You ask “When did the original Christian church begin to err or teach error?” I do not believe that anyone can with any great degree of certainty, pinpoint the exact time and place when error began to creep into the church, but Paul in Acts 20:29 warned: For I know this, that after my departing shall grevious wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. He also warned in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 about false apostles, and deceitful workers, and many other warnings did he give throughout his writings. Also in Jude 4, he reiterated, in apparent fulfillment of Paul’s warnings: For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

This certainly fits the description of what happened with the Christian church at Rome and how it became a fountainhead of falsehood that has affected every other Christian church on earth. Perhaps the following study will give you additional insights into how some of the many errors came into the early church.

WAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BUILT ON PETER

Catholicism states that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church that has survived with continuity since Apostolic and Biblical times. Thus, this is testament, they insist, of divine intervention from God. And only the Catholic Church can trace its lineage back to St. Peter himself whom Christ established His Church upon, based on Matthew 16:18 as their “proof.” And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

And here is their explanation of that verse: “If you have been fed the misinformation that Jesus is contrasting Peter to the rock, by the rendering of the word rock as Petros, Peter’s new name, which protestants claim to only mean small rock in Greek––as opposed to Petra, with protestants think only to mean massive rock [they were actually synonyms in 1^st century Greek] ––think again. Jesus SPOKE Aramaic and in His language He was COMPARING Peter to the rock, a term generally reserved for God. The reason we encounter this problem is because Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Greek you have a problem arising from the fact that nouns take different gender endings. Hence, since the word Petra in Greek is feminine, it would have been inappropriate to give a man a feminine name, so it was changed to Petros––an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic. (www.catholic.com/library/Peter the Rock) This verse is clear in its message, mainly the establishment of Christ’s visible, infallible Church.”

Is this strongly held belief accurate and irrefutable? We will not directly address the issue of the definition of “rock” for it’s apparent that their reasoning will not allow them to accept our interpretation to the contrary, however, let us address it scripturally, by first going to Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 

Verse 20 clearly states that the household of God, or in other words, the church, is built upon the foundation of the apostles, and the prophets and it is Jesus Himself who is the chief corner stone, not Peter. And that is the rock upon which Christ told Peter He would build His church. But they will not accept that because they “KNOW” that Peter started the church in Rome––after all, their Roman Catholic Church stands on this teaching, so let us take a very close look at that.

It is a rather startling fact that both secular and Biblical history contains scant evidence that the Apostle Peter was in Rome. Let us look at some of the many purely Biblical proofs that the Apostle Peter was never a significant religious influence in Rome, and that he clearly was never in charge of the Christian church in that Gentile city. Here are just a few:

BIBLICAL FACT 1. In 1 Peter 5:13 he wrote: The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. There is this little Biblical evidence to support the idea that Peter ever labored in literal Babylon. It is known however, that early Christians often used the cryptic title “Babylon” when speaking of the Roman capital to avoid political reprisals. There is general agreement among commentators that Peter here uses the term “Babylon” for a veiled reference to Rome. This is the only Biblical reference that places Peter in Rome, though tradition does locate his closing labors and subsequent imprisonment and violent death there. So right off we see that though Peter may very well have been in Rome, biblically speaking, the record shows nothing of his church activities there. Incidentally, the Biblical record shows, despite papal custom to the contrary, that Peter was married, as we read in Matthew 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, He saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

BIBLICAL FACT 2. When certain Jews from Judea agitated the question of circumcision and other matters regarding the   Gentiles, Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other responsible men of Antioch, to Jerusalem to lay the matter before the apostles and elders. The apostle James, not Peter, presided at the Council, and his was the final decision that ended the discussion (See Acts 15: 13-22). In this Biblical instance we have a refutation of the doctrine held by the Roman Catholic Church––that Peter was the head of the church. Also, when Peter was miraculously released from prison he immediately instructed that James be notified of his release in Acts 12:17 thus indicating that James was the presiding elder of the church at Jerusalem.

BIBLICAL FACT 3. Peter was appointed Apostle to the Jews––the circumcision, as we read in Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; So here we clearly read that as Paul was appointed Apostle to the Gentiles, and Rome was a Gentile city––those of the uncircumcision, so Peter was the Apostle in charge of Jewish affairs––not the entire Christian church, and the Jews formed only a very small portion of the church. The converts from the Gentiles soon greatly outnumbered them..

In 51 A.D. Paul was in Antioch where he got into a dispute with Peter because he wouldn’t sit with the Gentiles––very strange indeed if he was bishop of Rome, which was a thoroughly Gentile city. Let us read about that in Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Here Paul, who saw the wrong done the church through the double part acted by Peter openly rebukes him before the entire group. This again, as in the prior example, demonstrates that Peter in no way stood above the level of the other apostles, or that he was the head Apostle over all the church..

