Location of the Early Church:
Another Look at
By COGwriter
I. Introduction
The old Church of God,
Seventh Day (CG7) and the Radio Church of God (RCG), which became the old Worldwide
Church of God (WCG), taught that the churches in Revelation 2 & 3 represented
God's true church throughout history (though they did not agree on all of the
specifics[1]).While various groups with origins in those
churches officially still hold to that teaching of church eras (e.g. [2]), some
others no longer do.
On June 13, 2007, then Roman Catholic Pope Benedict XVI publicly urged his followers to look into church history[3].
Do you realize that the Roman
Catholic and
Do you know much about early
church history?
Do you know where the early
Christian church was based? Was it in
This relatively long paper
will look into the Bible and other early writings to attempt to answer those
questions.
This is a different type of
paper. When looking into early church
history (beyond the biblical account), we are faced at looking at whatever
documents are left that were not destroyed by imperial or religious sources,
hence little to do with early church history is as clearly documented as
historians and theologians prefer.This
is not to say that there is no information, but only that such information that
is available is often incomplete and is usually subject to interpretation.
This paper mainly focuses on
the location of the early Church starting with Jerusalem, but with a focus on the first two churches
And even for those who have a
different view of Revelation 2 & 3, this paper will hopefully provide some
additional biblical, doctrinal, and even extra-biblical reasons (including from
Greco-Roman Catholic-approved writings, such as from Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and
Eusebius) why Asia Minor, and not Rome or Alexandria, appears to have been
where most of the faithful early Christians were.
It will attempt to show
through both biblical and historical sources some of what happened to the early
true Church and essentially how and when the Greco-Roman confederation became
predominant?
This paper mentions several
of the early heretics, discusses how those in the early church attempted to
deal with some of these heretics, and shows that there were two major groups in
the second century--one of which apparently was the true church and the other
of which accepted many of the teachings of condemned heretics. A related sermon is available Early Church: Jerusalem, Rome, and Apostolic Teachings.
(Note for the purposes of this paper, the terms "Catholic" (by itself with a capital C) or "Roman Catholic" are intended to refer to the Church headquartered in Vatican City; it is not intended to convey Anglican Catholics or Eastern Orthodox Catholics or original Church of God catholics unless otherwise specified. The term "Orthodox" or Orthodox Church refers to what is commonly known as the Eastern or Greek Orthodox Church.The term "Greco-Roman" normally refers to positions jointly held by the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in areas once in the ancient Roman and/or Greek empires.)
Doctrinal history of the church can be found in the free online book: Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?
Here are links to two related sermons: Early Church: Jerusalem, Rome, and Apostolic Teachings and Asia Minor and Early Apostolic Succession.
II.
The New Testament Church
began in
And although the apostles
dispersed (see section VI. below), the Bible shows that in the early church,
Jerusalem, and never Rome, was where its leadership conferred on topics of
importance (see Acts 15; Galatians 1:18; 2:1-9).
Actually, three of the four
times that the Bible shows that Paul conferred with Peter it was in
However, near the times of the
deaths of Peter (date uncertain) and Paul (circa 64-67 A.D.), major changes
happened in
Beginning in 66 A.D., there
were revolts in
Dr. M. Germano reported:
... scholars
speculate that the flight of the last remaining members of the church at
Moreover,
at that feast which we call Pentecost as the priests were going by night into
the inner court of the temple...they said that, in the first place, they felt a
quaking and heard a sound as of a multitude saying, Let us remove hence.
(Josephus, Wars, bk. VI, ch. v, sec. 3; Whiston 1957:825.)[4]
The Catholic Encyclopedia reports,
When
Titus took
The Orthodox Church
recognizes an important role for
The
According to the fourth
century Greco-Roman Catholic historian Eusebius:
James,
the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in
Dr. Samuel Bacchiocchi wrote
that:
Nazarenes
were the direct descendants of the Christian community of
The Nazarenes ended up in
"synagogues of the East" (
Jude warned:
4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 4, NKJV throughout unless otherwise noted).
... until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there, all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision. ...
The Church was a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses. But Thebutis ... began to corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects among the people, like Simon {Magus}... [10]
And while some Christians
returned, eventually there was a change in beliefs and practices in
The
Nazarenes retired from the ruins of
They
elected Marcus for their bishop, a prelate of the race of the Gentiles, and
most probably a native either of
When
the name and honours of the
In other words, after the first Latin Bishop in Jerusalem (who may or may not have had any direct affiliation with Rome) the churches that became Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox at that time were still not unified) was put in charge, those who had been faithful Christians were accused of heresy there in the second century.
Here is more information on Jerusalem from our free online book, Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?:
Marcus of Jerusalem
After the Jewish Bar Kochba revolt, Emperor Hadrian decided no Jewish-types were allowed in Jerusalem. Here is an 18th century report from Edward Gibbon:
Hadrian … [t]he emperor founded, under the name of Alia Capitolina, a new city on Mount Sion, to which he gave the privileges of a colony; …
They {some who claimed Christianity} elected Marcus for their bishop, a prelate of the race of the Gentiles, and most probably a native either of Italy or of some of the Latin provinces. At his persuasion the most considerable part of the congregation renounced the Mosaic law, in the practice of which they had persevered above a century. By this sacrifice of their habits and prejudices they purchased a free admission into the colony of Hadrian ...
When the name and honours of the church of Jerusalem had been restored to Mount Sion, the crimes of heresy and schism were imputed to the obscure remnant of the Nazarenes which refused to accompany their Latin bishop. ...
It has been remarked with more ingenuity than truth that the virgin purity of the church was never violated by schism or heresy before the reign of Trajan or Hadrian, about one hundred years after the death of Christ (Gibbon E. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume I, Chapter XV, Section I. ca. 1776-1788).
History shows Marcus finally implemented several of the false doctrines some of those heretics held to. That is why we in the CCOG do not accept Marcus as an apostolic successor (but the Eastern Orthodox do).
2nd century writer Hegissipus wrote that the corruption in Jerusalem began in that century a decade or two prior to Marcus. Hegissipus reported that Jerusalem started off well, but one called Thebuthis had doctrines of Simon (Magus) and Marcion, but that the Jewish Christians and their leaders would not then accept them:
Hegesippus … describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. Therefore, they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses.
But Thebuthis … began to corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects among the people, like Simon, from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius, from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus, from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorthæus, from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus, from whom came the Masbothæans. (Eusebius. History Of the Church, Book IV, Chapter 22, verses 1, 4-5, pp. 86-87).
Although the Book of Revelation warns about an improper alliance between kings of the world and a compromised religion, we see imperial pressures being a factor after Thebuthis.
Notice the following from an Arab source about what the faithful (called companions below) said to the Greco-Romans (called Christians below) about when Marcus rose up (all parenthetical words/statements below in source):
(71a) ‘After him’, his disciples (axhab) were with the Jews and the Children of Israel in the latter’s synagogues and observed the prayers and the feasts of (the Jews) in the same place as the latter. (However) there was a disagreement between them and the Jews with regard to Christ.
The Romans (al-Rum) reigned over them. The Christians (used to) complain to the Romans about the Jews, showed them their own weakness and appealed to their pity. And the Romans did pity them. This (used) to happen frequently. And the Romans said to the Christians: “Between us and the Jews there is a pact which (obliges us) not to change their religious laws (adyan). But if you would abandon their laws and separate yourselves from them, praying as we do (while facing) the East, eating (the things) we eat, and regarding as permissible that which we consider as such, we should help you and make you powerful, and the Jews would find no way (to harm you). On the contrary, you would be more powerful than they.”
The Christians answered: “We will do this.”
(And the Romans) said: “Go, fetch your companions, and bring your Book (kitab).” (The Christians) went to their companions, informed them of (what had taken place) between them and the Romans and said to them: “Bring the Gospel (al-injil), and stand up so that we should go to them.”
But these (companions) said to them: “You have done ill. We are not permitted (to let) the Romans pollute the Gospel. In giving a favourable answer to the Romans, you have accordingly departed from the religion. We are (therefore) no longer permitted to associate with you; on the contrary, we are obliged to declare that there is nothing in common between us and you;” and they prevented their (taking possession of) the Gospel or gaining access to it. In consequence a violent quarrel (broke out) between (the two groups). Those (mentioned in the first place) went back to the Romans and said to them: “Help us against these companions of ours before (helping us) against the Jews, and take away from them on our behalf our Book (kitab).” Thereupon (the companions of whom they had spoken) fled the country. And the Romans wrote concerning them to their governors in the districts of Mosul and in the Jazirat al-’Arab. Accordingly, a search was made for them; some (qawm) were caught and burned, others (qawm) were killed.
(As for) those who had given a favorable answer to the Romans they came together and took counsel as to how to replace the Gospel, seeing it was lost to them. (Thus) the opinion that a Gospel should be composed (yunshi`u) was established among them…a certain number of Gospels were written. (Pines S. The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Volume II, No.13; 1966. Jerusalem, pp. 14-15).
The above, which appears to be accurate, would seem to have taken place in the second century--probably concluding around 134/135 A.D. It is interesting for a number of reasons. It shows that there were two group that professed Christ then. The compromisers called “Christians” above, and the other (the faithful ones) called “companions.” The fact that the companions did not eat unclean meat and would no longer associate with the compromisers showed that in whatever area the above occurred in, there were definitely two very different groups. With the faithful being separatists, as were those later associated with Polycarp and Serapion.
Fear of losing their homes and livelihoods, fear of the Romans, political expediency, and licentious views were reasons that one group went with Marcus.
Yet, the faithful group had the true gospels, yet the other made their own up--this may be why some of the ‘gnostic gospels’ started to appear in the early second century. The departure from the biblical laws, called Mosaic by Gibbon, also affected areas outside of Judea.
The theological historian Johann Lorenz Mosheim wrote:
In consequence in this favourable alteration of the sentiments of the Romans towards them ... Marcus, at whose insistence, they were prevailed on to renounce the law of Moses ...
