Simon Magus
By: Ernest Martin 1964
What were the origins of Catholic-Babylonian Christianity? What was
Simon’s religion before he met Peter? Where did that religion originate? Read
the detailed and documented account of Simon Magus and his great COUNTERFEIT
CHRISTIANITY!
About Simon Magus
THE FALSE religious system
began very early -- almost with Pentecost in 31 A.D. Even in the earliest of
Paul’s epistles, he informs us that "the mystery of iniquity DOTH ALREADY
WORK" (II Thess. 2:7). Paul wrote this in 50 or 51 AD The plot to supplant
the Truth had already begun. In the later epistles of Paul and in those of the
other Apostles, we find it gaining considerable momentum. However, even though
the Apostles discuss the diabolical system which was arising, THEY NOWHERE
MENTION HOW IT STARTED. They had no need in mentioning its beginning -- that
had already been done!
The book of Acts is the 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.
The book of Acts was
written by Luke about 62 AD some 31 years after the True Church
began. Acts recalls ALL events which affected, in a major way, the True Church.
It especially tells us about the beginnings of matters relating to Church
history.
Acts does NOT record every
single event relative to the Church, important as one might think them to be.
For example, Luke doesn't
mention a single thing about the activities of the original twelve Apostles of
Christ. Yet are we to assume that they did nothing important in the history of
the Church? Absolutely NOT! They must have done many mighty works. But we can
see from this omission that Luke recorded ONLY THOSE EVENTS WHICH WERE
ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for God’s Church of the future to know.
Notice that Luke’s
geography leads him towards the Northwest and West of Palestine. He discusses
Church history in Asia Minor, Greece and ROME.
He wanted to leave us with the truth of what was going on in the West and North
because the prophecies showed the false system arising in these localities.
All other activities of
God’s Church -- all about the other ten Apostles, etc. -- fall into relative
unimportance because the trouble wasn't going to come from Palestine itself. It
was to come from ROME
and adjacent areas. It is no wonder that Luke spares no pains to tell us the
truth of what was really going on in these critical areas, and that is the
reason Acts concerns itself primarily with Paul.
These are well-known
principles that help us understand the overall viewpoint of Acts.
With the foregoing in mind,
read the incident recorded by Luke, of the first encounter of God’s Apostles
with a heretic. This encounter was not with an ordinary run-of-the-mill
individual, but with one of the greatest men in the East at that time -- Simon
the Magus!
The reason Luke describes
the intentions of this man so thoroughly is the profound effect this man, and
his followers, had on God’s Church in Asia
Minor, Greece,
and ESPECIALLY ROME. Actually, this man by 62 AD, (when Luke composed the book
of Acts) had caused the True Church so much trouble that Luke had to show the
people that he was NOT, as he claimed to be, a part of the Christian Church.
All scholars realize that
Luke tells about Simon’s beginning because of his later notoriety and danger to
the Church.
In this regard, notice the
comment of Hasting’s 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 the Christians."
If we assume that Luke
recorded this encounter of the Apostles with Simon Magus simply to show that
"simony" was wrong, we miss the point completely. There is a score of
places in other parts of the Bible to show the error of buying ecclesiastical
gifts.
Luke was exposing SIMON
MAGUS HIMSELF. This IS the important point!! Luke was clearly showing that
Simon was NEVER a part of God’s Church, even though by 62 AD, many people were
being taught that Simon was truly a Christian -- taught that he was the HEAD of
the only TRUE Christians; the Apostle to the Gentiles!
What Luke Tells Us About Simon Magus
Notice the points Luke
places clearly before us.
Simon was a Samaritan, not
a Jew -- (Acts 8:9). Remember that the Bible tells us salvation was of the Jews
-- not of the Samaritans (John 4:22).
Simon Magus greatly used demonistic powers to do miracles and wonders (Acts 8:9).
The whole population of Samaria (both small and great)
gave heed to him (Verse 10). He was looked on as the greatest prophet -- all
Samaria BELIEVED IN HIM!
The Samaritans WORSHIPPED
him as "the Great One" -- a god. "This man is that power of God
called Great [that is the Almighty]" (RSV. Verse 10).
Imagine it! They called him
god in the flesh!
Luke is also careful to
inform us that Simon had become firmly established in Samaria as "the Great One" and had
practiced his powers " for a long time" (Verse 11)
Luke wants us to understand
that he nominally became a Christian ("Simon himself believed") and
was baptized -- that is, he physically, outwardly "entered" the
Christian Church (Verse 13).
Simon even recognized that
Christ’s power was greater than his but wanted to be associated with that great
name (Verse 13).
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 Apostle’s Office
Those who carelessly read
this section of Scripture may get the mistaken notion that Simon wanted only to
buy the Holy Spirit. Yes, he wanted that -- but his main intention went far
beyond. He had eyes on becoming an APOSTLE!
Peter immediately perceived
his intention and said "You have neither PART nor LOT
in this matter" (Verse 21). The true Apostles had been chosen after
Christ’s death to take PART in the apostleship by LOT
(Acts 1:25, 26). Peter was telling Simon he couldn't buy an APOSTLESHIP.
Luke is showing that Simon
wanted to be one of the APOSTLES -- a top man in the Christian Church. He was
after that office. After all Simon imagined himself to be fully qualified to be
an APOSTLE, especially over the Samaritans since they already looked to him as
the greatest religious leader of the age. However, Peter rebuked him sternly.
Peter perceived that Simon
was in the "gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity
[lawlessness]" (Verse 23).
