Who really founded the Catholic Church?
-
We know from the bible that the apostle Peter could not have founded the church of Rome. There are many proofs to substantiate this. I will just name one or two.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Galatians 2:7 NIV
On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter was entrusted with preaching to Jews not Gentiles.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Timothy 4:16 NIV
At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul wrote this when he was on trial in Rome. If we believe the Catholics, then Peter has betrayed Paul, for they tell us Peter was present at Rome during this time. This is ridiculous as it means that Peter not only betrayed his master Jesus but his fellow disciple Paul as well. -
The real person that founded the Catholic Church was not Simon Peter but another Simon. Simon Magnus.
Acts 8:9-13 NIV
Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, "This man is the divine power known as the Great Power." They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his magic. But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.Acts 8:18-23 NIV
Simon is clearly stated as being one who practiced magic and paganism. One also needs to note that he is not just a pagan but also a leader of the pagan church, since he has misled and bewitched many people with sorcery. Simon most likely heard the news about the risen Christ directly from the apostles and possibly from Jesus himself.. Instead of accepting the message of salvation as a gift, he desired to buy this power for his own use. Simon wanted to use the power of the Holy Spirit, most probably for personal gain and profit thus taking the LordÂ’s name in vain.
When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money and said, "Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit."
Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin."
Did Simon go his way after his strong rebuke for Peter? No, he did not. In fact, he considered himself to be a Christian.
Even though there is only one event that was recorded by Luke, it would not be unreasonable to assume that Simon had heard the apostle on several occasions. He likely also spoke with many of the new converts of the new church. It could be said that Simon Magus had great interest in spiritual matters and most likely was very well versed in both Jewish teaching and that of the new Christian church. Simon mixed Judaism, early Christianity and Babylonian, Greek. Paganism into one religion and appointed himself as the leader. Here we see the well documented mixing of religions from several historical sources and The Bible itself.
One point that should be noted is there is a mixing of several religious ideas. This is one of the identifying characteristics of the beast of Rev. 13 that is identified as the Roman Catholic Church. Revelation 13:2 “Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion.”
The four beasts used to make up the beast are the same four beasts, Daniel saw in vision in Daniel 7. As a matter of fact, papal Rome inherited from each of these pagan empires some of their basic identifying traits that we still see practiced in this modern day false system of religion, the Roman Catholic Church. From Babylon, the lion the papacy inherited a pagan priesthood; from Medo-Persia, the bear sun worship; from Greece, the leopard human philosophies; and from the dragon, Pagan Rome, its power, seat and great authority. As stated in Rev. 13:2 the mixing of these pagan ideas of the Roman catholic church had its onset from the very beginning. From this Simon Magnus who was well versed in all of these abominable doctrines and false system of worship created the early Catholic Church. These abominably doctrines can be traced back to the very beginning thru Simon Magnus.
Ref:
(The Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th ed - The Triumph of Christendom in the Roman Empire, p. 15).
(Apostolic Christianity), Vol. 2, p. 566).
(HastingÂ’s Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 497)
(Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity, p. 100)
(Harnack Vol. 1, p. 244). -
Did Simon stay in Jerusalem as the head of his own little cult? What were his plans for this new mixing of religions? History shows that Simon Magus did not stay in Jerusalem but moved to Rome. It is also well recognized that the religions of Asia, by Greek and Roman times, had also passed to the West. By the first century, the mystery religions of the Babylonians were centered primarily in Rome. At that time, Rome was the chief city of the world. With Rome as the center of the world it would only make sense that Simon Magus would move to Rome to spread his new religion a mixture of pagan beliefs and Christian doctrine.
Simon Magus’ move to Rome is noted in several historical writings. His goal as stated by historical records was to create a universal church, “Religion”. A little side note that many are aware of is the meaning of the word catholic. The word catholic means universal. The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou -- throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics. Yes, the correct meaning of the Catholic Church is the Universal Church. -
Nonsense. Simon Magus is criticized in the bible.Originally posted by Skibi:The real person that founded the Catholic Church was not Simon Peter but another Simon. Simon Magnus.
I think u can write ur own book liao, since u have so many new theories. -
When Justin Martyr wrote [152 A.D.] his Apology, the sect of the Simonians appears to have been formidable, for he speaks four times of their founder, Simon; and we need not doubt that he identified him with the Simon of the Acts. He states that he was a Samaritan, adding that his birthplace was a village called Gitta; he describes him as a formidable magician, and tells that he came to ROME in the days of Claudius Caesar (45 A.D.), and made such an impression by his magical powers, that he was honoured as a God, a statue being erected to him on the Tiber, between the two bridges, bearing the inscription ‘Simoni deo Sancto’ (i.e., the holy god Simon)" (Dictionary of Christian Biography, Vol. 4, p. 682).
HastingÂ’s Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol 2, p. 496, states that there is "very slight evidence on which to reject so precise a statement as Justin makes; a statement he would scarcely have hazarded in an apology addressed to Rome, where every person had the means of ascertaining its accuracy. If he made a mistake, it must have been at once exposed, and other writers would not have frequently repeated the story as they have done.
We see this quote from Justin Martyr and from Hasting’s “Dictionary of the apostolic church” that Simon Magus was in Rome about the year 45A.D., this is further stated by his birthplace, a village called Gitta. It is also stated that Simon Magus was honored as a God, due to his magical “demonic powers that were witnessed”.
Simon only used the name of Christianity to bring about his own desired ends. The Dictionary of Religion and Ethics says that Simon was "a false Messiah, who practiced magical arts and subsequently attempted, by the aid and with the sanction of Christianity, to set up a rival UNIVERSAL [Catholic] RELIGION" ((Apostolic Christianity )Vol. 11, p. 514).
From these historical accounts we see that indeed Simon Magnus was in Rome and was the head of his own church “Universal catholic”. In many of these accounts we also see that Simon Magnus was also consider by many to be God. Does that not fall in to place that the first pope aka Simon Magus was considered to be God. There are several places in The Bible that show that the Church of Rome would committee the sin of blasphemy and demand worship from men. (Rev,13:1),(Dan,7:11)(Rev14:11)…“The pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under a veil of flesh.” The Catholic National, July 1895
-
....just give us the website where you got your sources....we can read from there.
-
One of the main pillars of the Roman Catholic Church is the idea of that Apostolic succession is foundation of the Catholic Church. This is false and is based upon the wrong Peter. This is their claim to power and they claim makes them the true church. The only thing wrong with this idea is they have the wrong Simon Peter and it is leading many from the truth of God word.
-Andrew A.J. Variano -
My fellow brethen, do not be held swayed by the words of heretics and schismatics who wish to profane the throne of Peter.
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
St Ignatius was a disciple of Peter and John, surely he knew what the apostles taught. He mentions the Catholic Church. She, the most beautiful church was founded by Christ.
"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).
Polycarp was a student of John and he is a bishop of the Catholic Church. Surely he knows better than u abt who founded the Church.
“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).
The very church whom u hate, gave u ur Bible. IN the council of Hippo, the Bible was formed. We decided which books were inspired.
"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).
Irenaus must have been wrong despite ebing a student of Polycarp. And the CC todae is still one.
“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).
[i]We see a COMMON DOCTRINE in the CC and those heretics were excommunicated.
Church Fathers of Peter:
“Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven...'” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).
“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail...” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).
“...Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others...” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).
“And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail'” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325).
“...the chief of the disciples...the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church.” Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15 (A.D. 337).
“Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church...” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,1 1:3 (A.D. 350).
I can presume all the early Christians lived a lie and that Luther came back after 1500yrs to save us.
[/i] -
Skibi luan pom one.
There is even an extra-canonical book that details the battle between Peter and Simon Magnus. Machiam matrix liddat .. can fly in the air one.
-
I hate it when people just paste one big chunk from the web.Originally posted by M©+square:....just give us the website where you got your sources....we can read from there.
kills the spirit of discussion. how do you engage people this way?
furthermore if we cut and paste too often, we never learn. Must be like the ancients liddat, commit everything to memory.
-
Definitely not a woman, or else we'd be having priestesses.
-
I just quoted from Church Fathers in the 2nd Century to prove to u Peter was in Rome. Its quite short....onli 3 lines and merely 5 quotes.Originally posted by Icemoon:I hate it when people just paste one big chunk from the web.
kills the spirit of discussion. how do you engage people this way?
furthermore if we cut and paste too often, we never learn. Must be like the ancients liddat, commit everything to memory.
My brethen, hold on to ur faith -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
Unfortunately those testimonials aren't valid. You have to quote independent witnesses of repute. I quoted Paul from the bible, now is your turn to quote someone of equal status.
I just quoted from Church Fathers in the 2nd Century to prove to u Peter was in Rome. Its quite short....onli 3 lines and merely 5 quotes.
My brethen, hold on to ur faith -
Originally posted by Skibi:
Unfortunately those testimonials aren't valid. You have to quote [b]independent witnesses of repute. I quoted Paul from the bible, now is your turn to quote someone of equal status.
