Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Uncle Chip
Correct. And we learn from the ante-Nicene fathers that this Simon Magus went to Rome and established the sacerdotal chair of an ecclesiastical system of a counterfeit Christianity, and this Simon was its first Pope.

OK, I got from my exchange with Diego that this Simon Magus went to Rome. And that he was there during the reign of Emporer Claudius.

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 Cæsar, 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, Menander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetæa, 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; 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. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds—the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh—we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.

Justin Martyr, First Apology, 26

Irenaeus also spoke of him in his work, Adversus Haereses (I,23).

But, as I pointed out in my earlier post to you (to which you never responded), Irenaeus also, in the same work (3,1) discusses the Church at Rome being founded by Peter.

So it seems, from that reference to Irenaeus and the others I cited in the above post, that the Ante-Nicene Fathers are in agreement that Peter founded the Church in Rome.

Having said that, if you can provide me a citation of where an Ante-Nicene Father specifically supports your claims, I'd be happy to look up the reference.

Or, let me guess, you're calling the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church a gnostic sect...sure thing.

1,449 posted on 03/08/2007 3:34:51 PM PST by markomalley (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus CINO-RINO GRAZIE NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1439 | View Replies ]


To: markomalley; Diego1618
So it seems, from that reference to Irenaeus and the others I cited in the above post, that the Ante-Nicene Fathers are in agreement that Peter founded the Church in Rome.

Actually according to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul founded the church of Rome, not Peter alone. However, if you read the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans, neither Peter nor Paul founded the church of Rome. It was functioning just fine without an apostolic visit of any kind when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans in 56 AD.

But also: Do you remember my question: When did Peter become Bishop of Rome as legend has it?

Read your quote from Irenaeus carefully. Irenaeus says that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, followed by Clement then Anacletus. So according to Irenaeus Peter was never the Bishop of Rome and there is no indication that he resided there for any period of time.

1,463 posted on 03/08/2007 4:39:43 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1449 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson