome was considered "the home of the gods."
Prudentius, an ancient Roman himself, says that there wasnít a single
pagan deity that did not in the end find its headquarters at Rome.
Notice what he says: "There came to be one single home for all earth-born
gods, and you may count as many temples of gods AT ROME as tombs of
heroes in all the world" (Symmachus, 189 to 197).
It could hardly be clearer! By Imperial times, Rome became the headquarters
of pagan religion. It was the chief oracle of the world, the PETER
for the earth.
The Chief Gods of Rome
There were two gods of ancient Rome which were pre-eminently worshipped
as PETER-gods. One was JU-PETER (Zeus-Peter). The other, says the
Classical Manual, was JANUS, called PATER or PETER (see page 389).
Sometimes these two gods are confused. But they are to be reckoned
as distinct -- relative to Roman paganism of the First Century. The
latter god, JANUS-PETER, had some interesting roles to play in the
pagan religion at Rome. These roles answer the question: Who was the
original Peter of Rome? Notice a brief history and some of the activities
of this god.
Plutarch in his life of Numa, gives us the identity of JANUS. Originally,
according to Plutarch, Janus was an ancient prince who reigned in
the infancy of the world. He brought men from a rude and savage life
to a mild and rational system. HE was the first to build cities and
the first to establish government over men. After his death he was
deified. There can be no mistaking who this JANUS was! This title
was just another of the many names of Nimrod. This ancient prince
who was violently killed, was later deified by the pagan religions.
Because of his high authority, he was called a PATOR or PETER.
Here are some of the religious activities of which JANUS-PETER was
It was JANUS-PETER who was pre-eminent in interpreting the times --
especially prophecy. "The past and the future was always present in
his mind" (Classical Manual, pages 388 and 389). He was pictured
as being double-faced. Plutarch said this was a symbol of his endeavor
to change men from barbarism to civilization -- that is, bring them
to the civilization of NIMROD. One of JANUSí roles, after his deification
as a god, was the continuation of his sacred task of "civilizing"
But let us go a little farther.
Janus-Peter Had "Keys"
The PETER-god JANUS was to the ancient Romans the "KEEPER OF THE GATES
OF HEAVEN AND EARTH." "HE IS REPRESENTED WITH A KEY IN ONE HAND .
. . as emblematic of his presiding over GATES and highways."
How shocking! The pagan Romans were calling their JANUS a PETER hundreds
of years before the birth of the Apostle Peter. It was this JANUS
who was in charge of the "pearly gates"! The very word JANUS means
"gates," that is, the one in charge of the GATES.
The Classical Manual continues: "Ovid speaks of him [Janus]
in the first book of his Fasti; his face is double to denote his equal
empire over the heavens and the earth -- [does not the Pope claim
the same power today?] -- and that all things are open and shut to
him AT HIS WILL -- [he was infallible and answered to no one for his
actions, so the Pope] -- that he governs the universe [Catholicum],
and alone possesses the power of making the world revolve on its axis;
THAT HE PRESIDES OVER THE GATES OF HEAVEN."
Catholics Claim "Keys"
The Catholic Church claims Peter gave to it the keys of the gates
of heaven and that no one will enter into Godís presence unless that
church opens the gates. The very word "Cardinal" means "hinge." The
Cardinals of the Roman Church are the HINGES upon which the GATE --
the Pope -- is able to turn.
The Classical Manual continues: "the successions of day and night
are regulated by his influence; and that the east and the west is
at one moment open to his view." It was JANUS-PETER who also controlled
the calendar by his priests. The first month of the year was named
after him to show his control over the years. So, today, we still
have JANU-ary as the first month. The Catholic Church, like the priests
of Janus, feels it has this same authority over the calendar today.
Another Name for Nimrod
Finally, it is necessary to notice at least one more name under which
Nimrod masqueraded -- the name MITHRAS, the Persian name for Baal,
the sun god. This Mithras-worship of Nimrod was popular and was one
of the last to plant itself in Rome, but it had a very old theme --
outright PETER-worship. "Mithras was styled by the nations of the
East PATOR; his temples were PATRA and PETRA and his festivals PATRICA"
(Bryant, vol. 1, p. 370).
