What were the origins
of Catholic - Babylonian Christianity?
What was Simonís religion before he met
Peter? Where did that religion originate? Read in this series of articles the
detailed and documented account of Simon Magus and his great COUNTERFEIT
THE FALSE religious system began very early -- almost with Pentecost in 31
A.D. Even in the earliest of Paulís epistles, he informs us that "the mystery
of iniquity DOTH ALREADY WORK" (II Thess. 2:7). Paul wrote this in 50 or 51
A.D. The plot to supplant the Truth had already begun. In the later epistles
of Paul and in those of the other Apostles, we find it gaining considerable
momentum. However, even though the Apostles discuss the diabolical system
which was arising, THEY NOWHERE MENTION HOW IT STARTED. They had no need in
mentioning its beginning -- that had already been done!
The book of Acts is the
key to the understanding of Christian beginnings. Not only does it show the
commencement of BOTH HOUSES OF ISRAEL, THE WHOLE HOUSE OF JOSEPH JACOB, 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 -- A
First, let us recall two points of necessary understanding.
1) The book of Acts was written by Luke about 62 A.D.-- some 31 years after
the True Assembly began. Acts recalls ALL events which affected, in a major
way, the True Assembly. It especially tells us about the beginnings of matters
relating to Assembly history.
2) Acts does NOT record every single event relative to the Assembly, important
as one might think them to be.
For example, Luke
doesnít mention a single thing about the activities of ten of the original
twelve Apostles of Moshiach. Yet are we to assume that they did nothing
important in the history of the Assembly? 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 יְהוָה ís Assembly of the future to
Notice that Lukeís
geography leads him towards the Northwest and West of Palestine. He discusses
Assembly 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 יְהוָה ís Assembly -- all about the other ten Apostles, etc. -- fall into relative
unimportance because the trouble wasnít going to come from Palestine itself.
It was to come from ROME and adjacent areas. It is no wonder that Luke spares
no pains to tell us the truth of what was really going on in these critical
areas, and that is the reason Acts concerns itself primarily with Paul. These
are well-known principles that help us understand the overall viewpoint of
With the foregoing in mind, read the incident recorded by Luke, of the first
encounter of יְהוָה ís 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 יְהוָה ís Assembly in Asia
Minor, Greece, and ESPECIALLY ROME. Actually, this man by 62 A.D., (when Luke
composed the book of Acts) had caused the True Assembly so much trouble that
Luke had to show the people that he was NOT, as he claimed to be, a part of
the Christian Assembly.
All scholars realize
that Luke tells about Simonís beginning because of his later notoriety and
danger to the Assembly.
In this regard, notice the comment of Hastingís Dictionary of the Apostolic
Church, Vol. 2, p. 496: "It seems beyond question that Luke KNEW THE
REPUTATION which Simon acquired, and that he regarded the subsequent history
of Simon as the natural result of what occurred in the beginning of his
connection with 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 יְהוָה ís Assembly, even though by 62
A.D., many people were being taught that Simon was truly a Christian -- taught
that he was the HEAD of the only TRUE Christians; the Apostle to the Gentiles!
What Luke Tells Us About Simon Magus
points Luke places clearly before us.
1) Simon was a Samaritan, not a Jew -- (Acts 8:9). Remember that the Bible
tells us salvation was of the Jews -- not of the Samaritans (John 4:22).
2) Simon Magus greatly used demonic powers to do miracles and wonders (Acts
3) The whole population of Samaria (both small and great) gave heed to him
(Verse 10). He was looked on as the greatest prophet -- all Samaritans
BELIEVED IN HIM!
4) The Samaritans WORSHIPPED him as "the Great One" -- a . "This man is
that power of God called Great [that is the Almighty]" (RSV. Verse 10).
Imagine it! They called him god in the flesh!
5) Luke is also careful to inform us that Simon had become firmly established
in Samaria as "the Great One" and had practiced his powers "for a long time"
6) Luke wants us to understand that he nominally became a Christian ("Simon
himself believed") and was baptized -- that is, he physically, outwardly
"entered" the Christian Assembly (Verse 13).
7) Simon even recognized that Mashiachs power was greater than his but wanted
to be associated with that great name (Verse 13).
8) Simon, seeing the potential of the Christian religion waited until the
authorities, Peter and John, came to Samaria and then offered to pay them
money to OBTAIN AN APOSTLESHIP IN THE CHRISTIAN Assembly (Verses 18-21).
Simon Coveted Apostleís 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 Mashiachís death to take PART in the apostleship by LOT (Acts 1:25, 26). Peter
was telling Simon he couldnít buy an APOSTLESHIP.
Luke is showing that Simon wanted to be one of the APOSTLES -- a top man in
the Christian Assembly. He was after that office. After all Simon imagined
himself to be fully qualified to be an APOSTLE, especially over the Samaritans
since they already looked to him as the greatest religious leader of the age.
However, Peter rebuked him sternly.
9) Peter perceived that Simon was in the "gall of bitterness, and in the bond
of iniquity [lawlessness]" (Verse 23).
NOTE: This verse has been misunderstood because the King James Version fails
to give the full force of Peterís accusation. This verse when understood in
the manner Peter intended, is one of the most important of the whole chapter.
IT IS A PROPHECY! Peter knew the mind of this man and what this man was to
become. This is made plain by Sir William Ramsay in his Pictures of the
Apostolic Church, p. 60. He says: "Peter rebuked him in strong and
PROPHETIC TERMS. The PROPHECY is concealed in the ordinary translation: the
Greek means Ďthou art FOR a gall of bitterness and a fetter of unrighteousness
[lawlessness]í, i.e., a cause of bitterness and corruption to others."
This makes it plain. Peter was uttering a prophecy by the Holy Spirit. He was
telling what this Simon was to become; Langeís Commentary says:
"Peterís words, literally, mean: ĎI regard you as a man whose influence WILL
BE like that of bitter gall [poison] and a bond of unrighteousness
[lawlessness], or, as a man who has reached such a stateí." (Vol. 9, p. 148).
Not only was Simon, in Peterís time, a great antagonist to the Assembly, but he
would be the adversary in 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
wouldnít repent. Verse 22 shows that in the original.
Gall of Bitterness Defined
It is also interesting to note Peterís statement that Simon was to become a
"gall of bitterness." People today may not realize the exact meaning of such
a phrase, but no Jew in the First Century was in any doubt as to its meaning.
It was a figure of speech adopted from the Old Testament which denoted going
over to the idols and abominations of the heathen. Read Deuteronomy 29:16-18
and see how plainly this figure of speech is used. When the Apostle Peter
applied to Simon Magus the phrase "gall of bitterness," he meant that Simon
would be the responsible party for the introduction of heathen beliefs and
idols into Christianity. The prophecy takes on a new and important scope when
we realize this real meaning of Peterís prophecy.
No wonder Jude later says, speaking about the very men who followed Simon
Magus (including 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 Peterís prophecy came true in a
most remarkable way.
Simon Magus Unrepentant
10) Even after Peterís strong rebuke, Simon DID NOT REPENT! And Peter knew
that he wouldnít!
Conclusion: This means that Simon thought he deserved to be an Apostle -- if
not the chief Apostle -- in the Christian Assembly. 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 Assembly 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 יְהוָה worship, let him read the extraordinarily clear indictments
recorded in the inspired Word of יְהוָה (II Kings 17:24-41).
A Brief History of the Samaritans
There were originally five Babylonian tribes who had been transported to the
area where Northern Israel once lived before Israelís inglorious defeat and
captivity by the Assyrians. When these five tribes moved INTO the vacant land
of Samaria, they brought their Babylonian and Assyrian gods with them.
After a short while in their new country, they were ravaged by lions. They
interpreted this punishment as coming upon them because they failed to honor
the god of the new land -- not realizing that there is only One Great GOD, who
is not confined to any one land. These Samaritans didnít have sense enough to
realize that the True יְהוָה 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
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 יְהוָה 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 יְהוָה ís law. It was
from the time of Jeroboam down to the time of Israelís captivity, that the
majority of Israel was NOT worshipping the True יְהוָה at all! Jerusalem and
יְהוָה ís 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 יְהוָה as the "יְהוָה of the Land." Thus, these Samaritans finally took upon
themselves the NAME: The People of יְהוָה ; but their religion was outright
paganism -- a mixture of Israelitish calf-worship and Babylonianism -- just as
Simon Magus later was eager to appropriateMashiachís NAME, but continue his
Notice what יְהוָה says about the final condition of these Samaritans.
"So these nations feared the Lord [calling themselves יְהוָה ís people], AND
served their graven images, both their children, and their childrenís
children: as did their fathers [the Babylonians], so do they unto this day"
(II Kings 17:41).
These people called themselves the worshippers of the True יְהוָה , 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 Strongís Encyclopedia that the name signifies "the great man," "the great hero"
or "the god of the chase," i.e., the Hunter. In other words, as the
Encyclopedia further points out, he was a form of NIMROD. This Hunter-god was
honored by the people of CUTH for Arabian tradition tells us that CUTH was the
special city of NIMROD (vol. VI, p. 950).
The next god was that of Hamath: ASHIMA. Jones shows us that he was the great
pagan god of propitiation, i.e., the god who bore the guilt of his worshippers
(p. 42). This god was the pagan REDEEMER -- the OSIRIS of Egyptian fame or the
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. יְהוָה tells us that these
Samaritans, as they were called, were claiming to be the true people of יְהוָה
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 Assembly. Peter rebuked
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 Assembly of יְהוָה . His idea was to blend together
Babylonian teaching with some of the teachings of Mashiach -- especially to take
the name of Mashiach -- and thus create ONE UNIVERSAL CHURCH! But a church with Babylonianism as its basis.
Harnack, a Assembly 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 advance 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 Assembly. Simonís
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 Malki Tzedik Yahusha very likely began after his contact with the
Christians that Luke records. His religious system was apparently a SYNCRETISM
of Jewish and Oriental elements" (Hastingís Dictionary of the Apostolic
Church, Vol. 2, p. 497).
Simonís Later Activities
To read all the material that the writers of the second to the fourth
centuries wrote about this man and his followers, would literally take days.
He has been called by many of them "the father of HERESY," and, apart from the
Bible, the amount of literature devoted to him and his activities, shows he
lived up to that title.
Some of the following authorities to be brought forth were eyewitnesses of
many of the things mentioned, and they were writing to others who were
likewise eyewitnesses. Much of the testimony to be mentioned is conclusive and
cannot be set aside.
With this evidence of Simonís activities after his rejection by Peter, we will
clearly be able to see why Luke thought it most important to tell the real
condition of this man, proving that he was in actuality NEVER an Apostle ofMashiach. In this regard, notice the comment of Hastingís Dictionary of the
Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 496: "But it need NOT be supposed that when
Simon broke with the Christians HE RENOUNCED ALL HE HAD LEARNED. It is more
probable that he carried some of the Christian ideas with him, and that he
wove these into a system of his own. This system did contain some of the later
germs of Gnosticism. Thus he became a leader of a retro-grade sect, perhaps
nominally Christian, and certainly using some of the Christian terminology but
in reality anti-Christian and exalting Simon himself to the central position
which Christianity was giving to Malki Tzedik Yahusha HaMashiach(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
"The amalgam of paganism and Christianity which was characteristic of
Gnosticism, and which was especially obvious in the Simonian system, is
readily explicable in the teaching of Simon Magus, who, according to the story
in Acts, was brought into intimate contact with Christian teaching without
becoming a genuine member" (Ibid., p. 496).
We further find in Schaffís History of the Church a reference to this
Simon Magus. He says: "The author, or first representative of this baptized
HEATHENISM, according to the uniform testimony of Christian antiquity, is
Simon Magus, who unquestionably adulterated Christianity with pagan ideas and
practices, and gave himself out, in a pantheistic style for an emanation of
God" Apostolic Christianity, ol. 2, p. 566).
Simon only used the name of Christianity to bring about his own desired ends.
The 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 Simonís doctrines consisted of primarily?
"Two independent traditions profess to preserve the teaching of Simon, the one
betraying the influence of Alexandrian allegory, the other of Syrian and
Babylonian religion" Dictionary of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 11, p.