Nothing, in fact, can be better attested than that there existed in Palestine two Christian churches, by the one of which an observance of the Mosaic law was retained, and by the other disregarded. This division amongst the Christians of Jewish origins did not take place before the time of Hadrian, for it can be ascertained, that previously to his reign the Christians of Palestine were unanimous in an adherence to the ceremonial observances of their forefathers. There can be no doubt, therefore, that this separation originated in major part of them being prevailed upon by Marcus to renounce Mosaic ritual, by way of getting rid of the numerous inconveniences to which they were exposed, and procuring for themselves a reception, as citizens, in the newly formed colony of Ælia Capitolina. (Mosheim JL. Commentaries on the affairs of the Christians before the time of Constantine the Great: or, An enlarged view of the ecclesiastical history of the first three centuries, Volume 2. Translated by Robert Studley Vidal. Publisher T. Cadell and W. Davies, 1813, pp. 196-197)
Yes, one group, split into two. One group remained faithful, and the other changed. It was not the elimination of “Mosiac ritual” that Marcus insisted upon, as much of what would be so considered was gone earlier (cf. Hebrews 9:6-28)—but it was improper political compromise.
The 19th century scholar Joseph Barber Lightfoot wrote:
The Church of Ælia Capitolina was very differently constituted from the Church of Pella and the Church of Jerusalem ... not a few doubtless accepted the conqueror’s terms, content to live henceforth as Gentiles ... in the new city of Hadrian. But there were others who hung to the law of their forefathers ... (Lightfoot JB. Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians: A Revised Text with Introduction, Notes and Dissertations. Published by Macmillan, 1881, pp. 317, 331)
The Church of Pella was Sabbath-keeping (cf. Bagatti, The Church from the Circumcision, p. 202) as had been the Jerusalm church.
The Eastern Orthodox Church in Jerusalem seemed to have acknowledged that change came at the time of Marcus, but they have been a bit guarded about it:
In 135 AD the Roman emperor Hadrian builds on the ruins of Jerusalem a new Roman city and names it Aelia Capitolina and permits the Christians to come back. However the Jewish are not permitted to come in town. (The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem. http://www.holylight.gr/patria/enpatria.html accessed 11/30/07)
Notice the statement that “the Jewish are not permitted to come in town.” That was correct, but only in a limited sense. It was not just the normal Jews: it was also those who kept “Jewish” (biblical) practices like the seventh-day Sabbath that were not permitted to come into Jerusalem after its 135 A.D. takeover.
Yes, changes did take place in and after 135 A.D. in Jerusalem. Fear, etc., because of Emperor Hadrian seems to have affected other areas, such as Rome and probably also Alexandria.
The Bible is actually pretty clear that Jerusalem was NOT the location of the headquarters of the Christian church in this post 135 era (cf. Hebrews 13:14; Revelation 2-3), though it will be later (Zechariah 1:16-17, 2:10-13; see also Does the Church of God need to be headquartered in Jerusalem?).
It should be noted that,
because of this Jewish revolt, Emperor Hadrian outlawed many practices
considered to be Jewish. The Christians in
Sadly as E. Gibbon reported,
most, but not all, made the wrong choice in 135 A.D. Jesus, of course, taught
that the true church would be a "little flock" (Luke 12:32). This
clearly led to a separation between the Christian faithful and those who
preferred a form of Christianity more acceptable to the Greco-Roman world. Clearly from 135 A.D. onwards,
Was the church supposed to
change its beliefs and practices throughout history or be faithful to what the
apostles originally received? Notice what Jude wrote:
Beloved,
while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I
found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the
saints (Jude 3).
III. Early
The New Testament clearly
shows that there were faithful Christians in
While certain Roman Catholics have
tried to persuade the world that Rome was the successor headquarters of the
Christian Church after Jerusalem (as early as 42 A.D. by some Roman Catholic accounts[12]),
and even claim the Church in Rome was started by Peter and Paul, this is not
born out by the Bible nor the writings of certain historians.
The fact is that the Bible
itself mentions nothing about any church of Rome in terms of any leadership
significance for the true church, other than the Apostle Paul being imprisoned in that city.
Other than Paul's letter to
those in
(While most Roman Catholic
writers believe that Peter was in Rome when he made this statement in his first
epistle--She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you, 1 Peter
5:13--this was not clearly a reference to Rome, there were other towns called
Babylon then; Peter was probably in the one in Mesopotamia--yet even if it was a
reference to Rome, it would not prove that Rome was of central significance to
the church or that Peter was even in Rome. The essential Roman Catholic position seems to be that since tradition claims that Peter died in
Contrary to certain claims
and foundational traditions (even Pope Benedict XVI was still perpetuating this
myth[13]),
the Bible shows that Paul did not start the Church in
And
so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest
I should build on another man's foundation, but as it is written: "To whom
He was not announced, they shall see; And those who have not heard shall
understand." For this reason I also have been much hindered from coming to
you" (Romans
Also, the following passage
from the Book of Acts demonstrates that no one prior to Paul (circa 60 A.D. according
to The Catholic Encyclopedia[14])
preached publicly to the Jewish leaders there:
17 And
it came to pass after three days that Paul called the leaders of the Jews
together. So when they had come together, he said to them: "Men and
brethren, though I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our
fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the
Romans, 18 who, when they had examined me, wanted to let me go, because there
was no cause for putting me to death. 19 But when the Jews spoke against it, I
was compelled to appeal to Caesar, not that I had anything of which to accuse
my nation. 20 For this reason therefore I have called for you, to see you and
speak with you, because for the hope of
Therefore, it seems
impossible that Peter could have been proclaiming Christ's Gospel of the
kingdom as a bishop in
Hence, neither Peter nor Paul
founded the church in
Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, where ever we turn, the solid outlines of the petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve...
Neither Paul, Acts nor any of the Gospels tells us anything direct about Peter's death, and none of them even hints that the special role of Peter could be passed on to any single 'successor'. There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament (Duffy, Eamon. Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes. Yale University Press, New Haven (CT), 2002, pp.2,6).
Notice also:
The supposition that, when Peter did come to Rome (presumably in the 60’s), he took over and became the first bishop represents a retrojection of later church order…our evidence would suggest that the emergence of a single bishop, distinct from the college of presbyter-bishops, came relatively late in the Roman church, perhaps not until well into the 2nd century. Leaders such as Linus, Cletus, and Clement, known to us from the early Roman Church, were probably prominent presbyter-bishops but not necessarily ‘monarchical’ bishops. (Brown RE. Priest and Bishop. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004, OBSTAT : Rev. James C. Turro Censor Librorum IMPRIMATUR: Thomas A. Boland, S.T.D. Archbishop of Newark, October 19, 1970 p. 53)
Another Roman Catholic scholar wrote:
There is no evidence for a monarchical episcopate at the end of the first century except in Asia Minor and Syria, ... The primary religious figure is the prophet, either wandering or resident; the group of elders function as a substitute for the prophets, and there is no conception of a monarchical episcopacy.(Burke P. “The Monarchical Episcopate at the end of the First Century,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 7 (1970): 499-518)
Roman Catholic scholars admit that Peter did not found the Church of Rome and that there was not a succession of Bishops of Rome, until after the mid-2nd century. The early leaders were not "monarchical"--meaning that they most certainly did not rule over all Christendom. Plus, the ones listed above would have been subservient to Apostles, like John, who was alive during and apparently after their time. And the Apostle John was in Asia Minor, and he and Peter also went to Antioch in Syria (cf. Acts 11:26--though that Antioch is now in Turkey--it was part of ancient Syria)--we in the CCOG show our succession through the Apostle John in Asia Minor and later through Antioch (while also acknowledging the early succession that was also in ancient Antioch--see the free online book: Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?).
As far as Rome being the 'eternal city' like many Roman Catholics refer to it, the New Testament teaches:
14 For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come. (Hebrews 13:14)
This scripture proves that no city on earth was to continue to be the ‘headquarters’ city’ for Christians. Although commentators, like Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown believe that this was also a specific reference to Jerusalem (and probably was), the reality is that this letter was sent from Italy (Hebrews 13:24), thus it pretty specifically rules out Rome.
Now, interestingly, when
personally addressing the leadership for the Christians who lived in
It is of course true that
Notice the following
admission from The Catholic Encyclopedia concerning the early church in
The
Roman synagogues, unlike their counterparts in
The above account
demonstrates that even Roman scholars recognize that there were a variety of
groups professing Christ in Rome (this subject is covered in more detail in the
article What Does Rome Actually
Teach About Early Church History?). And that there really was no single Roman bishopric in charge of all
In the 5th century, Epiphaneus claimed Hegesippus compiled a list of leaders of Rome.
In any case, the succession of the bishops at Rome runs in this order: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, whom I mentioned above, on the list. And no one need be surprised at my listing each of the items so exactly; precise information is always given in this way. (Panarion of Epiphaneus, Book 1, Section 2, 27.6.7)
F.A. Sullivan suggests that those Romans apparently mentioned names of leaders they had heard of (as most would have had no possible direct contact with any from the first century) as there were no early records with names. Because there was, at the time of Hegesippus' visit, a bishop of Rome and there had long been bishops in Jerusalem and Asia Minor, F.A. Sullivan also suggests that Hegesippus and later writers presumed that the early Roman leaders were also monarchical bishops, even though that is not considered to have been likely (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001).
That said, I suspect that Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, and Alexander were probably faithful ministers and likely held to Church of God doctrines. It was not until the Bar-Kochba revolt c. 130-135 that the leadership in Rome seems to have moved away from the Sabbath as well as keeping Passover on a Sunday.
IV. Heretics Mainly in
Every writer of the New
Testament recorded warnings about false or heretical teachers. And many false leaders did arise, as Jesus
Himself foretold they would (see Matthew 24).
In the first and second
centuries, a number of heretics who professed Christ went to, or were based in,
Even those now considered to
be early supporters of the Roman Catholic Church (such as Justin[16],
Tertullian[17], Irenaeus[18], and Hippolytus[19])
condemned Simon Magus and his followers
for doctrines such as statues, revering a woman, incantations, mysteries,
mystic priests, claiming divine titles for leaders, accepting money for
religious favors, preferring allegory and tradition over many aspects of
scripture, divorcing themselves from Christian biblical practices considered to
be Jewish, and having a leader who wanted to be thought of as God/Christ on
earth.
In the late 2nd
century, the Roman-supporting historian Irenaeus recorded the following:
Cerdo
was one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live at
Rome in the time of Hyginus. He taught that the God proclaimed by the law and
the prophets was not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the former was known,
but the latter unknown; while the one also was righteous, but the other
benevolent. Marcion of Pontus succeeded
him, and developed his doctrine ...[20]
(Hyginus has been claimed to
have been a bishop/leader in
Irenaeus also noted that
various claimed bishops of
Valentinus
came to
But
Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who
had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the
Church in Smyrna?always taught the things which he had learned from the
apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To
these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have
succeeded Polycarp down to the present time -- a man who was of much greater
weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and
the rest of the heretics. He it was who,
coming to
There
are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to
bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house
without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall
down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp
himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Do you
know me?" "I do know you, the first-born of Satan."