Yes, even Nimrod under the name Mithras, the sun-god, was called PETER!!!
Sir James Frazer tells us of this religion of Mithra -- the religion
of the pagan PETER -- coming to Rome. Notice it. "Among the gods of
eastern origin who in the decline of the ancient world competed against
each other for the allegiance of the West was the old Persian deity
of MITHRA. The immense popularity of his worship is attested by the
monuments illustrative of it which have been found scattered in profusion
ALL OVER THE ROMAN EMPIRE. In respect both of doctrines and of rites
the cult of MITHRA appears to have presented many points of resemblance
not only to the religion of the Mother of the Gods but also to Christianity"
(Golden Bough, St. Martinís ed., vol. 1, p. 471).
Catholics Accept "Peter" Worship
What he means is that the Christianity of the third and fourth centuries
had already by that time inherited so much from pagan beliefs, that
this PETER-religion coming from the East found many similarities with
Roman Christianity. The Catholics had already, by this late date,
accepted the pagan festivals of Christmas, Easter and a host of other
rituals and beliefs. Frazer continues: "Taken altogether, the coincidences
of the Christian with the heathen festivals are too close and too
numerous to be accidental" (Ibid., p. 475).
It was this pagan MITHRAISM which gave the most to "Christianity."
Bryant shows that the chief name of MITHRA in the East was PATOR or
PETER -- "his temples were PATRA and PETRA and his festivals PATRICA."
Everything connected with this ancient pagan religion can be traced
right back to the original PETER -- the original "interpreter of the
mysteries" who was none other than NIMROD. This is the same mystery
system which the Roman Catholics have absorbed.
Sits in "Peterís" Chair
No wonder the Roman Catholic Church claims to sit in PETERíS CHAIR
and that the chief temple of the world is today called SAINT PETERíS.
That Church has accepted the practices and symbols of the oldest pagan
religion on earth: PETER-worship -- the religion of Nimrod.
This pagan religion was believed and practiced before Christ ever
told the Apostle Peter and the other Apostles that they were to have
the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Satan counterfeited
Godís true religion centuries before Christ came!
This was Satanís attempt to smother Godís true religion with a counterfeit
that to the untrained eye looks genuine. He did this principally through
Simon Magus (Pater) who amalgamated all the pagan religions into one
UNIVERSAL religion and called the system "Christianity."
The Bible tells us to come completely out of this false religious
system masquerading under the name of Christianity. We are to get
back to the faith once delivered to the saints. We can thank God for
His goodness in giving to His Church the TRUTH.
Simonites Establish UNIVERSAL CHURCH
Elevating his personal teachings above the Bible, and preaching a
"no-works" doctrine of salvation, Simon Magus soon had a universal,
popular following. Deified by the Romans, he was buried on Vatican
Hill. Read how it happened in this article.
SIMON Magus, just like his Samaritan forefathers, deliberately blended
together the teachings of Babylon with Biblical phrases.
One of his main intentions was to appropriate a Christian vocabulary
to the Babylonian ceremonial system. In other words, he kept on with
his heathenism, but now called his system "Christian" in origin.
Letís go on. "But he [Simon] promised that the world should be dissolved,
and that those who were his own should be redeemed. And accordingly,
HIS PRIESTS, Irenaeus tells us [yes, Simon established a priesthood],
led lascivious lives, used magic and incantations, made philtres,
HAD FAMILIAR SPIRITS by whose aid they were able to trouble with dreams
those whom they would. They had IMAGES of Simon and Helen, in the
forms respectively of JUPITER and MINERVA" (Dict. of Christian
Biography, vol. 4, p. 683).
Simon Honored as Jupiter
People who had demonic powers as Simon did, were honoured as gods
in the first century -- even sacrifices were offered to them. Does
this seem unlikely? Then read Acts 14:11-13. After seeing the great
miracles that Paul and Barnabas had done through the Holy Spirit,
Luke says: "When the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up
their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come
down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter;
and Paul, Mercury." Then the priest of Jupiter came out to offer them
Paul and Barnabas "rent their clothes" at such action. What would
SIMON MAGUS have done? Or rather, what did Simon Magus do? He let
the Roman Senate with the approval of the Emperor Claudius deify him
as a god and erect a statue to him. And, the people who followed SIMON
called him JUPITER -- at the same time calling themselves Christians.
