Peter, Paul, Simon & Rome

Preamble

Up to chapter 15, the Book of Acts is essentially about, Peter and Paul. It recalls Peter’s remarkable sermon at Pentecost, the building of the Church, and the later conversion of Paul. Acts Chapter 12:17 states that Peter, went into another place used by some to suggest he went to Rome. Three chapters later (Acts 15:7) we find he attended the Jerusalem Council in 50AD, where he stated he was going to the Gentiles. Peter did not go to the Gentiles, but to the nations. He went to the feed the lost sheep as instructed by Jesus. (John 21:16)

The next we hear from Peter is his first Epistle, written in Babylon, c. 67-69AD. (1Pe 5:13) While Paul is highly visible, along with Barnabas and Philip, we find no more mentions of Peter after the Jerusalem Council. Despite solid evidence confirming where the others carried the Gospel, Peter is lost from view for roughly 17 years.

Many are of the opinion that Peter founded the Church of Rome and was the first Bishop. There is a school, which holds he did not. So, we can follow the post Reformation view about Peter and Rome; adopt the view of some of the early Church and later historians, or we can examine the known facts of Scripture and what we can glean from Rome itself.

While there is considerable evidence for Paul, and other Apostles regarding their journeys, we have no evidence from the Holy Bible, Peter went to Rome. The Church itself is now surprisingly quiet on the matter admitting no hard evidence Peter that was ever there. And, as various stories have come down regarding the contest for the Gospel in Rome, much an uncertain history, there is the matter of Simon Magus to consider. While there are comments about him, and the founding of the early Roman Church, they in all likelihood have given rise to some creative adjustments over time.

However, this does not suggest that none of this took place, as clearly something was afoot during the early years of the Roman Church, there is evidence suggesting Simon Magus had a role to play. He is mentioned in Roman records, also in the Book of Acts, thus undeniably a real figure. Therefore, our task is to uncover to what extent he influenced the founding of the Roman Church, and is there any persuasive evidence Peter was there also? But first we should look to Paul.

Paul

That Paul went to Rome is beyond doubt. Not only do we have concrete evidence regarding his trial and imprisonment, the Book of Acts is very clear on the matter. Here is some of Luke’s account after Paul’s arrival: …And it happened, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together.  And they (the Jews at Rome) said unto him, we neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came showed or spoke any harm of thee. But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect we know that everywhere it is spoken against. (Continuing, Acts 28:21)

Now, I have seen these verses used as ‘evidence’ to show Peter was never in Rome, citing Paul as the founder the Roman church. On the other hand, Paul’s text by which the proponents of Peter claim him establishing the Church is; (Romans 15:20) Yea, so have I strived, to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation.

In using this passage the assumption is Christ was named in Rome prior to Paul’s arrival, which of course is true, as Acts 28: 21 and Paul’s Roman Epistle clearly show. But the questions are; (1) would Paul have written to the Church in Rome if he knew Peter had already laid a foundation there, and (2) if not Peter or Paul; who declared the Gospel in Rome, and were they known to Paul?

These are striking examples of wrongly selecting Scripture to advance a point of view. We must be guided by what’s on the page, not what we think is on the page. For instance, when we test the conversation between Paul and the Jews in Rome, it reveals an entirely different picture than many assume. So, let’s get a feel for the backdrop to this exchange and be mindful of the new faith currently gaining momentum. Both of these positions, pro Peter and pro Paul, we will put to the test.

Judea

Rome’s influence was felt over much of the known world. Judea, one of the smaller regions under Roman control, was an important location albeit a troubled one. The local inhabitants, especially the more militant Jews, wanted the Romans out. Rome might have obliged if the region wasn’t tactically important and a convenient source of revenue. Their only adversaries of note in the area were the Parthians with whom they managed a somewhat nervous accord.

The fifth Prefect of the province was Pontius Pilot. There are conflicting views concerning his birth and the place, time or manner of his death. Even though he is mentioned by Eusebius, Tacitus; Philo and Josephus, Pilot was a bit of a mystery. Apart from his role in the trial of Jesus, there is little known of Pilot after the crucifixion. Apart from the ‘Pilot Stone’ discovered in Caesarea in 1961, the only hard evidence that he ever really existed is in the Bible.