Such was
the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even
verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says,
"A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject;
knowing that he that is such is subverted, and , being condemned of
himself."[21]
Valentinus, Cerinthus, and Marcion are considered by Greco-Roman Catholics[22]
and others[23] to have
been Gnostic heretics, while Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus were Roman
leaders.Thus these quotes from Irenaeus
show that the Roman 'bishops' did not have a higher leadership role than
Polycarp of Smyrna had, because it apparently took the stature of the visiting
Polycarp to turn many Romans away from the Gnostic heretics.
The heretic Marcion came to
Valentinus was a second
century heretic who attempted to blend much pagan Gnosticism with what he
perceived to be the Christian faith. He
came from
According to a Greco-Roman Catholic
bishop called Marcellus of Ancyra, Valentinus teachings corrupted the church:
Now
with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the
Hence, it was Valentinus, who
Polycarp renounced, who is believed to have been the first affiliated with
Christianity to teach the Trinitarian concept of three hypostasis or make any
clear statement of 'equality' regarding three alleged persons of God .
On the other hand, Polycarp[28]
and the Apostle John (John 1:1-3), specifically referred to both the Father and
the Son as God, but never referred to the Holy Sprit as God. Ignatius did the same in his letters to the
Ephesians and the Smyrnaeans.[29]
Polycarp also correctly kept
the Passover. Eusebius noted that in
Polycarp's region,
the
parishes of all
Irenaeus knew and reported
that Polycarp condemned heretics such as Marcion and Valentinus, but Irenaeus
failed to point out that they were still allowed to be affiliated with Roman
bishops until at least two decades later. Sadly, Irenaeus supported the Roman
Church even though Irenaeus knew that its leadership tolerated heretics that
had earlier been condemned by Polycarp (and eventually by Irenaeus himself) (it
may be of interest to note that Pope Benedict stated that Irenaeus was the
"true founder of Catholic theology"[31]).
Notice that this Roman tolerance
was essentially confirmed by Tertullian (the first of the famed Latin theological
writers[32] almost
every theological writing was written in Greek prior to Tertullian) near the
end of the second century:
Where
was Marcion then, that shipmaster of
Antoninus was also known as
Titus Hadrianus Antoninus (not to be confused with the Emperor Hadrian
who reigned from 117-138) and reigned from 138-161, while Eleutherius (there
are differing spellings of his name) was the Bishop of Rome from 175-189. Thus,
even though Marcion and Valentinus were condemned by Polycarp as heretics about
two decades before Eleutherius became Bishop of
Montanus was also a heretic
in the second century. The followers of
Montanist were eventually denounced by the Roman Catholics, but only decades
after he was repeatedly denounced by leaders in Asia Minor associated with the
true Church including Thraseas of Eumenia and Apollinaris of Hierapolis (both
towns of which are in Asia Minor). And
while Thraseas denounced Montanus before 160 A.D., Montanus was accepted and
encouraged after this by one or more bishops of
Notice the following report
from Tertullian:
For
after the Bishop of Rome had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus,
Prisca, and Maximilla, and, in consequence of the acknowledgment, had bestowed
his peace on the churches of
According to The Catholic Encyclopedia [36],
the Bishop of Rome mentioned above was either Eleutherius (175-189) or Victor
(189-199). Hence, Montanus was another
heretic tolerated/encouraged by
And why is all of this about
Because it is clearly
documented that those that the Roman Church currently considers to have been
heretics were in Rome, were tolerated by the Romans even after they were
denounced as heretics, and that the Roman Catholic Church continues to hold to
practices that were introduced by these heretics. Furthermore, it shows that leaders associated
with the true Church in
Would the leaders of the true
Church be more likely to tolerate or denounce heretics?
The answer should be obvious
(and to those it is not, recall that Jesus, Peter, Paul, Jude, John and others
denounced false religious leaders in the New Testament).
V. Was the Headquarters for Christians Expected to
Remain In
While there are several
churches that claim direct descent from places such as
Let us look at what Jesus
taught on this matter:
And
you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will
be saved. When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly,
I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of
Jesus, of course, has not yet
returned. Whatever Christians there have been in the area of
Thus Jesus must be referring
to more cities than just those in the area of
As cited before, the concept is also confirmed
in the Book of Hebrews:
For
here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come (Hebrews
For my Roman Catholic friends who may have concerns about translations, let us look at what Jesus taught in Matthew and Paul taught in Hebrews using the Rheims New Testament of 1582 which is the Roman Catholic approved translation of the Latin Vulgate into English:
and you shall be odious to all men for my name,
but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved. And when they
shall persecute you in this city, flee into another (Matthew
For we have not here a permanent city: but we seek
that which is to come (Hebrews
Thus, even the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament effectively proves
that no single city, including
VI. Though the Apostles Went Abroad, the New Testament
Focus Was the Church in
Jesus told His disciples to
make disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28:19). The New Testament records that in addition to
Jerusalem/Palestine (where the Bible shows all the original apostles, plus
Paul, spent time), the apostles went to
Notice what the Apostle Peter wrote: 1 Peter 1:1-2:
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.
As it turns out, other than Pontus, I have visited everyone of those places--and they all are in Asia Minor. Peter was writing to the saints, the elect, who were scattered in Asia Minor. Obviously there were many Christians in Asia Minor at that time.
A Protestant scholar has
written:
After
the ascension of Christ, the history of the apostles whom He had trained is
left in the utmost obscurity. Except James, who was early killed with the
persecutors' sword in
Since
Greco-Roman Catholic tradition, from the
Roman Catholic theologian Hippolytus in the third century (that may or may not
be valid) makes the following claims:
Where
Each of Them Preached, And Where He Met His End
1. Peter
preached the Gospel in
2.
Andrew preached to the Scythians and Thracians, and was crucified, suspended on
an olive tree, at Patrae, a town of
3.
John, again, in
4.
James, his brother, when preaching in
5.
Philip preached in
6.
Bartholomew, again, preached to the Indians, to whom he also gave the Gospel
according to Matthew, and was crucified with his head downward, and was buried
in Allanum, a town of the great
7.
And Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, and published it at
8. And
Thomas preached to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, Bactrians, and
Margians, and was thrust through in the four members of his body with a pine
spears at Calamene, the city of
9.
And James the son of Alphaeus, when preaching in
10.
Jude, who is also called Lebbaeus, preached to the people of
11.
Simon the Zealot, the son of Clopas, who is also called Jude, became bishop of
12.
And Matthias, who was one of the seventy, was numbered along with the eleven
apostles, and preached in
13.
And Paul entered into the apostleship a year after the assumption of Christ;
and beginning at
Most of the above are also
discussed similarly in Fox's Book of
Martyrs. But here are some that Fox
words a bit differently (plus he included Luke):
VII.
Andrew
Was
the brother of Peter. He preached the gospel to many Asiatic nations; but on
his arrival at
IX.
Peter
Among many other saints, the blessed apostle Peter was condemned to death, and crucified, as some do write, at Rome; albeit some others, and not without cause, do doubt thereof ...
XI. Jude
The brother of James, was commonly called Thaddeus. He was crucified at Edessa, A.D. 72.
XII.
Bartholomew
Preached
in several countries, and having translated the Gospel of Matthew into the
language of
XIV.
Luke
The
evangelist, was the author of the Gospel which goes under his name. He
travelled with Paul through various countries, and is supposed to have been
hanged on an olive tree, by the idolatrous priests of
XV.
Simon
Surnamed
Zelotes, preached the Gospel in
XVI.
John
The
"beloved disciple," was brother to James the Great. The churches of
Paul and his companions spent time in Ephesus (Acts 18:18-21; 19:1-41) and other parts of Asia Minor (Acts 13:31-41; 14:1-25).
It may be of interest to note
that by combining the accounts of the Bible, Fox, and Hippolytus it is clear
that most of the disciples spent some time in Asia Minor (though several
apostles only had to pass through Asia Minor to get to the locations Hippolytus
listed). However, the reader will note
that with Simon Zelotes, for example, Fox and Hippolytus list two differing
locations, and apparently contradictory accounts are mentioned. Hence, early traditions as to where the
apostles ended up should be considered just that, early traditions.
One tradition, which was not
written down until the late 1800s and thus has been criticized concerns Thomas
who is discussed in the Ramban Pattu (also known as the Rabban Song):
The
Rabban Song, which has been passed down orally by generations of Indian
Christians, recounts Thomas' career in
Other traditions include/add
that Andrew founded the church in Bithynia (Byzantium), James brother of John
went to Spain, Bartholomew was in also Asia Minor, Thomas also went to China,
Burma, & Malaysia, Matthew went to Ethiopia & Egypt, and Simon Zelotes
also went to Iran, Africa, & Egypt, Jude (Thaddeus) went to Iran &
Armenia (and is claimed to have began what is now called the Armenian National
Church) and most likely some of those traditions are true.[41]
But what about the Bible?
Jesus told his disciples to
go to all the world to preach the gospel (Matthew 28:19-20). The Bible shows that Paul was in
Since the New Testament
mentions a variety of places that most non-Greek speaking individuals know
little about, very few people are aware that, after the four gospel accounts,
that the New Testament is mainly written to the church leadership in Asia
Minor.
There are a total of 27 books in the New Testament. At least 9 books of the New Testament were directly written to the church leaders in Asia Minor. The ones clearly written to those in Asia Minor include Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Timothy (Timothy was in Ephesus), Philemon, 1 Peter, 3 John, and Revelation. According to The Ryrie Study Bible John’s Gospel, 1 Corinthians, 1 & 2 John, and possibly Philippians, were written from Ephesus. In addition to these, 2 Peter, and possibly Jude may have also been mainly directed to one or more of the churches in Asia Minor.
The Book of James was written to “the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad” (James 1:1). Some of them were in Asia Minor. Others according to the historian Josephus were “beyond Euphrates”--which is where Scythia had been. It is also likely that some other books were written at least partially from Asia Minor. For example, the Book of Acts mentions “Ephesus” and “Ephesians” a dozen times and “Asia” 15 times (NKJV).
Plus, it has been claimed by one or more that all four gospel accounts were as well, though this is less certain (though one or more other than John may have been). So probably 14 to 22 New Testament books were written to or from Asia Minor (see also the free online book: Who Gave the World the Bible? The Canon: Why do we have the books we now do in the Bible? Is the Bible complete?