NOTE: This verse has been
misunderstood because the King James Version fails to give the full force of
Peter’s accusation. This verse when understood in the manner Peter intended, is
one of the most important of the whole chapter. IT IS A PROPHECY! Peter knew
the mind of this man and what this man was to become. This is made plain by Sir
William Ramsay in his Pictures of the Apostolic Church,
p. 60. He says: "Peter rebuked him in strong and PROPHETIC TERMS. The
PROPHECY is concealed in the ordinary translation: the Greek means ‘thou art
FOR a gall of bitterness and a fetter of unrighteousness [lawlessness]’, 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; Lange’s Commentary says:
"Peter’s words, literally,
mean: ‘I 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 state’." (Vol. 9, p. 148).
Not only was Simon, in
Peter’s time, a great antagonist to the Church, but he would be the adversary
of the future.
This prophecy is the KEY
that opens to our understanding the ORIGINS of the heresies mentioned in the
letters of the Apostles. Peter clearly knew Simon wouldn't repent. Verse 22
shows that in the original.
Gall of Bitterness Defined
It is also interesting to
note Peter’s statement that Simon was to become a "gall of
bitterness." People today may not realize the exact meaning of such a
phrase, but no Jew in the First Century was in any doubt as to its meaning.
It was a figure of speech
adopted from the Old Testament which denoted going over to the idols and
abominations of the heathen. Read Deuteronomy 29:16-18 and see how plainly this
figure of speech is used. When the Apostle Peter applied to Simon Magus the
phrase "gall of bitterness," he meant that Simon would be the
responsible party for the introduction of heathen beliefs and idols into
Christianity. The prophecy takes on a new and important scope when we realize
this real meaning of Peter’s prophecy.
No wonder Jude later says,
speaking about the very men who followed Simon Magus (including Simon himself):
"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old
ORDAINED to this condemnation" (Verse 4). We can be confident that Peter recognized
that Satan was going to use this Simon Magus as the GREAT PROTAGONIST OF FALSE
CHRISTIANITY.
The later history of Simon
Magus shows that Peter’s prophecy came true in a most remarkable way.
Simon Magus Unrepentant
Even after Peter’s strong
rebuke, Simon DID NOT REPENT! And Peter knew that he wouldn't!
Conclusion: This means that
Simon thought he deserved to be an Apostle –if not the chief Apostle -- in the
Christian Church. He became baptized which, in a physical way, made him
ostentatiously a "member." It is important to remember that he DID
NOT REPENT of his error. There is not the slightest hint that he gave up
believing that he had divine right to be an Apostle.
He deliberately continued
in this error, with his later followers –calling himself "Christian"!
It is because of the later deceptive activities of this would-be Apostle that
Luke was compelled to show his ignominious beginning and to reveal what Peter
prophesied about him.
It is by identifying the
real beginning of the great false church system with this Simon that opens up a
whole new vista of understanding in regard to the counterfeit Christianity
which began even in the infancy of the Church.
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 subject.
He states: "Long
before the appearance of Christianity, combinations of religion had taken place
in Syria and Palestine, ESPECIALLY IN SAMARIA, insofar as the ASSYRIAN
and BABYLONIAN religious philosophy . . . with its manifold interpretations,
had penetrated as far as the eastern shore of the Mediterranean"
(Vol. 1, pp. 243, 244).
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 Israel’s
inglorious defeat and captivity by the Assyrians. When these five tribes moved
INTO the vacant land
of Samaria, they brought
their Babylonian and Assyrian gods with them. After a short while in their new
country, they were ravaged by lions. They interpreted this punishment as coming
upon them because they failed to honor the god of the new land -- not realizing
that there is only One Great GOD, who is not confined to any one land. These
Samaritans didn't have sense enough to realize that the True God of the land
had sent Israel
into captivity because of their calf-worship and their introduction of Phoenician
religion.
They asked the Assyrian
king to send back one of the priests of Israel to teach them the former
religion in order that the plague of lions would be stayed.
The Israelitish
priest who was sent to them taught the religion of Northern
Israel. Remember that the priests of Northern
Israel were NOT Levites. At the time of Jeroboam, the true priests
of 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 God’s law. It was from the time of
Jeroboam down to the time of Israel’s
captivity, that the majority of Israel
was NOT worshipping the True God at all! Jerusalem
and God’s temple had been repudiated, and paganism had been introduced on a
grand scale. When these transplanted Babylonians who were being afflicted by
lions in Samaria
asked for a priest of the former people -- THEY GOT ONE!
But that priest was one of
the former calf-worshipping priests of the rebel Israelites. He was almost as
pagan as the Babylonians themselves!
This priest of Israel taught
the Babylonians (now called Samaritans) to adopt the former worship of the
Northern Israelites. The priest taught them to revere 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 Christ’s 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 God’s people], AND served their graven
images, both their children, and their children’s children: as did their
fathers [the Babylonians], so do they unto this day" (II Kings 17:41).
These people called
themselves the worshippers of the True God, but were actually Babylonian
idolaters.
What Deities Did the Samaritans Worship?
It will pay us to notice
the gods and goddesses that these forefathers of Simon Magus brought with them
to Samaria. The
people from the City of Babylon
adored SUCCOTH-BENOTH; the Cuthites: NERGAL; the Hamathites: ASHIMA; the Avites:
NIBHAZ and TAR-TAK; the Sepharvites: ADRAM-MELECH and
ANAM-MELECH.
