And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome:-- "Simoni Deo Sancto," "To Simon the holy God." And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians . . .
I will agree with you that the title is a little misleading but in the statement that Justin makes here he says that the followers of Simon Magus were called Christians. He isn't saying that they were "Christians", only that they went by the name "Christians" and were called "Christians". True Christians did not trust magicians like Simon the Magician and his disciples, but those who were not true Christians did trust him. Isn't that what Justin Martyr is saying here?
CHAP. VI.--DO NOT ACCEPT JUDAISM. If any one confesses Christ Jesus the Lord, but denies the God of the law and of the prophets, saying that the Father of Christ is not the Maker of heaven and earth, he has not continued in the truth any more than his father the devil, and is a disciple of Simon Magus, not of the Holy Spirit.
Once again the title here is misleading, because he is saying that the God of the New Testament is the God of the Old Testament. Apparently the disciples of Simon Magus were teaching some form of Replacement Theology, trying to separate Christians from their Jewish heritage and the Law and the Prophets, and making them think that God was finished with the nation of Israel.
THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE PHILADELPHIANS Again, Christians are the disciples of the Holy Spirit, thus placing a distinction between Christians and Simon Magus...
Thank you for pointing this out. Remember Simon Magus's encounter with Peter in Acts. He wanted the Holy Spirit but the apostle Peter refused and rebuked him, because his heart was not right with God. He and his followers are of a different spirit, even though they may call the spirit they have "the Holy Spirit".
CHAP. XXXII.--FURTHER EXPOSURE OF THE WICKED AND BLASPHEMOUS DOCTRINES OF THE HERETICS. ...And if they have in truth accomplished anything [remarkable] by means of magic, they strive [in this way] deceitfully to lead foolish people astray, since they confer no real benefit or blessing on those over whom they declare that they exert] supernatural] power; but, bringing forward mere boys [as the subjects on whom they practise], and deceiving their sight, while they exhibit phantasms that instantly cease, and do not endure even a moment of time, they are proved to be like, not Jesus our Lord, but Simon the magician.
IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES -- BOOK II
Again, the TITLE proves you wrong. Note again the distinction between those who follow Simon are NOT the same as those who follow Jesus (these disciples are known as "Christians", not followers of Simon the Magician)
The Title proves nothing. The substance of the writing is what is important and it is evidence that Simon Magus started a religious sect in Rome circa 42 AD that went by the name "Christians" and it grew and evolved to encompass a lot of Christian heresies that Irenaeus traces back Simon Magus and his disciples. The substance of his writings prove my assertion once again.
Clearly, your idea that Simon the Magician founded a Christian group is false
What were his followers called???? I highlighted it for you.
and NOT documented by the above writings.
Their statements on this matter are right in front of you --- they can't be more clear.
the problem is your reading of the primary writings.
My eyes are just fine, thank you --- and yours?
I don't see how you misconstrue the obvious - that Christians and Simon the Magician were opposed - just as in Sacred Scriptures - AND - Simon was OPPOSED BY PETER SPECIFICALLY in Acts of the Apostles...
Justin Martyr and Irenaeus tell us that Simon Magus started a counterfeit Christian religion there in Rome whose followers were "called" Christians. They were counterfeit Christians. He was the Bishop of this counterfeit Christian religiom from 42 AD? to 67 AD?
Does the Roman Catholic Church trace its magisterial doctrines, practices and authority to a Roman Bishop who sat in a sacerdotal chair for 25 years from 42 AD? to 67 AD? Yes or No.
Since we know it wasn't Simon Peter in that chair, then could it have been Simon Magus who was that Bishop in that sacerdotal chair upon which the Roman Catholic Church was founded????????? Yes or No.
We don't know that. You think you know that. Of course, the same Irenaeus you quote also says that the Roman see is to be obeyed and that the episcopate at Rome goes back to Peter.
WE know no such thing. Anti-Catholic bigots seem to have stumbled upon it rather recently. But lets look at it another way -- almost all Christians in Europe were Catholic until just under 500 years ago, so how is it that your "pure" form of Christianity survived? Because I have to say that the nonsense you're coming up with is more laughable than all of the "Da Vinci Code" garbage.
First, on Justin.
"And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians . . ."
You then wrote: Justin makes here he says that the followers of Simon Magus were called Christians. He isn't saying that they were "Christians", only that they went by the name "Christians" and were called "Christians". True Christians did not trust magicians like Simon the Magician and his disciples, but those who were not true Christians did trust him. Isn't that what Justin Martyr is saying here?
First, let me finish where you left off, so as to better explain my rebuttal.
"...All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them.
Justin is saying that Simon is claiming to be something he is not. The name "christian" is not indicative of his beliefs. Just because Simon calls himself "christian" doesn't make him a Christian, just as calling oneself a philosopher doesn't make it so. If you care to read on, you will find that Simon teaches that HE HIMSELF is a manifestation of God. For example, in the same chapter you quote:
"And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god"
This is in line with the charecter mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.
Justin makes the same statements elsewhere. Now, at what point does the Catholic Church worship anyone OTHER THAN Jesus Christ as God? Thus, how can you make the comparison of Simon the Magician with the Catholic Church, since the Catholic Church never says what Simon the Magician claims?
You wrote: Apparently the disciples of Simon Magus were teaching some form of Replacement Theology, trying to separate Christians from their Jewish heritage and the Law and the Prophets, and making them think that God was finished with the nation of Israel.
If any one confesses Christ Jesus the Lord, but denies the God of the law and of the prophets, saying that the Father of Christ is not the Maker of heaven and earth, he has not continued in the truth any more than his father the devil, and is a disciple of Simon Magus, not of the Holy Spirit.
My post of Ignatius was meant to compare Simon the Magician with those who believe in the Holy Spirit, thus, separating the two beliefs. The latter one is the orthodox faith, as witnessed by the rest of the Fathers, in continuity with the Catholic Church of today, thus, again, the association you make fails...
You wrote: The substance of the writing [Irenaeus] is what is important and it is evidence that Simon Magus started a religious sect in Rome circa 42 AD that went by the name "Christians" and it grew and evolved to encompass a lot of Christian heresies that Irenaeus traces back Simon Magus and his disciples A fantastic leap of faith based on a misreading of what is written. where exactly does Irenaeus make that accusation? NOWHERE. Irenaeus goes to great lengths to condemn the magician - while Irenaeus pronouncing that the following:
CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES -- BOOK III
Does Irenaeus sound like he is accusing the Catholic Church, the one established by Peter and Paul, to be one with the heretics, such as Simon the Magician? Irenaeus is the last person you will find your pet theory! He clearly states that the Roman Church is the center of Christian teaching Tradition, a Tradition given by St. Peter and Paul themselves! The substance of the writing merely proves you incorrect.
Does the Roman Catholic Church trace its magisterial doctrines, practices and authority to a Roman Bishop who sat in a sacerdotal chair for 25 years from 42 AD? to 67 AD? Yes or No.
I already told you that I cannot tell you without doubt that Peter was bishop for 25 years. But without doubt, Peter taught at Rome, Peter died at Rome, and Rome was considered the center of orthodox teaching for 1000 years by the ENTIRE Church, including the Eastern Fathers. Simon of Samaria, the magician, holds no commonality of doctrines with the Catholic Church. The smoke and mirrors of trying to associate Simon Peter with Simon the Magician is dead on arrival.
Regards