Simon Magus was a Son of Perdition

by Damien F. Mackey “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 rightly called the Great Power of God’. They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery”. Acts 8:9-11 According to some, Simon the Magician was, all at once, Book of Revelation’s Beast and 666; the Antichrist; “the man of sin”; and “the son of perdition”. Jack Walton introduces Simon Magus as “… the most important person in history you never heard of”: https://www.henrymakow.com/simon_magus.html Simon Magus -- The lluminati’s Jesus? January 3, 2011 The full life of Simon Magus is mostly unknown …. …. He was the towering figure of his time, along with his wife, Helen, the Jezebel and whore of Babylon from Revelation. According to Bible Scholars Barbara Thiering and Hans Jonas, Simon Magus was the founder of the Gnostic church and was the direct competitor with Christianity for the hearts and minds of the Greco Roman world. Simon is the Beast, the original Antichrist, and the true identity of the number 666. He was so powerful in fact, that he is known by many different names in the Bible. Once all his "names" are learned, a very different picture of the Gospel emerges, one in which Jesus and Simon were creating two very different religions, for the reformation of Judaism, and the conversion of the Greco Roman/Pagan world to the Judaic god. The circles that Magus worked in were the Illuminati of his time. At the time this consisted of what we would consider both "white" and "black" magicians, including the apostles of Jesus [sic] and the sects they led, (the "good" guys) as well as the Herod family, and the higher echelons of Rome, and the gnostic magicians (the Saturnalian or "black" magicians). Thus, the "good guys" and the "bad guys had their start together at this time and later split up. Simon Magus was a Samaritan Jew, whose particular version of Judaism incorporated the sexual licentiousness of the ancient Babylonian religions. According to Clement, the early church father, Magus could, levitate items on command, speak with spirits, summon demons and place them into statues making the statues walk and talk, fly, and even raise the dead. These were all deceptions designed to indoctrinate his followers into believing he was a god. His religion, the Gnostic religion, was the sect that preceded Christianity in the Diaspora. The current Illuminati religion (freemasonry) is based on Gnosticism and the ancient Babylonian mysticism (Satanism?) that he incorporated into his version of Judaism that he was selling (quite literally) to the masses of the Greco-Roman world. He is the inspiration for Faust, and modern televangelist deceivers continue his tradition whether they realize it or not (i.e., religion based on deception.) Anytime there is a reference to someone selling their soul to the devil, it is a reference to Faust, who was inspired by Simon Magus. The medieval Rosicrucians who compiled the story of Faust understood all this (are they not Illuminati?) One of the great untold stories of Christianity is how Peter and Paul came behind Simon and converted his many followers to Christianity. In the beginning, Magus had been a follower of John the Baptist, and because of his genius and ability, was accepted by … the other Apostles. Simon's early role in Judaism before his diaspora career, would be seen today as like an intelligence operative. He was of course, cast out of their ranks when they learned who he was. One of the major things he did was attempt to organize a mass revolt against Pilate and the son of Herod, which was put down brutally. …. …. Because of his stature, and the complexity of his life … Simon's accomplishments were divided by the Christians, and attributed to multiple people, under multiple pseudonyms. In other words, he was so dangerous, that he was practically wiped from history, except for those "in the know." A great animosity existed between Simon and Peter. Simon's religion was based on deception, (Simon represented himself as a god), allowed for sexual licentiousness (the origins of "sex-magic", which included orgies and homosexuality by his followers. Peter taught abstinence in marriage, except for procreation, and this drew a lot of women to his flock. …. [End of quote] According to David L. Eastman, in “Simon the Anti-Christ? The Magos as Christos in Early Christian Literature”, Simon Magus was, for the early Christians, a “wicked, deceitful anti-Christ, the very embodiment of evil”: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/2222582X.2016.1218953 None of the early Christian sources denies that Simon had power to do things that others could not do. He is consistently remembered and presented as a figure who could perform amazing deeds to astound the crowds, even if he did so through the despicable arts of sorcery. In his various, reimagined guises, Simon was formidable because he was powerful, even if that power came from demons, as Peter asserts in his prayers to strike down Simon. In the earliest Christian centuries, when there existed a perceived threat of alternative Christologies, Simon is presented as the champion of ‘heresies’ such as Modalism and Docetism. …. The authors of the later apocryphal texts, writing in a different cultural and ecclesiastical context, amend the earlier traditions and present a potent Simon in order to highlight the even greater power of the apostles. Peter and Paul confront and conquer this wicked, deceitful anti-Christ, the very embodiment of evil. …. [End of quote] The following description of “the man of sin”, “the son of perdition”, in Wayne Jackson’s article “Who Is Paul’s ‘Man of Sin’?”, seems to me to be perfectly applicable to Simon Magus (though this