The first deity is
SUCCOTH-BENOTH, a goddess. It was Semiramis in the
form of Venus. Listen to Jones in his Proper Names of the O.T., p. 348. He says
the name signifies "Tabernacles of daughters." It means:
"Chapels made of green boughs, which the men of Babylon,
who had been transported into Samaria,
erected in honor to Venus, and where their daughters were PROSTITUTED by the
devotees of that abominable goddess. It was the custom of Babylon, the mother of harlots, and therefore
HER SONS DID THE SAME THING IN SAMARIA." What about the god NERGAL of Cuth? We are informed by McClintock and Strong’ s
Encyclopedia that the name signifies "the great man," "the great
hero" or "the god of the chase," i.e., the Hunter. In other
words, as the Encyclopedia further points out, he was a form of NIMROD. This
Hunter-god was honored by the people of CUTH for Arabian tradition tells us
that CUTH was the special city of NIMROD
(vol. VI, p. 950).
The next god was that of Hamath: ASHIMA. Jones shows us that he was the great pagan
god of propitiation, i.e., the god who bore the guilt of his worshippers (p.
42). This god was the pagan REDEEMER -- the OSIRIS of Egyptian fame or the
dying NIMROD.
The Avites
worshipped NIBHAZ (masc. -- the god of HADES) and TAR-TAK, "the mother of
the gods". This last-mentioned goddess was supposedly the Mother of the
Assyrian race, or, as Jones says, she was SEMIRAMIS (see 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 false counterpart.
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 of 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 advanced much further in the criticism of the Old Testament
and perceived the impossibility of saving it [that is, the Old Testament] for
the Christian UNIVERSAL RELIGION. They rather connected this [universal]
religion with the cultus-wisdom of BABYLON
and SYRIA"
(VoI. 1, p. 246).
With this background, we
can understand why Peter so strongly rebuked Simon for his Babylonian ideas.
Peter prophesied that this was the man who was to be the "gall of
bitterness, and bond of iniquity" to the True Church.
Simon’ s attitude was corrupt in the extreme!
The Bible shows he had been
working through demons. And yet, he finally called himself a
"Christian." Dr. McGiffert, speaking of
Simon Magus, says: "His effort to rival and surpass Jesus very likely
began after his contact with the Christians that Luke records. His religious
system was apparently a SYNCRETISM of Jewish and Oriental elements" (Hasting’s Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p.
497).
Simon’s 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
Simon’s activities after his rejection by Peter, we will clearly be able to see
why Luke thought it most important to tell the real condition of this man,
proving that he was in actuality NEVER an Apostle of Christ. In this regard,
notice the comment of Hasting’s Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 496: "But it
need NOT be supposed that when Simon broke with the Christians HE RENOUNCED ALL
HE HAD LEARNED. It is more probable that he carried some of the Christian ideas
with him, and that he wove these into a system of his own. This system did
contain some of the later germs of Gnosticism. Thus he became a leader of a
retrograde 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 Schaff’s History of the Church a reference to this Simon Magus.
He says: "The author, or first representative of this baptized HEATHENISM,
according to the uniform testimony of Christian antiquity, is Simon Magus, who
unquestionably adulterated Christianity with pagan ideas and practices, and
gave himself out, in a pantheistic style for an emanation of God"
(Apostolic Christianity), Vol. 2, p. 566).
Simon only used the name of
Christianity to bring about his own desired ends. The Dictionary of Religion
and Ethics says that Simon was "a false Messiah, who practiced magical
arts and subsequently attempted, by the aid and with the sanction of
Christianity, to set up a rival UNIVERSAL [Catholic] RELIGION" (Vol. 11,
p. 514).
Again, what do the
histories tell us Simon’s doctrines consisted of primarily?
"Two independent traditions
profess to preserve the teaching of Simon, the one betraying the influence of
Alexandrian allegory, the other of Syrian and Babylonian religion"
(Dictionary of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 11, p. 516).
It is no wonder that Luke
hits hard at the infamy of Simon -- for Simon claimed to be a Christian -- even
an Apostle -- and yet was preaching Babylonian paganism. 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" (Hasting’s
Bible Dictionary, p. 498).
The reason Luke recorded
this encounter with Simon was its far-reaching effects. As Hasting’s
explains, the important reason was that of "Luke’s well-known plan of
describing THE FIRST MEETING between Christianity and rival systems"
(Ibid., p. 498).
Luke gives in detail the
principal character who established the so-called Christian counterpart of the
Truth in the Apostles’ days. This is the reason the Apostles in their Church
letters many times mention the false system as ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, but fail
to describe its origin. They didn't have to. That was already done RIGHT AT THE
FIRST by Luke!
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 ‘Simoni deo
Sancto’ (i.e., the holy god Simon)" (Dictionary
of Christian Biography, Vol. 4, p. 682).
That these things actually
happened CANNOT BE DOUBTED! Justin was writing to the Roman people at the time
and they could certainly have exposed Justin’s credulity if what he said was
not so. And, that a statue of Simon was actually erected is definite, for
Justin asks the authorities in Rome
to destroy it!
There are many writers, who
lived in Rome
itself, who afterwards repeated Justin’s account. Those who want to reject
these clear statements have nothing in their favor. Justin is clearly giving us
fact!
Hasting’s Dictionary of the Apostolic Church,
Vol 2, p. 496, states that there is "very slight
evidence on which to reject so precise a statement as Justin makes; a statement
he would scarcely have hazarded in an apology addressed to Rome, where every person had the means of
ascertaining its accuracy. If he made a mistake, it must have been at once
exposed, and other writers would not have frequently repeated the story as they
have done."
