It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


St. Peter of Rome is really Simon Magus the Sorcerer!

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 12:46 AM
reply to post by TheRandom1

I want to apologize for not returning your post sooner but I had a minor absense of internet access due to our wonderful recession. To answer your question, the holy sabbath was never changed from saturday to sunday in the bible. It has and still remains the 7th day or saturday.... actually friday sundown to saturday sundown. It is one of the ten commandments and Jesus repeatedly taught to follow the commandments in order to enter the Kingdom of God. Also, the pagan holidays are suppose to be christian holidays celebrating the birth (christmas) and death/resurrection (easter) but are nothing more than ancient pagan festivals to worship the sun god and the god/goddess of fertility. The modern concept of easter and christmas are simple mixtures of christian beliefs with pagan traditions. God speaks against worshipping Him by pagan traditions in Deuteronomy 12:29-32. Many other verses of the bible speak against paganism and idolatry which are all parts of these modern "christian" holidays. God's 7 holy day feasts are the only days of celebration commanded in the bible and there are many warnings about traditions of men... fun or religious. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me or read some of my older posts on my profile page. Amen and God bless you.

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 03:53 AM
Let's assume you are correct. You are saying that God and Jesus allowed generations of people to follow the wrong Church and founder?

Also, if you are correct, why did the Eastern Catholic Tradition come about then with the same Sacraments, Customs etc. How, if such different men, one evil and one good, did both sides grow organically the same then?

Something doesn't ring true here.

posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 08:46 AM
reply to post by GTORick

It's called the deception of satan. God gives man free will and does nothing to stop free will. His laws are laid out for us to follow... it's our duty to follow them and the Roman Catholic church, numerous protestant churches and some independent churches do not follow these laws or they twist these laws to read the way they want. God does not stop this because He wants only the most faithful to be part of His kingdom as rulers with Christ. I don't believe non-christians or false-christians go to Hell. I believe most of these false-christian followers are decieved and do not understand. They simply take part in the 2nd resurrection and are judged by their works on earth and how they accept God in the presence of Jesus.

posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:31 PM
reply to post by Locoman8

Lol, thanks for answering my question bro, no matter how late it was, I actually had to go back and read what I'd asked

I have another question for ya.

What the heck is "The Feast of Tabernacles"?

To me it sounds like a holiday that takes place after Armageddon.


posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:01 AM
reply to post by TheRandom1

The best way to explain the Feast of Tabernacles is to let you read my extremely lengthy thread on God's Holy Day Plan for Mankind which also debunks the false holidays of christmas and easter. Go here to check it out and contribute to the thread and breathe new life into it.

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:59 AM
Peter never went to Rome and was never a Pope,
first or other

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:30 PM
I always wonder about Simon Peter. He seemed to be Jesus' favorite disciple and there seemed to be a deaper meaning behind all the conversation he had with him

He has many titles in the NT

Simon Peter
Simon bar Jona
Simon Cephas
Simon the Fisher
Simon the Tanner

Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Luke 5:8
When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.

Luke 22:31
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

John 6:71
He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

John 13:2
And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;

John 13:26
Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

So we see in the above passages that Judas was referred to as the Devil and Peter was referred to as Satan at times. Although I'm not sure if Judas was Simon Peters son. Iscariot is said to mean asassin. The NT does not clarify that enough.

I am certain that Jesus knew the catholic church would be founded on Simon Peter and that there were certain messages that although meant for all of us, seemed to warn the catholic church especially.

Luke 12:41 - letting the thief break into their house

John 13:6 - The humble act of washing another persons feet

John 21:15 - asked 3 times if he loved Jesus and if he did to feed his sheep

John 18:16 - denied Jesus 3 times

Luke 7:40 - Those who sin more, are forgiven more so should love more

That said, I don't believe the Roman Catholic Church is Mystery Babylon. I think this church is the scapegoat for Jerusalem.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:26 AM
reply to post by iamnot

Interesting take on Simon Peter. You should know that Peter never left Judea. You should also know that the beloved disciple was John,not Peter. If you actually read the opening article on this thread, you will see vast amounts of evidence leading to Simon Magus as the founder of catholicism, not Simon Peter. The only reason Jesus said, "Get behind me satan!" to Peter is because Peter was second-guessing Jesus when He mentions He must be crucified. And Judas was not the son of Peter, but of a different Simon. Many of these names were very common at the start of the first century. Also there is too much paganism in the catholic religion to not consider it the front-runner in being the "babylonian mystery religion". any thoughts?

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:22 PM
you must check out this website's_70.htm

rome and jerusalem always go hand in hand.

another thing i always wondered. how is judas the son of perdition going to be revealed in the end when he is already dead. Is this more of a metaphor as in one like judas?

