Part one.
This study was prepared by an ex-Jesuit catholic priest whose name is hidden because of his
safety, and on reading it and comparing it with the word of God, I was in
agreement all together, so I have agreed to give this study today.
Forgeries and three legged stool of the RCC.
Be warned ... this is not for the faint hearted!!!
Once we had a lecture on Mormonism, and during that lecture we heard the words
THREE LEGGED STOOL, and when one leg is removed it cannot stand. Today i want to
point your attention to the largest THREE LEGGED STOOL of all times.
One of the pillars that the Rome Catholic Church states that they are the first
and true church of Christ, that had their beginning from the apostle Peter. They
claim that the line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to
Peter himself.
In its concrete form, apostolic succession is the line of bishops that goes from
Rome stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops
claim to have their lineage of predecessors traced back to the time of the
apostles; specifically the apostle Simon Peter who is stated to be the first
pope of the Roman Catholic Church. The role of apostolic succession in
preserving true doctrine is illustrated in The Bible.
Today, as we look at The Bible and the Roman Catholic Church we can see that
there are many differences concerning doctrine. These differences are not a
simple misunderstanding but at times appear to be the complete opposite of The
Bible. When one studies out the major differences between the Church of Rome and
The Bible it is not difficult to see that they have not preserved the doctrine
of Christ or The Bible. If anyone were to study such subjects as infant baptism,
the mass, Immaculate Conception of Mary, engraved images, or the Sunday Sabbath
they would not be able to support these ideas from The Bible. In fact, as stated
earlier, these doctrines are completely opposite of The Bible. These ideas and
practices have their roots in Paganism and Babylonian religions.
Where did the departure of simple Bible truth enter the church? Like any seeker
of truth, let's go back to the beginning to see where these false doctrines came
into the church. With the claim of apostolic succession, we'll go back to the
apostle Peter himself and see how the departing of the truth came to be.
When we look in The Bible there is no record of the apostle ever being in Rome
much less being the head of the church. There are countless supposed historical
accounts that Peter was in Rome but they all come from Catholic sources and are
not first hand accounts. The earliest accounts are of Catholic fathers but even
they do not agree with The Bible. So let's look to The Bible and see why the
apostle Peter was never in Rome and couldn't be the founder of the Roman
Catholic Church.
The following will be eleven 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!
# 1
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.
Now Paul says in Galatians 2:7-8…
"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:)"
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? Well it certainly WASN'T Peter was it?
And in 2:9 we see…
"And when James, Cephas [Who is 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"
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.
# 2
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 The Only TRUE Church at Rome
#3
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 Catholic Church 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.
#4
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
#5
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 he
mention Peter? – Because Peter simply wasn't there!
#6
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!
# 7
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.
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
#8
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!
# 9
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 Catholic Church, 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!
# 10
The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. --
even though The Roman Catholic Church says 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!
# 11
Peter's death is foretold by Christ himself (John 21:18-19.) ". When you are old
you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you
where you do not want to go. Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by
which Peter would glorify God. Hmm, it sounds like Christ himself said that
Peter would die of old age. Why would Peter's death in old age glorify God?
Peter was the one that ran from Christ the night of his trial and crucifixion.
This exchange is after Christ rose from the tomb and Peter was forgiven three
times, just as he denied his master three times before the cock crowed that
fateful night of Christ's trial.
Where was Peter the apostle of Christ?
At the times the Catholic Church teaches Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly
shows that 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!
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 dialect.
At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he
was elsewhere. As previously mentioned there are many supposed historical
accounts of Peter in Rome but none of them are first hand accounts and should
not be put above the many accounts of The Bible.
We know from The Bible that the apostle Peter was not in Rome. There was a Simon
Peter in Rome after the death of Christ but it is not the apostle Peter that was
a fisherman from Jerusalem. Who is this Simon Peter that was in Rome during the
middle of the first century? This is how the great false Church of Rome got its
start; along with the first leader Simon Peter Magus not the apostle Peter.
And now for the shocker!
The great false church system of Rome had its beginning in the day of the
apostles of Christ. Unfortunately, this conflict did not go its separate way but
mixed in to one religious system. This is why there are so many pagan ideas and
doctrines in the Roman Catholic Church. Some crept in over time but many were
there from the very beginning. The first conflict between early Christianity and
false religion of paganism was recorded in the book of Acts, Chapter 8. This
quarrel happened between a pagan high priest named Simon Magus and the apostles
Peter and Philip. We first hear of Simon Magus in Acts Chapter 8, verse 9-25
9: But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city
used Sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was
some great one:
10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man
is the great power of God.
11 And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them
with sorceries
12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of
God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Then Simon himself believed also: And when he was baptized, he continued with
Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs, which were done.
14 ¶ Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received
the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the
Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: Only they were baptized in the
name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy
Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may
receive the Holy Ghost
20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast
thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: For thy heart is not right in
the sight of God.
