Pope Forgeries Part 2
When Justin Martyr wrote his Apology[ in152 A.D.], 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 HONOURED AS A GOD, a statue being erected to him
on the Tiber, between the two bridges, bearing the inscription `Simoni deo
Sancto' (,the holy god Simon)" (Dictionary of Christian Biography, Vol. 4, p.
682).
Hasting's Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol 2, p. 496, states that there
is "very slight evidence on which to reject so precise a statement as Justin
makes; a statement he would scarcely have hazarded in an apology addressed to
Rome, where every person had the means of ascertaining its accuracy. If he made
a mistake, it must have been at once exposed, and other writers would not have
frequently repeated the story as they have done
We see this quote from Justin Martyr and from Hastings’s "Dictionary of the
apostolic church" that Simon Magus was in Rome about the year 45 A.D., this is
further stated by his birthplace, a village called Gitta. It is also stated that
Simon Magus was honoured as a GOD, due to his magical "demonic powers that were
witnessed".
From these historical accounts we see that indeed Simon Magus was in Rome and
was the head of his own church "Universal catholic". In many of these accounts
we also see that Simon Magus was also considered by many to be God. Does that
not fall in to place that the first pope, aka Simon Magus, was considered to be
God? There are several places in The Bible that show that the Church of Rome
would committee the sin of blasphemy and demand worship from men. Check
out….(Rev,13:1),(Dan,7:11)(Rev14:11)…
In John 10:33, The Bible clearly gives the definition of blasphemy, "…a mere
man, claiming to be God". The list of blasphemy coming from the Papacy would
fill volumes of books. Here are just a few examples:
"The pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ
himself, hidden under a veil of flesh." You can find that in The Catholic
National, July 1895
Here are some incredible claims that appear in a Roman Catholic dictionary, by
Lucius Ferraris, entitled Prompta Biblio theca Canonica, Vol. VI, and pgs. 438,
442 article "Pope." and The Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1913 edition, Vol. VI, p. 48
speaks of this book as "a veritable (meaning absolute or actual)
encyclopaedia of
religious knowledge," and "a precious mine of information."
"The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but
as it were God, and the vicar of God."
"The pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ,
chief king of kings, having plenitude of power, to whom has been entrusted by
the omnipotent God direction not only of the earthly but also of the heavenly
kingdom." (repeat this)
There is no doubt that Simon Magus was called a god, nor that the papacy claim
that the pope is God on Earth. The list of blasphemies of the papacy are too
numerous to count. There are several historical accounts that Simon Magus was
called and claimed to be God. We can even see this preserved in history with the
very status that was spoken of by Justin Martyr. In 1574 excavators found a
fragment of marble on an island in the Tiber River with the inscription "Semoni
Sanco Deu Fidio." Some interpret this as referring to a Sabine deity, Semo
Sancus, but most likely it was part of the statue Justin Martyr described as
having been dedicated to Simon Magus. There is little doubt in my mind that this
is one of many similarities between the papacy and Simon Magus
Here is the transition of Simon Magus being considered God and the first pope
and the big mistake that many confuse Simon Peter with Simon Magus.
The next step to change Simon Magus to Simon Peter was with the title of a God
by some of his followers. What is another name or title is there for a pagan
god? 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 or title PETER. That would make
Simon Magus also be formally known as Simon Peter.
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.
Notice some references to these sacred PETRAS found throughout the pagan world.
At the temple of Delphi in Greece, the chief object in the ritual was the PETRA
(Pausanius, Bk. 10). At the Acropolis in Athens, Euripides tells us, the niches
which held the idols were called the PETRAE (verse 935). It is well known that
even the sacred book which was used in the celebration of the Eleusinian
mysteries, was entitled "Book PETROMA," PETER-ROMA -- PETER'S BOOK (see Potter's
Antiquities, vol. 1, p. 356). Remember that the pagan temples were also called
after the PETERS. The temple at Elis in Greece was called PETRON (Lycophron,
verse 159). Pytho at Delphi was called PETRAessa (Olymp. Ode 6). The oracle
temple dedicated to Apollo in Asia Minor was called the PATARA and the oracle
there was called PATAReus -- (Lempriere's Classical Dictionary, p. 438). Also
PATRAE -- an ancient town where DIANA had a temple (p. 438), and the oracle in
Achaia was called PATRA (Jones, Proper Names of the Old Testament, p. 296).
Examples are too numerous to mention, but this should be enough to show that the
name PETER, or its variants, figured very high in every phase of pagan worship.
These PETER stones and temples were found all over the ancient world. "There is
in the history of every oracular temple some legend about a stone; some
reference to the word PETRA" (Bryant, p. 362). The world and history is littered
with many example of the term PETER used as a title for a god.
