Who was Simon Magus?

[marydlong]

Was Simon Magus part of the Catholic Church? Where did he come from? What did he do?

 

[thistle]

Was Simon Magus part of the Catholic Church? Where did he come from? What did he do?

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Simon_Magus

 

[bpbasilphx]

Since there was only one Church at that time, the answer would be “yes.”

According to Eusebius, he was a Samaritan. He tried, with the assistance of his colleague Helena, to fly off a tower he built in Rome, but fell to his death.

These tidbits from Eusebius were worked in the novel and movie THE SILVER CHALICE.

 

[Pons]

Don’t trust Wikipedia on this; his article is polluted by gnomes who think they know better. As are most religious articles I suspect. I only use it for fun stuff.

 

[thistle]

Don’t trust Wikipedia on this; his article is polluted by gnomes who think they know better. As are most religious articles I suspect. I only use it for fun stuff.

How does Wikipedia come in to this?

 

[ryanoneil]

According to the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, Christian tradition calls Simon the Magician the father of heretics and the founder of Gnosticism.

 

[mariachi]

The question was: Was Simon Magus part of the Catholic Church?

 

[Deconi]

Was Simon Magus part of the Catholic Church? Where did he come from? What did he do?

Since he made it into Scriptures, he is part of Catholic teaching, but he is not Catholic.

The question is whether he was a member of The Catholic Church, not whether he was a part of The Catholic Church. Read around for the historical accounts regarding his activities during the time of The Apostles.

 

[mariachi]

Some say it was actually Simon Magus who was the first pope, not the apostle Peter.

The confusion comes from the name “Simon Peter.” The name “Peter” was not only a surname, but was used to mean priest. In fact, the word “Magus” is the Chaldean/Persian word for “priest”.

Simon Magus was actually a sorcerer and priest before (and after) he met the apostle Peter. Simon Magus (the priest) travelled to Rome after being rejected to receive the Holy Spirit (remember he wanted to buy it so he could profit from it, thus the word “simony”) and began a religion there.

In contrast, Peter only went to Rome to be executed. It was Paul, not Peter, that delivered the gospel to the Romans. They didn’t tread on each other’s teritory. Paul, not Peter, was the apostle to the gentiles (i.e. Romans).

In fact, after both Peter and Paul were put to death at Rome, the Pope then actually transfered their bodies to Britain, from whence they were taken to be killed in Rome. Indeed, Simon Peter is buried in Rome, but not the apostle Peter. It’s Simon Magus.

That’s who Simon Magus was; the first Pope.

 

[Mvrk]

Some say it was actually Simon Magus who was the first pope, not the apostle Peter.

it’s an old hoax i think

The confusion comes from the name “Simon Peter.” The name “Peter” was not only a surname, but was used to mean priest. In fact, the word “Magus” is the Chaldean/Persian word for “priest”.

Unfortunately, His name is Simon Kepha. Peter derived from Greek then to Latin.

…

In contrast, Peter only went to Rome to be executed. It was Paul, not Peter, that delivered the gospel to the Romans. They didn’t tread on each other’s teritory. Paul, not Peter, was the apostle to the gentiles (i.e. Romans).

Peter write a letter, and he send it via Sylvanus.

1Pe 5:12 By Sylvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I think, **I have written briefly: **beseeching and testifying that this is the true grace of God, wherein you stand.
1Pe 5:13 **The church that is in Babylon, **elected together with you, saluteth you. **And so doth my son, Mark. **
1Pe 5:14 Salute one another with a holy kiss. Grace be to all you who are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

Babylon, like Anti-catholic said. It’s refer to Rome, the old Rome pagan. Before the era of Christianity.

Rev 16:19 And the great city was divided into three parts: and the cities of the Gentiles fell. And great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the indignation of his wrath.

As you know, Paul gone to Rome with Mark.

Col 4:10 Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, saluteth you: and Mark, the cousin german of Barnabas, touching whom you have received commandments. If he come unto you, receive him.

So Mark with Peter, Mark with Paul. According to the historical record:

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.” Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

“It is, therefore, recorded that** Paul was beheaded in Rome itself,** and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: ‘But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.’” Gaius, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

In fact, after both Peter and Paul were put to death at Rome, the Pope then actually transfered their bodies to Britain, from whence they were taken to be killed in Rome.** Indeed, Simon Peter is buried in Rome, but not the apostle Peter.** It’s Simon Magus.

I think, there is no strong proof for this.

That’s who Simon Magus was; the first Pope.

Not according the Historical facts

 

[Deconi]

Some say it was actually Simon Magus who was the first pope, not the apostle Peter.

The confusion comes from the name “Simon Peter.” The name “Peter” was not only a surname, but was used to mean priest. In fact, the word “Magus” is the Chaldean/Persian word for “priest”.

Simon Magus was actually a sorcerer and priest before (and after) he met the apostle Peter. Simon Magus (the priest) travelled to Rome after being rejected to receive the Holy Spirit (remember he wanted to buy it so he could profit from it, thus the word “simony”) and began a religion there.

In contrast, Peter only went to Rome to be executed. It was Paul, not Peter, that delivered the gospel to the Romans. They didn’t tread on each other’s teritory. Paul, not Peter, was the apostle to the gentiles (i.e. Romans).

In fact, after both Peter and Paul were put to death at Rome, the Pope then actually transfered their bodies to Britain, from whence they were taken to be killed in Rome. Indeed, Simon Peter is buried in Rome, but not the apostle Peter. It’s Simon Magus.

That’s who Simon Magus was; the first Pope.

Hogwash, of course.

Paul and John were alive when Pete was Pope. When Peter was martyred, Paul and John were there and neither Evangelist mention the error, because Magus was NOT the Pope. Linus and Clement ascended to Pete’s Seat in John’s lifetime, albeit, he was very old. Yet he had enough command of his faculties to write Revelation and the rest of his works…none of which mention Magus.

Not to mention the martyrdom of the remaining Apostles who followed Pete’s leadership through Linus, Clement, et al.

There is no question that Magus was NOT St Peter.

Only deliberate liars who do not want to admit the veracity and pedigree of The Catholic Church entertain ANY version of history that would ‘validate’ their own dissention, in spite the absurdity of suggesting a bogus Pope reigned whilst Apostles existed to refute it.

FAIL!

 

[KatyFollower]

I think, there is no strong proof for this. Not according the Historical facts

I found this last night…

The disciple Peter’s tomb was discovered in Jerusalem.

The charcoal inscription reads: “Shimon Bar Yonah” which means “Simon [Peter] son of Jonah”.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

 

[mikelionheart]

I found this last night…

The disciple Peter’s tomb was discovered in Jerusalem.

The charcoal inscription reads: “Shimon Bar Yonah” which means “Simon [Peter] son of Jonah”.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

This is, of course, complete drivel that is only believed by those with a vested interest in disputing true history - usually so called ‘born agains’.

Presumably they feel the need to spread lies about the history of other churches because their own historical link to the early Christians is non existent.

 

[patrick8888]

This is, of course, complete drivel that is only believed by those with a vested interest in disputing true history - usually so called ‘born agains’.

Presumably they feel the need to spread lies about the history of other churches because their own historical link to the early Christians is non existent.

There are some pretty nasty anti-Catholic sites out there. It stuns me the amount of hate. This one in particular. They state some practices of the church to gnostic practices.
truthontheweb.org/sipeter.htm

 

[TimothyH]

Simon was baptized and therefor Catholic.

Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed. (Acts of the Apostles 8:13)

Much else that is known about him is disputed. newadvent.org/cathen/13797b.htm

-Tim-