Who came first, an antichrist or Jesus?

... an ancient patristic author wrote that there was a Christian group who taught that the proto-orthodox Jesus was an enchantment devised by a First Century magician. According to this magican’s followers, he was the real historical figure whose words and deeds inspired Christianity, not Jesus. Jesus was a thing of smoke and mirrors, or maybe not even that.

uncertaintist.wordpress.com...

According to the New Testament (Acts chapter 8), the teachings of a magician named Simon were already well-known in Samaria about the time when the first Christian church was beginning to get organized in neighboring Judea. Simon was baptized, but soon afterwards quarelled with the Jerusalem leadership. Whether or not Simon left the newly founded church is never resolved.

Over time, the faithful came to regard this Simon as the first heretic, and as the inspiration for other heretics. The term "antichrist" was first used by the author of the epistles attributed to John in the New Testament. According to the Fourth Century Christian author Cyril of Jerusalem, the people whom John was talking about as "antichrists" were Simon and his followers.

Cyril also gave a clear statement about Simon taking credit for the words, deeds, and even name and title of Jesus Christ. Cyril's allegations about Simon are consistent with those of Irenaeus and Justin in the Second Century.

As is usual with early heretics, almost all the information we have about Simon comes from his proto-orhodox opponents. Josephus may have written about his magical reputation very briefly, and Celsus is said to have written about a Second Century group of Simon's followers.

It is the proto-orthodox writers who tell us that Simon was successfully leading a religious movement in Samaria before the first Christian showed up there. We are invited to conclude that Simon changed his teaching to accommodate the new Christian character, Jesus.

I think that that is probably what happened, assuming that a historical Simon really existed. However, if the core story in Acts is credited, there is no evidence that it wasn't the other way around: that a group of Jerusalem miracle-workers adopted rival miracle-worker Simon's Jesus character as their own.

Either Simon the antichrist stole the Jerusalem story and injected himself into it, or the Jerusalem group stole Simon's story and cut him out of it. That either-or choice may be what Celsus had in mind when he wondered aloud what a would-be Christian should do when confronted with the followers of Jesus and an unnamed rival, each group claiming their hero to be the real Christ. What Celsus suggested was to roll the dice.

a reply to: eight bits

Simple logic will tell you that a christ must exist first for there to be an antichrist. It's nothing like the chicken/egg situation.

I prefer the gnostics version where Sophia birthed twins by mistake outside of Pleroma, one resembling an aborted fetus and the other resembling a lion. Duality being birthed at once, they seek to destroy Sophia by capturing all she creates for them until released or escapes her captivity.

Other than that I really couldn't say to your post other than, duality was created in the same moment.

Going by the Matrix, Neo (oNe) Jesus Christ came first.

Then the Matrix had to balance by promoting Agent Smith to the level of the antichrist.

I have looked into the man vs myth aspect of Simon the Samaritan and have come to the conclusion that:

Mythologically speaking Simon carried the cross Christ was crucified and some say he was crucified in place of Christ who switched bodies as Simon was crucified.

This could explain his power or even just having touched the cross, why he is seen trying to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit in Acts is only to set up the later theological showdown of the Clementina and the magical duals of Peter vs Simon in several Apocryphal Acts.

He claims his power is from the soul of a dead boy he has somehow gained control of and this must be the youth from Gethsemane who was initiated by Christ but I have never heard anyone else make that connection.


In real life Simon was a disciple of John the Baptist and started a movement known as the Simonians who inspired later Gnostics with his logic but did not create the various movements or their teachings except for the anti IAO/YHWH sentiments based on Torah and his sometimes strong arguments in the Clementina.

The Great Power of God Simon Magus.


Was also a pseudonym for the Ebionites for Paul the "apostle" who they never took to in Jamesian fashion and modeled themselves on him, Peter and Clement of Rome. They have more scripture that survives today collecting dust than BOTH Testaments put together.