There is only one book written to those in Rome (it never mentions any of the so-called Roman bishops), with 1 to Corinth, 2 to Thessalonica, and 1 to Crete (Titus), - a total of 5 letters neither sent from nor addressed to those in Asia Minor.
What this clearly shows, is that although there were Christians in various areas, the focus for the New Testament writers was the churches in Asia Minor. And interestingly, the last book of the Bible is specifically addressed to the churches of Asia Minor (Revelation 1:4,11). It was in Asia Minor that the NT canon was originally formed. There is no other place that could have had it earlier. And the Apostle John did have the full canon before his death.
Furthermore, scholars do
recognize that it was those in
Was
not the Apostolic Canon of scripture first formed...in
VII. Ephesus and John
Just before
The Christian
writers of the second and third centuries testify to us as a tradition
universally recognized and doubted by no one that the Apostle and Evangelist
John lived in
John made
his way to
Notice the timing. The Christians fled
Eventually, he was exiled to
To
the angel of the church of Ephesus write, 'These things says He who holds the
seven stars in His right hand, who walks in the midst of the seven golden
lampstands: "I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you
cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are
apostles and are not, and have found them liars; and you have persevered and
have patience, and have labored for My name's sake and have not become weary.
Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love.
Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works,
or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its
place--unless you repent. But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the
Nicolaitans, which I also hate' (Revelation 2:1-6).
Unlike
Many Roman Catholics point to
Matthew 16:18-19 as proof that the authority of the Church was given just to
Peter and his successors in
And
I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church,
and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the
keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in
heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
But of course Peter died,
Paul taught that Jesus is the Rock (1 Corinthians 10:4), and
In his letter to
the Ephesians, the Apostle Paul makes clear that the Church was not
just built on Peter but is built on the foundation of the apostles (plural) AND
the prophets, with Jesus as the CHIEF cornerstone, and including all the
members in the church as well,
19 Now,
therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with
the saints and members of the household of God, Having been built on the
foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, In whom the whole
building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, In whom
you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit
(Ephesians 2:19-22).
(More on this subject of
keys can be found in the article Peter and the Keys.)
By combining these passages in
Matthew and Ephesians, we may be learning that just like Peter was a
predominant apostle until his death, that
Tertullian reported that the
Apostle John was taken temporarily to
... after
the tyrant's death, he returned from the isle of
Apparently during the time of the exile, a schism
occurred in
Because
of the sudden and repeated misfortunes and reverses which have happened to us[47]
Perhaps that delay included
John's exile or perhaps his death (which occurred circa 100 A.D.).
If this letter was sent to
Although many Roman Catholics
suggest the response sent from Rome (which they call normally 1 Clement, while other scholars simply
call it The Letter of the Romans to the
Corinthians) is definitive proof that Rome was the ruling Church, the
letter actually refers to its contents only as "our advice"[48],
does not list any author, and does not otherwise prove anything about Roman
authority.
Here is the opinion of one
Roman Jesuit priest and scholar, F.A. Sullivan, concerning it:
In
the past, Catholic writers have interpreted this intervention as an early
exercise of Roman primacy, but now it is generally recognized as the kind of
exhortation one church could address another without any claim to authority
over it ... I Clement certainly does not support the theory that before the
apostles died, they appointed one man as bishop in each of the churches they
founded. This letter witnesses rather to the fact that in the last decade of
the first century, the collegial ministry of a group of presbyters ... was still
maintained in the Pauline
Perhaps, it should be noted
that probably within 10 years of the above, Ignatius, while in Smyrna, sent a
letter via the Ephesians to the church in Rome[50]
as well as other letters to several other churches; so based on Corinthian
letter logic, Roman Catholics who claim as proof of Roman dominance would have more
reason to accept Asia Minor as the main church instead of Rome.
But even more so, because
Ignatius specifically acknowledged that the church in
to
the church at
I
will tarry in
Notice that the above verses
show that it was in
The early church in
Furthermore, it may be of
interest to note that John wrote that the antichrists are those that did not
follow him. John taught,
Little
children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is
coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the
last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been
of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be
made manifest, that none of them were of us (1 John 2:18-19).
So what may have been the
first specific departure from the practices of John that we have a historical
record of (involving John's name)?
The changing of the date of
Passover!
The fact that the Roman
Church specifically decided on Sunday Passover shows that they intentionally
ignored his warning about antichrist.
Paul once noted that it was
"James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars" (Galatians 2:9)
of the Church in
Is it logical that if any one
was to be the leader to succeed Peter it would be John. Is it logical that the one who wrote the last
3-5 books of the Bible would be the primary leader of the church until he died?
The Catholic Encyclopedia records this about John,
John
had a prominent position in the Apostolic body. Peter, James, and he were the
only witnesses of the raising of Jairus's daughter (Mark, v, 37), of the
Transfiguration (Matt., xvii, 1), and of the Agony in Gethsemani (Matt., xxvi,
37). Only he and Peter were sent into the city to make the preparation for the
Last Supper (Luke, xxii, 8)...John alone remained near his beloved Master at
the foot of the Cross on Calvary with the Mother of Jesus and the pious women,
and took the desolate Mother into his care as the last legacy of Christ (John,
xix, 25-27). After the Resurrection John with Peter was the first of the
disciples to hasten to the grave and he was the first to believe that Christ
had truly risen (John, xx, 2-10)"the disciple whom Jesus loved".
After Christ's Ascension and the Descent of the Holy Spirit, John took,
together with Peter, a prominent part in the founding and guidance of the
Church...the Apostle and Evangelist John lived in Asia Minor in the last
decades of the first century and from Ephesus had guided the Churches of that
province...After Domitian's death the Apostle returned to Ephesus during the
reign of Trajan, and at Ephesus he died about A.D. 100 at a great age. [52]
Similarly the Orthodox Church
has acknowledged,
John
also was sent with Peter to
Therefore, it is no surprise
since John outlived Peter and all the other original apostles that any church
leadership succession would have transferred to him. Recall that even the Roman Catholics admit that John
guided the churches in
This is especially true since
none of those 'bishops of
Even the noted Roman Catholic
scholar F.A. Sullivan writes,
... in
Luke's day, local church leaders could be called either elders or overseers,
without a clear distinction between the terms? [55]
(Overseers in the above
passage is the translation from the Greek term episkopoi which also means bishop.)
Yet, as the Bible shows, an
apostle is the highest spiritual position in the church,
And
God has appointed these in the church: first apostles (1 Corinthians
Thus, it does not seem
biblically reasonable that a local elder in
Notice that in the early 4th
Century, Eusebius wrote,
Timothy,
so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in
An episcopate means a
bishopric (or pastorate), which demonstrates that in the time of Timothy (1st
century), evangelist ranked ministers (2 Timothy 4:5) and not mainly apostles,
were considered to be bishops (Roman Catholic accepted writings do not normally refer
to bishops as apostles, though some do). Hence, this further suggests that the Apostle John would not be
subservient to any bishop of
It is in Paul's letter to the
Ephesians that the offices of church government are listed, with apostles again
listed ahead of pastors,
11 And
He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some
pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry,
for the edifying of the body of Christ till we all come to the unity of the
faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure
of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children,
tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the
trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking
the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head--Christ--
from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint
supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its
share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love (Ephesians
4:11-15).
It is
It was also in
In the second century, even
the Greco-Roman Catholic Irenaeus noted,
... the
Church in
So, yes, it was Ephesus that gave a true witness of the teachigs of the apostles. And it remained that way into the 3rd century.
But
God sometimes seems to
fulfill prophecies in ways we humans cannot tell until after the fact.
In the case of
When my wife and I were in
Currently,
VIII. Justin Martyr: Two Groups
Paul told those in
This
I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as
the rest of the Gentiles walk (Ephesians 4:17).
Yet certain ones did not heed
this.
While living in
But
this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and
supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated
from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations[59].
While the Ephesians were told
to live differently than the other Gentiles in whose nation they co-existed
with, those with Justin could not be distinguished.Thus,
Although Justin ended up in
Notice this astounding
admission from Justin:
But
if, Trypho, some of your race, who say they believe in this Christ, compel
those Gentiles who believe in this Christ to live in all respects according to
the law given by Moses, or choose not to associate so intimately with them, I
in like manner do not approve of them.[64]
Justin admits that there were
two groups in
It is possible that the
reason that Justin decided to leave
When responding to Trypho
about the ten commandments, Justin also stated,
For
the law promulgated on Horeb is now old, and belongs to yourselves alone; but this
is for all universally an eternal and final law--namely, Christ--has been given
to us, and the covenant is trustworthy, after which there shall be no law, no
commandment, no ordinance. [65]
But look at what John, the
last apostle in
He
who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a
liar, and the truth is not in him (1 John 2:4).
More on the commandments can be found in the free online book: The Ten Commandments: The Decalogue, Christianity, and the Beast
Interestingly, recall that
Jesus commends the church at
Perhaps it should be noted
that although the Roman and
In
both "Apologies" and in his "Dialogue" he gives many
personal details, e.g. about his studies in philosophy and his conversion; they
are not, however, an autobiography, but are partly idealized, and it is
necessary to distinguish in them between poetry and truth. He received a good
education in philosophy, an account of which he gives us at the beginning of
his "Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon". This account cannot be taken too
literally; the facts seem to be arranged with a view. This interview is
evidently not described exactly as it took place, and yet the account cannot be
wholly fictitious.[66]
Not wholly fictitious
suggests that even Roman Catholic scholars realize Justin was partially bearing false
witness, thus not likely to be part of the true church. Justin actually made a variety of clearly
false statements in his writings that others have noted[67]
(here is a detailed article Justin
Martyr: Saint, Heretic, or Apostate?).
One reason that it seems odd
that the Roman and
For
I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines
[delivered] by Him. For if you have
fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this
[truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob; who say there is
no resurrection of the dead, and that
their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are
Christians.[68]
Anyway, apparently after
Polycarp left
And
in
Also, note what a modern
Roman source states:
ANICETUS,
ST. (155-166) Born in Syria, he came to Rome as a collaborator of St. Justin in
the battle against the heretics ... Another heresy, Montanism flourished at that
time.[70]
Actually, Justin was not much
of a battler of heresies (though he did condemn some of the Gnostics), but
sometimes a supplier of them. And
apparently he also did not oppose Montanism, even though leaders in his earlier
home of
IX.