The statue that must have been dedicated to Simon was in the likeness
of the chief god of the pagan world -- the god that desolated the
Holy Place in Godís temple -- Jupiter Capitolinus.
The Death of Simon Magus
The records regarding Simonís death vary widely. Many of the stories
try to incorporate some fiction from the Greek and Egyptian myths
to enhance the readerís interest in this fascinating character. But
the earliest records say that he was buried in Rome after a long period
of great honour and deification.
It is not clearly known where Simon Magus alias Simon Pater or Simon
Jupiter was buried. But this much is known. The place of burial for
ALL prophets and holy men of the Romans was in the sacred cemetery
on Vatican Hill. This much is certain.
Notice what Werner Keller in his The Bible as History says
about the so-called burial of the Catholicsí Peter. (Before reading
Kellerís statement, let us remember that he is a thorough-going Catholic
and firmly, himself, believed that the Apostle Peter was buried in
Rome. However, the Bible shows nothing of the kind. Now, letís read
Kellerís comment -- the official comment of the Roman Catholic Church):
"On the night of his death on the cross Peterís followers BURIED his
body. As in the case of Jesus on the hill of Calvary it was wrapped
in linen and secretly taken to a PAGAN BURIAL GROUND on the Via Cornelia,
behind the stone structure of the arena. This PAGAN CEMETERY lay on
a knoll called VATICANUS: the Latin word Ďvatisí means a Ďprophetí
or ĎSOOTHSAYERí. In days gone by there had been an Etruscan oracle
on this spot" (p. 368).
What an admission!
Keller ought to have better sense to know that this Peter buried in
this cemetery, of all places, could NOT be the Apostle Peter. In the
first place, Peter was a Jew, and they had to be buried in their own
cemeteries. And even if by a happen-chance a Jew could be buried in
a Roman cemetery, it is most unlikely that a Jew -- especially one
who attacked the Roman religion as the Apostle Peter did -- would
ever have been allowed into the most holy of pagan cemeteries! This
cemetery was reserved for prophets, soothsayers and the great ones
of pagan Rome. It would be as sensible to say that Hitler could find
a place of burial in Westminster Abbey. And too, can you imagine TRUE
Christians searching out a PAGAN CEMETERY -- the chief one -- in which
to bury the chief Christian Apostle, the inveterate enemy of PAGANISM?
This place, of all places, could not be the place of the Apostle Peterís
burial -- even if he had been in Rome. But, there is really no better
place for the burial of SIMON MAGUS. He had been, and was being, honoured
as a god -- not only by the people of Rome, but even by the Emperor
and the Senate.
Yes, Keller and his Catholic friends have undoubtedly found a SIMON,
but not the Apostle Peter.
Catholic Church Accepts SIMON MAGUSí Teachings
We have the record of history which tells us that Simonís teaching
spread like wildfire -- especially in Rome where he was honoured as
a god. In fact, after going there he made that city his headquarters.
But let us recall that the followers of Simon called themselves TRUE
Simon steadfastly adhered to this. In fact, it finally became the
desired name for his followers to use. The names Simonians and Samaritans
began to die out in the 2nd century A.D. Justin tells us that some
were still going by the parent name in his day (152 A.D.). But by
the time of Origen (220 A.D.), he states that there were hardly 30
people in the world which went by the parent name. Yet Eusebius, who
lived about 100 years later, said they were indeed still numerous
all over the world.
The fact is, they were divorcing themselves from the use of the name
SIMON or Samaritans because by the fourth century their names were
beginning to have an odious connotation to them. Nonetheless the Simonians
were very much around -- this time with the name of "Christian." And
we have the exact testimony of Eusebius himself (325 A.D.) that these
people were flocking into the Catholic Church.
Notice what Eusebius says, after stating that Simon Magus in the days
of the Apostles received baptism and feigned Christian belief: "And
what is more surprising, the same thing IS DONE EVEN TO THIS DAY by
those who follow HIS most impure heresy. For they, after the manner
of their forefather, SLIPPING INTO THE CHURCH, like a pestilential
and leprous disease GREATLY AFFLICT THOSE [a great number of people]
into whom they are able to infuse the deadly and terrible poison concealed
in themselves" (Eccl. Hist., II, ch. I, sect. 12).