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:12 AM
reply to post by iamnot

Scripture does not mention Judas as coming back in the endtime or whenever. I think it's a catholic doctrinal belief. Don't quote me on this. Read your bible... preferrably the New King James Version... easy to read and accurate from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages. Don't read a catholic bible or anything like that. They add stuff and twist stuff around to fit their agenda. God bless.

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 12:43 PM
reply to post by Locoman8

I am catholic and there is no belief of Judas returning.

[edit on 5/24/2009 by Missing Blue Sky]

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 01:33 PM
I read you whole post. As a Catholic I was skeptical until I read the part about the estuary of Peter, near Magdala, Martha and Lazarus.

This I found compelling. These three were Jesus' closest friends, which I believe Peter was, too. I am under the impression he was able to relax and unwind with Magdala, Martha and Lazarus, but had work to do when with Simon much to teach him.

But the idea of the Peter who I revere in Rome being an imposter? That is very hard to swallow. As a Catholic I have a very rich faith life, have experienced miracles, grace and forgiveness...can this all be the work of the devil?

I believe that over the past 2000 years most people working in or on behalf of the Catholic Church have truly believed they were doing the right and true thing.

The circa 1913 catholic dictionary you quoted said "as God on earth..." concerning the Pope. If is says that it is not an accurate teaching. I would consider it an error or maybe quoted out of context. It is not true. The pope is the leader of the church, but not God. I can assure you no catholic person believes the pope is God. He is a just a man like any of us. He is called to work and pray for the people of the world, to lead them in the ways of Christ.

And what about when Jesus said to Peter...on you Peter (rock) I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you forgive on earth shall be forgiven in heaven. (coincidentally, the Bascillica of St. Peter - the church- is literally and figuratively built on the tomb of St. Peter.)?

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:24 PM
reply to post by Missing Blue Sky

How do you explain the tomb of St. Peter in Jerusalem? The catholics have never confirmed the body of the person under St. Peter's church. The writing on the tomb of St. Peter in Jerusalem reads "Simon bar Jonah" which translates, "Simon, the son of Jonah."

Jesus mentioning Peter as the head of the church is a passage taken out of context. Peter's name means "rock" but He was simply stating that all of the Apostles would lead the Church, not just Peter. Why did he name Peter the leader of the Church? After all, it was John that Jesus loved most.

As far as the miracles, remember scripture says that even Satan can make himself an angel of light in order to decieve. Pope's name in itself entitles him as the human representation of Christ....not God. This is carried on by the old pagan tradition of calling the emperor a god.

And how about the titles of priests and bishops? Priests are called "father" in a religious sense but Jesus even said that only One is the Father who is in heaven. I have plenty of stuff to lay out but let's see your response first.

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 02:56 AM
reply to post by Locoman8

Are you kidding me? Do you even know where your religion comes from? Here's a history lesson:
There was only one form of Christianity up until the 11th century, and that religion was the Catholic, or universal, Church. In the 11th century, the Eastern Rites broke away from the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church because of Charlemange going into Rome, taking the seat of the Roman Emperor (who fled for his life to modern-day Russia), and having the Pope crown him Holy Roman Emperor. The Eastern Catholic Churches now have their own table of 11 rulers, the successors of the apostles, leaving out the 12th, which was Peter, who is represented by Rome.

In the 16th century, people began to break off from the Church due to conflicts, heresy, and certain people being self-righteous (on both sides of the argument!). So, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses, and broke from the Church, which he stated later that he just wanted to fix the problems in the Church. King Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church because he wanted a divorce, and Jesus CLEARLY states in the Bible that to do so would be committing adultery, which is a mortal sin. From both actions was born the Protestant Reformation. Any Christian religion that exists today that is not Catholic comes from these Protestant churches.

Therefore, St. Peter of Rome was NOT Simon Magus! The reason for that story in Acts was to show that the miraculous charisms of the Christians were not to be confused with the magic of sorcerers. In fact, if you think that my Church was founded by the magician, then you're saying that yours is, too. Look at the history of your religion, and trace it back to it's beginning. It's root lies in the Catholic Church, guaranteed.

Did you not pay ANY attention in history class? lol!

[edit on 27-5-2009 by MoonChild02]

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 03:23 AM

Originally posted by Locoman8reply to post by Missing Blue Sky
How do you explain the tomb of St. Peter in Jerusalem? The catholics have never confirmed the body of the person under St. Peter's church. The writing on the tomb of St. Peter in Jerusalem reads "Simon bar Jonah" which translates, "Simon, the son of Jonah."
Jesus mentioning Peter as the head of the church is a passage taken out of context. Peter's name means "rock" but He was simply stating that all of the Apostles would lead the Church, not just Peter. Why did he name Peter the leader of the Church? After all, it was John that Jesus loved most.