BIBLICAL FACT 4. It was Paul who originally formed the Church in Rome in 55 or 56 A.D. He wrote to the Christians there in Romans 1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; If Peter had been instrumental in raising up or establishing a Christian congregation in Rome some years earlier, such a statement to the Romans, could only be interpreted as a massive personal insult to Peter if he was already the bishop of the church there. Of course such was not the case, for Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome in 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: Another fact that we must not let escape us is that in the next chapter he sends greetings to a total of 28 individual people in Rome, but makes no mention of Peter. Why is this so if the apostle Peter was the head of the Church in Rome, was he determined to insult Peter and bring in division and discord, contrary to his many admonitions for church unity?

BIBLICAL FACT 5. When Paul was imprisoned in Rome, we read what occurred there: Acts 28:16 And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him. 17 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. 18 Who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of death in me. 19 But when the Jews spake against it, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had ought to accuse my nation of. 20 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. 21 And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee. 22 But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against. 23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

Had Peter (a strongly partisan Jew) been Bishop of Rome for years prior to this time, these Jewish leaders would certainly have known the basics of the Christian faith, but they only knew that it was spoken against as a sect, and were totally ignorant of the teachings of Christianity, so Paul had to instruct them.

So here we have given five Biblical evidences that the Apostle Peter, who may or may not have been in Rome during these incidents, certainly was not looked upon or held in higher regard than the other church leaders during that period of the early Christian church––and certainly was NOT the head of the Roman Christian church, as is greatly heralded by the Catholic denomination. If ANYONE deserves to be considered as the foundation of the TRUE Christian church in Rome, all the BIBLICAL evidence supports that it is Paul, not Peter who should receive that honor. So since the Bible does not support this teaching, and we seek to know the truth––not legend, assumption or tradition––where else can we look? The only place left is in the ancient records of church and secular history. Let us go there.

The question remains then is who, in that case, was the Peter that the Catholic Church claims was the head of the church? Of one thing secular history is abundantly and undeniably clear: there WAS a “Simon Peter” in Rome during the middle part of the first century––and he did wield tremendous influence on the religious scene in the Gentile city. Can we find out who he was and where he came from?

Ancient history reveals that the pagan deities worshipped by the Babylonians and the Greeks were known as Patres or Peters: “Not only the gods but the Hierophatae [special gods], in most temples, and those priests in particular who were occupied in the celebration of the mysteries, were styled Patres” Bryant, Ancient Mythology, Vol. 1, p. 354. Davidson’s Hebrew Lexicon shows that the consonantal word P-T-R (Peter) means “to interpret.” The priests of the Babylonian and other mystery religions claimed to have the power to interpret the pagan mysteries.

In the Luceii Fragments, we find that the ancient Romans considered Neptune, Saturn, Mars and Liber as “gods” of Peter rank or chief gods, as opposed to lesser gods. When Simon Magus went to Rome he bewitched the inhabitants with his “magical” (demonic) powers and soon became known as Simon Peter––Simon the interpreter of the Babylonian Mysteries.

The encounter of Simon Magus the sorcerer, with the apostles is found in Acts 8: 9-24, and it is highly significant that it was the apostle Peter that rebuked and through the Holy Spirit pronounced judgment on him. Verse 23 states of Simon: For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. This is a prophecy! Peter knew the mind of this man and what was in his heart, regardless of the fact that he had been baptized. In the Greek the phrase means that Simon was a cause of bitterness and corruption to others, or literally, “I regard you as a man whose influence WILL BE like that of poison and a bond of lawlessness, or, as a man who has reached such a state.”  He was telling what this Simon was to become, for he clearly knew that Simon wouldn’t repent.

The term “gall of bitterness” is adopted from the Old Testament (See Deuteronomy 29:16-18), which denoted going over to the idols and abominations of the heathen. When the apostle Peter applied the phrase to Simon Magus, he meant that Simon would be responsible for the introduction of heathen beliefs and idols into the Christian church. No wonder Jude later says in Jude 4: For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our1 God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Was this prophetic pronouncement by the Apostle Peter truly justified or was it not? Let us see what history records.

When Justin Martyr (A converted philosopher and early church historian) 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 book of Acts, who did not sink into insignificance but went to Rome and became a primary antagonist against the true faith. He states that he was a Samaritan, as the Bible bears out (See Acts 8:9), 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)..