I believe this leaves little doubt that the title of Peter would be given to
someone that claims to be and was seen to be a god. There are just too many
instances that this title has been given and used in historical accounts. This
change from Simon Magus to Simon Peter is how the good apostle was mistaken to
be the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
To this day, the Roman Catholic Church says that the tomb of Saint Peter is
under the altar of the Basilica in Rome. "Only, the actual vault itself in which
the body lies is no longer accessible and has not been so since the ninth
century. There are those, however, who think that it would not be impossible to
find the entrance and to reopen it once more. A unanimous request that this
should be done was made to Leo XIII by the International Archaeological Congress
in 1900, but, so far, without result."(
What supposedly happened at the death of the apostil peter in Rome was that
peter was crucified upside down at his own request. According to catholic
tradition peter asked that to be crucified upside down stating that he was not
worthy to suffer the same kind of death of his master Jesus Christ. Then he was
buried under the altar witch now is the Basilica of Saint Peter's. Here is a
Catholic account of what happened to Peter's body on the night of his death. In
Keller's comment who think or mistakes Simon Magus for Simon Peter tell what
happened at the death of Simon in Rome during the first century.
"On the night of his death on the cross Peter's followers BURIED his body. As in
the case of Jesus on the hill of Calvary it was wrapped in linen and secretly
taken to a PAGAN BURIAL GROUND on the Via Cornelia, behind the stone structure
of the arena. This PAGAN CEMETERY lay on a knoll called VATICANUS: the Latin
word `vatis' means a `prophet' or `SOOTHSAYER'. In days gone by there had been
an Etruscan oracle on this spot" (Keller's comment - the official comment of the
Roman Catholic Church p. 368).
Keller ought to have better logic 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. This is
quite a big step from not even being able to eat with genitals to be buried in
the special cemeteries reserved for the chief pagans and self proclaimed Gods or
peters. 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. I personally think that the
apostle Peter would not be caught dead in a pagan cemetery. Would it not make
more since that the first pontiff maxims or pope be buried in this cemetery? Who
more perfect to be buried in the cemetery reserved for a pagan soothsayer that
was masquerading around as a Christian than Simon Magus aka Simon Peter the head
of the new Universal "catholic " church.
The records regarding Simon's death vary widely. Many of the stories try to
incorporate some fiction from the Greek and Egyptian myths to enhance the
reader's interest in this fascinating character. But the earliest records say
that he was buried in Rome after a long period of great honours and deification.
It is not clearly known where Simon Magus alias Simon Peter was buried. At the
judgment I'm almost sure many will be quiet surprised to find out who is really
under that altar in the Basilica in Rome, and it will not be the beloved Simon
Peter the apostle of Jesus Christ. The great faith that is placed on what
appears to many to be the apostle Peter's bones, under the altar of the
Basilica, is somewhat comical. Especially in light of the lack of biblical
evidence that show that peter was never in Rome. Whose bones could be under that
altar? I believe that they are the bones of Simon Magus Peter aka the first pope
yet this most likely will not nor could not, be proven till the return of Christ
himself.
The certainty of this is the discovery of Peters tomb in Jerusalem in 1953. A
well-hidden discovery of an archaeologist is the burial place of St. Peter in
Jerusalem.
Here is a little bit of the proof that they used to document that the tomb of
Saint Peter is in fact in Jerusalem. On the Franciscan monastery site called,
"Dominus Flevit" (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over Jerusalem), on the
Mount of Olives. The excavation where the names of Christian Biblical characters
were found on the ossuary's (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were
found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their
brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes.
Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from
the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found-the remains
of St. Peter.
They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and
beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jonah". This could not refer to any
other than St. Peter. But what makes the possibility of error more remote is
that the remains were found in a Christian burial ground, and more yet, of the
first century, the very time in which Peter lived. A scientist stated that he
can tell by the writing that it was written just before the destruction of
Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D. "There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter
was buried in Jerusalem rather than in Rome." A little side note that I had
found quite strange...When an internet search is done on the tomb of Peter using
the key words "Dominus Flevit" you may find a website or two, but when you do,
it does not last long, so I suggest that you print it out fast. After all this,
discovery of the tomb of Peter in Jerusalem is quite embarrassing to the church
of Rome since it strikes at the very pillar of it’s faith and the idea of
apostolic succession. Biblically, it has been shown that Peter was not in Rome
and now archeologically, we see that the apostle Peter's tomb has been found in
Jerusalem. "Copyright 1960 F. PAUL PETERSON, " This strikes at the very
tradition of St. Peter's bones being under the altar at St. Peter's basilica.