This is amazing testimony, for Eusebius is telling us that these people
were now "Christians" and that they were corrupting the entire church
as a pestilential disease which hits the whole body. Eusebius later
maintains that the chief troublemakers were being expelled from the
Catholic Church. But how could they expel all of them? Almost the
whole church by this time was affected.
It is not to be supposed that all of the early heretical sects were
direct branches of the Simon Magus religion. By the end of the first
century there were at least 50 minor sects. The Simon Magus group
represented several of these sects, but not all of them. The truth
is, the Simonians, whose headquarters were at Rome, finally absorbed
ALL these minor sects by the fifth century.
Simonism IS Catholicism
It is also true that even some of the Catholics (in Eusebiusí time)
were unwilling to go all the way and accept the SIMON MAGUS doctrines
of IMAGES, PICTURES, INCANTATIONS, etc., but within another hundred
years, history shows the bars were let down completely.
But in Eusebiusí day, he even balked at their bringing outright images
into the churches and worshiping them. Notice what he finally says
of these "Christians" of SIMON: "Simon was the author of all heresy.
From his time down to the present those who have followed his heresy
have FEIGNED the sober philosophy of the Christians, which is celebrated
among all on account of its purity of life. But they nevertheless
have embraced again the superstitions of idols, which they seemed
[ostentatiously] to have renounced; and they fall down before pictures
and images of Simon himself and of the above-mentioned Helena who
was with him [that is, the images of JUPITER and MINERVA -- the Catholics
do exactly this today]; and they venture to worship them with incense
and sacrifices and libations" (Eccl. Hist. II, 13, 6).
What clear and revealing statements! Eusebius is not talking about
what he considers distinct heretics outside the Catholic Church. He
is talking about the MAJOR group IN THAT CHURCH which was continually
adding more and more on a large scale. He attributes these evils to
the "Christians" who followed SIMON MAGUS. They were so active in
his day INSIDE THE CHURCH as to give him grave concern.
But what happened?
Did the few Catholic leaders of the fourth century who abhorred outright
IDOLATRY manage to persuade the masses to give it up and turn away
from the SIMONIANS (now called Christians) who were the cause of it
The answer from history is NO!
The Simonian "Christians" won out. Imagery, idolatry and paganism
-- became the Universal Church just as planned in the very beginning
by SIMON MAGUS -- or by the Devil who possessed him.
Can we now understand why God, through Luke, devotes a whole section
of Acts to warn us of this manís origin. He was NEVER a part of the
Church of God -- NEVER!! But he, and his followers -- from clear history
-- have succeeded in bringing in their UNIVERSAL religion -- a pagan
blend, called "Christian"!
Magus Counterfeit Marked Throughout New Testament
WHILE the book of Acts gives us the KEY which shows the beginnings
of the false religious system under Simon Magus, it does not describe
its activities in any great detail. The Acts, however, performs its
purpose in exposing who started the whole mess. God leaves it to the
epistles, Revelation, and also the Gospel of John to describe the
heresy IN DETAIL. We are certainly NOT left in doubt concerning its
The Chief Books of Expose
There is hardly an epistle that does not mention the religion of Simon
Magus. Even the scholars who have studied Church History have clearly
seen that almost ALL of the references in the New Testament epistles
exposing the errors in the first age of the Church are directed exclusively
to Simon Magus, or his immediate followers.
Schaffís History of the Church says the following about Simon
Magus and his doctrines: "Plain traces of this error appear in the
later epistles of Paul (to the Colossians, to Timothy, and to Titus),
the second epistle of Peter, the first two epistles of John, the epistle
of Jude, and the messages of the Apocalypse to the seven Churches."
"This heresy, in the second century, spread over the whole church,
east and west, in the various schools of Gnosticism" (Apostolic
Christianity, vol. 2, p. 556).
But to single out the one Apostle who seems to have made the most
deliberate and planned attack on the false Christianity of Simon Magus
-- we must look to John.