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 Justin’s day (152 A.D.), people were still giving
regard to it.
There are many other
accounts of Simon’s traveling to Rome and
becoming one of the great gods to the city and to the people of Rome. There are records
which show that Simon "prophesies that Rome will be the scene of his crowning glory,
when he will be adored as a god" (Dictionary of Religion & Ethics,
Vol. 11, p. 522).
Simon Peter NOT With Simon Magus in Rome
Later, about the fourth
century, a flood of works came out about Peter encountering Simon Magus in Rome and overthrowing
him. But these works are clearly fiction. Almost all scholars realize the
absurdity of maintaining such a thing. In the first place, it can be Biblically
shown that Peter The Apostle was NEVER in Rome
when these fictitious writings say he should be.
It was NOT Simon Peter who
went to Rome to become Apostle to the Gentiles,
but the SIMON in Rome
was SIMON 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 A.D.] who
knows nothing of any presence of Peter in Rome
at all, as also of Irenaeus."
Not only did Justin feel
that Peter was NOT in Rome at the time, but his deliberate silence shows he
didn't want to perpetrate such fiction. After all, Justin lived very early in
the history of the church, and the legend of the Apostle Peter’s being in Rome
HADN’T GOT STARTED YET! Continuing with the Encyclopedia Biblica
about Justin’s reference to SIMON MAGUS: "One part of this tradition --
that about Simon’s 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 Peter’ s 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 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 Peter’s 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 Catholic claim.
It is time that the world
gets its eyes open to the truth of this matter -- the truth, which is clearly
revealed in the Word of God. The Apostle Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!
The Bible Teaching
There are ten major New
Testament proofs which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of
Claudius until Nero. These Biblical points speak for themselves and ANY ONE of
them is sufficient to prove the ridiculousness of the Catholic claim. Notice
what God tells us! The truth IS conclusive!
PROOF ONE: We should
consider Christ’s commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to
Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the
CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles.
"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 WASN’T 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 Peter.
"I should be the
minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that
the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16).
How clear!
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. What nonsense! Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul
established the Catholic Church! But these proofs are given to illustrate that
it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY
Church 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 man’s foundation. "Yea, so have I
strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD
UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION" (Rom. 15:20).
If Peter had
"founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this
represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter
had never been in Rome
before this time to "found" any church.
Peter Not in Rome
PROOF FIVE: At the end of
Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals,
but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 -- read the whole chapter!
Remember, Paul greeted
these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn't’t he mention
Peter? -- Peter simply wasn’t 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 Paul’s arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of
Rome] heard of
us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15).
Again, there is not a
single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had
Peter been in Rome,
for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts.
But he says nothing of Peter’s 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 ‘‘as concerning this sect, we know
that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to
explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God.
Some believed -- the majority didn't’t.
Now, what does all this
mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been
preaching constantly in Rome
for 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 Paul’s 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 wasn’t there!
PROOF NINE: With the
expiration of Paul’s two year’s 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 Paul’s 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 wouldn't sit or eat with Gentiles.
Strange that the
"Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.!
Later in about 66 A.D., we
find him in the city of Babylon
among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the
CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon?
Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in
Christ’s time as there were in Palestine.
It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why
scholars say Peter’s 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 God’s own words, no one need be deceived.
Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome! PAPAL SUCCESSION IS NOT FROM PETER!
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.
To legitimately introduce
paganism into the Church he had to explain away many passages in the Old
Testament which forbade idolatry and contact with the abominations of the
heathen. This he quite cleverly did. His primary method of explaining the Old
Testament was to allegorize its teachings.
Magus Degrades the Bible
If this wasn’t sufficient
to explain it away, he would repudiate it as being of less value than the
present will of God which was supposedly being revealed to him. In fact, he got
to the place of doing away altogether with the Old Testament by teaching that
its doctrines were meant to enslave people and that its commandments were too grievous
to bear. "Irenaeus states that Simon taught,
that the Jewish prophecies [the Old Testament] were inspired by the creator
angels; therefore, those who had hope in him and Helen NEED NOT ATTEND TO THEM,
BUT FREELY DO AS THEY WOULD; for that men should be saved according to his
grace, and not by any intrinsic quality of their own, but by the accident of
these being ordered by these creator angels WHO HAD MERELY WISHED TO ENSLAVE
THOSE WHO HEARD THEM" (Dict. Of Christian Biography, vol. 4, p. 683).
How diabolical!
The Dict. of Religion and
Ethics had this to say about this cardinal doctrine of SIMON PATER. "Simon
taught that the precepts of the law and the prophets were inspired by angels
[lesser beings] in the desire to reduce men to slavery, but those who believed
in him and Helen, since they were delivered from the sinister tyranny of the
law, were free to act as they would. For men are saved by grace and not by good
works. The antinomianism of the Simonians issued in
LIBERTINE conduct and A COMPROMISE WITH HEATHENISM" (vol. 11, p. 518).
Let’s go on. "But he
[Simon] promised that the world should be dissolved, and that those who were
his own should be redeemed. And accordingly, HIS PRIESTS, Irenaeus
tells us [yes, Simon established a priesthood], led lascivious lives, used
magic and incantations, made philtres, HAD FAMILIAR
SPIRITS by whose aid they were able to trouble with dreams those whom they
would.
