Direct Link to Latest News


Simon Magus -- The lluminati's Jesus?

January 3, 2011

simon_magus.jpgIntroducing the most important person in history you never heard of.

By Jack Walton

The full life of Simon Magus is mostly unknown, just as the events of the life of the historical Jesus. 

He was most likely the same age as Jesus, and died shortly before Peter, his greatest enemy, in Rome, before it was burned in 64 AD. 

This is not disputed by Christian scholars.  He was the towering figure of his time, along with his
wife, Helen, the Jezebel and whore of Babylon from Revelation.

According to Bible Scholars Barbara Thiering and Hans Jonas, Simon Magus was the founder of the Gnostic church and was the direct competitor with Christianity for the hearts and minds of the Greco Roman world.  

Simon is the Beast, the original Antichrist, and the true identity of the number 666. He was so powerful in fact, that he is known by many different names in the Bible.  Once all his "names" are learned, a very different picture of the Gospel emerges, one in which Jesus and Simon were creating two very different religions, for the reformation of Judaism, and the conversion of the Greco Roman/Pagan world to the Judaic god.

The circles that Magus worked in were the Illuminati of his time. At the time this consisted of what we would consider both "white" and "black" magicians, including the apostles of Jesus and the sects they led, (the "good" guys) as well as the Herod family, and the higher echelons of Rome, and the gnostic magicians (the Saturnalian or "black" magicians).

Thus, the "good guys" and the "bad guys had their start together at this time and later split up.   Simon Magus was a Samaritan Jew, whose particular version of Judaism incorporated the sexual licentiousness of the ancient Babylonian religions. 

According to Clement, the early church father, Magus could, levitate items on command, speak with spirits, summon demons and place them into statues making the statues walk and talk, fly, and even raise the dead.

These were all deceptions designed to indoctrinate his followers into believing he was a god.  His religion, the Gnostic religion, was the sect that preceded Christianity in the Diaspora.  The current Illuminati religion (freemasonry) is based on Gnosticism and the ancient Babylonian mysticism (Satanism?) that he incorporated into his version of Judaism that he was selling (quite literally) to the masses of the Greco-Roman world.

He is the inspiration for Faust, and modern televangelist deceivers continue his tradition whether they realize it or not (i.e., religion based on deception.)  Anytime there is a reference to someone selling their soul to the devil, it is a reference to Faust, who was inspired by Simon Magus.

The medieval Rosicrucians who compiled the story of Faust understood all this (are they not Illuminati?)  One of the great untold stories of Christianity is how Peter and Paul came behind Simon and converted his many followers to Christianity.

In the beginning, Magus had been a follower of John the Baptist, and because of his genius and ability, was accepted by Jesus and the other Apostles. Simon's early role in Judaism before his diaspora career, would be seen today as like an intelligence operative. He was of course, cast out of their ranks when they learned who he was. 

One of the major things he did was attempt to organize a mass revolt against Pilate and the son of Herod, which was put down brutally.  Pilate sought out the three leaders (at this time in Israel there was always leaders of three, symbolically priest, king and Levite). 

At this time they were all considered zealots by Rome, which has come down mistranslated as thieves.  These men were Simon, Judas (yes the Judas) and a man who went under the pseudonym Barabbas (son of the father). 

Because of his association with these men, Jesus (who had tried to teach peace and love, but had given political cover to the zealots) ended up crucified.  This is the true historical reason for the crucifixion of Jesus, lost to history.  It can only be known by piecing many different sources together, like lost pieces of a grand puzzle. 

These sources are, Josephus, Pliny, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library, the Apocrypha, and the Gospels themselves.

Because of his stature, and the complexity of his life and relation to Jesus, Simon's  accomplishments were divided by the Christians, and attributed to multiple people, under multiple pseudonyms.  In other words, he was so dangerous, that he was practically wiped from history, except for those "in the know."

A great animosity existed between Simon and Peter.  Simon's religion was based on deception, (Simon represented himself as a god), allowed for sexual licentiousness (the origins of "sex-magic", which included orgies and homosexuality by his followers.

Peter taught abstinence in marriage, except for procreation, and this drew a lot of women to his flock.  This information is available in the apocryphal works of the Bible.  Simon's death is well known to history, preserved in a way fitting to the superstitious masses of the time.

 Simon was "flying" over the rooftops of Rome, in an attempt to win the hearts of the Romans from Peter, who was very popular with many.  Peter went to his knees praying, as the story goes, and angels caused Simon to lose his power and fall to his death.

