The Roman Catholic Church believes the following about Mary, the mother of Jesus. (Look it up for yourself at the Catholic Encyclopedia online or the Roman Catholic Catechism.)
- Mary was born without the stain of the original sin and that her grace came from herself, meaning she did not need a savior / they call this the Immaculate Conception, not what occurred with Christ.
- Mary was the Mother of God because of their view of the Trinity and Christ being “God the Son”, a term never found in scripture.
- Mary was a virgin all her life and James was not really Jesus’ brother.
- Mary was taken to heaven in the same manner as Christ.
- Mary intercedes for us, she is the “Queen of Heaven”, and Christians should pray to her.
- Mary is equated with the woman in New Testament prophecy; not the church.
Any scripturally grounded student of The Word can see that not a single one of these beliefs are found in the Bible. Many think this is merely tradition and the result of various papal decrees, which are half-truths, but I believe these are doctrines of pagan origin that have been purposely planted to deceive Christians by none other than Satan himself. The Cult of Mary is satanic idolatry of the highest level and to believe it is only a harmless belief is foolish.
Let’s start by looking at what is wrong with a few of these doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. First, the belief that Mary was born without the stain of the original sin. The Roman salutation goes, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”. While the ordinary Christian may think that this is representative of Mary having grace from God that is not what the Romans mean by reciting this. They express that the fullness of grace enjoyed by Mary must be regarded as her having a superabundance of inner holiness. To say that Mary had internal holiness and she had her own grace states that she was in no requirement for a savior because she was deity. In essence that is what they have done, made a righteous and honorable woman, the mother of our Lord, a pagan goddess. Who else would do such a thing but Satan?
Think I am leaping to conclusions in stating that they believe Mary is a goddess and that she was holy unto herself? Just look at the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which actually has nothing to do with Christ but entirety Mary. It is the doctrine that Mary was born free of sin and that it was Mary herself that never sinned. Again this is contrary to scripture. They say that she had to be sinless to give birth to Jesus, who they believe was really incapable of sin because of this. Furthermore, because they believe that Jesus was “God the Son”, a term that is never found in scripture but has its origins in much darker theology.
The errors keep stacking up. But all of this doesn’t stop with the Romans declaring Mary immaculate, sinless, and internally holy. They go even further and say that she was incapable of sin and that she was received bodily up into heaven. This is called the Bodily Assumption.
Because we know that scriptural evidence for anything dealing with these doctrines is nil, we must conclude that these sources came from outside of the Holy Word of God. And indeed they did and those sources are from pagan religions. These very same pagan religions are those that influenced almost every single anti-Christ / anti-God religion in history and are the same pagan religions that were the enemy of God and of Israel in the Old Testament.
We will now travel back into history, to the time of Nimrod and of the start of the Babylonian religions. As the pagan mythology goes, Nimrod, also known as Ninus in some traditions, had a wife/consort named Semiramis. When Nimrod died Semiramis had a son named Damu, which later became Dammuzi, and in Hebrew, Tammuz. She informed people that Tammuz was Nimrod reborn. There are some who believe that Semiramis actually married her son. Regardless, this was the start of what is called The Babylonian Mystery Religion and it spread like wildfire around the region and world. (Note: Semiramis is also known as Ishtar, or Easter)
The image of Semiramis and Tammuz is seen everywhere in ancient pagan religions as the picture of a mother with child. I highly encourage you to do your own research to see the images from around the world. One researcher has found that from China, India, Rome, Egypt, Greece, and even Mexico images of the “holy mother” and her “god son” can be found. But how and why? Multiple researchers suggest that it steams back from the days of the Tower of Babel, when God confused the languages, but others say that Nimrod and the tower of Babel were not contemporary with one another. Either way, this religious system was already in place and once the people could not communicate they simply banded with others that spoke their new tongues and continued on with their religious system; obviously with it evolving over time. But the one thing they all have in common is the “Mother Goddess.”
We all know that these pagan religions were the constant struggle for the children of Israel. We find one false god in particular mentioned over and over, that is Baal. Baal was the “Lord of Heaven” and can be traced back to none other than Nimrod. So this entire system of Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz (or to use his original name, Damu) being deity is the root cause for paganism in the ancient world. Further proof is that Tammuz is later mentioned in Ezekiel 8:14-15. But how did this enter into the church in the form of The Cult of Mary?
We now look to the book of Acts for this answer.
“Now in that city (Samaria) was a man named Simon, who had been practicing magic and amazing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great. All the people, from the least to the greatest, paid close attention to him, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called ‘Great.’” And they paid close attention to him because he had amazed them for a long time with this magic. But when they believed Philip as he was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they began to be baptized, both men and women. Even Simon himself believed, and after he was baptized, he stayed close to Philip constantly, and when he saw the signs and great miracles that were occurring, he was amazed.”
“Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. These two went down and prayed for them so that they would receive the Holy Spirit. (For the Spirit had not yet come upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then Peter and John placed their hands on the Samaritans, and they received the Holy Spirit.”
“Now Simon, when he saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, offered them money, saying, “Give me this power too, so that everyone I placed my hands on may receive the Holy Spirit.” But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could acquire God’s gift with money! You have no share or part in this matter because your heart is not right before God! Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that he may perhaps forgive you for the intent of your heart. For I see that you are bitterly envious and in bondage to sin.” But Simon replied, “You pray to the Lord for me so that nothing of what you have said may happen to me.” (NET)
In this scripture we see an interesting man come on the scene. Most will call him Simon Magus, or Simon the Magician, others will call him by other names but this will come later in this investigation. Before we get to know who Simon was, we need to understand what is occurring here.
Simon was use to amazing the people but when Philip came with authority from God, through Christ, Simon himself started to become amazed. Being the person we learn he is, it is eluded to that Simon started following Philip and claimed to be a Christian out of his selfish desires for power. Think I am wrong? Look at what happens when he tries to buy the Holy Spirit. Peter strongly rebukes him and says that he is “bitterly envious and in the bondage of sin.” For one, if he was a true Christian he wouldn’t have been in the bondage of sin. Second, this envy Peter speaks of can also be looked at as Simon being bitter that someone has more power than himself. Some may think that Simon repented at the end but most Bible translators agree that Simon’s statement to Peter was more of a sarcastic remark and not sincere.
So we have this man, Simon, who was truly amazed at Christianity, the power of the Holy Spirit, and even claimed to be a Christian but it was all for selfish gain. He wanted power. But is this the last we ever hear of Simon and his sneaky behavior? In the Bible this is the only outright reference to him but early Christian writers fill in the gaps. Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius all mention Simon as the one who brought about the heresies in the church, calling him “the father of all heresies.” He spread these heresies in Rome where it was told by Justin Martyr that he had a formidable following even in his day (circa 155 AD) and that they were known as Christians. Martyr later tells that when Simon Magus came to Rome he astonished the Roman Senate and they had a statue built to honor him.
Irenaeus and Hippolytus write the following about Simon Magus:
1 – Simon Magus taught that he appeared as the son to those in Judea, that he was the Holy Father in Samaria, and that he was the Holy Spirit to the gentiles.
2 – He called himself the Holy Father and many addressed him as Simon Pater (meaning father).
3 – Simon studied in Phoenicia (where he learned of the pagan religions which were descendant of the Babylonian religions referenced above)
4 – Simon purchased a prostitute named Helen in Tyre and said that she was his Queen of Heaven and that he saved his lost sheep. Statues of both Simon and Helen were made in the images of Jupiter and Minerva (both having their roots with Tammuz and Semiramis). They viewed Simon as the Father and Helen as the mother.
5 – He accused the 10 Commandments of bringing people into bondage and that the people are free because of his grace, which he freely gives and so there was no need to follow the 10 Commandments.
6 – His sect eventually built churches in Rome and called their ministers Priests, copying the pagans.
7 – They used magic in their religion and conducted ritualistic exorcisms
8 – After the death of the apostles the sect of Simon grew
Here we have very compelling evidence that links the Babylonian mystery religions being merged into Christianity and in Rome none the less by Simon. But what about Peter? Was not the Apostle Peter in Rome to fight this? Isn’t their proof that Peter lived and died in Rome?
This leads us to an interesting discovery that was made in 1953 in Jerusalem. In a 1958 book printed by two Roman Catholic priests, PB Bagatti and JT Milik, called “Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit” there is mentioned a discovery the few have ever heard of. This discovery was that the Apostle Peter’s burial site was found in Jerusalem. In an archeological excavation in 1953 an ossuary was found with the name Simon Bar Jona, the true name of Peter. This ossuary was found on the Franciscan monastery site called, “Dominus Flevit”, this is where Jesus was supposed to have wept over Jerusalem, on the Mount of Olives. Pictures from the excavation show that three ossuaries were first found at a Christian burial site dated to the first century. The first three had the names of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, all next to one another. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes but the one to point out had written in Aramaic, Simon Bar Jona. A Yale professor and archaeologist who was the director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem said that it would be improbable that a name with three words, and one so complete, could refer to any other than the Apostle Peter. Another scientist said that the writing style could be dated to the time just before the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 AD.
A researcher spoke to Milik, the writer of the above mentioned book, and said that Milik admitted that he knew that the bones of Peter were not in Rome. Remember, Milik is a Roman Catholic Priest. Milik said, “There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome.” A matter of fact there is no evidence that Peter was buried in Rome. The researcher spoke with many Franciscan priests in confidence and they all agreed that the tomb and remains of Peter are in Jerusalem. It was also discussed that Pope Pius XII was informed but that he said, “Well, we will have to make some changes, but for the time being, keep this thing quiet.”