John lists the church in
The
Ephesians greet you from
Notice that Polycarp is
clearly called a bishop (an overseeing pastor) in
Polycarp called the
Father God and Jesus God, but he never referred to the Holy
Spirit that way (see Polycarp's
Letter to the Philippians) this is a binitarian view. Here is the only
extant direct quote from Polycarp that clearly mentions the Holy Spirit:
I bless you because you have considered me worthy of this day and hour, that I might receive a place among the number of martyrs in the cup of your Christ, to the resurrection of eternal life, both of soul and of body, in the incorruptibility of the Holy Spirit. May I be received among them in your presence today, as a rich and acceptable sacrifice, as you have prepared and revealed beforehand, and have now accomplished, you who are the faithful and true God. For this reason, indeed for all things, I praise you, I bless you, I glorify you, through the eternal and heavenly High-priest, Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom to you with him and the Holy Spirit be glory both now and for the ages to come. Amen.[72]
More historical and
scriptural information on the Holy Spirit can be found in the article Did Early Christians Think the
Holy Spirit Was A Separate Person in a Trinity?
Polycarp also correctly kept
the Passover. Eusebius noted that in
Polycarp's region, the parishes of all
Irenaeus reported,
And
when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus,
although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other
points. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in
his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always observed by John the
disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant;
nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep
[the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to
the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they
held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the
Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that
they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole
Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.[74]
But were they truly in peace
after that?
I do not think so.
Actually, I am convinced that
Irenaeus glossed over the degree of disagreement. What really seems to have happened then is
that Polycarp denounced a variety of Gnostic and other heretics during that
trip. Anicetus was new to his position,
decided it was advantageous to defer to Polycarp for either one meal or
Passover service, then Polycarp left (Protestant scholar H. Wace seemed to feel that this was a Passover
service, see note [75]). About that time, according to Eusebius,
Justin gained more influence in
Furthermore, the Greco-Roman Catholic
monk and historian Epiphanius wrote,
For
long ago, even from the earliest days, the Passover was celebrated at different
times in the church. In the time of Polycarp and Victor, the east was at odds
with the west and they would not accept letters of commendation from each
other.[77]
What Irenaeus and
Epiphanius writings seem to show is that the aged Polycarp went to Rome to
primarily deal with Gnostic heretics that claimed to be Christian. He also he tried to persuade the Romans to
observe Passover on the 14th day of the first month, and not on an annual
Sunday.Apparently Anicetus conceded
enough (such as about Polycarp's position on that and probably about
Marcion, who Anicetus apparently agreed was a heretic) that no recorded major
'blowup' between the two survived. Notice that "the east" (Polycarp's side) did not accept the authority of
the bishop of
Also, around that time, the
Romans were tolerating too many heretics, heretics that those in
Notice two accounts, the
first from Protestant scholar Dr. H. Brown:
Sabellius
taught the strict unity of the godhead: "one Person (hypostasis), three
names." God is hyiopater, Son-Father. The different names Father, Son, and
Spirit, merely describe different forms of revelation; the Son revealed the
Father as a ray reveals the sun. Now the Son has returned to heaven, and God
reveals himself as the Holy Spirit ... Despite these flaws, Sabelliansim seems to
have won the adherence of two bishops of
The
modalism of Sabellius influenced later orthodox formulations in that it
insisted on the diety of the Holy Spirit ... By insisting that the Holy Spirit is
also God, Sabellianism helped counteract the tendency to what we might call
ditheism.[78]
If the doctrine of the
trinity is so critical to being a "Christian" than why did not even
the Roman bishops misunderstand it so much? Could it have been because the true
Church was never Sabellian nor trinitarian? If the doctrine of the trinity was
true from the beginning (which it was not), why do Protestant scholars feel the
need to credit the heretical Sabellian for insisting that the Holy Spirit is
God? The simple truth is that the early true Church never considered that the
Holy Spirit was God or that God was some type of trinity.
Notice that according to
Roman Catholic scholars, Sabellianism was condemned from the start in
Yet
further evidence regarding the Church's doctrine is furnished by a comparison
of her teaching with that of heretical sects. The controversy with the
Sabellians in the third century proves conclusively that she would tolerate no
deviation from Trinitarian doctrine. Noetus of Smyrna, the originator of the
error, was condemned by a local synod, about A.D. 200. Sabellius, who
propagated the same heresy at
It should be noted that the
above writing is a bit in error. While it is true that the Church in
But these writings do show
that there were different views in
Furthermore, I believe that
when one carefully reads Polycrates' later rebuttal of Sunday Passover (which
is shown later), it is clear that Polycrates really did not care what Bishop
Victor wrote and that perhaps Polycarp made it clear to the followers in Asia
Minor that Rome was full of heretics (this may also be why Polycarp may have
been the first to claim that 666 signified a Latin Man).
Unlike Justin, Polycarp
endorsed the commandments of God in his Letter to the Philippians[80]. About two decades after Polycarp's death, Theophilus, the leader of
those who professed Christ in Antioch of Syria, specifically endorsed the ten
commandments when he wrote,
Of
this divine law, then, Moses, who also was God's servant, was made the minister
both to all the world, and chiefly to the Hebrews...Of this great and wonderful
law, which tends to all righteousness, the ten heads are such as we have
already rehearsed.[81]
Since Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians[82]
indicated that there were faithful Christians in
Since Polycarp was a disciple
of John, it is more logical that the true church could be traced from the last
apostolic head of the Ephesus church to the first major head of the Smyrna
church once it became predominant (recall that Revelation 2 lists the Smyrna
church following Ephesus church) than it could be from Peter through an
undistinguished elder named Linus (which is basically the Roman Catholic
position).
Regarding
Furthermore, it is
interesting to note that Eusebius records that Polycarp's critics called him
the "father of the Christians" [84]
and that Irenaeus stated, "Polycarp related all things in harmony
with the Scriptures." [85]
Hence, even these Roman Catholic
writers support the idea that
X. The Great Sabbath
Although we in the COGs do
not consider the Gospel of Thomas to be scripture, the following passage
from it shows that the sabbath was being observed in the 2nd Century, and that
the observance of the Sabbath was considered to be of great importance:
"... If you do not observe the sabbath as a sabbath you will
not see the Father. [86]
Noted scholar
Polycarp's martyrdom was on Saturday.[87]
This clearly demonstrates
that those in Smyrna (a Gentile filled area) were still keeping the Sabbath
around 156 A.D. [89] On
more than one occasion, the Apostle Paul himself kept the Sabbath in Pisidia in
Asia Minor (Acts 13:14,42-44).
Sabbath-keeping in Asia Minor
was publicly still going on to at least 364 A.D. or else the Eastern Church
would not have convened a Council in Laodicea to excommunicate any who rested
on the seventh day.This still did not
stop all Sabbath keeping.
Around 404 A.D. Jerome noted,
the believing Jews do well in observing the precepts of the law,
i.e. keeping the Jewish Sabbath, there exists a sect among the synagogues of the East, which is called
the sect of the Minei, and is even now condemned by the Pharisees. The
adherents to this sect are known commonly as Nazarenes; they believe in Christ
the Son of God, born of, the Virgin Mary; and they say that He who suffered
under Pontius Pilate and rose again, is the same as the one in whom we believe, a most pestilential heresy. [90]
But it was not just Jewish
Christians keeping the Sabbath. Noted
historian K.S. Latourette wrote,
... for
centuries even many Gentile Christians also observed the seventh day, or
Sabbath. [91]
The mid-5th
Century historian Sozomen reported,
The
people of
This shows that Sabbath
keeping continued in parts of
These Sabbath observances
clearly disagree with a position in an article by Michael Morrison when in the
changed WCG (now GCI), who quotes the writer Maxwell,
Many
Christians were already honoring Sunday near the beginning of the second
century.... Evidence is very strong...that many if not most Christians had
given up the Sabbath as early as A.D. 130. ... Just as Sunday observance
came into practice by early in the second century, so among Gentile Christians
Sabbath observance went out of practice by early in the second
century ... Maxwell, op. cit., pp. 136, 142. [93]
Since the
As mentioned before, the adoption of Sunday around 130 had to do with cowardice and concerns related to the pagan Roman Emperor Hadrian.
Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox
may wish to ask themselves why they do not observe the Passover on Nisan 14 as
Polycarp claimed that the Apostle John taught while a 'Bishop of Rome' insisted
on a Sunday that later became called Easter?
Actually, the main reason
that I believe that the Protestants do not refer much to Polycarp or Polycrates
is that the Protestants ended up following
XI. Ignatius, Justin, the Sabbath, and Sunday
Ignatius was an early leader
in
Many Sunday advocates cite
Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians
(circa 108 A.D.) as the strongest early evidence that Sunday was replacing the
Saturday Sabbath, and to a lesser degree the Didache (the alleged Epistle
of Barnabas is sometimes also cited, but scholars do not believe that
Barnabas wrote it, and it essentially claims God wanted the "eighth day"
instead of the Sabbath in the Book of Isaiah, a concept without biblical
support). There is also a quote allegedly
from Ignatius? Letter to the Trallians,
however it is from verse 9 in the longer version? of that letter, which
scholars discount as not authentic (it was lengthened much later by someone
else)?the shorter version, whose authenticity is widely accepted, says nothing
about "the Lord's Day".[95]
While in
What I wondered before going
to Greece was why native Greeks did not realize that
Κυριακήν
did not mean "Lord's Day" in the original, classic, Greek. But after speaking with several knowledgeable
Greeks, I concluded that the meaning of this term had been changed over
time. Now the modern Greek word for
Sunday is Κυριακή [96].However, even in modern Greek,
Κυρια (the base of the other words) still literally
means Master or Lord; it has nothing to do with the Sun or a day, nor is that
supported by the context in Ignatius.
The adoption of Sunday itself
was probably the result of various heretics and weak ones associated with
Christianity. The first person
associated with Christianity to clearly use the term for Sunday was Justin
Martyr around 150 A.D.
Justin used the Greek
expression τῇ τοῦ ῾Ηλίου λεγομένη ἡμέρᾳ.
The terms
he used were ἡμέρᾳ that means day and
Ηλίου (Helios, a sun-god) which means
Sun (λεγομένη
currently
means said) this demonstrates that the term Κυριακήν was not then the common Greek word for Sunday. The common term back was that it was Helios' day.
Thus, other than possibly the change in the date of
Passover, the earliest change to Sunday may not have occurred in
XII. Melito
Sometime after Polycarp was
killed, Melito became the
Bishop (pastor) of
St.