It's NOT taken out of context! YOU'RE taking it out of context! The reason it's Peter who was chosen was because of the passage in Matthew 16:13-20. To prove my point that it's NOT taken out of context, I'll post the entire passage:

13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
20 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.
In this instance, the name Peter is literally given by the Greek word petros, and it's Aramaic equivalent kepha, both of which mean "rock" in a personal, singular, sense. Jesus was not calling all of them Peter, only Simon. For the rest of the Gospel that one apostle is referred to as either Peter or Simon Peter, depending on your version of the Bible. As a matter of fact, the entirety of verses 17 through 19 are given in a personal, singular sense. As far as Simon Peter being the son of Jonah, well, that passage proves that Simon Peter was, in fact, the son of Jonah.

As far as the miracles, remember scripture says that even Satan can make himself an angel of light in order to decieve. Pope's name in itself entitles him as the human representation of Christ....not God. This is carried on by the old pagan tradition of calling the emperor a god.

And how about the titles of priests and bishops? Priests are called "father" in a religious sense but Jesus even said that only One is the Father who is in heaven. I have plenty of stuff to lay out but let's see your response first.
As it's too long to post here, read the page on this link:

[edit on 27-5-2009 by MoonChild02]

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 04:00 AM
reply to post by MoonChild02

My church stems back to the "Apostolic Church" and was the first christian church in existence until catholicism came about around the second half of the first century. Do YOUR history lesson on the church. The catholic church came from the Church of God in Rome. It was a splinter group of the Church of God. Church of God is not a protestant church seeing that it existed, even before the catholic church.

Catholicism gave us sunday worship... a pagan day of sun worship though the Bible CLEARLY states the 7th day Sabbath is to be the day of worship.

Catholicism gave us Christmas and Easter.... pagan holidays giving praise to Saturn and Ishtar but with a twist of Christ taking the role of these pagan dieties. In fact, the catholics pushed easter on christians in order to push the Passover out of christianity, making it nearly exclusively a Jewish holy day.

I understand you are getting mad about this thread because you probably have grown up your whole life as a catholic. My claim is just as much against protestants as it is catholics. I just focus mainly on the catholic church because it is the root of the whole problem. Read your history and notice the blasphemous things the RCC did. The title of pontiff or pope is blasphemous in itself as it is authorative in the divine sense. Divinity belongs only to Christ and the Father.

Calling a priest "Father" is blasphemous, especially when you take into account the words of Christ... "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father. He who is in heaven." Matthew 23:9.

Catholics gave us the false doctrine of Trinity. God and Jesus are separate beings and the Holy Spirit is not a being, but a force. Why did Jesus pray to the Father? Jesus existed before His human birth. He was known as the "Word of God" John 1:1-3.

Catholics gave us a false notion of Hell carried over from the greek mythological teachings. The words translated to "hell" in the bible are the hebrew word "sheol" and the greek words "hades", "tartarus", and "gehenna" which none mention everlasting torment in fire. Sheol and hades both mean "death" or "grave". Tartarus is used only once in the bible in 2 Peter 2:4 in which Peter explains the confinement of the fallen angels, including Satan into an abyss or place of confinement. No humans in that scenario. Gehenna means "Valley of Hinnom" which is an actual place on the southwest side of Jerusalem. It was used as a dump site in Jesus' day due to it's history of pagan rituals. City trash, animal carcases and the corpses of criminals would be thrown on this pile and burned day and night. Jesus used this word to give the Jews a visual on what the "Lake of Fire" would be like and what the punishment of the sinful would be. It would be a punishment of death, not everlasting torment. Revelation 21:8 "but the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the SECOND DEATH.

I can go on and on but I know you'll just ignore this and go on confessing your sins to a priest when Jesus is the One to confess to as He's taken the role of our permanent High Priest.

Just remember that narrow is the gate and difficult is the way that leads to life and only a few will find it. Don't take the broad and wide way to destruction by letting a corrupt organization like the RCC blind you.

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 04:20 AM
reply to post by MoonChild02

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Ephesians 2:20 is a reference to Matthew 16:18.

Having been built on the FOUNDATION of the APOSTLES and PROPHETS, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.

Simon's name is changed to Peter by Jesus indeed. Did this give Peter some higher authority over the other apostles? Not at all. They were all equal in stature. Peter answered the question correctly when Christ asked "who do you say I am?" The apostles as a whole are the foundation of the church along with the prophets.

As far as the whole "father" issue goes. Jesus is speaking of religious authority. Don't call someone your father in a religious sense except our Father in heaven. Father, as a position of authority is one thing, but a HOLY position such as a priest in a church, that title is blasphemous.