It is no wonder that Luke hits hard at the infamy of Simon -- for Simon
claimed to be a Christian -- even an Apostle -- and yet was preaching
Babylonian paganism. HE WAS CALLING PAGANISM BY THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY!
"Evidently the Simonian heresy always had a Christian tinge. This made it more
dangerous to Christians than a Gnostic which did not affect any Christian
influence. Luke therefore would be anxious to disclose the true circumstances
that accounted for the origin of the sect -- circumstances highly
discreditable to Simon" Hastingís Bible Dictionary, p. 498).
The reason Luke recorded this encounter with Simon was its far-reaching
effects. As Hastingís explains, the important reason was that of "Lukeís
well-known plan of describing THE FIRST MEETING between Christianity and rival
systems" (Ibid., p. 498).
Luke gives in detail the principal character who established the so-called
Christian counterpart of the Truth in the Apostlesí days. This is the reason
the Apostles in their Assembly letters many times mention the false system as
ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, but fail to describe its origin. They didnít have to.
That was already done RIGHT AT THE FIRST by 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 ĎSimoni deo Sanctoí (i.e., the holy god Simon)" Dictionary of
Vol. 4, p. 682).
That these things actually happened CANNOT BE DOUBTED! Justin was writing to
the Roman people at the time and they could certainly have exposed Justinís
credulity if what he said was not so. And, that a statue of Simon was actually
erected is definite, for Justin asks the authorities in Rome to destroy it!
There are many writers, who lived in Rome itself, who afterwards repeated
Justinís account. Those who want to reject these clear statements have nothing
in their favor. Justin is clearly giving us fact!
Hastingís Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol 2, p. 496, states
that there is "very slight evidence on which to reject so precise a statement
as Justin makes; a statement he would scarcely have hazarded in an apology
addressed to Rome, where every person had the means of ascertaining its
accuracy. If he made a mistake, it must have been at once exposed, and other
writers would not have frequently repeated the story as they have 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 Justinís day (152 A.D.),
people were still giving regard to it.
There are many other accounts of Simonís traveling to Rome and becoming one of
the great gods to the city and to the people of Rome. There are records which
show that Simon "prophesies that Rome will be the scene of his crowning glory,
when he will be adored as a god" Dictionary of Religion & Ethics, Vol.
11, p. 522).
Simon Peter NOT With Simon Magus in Rome
Later, about the fourth century, a flood of works came out about Peter
encountering Simon Magus in Rome and overthrowing him. But these works are
clearly fiction. Almost all scholars realize the absurdity of maintaining such
a thing. In the first place, it can be Biblically shown that Peter the Apostle
was NEVER in Rome when these fictitious writings say he 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 didnít want to perpetrate such fiction. After all,
Justin lived very early in the history of the church, and the legend of the
Apostle Peterís being in Rome HADNíT GOT
STARTED YET! Continuing with the Encyclopedia Biblica about Justinís
reference to SIMON MAGUS: "One part of this tradition -- that about Simonís
presence in Rome -- he [Justin] found himself able to accept [in fact he held
it to be confirmed by the statue, which he brought into connection with
Simon]; the other -- that about Peterís presence in Rome -- he was unable to
accept" (col. 4555).
Of course Justin was unable to accept the latter teaching. The fact is, Simon
Peter was NOT in Rome. It was another Simon who went there -- SIMON MAGUS, the
one bringing "Christianity" to them in the guise of the old Babylonian mystery
religions. Simon came to Rome with the grand idea of establishing a UNIVERSAL
RELIGION in the NAME of Christianity! And what is remarkable, he did just
Next, we will see how Simon Magus became later confused with Simon Peter and
how he cleverly brought into "Christianity" the mystery religions of Babylon.
Peter Was NOT The First Pope!
Here are TEN solid, Biblical proofs that Peter was not at Rome. Mark each in
your Bible and understand them well, so YOU will not be deceived.
THE PRIMACY of the Roman Catholic Church depends upon one fundamental
doctrine: the claim that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and the founder of
the Roman Church.
The teaching of Catholic historians tells us that Simon Peter went to Rome at
the same time as Simon Magus in order to thwart his evils. This was during the
reign of Claudius. After successfully combating the Magus, they tell us, Peter
assumed the Roman bishopric and ruled it until the Neronian persecutions of 68
A.D., during which Peter was supposed to have been crucified upside down on
Vatican hill. This is the basic story and Catholic writers never shirk in
attempting to defend it. Some of them say that this general account is one of
the most provable of historical events.
But is it?
The fact remains, many ecclesiastical authors of the second century, Justin
Martyr among them, give information completely negating Peterís supposed Roman
bishopric. This is admitted by virtually all scholars -- except conservative
Catholics (Ency. Biblica, col. 4554). But, more important than this,
the records of the True Assembly of יְהוָה -- 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 יְהוָה . 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 יְהוָה tells us! The truth IS
PROOF ONE: We should consider Mashiachís commission to Peter. This is often very
embarrassing to Catholics, because Mashiach 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 WASNíT Peter!
"And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived
the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me
and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the
heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9).
Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy
1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of
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 Malki Tzedik Yahusha HaMashiach to the Gentiles, ministering the
gospel of יְהוָה , that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom.
Paul had the direct charge from Mashiach in this matter. He even further relates
in Romans 15:18 that it was Mashiach who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles
obedient, by word and deed."
PAUL Established Only TRUE Assembly at Rome
PROOF THREE: We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter -- who
was going to officially found the Roman Assembly. "I long to see you, that I may
impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom.
Amazing! The Assembly at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or
56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this
some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius.
Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the Catholic
church! But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible
for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome.
PROOF FOUR: We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Assembly at Rome, but
he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another manís
foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Mashiach was
named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MANíS FOUNDATION"
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"
Peter Not in Rome
PROOF FIVE: At the end of Paulís Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than
28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 -- read
the whole chapter!
Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didnít he mention
Peter? -- Peter simply wasnít there!
PROOF SIX: Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a
prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian
community in Rome heard of Paulís arrival, they all went to meet him. "When
THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15).
Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been
extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name
important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peterís
meeting with Paul.
Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!
PROOF SEVEN: When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to
summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and
testified the kingdom of יְהוָה " (Verse 23).
But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very
little even about the basic teachings of Mashiach. All they knew was that ĎĎas
concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse
22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Mashiach on the
Kingdom of יְהוָה . Some believed -- the majority didnít.
Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a
strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years
before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have
known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is
clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D.
No Mention of Peter in Paulís Letters
PROOF EIGHT: After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his
own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the
Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And
while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere
mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision
PROOF NINE: With the expiration of Paulís two yearís imprisonment, he was
released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a
prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and
was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II
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 יְהוָה 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
deniedMashiach, but that was before he was converted. To believe that Peter was
in Rome during Paulís trial, is untenable!
PROOF TEN: The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome
in 65 A.D. -- even though Catholics say he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with
me" (II Tim. 4:11).
The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at
the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER
mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me."
Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!
Where Was Peter?
Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3,
4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem
Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into
differences with Paul because he wouldnít sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange
that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.!
Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I
Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he
in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the
Mesopotamian areas inMashiachís time as there were in Palestine. It is no
wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say
Peterís writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor -- the type of Aramaic spoken
in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect.
At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, the Bible clearly shows
he was elsewhere. The evidence is abundant and conclusive. By paying attention
to יְהוָה ís own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of
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 יְהוָה . They began to build cities,
found religions, bring in idolatries. Pagan temples were erected -- the Tower
of Babel came on the scene. All o these things started within the first two
hundred years after the Flood.
Pagan Gods Called "Peters"
Surprising as it may sound, it is a well-known fact among students of ancient
religion, that the chief pagan gods worshipped in the early civilizations were
generally known by the name PETER. It is also known that the priests of those
heathen gods were also called PETERS. That same name in one form or another,
was even applied to the pagan TEMPLES consecrated to those gods.
Notice what Bryant, in his work Ancient Mythology says: "Not only the
gods, but the Hierophantae [special priests], in most temples; and those
priests in particular, who were occupied in the celebration of mysteries,
were styled PATRES" (vol. 1, p. 354).
This is significant! The word PATRE is the same as PATOR or PETER in meaning
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 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.
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 doesnít exhaust the list. In fact, he leaves out JUPITER, the
"Father" of the Roman gods. But it was unnecessary to mention him as a
"PETER-god." Due to his high rank, the title PETER was actually incorporated
as a part of his name. He was called JU-PETER.
Gladstone in his work on the antiquities of Greece, shows that Jupiter and the
Greek god ZEUS were one and the same, JU-PETER was the Roman way of saying
ZEUS-PETER, the chief god of the Greeks (Homer and the Homeric Age, vol. I, p.
287), PETER was the name that came to signify high rank among the gods -- and
among their priests
Greeks Used Term "Peter"
The Romans were not the only ones who called their gods PETERS, The Classical
Manual reveals that the Greeks used the term PETER (or its variants) as often
as did the Romans.
For example, Apollo was called PATRIUS and his followers APOLLO PATRIUS (p.
23). Pausanius tells us that Artemis and Bacchus were called PATORA, that is
PETER-gods (Books 1, 2). Pindar speaks of Poseidon Petraios. He says the
Thessalians worshipped Neptune under this title (Pyth. 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
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
At the temple of Delphi in Greece, the chief object in the ritual was the
PETRA (Pausanius, Bk. 10). At the Acropolis in Athens, Euripides tells us, the
niches which held the idols were called the PETRAE (verse 935). It is
well-known that even the sacred book which was used in the celebration of the
Eleusinian mysteries, was entitled "Book PETROMA," PETER-ROMA-- PETERíS BOOK
(see Potterís Antiquities, vol. 1, p. 356).
Remember that the pagan temples were also called after the PETERS. The temple
at Elis in Greece was called PETRON (Lycophron, verse 159). Pytho at Delphi
was called PETRAessa (Olymp. Ode 6). The oracle temple dedicated to Apollo in
Asia Minor was called the PATARA and the oracle there was called PATAReus ("Eus"
means "person who, one") -- (Lempriereís Classical Dictionary, p. 438).
Also PATRAE -- an ancient town where DIANA had a temple (p. 438), and the
oracle in Achaia was called PATRA (Jones, Proper Names of the Old Testament,
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
This Pethor or Peter (either spelling is correct) was the place of an oracle
temple. In the Dictionary of Proper Names of the Old Testament, edited
by A. Jones, we find that Balaamís PETHOR was the sacred high place "where
there was an oracular temple, and hence called PETHOR, and PETHORA, which
meant, place of interpretation, or oracular temple. Here was, no doubt, a
college of priests of whom Balaam had been appointed chief PATORA" (p. 296).
Yes, Balaam was the chief PATORA (Peter) of the PETHOR (Peter-temple) of
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.
"These Ďhigh placesí were scattered about in many parts. There was a city of
Ďinterpretationí in Acaia, called PATRAE, and another in Lycia, called PATARA,
where Apollo had an oracle. PETHOR was in after times celebrated for the
worship of Ailat" (Ibid., p. 296).
Balaam "Chief Peter"
But Balaam came from PETHOR on the Euphrates -- the oracle of Mesopotamia. He
was no less than the CHIEF PATORA (as Jones mentions) of the VERY HOME of
idolatry and false religion.
The very meaning of the name "Balaam" shows he considered himself as sitting
in the very chair of Nimrod, the beginner of the mystery religions. The name
"Balaam" means in Semitic tongues "Conqueror of the People." This was the
exact proper name the Greeks used to designate NIMROD. They called him
NICOLAUS, which also meant "Conqueror of the People."
In the New Testament we read of people following the doctrines of NICOLAUS
(Nimrod). They were called Nicolaitanes. McClintock and Strongís
Encyclopaedia speaking of them says: "The sect of the Nicolaitanes is
described as following the doctrine or teaching of Balaam -- and it appears
not improbable that this name is employed symbolically, as NICOLAUS is
equivalent in meaning to BALAAM" (vol. 1, p. 621).
