Posted on 01/26/2016 7:32:29 PM PST by ebb tide
Then of course we learn Magus went to Rome immediately after Peter’s rebuke of him
You are going to believe what you want to believe, but as I have indicated, I found out what I was wanting to know.
Magus never went to Rome?
Magus never went to Rome?
As I mentioned in my original post to you, I found that there is a tradition that Simon Magus was in Rome. I also found that there is a tradition that Simon Magus founded a Gnostic sect called Simonianism that lasted into the fourth century.
What I was wanting to know is whether there was a tradition that Simon Pater impersonated Simon Peter and founded the universal religion known now as Catholicism.
From what I could find on the internet, it appears that there was no such tradition from the early writings; that it was only within the last several years that somebody came up with this idea.
Who was the impostor in the early church that required the intervention of an apostle Eusebius wrote about?
Who was the impostor in the early church that required the intervention of an apostle Eusebius wrote about?
We’ve covered this. Eusebius identified the imposter as Simon and wrote that Simon went to Rome. He went on to write that Providence led the apostle Peter to Rome against this great corrupter of life.
There are some who theorize that this Simon that Eusebius wrote about was actually Paul. More recently, others have postulated that Peter did not come to Rome and Simon impersonated the apostle and was the first leader of Catholocism.
As far as I can tell, though, the latter postulation was made only during the last several years. Can you provide an earlier date for this idea?
This Lutheran heretic thanks God for the reformation Those of you who think I am damned will be very surprised to see me in Heaven worshipping my Savior and Lord. Here I stand I can do no other
Amen and amen
Hundreds of millions will see life in Heaven thanks to Luther’s exposure of the heretical teachings of the RC church and again bringing the simple Gospel of grace to the people. I’m glad you sit high enough on your horse to condemn Lutherans and other Protestans It might surprise you that I only care what God thinks not you.
I have experienced eternal life because of Luther I was taught Sone saving doctrine in the church he founded and live steadfast in my Savior with full assurance of my salvation You cannot say that about your church if you are a good catholic
I doubt it. I posted this article on January 26 and you still seem to be obsessed with the Church that you have apostatized from.
Guilt complex, perhaps?
I was pinged to the article tonight. I am not obsessed with it and have no guilt. Rather I am grateful for my separation from the errors of Rome, and rejoice the gospel of grace I have been taught. But thanks for your concern.
As I wrote in post 100, "As expected you ignore the scriptures to defend your antisemitic hero Luther, which makes sense when one’s gospel is really based on Luther."
Eusebius was a follower of the works of Origen, Origen being the man who took the Received Texts and mixed in paganism to make it catch on in pagan populations, which is the basis of Catholicism, universalism. It was important to have gravitas, hence the claim it was Peter rather than Paul who went to Rome which led to the confrontation with the impostor.
There are some who theorize that this Simon that Eusebius wrote about was actually Paul. More recently, others have postulated that Peter did not come to Rome and Simon impersonated the apostle and was the first leader of Catholocism.
The finding of the Peter's ossuary in Jerusalem makes it more evident, translating into more research recently.
As far as I can tell, though, the latter postulation was made only during the last several years. Can you provide an earlier date for this idea?
I do have a long list of references it would take a lot of time to put together. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming to an unbiased observer, but I don't know if your smoking gun is there. The Catholic Church has had 1500+ years to destroy evidence. The Catholic Church ran Europe all through the Dark Ages, making it illegal to study the bible in some cases, they would have certainly destroyed any direct evidence that proved Magus was their founder. That's probably why the first historians we have on the subject are from 200 years later, I'm sure the contemporary historical accounts were all destroyed.
I do have a long list of references it would take a lot of time to put together. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming to an unbiased observer, but I don’t know if your smoking gun is there.
I’ll take this as no, you cannot provide an earlier date for this idea. I certainly could not.
Well, the Received Texts (the bible) have been around since the apostles times, but if you refuse to see what's going on in the bible then you have Hasting’s Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, 1852. Hastings documents how Magus affected the early church in Rome.
And know that Christianity wasn't really legal until Constantine proclaimed it legal around 310. So there was no one place for Christians to fellowship. They would fellowship in small groups until Constantine declared Christianity legal and gave them land and building grants in Rome. So you have all these sects coming together for the first time, ans Magus' universalism would have been prevalent in a lot of these sects, hence all the unbiblical practices of the RCC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.