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:36 AM
reply to post by Locoman8

What religion are you then? If you say Seventh Day Adventist, I'll laugh, because that church was founded in the 19th century. Don't believe me? Read it on their own website:

As far as the "Apostolic" comment, the Nicene Creed specifically states, "I believe in the one, holy, catholic (or universal), and apostolic church." My Church is apostolic in origin. It was started by the one Jesus called Peter. I've never heard of this "Church of God in Rome", other than to mean that the Catholic Church is God's Church. When searching for it, I came across this:
Great history lesson.
As for the history of the sabbath, see this page:

The life and times of the Apostle Simon Peter:

As for the "Call no man father" thing, read that ENTIRE page, not just the first section, especially the part entitled "So What Did Jesus Mean?". Here's the link again:
Just a small quote from it:

He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers...

Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.

For the Doctrine of the Trinity:

For Doctrine on Hell:

The Papacy:

The Encyclopedia explains it ever so much better than I could, so read those links and get back to me, 'kay?

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:21 AM
reply to post by MoonChild02

I'm not a Seventh Day Adventist, but I know someone who is. My religion is simply called "Church of God" but you can go as far as calling me "Judeo-Christian", "Apostolic", or "first century". You've never heard of the Church of God in Rome? That's the church the letter of Romans was written to by Paul. The Church of God is everywhere in the bible. Examples:

1 Corinthians 1:2 "To the church of God which is at Corinth........."
2 Corinthians 1:1 "To the church of God which is at Corinth......."
1 Thessalonians 1:1 "To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Thessalonians 1:1 (same as above).

These are just from the opening statements in some of Paul's letters. My church is identified in the Bible. Yours isn't. As far as your little spill on the Apostles Creed, I urge you to study just what it was read like before 600 AD. Let's find out.

The original writings of the Creed:
I believe in God the Father Almighty:
And in Jesus Christ hos only begotten Son, our Lord;
Who was born of the Holy Ghost and Virgin Mary,
And was crucified under Pontius Pilate,and was buried;
And the thrid day rose again from the dead.
Ascended into heaven, sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
Whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead;
And in the Holy Ghost;
The remission of sins;
And the resurrection of the flesh, Amen.

No word on the catholic church there. In fact, it's pretty stripped down and basic in it's beliefs. Now let's see the excess garbage added by the catholic church post 600AD:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth;
And in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord;
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried;
He descended into hell; (hell is the grave. Pointless addition)
The third day he rose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
The Holy Catholic Church; the communion of saints; (added catholic and communion of saints. Pure push of doctrinal beliefs)
The forgiveness of sins;
The resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen. (added the life everlasting, giving notion of a reunion with body and spirit. False teachings).

You see, the catholic church corrupted this Creed from it's original form, just as they corrupted the Ten Commandments. How do you explain removing the commandment "You shall not worship false idols" or the 2nd commandment and then divide the 10th commandment to make two? Jesus said that one jot or one tittle will not be added or taken away until all is fulfilled.

On a side note, why would I trust the catholic encycolapedia? they do nothing more than find out what people have called them out on, and then make an excuse to make it alright by twisting their doctrine to sound okay. My doctrine is the bible, plain and simple. That's all the first century church had... the Old Testament and some of the letters and the verbal teachings of Christ.

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:13 AM
I have to tell you that I didn't read every word of your post but skimmed through it all instead. It is an interesting and thought provoking read.

However, having poked around and prodding various religious ideals and comparing them to each other, I found a common thread. Each and every one claims to be the right one, the voice of god, or whathaveyou.

All the searching and exploring has done nothing but confuse and mislead. If one isn't worried about choosing the wrong thoughtprocess, then any one of them should do just fine.

I believe in evidence that I can observe with my own six senses. Anything else is gossip, subject to interpretation and falsification. The evidence of my own intuition and instinct which has proven to save my life many times or when ignored, cause great agony both physical and mental. That is the evidence I rely on. My Source speaks without words directly to me and allows me to choose whether to hear or ignore. Always my choice.

I need no leader, no other voice to speak for me, explain to me, or demand actions from me. Christianity and the Catholic Church are not the direct line to God. Each individual has that distinct honor. Organized, powerful religious doctrine seeks to destroy that personal link and drain every ounce of power from it for selfish, sub-human purposes.

Nature will teach everything one needs to know. But Man will destroy nature before that is ever allowed to happen again. The so called Pagan's were nature/mother worshippers for thousands of years before the "Christ" story and its meteoric rise in power. Adapting pagan ideals and practices, incorporating them into the "Church" was simply a coersive method of forced control.

Anyway, great thread. You've done some homework. Eventually the work you are doing will result in an uncomfortable choice which means mentally blocking out the parts that just don't fit.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in