Yes, the two names NICOLAUS and BALAAM are exactly the same in meaning -- they
both point to NIMROD, the originator of paganism. We also find that when Simon
Magus (alias Simon Peter) "Christianized" the religion of NIMROD, John the
Apostle plainly labels his followers NICOLAITANES and followers of BALAAM. All
of the heresies mentioned in the Seven Churches are of only ONE system -- the
system of NIMROD, under the leadership of Simon Magus.
Balaam Represents Nimrod
The name of Balaam is another name for NIMROD. But, understand this clearly --
the "Balaam" who met Israel on their way out of Egypt was NOT the original
Nimrod. He had been killed several hundred years before. This Balaam merely
represented Nimrod as his successor. We are all aware that Joshua, being a
successor of Moses, was looked on as sitting in Mosesí seat. Even in Mashiachís
time the scribes and Pharisees sat in Mosesí seat of authority (Matt. 23:1-4).
So it was with Balaam. He maintained one of the proper names of Nimrod to
signify that he was the legitimate successor of the Arch-Rebel. And to
emphasize his authority, Balaam could point to his headquarters as the PETHOR
or PETER of Mesopotamia. Therefore, the Moabites in their hatred for Israel
called for the chief priest of the pagan world. They ignored the priesthood of
their own national gods -- going to the highest authority they knew! Josephus
represents this false prophet as "Balaam, who lived by the Euphrates, and was
the greatest of the prophets of that time" (Ant. IV, 6,2). Balaam was the
successor of Nimrod -- the PONTIFEX MAXIMUS of the pagan world. His
headquarters was the "PETER on the Euphrates" -- the SAINT PETERíS OF
MESOPOTAMIA, the chief oracle of paganism. This is a shocking revelation --
but one which stands the test of the Bible and ancient religious history.
PETER-gods Come to Rome
It is well-known history that in the earliest ages, the center of civilization
was in Asia and Mesopotamia. In later times, political power passed to the
Greeks and then to the Romans. It is also well-recognized that the religions
of Asia, by Greek and Roman times, had also passed to the West. By the First
Century, the mystery religions of the Babylonians were centered primarily in
Rome! By that time, Rome had become the chief city of the world.
Early records mention this transference of pagan religion from Asia right to
the city of Rome. The First Century book by Virgil, The Aenid, in Imperial
times became a type of Roman "Bible." It gives the story of one Aeneas who
wandered away from Asia right after the Trojan War and settled in Italy.
The main theme of the book concerns the so-called "sacred task" of Aeneas:
bringing the pagan gods of Asia to Italy! Virgil spares no words in glorifying
Aeneasí journey. He shows how Aeneas brought the Romans ORGANIZED RELIGION --
with all the pagan gods and goddesses necessary for performing it. And most
important: Virgil constantly says that these deities were the PATRII of Asia.
(See the CIassical Manual, page 592, for full information confirming
this.) These gods and goddesses were the PETER-deities -- the chief deities
which were destined to favor Rome and Italy above all other countries.
Asia had been the original home of the PETER-gods. Through Virgil we find them
being transported to the doorstep of Rome. And why not? By the First Century,
Rome was considered "the home of the gods." Prudentius, an ancient Roman
himself, says that there wasnít a single pagan deity that did not in the end
find its headquarters at Rome.
Notice what he says: "There came to be one single home for all earth-born
gods, and you may count as many temples of gods AT ROME as tombs of heroes in
all the world" (Symmachus, 189 to 197).
It could hardly be clearer! By Imperial times, Rome became the headquarters of
pagan religion. It was the chief oracle of the world, the PETER for the earth.
The Chief Gods of Rome
There were two gods of ancient Rome which were pre-eminently worshipped as
PETER-gods. One was JU-PETER (Zeus-Peter). The other, says the Classical
Manual, was JANUS, called PATER or PETER (see page 389). Sometimes these two
gods are confused. But they are to be reckoned as distinct -- relative to
Roman paganism of the First Century. The latter god, JANUS-PETER, had some
interesting roles to play in the pagan religion at Rome. These roles answer
the question: Who was the original Peter of Rome? Notice a brief history and
some of the activities of this god.
Plutarch in his life of Numa, gives us the identity of JANUS. Originally,
according to Plutarch, Janus was an ancient prince who reigned in the infancy
of the world. He brought men from a rude and savage life to a mild and
rational system. HE was the first to build cities and the first to establish
government over men. After his death he was deified. There can be no mistaking
who this JANUS was! This title was just another of the many names of Nimrod.
This ancient prince who was violently killed, was later deified by the pagan
religions. Because of his high authority, he was called a PATOR or PETER.
Here are some of the religious activities of which JANUS-PETER was 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
JANUSí 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 [Catholicum], and alone possesses the power of making the
world revolve on its axis; THAT HE PRESIDES OVER THE GATES OF HEAVEN."
Catholics Claim "Keys"
The Catholic Church claims Peter gave to it the keys of the gates of heaven
and that no one will enter into Godís presence unless that church opens the
gates. The very word "Cardinal" means "hinge." The Cardinals of the Roman
Church are the HINGES upon which the GATE -- the Pope -- is able to turn.
The Classical Manual continues: "the successions of day and night are
regulated by his influence; and that the east and the west is at one moment
open to his view." It was JANUS-PETER who also controlled the calendar by his
priests. The first month of the year was named after him to show his control
over the years. So, today, we still have JANU-ary as the first month. The
Catholic Church, like the priests of Janus, feels it has this same authority
over the calendar today.
Another Name for Nimrod
Finally, it is necessary to notice at least one more name under which Nimrod
masqueraded -- the name MITHRAS, the Persian name for Baal, the sun god. This
Mithras-worship of Nimrod was popular and was one of the last to plant itself
in Rome, but it had a very old theme -- outright PETER-worship. "Mithras was
styled by the nations of the East PATOR; his temples were PATRA and PETRA and
his festivals PATRICA" (Bryant, vol. 1, p. 370).
Yes, even Nimrod under the name Mithras, the sun-god, was called PETER!!!