They had IMAGES of Simon
and Helen, in the forms respectively of JUPITER and MINERVA" (Dict. of
Christian Biography, vol. 4, p. 683).
Simon Honored as Jupiter
People who had demonistic powers as Simon did, were honoured
as gods in the first century -- even sacrifices were offered to them. Does this
seem unlikely? Then read Acts 14:11-13. After seeing the great miracles that
Paul and Barnabas had done through the Holy Spirit, Luke says: "When the
people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the
speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in
the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul,
Mercury." Then the priest of Jupiter came out to offer them sacrifice.
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 God’s temple – Jupiter Capitolinus.
The Hebrews honoured and regarded the number seven as recorded in God’s
law -- that is, kept the seventh day, the seven holy days, etc., -- but Simon
and his followers made a distinct change and honoured
the number eight instead (i.e. the eighth day -- which becomes the first day of
the week). (See Ante-Nicean Fathers, vol. 7, p. 379.)
The Death of Simon Magus
The records regarding
Simon’s death vary widely. Many of the stories try to incorporate some fiction
from the Greek and Egyptian myths to enhance the reader’s interest in this
fascinating character. But the earliest records say that he was buried in Rome after a long period
of great 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 Catholics’
Peter. (Before reading Keller’s 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, let’s read Keller’s comment
– the official comment of the Roman Catholic Church):
"On the night of his
death on the cross Peter’s followers BURIED his body. As in the case of Jesus
on the hill of Calvary it was wrapped in linen and secretly taken to a PAGAN
BURIAL GROUND on the Via Cornelia, behind the stone structure of the arena.
This PAGAN CEMETERY lay on a knoll called
VATICANUS: the Latin word ‘vatis’ means a ‘prophet’
or ‘SOOTHSAYER’. In days gone by there had been an Etruscan oracle on this
spot" (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 Peter’s 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 MAGUS’ Teachings
We have the record of
history which tells us that Simon’s 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 Christians.
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 Eusebius’ 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 Eusebius’ day, he
even balked at their bringing outright images into the churches and worshiping
them. Notice what he finally says of these "Christians" of SIMON:
"Simon was the author of all heresy. From his time down to the present
those who have followed his heresy have FEIGNED the sober philosophy of the
Christians, which is celebrated among all on account of its purity of life. But
they nevertheless have embraced again the superstitions of idols, which they seemed
[ostentatiously] to have renounced; and they fall down before pictures and
images of Simon himself and of the above-mentioned Helena who was with him
[that is, the images of JUPITER and MINERVA -- the Catholics do exactly this
today]; and they venture to worship them with incense and sacrifices and
libations" (Eccl. Hist. II, 13, 6).
What clear and revealing
statements! Eusebius is not talking about what he considers distinct heretics
outside the Catholic Church. He is talking about the MAJOR group IN THAT CHURCH
which was continually adding more and more on a large scale. He attributes
these evils to the "Christians" who followed SIMON MAGUS. They were
so active in his day INSIDE THE CHURCH as to give him grave concern.
But what happened?
Did the few Catholic
leaders of the fourth century who abhorred outright IDOLATRY manage to persuade
the masses to give it up and turn away from the SIMONIANS (now called
Christians) who were the cause of it all?
The answer from history is
NO!
The Simonian
"Christians" won out. Imagery, idolatry and paganism – 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 man’s
origin. He was NEVER a part of the Church
of God, NEVER!! But he,
and his followers -- from clear history -- have succeeded in bringing in their
UNIVERSAL religion -- a pagan blend, called "Christian"!
Magus Counterfeit Marked
Throughout New Testament
WHILE the book of Acts
gives us the KEY which shows the beginnings of the false religious system under
Simon Magus, it does not describe its activities in any great detail. The Acts,
however, performs its purpose in exposing who started the whole mess. God
leaves it to the epistles, Revelation, and also the Gospel of John to describe
the heresy IN DETAIL. We are certainly NOT left in doubt concerning its
abominable teachings.
The Chief Books of Expose
There is hardly an epistle
that does not mention the religion of Simon Magus. Even the scholars who have
studied Church History have clearly seen that almost ALL of the references in
the New Testament epistles exposing the errors in the first age of the Church
are directed exclusively to Simon Magus, or his immediate followers. Schaff's History of the Church says the following about
Simon Magus and his doctrines: "Plain traces of this error appear in the
later epistles of Paul (to the Colossians, to Timothy, and to Titus), the
second epistle of Peter, the first two epistles of John, the epistle of Jude,
and the messages of the Apocalypse to the seven Churches."
"This heresy, in the
second century, spread over the whole church, east and west, in the various
schools of Gnosticism" (Apostolic Christianity, vol. 2, p. 556).
But to single out the one
Apostle who seems to have made the most deliberate and planned attack on the
false Christianity of Simon Magus -- we must look to John. Take his Gospel for
instance. While he records a history of Christ's ministry, he has an entirely
different approach to the subject than the other three.
John wrote late. Times had
changed. John knew that the teachings of Christ were being corrupted by a
well-known plot to destroy the TRUTH. To understand John's approach to his
Gospel we must be aware of his endeavour to expose
this false system which had arisen and was gaining momentum.
Notice how John constantly
hits at the necessity of keeping the commandments of God. Why? Because the
false system was preaching LIBERTINE doctrines.
Notice also John's
particular geographical settings for his Gospel. He was the one who mentions
Christ's meeting with the woman of Samaria.
John is clearly striking home at something in this Samaritan incident that the
Church of his time NEEDED to know.