22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought
of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and [in] the bond of
iniquity.
24 Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these
things which ye have spoken come upon me.
25 And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned
to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.
What happened in these sixteen verses?
Was this just a one-time event that took place or something that Luke decided to
document?
The confrontation that took place here, in Jerusalem, not long after the death
and resurrection of Jesus, can be easily overlooked as just one of those things
that may have been relevant to the time. But what really happens here?
The incident that took place between Simon Magus and the apostles sets the stage
of many of the epistles of the New Testament and the early entrance of apostasy
into the early church. The person that is mentioned and that we need to
concentrate on is Simon Magus and how he transformed himself into the first
leader of the false world wide religious system, the Catholic Church.
The reason Luke recorded this encounter with Simon has far-reaching effects. As
Hasting's explains, the important reason was that "Luke's well-known plan of
describing THE FIRST MEETING between Christianity and rival systems" (Hasting's
Bible Dictionary., 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!
The Book of Acts, however, performs its purpose in exposing who started the
whole apostasy. God leaves it to the epistles. Revelations and the Gospel of
John describe the heresy and even the Old Testament prophesied of the church
falling away from the truth. We are certainly NOT left in doubt concerning its
abominable teachings. There is hardly an epistle that does not mention the
religions teaching of Simon Magus. Even the scholars who have studied Church
History have seen that almost ALL of the references in the New Testament expose
the errors in the first age of the Church and are directed exclusively to Simon
Magus, or his immediate followers. A few of these examples will be given later
and will show that already the existence of a shadow church that was gaining
strength and disrupting the true teachings of Christ.
WHO IS SIMON MAGUS?
We see in Acts 8:10-11, "This man is the great power of God. And to him they had
regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries".
Simon is clearly stated as being one who practiced magic and paganism. One also
needs to note that he is not just a pagan but also a leader of the pagan church,
since he has misled and bewitched many people with sorcery. Simon most likely
heard the news about the risen Christ directly from the apostles and possibly
from Jesus Himself.. Instead of accepting the message of salvation as a gift, he
desired to buy this power for his own use. Simon wanted to use the power of the
Holy Spirit, most probable for personal gain and profit thus take the Lord name
in vain.
Did Simon go his way after his strong rebuke from Peter?
No, he did not.
In fact, he considered himself to be a Christian. Several historians note this.
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. He wanted to prove 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 is a mixture of pagan ideas wrapped
with Christian names and identities.
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).
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).
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).
One point that should be noted is there is a mixing of several religious ideas.
This is one of the identifying characteristics of the beast of Rev. 13 that is
identified as the Roman Catholic Church. Revelation 13:2 "Now the beast which I
saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth
like the mouth of a lion."
The four beasts used to make up the beast are the same four beasts, Daniel saw
in vision in Daniel 7. As a matter of fact, papal Rome inherited from each of
these pagan empires some of their basic identifying traits that we still see
practiced in this modern day false system of religion, the Roman Catholic
Church. From Babylon, the lion the papacy inherited a pagan priesthood; from
Medo-Persia, the bear sun worship; from Greece, the leopard human philosophies;
and from the dragon, Pagan Rome, its power, seat and great authority. As stated
in Rev. 13:2 the mixing of these pagan ideas of the Roman catholic church had
its onset from the very beginning. From this Simon Magus who was well versed in
all of these abominable doctrines and false system of worship created the early
Catholic Church. These abominably doctrines can be traced back to the very
beginning throw Simon Magus.
Even though there is only one event that was recorded by Luke, it would not be
unreasonable to assume that Simon had heard the apostle on several occasions. He
likely also spoke with many of the new converts of the new church. It could be
said that Simon Magus had great interest in spiritual matters and most likely
was very well versed in both Jewish teaching and that of the new Christian
church. Simon had mixed Judaism, early Christianity and Babylonian, Greek.
Paganism into one religion and appointed himself as the leader.
Here we see the well documented mixing of religions from several historical
sources and The Bible itself. What did he do with this new religion?
Did Simon stay in Jerusalem as the head of his own little cult? What were his
plans for this new mixing of religions?
History shows that Simon Magus did not stay in Jerusalem but moved to Rome.
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. At that time, Rome was the chief
city of the world. With Rome as the center of the world it would only make sense
that Simon Magus would move to Rome to spread his new religion a mixture of
pagan beliefs and Christian doctrine.
Simon Magus' move to Rome is noted in several historical writings. His goal as
stated by historical records was to create a universal church, "Religion".
A little side note that many are aware of is the meaning of the word catholic.
The word catholic means universal. The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou
-- throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics. Yes, the
correct meaning of the Catholic Church is the Universal Church.
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" Harnack, a church historian (VoI. 1, p.
246).
Pope Forgeries part
2
home
