Saturday, July 31, 2010

"Simon Magus" is none other than Saul/Paul of Tarsus




source: http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/ancient/293/Re-translated-from-the-Greek-EVOLUTION-OF-THE-NT-Saul-Paul-Simon

"Simon Magus" is none other than Saul/Paul of Tarsus, whose name was replaced by someone, but whose depiction is quite clear.

Clement was St. Peter's hand-picked successor and much of the material that follows is from the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. In the works, much is said concerning a doctrinal battle between Peter and a magician named Simon Magus.

Scholars are certain that 'Simon' is a pseudonym for St. Paul and that the disputes mentioned are really between Peter and Paul. In writing about this matter G. Strecker states:

"It is true that in the basic writing the statements in question are directed against Simon Magus, and in this way veiled; nevertheless the allusions to citations from the Pauline letters, above all to the discussion between Paul and Peter in Antioch (Galatians 2:11ff), the designation of the magician as a missionary to the Gentiles, and not least the scarcely disguised attitude of the Epistula Petri (the letter from Peter to James that I mentioned earlier) show that in the Kerygmata Petrou (preaching of Peter) source they are leveled against Paul." (Apostolic Pseudepigrapha, p. 108)


Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Professor of Religious History, in Germany, and a recognized expert on matters dealing with St. Paul concurs:

This conflict is developed to its full extreme in the presentation of the Kerygmata Petrou, which reproduces similarly the point of view of the Judaistic opponents of Paul. Their old enemy here appears under the pseudonym 'Simon." This "Simon who Is also Paul..." (Jewish Christianity, p. 51)


As you can see, these are only a few examples which reveal to you the opinion of the scholarly community that there seems to be a consensus that the mentioned 'Simon' is indeed Paul in these writings. "

(FROM: "THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES AND THE STRUGGLE TO PRESERVE JESUS' REAL MESSAGE" at
http://www.geocities.com/paulproblem/clementine_homolies_preserve_message.htm)

6 comments:

  1. All argument for or against Paul can be settled quickly with a very simple rule of discovery: When what the man is teaching is in question go to the Apostles. If they do say specifically, go to what heir disciples were taught by them. Clement was a disciple of Peter and Polycarp was a disciple of John, and both were trained to hold Paul in high regard. See Clement's letters to the Corinthians and Polycarps letter to the Philippians. There is no way these disciples of the Apostles trained by Jesus would approve a deceiver, nor would they not be aware if Paul was one. Accounting Simon Magus to be Paul the Apostle is pure speculation and has no merit whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Those letters mentioned from Clement and Polycarp, offered up to sanction Paul offer nothing of first hand instructions regarding Paul. There are even discrepancies to the dating of those letters. Even when mentioning Peter, the Clement letter offers nothing of first hand information, such as here where it would have been useful:

    1Clem 42:1
    The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
    Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.

    1Clem 42:2
    So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both
    therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.

    Also:

    1Clem 47:1
    Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.

    1Clem 47:2
    What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?

    1Clem 47:3
    Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas
    and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties.

    1Clem 47:4
    Yet that making of parties brought less sin upon you; for ye were
    partisans of Apostles that were highly reputed, and of a man approved
    in their sight.

    Laurence Welborn writes about the dating of 1 Clement (op. cit., p. 1060):

    Thus one must rely upon more general statements in the epistle and in tradition. The account of the deaths of Peter and Paul in chap. 5 is not that of an eye-witness. The presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2), and a second ecclesiastical generation has passed (44:3). The church at Rome is called "ancient" (47:6); and the emissaries from Rome are said to have lived "blamelessly" as Christians "from youth to old age" (63:3). Thus the epistle cannot have been written before the last decades of the 1st century. There are references to the letter by the middle of the next century in the works of Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3.16; 4.22; 4.23). Thus one may place the composition of 1 Clement between A.D. 80 and 140.

    Loisy maintains that the author of 1 Clement was a distinguished Roman elder who flourished 130-140 and that this Clement was named in the Shepherd of Hermas (Vision, 8:3), which is also to be dated to the mid second century. Notably, a writing is mentioned in 1 Clement 23:3 in which the challenge is quoted, "These things we did hear in the days of our fathers also, and behold we have grown old, and none of these things hath befallen us." Because this source document for 1 Clement must have been written when the hope of the imminent parousia was waning, and because 1 Clement itself must have dealt with the same issue, the document can scarcely be dated to the time of the first Christian generation. Other indications of lateness include the tradition in chapter 5 that Paul traveled to the extremities of the west (i.e., Spain) and the emphasis on the appointment of "bishops and deacons" (42:1-5). Most notably, there is stated to be "a rule of succession" for bishops and deacons who have "fallen asleep" (44:2). This suggests a second century date for 1 Clement.

    Although traditionally attributed to Clement of Rome,[1] this view has been questioned by modern scholarship[citation needed]. The letter is anonymous; however, the stylistic coherence suggests a single author.[2] The First Epistle does not contain Clement's name, instead being addressed by "the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth." -wikipedia

    I have read the Polycarp letter as well and find it of the same nature, merely scriptural referencing. When he chooses to add strength to his letter he calls upon Ignatius and mentions no personal teachings from John or any other of the apostles. Therefore, to say that these letters endorse Paul through apostolic succession does not hold water.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have to get the information from the clementine of homelies is different and the gospel of the twelve. Paul states in romans 2:16 that God would only judge the man according to his gospel by Jesús Christ it wasn't his gospel it was Jesús Gospel. Then in Colossians. He also calls the disciples heathen and that they gave the wrong gospel just to follow his gospel that was something it took my attention and always wonder why he said my gospel and why he called the real disciples heathens and they walked with Jesús

      Delete
  3. To my knowledge simon magus claimed to be agammenmon. Menaleus brother he said his helen was helen of troy. Menaleus was of benjamin to my knowledge as well

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you even bother to read anything? Or are you judging a book by its cover :)

      Delete
  4. My own research has led me to conclude that Simon Magus and Paul were indeed one and the same person, but also the same person as Jesus Christ. In other words, the Jews knew Christ as Simon Magus, the Standing One (Yeshua= from yesh, to stand), while his disciple referred to him as Jesus the Christ. After his crucifixion he adopted the name Paul of Tarsus.

    http://www.riaanbooysen.com/barbelo

    ReplyDelete