All the other Gospels
mention SAMARIA
about five times, and even then only casually or in order to give a simple
geographical indication. But, when we get to John, writing years after the
others, he devotes more space to matters in SAMARIA than is done in all the rest of the
New Testament put together. He had a definite and precise REASON for doing so.
John is noted for his plan
of "tying up" or "capping off" the Gospel accounts of
Christ so as to give the Church a well-rounded Gospel -- bringing in the extra
points which were necessary for our knowing.
Also, John's epistles are
jam-packed with specific information regarding the conspiracy to overthrow the
Truth. But yet, none of these works of John mentioned above represent his LAST
efforts to warn the Church of that conspiracy which was very much present.
John's last witness to God's Church before his death was the book of
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 MAGUS' 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 makes sense.
3. Now to the all-important
book of Revelation. While Acts describes the beginning of the false system; the
epistles nail down its doctrines and describe its activities; the Book of
Revelation next comes to the foreground showing the false system's PROPHETIC
HISTORY THROUGH ALL ERAS OF THE CHURCH. We must remember that Revelation
intends to show us "things which shall be hereafter." This is its
duty -- and it marvelously performs what it was intended to do.
The Seven Churches of Revelation
This section of Revelation
gives a big KEY. It describes a brief prophetic history of the Church until the
coming of Christ. But also -- and this is important -- it continually shows the
false system with which the TRUE
Church would come in
contact. Though different names are used to describe the corrupters of the
Truth, careful study shows Christ is referring to ONE general false system --
perhaps with ramifications, but nevertheless ONE system which will counter the True Church
in its 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 Simon's followers will make up the false
system until Christ returns to this earth. Remember that Dr. Schaff, speaking of Simon Magus, says that "plain
traces of this error appear in . . . the messages of the Apocalypse to the
seven Churches."
But before seeing these
clear references, I must say that the material to follow would have been in the
past classified as ABSURD in the extreme, but recent discoveries put a whole
new complexion on the matter. Let us see.
The Evidence
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!
The Proof
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 commune with them, saying, that they belong to
them, and desire their genealogy from the posterity of Joseph, Ephraim, and
Manasseh" (Antiquities, XI, 8, 6).
This is plain history! The
Samaritans, if to their advantage, called themselves Jews. But they were LIARS!
They knew better. Their own records showed they came from Babylon and adjacent areas. This is exactly
what the Old Testament says. They were clearly Gentiles.
Josephus continues about
these Samaritans: "And when they see the Jews in prosperity, they PRETEND
they are changed and allied to them, and call them kinsmen, as though they were
derived from Joseph, and had by that means an original alliance with them; but
when they see them falling into a low condition, they say that they are no way
related to them, and that the Jews have no right to expect any kindness or
marks of KINDRED from them, but they declare that they are sojourners, that
come from OTHER countries" (Antiquities, IX, 14, 3).
Now this should begin to
make sense. At the time of Simon Magus it was clearly an advantage to the
Samaritan followers of Simon (and Simon himself) to call themselves JEWS. Why?
ALL the prophecies stated that Christ and Christianity would come from the
Jews. There was no way around this. So Simon went over to the time-honored
custom of his Babylonian ancestors and contemporaries of calling themselves
Jews WHEN IT WAS TO 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, isn't it? The
Apostles were to go to the Jews and Israel -- but not to the Gentiles
or Samaritans. The Samaritans were plainly Gentiles -- NOT Jews!
Review
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 to counter. "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 all LIARS.
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.
Simon’s Helen (alias Semiramis) figured high in his system.
It would seem odd if the book
of Revelation didn't mention something of the female side of the false system.
However, Christ seems to emphasize the male portion of the system in six of the
Church eras -- the genders are all masculine. But, when He comes to the
Thyatira era, Christ switches remarkably to the female part. Yet, there are not
different false systems being discussed, but only the various divisions of the
ONE system.
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 John’s first century readers could not help but
comprehend what he was talking about.
We must remember that John
was writing to seven literal Churches all contemporaneous with one another, and
he was using language or symbols with which they were acquainted. We, of
course, realize the prophetic meaning of the seven churches, but we know that
John also had distinct and pertinent messages to the seven congregations which
existed in his day. By keeping this obvious fact in mind, the real truth of
what John was talking about is made clear to us today.
Prostitute Prophetess
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
God’s 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 Simon’s 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
Simon’s demonistic power and was persuaded to follow
him -- to live with him -- to become the female principle, the necessary
counterpart to his claim as being a type of male deity. Relative to this, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 25, p. 126, quoting from
Justin states: "And almost all the Samaritans and a few among the other
nations, acknowledge and adore him as the first god. And one Helen, who went
about with him at the time, who before had had her stand in a brothel, they say
was the First Thought that was brought into being by him."
This is interesting because
Justin was himself a Samaritan -- born and reared in the country. He certainly
knew his people’s 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.
Typically Pagan
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 Simon’s Helena is the moon-goddess
of Syria and Babylonia. In the Clementine Recognitions Helena is
always translated ‘Luna.’ 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 ‘Lord’ and ‘Lady’ (i.e. our Lord and our Lady)"
(ibid. p. 518).
As stated before, it was
Simon’s 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 (Simon’s Helen) is then only a variant of the many myths relating the
degradation of the Queen of Heaven" (ibid.).
How important these
observations are, for Osiris was clearly Nimrod and Isis
was Semiramis. Thus, Simon Magus said that he had
been the power that motivated Nimrod and that Helen was Semiramis
-- the Queen of Heaven.
