Posted on 12/29/2013 12:56:58 PM PST by steelhead_trout
**Trouble is the the Samaritan man who tried to buy an apostleship in Samaria from Simon Peter beat Paul to Rome by several years and his name was Simon Magus, and he was called Simon Pater in Rome.**
I’ve heard that taught, but take it with a grain of salt, because ‘Simon’ was a common name among the Jewish community. As far as Simon the socorer, I just leave his spiritual condition where the Word leaves him: in a state of fearing the Lord after Peter rebuked him, telling him to repent, and pray to God.
After all, Acts 2 shows that he believed, and was baptized. It says that when Peter and John came, they laid hands on them, they received the Holy Ghost. It doesn’t specifically say that Simon was or was not one that received the Holy Ghost. I know that just observing someone receive the Holy Ghost is startling, but receiving it is an amazing experience. It is so amazing, that it naturally makes one want to give it to others. Simon just thought he could buy that power from Peter.
People have to put away away the old things and put on the new, after being born again. Peter had to shake off his Law upbringings. Paul said, “I die daily”. We don’t know if Simon was able to lay down his old life of power equals money.
He displayed his fear of the Lord by asking Peter to “Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come to pass”.
Just because the Word doesn’t continue to follow Simon’s life (whether he himself prayed to God), doesn’t prove he turned out to be a bad egg.
**Simon Magus was a Babylonian therefore and that’s where the Catholic Church gets a lot of their unbiblical practices from (Queen of Heaven, graven images, using the word “father” religiously to describe another man, etc).**
‘Goddess’ worship was indeed an ungodly practice in ancient Babylon, as the OT makes clear, and was a problem that moved throughout the civilized world many centuries before Christianity arrived in Rome. Others, including Priscilla and Aquila, were preaching in Rome well ahead of Paul’s physical arrival. No doubt, since satan can’t leave a good thing alone, confusion of the Gospel was instituted shortly after it’s arrival.
**Christ’s Church that will prevail against the gates of Hell are the original 12 and then those that listened and followed.**
I agree!
It was said during the apostle’s time that the deception had already started to undermine Christ’s Church. I figure it’s a good chance it was Simon Magus in Rome. Bears further study, I think.
**It was said during the apostle’s time that the deception had already started to undermine Christ’s Church.**
Absolutely! I don’t doubt that the devil was charging into copycat mode within 24 hrs of Pentecost. Plus, with all those Jewish pilgrims from all over the middle east, and eastern Mediteranean countries, being witness to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, there was certain to be some witnesssing going on when they returned home.
How many of the converted 3,000 were pilgrims, God only knows. But, as with any big event, there was no doubt some of the ‘I was there, too’ crowd. You know, the people that really weren’t first-hand witnesses, but pass themselves off as being ‘right there when it happened!’ Those type, because of pride, can be used by the devil to ignorantly ‘get it wrong’, even if they manage to witness before the true witness arrives. (see the story of Ahimaaz in 2 Samuel 18).
Yes, Paul, James, Peter, John, and Jude all warn of a present, as well as future, threat of false witnesses. What more convincing way to claim scriptural authority, than to claim Peter as your initial man in charge, and to claim to be the preserver of the written Word. And do so just a few decades after the death of the apostles.
And the funny thing is that Paul said (paraphrasing) "don't pick a favorite apostle".
**Samaritans were Babylonians who replaced the 10 northern tribes in the Assyrian deportations.**
Babylonians, and others from the Assyrian empire did indeed replace the 10 tribes. The replacement wasn’t 100% complete for one reason or another. Maybe there were some that remained as slaves, or maybe there were some that trickled back. All I know is that Hezekiah sent letters (2Chron. 30)to Ephraim and Mannaseh, inviting the remnant of them “that are escaped out of the hand of the kings of Assyria”(vs 6)to keep the passover in Jerusalem. There is mention of a ‘multitude’ of them coming, also including members of Issachar and Zebulun. Near the end of the chapter (vs 25) they are mentioned again: “..and all the congregation that came out of Israel, and the strangers that came out of the land of Israel..”.
Yes, the Babylonian replacements were instructed in the ways of the Lord by priests sent back to Israel. But, the testamony of 2Chron. 30 seems to show a remnant. In the following 7 centuries, no doubt more trickled back as empire replaced empire. And over that long period of time there was certainly mixed marriages, making them (in the eyes of the Jews) unclean. Of course many were scattered elsewhere. After all, Paul, on his missions, entered long established Jewish congregations to preach the gospel.
In short, I don’t subscribe to ‘lost tribes’ mindset. They were scattered, but not lost.
**Jesus never called God “God”, He called Him “Father”.**
To the Christ, ‘God’ and the ‘Father’ are completely interchangable, for He teaches that he is speaking of the same person: “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” John 4:23,24
More: “For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world, and go to the Father.” 16:27,28
“Father,.....that they might know thee the only true God..”. 17:1-3
God knows where they're at even if they don't.
Interesting that the term "God" is used when the context is the relationship to other people, but "Father" when the context is Jesus' relationship.
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.