While the Romans and Jews had an uneasy relationship, it was tempered to a degree by commerce; as the Jews were suppliers of mineral ore, largely tin. Sufficient in copper, the import of other metals was essential to their economy prompting the growth of import/export entrepreneurs like Joseph of Arimathea who mined tin in Cornwall. Exports included olive oil, dates and date wine, and medicinal remedies popular in the Roman capital. The local economy was agrarian, much of it subsistence farming; though a moderate fishing fleet added to the local diet. The powerbase was the Sanhedrin, which drove imports mainly for use in the temple. More affluent individuals, typically Pharisees and Sadducees administered religion and society, also presiding over the higher echelons of commerce. It is in this setting we find Jews in the Roman capital.  Paul had also been in business producing and supplying tents; his Roman connections and citizenship would have no doubt proved useful.

In reviewing this chapter of Acts we should keep in mind how high-ranking Jews regarded Paul, now seen as a traitor to their faith. Under his former name, Saul was an ardent Pharisee; the driving force persecuting of the followers of Jesus of which he was now one. He was now high on the Sanhedrin’s list of criminals, despised by Pharisees and Sadducees alike. Yet, these Roman Jews were happy to see Paul when he called for a meeting. So, let’s look at these verses in the context of time and place, and the nature of the exchange:

The Jews at Rome

And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. Who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of death in me.

But when the Jews spake against it, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I ought to accuse my nation of. For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain. (Acts 28:17-20)

These are the words of a proud Benjamite and son of Israel, made prisoner in Jerusalem and then passed over to the Romans for trial. Having questioned Paul, they were ready to let him go when …the Jews spake against it. Following this, Paul made a direct appeal to Caesar for a definitive ruling in order to put the matter to rest. As a Roman citizen by birth, he had a legitimate right to be heard. 

Chapters 21-27 of Acts give the record of events leading up to his detention. Notice also, that Paul draws a clear distinction between his Israelite ancestors and the Jews. Now, back to the meeting:

And they said unto him, we neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came, showed or spake any harm of thee. (28:21); (that was important, and so is this) But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against. (Acts: 28:22)

Paul was in chains; any of the Sanhedrin would have been content to let him rot in prison, but not these Jews, they came when he asked. Not everyone was out for Paul’s blood, and we can see from Luke’s record this was a courteous exchange. These Jews clearly valued Paul’s opinion and were keen to listen. Due to the tone of the meeting they were likely Pharisees, some of them possibly acquainted with Paul. It is clear the only ones who had a problem with Paul were the Sanhedrin Jews in power.

Now, the phrase, the Jews spake against it infers a division between all present and the Sanhedrin Jews in Jerusalem. Brethren is from the Greek; adephos, which means, brothers; and harm is from the Greek; poneros, which means hurtful or evil or bad. Also, the phrase, the brothers is inclusive, therefore including Paul. If we review the exchange in the current idiom the conversion might sound like this: No one has written to us from home about you, and none of the brothers had anything bad to say. So tell us about this sect, it would be good to get your input as the word on the street is pretty negative. They were actually keen to hear what Paul had to say about Jesus.

This was not a mission to bring the Gospel to Rome, rather a conversation among known acquaintances. Some of them believed what Paul had to say, some did not. They talked through the night until morning, then left. To use this passage as an example, Paul founded the Roman church is impractical; besides the timing is completely wrong.

Paul was under no urgency to get to Rome even though he planned to go there. (Romans 1: 10-15) He knew the Gospel had already been preached in the City and his reason for writing to the new Church ahead of his arrival. However, it was not just to further the Gospel; Paul was familiar with the original founders of the Church in Rome. But, Paul did have a central part to play in the early church there.

What contestants of the Peter verses Paul debate miss, is a third possibility; someone else brought the Good News to the Eternal City. As the Gospel had plainly arrived before Paul, and there is no firm evidence of Peter being there, (certainly nothing in the Bible) it again leaves us the questions; when did the Gospel come to Rome and who brought it?

It was twelve years after his last known conversation with Peter (49-50AD) when Paul made it to Rome under circumstances he likely never imagined. In the spring of 68AD when Paul was in prison, he wrote his second epistle to Timothy. In regard his trial he said: At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. (2Tim 4:16) He also states, only Luke is with me… (2Tim 4:11) Paul was supposedly executed during the summer (May/July) and buried near the Ostian Way. However, due to a very special relationship, there is a possibility he was laid to rest somewhere else entirely. We must also bear in mind his mission (Acts 9:15) as there is more to it than meets the eye.