is by no means the conclusion that Wayne Jackson himself will reach): https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/677-who-is-pauls-man-of-sin Traits of the Man of Sin Once a student has thoroughly read 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, we believe that it is possible to isolate certain tell-tale qualities of this diabolical force, and work toward a solution as to the identity of the “man of sin.” Consider the following factors. The Man of Sin and The Apostasy The Man of Sin is the ultimate result of the falling away from the faith (v. 3). The expression “falling away” translates the Greek term apostasia. Our English word “apostasy” is an anglicized form of this original term. In the Bible, the word is used of a defection from the religion ordained by God. As a noun, it is employed of departure from the Mosaic system (Acts 21:21), and, in this present passage, of defection from Christianity. The verbal form of the term is similarly used in 1 Timothy 4:1 (cf. Heb. 3:12). Note also that the noun is qualified by a definite article (the apostasia). A definite movement is in the apostle’s prophetic vision — not merely a principle of defection. The Man of Sin Was Yet to Be Revealed This sinister force, from a first-century vantage point, was yet to be revealed (v. 3). This appears to suggest that the movement had not evolved to the point where it could be identified definitely by the primitive saints. It awaited future development. The Man of Sin and Son of Perdition This persecuting power was designated as the man of sin (v. 3), because sin was its “predominating quality” (Ellicott, p. 118). This character, referred to in both neuter and masculine genders (vv. 6-7), is the son of perdition (v. 3), because its end is to be perdition, i.e., destruction, by the Lord himself (v. 8). The Lawless One This opponent of God is called the lawless one (v. 8). This power has no regard for the law of God. One cannot but be reminded of that infamous “little horn” in Daniel’s vision: “[H]e shall think to change the times and the law” (7:25). Man of Sin: Opposes God, Exalts Himself, and Sits in the Temple of God The Man of Sin opposes God and exalts himself against all that is genuinely sacred (v. 4). He feigns religiosity, but his true character reveals that he is diabolic. His activity actually is according to the working of Satan (v. 9). In some sense, the Man of Sin will sit in the temple of God (v. 4). …. The implication of Paul’s warning is this. This unholy being is viewed as being a “church” character. The expression “sitteth” may hint of unparalleled arrogance (Ellicott, pp. 119-120). Mason notes that the language describes the Man of Sin as attempting to exact “divine homage” from people (p. 169). Moreover, this Son of Perdition sets himself forth as God. The present participle (“sets forth continually”) reveals that this presumptive posture is characteristic of the Man of Sin. This person represents himself as God, either: • by making claims that belong only to deity; • by receiving adoration reserved exclusively for God; or, • by usurping prerogatives which only God can accomplish. Clearly, the Man of Sin is an ecclesiastical character. Recall the description of John’s lamb-like beast in Revelation 13:11ff. The Man of Sin Deceives with Lying Miracles He deceives those who love not the truth, by virtue of the lying wonders he effects (vv. 9-10). Bloomfield calls these “pretended miracles” (p. 345). These “wonders” are not in the category of Christ’s miracles. Lenski has well commented: “So many are ready to attribute real miracles to Satan and to his agents; the Scriptures never do” (p. 426). …. Man of Sin Already at Work in Paul’s Day The early stages of this ecclesiastical apostasy were already at work in the early church (v. 7). The Greek term (energeitai, a present tense, middle voice form) suggests that this movement currently was working itself towards a greater goal. …. Restrained During Paul’s Day In Paul’s day there was some influence that restrained the budding Man of Sin. This was some sort of abstract force, as evidenced by the neuter form of katechon, “the restraining thing” (v. 6). And yet, this force was strongly associated with a person/persons as suggested by the masculine, “he who restrains” (v. 7). Likely the significance is that of a broad power, operating under individual rulers. Unlike the Man of Sin, whose identity was later to be revealed, the early saints knew personally of this restraining force. "You know (oidate — “to know from observation” — Vine, p. 444). This indicates that the restraining power was an entity contemporary with Paul, not a modern one. Restraining Force To Be Removed The restraining force eventually would *be taken out of the way", or, more correctly, “be gone.” And so, the Man of Sin, in “his own season,” would be revealed openly (vv. 6, 7). Ellicott says that it is a season “appointed and ordained by God” (p. 121). One recalls that the “little horn” of Daniel’s fourth beast only rose to prominence after three horns were plucked up to make room for it. Too, the earth-beast of John’s vision came into full power after the sea-beast had received a death-stroke, but was healed. And so here, the restraining power will give way to the horrible revelation of the Man of Sin. .... [End of quotes] Movement of apostasy, lawlessness, against all that is genuinely sacred, feignedly religious, diabolical, working according to power of Satan, a pseudo-Christian pretender, setting himself forth as a God, and so on. It reads just like the blasphemous profile of Simon Magus. Acts 8:18-23: 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 in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin’.