That these things actually happened CANNOT BE DOUBTED! Justin was writing to the Roman people at the time and they could certainly have exposed Justin’s credulity if what he said was not so. And, that a statue of Simon was actually erected is definite, for Justin asked the authorities in Rome to destroy it! There are many writers, who lived in Rome itself, who afterwards repeated Justin’s account. Those who want to reject these clear statements have nothing in their favor. Justin is clearly giving us historical fact!

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." In other words, if Justin would have been lying about this, he would have been immediately exposed as doing so, but the facts still stand!

At the time of Claudius, it was illegal to erect a statue to any man as a god or greatly honored person unless the permission of the Emperor and the Senate had been secured. The statue was still standing in Justin’s day (152 A.D.), and people were still giving regard to it.

There are many other accounts of Simon’s traveling to Rome and becoming one of the great gods to the city and to the people of Rome. There are records which show that Simon "prophesies that Rome will be the scene of his crowning glory, when he will be adored as a god" (Dictionary of Religion & Ethics, Vol. 11, p. 522).

Later, about the fourth century, a flood of works came out about Peter encountering Simon Magus in Rome and overthrowing him. But these works are clearly fiction. Almost all scholars realize the absurdity of maintaining such a thing. It was NOT Simon Peter who went to Rome to become Apostle to the Gentiles. The renowned SIMON in Rome was SIMON MAGUS the sorcerer, NOT Simon Peter the Apostle!

That Peter the Apostle was not with Simon Magus in Rome is made plain by the Encyclopedia Biblica, col. 4554. "The attempt has been made to meet this by pointing out that church fathers mention the presence of SIMON (MAGUS) in Rome while at the same time NOT speaking of controversies between him and PETER (the apostle). This is indeed true of Justin [one of the earliest witnesses -- 152 A.D.] who knows nothing of any presence of Peter in Rome at all, as also of Irenaeus." (Another respected historian)

Not only did Justin feel that Peter was NOT in Rome at the time, but his deliberate silence shows he didn't want to perpetrate such fiction. After all, Justin lived very early in the history of the church, and the legend of the Apostle Peter’s being in Rome HAD NOT GOTTEN STARTED YET! Continuing with the Encyclopedia Biblica about Justin’s reference to SIMON MAGUS: "One part of this tradition -- that about Simon’s (Magus) presence in Rome -- he [Justin] found himself able to accept [in fact he held it to be confirmed by the statue, which he brought into connection with Simon]; the other -- that about Peter’ s (the apostle) presence in Rome -- he was unable to accept" (col. 4555).

Of course Justin was unable to accept the latter teaching. The fact is, if Simon Peter was in Rome, he was not plainly and visibly leading and directing a church! Simon Peter was a Jew and a foreigner––and they were not very well looked upon by the populace of Rome at that time. It was another Simon who was there making a name for himself––SIMON MAGUS, the one bringing "Christianity" to Rome in the guise of the old Babylonian mystery religions. Simon Magus came to Rome with the grand idea of establishing a UNIVERSAL RELIGION in the NAME of Christianity! And what is remarkable, he did just that!

We will next see how Simon Magus became later confused with Simon Peter and how he cleverly brought into "Christianity" the mystery religions of Babylon. Elevating his personal teachings above the Bible, and preaching a "no obedience–faith alone" doctrine of salvation Simon Magus soon had a universal, popular following.

SIMON Magus, just like his Samaritan forefathers, deliberately blended together the teachings of Babylon with Biblical phrases. One of his main intentions was to appropriate a Christian vocabulary to the Babylonian ceremonial system. In other words, he kept on with his heathenism, but now called his system "Christian" in origin. To legitimately introduce paganism into the Church he had to explain away many passages in the Old Testament, which forbade idolatry and contact with the abominations of the heathen. This he quite cleverly did. His primary method of explaining the Old Testament was to allegorize its teachings––in other words, he taught that it was all fables and symbolic metaphors.

If this weren’t sufficient to explain it away, he would repudiate it as being of less value than the present will of God that was supposedly being revealed to him. In fact, he got to the place of doing away altogether with the Old Testament by teaching that its doctrines were meant to enslave people and that its commandments were too grievous to bear. Irenaeus states that “Simon taught, that the Jewish prophecies [the Old Testament] were inspired by the creator angels; therefore, those who had hope in him and Helena (More about her later.) 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 being ordered by these creator angels WHO HAD MERELY WISHED TO ENSLAVE THOSE WHO HEARD THEM" (Dict. Of Christian Biography, vol. 4, p. 683). How diabolical and totally anti-biblical!