But we read in Acts 28:30: And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

This plainly tells us that Paul had the freedom to meet without restraint, any and all who visited him. It also infers he had the freedom of the city. There is no mention of a guard or Paul’s movements being restricted. One place he is thought to have visited is the Palatius Britannicum on the Mons Sacur. The Palace of the Britons was provided by the Roman Senate for the British King, Caradoc, his children and household staff. The reason for Paul’s likely association with the residence will soon become clear.

After Joseph of Arimathea landed in Britain c. 35AD, having been sent by the Apostle, Phillip, one of Joseph’s first converts was King Caradoc’s sister, Gladys. Her intimate knowledge of Greek caused her to be called, Pomponia Graecina by her husband, Aulus Plautius, the Roman Governor whom she later accompanied to Rome. Following her departure her nieces, Eurgain and Gladys and nephews, Cyllin and Linus, were baptised by Joseph at Avalon. In 52AD, the British King was taken prisoner by the Roman general, Ostorious Scapula, leading to the Royal family being transported to Rome. After Caradoc’s celebrated speech to the Senate, they were released and a palace was provided for their lodgings. The Romans Latinised Caradoc’s name to Caractacus. His daughter, Gladys was soon after adopted by Agrippina, the wife of Claudius. To honour the Emperor, Gladys took the feminine form of his name and was from then on known as Claudia.

In 53AD, Claudia married, Rufus Pudens a wealthy Roman she had earlier met in Britain. Pudens followed Claudia into the faith and lived with her in the residence provided for Caradoc. It was in the year of their marriage that Claudia, a daughter of the King of the Britons, her Roman husband, Rufus Pudens and their Pastor, Hermes founded the Roman Church of the Christians.

We are now going to look at some Scripture: first, Paul’s letter to the Roman Church, written before his arrival: …Salute Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine. (Romans 16:13) There is nothing more to this than you see on the page …say hello to Rufus, my brother and our mother. Rufus, Claudia’s husband, was Paul’s half-brother and their mother was also in Rome and in the faith.

After the death of Paul’s natural father, the Pharisee who had schooled Paul in the faith; his mother, Prassede married Pudentinus, a Roman official then stationed in Cilicia. Their son, Rufus was born after they returned to Rome. When Claudia and Rufus had children of their own, they named the girls Prassede and Pudentiana after their grandparents. (They also had a famous son who you will find in Christianity in Britain.) Not far from the Roman Basilica can be found the little church of Santa Prassede, and across the Via Cavour, the sister church of Santa Pudenziana. The church of Santa Pudenziana is regarded as the most sacred and most ancient of churches. A second century inscription states it was known as that of the Pastor, dedicated by Sanctus Pias Papa, formerly the house of Sanctus Pudens, the Senator, and the Home of the Holy Apostles.

The next was written at the time of Paul’s second trial; Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren. (2Tim 4:21) The letter to Timothy plainly states that Paul was part of the Christian family in Rome, and known to members of the Royal house of Britain. His Half-brother and sister-in-law (Pudens and Claudia) are mentioned by name along with Claudia’s brother, Linus passing their good wishes to Timothy. Both Clement and Irenaeus tell us Linus was soon to become the first Bishop of Rome.

It is believed that during this period of freedom, Paul went to Britain. According to Clement, the third Bishop of Rome, St. Paul came to Britain and preached in the extremity of the West, and affirmed the Church planted by Joseph the Apostle, Simon Zelotes, and Aristobulus.

It is widely held he founded Bangor Abbey, a strong tradition to come down from the British Druids (The triads of Paul) says he did. We will look at this in more detail in: Christianity in Britain and a bit more on Aristobulus. Joseph planted Christianity in Britain during the reign of Tiberius, prior to 37AD. Claudia’s husband Rufus Pudens, laid the foundation of the Christian Church in Rome in 53AD when Peter and Paul were in Antioch. While Paul and Luke (maybe Timothy) were no doubt influential figures during their time at Rome, Paul was not the founder of the Roman Church. Neither was this man and for the same reason. Like Paul, he was somewhere else at the time…

Peter

Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord (Luke 5:8) was the second utterance of Simon bar Jona, to Jesus. He was a conformist; a little rash, but wary of strangers. Caring by nature yet quick to anger, as Malchus the servant of the High Priest learned to his cost. When it came to Jesus, Simon wore his heart on his sleeve; this loyal man loved his teacher and friend. Though when the chips were down he came up short, denying Jesus, as the Lord said he would. I think we all can glimpse a little of ourselves, in this very human man.

Following the crucifixion, he visited the empty tomb; first to arrive after being alerted that Jesus had gone. After his later encounter with the risen Christ, Peter and the ten removed themselves from public view to await the promise of the Holy Spirit in fasting and prayer. During this time he called for the election of Matthias to replace the Iscariot, restoring their number to twelve. Peter was by all accounts a natural leader, though maybe a little hasty electing a replacement when the LORD had the matter sorted with Paul. Mind you, Paul was a man born out of due time.

Forty days after the ascension, Peter’s life was changed forever when the Spirit of the LORD fell upon them on Israel’s Feast of Weeks. The LORD’S faultless timing also explains why so many people were in the city celebrating this important Festival. It was the Festival of the Harvest and the Day of First Fruits (Num 28:26) or as we know it, Pentecost. It was on this momentous day, the first fruits of the Kingdom began to preach Christ’s Gospel to the world!

We can see from John’s Gospel that Peter had a singular relationship with the Lord; …so when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. (John 21:15-17)

Remember, Jesus commanded his Apostles to take the good news to all nations; it was not a request. Ananias was told by Jesus that Paul was to bear His name before Nations, Kings and the Children of Israel. (Acts 9:15) Peter on the other hand, was instructed by Jesus to take the Gospel to the lost of Israel, and to feed His sheep and lambs.

After the Jerusalem Council of 50AD Peter travelled north, stopping at Sinope where he was visited by his brother, Andrew on his way to the Scythians in the Caucuses. …He (Andrew) next came to Sinope, a city situated upon the same sea; here he met with his brother Peter, with whom he stayed a considerable time… Whence after some time he betook himself … to the country of Abasgi (a land in the Caucasus) … Hence he removed into … Asiatic Scythia or Sarmatia, but finding the inhabitants very barbarous and intractable, he stayed not long among them, only at Cherson, or Chersonesus, a great and populous city within the Bosporus. (Extract: pp. 137-138 Antiquitates Apostolicae – Herodotus/William Cave)

Here we find, Andrew visiting Simon Peter on the shores of the Black Sea. That Andrew stayed a long time suggests he may have known his brother was living there, and had arranged to visit him. We also find them preaching in the very areas of Asia Minor Paul bypassed. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named… (Rom 15:20) After his time in the region of the Black Sea, Peter travelled deeper into Europe. In his volumes on the lives of the Apostles, William Cave records the 4th Century historian, Onuphrius mentioning Peter: …having spent almost the whole reign of Nero in several parts of Europe…

Nero’s reign commenced in 54AD following the death of Claudius. It appears that after the Jerusalem Council, Peter travelled up through Asia Minor and then on to Sinope, later moving through Europe (54-56 AD) on his way to Britain. Symeon Metaphrastes, the 10th Century Greek historian states; that Peter stayed some time in Britain; where having preached the word, established churches, ordained bishops, priests, and deacons… and returned in the 12th year of Nero, which was 66AD, just prior to his first Epistle. Nero’s reign ended, June 9, 68AD.

A possible return route was by way of Ostia, or Syracuse in Sicily, then by boat to Palestine. If he went via Syracuse, he would have gone to Melita (Malta) on to Lycia and Galatia then on to Caesarea, the main Roman port, passing through Cilicia (Paul’s birthplace) and Cyprus. As he was in Britain at the time of the tin trade, he could have easily travelled home on one of Joseph’s ships bound for Palestine. From there, it was overland to Babylon.

Note:
1. Metaphrastes wrote that in the 12th year of Nero, Peter returned to Rome. There is no evidence that he did. As this account was written in the late 10th Century, it is extremely likely Metaphrastes was exposed to the fictional letters known as the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, and similar material extant at the time. Contained in these fabrications was false information to support Rome’s claim the Papacy was founded by the Apostle, when we know it was Linus, not Peter, who became the first Bishop. It was the mid 9th Century when these documents first entered circulation, a good hundred years prior to Metaphrastes’ histories, and they weren’t debunked until after his death. They were skilfully hidden amid genuine articles and incorporated into a collection of cannons for use by the Pope and the Vatican. The fake, Donation of Constantine, was also found among them.