[/b]
that's a good one, Skibi. -
The Church Fathers cannot be trusted on every matter.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:I just quoted from Church Fathers in the 2nd Century to prove to u Peter was in Rome. Its quite short....onli 3 lines and merely 5 quotes.
My brethen, hold on to ur faith
OT a bit, what's the Catholic view on Origen?
-
The Church Fathers represent the view of Christians in the first 3 centuries. The fact that every Christian especially those who lived and was taught by the Apostles believed Peter had a prominent role. Most importantly, the Church was called the CATHOLIC CHURCH by St Ignatius who was Bishop of Antioch and disciple of John and Peter. Do u reject them?Originally posted by Icemoon:The Church Fathers cannot be trusted on every matter.
OT a bit, what's the Catholic view on Origen?
Give me a quote from any Church Father which support ur false doctrine of Sola Scriptura. U will find none for it is a man-made doctrine not taught by the Apostles. Christ said he will never leave his Church. To say the Church fell into error is to call Christ a liar. -
But your church was founded by Simon Magus. So who is the liar?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:The Church Fathers represent the view of Christians in the first 3 centuries. The fact that every Christian especially those who lived and was taught by the Apostles believed Peter had a prominent role. Most importantly, the Church was called the CATHOLIC CHURCH by St Ignatius who was Bishop of Antioch and disciple of John and Peter. Do u reject them?
Give me a quote from any Church Father which support ur false doctrine of Sola Scriptura. U will find none for it is a man-made doctrine not taught by the Apostles. Christ said he will never leave his Church. To say the Church fell into error is to call Christ a liar. -
Ask you again .. what are your views on Origen, the Church Father?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:The Church Fathers represent the view of Christians in the first 3 centuries. The fact that every Christian especially those who lived and was taught by the Apostles believed Peter had a prominent role. Most importantly, the Church was called the CATHOLIC CHURCH by St Ignatius who was Bishop of Antioch and disciple of John and Peter. Do u reject them?
Give me a quote from any Church Father which support ur false doctrine of Sola Scriptura. U will find none for it is a man-made doctrine not taught by the Apostles. Christ said he will never leave his Church. To say the Church fell into error is to call Christ a liar. -
In one of the early xtian writing .. Simon Magnus lost the duel with the Apostle Peter and fell from the sky. Then he died.Originally posted by Skibi:But your church was founded by Simon Magus. So who is the liar?
So sia suay .. you sure he founded a church?
-
Skibi and friends .. there is even a hint in the early christian writing that Simon Magnus was a disciple or associate of the Apostle Paul.
-
Originally posted by Icemoon:
That is just a story told by the Catholic church. You think Wu Xia Xiao Shuo issit...got magic duel one.
In one of the early xtian writing .. Simon Magnus lost the duel with the Apostle Peter and fell from the sky. Then he died.
So sia suay .. you sure he founded a church? Simon only used the name of Christianity to bring about his own desired ends. The Dictionary of Religion and Ethics says that Simon was "a false Messiah, who practiced magical arts and subsequently attempted, by the aid and with the sanction of Christianity, to set up a rival universal [Catholic] religion" ((Apostolic Christianity )Vol. 11, p. 514).
Simon was upset at being rejected by Peter and thus wanted to set up his own church to rival the churches the apostles set up. According to history he was genius and a very charismatic individual that impressed many with his magical powers such that he was hailed as a God. You think Peter the boorish fisherman can stand up to him in terms of church politics? -
Na bei .. I dig out the account and show you.Originally posted by Skibi:That is just a story told by the Catholic church. You think Wu Xia Xiao Shuo issit...got magic duel one.
Maybe Pope Nicholas can help me .. he should have read more early xtian writings than me. -
I dun see any 1 Simon Magus or 2 Simon Magus or 3 Magus in NT.
-
I know already. Wikipedia can find one.
Taken from Wikipedia...
Already proved that Peter not in Rome, so false story. Note it says legendary tale...not historical fact.
The apocryphal Acts of Peter gives a legendary tale of Simon Magus' death. Simon is performing magic in the forum, and in order to prove himself to be a god, he flies up into the air. The apostle Peter prays to God to stop his flying, and he stops mid-air and falls, breaking his legs, whereupon the crowd, previously non-hostile, stones him to death. The church of Santa Francesca Romana claims to have been built on the spot in question (thus claiming that Simon Magus could indeed fly), claims that Saint Paul was also present, and that a dented slab of marble that it contains bears the imprints of the knees of Peter and Paul during their prayer. -
there is only 1 .. where got 2 or 3?Originally posted by laoda99:I dun see any 1 Simon Magus or 2 Simon Magus or 3 Magus in NT.