Now let us carefully note
that Simon brought his "Female Principle" from the City of TYRE. And who was the
original Jezebel -- the woman who seduced Israel to worship BAAL? She was the
daughter of the king of the Sidonians whose capital
city was TYRE.
(I Kings 16:31). The original Jezebel was also from TYRE.
And not only that, Helen
claimed herself to be the creation of Simon – 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 anti-Christ system.
Since these false
Christians DID NOMINALLY REGARD Christ as the (or perhaps better) A founder of
the "Christian Church," John tells them what Jesus informed the
Samaritan woman.
"Ye worship ye know
not what" (John 4:22). Christ meant by those words that the Samaritans
were NOT worshiping the True God at all. They were worshiping something foreign
to the God of the Bible. It was the Devil.
"We know what we
worship: FOR SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS" (v. 22). We can see why John saw
the necessity of explaining what Christ really said on this matter. Christ said
the JEWS would give forth salvation, NOT the Samaritans -- and He was even
talking to a Samaritan at the time. John put this here primarily to show that
Simon Magus, the Samaritans and his followers, were in COMPLETE error in their
grandiose claims.
And to further emphasize
the true Messiahship of Christ -- who was a Jew --
John records that one whole city even of the Samaritans recognized Jesus as the
Christ (vs. 39-42). He was showing that some of the people in Simon’s 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 isn’t
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.
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 of these things started within the first two hundred
years after the Flood.
Pagan Gods Called "Peters"
Surprising as it may sound,
it is a well-known fact among students of ancient religion, that the chief
pagan gods worshipped in the early civilizations were generally known by the
name PETER. It is also known that the priests of those heathen gods were also
called PETERS. That same name in one form or another, was even applied to the
pagan TEMPLES
consecrated to those gods.
Notice what Bryant, in his
work "Ancient Mythology" says: "Not only the gods, but the Hierophantae [special priests], in most temples; and those
priests in particular, who were occupied in the celebration of mysteries, were
styled PATRES" (vol. 1, p. 354).
This is significant! The
word PATRE is the same as PATOR or PETER in meaning and pronunciation.
Bryant continues:
"PATRE was undoubtedly a religious term . . . . the same as PATOR and
PATORA."
The ancient pagan gods, the
priests who were their ministers, and their sacred sanctuaries -- their temples
-- were ALL called PETORS or PETERS (either spelling is acceptable since vowels
are fluid in all languages -- especially the Semitic).
The Meaning of "Peter"
What did the word PATOR or
PETER really mean to the ancients? Surprisingly enough, the word is in the
Bible. When Moses wrote about the Egyptian priests, he shows they were called
PETERS or "interpreters" – 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 gods.
Lucilius doesn’t exhaust the list.
In fact, he leaves out JUPITER, the "Father" of the Roman gods. But
it was unnecessary to mention him as a "PETER-god." Due to his high
rank, the title PETER was actually incorporated as a part of his name. He was
called JU-PETER.
Gladstone in his work on
the antiquities of Greece, shows that Jupiter and the Greek god ZEUS were one
and the same, JU-PETER was the Roman way of saying ZEUS-PETER, the chief god of
the Greeks (Homer and the Homeric Age, vol. I, p. 287), PETER was the name that
came to signify high rank among the gods -- and among their priests
Greeks Used Term "Peter"
The Romans were not the
only ones who called their gods PETERS, the Classical Manual reveals that the
Greeks used the term PETER (or its variants) as often as did the Romans. For
example, Apollo was called PATRIUS and his followers APOLLO PATRIUS (p. 23). Pausanius tells us that Artemis and Bacchus were called
PATORA, that is PETER-gods (Books 1, 2). Pindar speaks of Poseidon Petraios. He says the Thessalonians worshipped Neptune under this title (Pyth.
Ode 4).
In Egypt, the Ammonian
priests -- who headed one of the chief pagan oracles of ancient Egypt -- were
called Petors, as Bryant also says: "The chief
instrument (idol) in their hands was styled PIETAURUM" (Ibid., p. 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 stone.
Like the word PATOR --
which came to indicate simply a "father" or "parent" -- the
word PETRA came
to mean any large stone. But in the earliest times, it conveyed only the
original religious meaning.
"The term PETRA came at length to
signify any rock or stone and to be in a manner confined to that meaning. But
in the first ages it was ALWAYS TAKEN IN A RELIGIOUS SENSE; and related to the
shrines of Osiris, or the Sun (Baal), and to other oracles which were supposed
to be exhibited" (Bryant, p. 359). In other words, the term PETRA meant the sacred
PETER-stone – a stone usually phallic in design.
"Petras" in Pagan World
Notice some references to
these sacred PETRAS found throughout the pagan world.
At the temple of Delphi
in Greece, the chief object
in the ritual was the PETRA
(Pausanius, Bk. 10). At the Acropolis in Athens, Euripides tells
us, the niches which held the idols were called the PETRAE (verse 935).
It is well-known that even the sacred book which was used in the celebration of
the Eleusinian mysteries, was entitled "Book PETROMA," PETER-ROMA --
PETER’S BOOK (see Potter’s Antiquities, vol. 1, p. 356).
Remember that the pagan
temples were also called after the PETERS. The temple at Elis
in Greece
was called PETRON (Lycophron, verse 159). Pytho at Delphi was called
PETRAessa (Olymp. Ode 6).