Sir James Frazer tells us of this religion of Mithra -- the religion of the
pagan PETER -- coming to Rome. Notice it. "Among the gods of eastern origin
who in the decline of the ancient world competed against each other for the
allegiance of the West was the old Persian deity of MITHRA. The immense
popularity of his worship is attested by the monuments illustrative of it
which have been found scattered in profusion ALL OVER THE ROMAN EMPIRE. In
respect both of doctrines and of rites the cult of MITHRA appears to have
presented many points of resemblance not only to the religion of the Mother of
the Gods but also to Christianity" (Golden Bough, St. Martinís ed.,
vol. 1, p. 471).
Catholics Accept "Peter" Worship
What he means is that the Christianity of the third and fourth centuries had
already by that time inherited so much from pagan beliefs, that this
PETER-religion coming from the East found many similarities with Roman
Christianity. The Catholics had already, by this late date, accepted the pagan
festivals of Christmas, Easter and a host of other rituals and beliefs. Frazer
continues: "Taken altogether, the coincidences of the Christian with the
heathen festivals are too close and too numerous to be accidental" (Ibid., p.
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
Sits in "Peterís" Chair
No wonder the Roman Catholic Church claims to sit in PETERíS CHAIR and that
the chief temple of the world is today called SAINT PETERíS. That Church has
accepted the practices and symbols of the oldest pagan religion on earth:
PETER-worship -- the religion of Nimrod.
This pagan religion was believed and practiced before Mashiach 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 יְהוָה ís true religion
centuries before Mashiach came!
This was Satanís attempt to smother יְהוָה ís 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 יְהוָה for His goodness in giving to
His Assembly the TRUTH.
Simonites Establish UNIVERSAL CHURCH
Elevating his personal teachings above the Bible, and preaching a "no-works"
doctrine of salvation, Simon Magus soon had a universal, popular following.
Deified by the Romans, he was buried on Vatican Hill. Read how it happened in
SIMON Magus, just like his Samaritan forefathers, deliberately blended
together the teachings of Babylon with Biblical phrases.
One of his main intentions was to appropriate a Christian vocabulary to the
Babylonian ceremonial system. In other words, he kept on with his heathenism,
but now called his system "Christian" in origin.
Letís go on. "But he [Simon] promised that the world should be dissolved, and
that those who were his own should be redeemed. And accordingly, HIS PRIESTS,
Irenaeus tells us [yes, Simon established a priesthood], led lascivious lives,
used magic and incantations, made philtres, HAD FAMILIAR SPIRITS by whose aid
they were able to trouble with dreams those whom they would. They had IMAGES
of Simon and Helen, in the forms respectively of JUPITER and MINERVA" (Dict.
of Christian Biography, vol. 4, p. 683).
Simon Honored as Jupiter
People who had demonic powers as Simon did, were honoured as gods in the first
century -- even sacrifices were offered to them. Does this seem unlikely? Then
read Acts 14:11-13. After seeing the great miracles that Paul and Barnabas had
done through the Holy Spirit, Luke says: "When the people saw what Paul had
done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods
are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter;
and Paul, Mercury." Then the priest of Jupiter came out to offer them
Paul and Barnabas "rent their clothes" at such action. What would SIMON MAGUS
have done? Or rather, what did Simon Magus do? He let the Roman Senate with
the approval of the Emperor Claudius deify him as a god and erect a statue to
him. And, the people who followed SIMON called him JUPITER -- at the same time
calling themselves Christians. The statue that must have been dedicated to
Simon was in the likeness of the chief god of the pagan world -- the god that
desolated the Holy Place in יְהוָה ís temple -- Jupiter Capitolinus.
The Death of Simon Magus
The records regarding Simonís death vary widely. Many of the stories try to
incorporate some fiction from the Greek and Egyptian myths to enhance the
readerís interest in this fascinating character. But the earliest records say
that he was buried in Rome after a long period of great honour and
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
Notice what Werner Keller in his The Bible as History says about the
so-called burial of the Catholicsí Peter. (Before reading Kellerís statement,
let us remember that he is a thorough-going Catholic and firmly, himself,
believed that the Apostle Peter was buried in Rome. However, the Bible shows
nothing of the kind. Now, letís read Kellerís comment -- the official comment
of the Roman Catholic Church):
"On the night of his death on the cross Peterís followers BURIED his body. As
in the case of Malki Tzedik Yahusha on the hill of Calvary it was wrapped in linen and
secretly taken to a PAGAN BURIAL GROUND on the Via Cornelia, behind the stone
structure of the arena. This PAGAN CEMETERY lay on a knoll called VATICANUS:
the Latin word Ďvatisí means a Ďprophetí or ĎSOOTHSAYERí. In days gone by
there had been an Etruscan oracle on this spot" (p. 368).
What an admission!
Keller ought to have better sense to know that this Peter buried in this
cemetery, of all places, could NOT be the Apostle Peter. In the first place,
Peter was a Jew, and they had to be buried in their own cemeteries. And even
if by a happen-chance a Jew could be buried in a Roman cemetery, it is most
unlikely that a Jew -- especially one who attacked the Roman religion as the
Apostle Peter did -- would ever have been allowed into the most holy of pagan
cemeteries! This cemetery was reserved for prophets, soothsayers and the great
ones of pagan Rome. It would be as sensible to say that Hitler could find a
place of burial in Westminster Abbey. And too, can you imagine TRUE Christians
searching out a PAGAN CEMETERY -- the chief one -- in which to bury the chief
Christian Apostle, the inveterate enemy of PAGANISM?
This place, of all places, could not be the place of the Apostle Peterís
burial -- even if he had been in Rome. But, there is really no better place
for the burial of SIMON MAGUS. He had been, and was being, honoured as a god
-- not only by the people of Rome, but even by the Emperor and the Senate.
Yes, Keller and his Catholic friends have undoubtedly found a SIMON, but not
the Apostle Peter.
Catholic Church Accepts SIMON MAGUSí Teachings
We have the record of history which tells us that Simonís teaching spread like
wildfire -- especially in Rome where he was honoured as a god. In fact, after
going there he made that city his headquarters. But let us recall that the
followers of Simon called themselves TRUE 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
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.
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
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
Simonism IS Catholicism
It is also true that even some of the Catholics (in Eusebiusí time) were
unwilling to go all the way and accept the SIMON MAGUS doctrines of IMAGES,
PICTURES, INCANTATIONS, etc., but within another hundred years, history shows
the bars were let down completely.