Take his Gospel for instance. While he records a history of Christís
ministry, he has an entirely different approach to the subject than
the other three.
John wrote late. Times had changed. John knew that the teachings of
Christ were being corrupted by a well-known plot to destroy the TRUTH.
To understand Johnís approach to his Gospel we must be aware of his
endeavour to expose this false system which had arisen and was gaining
Notice how John constantly hits at the necessity of keeping the commandments
of God. Why? Because the false system was preaching LIBERTINE doctrines.
Notice also Johnís particular geographical settings for his Gospel.
He was the one who mentions Christís meeting with the woman of Samaria.
John is clearly striking home at something in this Samaritan incident
that the Church of his time NEEDED to know.
All the other Gospels mention SAMARIA about five times, and even then
only casually or in order to give a simple geographical indication.
But, when we get to John, writing years after the others, he devotes
more space to matters in SAMARIA than is done in all the rest of the
New Testament put together. He had a definite and precise REASON for
John is noted for his plan of "tying up" or "capping off" the Gospel
accounts of Christ so as to give the Church a well-rounded Gospel
-- bringing in the extra points which were necessary for our knowing.
Also, Johnís epistles are jam-packed with specific information regarding
the conspiracy to overthrow the Truth. But yet, none of these works
of John mentioned above represent his LAST efforts to warn the Church
of that conspiracy which was very much present. Johnís last witness
to Godís Church before his death was the book of Revelation.
Christ gave His last written message of WARNING of this system through
John in Revelation! He tells us specifically the VERY NAMES OF THE
SYSTEM TO WATCH in a remarkable and hidden way. Hidden, and yet SO
PLAIN once the KEYS are understood. God certainly does NOT leave His
Church in the dark.
The Book of Revelation
This book is perhaps the most important towards our study of SIMON
MAGUSí Christianity. Why? Three clear-cut reasons.
(1) The book of Acts gives us the PAST history of the Church. It tells
us about Simon Magus who started the false system. Without the book
of Acts identifying the MAN behind it all, the activities of that
false system as recorded in the epistles becomes obscured and in some
cases unintelligible. So, the book of Acts is vitally important! !
(2) The epistles then come on the scene, describing the false system.
With the epistles, the incident of SIMON MAGUS in Acts represents
dynamite!! Each section of Scripture is designed to fulfill specific
duties. It is when we understand those duties that the Bible really
(3) Now to the all-important book of Revelation. While Acts describes
the beginning of the false system; the epistles nail down its doctrines
and describe its activities; the Book of Revelation next comes to
the foreground showing the false systemís PROPHETIC HISTORY THROUGH
ALL ERAS OF THE CHURCH. We must remember that Revelation intends to
show us "things which shall be hereafter." This is its duty -- and
it marvelously performs what it was intended to do.
The Seven Churches of Revelation
This section of Revelation gives a big KEY. It describes a brief prophetic
history of the Church until the coming of Christ. But also -- and
this is important -- it continually shows the false system with which
the TRUE Church would come in contact. Though different names are
used to describe the corrupters of the Truth, careful study shows
Christ is referring to ONE general false system -- perhaps with ramifications,
but nevertheless ONE system which will counter the True Church in
its entire history.
And in regard to this, Christ tells us in the plainest of words what
people it will be, who represent this false system. He tells us it
will be SAMARITANS! That is, it will be Samaritans, alias Christians
or, plainly, the followers of SIMON MAGUS!
Christ gives us double witness of this identification in a most remarkable
way. What He tells us in Acts of SIMON MAGUS being the beginning of
the diabolical scheme, He reinforces by telling us in Revelation that
Simonís followers will make up the false system until Christ returns
to this earth. Remember that Dr. Schaff, speaking of Simon Magus,
says that "plain traces of this error appear in . . . the messages
of the Apocalypse to the seven Churches."
But before seeing these clear references, I must say that the material
to follow would have been in the past classified as ABSURD in the
extreme, but recent discoveries put a whole new complexion on the
matter. Let us see.
Christ identifies the people behind the false system with several
names, but these are simply different names of the same system. Notice
this. In two distinct AGES of the Church we read of these people with
a distinct description.
"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they
are Jews, and are not, but do LIE; behold, I will make them to come
and worship before thy feet" (Rev. 3:9).