The oracle temple dedicated to Apollo in Asia Minor
was called the PATARA and the oracle there was called PATAReus
("Eus" means "person who, one")
-- (Lempriere’s Classical Dictionary, p. 438).
Also PATRAE -- an ancient
town where DIANA had a temple (p. 438), and the oracle in Achaia was called
PATRA (Jones, Proper Names of the Old Testament, p. 296).
Examples are too numerous
to mention, but this should be enough to show that the name PETER, or its
variants, figured very high in every phase of pagan worship. These PETER stones
and temples were found all over the ancient world.
"There is in the
history of every oracular temple some legend about a stone; some reference to
the word PETRA"
(Bryant, p. 362).
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 Proper Names of the Old Testament, edited by A. Jones, we find that
Balaam’s 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) of Mesopotamia.
It was customary for each
pagan country to have a chief oracle or tempIe. The
PETHOR or PETER in Greece
was Delphi, In Egypt it was Ammon. In Asia Minor it was Lycia -- and later Pergamos.
Professor Jones tells about the other PETHORS throughout the world. Notice:
"These ‘high places’ were scattered about in many parts. There was a city
of ‘interpretation’ in Acaia, called PATRAE, and
another in Lycia,
called PATARA, where Apollo had an oracle. PETHOR was in after times celebrated
for the worship of Ailat" (Ibid., p. 296).
Balaam "Chief Peter"
But Balaam came from PETHOR
on the Euphrates -- the oracle of Mesopotamia.
He was no less than the CHIEF PATORA (as Jones mentions) of the VERY HOME of
idolatry and false religion.
The very meaning of the
name "Balaam" shows he considered himself as sitting in the very
chair of Nimrod, the beginner of the mystery religions. The name
"Balaam" means in Semitic tongues "Conqueror of the
People." This was the exact proper name the Greeks used to designate
NIMROD. They called him NICOLAUS, which also meant "Conqueror of the
People."
In the New Testament we
read of people following the doctrines of NICOLAUS (Nimrod). They were called Nicolaitanes. McClintock and Strong’s 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 Moses’ seat.
Even in Christ’s time the scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses’ 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 PETER’S 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 Aeneas’ 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 wasn’t a single pagan deity that did not
in the end find its headquarters at Rome.
Notice what he says:
"There came to be one single home for all earth-born gods, and you may
count as many temples of gods AT ROME as tombs of heroes in all the world"
(Symmachus, 189 to 197).
It could hardly be clearer!
By Imperial times, Rome became the headquarters of pagan religion. It was the
chief oracle of the world, the PETER for the earth.
The Chief Gods of Rome
There were two gods of
ancient Rome which were pre-eminently worshipped as PETER-gods. One was
JU-PETER (Zeus-Peter). The other, says the Classical Manual, was JANUS, called
PATER or PETER (see page 389). Sometimes these two gods are confused. But they
are to be reckoned as distinct -- relative to Roman paganism of the First
Century. The latter god, JANUS-PETER, had some interesting roles to play in the
pagan religion at Rome. These roles answer the question: Who was the original
Peter of Rome? Notice a brief history and some of the activities of this god.
Plutarch in his life of Numa, gives us the identity of JANUS. Originally, according
to Plutarch, Janus was an ancient prince who reigned in the infancy of the
world. He brought men from a rude and savage life to a mild and rational
system. HE was the first to build cities and the first to establish government
over men. After his death he was deified. There can be no mistaking who this
JANUS was! This title was just another of the many names of Nimrod. This
ancient prince who was violently killed, was later deified by the pagan
religions. Because of his high authority, he was called a PATOR or PETER.
Here are some of the
religious activities of which JANUS-PETER was in charge.
It was JANUS-PETER who was
pre-eminent in interpreting the times -- especially prophecy. "The past
and the future was always present in his mind" (Classical Manual, pages
388 and 389). He was pictured as being double-faced. Plutarch said this was a
symbol of his endeavor to change men from barbarism to civilization -- that is,
bring them to the civilization of NIMROD. One of JANUS’ roles, after his
deification as a god, was the continuation of his sacred task of
"civilizing" men.
But let us go a little
farther.
Janus-Peter Had "Keys"
The PETER-god JANUS was to
the ancient Romans the "KEEPER OF THE GATES OF HEAVEN AND EARTH."
"HE IS REPRESENTED WITH A KEY IN ONE HAND . . . as emblematic of his
presiding over GATES and highways."
How shocking! The pagan
Romans were calling their JANUS a PETER hundreds of years before the birth of
the Apostle Peter. It was this JANUS who was in charge of the "pearly
gates"! The very word JANUS means "gates," that is, the one in
charge of the GATES.
The Classical Manual
continues: "Ovid speaks of him [Janus] in the first book of his Fasti; his face is double to denote his equal empire over
the heavens and the earth -- [does not the Pope claim the same power today?] --
and that all things are open and shut to him AT HIS WILL -- [he was infallible
and answered to no one for his actions, so the Pope] – that he governs the
universe [Catholicism], and alone possesses the power of making the world
revolve on its axis; THAT HE PRESIDES OVER THE GATES OF HEAVEN."
Catholics Claim "Keys"
The Catholic Church claims
Peter gave to it the keys of the gates of heaven and that no one will enter
into God’s 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. Martin’s 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 "Peter’s" Chair
No wonder the Roman
Catholic Church claims to sit in PETER’S CHAIR and that the chief temple of the
world is today called SAINT PETER’S. 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 God’s true religion centuries before Christ
came!
This was Satan’s attempt to
smother God’s 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.