That is where you go to learn about the Apostles and the Acts of individuals like Andrew and Bartholomew and Mary the Mother and Thomas who went to India and still has a church named after him today there. About John Mark and Gamaliel himself even makes an appearance as an ally of Peter.

And Simon Magus does appear as Simon Magus but sometimes with Pauline doctrine that Peter refutes every time. It's good reading.

Antichrist, Follen Angle mornibg star, lucifer
are the all Difrent things? no one and the same.
they just Added the name Antichrist later.
you could say hes the Antigod!

They would both exist at the same time, no first or second place.

Is this like a "what came first: the chicken or the egg" for religious people?

a reply to: eight bits

In this world of subjective relativism, dual-opposites simultaneously arise from their unified source.

Which came first, Yin or Yang? They are both one, superficially perceived as distinct manifestations.

a reply to: eight bits

If you are asking who is more likely to have existed in reality I would say Simon Magus is, no question. Even so far would I go as to say that Simon Peter and Simon Magus are not enemies in reality but one and the same why not?

Simon was a Babylonian by blood and a Samaritan so a Babylonian Jew. What is Catholicism if not full blown Babylonian Baalism with Tammuz replaced by Christ and you can find documentaries now that say he was the real first Pope.

A Samaritan sect of monastics called the Jesseans also seemed to have a role in this, we know them as Essenes but they were NOT the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls community that lousy scholarship first assumed.

The truth is that circa 1CE the Mid East was lousy with holy men and Messiahs like Apollonius of Tyana and Simon Magus that we will never know.

I suggest you read GRS MEAD'S biography of Simon Magus, it's all there is from recent times on Simon.

a reply to: eight bits

It is theorized and speculated that the lives' of Yeshua Bar Yosef, Yeshu ha-Notzri, (Yeishu ben Pandeira), and Apollonius of Tyana went on to influence Christianity.

you cannot have an anti-Christ without first having a Christ

the antithesis cannot precede the thing it opposes or copies.

Thanks to everybody who posted. Here are just a few notes (not to everybody, but I read everybody with gratitude).

Vector and Chesterjohn

For all anyone knows, neither christ nor antichrist ever existed. The title has nothing to do with chickens. The proto-orthodox believed in both a christ (their Jesus) and also in a first antichrist (the term they applied to Simon). The thread title asks which actually came first, the man whom the proto-orthodox call their christ, or the first man whom the proto-orthodox called an antichrist?

Any temporal precedence implied by the words "Christ" and "antichrist" reflects the opinion of the proto-orthodox. I don't doubt that that was their opinion, but it is entirely reasonable for us to ask and discuss whether that opinion is correct, on what evidence and so on.

awareness

Justin, Irenaeus, Eusebius ... those people thought that Simon had inspired the Gnostic movement. We don't have from Simon what he taught, but he did teach (it seems) a higher god of which he was the incarnation, and his 'Helen' seems to be a 'first draft' of the character that became Sophia by the Second Century. Whether he had concepts like Pleroma I don't know.

Elsemyazazededera

The Simon who carried the cross was Simon of Cyrene, and probably not our guy. According to Basilides, a Second Century Gnostic, Simon of Cyrene died on the cross instead of Jesus. If you read the Passion in Mark, you'll see what Basilides was talking about (the pronoun references are messed up badly).

Unfortunately, the Clementine literature, where so many of the most colorful Simon stories are found, is very probably faked.

I agree with you that Simon is more likely to have been historical and real than Jesus. However, both are heavily caked in myth and legend at this point. Even if they're both real, we might not easily recognize either one if we could go back in time and look for them.

Dark ghost

Is this like a "what came first: the chicken or the egg" for religious people?

No . Just a fair question. Somebody copied off of his neighbor's paper. The usual assumption is that Simon copied off of Peter's, because Peter's followers still exist and Simon's don't (except for the few Gnostic revivers). That may be right, but I'm not certain. Celsus may have thought it was 50-50, and he seems to know a lot more about it than me.

a reply to: eight bits

Well I disagree with you about the Simon who carried the cross because Simon of Cyrene and Simon Magus are the same person and you were inquiring from a non theological perspective so your theological response to that is mystifying to me. Where the hell else do you think that the Simon-Jesus switch myth ever came from in the first place?