But in Eusebiusí day, he even balked at their bringing outright images into
the churches and worshiping them. Notice what he finally says of these
"Christians" of SIMON: "Simon was the author of all heresy. From his time down
to the present those who have followed his heresy have FEIGNED the sober
philosophy of the Christians, which is celebrated among all on account of its
purity of life. But they nevertheless have embraced again the superstitions of
idols, which they seemed [ostentatiously] to have renounced; and they fall
down before pictures and images of Simon himself and of the above-mentioned
Helena who was with him [that is, the images of JUPITER and MINERVA -- the
Catholics do exactly this today]; and they venture to worship them with
incense and sacrifices and libations" (Eccl. Hist. II, 13, 6).
What clear and revealing statements! Eusebius is not talking about what he
considers distinct heretics outside the Catholic Church. He is talking about
the MAJOR group IN THAT CHURCH which was continually adding more and more on a
large scale. He attributes these evils to the "Christians" who followed SIMON
MAGUS. They were so active in his day INSIDE THE CHURCH as to give him grave
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 יְהוָה , through Luke, devotes a whole section of Acts
to warn us of this manís origin. He was NEVER a part of the Assembly of יְהוָה --
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. יְהוָה 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 Assembly 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
Schaffís History of the Church says the following about Simon Magus and
his doctrines: "Plain traces of this error appear in the later epistles of
Paul (to the Colossians, to Timothy, and to Titus), the second epistle of
Peter, the first two epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the messages
of the Apocalypse to the seven Churches."
"This heresy, in the second century, spread over the whole church, east and
west, in the various schools of Gnosticism" (Apostolic Christianity,
vol. 2, p. 556).
But to single out the one Apostle who seems to have made the most deliberate
and planned attack on the false Christianity of Simon Magus -- we must look to
Take his Gospel for instance. While he records a history of Mashiachís 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 Mashiach
were being corrupted by a well-known plot to destroy the TRUTH. To understand
Johnís approach to his Gospel we must be aware of his endeavour to expose this
false system which had arisen and was gaining momentum.
Notice how John constantly hits at the necessity of keeping the commandments
of יְהוָה . Why? Because the false system was preaching LIBERTINE doctrines.
Notice also Johnís particular geographical settings for his Gospel. He was the
one who mentions Mashiachís 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 Mashiach so as to give the Assembly a well-rounded Gospel -- bringing in the
extra points which were necessary for our knowing.
Also, Johnís epistles are jam-packed with specific information regarding the
conspiracy to overthrow the Truth. But yet, none of these works of John
mentioned above represent his LAST efforts to warn the Assembly of that
conspiracy which was very much present. Johnís last witness to יְהוָה ís Assembly
before his death was the book of Revelation.
Mashaich 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. יְהוָה certainly does NOT leave His Assembly in the dark.
The Book of Revelation
This book is perhaps the most important towards our study of SIMON MAGUSí
Christianity. Why? Three clear-cut reasons.
(1) The book of Acts gives us the PAST history of the Church. It tells us
about Simon Magus who started the false system. Without the book of Acts
identifying the MAN behind it all, the activities of that false system as
recorded in the epistles becomes obscured and in some cases unintelligible.
So, the book of Acts is vitally important! !
(2) The epistles then come on the scene, describing the false system. With the
epistles, the incident of SIMON MAGUS in Acts represents dynamite!! Each
section of Scripture is designed to fulfill specific duties. It is when we
understand those duties that the Bible really 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 systemís PROPHETIC HISTORY THROUGH ALL ERAS OF THE CHURCH.
We must remember that Revelation intends to show us "things which shall be
hereafter." This is its duty -- and it marvelously performs what it was
intended to do.
The Seven Churches of Revelation
This section of Revelation gives a big KEY. It describes a brief prophetic
history of the Church until the coming of Mashiach. But also -- and this is
important -- it continually shows the false system with which the TRUE
would come in contact. Though different names are used to describe the
corrupters of the Truth, careful study shows Mashiach is referring to ONE
general false system -- perhaps with ramifications, but nevertheless ONE
system which will counter the True Assembly in its entire history.
And in regard to this, Mashiach 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
Mashiach gives us double witness of this identification in a most remarkable
way. What He tells us in Acts of SIMON MAGUS being the beginning of the
diabolical scheme, He reinforces by telling us in Revelation that Simonís
followers will make up the false system until Mashiach 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
But before seeing these clear references, I must say that the material to
follow would have been in the past classified as ABSURD in the extreme, but
recent discoveries put a whole new complexion on the matter. Let us see.
Christ identifies the people behind the false system with several names, but
these are simply different names of the same system. Notice this. In two
distinct AGES of the Church we read of these people with a distinct
"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 Assembly. We also read of
these false people called by this same name afflicting the Christians of the
Smyrna church era (Rev. 2:9). The identification is repeated TWICE and both
are describing conditions hundreds of years apart. Now the question remains:
WHO ARE INTENDED? The answer is so clear. They are Samaritan-Christians, that
is, the followers of SIMON MAGUS the Samaritan!
Look again at this verse ". . . . which say they are Jews, and are not, but do
LIE. . . . "
If we would take that expression out of its Biblical context and, for example,
place it into an ordinary secular work written in the first century, that
expression could IDENTIFY only one people -- and especially if a Jew was doing
the writing: THE SAMARITANS.
The Samaritans were the only distinct people in the world in the first and
second centuries who said they were Jews, and yet were NOT Jews and they knew
it. The Samaritans were LIARS!!
Notice what Josephus said at the end of the first century -- just about the
time John wrote Revelation. He is speaking of the Samaritan nation: "When the
Jews are in adversity they [the Samaritans] deny that they are kin to them,
and THEN THEY CONFESS THE TRUTH; but when they perceive that some good fortune
hath befallen them, they immediately PRETEND to have communion with them,
saying, that they belong to them,
and desire their genealogy from the posterity of Joseph, Ephraim, and
Manasseh" (Antiquities, XI, 8, 6).