2. There is a school that deems the (1 Peter 5:13) reference to Babylon in Peter’s first letter, a code for Rome. Without exception, all proponents of this view hold he was in Rome at the time his letter was written; it seems you can’t have one without the other. Yet, there is something quite fascinating about the Epistle; the ordering of the Churches. When reading you will notice they are ordered east to west, starting with Pontus and ending with Bithynia, and not, west to east as one would expect if his letter was written in the west, i.e. Rome. (1Peter 1:1) Perhaps it was written at Babylon, and around the time believed; this in no way discounts the possibility that his life might have ended in Rome, but there is no definite proof attesting to the place or manner of his death. Only the LORD knows for sure.

Samaria

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man… (Rom 1: 22-23)

In searching the letters of Paul, John and Jude we find growing concern for the Church. They issued many warnings about false teachers and impious spirits. Some are mentioned by name; Diotrephes, Hymenaeus and Alexander and Elymas, aka: Bar Jesus. Paul also wrote of the dangers of phony teachers and sham gospels. But there is one who needs our attention.

But there was a certain man, called Simon, which before time in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, 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.

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. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs, which were done. Now when the apostles, which were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands; he may receive the Holy Ghost. 

But Peter said unto him, thy money perishes with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. (Acts 8: 9-23)

The Samarian city where Peter met, Simon Magus was Shechem; John called it, Syhchar. Records about the city date back to the Armana Letters of 1350BC when it was held by the Canaanites. Its first mention in Scripture is (Genesis 12.) Shechem was the capital of the Kingdom of Israel under Saul. When Israel left Egypt they carried the remains of Jacob and interred him there. It became the city of the tribe of Manasseh when the land was first settled by Israel.

It was destroyed in 1100BC; rebuilt, becoming the capital of Ephraim. Rehoboam was made King there. Upon entering Canaan the blessings were read to Israel on Mt. Gerizim that overlooked the city. It was in Shechem, Jesus told His disciples He was here to complete His Father’s work, also the location of Jacob’s well, where Jesus met the Samaritan woman. When Shechem was annexed to the Roman province of Syria in 6AD a new city, Nablus was built nearby. They dedicated a temple to Jupiter on Mt. Gerizim.

After the House of Israel was removed from Samaria, the Assyrians repopulated the land with people from several districts and cities in Mesopotamia, including Babylon: …and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof. (2Kings 17:24) They later became known as the Samaritans. They practiced idolatry, sorcery, and witchcraft. As the Second Book of Kings bears witness, they were not nice people.

Offended by their deeds, The LORD sent lions to plague them, which resulted in them asking the Assyrians, to send a priest of Israel to instruct them in the ways of the God of the Land so the lions would depart. But they only paid lip service to the God of Israel, and continued with their own gods and rituals. Shechem became their holy city; its status when Philip, Peter and John went there. Simon Magus was the leading light in its priesthood.

The Concise Oxford gives Magus as: (1) a member of the priestly cast of ancient Persia; (2) a sorcerer. There is little known of Simon that can be stated as fact. But we do know he lived in Samaria, was descended from the people imported by the Assyrians; a sorcerer and priest who claimed divine authority from God. We know that he was baptised by Philip, and stayed with him for some time.

As there is a record of his being in Rome, we can safely assume he went there after his encounter with Peter. But one important thing we know for sure; Simon Magus did not receive the seal of the Holy Ghost. We turn now to some wise counsel from John: …believe not every spirit, but try (test) the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. KJVA (1John 4: 1-3)

Rome

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Matt 7:15)

Possibly the most ardent supporter of Peter in Rome, was 19th Century theologian, Adolph Harnack, who wrote …to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.

In his book; The First Age of Christianity and the Church: (1866) (a misnomer if ever there was one) Johann von Dollinger wrote …St. Peter worked in Rome is a fact so abundantly proved and so deeply imbedded in the earliest Christian history, that whoever treats it as a legend ought in consistency to treat the whole of the earliest church history as legendary, or, at least, quite uncertain. While Dollinger may have by accident, made an observation about the veracity of some early Roman Church history, his opinion is persuasive, if somewhat partisan. While not a member of the Catholic Church, Dollinger promoted its principles, vigorously opposing the Protestant Movement.

Harnack, on the other hand, rejected John’s Gospel as having no historical value concerning Jesus, and denied the possibility of Jesus performing miracles stating: Jesus may well have performed acts of healing that seemed miraculous. He regarded the healing and miracles of Jesus, and no doubt those of the Apostles, as illusionary.

