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

Verse 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 which 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).

When Justin Martyr wrote [152 A.D.] his Apology, the sect of the Simonians appears to
have been formidable, for he speaks four times of their founder, Simon; and we need
not doubt that he identified him with the Simon of the Acts. He states that he was a
Samaritan, adding that his birthplace was a village called Gitta; he describes him as a
formidable magician, and tells that he came to ROME in the days of Claudius Caesar
(45 A.D.), and made such an impression by his magical powers, THAT HE WAS
HONORED AS A GOD, a statue being erected to him on the Tiber, between the two
bridges, bearing the inscription `Simoni deo Sancto' (i.e., the holy god Simon)"
(Dictionary of Christian Biography, Vol. 4, p. 682).

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 Hasting's "Dictionary of the apostolic
church" that Simon Magus was in Rome about the year 45A.D., this is further stated by
his birthplace, a village called Gitta. It is also stated that Simon Magus was honored 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 consider 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. (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." The Catholic National, July 1895

Here are some incredible claims that appear in a Roman Catholic dictionary, by Lucius
Ferraris, entitled Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Vol. VI, and pgs. 438, 442 article
"Pope." and The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 edition, Vol. VI, p. 48 speaks of this book
as "a veritable encyclopedia 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."

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 ("Eus"
means "person who, one") -- (Lempriere's Classical Dictionary, p. 438). Also PATRAE --
an ancient town where DIANA had a temple (p. 438), and the oracle in Achaia was
called PATRA (Jones, Proper Names of the Old Testament, p. 296).
Examples are too numerous to mention, but this should be enough to show that the
name PETER, or its variants, figured very high in every phase of pagan worship. These
PETER stones and temples were found all over the ancient world. "There is in the
history of every oracular temple some legend about a stone; some reference to the
word PETRA" (Bryant, p. 362). 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."(www.newadvent.org ARTHUR S. BARNES)
What supposedly happen at the death of the apostle 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 happen 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 gentiles to be buried is 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 to
make since 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 honors and deification. It is not clearly known where
Simon Magus alias Simon Peter. At the judgment I'm almost sure many will be quiet
surprised to find out who in really under that altar in the Basilica in Rome, and it will
not be the beloved Simon peters 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 be proven till the return of Christ himself. The certainty of this is the
discovery of Peters tomb in Jerusalem.

Saint Peter's tomb

A well-hidden discovery of an archaeologist is the burial place of St. Peter Jerusalem.
This is documented in a book called , "Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit", printed in 1958 at
the Tipografia del PP. Francescani, in Jerusalem. P. B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik, both
Roman Catholic priests, wrote it. 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 ossuaries (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 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. In fact noted scientist stating 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 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 discover of the tomb of
Peter in Jerusalem is quite embarrassing to the church of Rome since it strikes at the
very pillar of it 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 early 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 would be 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"
Gal 1:7 by 53 A.D. another teaching 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 neighbors. 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 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 is 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 and 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 many from the truth of God's word.