From that fact, that it was the same Simon. And what you said about the Clementina and it's reality are two different arenas entirely and faked is not a scholarly opinion, Pseudepigrapha maybe...but the Bible is too so what's your beef with that? They actually come from the Ebionites and Nazarenes who didn't care for Paul like I said and if you want historical information on that era you will get as much truth out of myth as you will from a Josephus or Herodotus-type historian and probably more.

So basically what you are saying is thanks for the ideas but you are so smart and never should have asked us mortals who try to achieve the state of knowledge you have already.

You really asked a question that has no answer, probably just to tell everyone that ther is no answer or what but you just learned this from that link today and already are acting the the biographer of Simon Magus.

Next time read a book.

a reply to: eight bits

Book II CHAP. XXXVIII---Simon's Creed

"I say there are many gods; but that there is one Incomprehensible and unknown to all, and that he is the God of all these gods."

Simon vs Peter

I was going to type more but it is a long debate that was written prior to the council of Nicea and if one considers the modern Rabbinical position of the Pharisee Gamaliel towards the Nazarenes the book is obviously accurate by portraying this and a serious attempt at documenting history and creating scripture, not a fake or hoax just not in use by any church today as canon and very rare. Some of the Apocrypha towards the end is not easy to take seriously but the main Clementine part is more than reliable as a sacred scripture.

a reply to: awareness10


I prefer the common-sense version. Beings who are immortal have fulfilled roles for eons before arrogant humans were created. As proclaimed by a famous politician.. " What difference does it make now!"

a reply to: eight bits

FYI modern "Gnostic revivalists" have no reverence for Simon Magus and don't count him as the founder of anything except his Simonians who are the least of concerns among so called revivalists.

I wish there were was a mass revival of the art of Christian Gnosis but Catholicism and Christianity want no part of it.

Jews have Kabbalah and Hinduism is just a Gnostic oriented faith even Islam has Sufism for the yearning to know God in a more realizable way but Christianity has nothing. Four Gospels some book called Acts that only serves to introduce Paul who is the only person they find was worthy of gnosis and his revelations are said to be learned gnostically but everyone else is forbidden and must trust Paul.

He actually was the inspiration for the first Christian Gnostics even though he is hated today because instead of a few quotes we have the whole story and he was a @#$%.

The first Gnostics were people trying to know in the way he did, straight from the source. Simon Magus contributed so little that he contributed more to Judaism than to Gnostic Christianity.

If I eat pasta and then antipasta will I still be hungry?

a reply to: Forensick

I think it's antipasto and that's a salad so, no.

Else

I'd be delighted to see some evidence that the Simons are the same. You're correct, though, that I am not looking at this for theology. I am interested in the history of Christian origins = a secular study of a religious phenomenon.

Where the hell else do you think that the Simon-Jesus switch myth ever came from in the first place?

Mark, as a possible reading of his Passion story. Basilides apparently was the first to teach that reading as correct. It'd be a hoot if "Mark" intended it, but it isn't his only grammatical ambiguity, so I doubt it was his intent.

...faked is not a scholarly opinion, ...

Faked is the plain-English term for the estimate that the material is neither veridical nor accurately attributed. That opinion enjoys widespread scholarly assent.

Lol, when you leave a thread in a huff, don't double post as you walk out. Anyway, the link you posted identifies the material correctly as pseudo-Clementine. I think the link you meant to post was this one:

www.ccel.org...

and then from there, the reader may use the "next" links.

On the third of your posts, thanks for the tip about disagreements among living Gnostics, but some do revere Simon, for example

www.apostolicgnosis.org...

(I haven't the faintest idea why they illustrate the blurb on Simon with a scene of Peter's crucifixion. Pay-back? I offer this link solely to document reverence for Simon.)

Yes, Paul was well-regarded by some ancient Gnostics.