Melito Bishop of
Melito taught that there
would be a literal millennial reign of Christ. Melito was the first Christian to list the Books of the Old Testament--and
he listed none of the extra, so-called deuterocanonical books that the Romans
use today.
Melito kept Passover on the 14th of Nisan,
instead of on a Sunday as the Romans were doing. Melito taught against the use of idols,
taught against placing the teachings of fathers (tradition) above that of the
Bible[98]
-- all of these positions are in conflict to positions now held by the Roman
and
Speaking of millenarianism,
even The Catholic Encyclopedia notes,
... a
large number of Christians of the post-Apostolic era, particularly in
The truth is that even the
Greco-Roman churches during the time of Melito also believed in a literal
millennium, though that view is now condemned strongly by the Roman Catholic
Church. Notice what the Catechism of the Catholic Church that
was approved by Cardinal Ratzinger (before he became Pope Benedict XVI) states:
676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world
every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope
which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment.
The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the
kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism...[100]
Hence, the idea of a
millennial reign of Christ, which people that the Roman Catholic Church
considers to be saints once taught, is now condemned as a doctrine of
antichrist by the Church of Rome.
Furthermore, Melito
apparently held a binitarian view
as his writings specifically teach that the Father and the Son are God, but
indicates that the Holy Spirit was simply used by God.[101]
XIII. Polycrates
Polycrates was a Christian
bishop who claimed to continue Melito's, Polycarp's, and John's practices.
Eusebius quoted what
Polycrates wrote to Bishop Victor about Passover:
"We
observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in
Note that Polycrates:
1) Claimed to be a successor
of the Apostle John
2) Claimed that he was being
faithful to the teachings of the Gospel
3) Relied on the position
that teachings from the Bible were above those of Roman-accepted tradition
4) Claimed that he was being
faithful to the teachings passed down to him
5) Was then the spokesperson
for the churches in
6) Claimed he and his
predecessors observed the time of unleavened bread
7) Refused to accept the
authority of Roman tradition over the Bible
8) Refused to accept the
authority of the Bishop of Rome, as did his predecessors
9) Claimed that his life was
to be governed by Jesus and not opinions of men
These statements demonstrate
that those in Ephesus under John's leadership, as well as those in Smyrna under
the leadership of Polycarp, those in-between Polycarp and Polycrates, and later
those affiliated with Polycrates, ALL observed Passover on the 14th
day and ALL refused to accept Rome's position as it was not of God. It may also be of interest to note that
Greco-Roman Catholics (and others) consider that John, Philip, Thraseas, Polycarp, Sagaris, Apollinaris, and Melito were genuine, faithful,
saints. Note that not one of the
leaders listed by Polycrates
ever would accept that the teachings of the traditions of any Roman Bishop as
on par with scripture.
It is also reasonable to
suspect that they did not accept the position of Eleutherius (Victor's
immediate predecessor) who supposedly ruled that Christians could violate
biblical dietary laws. [103]
Towards the end of His direct
message to the Church in
XIV. Apollinaris
Apollinaris
was bishop of
Like Melito, Polycrates, and
Polycarp, Apollinaris
would be considered a Quartodeciman, and he is considered a saint by the Roman
Catholics.
Apollinaris wrote,
"There are, then, some who through ignorance raise disputes about these things (though their conduct is pardonable: for ignorance is no subject for blame -- it rather needs further instruction), and say that on the fourteenth day the Lord ate the lamb with the disciples, and that on the great day of the feast of unleavened bread He Himself suffered; and they quote Matthew as speaking in accordance with their view. Wherefore their opinion is contrary to the law, and the Gospels seem to be at variance with them...The fourteenth day, the true Passover of the Lord; the great sacrifice, the Son of God instead of the lamb, who was bound, who bound the strong, and who was judged, though Judge of living and dead, and who was delivered into the hands of sinners to be crucified, who was lifted up on the horns of the unicorn, and who was pierced in His holy side, who poured forth from His side the two purifying elements, water and blood, word and spirit, and who was buried on the day of the passover, the stone being placed upon the tomb". [106]
XV. Tertullian Says Two Possibilities
Tertullian was once a Roman Catholic
theologian who lived during Polycrates' time. Regarding the identity of the true church, Tertullian wrote,
The
real question is, 'To whom does the Faith belong? Whose are the Scriptures? By
whom, through whom, when and to whom has been handed down the discipline by
which we are Christians? The answer is plain: Christ sent His apostles, who
founded churches in each city, from which the others have borrowed the
tradition of the Faith and the seed of doctrine and daily borrow in order to
become churches; so that they also are Apostolic in that they are the offspring
of the Apostolic churches. [107]
To further answer those
questions, Tertullian then concluded that there were only two possibilities at
the time (around 200 A.D.) as he wrote,
Anyhow
the heresies are at best novelties, and have no continuity with the teaching of
Christ. Perhaps some heretics may claim Apostolic antiquity: we reply: Let them
publish the origins of their churches and unroll the catalogue of their bishops
till now from the Apostles or from some bishop appointed by the Apostles, as
the Smyrnaeans count from Polycarp and John, and the Romans from Clement and
Peter; let heretics invent something to match this.[108]
He essentially claimed no
other group could prove they were the church started by the apostles (hence
that would eliminate
It is of interest to note
that even though he was based out of
Tertullian (and others like
Irenaeus[109])
apparently felt that since the independent Gnostic heretics had no direct link
to Christ or the Apostles, they should not be given any credibility in terms of
being the true Church with the true Christian faith.
Thus by Tertullian's time, it
was apparent that there were just two possible ways that the true faith
could have been preserved:
1)
Through a claimed
succession of bishops that were based in
2)
Through a
faithfulness of the teachings of the Church as taught by Christ and the
apostles (like John from
Since the two churches
Tertullian described did not believe the same things in many significant ways
(those in
Tertullia''s use of the term
"Smyrnaeans" is interesting as this probably was not referring simply
to those in Smyrna proper (as it was essentially destroyed by an earthquake in
178 A.D., just after Melito's martyrdom, though it was somewhat rebuilt then),
but to those in Asia Minor who followed the teachings of the Bible, John, and
Polycarp.
Interestingly, during
Tertullian's time, in a response to the letter from Polycrates (as mentioned
previously), the then bishop of
XVI. Polycrates? Amended List
The following is a
chronological list of those I believe to have been true Christian leaders that
I have put together from the Bible, The
Catholic Encyclopedia, certain historical literature, and from Polycrates through Polycrates (those after him were not in his list):
Peter/Paul/James through death circa
64-68 (mainly oversaw churches from Asia Minor and Jerusalem. Peter's date of
death may be the least certain)
John through death circa 95-100
(oversaw churches from Ephesus of Asia Minor)
Polycarp through death
circa 155-156 (oversaw churches from Smyrna of Asia Minor)
Thraseas through death
circa 160 (oversaw the churches from Eumenia, but died in Smyrna)
Sagaris through death circa
166-167 (died in Laodicea of Asia Minor)
Papirius through death
circa 170 (oversaw churches from Smyrna of Asia Minor THIS DATE IS APPROXIMATE
AND BASED ON THE LOGIC THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA USED FOR THRASEAS)
Melito through death circa
177-180 (oversaw churches from Sardis of Asia Minor)
Polycrates through death
circa 200 (oversaw churches from Ephesus of Asia Minor)
*Apollonius of Ephesus
through death circa 210 (oversaw churches from Ephesus of Asia Minor).
*Camerius of
Note:
Some/much of the time when Polycrates was bishop of
What
this list shows is that there were known leaders in the first couple of
centuries of the Christian church that simply were not Roman bishops.? The above leaders are also NOT (with the
exception of Peter) listed in any succession list that the main branches of
the Orthodox Church claim either. Historical records demonstrate that many of them confronted heretics,
yet never shows that they ever accepted the authority of any bishop of
Thus we in the COG can
document a succession of leaders from the first through early third
centuries. We also have a relatively complete list from Acts 2 to present (see the free online book: Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?). And although scholars in
certain churches may not believe that these individuals were truly leaders of
the
The Celtic/Keltic churches, around 600 A.D. claimed to have been descended from the church of the Ephesians:
The Keltic Churches of Ireland, of Galloway, and of Iona were at one with the British Church. These claimed, like Southern Gaul and Spain, to have drawn their faith from the Apostolic See of Ephesus. Their liturgies, or such fragments as have come down to us, bear marks of belonging to the Oriental family of liturgies. (Dawson W. The Keltic Church and English Christianity. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (New Series), 1884, p. 377 doi:10.2307/3677978)
XVII. Mark and the Church in
Many of the non-biblical
teachings that the Greco-Roman churches adopted seem to have had origins in
pre-Christian cultures and religions.
One of the most influential
areas seems to have been
While the Orthodox Church
claims that church in
Yet, the Orthodox Church of
Alexandria claims that Mark was an apostle and that he passed on the succession
to a pious one named Anianus (or sometimes spelled Anianos). Essentially, these
claims are not based upon the Bible, but upon records from the fourth century
writer Eusebius, which, however, the Bible and secular history reveals contains
several flaws.
Notice the following claimed
succession list (much of which was apparently put together based upon Eusebius'
writings) from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa:
1) Mark
42 - 62
2)
Anianos 62 - 84
3)
Avilios 84 - 98
4)
Kedron 98 - 110
5)
Primos 110 - 121
6)
Ioustos 121 - 131
7)
Eumenis 131 - 144
8)
Markos II 144 - 154
9)
Keladion 154 - 167
10)
Agrippinos 167 - 179
11)
Ioulianos 179 - 189
12)
Dimitrios 189 - 232 [111]
It needs to be understood
Eusebius only states that he heard that Mark was in
The Coptic Catholic Church of
Alexandria also holds a position similar to the Orthodox Church of Alexandria
as it claims,
The
Coptic Church was founded by the martyr Mark between A.D. 40 and 60 in
However, Eusebius does not
claim that Mark was actually in
Around 43-44 A.D., Mark is
mentioned in first Acts
And
Barnabas and Saul returned from
Notice that Mark was in
In A.D. 46[114],
Mark spent time with Paul and Barnabas in the
Mark apparently went with
Paul and Barnabas from around 47-49 A.D.[115]
But Paul was not pleased with
Mark and did not want him to accompany him on the next trip:
Now
Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark. But Paul insisted
that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in
Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. Then the contention became
so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and
sailed to
Notice that Paul considered
Mark unfaithful, and notice that Mark then went to
Later Paul apparently changed
his mind about Mark:
Aristarchus
my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you
received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him) (Colossians
This occurred around 60 A.D.
and Mark is believed to have been with Paul in
Later Paul declared that Mark
was useful:
Get
Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry (2 Timothy
And this occurred around 67
A.D.[118]
It should be noted that the
Bible never mentions that Mark was ever in
Instead, the biblical account
contradicts the position of the Orthodox Church of Alexandria that Mark was its
bishop from 42-62 A.D. as Mark was in Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Cyprus and
other areas during this time. Plus, according to various historians, he was
still alive in 67 A.D.