The Dictionary. of Religion and Ethics has this to say about this cardinal doctrine of SIMON PATER. "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 Helena, 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 (justified by faith alone––therefore not bound to obey the law) of the Simonians became manifest in LIBERTINE (lewd and lascivious) conduct and A COMPROMISE WITH HEATHENISM" (vol. 11, p. 518).

 Let’s go on. "But he [Simon] promised that the world should be dissolved, and that those who were his own should be redeemed. And accordingly, HIS PRIESTS,” Irenaeus tells us [yes, and this is VERY significant, Simon established a priesthood], “led lascivious lives, used magic and incantations, made philters (magic potions), HAD FAMILIAR SPIRITS by whose aid they were able to trouble with dreams those whom they would.” Ibid.

People who had supernatural, demonistic powers as Simon did were honoured as gods in the first century -- even sacrifices were offered to them. Does this seem unlikely? Then read Acts 14:11-13. After seeing the great miracles that Paul and Barnabas had done through the Holy Spirit, Luke says: "And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker." Then the priest of Jupiter...would have done sacrifice with the people.

Paul and Barnabas "rent their clothes" at such action. What would SIMON MAGUS have done? Or rather, what did Simon Magus do? He let the Roman Senate with the approval of the Emperor Claudius deify him as a god and erect a statue to him. And, the people who followed SIMON called him JUPITER, at the same time calling themselves Christians!  In Roman mythology, Jupiter was called Jupiter Optimus Maximus [Jupiter Highest, Greatest] as the patron deity of the Roman state in charge of laws and social order. Jupiter is, properly speaking, a derivation of Jove and pater (Latin for father––and the word “pope” actually means “father!”) The statue that must have been dedicated to Simon was in the likeness of the chief god of the pagan world.

Another change that Simon Magus instituted: The Hebrews honoured and regarded the number seven as recorded in God’s law -- that is, kept the seventh day, the seven holy days, etc., -- but Simon and his followers made a distinct change and honoured the number eight instead (i.e. the eighth day -- which becomes the first day of the week). (See Ante-Nicean Fathers, vol. 7, p. 379.)

Let’s look at the Death of Simon Magus: 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 honour and deification.

It is not clearly known exactly where Simon Magus alias Simon Pater or Simon Jupiter was buried. But this much is known. The place of burial for ALL prophets and holy men of the pagan Romans (not the true Christians) was in the sacred cemetery on Vatican Hill. This much is certain.

Notice what Werner Keller in his The Bible as History says about the so-called burial of the Catholics’ Peter. (Before reading Keller’s statement, let us remember that he is a thoroughgoing Catholic and firmly, himself, believed that the Apostle Peter was buried in Rome. However, as we have seen, the Bible does not record the event. Now, let’s read Keller’s comment – the official comment of the Roman Catholic Church):

"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" (p. 368). What an admission!

Keller ought to have better sense 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–in fact Talmudic law requires that the pious Jew spit three times when passing a Gentile cemetery, and though the Christian converts from Judaism were freed from such religious superstitions, this only serves to illustrate the loathing which being buried in a Gentile cemetery held. 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 pagan 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 revered ones of pagan Rome. It would make as much sense to say that Hitler could be buried in Westminster Abbey. And too, can you imagine TRUE Christians searching out a PAGAN CEMETERY––the chief one–in which to bury the chief Christian Apostle, the inveterate enemy of PAGANISM?

This pagan burying place, of all locations, could not be the place of the Apostle Peter’s burial. But, there is really no better place for the burial of SIMON MAGUS. He had been, and was being, honoured as a god––not only by the people of Rome, but even by the Emperor and the Senate.

Yes, Keller and his Catholic friends have undoubtedly found a SIMON, but not the Apostle Simon Peter. We have the record of history, which tells us that Simon’s teaching spread like wildfire, especially in Rome where he was honoured as a god. In fact, after going there he made that city his headquarters. But let us recall that the followers of Simon called themselves Christians. Simon steadfastly adhered to this––after all, he had been baptized. In fact, it finally became the desired name for his followers to use. The names Simonians and Samaritans began to die out in the 2nd century A.D. Justin tells us that some were still going by the parent name in his day (152 A.D.). But by the time of Origen (220 A.D.), he states that there were hardly 30 people in the world that went by the parent name. Yet Eusebius, who lived about 100 years later, said they were indeed still numerous all over the world.

The fact is, they were divorcing themselves from the use of the name SIMON or Samaritans because by the fourth century those names were beginning to have an odious connotation to them. Nonetheless the Simonians were very much around -- this time with the name of "Christian." And we have the exact testimony of Eusebius himself (a respected church historian–325 A.D.) that these people were flocking into the Catholic Church.