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Simon Magus -- The lluminati's Jesus? "

James said (January 7, 2011):

Jack has potential to be a good researcher, and he's done a good bit of work, but he must be intensely careful into reading hidden meaning where there may well not be any...that's the original problem of the gnostics in the first place. Also one major point he neglected,
is that Christ couldn't *be* tricked or fooled, he would certainly be able to spot simon magus coming, and know his nature. This aside, the
evils that think they rule, may indeed think of magus as a sort of christ, at least, one faction of their number might, so I would encourage him to continue looking into it (and keep us apprised of his findings), but to be very very careful, for what we researchers have to deal with here, is a sort of maze, a very large one, built by the
evils to protect their core and to obscure the truth. This maze is strewn with all manner of traps and pitfalls, false leads that dead
end in stagnation or illusory scripts concocted by the servants of evil, and these traps can hold a person for life, if they chose to
remain therein, and believe the script...and if you get too close or become too troublesome to keep at bay, well you know as well as I,
what happens then.

Jack (the author) said (January 6, 2011):

Jack comments on comments

Ah yes, certain things that don’t make sense, seemingly contradictory. There are many instances in the gospels that seem this way. Scholars wrongly suppose the Gospels to be written hundreds of years after the fact, and there are many mistakes. What if the opposite were true, that there are no mistakes, and that a deeper level, the meanings sync up? I wrote this article to get people thinking, and also to point the way to some research that has been ignored for many years. Most people will simply reject this info out of hand without doing any research about where it comes from. One should start with Australian theologian Barbra Thiering. Most scholars have rejected her work out of hand without testing her hypothesis. Many have aped her work without doing any real research. The Da Vinci Code comes to mind, as does Zeitgeist.

How can Simon have been crucified only to die in Rome 30 years later? First of all, there was no crucifixion penalty for thieves in the Roman Empire. It was the worst of all deaths and reserved for what Rome viewed as the worst crime: sedition. Zealots, the Jews who were basically for War with Rome, would sometimes take to highway robbery and would be called robbers, (thieves) With this in mind we have a different picture. Jesus was for peace, he said, “love thy neighbor” But did he not associate with zealots from the point of view of Rome? “Iscariot” refers to the Sicarri, a kind of dagger, used by Zealots in assassination. Judas Iscariot and Simon the Cananaen (Simon the Zealot; Simon Magus) were “hung” as “thieves” with Jesus. After 6 hours on the Cross, Jesus “gave up the ghost,” but according to John, the two thieves had their legs broken and were removed from the crosses, with their legs broken. This is in the New English Standard Version, and seems to be left out in the King James. Judas, who had betrayed Jesus, later “bought himself a field, and was flung headlong, his bowels spilling forth.” In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the term “hung” seems to mean “hang on a tree,” as in crucifixion, which it seems the “Lion of Wrath” ie Pilate, did a lot of. This did not mean, to hang by the neck, a European-medieval paradigm. So right there are two different deaths for Judas: one where he hung himself (he thought he’d be safe through his betrayal but wasn’t), and one where he was disemboweled. Couldn’t the same now be true for Simon?

Louise said (January 6, 2011):

Hello Henry, just wondering if you're aware of the "Real" Illuminati's website and the teachings on it, ?

I think I actually found it through your site, via Wes Penre. Very, very interesting information contained on that site. Among other things, these Illuminati, who are not evil, by the way, regard Simon Magus as the real Christ, and Jesus as one who was plotting to overthrow the Roman rule at the time and establish his family on the Throne of David with his brother James as king, once again to rule the Hebrews.

They not only believe he was most definitely NOT the Christ, but that he was an evil one. As far as the Bible is concerned, I cannot understand why anyone who believes in Love and Peace could believe that the 'god' of the Bible, Jehovah, was anything but a psychopathic war god.

The so called "God of Abraham" was malicious, vengeful, hateful, and was a genocidal maniac. The whole Old Testament is nothing but stories of certain wandering tribes - who, as we all know by now, did not worship just one god, but many - who's chief god chose them and directed them to destroy entire villages, to kill innocent men, women and children, in his name, even in one instance to kill everyone in a village but the virgins, which they could keep for themselves. This god commanded Abraham to kill his own child to test his loyalty, and people somehow revere that!!?? Why do we think people are insane when they kill their own children nowadays and claim God made them do it!? Why is it any different!?

Stories like Lot, who gave the townsmen his own virgin daughters to rape, in order to protect a few guys he thought were angels??!! What would we say of a man who did that today, wouldn't we accuse him of the horrible crime of prostituting his children!? The Old Testament is rife with such stories and people believe this was a people and a god of Love and Peace?!

Jesus in no way taught anything other than Judaism, he never started a new religion, and never intended to. In fact, did he not say I come not to bring peace, but a sword? How is that loving or peaceful?! The story of Jesus is just that, a story, and the religion, most of it, was created by Paul who was a Mithraic priest and who put the story of Mithras to a Roman tune in order to have it be acceptable by the Roman masses.