This is a promise for US today in the Philadelphia Church. We also
read of these false people called by this same name afflicting the
Christians of the Smyrna church era (Rev. 2:9). The identification
is repeated TWICE and both are describing conditions hundreds of years
apart. Now the question remains: WHO ARE INTENDED? The answer is so
clear. They are Samaritan-Christians, that is, the followers of SIMON
MAGUS the Samaritan!
Look again at this verse ". . . . which say they are Jews, and are
not, but do LIE. . . . "
If we would take that expression out of its Biblical context and,
for example, place it into an ordinary secular work written in the
first century, that expression could IDENTIFY only one people -- and
especially if a Jew was doing the writing: THE SAMARITANS.
The Samaritans were the only distinct people in the world in the first
and second centuries who said they were Jews, and yet were NOT Jews
and they knew it. The Samaritans were LIARS!!
Notice what Josephus said at the end of the first century -- just
about the time John wrote Revelation. He is speaking of the Samaritan
nation: "When the Jews are in adversity they [the Samaritans] deny
that they are kin to them, and THEN THEY CONFESS THE TRUTH; but when
they perceive that some good fortune hath befallen them, they immediately
PRETEND to have communion with them, saying, that they belong to them,
and desire their genealogy from the posterity of Joseph, Ephraim,
and Manasseh" (Antiquities, XI, 8, 6).
This is plain history! The Samaritans, if to their advantage, called
themselves Jews. But they were LIARS! They knew better. Their own
records showed they came from Babylon and adjacent areas. This is
exactly what the Old Testament says. They were clearly Gentiles.
Josephus continues about these Samaritans: "And when they see the
Jews in prosperity, they PRETEND they are changed and allied to them,
and call them kinsmen, as though they were derived from Joseph, and
had by that means an original alliance with them; but when they see
them falling into a low condition, they say that they are no way related
to them, and that the Jews have no right to expect any kindness or
marks of KINDRED from them, but they declare that they are sojourners,
that come from OTHER countries"
(Antiquities, IX, 14, 3).
Now this should begin to make sense. At the time of Simon Magus it
was clearly an advantage to the Samaritan followers of Simon (and
Simon himself) to call themselves JEWS. Why? ALL the prophecies stated
that Christ and Christianity would come from the Jews. There was no
way around this. So Simon went over to the time-honored custom of
his Babylonian ancestors and contemporaries of calling themselves
Jews WHEN IT WAS TO THEIR ADVANTAGE.
The Jews, however, never had any real association with these Babylonian
imposters. Even when Christ discussed matters with the Samaritan woman
at the well, she acknowledged -- with amazement because Christ, a
Jew, talked with her -- that "the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans"
(John 4:9). But even though the Samaritans were Gentiles, they consistently
lied about their origin when it was profitable to them.
Notice that the woman at the well carried on the fiction of kinship
with the Jews when she said, "Art thou greater than OUR father Jacob,
which gave us the well?" (John 4:12). They claimed to be a type of
Jew, but they were LIARS.
This is made plain by Christ Himself when He first sent forth the
twelve. He charged them: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and
into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 10:5, 6).
Pretty plain, isnít it? The Apostles were to go to the Jews and Israel
-- but not to the Gentiles or Samaritans. The Samaritans were plainly
Gentiles -- NOT Jews!
With the foregoing in mind, let us now go back to the two identifying
scriptures in Revelation. The whole matter becomes so plain when the
KEY about Simon Magus and the Samaritan-Christian heresy is realized.
"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan [inspired by Satan
himself], which say they are Jews, and are NOT, but do LIE; behold,
I will make them to come and worship before thy feet" (Rev. 3:9).
The synagogue of Satan are those "Samaritan-Christians" -- the followers
of Simon Magus.
The phrase "which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie" could
easily be set off by brackets, for that is the way John intended it.
He meant only one people -- the "Christian" Samaritans.
The Other Churches of Revelation Two and Three
When we now look at the other indications about this heretical system,
the Simon Magus (and followers) identification becomes exact. Look,
for example, at the Ephesus Church era. Notice the group they had
"And thou hast tried them WHICH SAY THEY ARE APOSTLES, and are NOT,
and hast found them LIARS" (Rev. 2:2).