Notice what Eusebius says, after stating that Simon Magus in the days of the Apostles received baptism and feigned Christian belief: "And what is more surprising, the same thing IS DONE EVEN TO THIS DAY by those who follow HIS most impure heresy. For they, after the manner of their forefather, SLIPPING INTO THE CHURCH, like a pestilential and leprous disease GREATLY AFFLICT THOSE [a great number of people] into whom they are able to infuse the deadly and terrible poison concealed in themselves" (Eccl. Hist., II, ch. I, sect. 12). This is amazing testimony, for Eusebius is telling us that these people were now posing as true "Christians" and that they were infiltrating and corrupting the entire church as a pestilential, wasting disease, which affects the whole body. Eusebius later maintains that the chief troublemakers were being expelled from the Catholic Church. But how could they expel all of them? Almost the whole church by this time was affected––as history clearly bears out.

It is not to be supposed that all of the early heretical sects were direct branches of the Simon Magus religion. By the end of the first century there were at least 50 minor sects. The Simon Magus group represented several of these sects, but not all of them. The truth is, the Simonians, whose headquarters were at Rome, finally absorbed ALL these minor sects by the fifth century.

Eusibius continues: "Simon was the author of all heresy. From his time down to the present those who have followed his heresy have FEIGNED the sober philosophy of the Christians, which is celebrated among all on account of its purity of life. But they nevertheless have embraced again the superstitions of idols, which they seemed [ostentatiously] to have renounced; and they fall down before pictures and images of Simon himself and of the above-mentioned Helena who was with him–(who was a courtesan that he beheld on the roof of a brothel in the city of Tyre and purchased from her master, and she became his constant companion during his travels and teachings) and they venture to worship them with incense and sacrifices and libations" [The Catholics continue this practice today––just let the report of the likeness of the Virgin Mary be reported on a wall or a hamburger bun, etc., and see the devotees flock to the sight in admiration and reverence, constructing there shrines of worship]; (Eccl. Hist. II, 13, 6).

What clear and revealing statements! Eusebius is not talking about what he considers distinct heretics outside the Catholic Church. He is talking about the MAJOR group IN THAT CHURCH which was continually adding more and more on a large scale. He attributes these evils to the "Christians" who followed SIMON MAGUS. They were so active in his day INSIDE THE CHURCH as to give him grave concern. But what happened?

Did the few Catholic leaders of the fourth century who abhorred outright IDOLATRY manage to persuade the masses to give it up and turn away from the SIMONIANS (now called Christians) who were the cause of it all? The answer from history is NO! The Simonian "Christians" won out. Imagery, idolatry and “christianized” paganism – became the common practices of the Universal Church, just as planned in the very beginning by SIMON MAGUS––or by the Devil who possessed him.

Can we now understand why God, through Luke, devotes a whole section of Acts to warn us of this man’s origin. He was NEVER a part of the Church of God, NEVER!! But he, and his followers––as clearly evidenced from history––have succeeded in bringing in their UNIVERSAL religion––a pagan blend masquerading as "Christian.” Thus we dare not deny that the Apostle Peter’s pronouncement in Acts 8: 23 was inspired by the Holy Ghost as it was certainly fulfilled to the very letter!

These facts and evidences clearly prove that the Roman Catholic Church never was nor ever could be the church established by Christ, when history clearly shows that the Simon Peter they claim was the head of that church, was not the Apostle Simon Peter but a demonically inspired foe of Christianity––Simon Magus Peter––the first pope of Rome, the first man of sin. And he is now being revealed!

In closing let us read 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4: “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is god.”  

I believe that this verse not only refers to the current and future papacy, as is held by the remnant people of God, but also applies to the revealing, in these last days, of the hidden truth of the Roman Catholic Church who traces her lineage back to Peter and thus claims her authority as “the only church established by Christ” based on apostolic succession. The evidence has clearly shown that this claim cannot be supported when exposed to the clear light of truth.

The Bible states in Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. How does one contend for the faith? There’s only one way, and that is with the truth.

The facts and evidences presented here present a challenge to every reader. He or she must either accept them, reject them, or attempt to refute them. Since they are proven and documentable the ONLY way one can attempt to refute them is by resorting to legend, tradition, or assumption––in essence then, not truly refuting them, but in actuality denying the facts and evidences presented.

The Bible says of a certain class in 2 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. So sadly, there are those who would prefer to deny the facts and the evidence––in other words, the truth––and cling to their legends, their traditions and their false assumptions. What will ultimately happen to that class of unbelievers?

We read in Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. And again Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Our prayer for you is that you will NOT choose to be among that class and that God’s grace will surely lead you into His marvelous light.