And believe it or not, Henry, I spent 90% of my life a very devoted Catholic/Christian believer in Jesus. But when presented with opposite evidence, it's very difficult not to realize we've been duped, big time.


Thanks Louise,

I think you have misjudged Jesus. I wouldn't believe Illuminati websites. The prove of Jesus'
authenticity is in his teachings in the NT.


Jack (author) said (January 5, 2011):

Thank you so much for giving this info a chance I love the picture, I believe that's from the book of Acts of the Apostles.

I know a lot of people wont be open to the article. I hope you have not been too put off by some of the information yourself.

If you're still interested, their is more info from another great researcher's work at There's a lot there!

Here's an explanation of the logic of my article if you wish to pass on to anyone who's interested. (Just not my name please! Thank you!)

I am not an Atheist and have no interest in insulting christians! I was raised a christian and consider myself christian because i believe in christ's teachings of brotherly love and forgiveness. I believe in a spiritual life after death, just so you know who you're dealing with.

However I do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God or God or anything like that. Is it wrong, or indeed more mature, to think that in a way all humanity is the child of God? Pagan literature was rife with gods mating with humans. Does the truth really lie in the realm of this possibility. Is it not a more mature outlook too acknowledge that Christianity was Judaism reformed and changed in a way that the God of Abraham would be acceptable to the Greco Roman world, which was mired in the many pagan cults, so that the gospel writers incorporated some of that Hellenistic culture into the mystery of Jesus. I believe that there is a surface story to the gospel, but that it is written in the form of a mystery, like a Stanley Kubrick movie. I know that "mystery" as in "mystery-schools" is a term used by masons-I'm not one of them-but, i can't think of another word more appropriate for the concept. On one level there's this story with magic and miracles and riddles and parables, but on another level there's real-world-political-meaning there; like church reforms and Pythagorean numerology (John's 103 fishes) and hidden history. It all sounds fantastical until one begins to test the theory by pulling together all the information. I cant at the moment remember exactly where but Jesus tells his followers "For you are the keys to the kingdom, but for the babes in Christ, all is parables." I would like to believe that it is all as simple as the neighborhood pastor says it is. Indeed that is just fine and perfect for a lot of people. But Jesus understood that education is a process, and that not every lesson was appropriate for every student. If someone made a biography of your life but it had to be the standard length, wouldn't you have to tell a complex story in a way that people would remember it, but would it really ever exactly mirror the truth?

I know the Illuminati wants nothing more than to discredit the Christian religion. They have a virulent hatred of it. It's one of the reasons they've been telling you the gospels were written 400 years after the fact! I am not trying to contribute to that. I KNOW, because of the existence of the Dead Sea scroll, that the Gospels stylistically belong to the first century. If you were a historian with no dates and just style to go on, you wouldn't place Stephen King in the same era as Shakespeare, but you would Thomas Marlowe!

Anyways, in many instances the modern Church is controlled by the Illuminati! They infiltrated it just as they infiltrated the masonic lodges in the 1700's. I understand you may disagree, but from my research believe there were many "white" lodges up to this time, and still are today; but the satanists took over and occupied the center. Their greatest weapons have been mind control and control of money. Money itself is just another mind control spell, that's why they put all the magic symbols hidden subliminally, coupled with the picture of an authority figure, whether president, king or emperor (in the future i guess it will be stock brokers). Money demands our submission, its power and value exists solely within our minds.

I know that Jesus was always hated by powerful people with money. I believe the scene of Jesus whipping the money changers needs no secondary interpretation! However many instances of the Gospel do, and even suggests it. If nothing more seek out the Homilies and Recognitions of Clement. They are if nothing else a great read!

I believe must own up to the true history of our culture, while at the same time preserving a creed of love, forgiveness, compassion, complete with all the values that make family and community thrive! A tall order I know! But if we can't learn to see what the good guys have hidden, how can we learn to see what the bad guys are hiding?

Once again thank you for your open-mindedness and you're generosity of posting this information on your site

Irish Dan said (January 5, 2011):

Jack Walton's article is a good but only as a general starting point on Simon Magus. While there is a fascination with this figure since the start of Christianity, the first question arise : do Simon merit this attention as a figure of importance ? Google Simon and there are 192,000 results, Google Jesus and there are 32, 300.000 results, this alone is testimony to the respective importance and impact of both individuals in history and religion.

This time last year I remember the subject arising on a Roman Catholic site . One of the problems of any serious study of Simon and indeed Jesus the person, is that both are abstracted from their historical frame of reference. The religious / philosophical ferment of ideas that was Alexandria at that period is not appreciated outside of scholastic circles and specialist studies.