We saw earlier that Simon Magus went to Rome to start a Universal Church.
We also see that Simon Magus was a self proclaimed god were the title of Peter
was given. There are also several traditions that do not fit with the Bible but
are common today with the papacy. What is the link that I hope to show with
Simon Magus and the title of Peter? That Simon Magus was called Simon Peter "
Simon the self proclaimed god", after he moved to Rome and setup a false
universal religion with himself as the head of that church. I believe that it is
now safe to say that Simon Magus is the Simon Peter of Rome that is called the
first pope of the Roman Catholic Church and not the apostle Simon Peter of The
Bible.
I believe that the above quotes say it all. They say that the Simon Magus
"Peter" who proclaimed to be a false Messiah "God" with the cover of
Christianity to set up a Universal "catholic" church. This is the catholic first
pope and the beginning of the church of Babylon that has affected history. Paul
saw this also "Thess 2:7-1O, "...the mystery of iniquity doth already at
work...".
Here is a list of a few writings that we may want to keep in mind as we read the
New Testament. These show that there is a false church in the shadows of the
true church. The beginning of the false church was already starting. The falling
away was in direct competition and conflict with the apostles and the true
teachings of Christ.
2 Corinthians11: 4 "For if some one comes to you preaches a Jesus other than the
Jesus we preached"
In Gal 1:7 we see by 53 A.D. another teaching was at work
The whole book of Colossians was probably devoted to counter-act the teaching of
the church of Simon Magus. When you read the book of Colossians there seems to
be many basic doctrines addressed that should already be a common knowledge from
their Jewish neighbours. Paul uses many Jewish examples and references specifics
such as feasts and holidays. We can tell that they have been exposed to a
biblical culture previously, but they seem to have lost some basic doctrines of
Gods plan of salvation and Christ. This is because of the teaching of Simon
Magus in direct conflict with the gospel that was being teachings he apostles.
The book of Jude was to warn that the idea of the false church was affecting the
true church and they were even among the church itself, pretending to be the
body of Christ's church.
In the book of Daniel where it speaks of the Roman Catholic Church it is shown
that worship and the false church is going to be cloaked within the true church
of God. The book of Daniel also points to where the fourth beast, the Catholic
Church, is to arise.
The book of Acts says a lot by what it does not record in the travels of the
twelve apostles. It seems that ten of the apostles are rarely ever mentioned,
and that great detail is given to the apostles Paul and Peter. The travels of
the apostles Paul and Peter is given most detail about where they went to spread
the gospel. If the apostles' travel were traced on a map it would point to Rome
and the surrendering area. Why were the other ten apostles' travels not followed
very close at all? The reason is simple.
The physician and apostle, Luke, knew and understood from the book of Daniel
where this false church would come from… the Roman Empire. From the book of
Daniel in Chapter 2,7,8 and Chapter 11, Luke understood that the false church
was to rise out of Rome. Realizing that the false church was to rise out of Rome
Luke gave special attention to the travels of Paul and Peter to show where they
were and to document where they spread the gospel. With this close attention to
the details of Paul's travels we have a warning from prophecy regarding where
the false church was to come from, and when, and how the false church started,
and how it came in to direct conflict with the true church. This is why the
apostle Luke did not track the other apostle travels directly.
When you read through the epistles, it seems to cover some basics doctrines. I
believe this is due to the false church that was already at work as stated by
apostle Paul. The main point that I hope to bring your attention is evidence
that all points to the rise of the false church and that Simon Magus was the
head of that church.
These are just a few examples that should be kept in mind when you read through
the New Testament and if you run across something that almost seems out of place
or just too basic. It is most likely due to Simon Magus or his teaching at the
time of the apostles. With this new understanding of the beginning of the Roman
Catholic Church already in place and having an affect on the true teaching of
the gospels you will have some insight to the true meanings of “an open to
discussion” verse.
It is with this evidence that I hope to show that the idea of Apostolic
Succession is based upon the wrong Simon Peter. The Simon Magus Peter that is in
fact an impostor and self-serving pagan high priest is the true beginning of the
Roman Catholic Church. One of the main pillars of the Roman Catholic Church is
the idea of that Apostolic succession is foundation of the Catholic Church. This
is false and is based upon the wrong Peter. This is their claim to power that
they claim makes them the true church. The only thing wrong with this idea is
they have the wrong Simon Peter and it is leading millions from the truth of
Gods word.
In closing i would like to share this final bit of info and Roman Catholic
documents
The entire structure of the Roman Church is built on forgeries, fake epistles,
fake sermons, fake miracles, fake relics, fake councils, and fake papal bulls.