(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/christianity.iii.ii.html.) It is astonishing that in Harnack, we find a man who defends the Catholic Church with enthusiasm, while denigrating Christ and His Gospel. And, while everyone has the right to an opinion, when it comes to the Word of God such opinion must be justified in Scripture and have at least some element of truth.

So, our challenge is to settle the dependability of this history. The facts surrounding the early Church in 1st Century Rome are confusing at best, and for that reason we must travel a different path. Rather than look at the tree, we should examine its fruit; by recognising the fruit, we can identify the seed. By this path we should be able to judge by which means the Second Church of Rome, was founded.

We know Jesus sent the twelve to every nation. We know they preached the Gospel of the Kingdom, and the good news of Salvation. We know that Paul was a chosen vessel and established the Churches in Asia Minor. And we know the Gospel was declared in Rome, prior to Paul’s arrival, and there is no Biblical evidence from Paul, Luke or any other of Peter ever being there.

Before proceeding

This is about the establishment of the Papal Church and its mechanisms. It is not about the many good people who were members of the Church over time, or today. If it wasn’t for the Roman Church, we wouldn’t have Martin Luther and Bibles in the hands of the people. This is about the development of policy, doctrine and dogma; it is not about its laity. Many follow the Church by tradition, there are many who love the Lord, and know who Jesus is. Ones denomination has little bearing on this fact.

Simon the Magician

Simon taught that the prophecies of Old Testament were inspired by the creator angels. Therefore, those who had hope in him and Helen … Need not attend to them, but freely do as they would. For that men should be saved according to his grace and not by any intrinsic quality of their own, but by the accident of these (writings) being ordered by these creator angels: who had merely wished to enslave those who heard them. (Irenaeus-Dict. of Christian Biography, vol. 4, p. 683)

Note: The term, ‘but, freely do as they would’ has a noticeable resonance with Alistair Crowley’s Law of Thelema: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. There is only one God, and His Law.

Regarding the myth of Simon and Helen; Helen was Ennoia, or God’s first thought, which was female. She descended to the lower regions to create the angels, but they rebelled and created the world as her prison, trapping her inside a female body. She was reincarnated several times, one time as Helen of Troy, and finally as Simon’s Helen; a slave and prostitute from the city of Tyre. In the form of Simon Magus, God descended to rescue her, and to bestow salvation upon men through knowledge of him. Simon taught that he was the Son of God, predestined to appear among the Jews. He claimed that he would descend in Samaria as the Father, and among the other nations as a Holy Spirit. That he was one with the Father. He was the first subject discussed by Irenaeus in his work on Gnosticism.

Note: This has many similarities with ancient legends of deity, seen in numerous myths and tales; Tammuz and Ishtar (Semiramis) being one on them.

Simon taught that the precepts of the law and the prophets were inspired by angels (lesser beings) in the desire to reduce men to slavery, but those who believed in him and Helen, since they were delivered from the sinister tyranny of the law, were free to act as they would. For men are saved by grace and not by good works. The antinomianism (Greek; avti: ‘against’: vouoc: ‘law’) of the Simonians issued in Libertine conduct and a compromise with heathenism. (The Dictionary of Religion and Ethics: vol. 11, p. 518)

Here we see Simon the Magician claiming to be Jesus, the first truly open and substantive expression of an anti-Christ at work during the time of the Apostles. …for false Christ’s and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. (Mark 13:22) As such, Simon Magus was a cause for alarm well captured in the Scripture …the mystery of iniquity that doth already work.

To introduce his theology, Simon Magus had to undo many parts of the Old Testament especially any that forbade alignment with the traditions of the heathen, which is everything contrary to his teachings. His method was to allegorize the Prophets and the Law, allowing him establish his own doctrine. Active during the reigns of Claudius and Nero, Simon and his followers trampled the Gospel as they set about destroying the infant church established by Claudia, Rufus and Hermes. Simon taught that the will of God was now revealed to him, and these revelations over-rode any law found unfitting. In this way, he was able to dump much of the Pentateuch on the pretext its teaching was not able to be followed, and too burdensome to bear. Much like some Churches today.