Now, if we let the Bible be our guide in understanding this matter,
it shows only one man who heretically sought an APOSTLESHIP and never
repented of his desire to have that office -- it was Simon Magus.
History shows us that Simon established his own "Christianity" with
his own apostles.
And also, notice this important point. Compare the statements about
the Samaritans -- "Which say they are JEWS, and are NOT, but do LIE"
(Rev. 3:9) -- with our present Scripture under discussion "which say
they are APOSTLES, and are NOT, and hast found them LIARS" (Rev. 2:2).
The only differences are the words "JEWS" and "APOSTLES." But -- if
we get the point at which John is driving -- he is saying that these
people were calling themselves JEWISH APOSTLES, but that they were
The Female Counterpart of Simon
It is well-known that the history of Simon and his religion is connected
with the old Babylonian idea of the male and female religious principles.
Simonís Helen (alias Semiramis) figured high in his system.
It would seem odd if the book of Revelation didnít mention something
of the female side of the false system. However, Christ seems to emphasize
the male portion of the system in six of the Church eras -- the genders
are all masculine. But, when He comes to the Thyatira era, Christ
switches remarkably to the female part. Yet, there are not different
false systems being discussed, but only the various divisions of the
It is when we come to Thyatira that we find the system described under
the symbol of a woman -- the woman Jezebel. This analogy was deliberately
chosen for many obvious reasons. Reasons so plain that Johnís first
century readers could not help but comprehend what he was talking
We must remember that John was writing to seven literal Churches all
contemporaneous with one another, and he was using language or symbols
with which they were acquainted. We, of course, realize the prophetic
meaning of the seven churches, but we know that John also had distinct
and pertinent messages to the seven congregations which existed in
his day. By keeping this obvious fact in mind, the real truth of what
John was talking about is made clear to us today.
First, we notice that John says this "Jezebel" called herself a "prophetess"
(Rev. 2:20). There must have been a particular false prophetess which
had caused Godís servants to commit fornication and to eat things
sacrificed to idols. By looking on this "Jezebel" as having been contemporaneous
with all the heresies of the other Churches -- and that these heresies
were in reality only ONE false system which originated with Simon
Magus -- we can then easily see that this "Jezebel" can be equated
with the "Female Principle" which Simon introduced into his "Christianity."
None other than Simonís Helen -- the reclaimed temple prostitute from
Tyre. Helen WAS a prostitute -- what better type of person is there
who could so expertly "teach" and "seduce My servants to commit fornication,"
literally as well as spiritually?
Simon Magus came in contact with a priestess of Tyre who had been
a temple prostitute. The Samaritans worshiped SUCCOTH-BENOTH who was
the goddess VENUS. Her devotees continually prostituted themselves.
It was their religious duty to do so.
This woman was overawed by Simonís demonic power and was persuaded
to follow him -- to live with him -- to become the female principle,
the necessary counterpart to his claim as being a type of male deity.
Relative to this, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 25, p. 126, quoting
from Justin states: "And almost all the Samaritans and a few among
the other nations, acknowledge and adore him as the first god. And
one Helen, who went about with him at the time, who before had had
her stand in a brothel, they say was the First Thought that was brought
into being by him."
This is interesting because Justin was himself a Samaritan -- born
and reared in the country. He certainly knew his peopleís native traditions
and teachings. What he says agrees exactly with the New Testament
revelation of how the Samaritans regarded Simon. They actually called
him the "great power of God" (Acts 8:10). It is because of this that
they believed him to have creative powers. He himself said he created
Helen, his female companion whom he later elevated to a goddess.
"Irenaenus, Theodoret, and Epiphanius agree in identifying Simon with
the Supreme God and Helena with ennoia, the first conception of his
mind and his agent in creation" (Dict. of Religion of Ethics,
vol. 11, p. 517).
What blasphemy!! But this is what he taught everywhere he went --
and under the guise of Christianity.
There always had to be the Man and Woman divinities in paganism. Or,
to make it plain, Nimrod and Semiramis.
Now notice what the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics says about
this teaching of Simon which he took to Rome and they accepted: "The
original of Simonís Helena is the moon-goddess of Syria and Babylonia.