Furthermore, even though
Eusebius mentions Mark, Eusebius noted that there was a problem with those who
professed Christ early in
1.
And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to
2.
And the multitude of believers, both men and women, that were collected there
at the very outset, and lived lives of the most philosophical and excessive
asceticism, was so great, that Philo thought it worth while to describe their
pursuits, their meetings, their entertainments, and their whole manner of life.[119]
When
Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the
evangelist in the administration of the parish of
It should be noted that
Eusebius' source or conclusion regarding Anianus must be in error.
The eighth year of Nero's
reign would be 61-62 A.D., and the Orthodox does claim that Anianus was a
bishop there from 62 A.D.
However, this cannot be if he
succeeded Mark.
Why?
Because according to Peter, Mark
was alive when Peter wrote 1 Peter 5:13, which states:
She
who is in
Furthermore, according to
Irenaeus (c. 175 A.D.), Mark was alive after Peter died:
Peter
and Paul were preaching at
While it is not certain that
Peter actually preached in Rome (at least one of Irenaeus' other claims about
Peter and Rome are considered to be false according to certain Roman Catholic
scholars), if Irenaeus is correct that Mark wrote after the death of Peter,
then Mark could not have died before 67 A.D. Thus if there was an apostle Mark in
Of course, pretty much
nothing is known about Anianus or any of his "successors"--but it
does not seem possible that he could have become a bishop after the time of the
death of 'Mark'; hence Eusebius's writings about
But it does need to be
understood that, in the first century, Philo reported that there were problems
with those who were in
3.
In the work to which he gave the title, On a Contemplative Life or on
Suppliants, after affirming in the first place that he will add to those things
which he is about to relate nothing contrary to truth or of his own invention,
he says that these men were called Therapeut? and the women that were with them
Therapeutrides. He then adds the reasons for such a name, explaining it from
the fact that they applied remedies and healed the souls of those who came to
them, by relieving them like physicians, of evil passions, or from the fact
that they served and worshiped the Deity in purity and sincerity.
4.
Whether Philo himself gave them this name, employing an epithet well suited to
their mode of life, or whether the first of them really called themselves so in
the beginning, since the name of Christians was not yet everywhere known, we
need not discuss here...
7.
Philo bears witness to facts very much like those here described and then adds
the following account: "Everywhere in the world is this race found. For it
was fitting that both Greek and Barbarian should share in what is perfectly
good. But the race particularly abounds in
9.
And then a little further on, after describing the kind of houses which they
had, he speaks as follows concerning their churches, which were scattered about
here and there: "In each house there is a sacred apartment which is called
a sanctuary and monastery, where, quite alone, they perform the mysteries of
the religious life. They bring nothing into it, neither drink nor food, nor any
of the other things which contribute to the necessities of the body, but only
the laws, and the inspired oracles of the prophets, and hymns and such other
things as augment and make perfect their knowledge and piety."
10. And
after some other matters he says:
"The
whole interval, from morning to evening, is for them a time of exercise. For
they read the holy Scriptures, and explain the philosophy of their fathers in
an allegorical manner, regarding the written words as symbols of hidden truth
which is communicated in obscure figures.
11.
They have also writings of ancient men, who were the founders of their sect,
and who left many monuments of the allegorical method. These they use as
models, and imitate their principles" ...
15 ... Philo's
words are as follows:
16.
"Having laid down temperance as a sort of foundation in the soul, they
build upon it the other virtues. None of them may take food or drink before
sunset, since they regard philosophizing as a work worthy of the light, but
attention to the wants of the body as proper only in the darkness, and
therefore assign the day to the former, but to the latter a small portion of
the night.
17.
But some, in whom a great desire for knowledge dwells, forget to take food for
three days; and some are so delighted and feast so luxuriously upon wisdom,
which furnishes doctrines richly and without stint, that they abstain even
twice as long as this, and are accustomed, after six days, scarcely to take
necessary food." These statements of Philo we regard as referring clearly
and indisputably to those of our communion.
19.
For they say that there were women also with those of whom we are speaking, and
that the most of them were aged virgins who had preserved their chastity...by
their own choice, through zeal and a desire for wisdom ...
20.
Then after a little he adds still more emphatically: "They expound the
Sacred Scriptures figuratively by means of allegories. For the whole law seems
to these men to resemble a living organism, of which the spoken words
constitute the body, while the hidden sense stored up within the words
constitutes the soul. This hidden meaning has first been particularly studied
by this sect, which sees, revealed as in a mirror of names, the surpassing
beauties of the thoughts" ...
23.
In addition to this Philo describes the order of dignities which exists among
those who carry on the services of the church, mentioning the diaconate, and
the office of bishop, which takes the precedence over all the others.[122]
So Eusebius claims that Philo
(circa late 1st century) reported that those in Alexandria were ascetic, had
mysteries, seem to have been Gnostics (ones who claimed to have special
knowledge/wisdom was essential for salvation), had some promotion of celibacy, allegorized scripture, and had a
bishop--and Eusebius seems to claim that they are part of the Roman Catholic Church
(see vs. 17 above)--even though the Roman Church did not have celibacy rules at
that time. This seems to have been where a major departure from the true faith
occurred.
When the Alexandrians first
had a bishop over the entire area is not clear--and if it was Anianus, it
appears that he led a group that did not teach the Bible the same way that the
apostles did. Since the Orthodox Church claims an unbroken link of bishops
here, they are apparently including individuals who overly allegorized
scriptures and taught other doctrines contrary to those of the apostles.
The book falsely titled The Epistle of Barnabas (the Barnabas of
the Bible did not write it) is believed to have originated in the
One man who was affiliated
with Valentinus was Marcus (also can be spelled Markos in English; this is
different from the first century person claimed to be Mark). Notice what Irenaeus
wrote:
I
showed thee, my very dear friend, that the whole system devised, in many and
opposite ways, by those who are of the
Eusebius claimed:
In
Alexandria Marcus was appointed pastor, after Eumenes had filled the office
thirteen years in all.[125]
One researcher noted:
Marcus,
the seventh bishop listed by Eusebius, could just as well have been the famed
disciple of the second-century Valentinus.[126]
And that is possible.
Irenaeus even condemned the
gnostic Marcus who had been acquainted with Valentinus for coming up with some
type of a "eucharistic -like" mystery?which may be similar to that
still practices by the Roman and
1.
In the first book, which immediately precedes this, exposing "knowledge
falsely so called," I showed thee, my very dear friend, that the whole
system devised, in many and opposite ways, by those who are of the
?
1.
But there is another among these heretics, Marcus by name, who boasts himself
as having improved upon his master ...
2.
Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length
the word of invocation, he contrives to give them a purple and reddish colour,
so that Charis, who is one of those that are superior to all things, should be
thought to drop her own blood into that cup through means of his invocation,
and that thus those who are present should be led to rejoice to taste of that
cup, in order that, by so doing, the Charis, who is set forth by this magician,
may also flow into them. Again, handing mixed cups to the women, he bids them
consecrate these in his presence.[128]
If these two Marcus's are the
same person, it is clear that one in the list of
In spite of claims from the
Orthodox Church of Alexandria, little is known about those it claims as early
leaders.
The Catholic Encyclopedia goes so far as to state:
... Demetrius
is the first Alexandrian bishop of whom anything is known.
Demetrius is in the list of
successors for the Orthodox Church of Alexandria from 188-231. During that
time, Demetrius encouraged the allegorical heretics like Clement of Alexander
and his successor.
Furthermore, this Alexandrian
Catechetical School clearly had problems as the noted theologian John Walvoord
has pointed out:
In
the last ten years of the second century and in the third century the heretical
school of theology at
Clement mixed Gnosticism with
his form of Christianity according to Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars:
Clement
of
Unlike
Irenaeus who detested it, Clement refers to secret tradition, and his
affinities to Gnosticism seem to go beyond mere borrowing of gnostic terms.[132]
?
In other words, many scholars
understand that Clement of Alexandria, who is often listed as a major leader in
It should also be noted that
many historians do not believe that there was an actual succession of bishops
in
The idea that there also was
NOT a succession of apostolic teachings from the apostles through any early
bishops of
Now
this work of mine in writing is not artfully constructed for display; but my
memoranda are stored up against old age, as a remedy against forgetfulness,
truly an image and outline of those vigorous and animated discourses which I
was privileged to hear, and of blessed and truly remarkable men.
Of
these the one, in
When
I came upon the last (he was the first in power), having tracked him out
concealed in
Well,
they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the
holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the
father (but few were like the fathers), came by God's will to us also to
deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds.[134]
The above account shows that
Clement claims that he basically has apostolic knowledge based on him coming
upon a variety of individuals who claimed to know the apostles. Notice that
Clement never even hints that this information was preserved by a line of early
bishops in
Why?
Well, amongst other reasons,
because there is no proof that there ever was no real apostle to bishop to
bishop transfers in
Later, the Church that
Demetrius led split in the year 451 into the Coptic Church and the Orthodox
Church of Alexandria.
The Gnostic practice of
allegorizing scripture was encouraged in
Thus, any claims to physical
apostolic succession in
XVIII. When Did the Roman/Orthodox Church Become
Predominant?
Since there were true church
leaders after the death of Peter including the Apostle John, and running
throughout the entire second century, when and how did
This is a fairly complex
subject, but will be touched briefly in this paper.
Several factors combined for
this to occur.
One was that the church in
Another was that when certain
persecutions set in, although many heretics were also killed, after a while
those who were more accommodating of the Roman government tended to be more
likely to survive. Since it had a habit
of tolerating those that most Christians now consider to be heretics, sometimes
Roman/Orthodox leaders and their supporters sometimes survived persecutions
that killed the more faithful (though this was not always the case as even many
Gnostic heretics were killed by Roman authorities).