Simon promoted the Commandments as a doctrine of enslavement that denied heaven to any who attempted to follow their precepts; as a Jesus substitute, he became the only path to salvation. In founding his elect of the Church dogma, (still in force today) Simon taught that only his own shall be redeemed by his good grace towards them. In destroying the first Roman Church, he got inside the Scriptures and Prophets subverting them to his advantage. Simon Magus taught that only he was the reincarnated son of God in both spirit and flesh, clearly showing he had not received the Holy Spirit.

His Priests …led lascivious lives, used magic and incantations, and made philtres, had familiar spirits by whose aid that were able to trouble with dreams those whom they would. Irenaeus also states: They had images of Simon and Helen, in the forms respectively of Jupiter and Minerva. (Dict. of Christian Biography, vol. 4, p. 683)

Roman archives record Simon Magus was buried in Rome after a lengthy period of high honour and deification that several statues were cast in his memory. Although there is no hard evidence, the Catacombs at Vaticanus (the site of the Vatican) are his likely burial site, alongside the prophets of ancient Rome. In Simon Magus we see a brazen corruption of the truth of Christ and His Gospel.

The Second Roman Church

Did the Simonites influence the Church during its formative years, and to what extent, if any, are their teachings found in the Church today? Irenaeus tells us, Simon dismantled the First Testament by removing any reference to the worship of false Gods and idols to allow for the introduction of ancient and pagan ritual. If so, can we see any of Simon’s doctrine still at work?

In the Papal Catechism, the Ten Commandments given to Moses have been drastically altered. They are patently different from the order and wording found in Protestant Bibles, and Greek and Hebrew texts. They have cut off the Second Commandment to do with idols and images, and removed it. The Forth Commandment, to do with the Sabbath, has been changed from the last day of the week to the first (Constantine’s doing) and to restore to ten, the last Command has been split in two. It gets worse; the Prophet Daniel said, and he shall speak words against the High One, and shall crush the saints of the most High: and he shall think himself able to change times and laws… (Dan 7:25)

In 1562 the Archbishop of Reggio, Gaspare de Posso, declared at the Council of Trent Church tradition now stood above Scripture: The authority of the Church is illustrated most clearly by the scriptures, for on one hand she recommends them, declares them to be divine, and offers them to us to be read, and on the other hand, the legal precepts in the scriptures taught by the Lord have ceased by virtue of the same authority. The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been changed into the Lord’s Day. These and other similar matters have not ceased by virtue of Christ’s teaching, but they have been changed by the authority of the Church.

Jesus took issue with the Pharisees over the same thinking; Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: You have a clever way of rejecting God’s law in order to uphold your own teaching. (Mark 7:9)

So it is now with the Church. Man’s law has replaced God’s Law, certainly not learned from Peter or Paul.

The following example from Catherine of Siena shows the counterfeit teaching that has captured the Roman Church. Living in the 14th Century, Catherine has long been an archetype for women wishing to enter into service. Numbered among the great nuns she was active in the repatriation of the Papacy back to Rome from France, and was made the first female Doctor of the Church only recently in 1970. Catherine’s views expose her devotion to an inheritance that underpins the accepted wisdom of the Church with the Pope as Christ’s actual replacement on Earth.

Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honour Christ if we honour the Pope; we dishonour Christ if we dishonour the Pope.

I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil! But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth (the Pope) were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him. (Quoted in the Apostolic Digest by Michael Malone; Book 5: The Book of Obedience: Ch 1: There is No Salvation without Personal Submission to the Pope.)

The Church has never challenged Catherine’s belief as it regards the Pope to be of equal standing with Jesus Christ. One of the Pope’s many titles is Vicar from the Latin; Vicarius, meaning substitute or instead of. The title, Vicarius holds the same authority as the one who bestowed it. That the Pope claims the right of Vicarius implies that same authority, the stand-in for Jesus, holding equal rights and power.

Jesus is our only priest and authority; the Holy Spirit, our teacher and guide; And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter that he may abide with you forever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: (John 14:16-17)

The Problem with Mary

Mary is the singular image of the Catholic Church currently being raised to even higher standing by the incumbent Pope. That she has direct access to her Son. Reminiscent of ancient ritual common throughout Mesopotamia, Samaria, Egypt, Greece and Asia Minor; it is idolatry.