The Catholic Encyclopaedia admits the existence of thousands of forgeries and
divides the works of nearly every Father into (1) genuine, (2) dubious, and (3)
spurious…meaning fake or bogus. Such Roman inventions as Peter’s martyrdom at
Rome (2nd cent.), Assumption of Mary (6th cent.), Temporal power of the bishop
of Rome (8th cent.), Primacy of Rome (11th cent.), Seven Sacraments (13th
cent.), etc., can only be proved by forgeries. Example: Cyprian (d. 258), like
his predecessor, Tertullian, ridiculed the pagan system of a Supreme Pontiff, a
Pope, a primacy, etc. Where his oldest MSS read: “The other apostles were indeed
what Peter was: endowed with the same share of honour and jurisdiction,” we now
have texts which read: “The other apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the
Primacy is given to Peter.” The Catholic Encyclopaedia comments that this
conflated form is, of course, spurious or fake. (C. E. 4, 585).
Catholic theologians claim that with the development of the primacy in the
Middle Ages, the papal letters grew enormously in number (C.E. 6, 202). “There
can be no doubt that during a great part of the Middle Ages papal and other
documents were fabricated in a very unscrupulous fashion” (C.E. 3, 57). Speaking
of the thousands of miraculous relics of Rome, the same scholars admit that “the
majority of which no doubt were fraudulent,” a “multitude of unquestionably
spurious relics”
The same scholars admit the following Roman frauds: the origin of the Rosary and
the apparition of Mary to St. Dominic, the Scapular and the apparition of Mary
to Simon Stock, the Santa Scala, the legends and relics of Veronica, the Holy
Lance, and St. Longinus, the Robe, the Sabbatine Privilege, etc. Yet these same
scholars are bound to confess that the written Word of God is not superior to
these Roman traditions. The life stories and writings of the early popes are
spurious, as the Catholic Encyclopaedia often admits under their names. The
earliest Roman rituals (8th cent.) are spurious, falsely attributed to Popes
Leo, Gelasius, and Gregory
When scholars speak of an authentic work, they do not imply that the text has
come to us in its original form. Manuscripts were seldom copied for the sake of
preservation, but rather for use as textbooks. Obsolete teachings and
expressions were altered, while so-called “heretical” teachings were allowed to
become extinct.
As early as the fifth century Augustine accused and convicted Pope Zosiums for
having falsified the 5th canon of the Council of Nice (Mansi 4, 515; Migne, P.
L. 50, 422). Canon laws of the Roman Church are based on “The Apostolic
Constitutions,” a 4th century forgery purported to be a collection of apostolic
writings collected by Clement I. When Protestants exposed this fraud, the
fallible Church of Rome admitted the errors: “The Apostolic Constitutions were
held generally in high esteem and served as the basis for much ecclesiastical
legislation . . .As late as 1563. . .it was contended that it was the genuine
work of the apostles” (C.E. 1, 636). Framing “divine” laws and falsifying the
Word of God is not the work of innocent Christian leaders. And here is an
example: “We, the twelve Apostles of the Lord, who are now together, give you in
charge these Divine Constitutions concerning every ecclesiastical form, there
being present with us Paul, the chosen vessel, our fellow apostle, and James the
Bishop and the rest of the Elders and the seven Deacons” (Migne, P.G. 1, 1070
The Donation of Constantine” was originally an 8th-century forgery which gave
the pope temporal power and possessions, and regal honours and privileges. Pope
Sylvester (1000 A.D.) declared it a forgery. Pope Leo IV (1054) rewrote the text
and used it to prove his primacy. . .As early as the fifteenth century its
falsity was known. Yet, the document was further used to authenticate the papacy
The Apostolic Constitutions, The Donation of Constantine, The Clementine
Forgeries, The Liber Pontificals (Which is the Biographical book of the popes),
The Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, and hundreds of other works are either spurious
or have been mutilated. It is upon these that the bulk of Roman traditions
originated. Catholic scholars admit one forgery after the other, but the Council
of Trent upheld these forgeries as genuine “traditions” to which the written
Word of God is not superior. Roman Catholic theologians even admit that they
themselves falsified the sacred books of other religions in order to win
converts. As neither the majority of the people nor the lower clergy could read
or write in the early Middle Ages, it is clear that the Roman hierarchy itself
corrupted and falsified the true traditions. It is clear that Rome’s traditions
did not originate from the lips of Christ or the apostles!
Thank you all for being here and listening, God bless you.
2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and
the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. AMEN.
****** *********
Ex-Jesuit Priest
home