In the Clementine Recognitions Helena is always translated ĎLuna.í The theory that Simon was
accustomed to borrow from paganism IS CORROBORATED by the assertion of the Fathers that he and
Helena were worshipped by their sect with the attributes of ZEUS and ATHENE and received the cult-title
ĎLordí and ĎLadyí (i.e. our Lord and our Lady)" (ibid. p. 518).
As stated before, it was Simonís plan to bring about a UNIVERSAL religion under the powerful name of
Christianity. Remember that Simon NEVER gave up the Christian name.
His followers were called Christians. In amalgamating the pagan Babylonian religious beliefs with
Christianity, he placed himself at the head -- the personification of the chief pagan gods of old, and Helena
as his companion in creation, the personification of the female deities. The name Helena for his consort fit
his plan exceptionally well.
"There existed a wide-spread cult of the moon goddess in Syria and Egypt under the name Helene; she
was identified with Aphrodite, Atargatis, and the Egyptian Isis, who was after represented with Horns to
betoken her relation to the moon. One feature of the myth of Helen can be traced to the very ancient
connection of the religion of Osiris with Syria. According to legend, Isis spent ten years at a brothel in Tyre
during the course of her wanderings in search of the scattered limbs of her husband. The imprisonment of
Helen (Simonís Helen) is then only a variant of the many myths relating the degradation of the Queen of
How important these observations are, for Osiris was clearly Nimrod and Isis was Semiramis. Thus, Simon
Magus said that he had been the power that motivated Nimrod and that Helen was Semiramis -- the Queen
Now let us carefully note that Simon brought his "Female Principle" from the City of TYRE. And who was the
original Jezebel -- the woman who seduced Israel to worship BAAL? She was the daughter of the king of
the Sidonians whose capital city was TYRE. (I Kings 16:31). The original Jezebel was also from TYRE.
And not only that, Helen claimed herself to be the creation of Simon -- that it was Simon who brought her
into existence (Ency. Britannica, vol. 25, p. 126). She was, in a sense, the daughter of Simon. But, the
original Jezebel WAS THE LITERAL DAUGHTER OF THE KING OF TYRE (I Kings 16:31).
The Gospel of John
With all of these things in mind, we can see why John hits hard at the Samaritans in his Gospel, as well as
the book of Revelation. He was the only Gospel writer who mentions the incident of the Samaritan woman
at the well. He saw it absolutely necessary by his time, for doing so.
Actually, the whole incident at the well is of relative unimportance if it was simply put there to show us that
Christ could perceive that the woman had had five husbands. But there was MUCH more to it than that. If
we will carefully notice what the conversation between this Samaritan woman and Christ was, we will see
that John is giving the DEATH BLOW to the claims of the "Christian" -- Samaritans of his day -- the
Since these false Christians DID NOMINALLY REGARD Christ as the (or perhaps better)
a founder of the
"Christian Church," John tells them what Jesus informed the Samaritan woman:
(1) "Ye worship ye know not what" (John 4:22). Christ meant by those words that the Samaritans were NOT
worshiping the True God at all. They were worshiping something foreign to the God of the Bible. It was the
(2) "We know what we worship: FOR SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS" (v. 22). We can see why John saw
the necessity of explaining what Christ really said on this matter. Christ said the JEWS would give forth
salvation, NOT the Samaritans -- and He was even talking to a Samaritan at the time. John put this here
primarily to show that Simon Magus, the Samaritans and his followers, were in COMPLETE error in their
And to further emphasize the true Messiahship of Christ -- who was a Jew -- John records that one whole
city even of the Samaritans recognized Jesus as the Christ (vs. 39-42). He was showing that some of the
people in Simonís own home-ground knew that Jesus Christ and the Jews were responsible for salvation.
John tells us that the woman at the well had FIVE husbands. This is to be taken literally, but isnít it
remarkable that the original Babylonian tribes which became the Samaritans were FIVE in number -- and
they each brought their false deities with them. Thus, according to the figurative language of the Old
Testament, these Samaritans -- who claimed to be worshippers of YHVH -- were in reality, like the woman
at the well, committing adultery with FIVE spiritual "husbands."