This is plain history! The Samaritans, if to their advantage, called
themselves Jews. But they were LIARS! They knew better. Their own records
showed they came from Babylon and adjacent areas. This is exactly what the Old
Testament says. They were clearly Gentiles.
Josephus continues about these Samaritans: "And when they see the Jews in
prosperity, they PRETEND they are changed and allied to them, and call them
kinsmen, as though they were derived from Joseph, and had by that means an
original alliance with them; but when they see them falling into a low
condition, they say that they are no way related to them, and that the Jews
have no right to expect any kindness or marks of KINDRED from them, but they
declare that they are sojourners, that come from OTHER countries"
(Antiquities, IX, 14, 3).
Now this should begin to make sense. At the time of Simon Magus it was clearly
an advantage to the Samaritan followers of Simon (and Simon himself) to call
themselves JEWS. Why? ALL the prophecies stated that Mashiach 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 Mashiach discussed matters with the Samaritan woman at the
well, she acknowledged -- with amazement because Mashiach, 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 Mashiach Himself when He first sent forth the twelve. He
charged them: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the
Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel" (Matt. 10:5, 6).
Pretty plain, isnít it? The Apostles were to go to the Jews and Israel -- but
not to the Gentiles or Samaritans. The Samaritans were plainly Gentiles -- NOT
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
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. Simonís
Helen (alias Semiramis) figured high in his system.
It would seem odd if the book of Revelation didnít mention something of the
female side of the false system. However, Mashiach 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, Mashiach 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 Johnís 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.
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 יְהוָה ís servants to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to
idols. By looking on this "Jezebel" as having been contemporaneous with all
the heresies of the other Churches -- and that these heresies were in reality
only ONE false system which originated with Simon Magus -- we can then easily
see that this "Jezebel" can be equated with the "Female Principle" which Simon
introduced into his "Christianity." None other than Simonís Helen -- the
reclaimed temple prostitute from Tyre. Helen WAS a prostitute -- what better
type of person is there who could so expertly "teach" and "seduce My servants
to commit fornication," literally as well as spiritually?
Simon Magus came in contact with a priestess of Tyre who had been a temple
prostitute. The Samaritans worshiped SUCCOTH-BENOTH who was the goddess VENUS.
Her devotees continually prostituted themselves. It was their religious duty
to do so.
This woman was overawed by Simonís demonic power and was persuaded to follow
him -- to live with him -- to become the female principle, the necessary
counterpart to his claim as being a type of male deity. Relative to this, the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 25, p. 126, quoting from Justin states: "And
almost all the Samaritans and a few among the other nations, acknowledge and
adore him as the first god. And one Helen, who went about with him at the
time, who before had had her stand in a brothel, they say was the First
Thought that was brought into being by him."
This is interesting because Justin was himself a Samaritan -- born and reared
in the country. He certainly knew his peopleís native traditions and
teachings. What he says agrees exactly with the New Testament revelation of
how the Samaritans regarded Simon. They actually called him the "great power
of יְהוָה " (Acts 8:10). It is because of this that they believed him to have
creative powers. He himself said he created Helen, his female companion whom
he later elevated to a goddess.
"Irenaenus, Theodoret, and Epiphanius agree in identifying Simon with the
Supreme God and Helena with ennoia, the first conception of his mind and his
agent in creation" (Dict. of Religion of Ethics, vol. 11, p. 517).
What blasphemy!! But this is what he taught everywhere he went -- and under
the guise of Christianity.
There always had to be the Man and Woman divinities in paganism. Or, to make
it plain, Nimrod and Semiramis.
Now notice what the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics says about this
teaching of Simon which he took to Rome and they accepted: "The original of
Simonís Helena is the moon-goddess of Syria and Babylonia.
Clementine Recognitions Helena is always translated ĎLuna.í The theory that
Simon was accustomed to borrow from paganism IS CORROBORATED by the assertion
of the Fathers that he and
Helena were worshipped by their sect with the attributes of ZEUS and ATHENE
and received the cult-title ĎLordí and ĎLadyí (i.e. our Lord and our Lady)"
(ibid. p. 518).
As stated before, it was Simonís plan to bring about a UNIVERSAL religion
under the powerful name of Christianity. Remember that Simon NEVER gave up the
His followers were called Christians. In amalgamating the pagan Babylonian
religious beliefs with Christianity, he placed himself at the head -- the
personification of the chief pagan gods of old, and Helena as his companion in
creation, the personification of the female deities. The name Helena for his
consort fit his plan exceptionally well.
"There existed a wide-spread cult of the moon goddess in Syria and Egypt under
the name Helene; she was identified with Aphrodite, Atargatis, and the
Egyptian Isis, who was after represented with Horns to betoken her relation to
the moon. One feature of the myth of Helen can be traced to the very ancient
connection of the religion of Osiris with Syria. According to legend, Isis
spent ten years at a brothel in Tyre during the course of her wanderings in
search of the scattered limbs of her husband. The imprisonment of Helen
(Simonís Helen) is then only a variant of the many myths relating the
degradation of the Queen of 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
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 Mashiach 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 Mashiach 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 Mashiach as the (or perhaps
better) a founder of the "Christian Church," John tells them what
Malki Tzedik Yahusha
informed the Samaritan woman:
(1) "Ye worship ye know not what" (John 4:22).Mashiach meant by those words
that the Samaritans were NOT worshiping the True יְהוָה at all. They were
worshiping something foreign to the יְהוָה of the Bible. It was the Devil.
(2) "We know what we worship: FOR SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS" (v. 22). We can
see why John saw the necessity of explaining what Mashiach really said on this
matter. Mashiach 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 Mashiach -- who was a Jew --
John records that one whole city even of the Samaritans recognized Malki Tzedik Yahusha as
the Mashiach (vs. 39-42). He was showing that some of the people in Simonís own
home-ground knew that Malki Tzedik Yahusha HaMashiach and the Jews were responsible for
John tells us that the woman at the well had FIVE husbands. This is to be
taken literally, but isnít it remarkable that the original Babylonian tribes
which became the Samaritans were FIVE in number -- and they each brought their
false deities with them.
"The Two Babylons"...or "The Papal Worship proved to
be The Worship Of Nimrod and his wife. by Alexander Hilsop.