This researcher, F. Paul Peterson, writes, “The Catholic Church says that Peter was Pope in Rome from 41 to 66 AD., a period of twenty-five years, but the Bible shows a different story. The book of Acts of the Apostles (in either the Catholic or Protestant Bible) records the following: Peter was preaching the Gospel to the circumcision (the Jews) in Caesarea and Joppa in Palestine, ministering unto the household of Cornelius, which is a distance of 1,800 miles from Rome (Acts 10:23, 24). Soon after, in about the year 44 AD (Acts 12), Peter was cast into prison in Jerusalem by Herod, but he was released by an angel. From 46 to 52 AD, we read in the 13th chapter that he was in Jerusalem preaching the difference between Law and Grace. Saul was converted in 34 AD and became Paul the Apostle (Acts 9). Paul tells us that three years after his conversion in 37 AD, he “went up to Jerusalem to see Peter” (Galatians 1:18), and in 51 AD, fourteen years later, he again went up to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1,8), Peter being mentioned. Soon after that he met Peter in Antioch, and as Paul says, “Withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed,” (Galatians 2:11)”
Peterson goes on to write, “Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD and left it desolate. Therefore, it is impossible that the inscription could refer to a relative after Peter’s time. (as some had argued) One encyclopedia explains the destruction in their words, “With this event the history of ancient Jerusalem came to a close, for it was left desolate and its inhabitants were scattered abroad.” From all evidence, Peter was about fifty years old when Jesus called him to be an Apostle, and he died around the age of 82, or about the year 62 AD. Since by these figures there are only eight years left from the time of Peter’s death until the destruction of Jerusalem, it was then impossible that the inscription and remains belonged to generations after Peter.”
Going on with Peterson’s point, Peter would have only had less than 11 years to go to Rome, establish the church, become the first pope, and be buried in 62 AD. If you take the Roman Catholic’s view of the death date being 66 AD then Peter certainly would have had more time to do this but there are still the accounts in scripture after the 51 AD date that have Peter in the Middle East. So we don’t know when Peter would have went to Rome. If anything it is more likely that Peter visited Rome but we know it was Paul who had the ministry in Rome. The Bible is clear on this fact.
So if Peter wasn’t the “First Pope” and if he didn’t pass away and if he wasn’t buried in Rome then who does the Roman Catholic Church follow as the first pope and who is buried in their tomb? I suggest that it was Simon Magus, or as they call him Simon Pater (or Simon Peter), who we know from early Christian writers was buried in Rome when he died attempting to raise himself from the dead after three days. If Simon Magus was seen as a god and worshiped, his followers would have made his burial site holy and protected it. This leads us to the location of the Vatican, and St. Peters Basilica.
Although the origin of the word Vaticanus is disputed, what is not disputed is that the place on which the Vatican sets was a pagan god worshiping site. This Roman deity was Vagitanus, where some think the origin of Vaticanus derives, but others deny this. But most all agree this was a pagan site for some purpose. However, around the 4th century AD, construction of Old St. Peter’s Basilica started over an old cemetery that was said to be the site of St. Peter’s tomb. Construction started at the orders of the Roman Emperor Constantine I between 318 and 322 AD and took approximately 30 years to complete. During Nero’s day, this location was that of the Circus of Nero. This circus was the site of the first organized, state-sponsored martyrdoms of Christians in 65 AD. This is also, according to Catholic tradition, where Peter was martyred. Standing in the center of this death circus was an obelisk; this very same obelisk was re-erected in Saint Peter’s Square in the 16th century. This is the same obelisk that was brought to Rome by Caligula, brother of Nero.
The connection with the site being used for pagan religions, the martyrdom of Christians, and the traditional burial site for “Simon Peter” is really too much for it to be coincidental. A matter of fact, all of this information combined cannot be denied.
In the book “The Bible and the Roman Church”, written by JC Macaulay for Moody Press Publications in 1946, the topic of the Cult of Mary is covered more in-depth as well as other Roman Catholic doctrines that are so unscriptural that they could only come from one place, and it isn’t God. Other books such as “The Two Babylons” written in the 1800s talks about the connection with Babylonian paganism and the Roman Church. A matter of fact most, if not all, of the reformers in the Reformation believed The Roman Catholic Church was a system of anti-Christ. And given that they hold Mary in equal or higher esteem than Christ that is an easy to prove statement in itself.
My hope is that this article will cause you to do your own research and seek the truth. That is the very reason we are called Truth & Freedom Radio and Truth & Freedom Ministries, because by the truth you can be set free. Christ is that truth and to be in him, not anyone else, is freedom.