Likewise with Greek and Roman society of the period : prostitution, homosexuality, pederasty and every imaginable kind of sexual practice was common place. Accounts of the Colosseum describe poor boys going around the crowds naked from the waist down pleading for 'business'

Simon has some importance as a historical and inspirational figure. However much of those 192,000 references relate to other historical figures and 'gurus' of other times, including our own, who to give their own current ideas currency and authority, attributed ideas and teaching to Simon that often do not belong to the period, much less to the man.

Of course Jesus also often suffers the same fate in that Western Christianity in the main, ignore or gloss over the very Jewishness of Jesus and all that entailed, from a social and religious viewpoint.

Marcos said (January 5, 2011):

This funny article reminds me of the legend of the Pilatus Mountain, in Lucerne, where people believe that Pontius Pilate's ghost rises every Good Friday to wash his hands from the blood of Christ, causing storms. Any famous historical character causes people to create legends and tales.

Simon Magus was just a sorcerer who converted to Christ. (Acts 8:9-25). The Bible says he believed. However, he was so much into sin and deception that he thought the things of God (which are free) worked in the same way the things of Satan do, and he tried to buy power with money. He was rebuked, repented and was afraid.

Satanists don't want people to understand this simple story, because it shows that a man who served Satan just realized that his power was nothing when compared to the power of the Holy Ghost displayed by the apostles. He passed to the stronger side.

So Satanists love to make complicated what is simple, in the hope people miss the central point of the story: God's power is the greatest and is freely given. Satan's power is limited, and must be bought with enslavement and blood rituals. And there is no guarantee that he will deliver the goods.

Bill said (January 5, 2011):

The author of "Simon Magus -- The lluminati's Jesus?" says that Simon was one of the 3 zealots crucified by Pilate. Later he says that Simon was killed by falling out of the sky above Rome. He also claims that Peter taught abstinence in marriage, except for procreation. Not in the Bible... In fact, Peter had a wife and it was Paul who taught in 1Cor 7 that if a man "burned with passion" he should get married - due to his lack of self control. Therefore, marriage is the Biblical remedy for horniness (as well as loneliness - see Genesis), Procreation would happen as a matter of course, and thus the Cultural Mandate would be fulfilled. The author also makes it seem as if (all) women prefer to abstinence in marriage. I don't believe that this is true. I wonder how much of the article is true. I look forward to reading the comments of others. Thanks for putting it out there as a discussion starter.

David said (January 5, 2011):

In my opinion, Jack Walton's article on Simon Magus is based on fiction and contradicts more reliable sources. There is no evidence that Simon was accepted by Jesus and the apostles or that Jesus knew him at all.

If Walton places such credibility in his sources, he might as well quote the Talmud on Jesus and Mary.

Caroline said (January 5, 2011):

Just needed to point out to Jack Walton that orgies and homosexuality were already a great part of the pagan and secular world at that time; they did not stem directly from Magus. And you don’t need a bible scholar to point that out. Also, if Jesus was arrested simply for association, for what reason would He have been taken in secret in the middle of the night? And I doubt He Himself would be fooled by Simon Magus. And “apocrypha” are two completely different things depending on if you’re Roman Catholic or Protestant. And Barbara Theiring is not a bible scholar. Neither is Hans Jonas, who was a Gnostic philosopher. This is full of holes and misinformation (but makes for an interesting discussion and a rambling rant on my part!) Now as a traditional Roman Catholic who has not been duped by freemasonry, Rosicrucians (i.e. Martin Luther), newageism, or the Jack Waltons of the world, I’m going back to reading my Douay-Rheims Bible (complete with apocrypha!)

Austin said (January 5, 2011):

I'm not claiming to be that well informed, however, the author of this 'patchwork quilt' has indeed cobbled together a fabrication of some of the facts. The story I read some months ago was that Simon Magus had indeed traveled to Rome many years later, after his appearance in Acts chapter 8, and that he was essentially the progenitor of what would eventually become the RC church in the early 4th century AD.

As for the Apochrypha, no serious Bible student recognizes them as scripture, as they are regarded by most as fables and not even historical accounts. Barbara Thiering is recognized by most evangelical Christians as a New Ager/Modernist and is not paid any attention nor given any credit for her unbiblical ramblings.

Funnily enough, the Apochrypha does appear in most RC Bibles (eg: the Knox version - I have one) as it seems that the RC church must needs to rely on fables and tradition, rather than solid Bible truth.

Rob said (January 5, 2011):

I just finished reading the latest article posted on your site. WHOA! It was a doozy. It could sure use a bibliography.

I think that the author has pieced alot of information together that may not necessarily be accurate.

Like I said, an article like this, without a good bibliography, reads like a comic book from the first century.


I agree,

Hoping other informed people will come forward.


Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at