Jesus is our only intercessor; who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us: (Rom 8:34) …who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him. (1Peter 3:22)

In the Church, where statues of the ‘saints’ abound, there are more dedicated to Mary than any other. They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed. (Isaiah 44:9)

In Babylon, the Mother and Child were worshipped as Ishtar and Tammuz; in Egypt, Isis and Horus, and as Venus and Cupid in Rome. In Ephesus, Diana (the Lady) was worshiped on her own. At the Council of 431AD, Mary took on attributes of Diana when Worship of the Lady became official church doctrine. The solar disk of Isis became her halo and Diana’s necklace her rosary. The title, Queen of Heaven, (a title of Ishtar; Isaiah used the daughter of the Chaldeans and the lady of Kingdoms) was also affixed to Mary. She is now revered by the Church, as the Mother of God; as was Isis, the Mother of the World.

The Church also maintains Mary is without sin, whereas the Bible tells us no one is without sin. There are some within the hierarchy who now liken her to a fourth entity within the Trinity. This idea is tied to their assertion that as the Mother of God, Mary has a direct say in mankind’s affairs through her role of familial mediation. This dogma is nonsense …for there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus… (1Tim 2:5) The truth is Mary is long dead and buried, and like all who sleep in Christ, awaiting her glory with every other amid the resurrection of the dead.

By its Fruit

Simon Magus clearly played a part in setting the foundation for the Roman Catholic Church we know today. The Church’s Babylonian roots and practice, including the worship of the mother and child, sing too loud a chorus to ignore; also any Church that can uphold a Pope like the deviant Alexander the 6th (Rodrigo Borgia) cannot be deemed anywhere near credible, worthy, or holy.

In his book, The Two Babylons Alexander Hislop writes: The two-horned mitre, which the Pope wears, when he sits on the high altar at Rome and receives the adoration of the Cardinals, is the very mitre worn by the priests of Dagon, the fish-god of the Philistines and Babylonians …Not only does the pope wear this Mitre hat, but so do the Cardinals on certain occasions when they are dressed in their royal regalia. The Mystery religion of ancient Babylon/Assyria was noted for the priestly class of Dagon in much the same way that the Mystery religion of Rome has copied it.

The Church has also donned the trappings of Imperial Rome. Pontiff Maximus was a title in use, well before the Christian era, later transferred to the Papacy. The symbolic Keys of Peter are the Keys of Janus and Cybele. They have absolutely nothing to do with the keys to the Kingdom the LORD gave to Peter. The Babylonian cult of Mithras (greatly admired by Constantine) also shows the Sun god bearing two keys. Peter’s Ring is pure invention, besides Peter declared he had no wealth …for silver and gold have I none. (Acts 3:6) Let’s now look at the introduction to the Edmond Paris book: The Secret History of the Jesuits, written by Dr. Alberto Rivera; a former Vatican trained Jesuit priest:

The most dangerous men are those who appear very religious, especially when they are organized and in a position of authority. They have the deep respect of the people who are ignorant of their ungodly push for power behind the scenes. – The Early Fathers observed most of the ancient Babylonian system plus Jewish theology and Greek philosophy. They all perverted most of the teaching of Christ and His apostles. They paved the way for the Roman Catholic machine that was to come into existence. Piously, they attacked, perverted, added to and took away from the Bible.

As documented by Bede; midway through the 7th Century, Pope Vitalian sent to Britain the remains of seven martyrs including the Apostle’s Peter and Paul. This leaves us with a very interesting question. If these are the bones of Simon Peter, who is buried under the Vatican? All Popes stubbornly declare it is the Apostle, which means some people have been telling several big lies for a very long time. What do you think? Which Simon is really buried beneath the seat of Papal power? If there was any genuine provenance to identify Vitalian’s ‘bones,’ I would be very much surprised. The fact they disrespected the dead (whoever they were) is inexcusable.

By drawing upon exposed and debunked fictional documents authored at least 800 years after Simon Peter’s death, the Roman Catholic Church claims its right and succession springs from the Apostle. Yet, there is no definitive or dependable information held with reference to Peter bringing the Gospel to Rome. There is nothing that can be stated as hard evidence or anything that would stand up in a court of Law. Claims based on proven frauds like the Isidorian Decretals are clearly imaginary. We need look no further than the father of lies, to know where to lay the blame for this foul and cruel deception that has imprisoned millions of souls, down through the years.

For the tree is known by his fruit… (Matthew 12:33)

I pray the LORD bless you, as you search the truth of Christ and His Word.

James, A servant in Jesus’ name: 2016