Another was that inroads were
made in
During the time of Serapion of Antioch, the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus unleashed persecution that was
severe towards those in
Both Alexander of Alexandria
and Clement of Alexandria often mixed pagan practices with their forms of
Christianity. Eusebius records that Alexander praised the "successor"
to Serapion:
But,
on the death of Serapion, Asclepiades...succeeded to the episcopate of the
church at
"Alexander,
a servant and prisoner of Jesus Christ, to the blessed
Since the
"successor" to Serapion, Asclepiades, received a letter of approval
from Alexander of Jerusalem who was against various biblical practices for
Christians, it is reasonable to conclude that Asclepiades was NOT a faithful
and true Christian. There do not seem to be any early letters from leaders of
Roman Emperors themselves
persecuted those of
Hugh Smith says of the Church at
this period:
"About
one hundred and twenty years after the
After Emperor Decius, we no
longer clearly see any of the true
Around this time, the Roman
Church acknowledges that there was a leader in
Eudaemon
(250), who apostatized during the persecution of Decius?[136]
But after Eudaemon, I have
seen no listed bishops of
Furthermore, after Polycrates
and Apollonius, the official history (with Eusebius the main writer) says
almost nothing about the true church in
Note the following where
Eusebius lists leaders just about everywhere in the empire except
AT
that time Xystus was still presiding over the church of Rome, and Demetrianus,
successor of Fabius, over the church of Antioch, and Firmilianus over that of
Caesarea in Cappadocia; and besides these, Gregory and his brother Athenodorus,
friends of Origen, were presiding over the churches in Pontus; and Theoctistus
of Caesarea in Palestine having died, Domnus received the episcopate there. He
held it but a short time, and Theotecnus, our contemporary, succeeded him. He
also was a member of Origen's school. But in
It is my belief that this
lack of coverage by Eusebius (probably the main ecclesiastical historian for
that period) is intentional. The Catholic
Encyclopedia indirectly confirms this when it stated,
We
have no information concerning the further course of the matter under Victor I
so far as it regards the bishops of
In another place, The Catholic Encyclopedia states:
Of the
lost works of Tertullian the most important was the defence of the Montanist
manner of prophesying, "De ecstasi", in six books, with a seventh
book against Apollonius.[139]
I suspect that full coverage
of what occurred in
And I suspect that Tertullian's book against Apollonius would have highlighted doctrine that the Roman Church changed that the Smyrnaeans adhered to.
Shortly after that
persecution ended, Dionysius of Alexandria writes that this is basically when
the areas of
Notice that Dionysius
reported that "the churches of the East" had been divided (from
But
know now, my brethren, that all the
churches throughout the East and beyond, which formerly were divided, have become united. And all the
bishops everywhere are of one mind, and rejoice greatly in the peace which has
come beyond expectation. Thus Demetrianus in Antioch, Theoctistus in C?sarea,
Mazabanes in ?lia, Marinus in Tyre (Alexander having fallen asleep), Heliodorus
in Laodicea (Thelymidres being dead), Helenus in Tarsus, and all the churches
of Cilicia, Firmilianus, and all Cappadocia. I have named only the more
illustrious bishops, that I may not make my epistle too long and my words too
burdensome.[140]
During this timeframe, the
apocryphal Acts of Andrew was
apparently put together.[141] Although the Acts of Andrew were condemned by Eusebius, it may have been the
basis for the Orthodox Church ultimately claiming Constantinople (previously
called Byzantium and now called Istanbul) as its premier see. But what is interesting to note is that the
Bishop of Byzantium is not listed in Dionysius' listing if the Bishop of
Byzantium was truly the successor to the Apostle Andrew and was one of the
original Apostolic Sees (as the Eastern Orthodox Church claim), then why was
the Bishop of Byzantium missing? Probably because it did not take on significance until a few years after
Around this time, Paul of
Samosata, came to be considered to be a bishop in
Actually, in Antioch with the
successor to Paul of Samosata, we see for the first time, a bishop outside of
Italy that was apparently installed because of direction from the Church in
Rome (note that Dionysius of Rome, below, is not Dionysius of Alexandria even
though they were contemporaries):
A
letter written by Malchion in the name of the synod and addressed to Pope
Dionysius of Rome, Maximus of Alexandria, and all the bishops and clergy
throughout the world, has been preserved by Eusebius in part; a few fragments
only remain of the shorthand report of the disputation.
The
letter accuses Paul of acquiring great wealth by illicit means, of showing
haughtiness and worldliness, of having set up for himself a lofty pulpit in the
church, and of insulting those who did not applaud him and wave their
handkerchiefs, and so forth. He had caused scandal by admitting women to live
in his house, and had permitted the same to his clergy. Paul could not be
driven from his see until the emperor Aurelian took possession of
Here is more from a related
account:
In
the church struggle over Paul of Samosata, Lucian held aloof from both parties.
When it appeared as if neither side would win, appeal was made to the pagan emperor
Aurelian. The party led by the bishops of
Notice that it was because of
a pagan emperor that
Also notice what else was
happening in
Lucian
of Antioch ... Though he cannot be accused of having shared the theological views
of Paul of Samosata, he fell under suspicion at the time of Paul's
condemnation, and was compelled to sever his communion with the Church ...
The
opposition to the allegorizing tendencies of the Alexandrines centred in him.
He rejected this system entirely and propounded a system of literal
interpretation ...[144]
It is not clear that Lucian
ever had any communion with the Roman Catholic Church, as he was opposed to
allegorizers. It seems that essentially
the Greco-Roman Church took over
Various historical accounts,
that are beyond the scope of this text, show that there were those who
professed Christ during the first millennium that were not part of the
Greco-Roman Churches in places as far flung as Ireland, England, Scotland,
India, Africa, Armenia, parts of continental Europe, and even China.
XIX. Conclusion
The subject of early church
history is controversial. But that does
not mean that it is not relevant to Christians today--or that important truths about it cannot be clearly known.
On a regular basis, various Roman Catholics have been hammering away at the idea that the Roman Catholic version of early
church history (which includes the Eastern Orthodox churches) is the only
possible one. The late Pope Benedict XVI's public position is an
error.
What does another look at Jerusalem, Alexandria,
Rome, Ephesus, and Smyrna show? It shows that the Bible, history, and even
some Catholic writings support the view that the true Church should be traced
through
It shows that various
heretics were in Rome and Alexandria
and that many of their teachings were eventually adopted by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox
This article shows that the
leadership in the Churches in Asia Minor could and did trace their origins
through the original apostles, that they kept the original teachings of those
apostles, that they did not deviate from scripture, that the kept the Holy
Days, observed the seventh day Sabbath, were binitarian, believed in the
millennium, taught against the use of idols, and used the same Old Testament that those
in the COGs and Protestant churches do.
It also shows that the
argument that many Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant
supporters espouse that the true early Gentile church did not keep the Sabbaths
or Holy Days is not accurate.
As we get closer to the end,
it is my opinion that the Catholics of Rome will even more continue to point to
its list of bishops of
Tertullian was essentially
right when he indicated that the true Christian Church needed somehow to be
able to tie itself back to Christ through the apostles. He mentioned that the Smyrnaeans who traced
themselves through John (via
It is historically accurate to conclude that there were Christians in the Gentile areas of Ephesus and Smyrna who considered themselves as part of the Church of God, who only called the Father and the Son God, who believed in the millennium, who taught against idolatry, who kept the ten commandments, who continued to keep the Sabbath and the Holy Days as they understood from scripture and the Apostles, and who did not accept any contrary teachings from Rome.
Apostolic succession began in Jerusalem, passed to Asia Minor, and passed to Antioch, then other places--a list is included in the free online book: Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?
The continuation of that true church still exists today (this is documented in the free online book: Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?).
While ever detail of early
Christianity has not been preserved, it is historically accurate to conclude
that there were Christians in the Gentile areas of Ephesus and Smyrna who
considered themselves as part of the true Christian Church, who believed in the
millennium, who taught against idolatry, were not allegorists, used the same
Old Testament that non-Roman/Orthodox churches do, who continued to keep
various practices as they understood from scripture and the Apostles, and who
did not accept any contrary teachings from Rome.
By now you may be asking
yourself, if this is true (and as the documentation shows, it is), how can it
possibly make sense that only such a small minority of people could have been
in the true church? Does not God want to
save more? Certainly He does and
certainly He will! Two free online books that
help explain that are Universal OFFER of Salvation, Apokatastasis: Can God save the lost in an age to come? Hundreds of scriptures reveal God’s plan of salvation and Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God Differs from Protestantism. (Comparisons of beliefs of other churches
include Which Is Faithful: The
Roman Catholic Church or the Church of God? and Some Similarities and Differences
Between the Orthodox Church and the Churches of God.)
We in the Continuing Church of God truly are the descendants of the only faithful group of first, second, and third century Christians (additional details are in the article The Churches of Revelation 2 & 3).? And no one, not the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestants can prove their positions as apostolic Christians as well as we can.
Here are links to two related sermons: Early Church: Jerusalem, Rome, and Apostolic Teachings and Asia Minor and Early Apostolic Succession.
(For more information, here is a link to a free booklet: Continuing History of the Church of God).
"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches" (Revelation 3:22). 2005/2006/2007/2010/2011/2012/2014/2017 /2022 /2023 /2024 0512
XX. References
[1] Dugger AN, Dodd CO. A History of True Religion, 3rd ed.? Jerusalem, 1972 (Church of God, 7th
Day).1990 reprint. And Hoeh H.A True History of the True Church.1959 ed.? Radio Church of God
[2] Church History. The Living Church of God Official Statement
of Fundamental Beliefs, SBF ed. 1.3. March, 2004
[3] Pope: Church History a Lesson in Awe, Reflects on Eusebius of Caesarea.
Zenit, the News from Rome - June 13,2007
[4] Germano M. Pella.?
http://www.bibarch.com/ArchaeologicalSites/Pella.htm 06/20/07
[5]? Fortescue A. Transcribed by
Donald J. Boon. (Jerusalem (A.D. 71-1099). The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume
VIII Copyright ? 1910 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright ?
2003 by K. Knight Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
[6] Archim. Titos (Chortatos). THE CHURCH OF JERUSALEM. Greek Orthodox
Patriarchate in Jerusalem http://www.jerusalem-patriarchate.org/ May 24, 2005
[7] Eusebius. Church History (Book III, Chapter 5; Book IV, Chapter 5, Verses 2-4) Translated by the
Arthur Cushman McGiffert Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series
Two, Volume 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1890
Online Edition Copyright ? 2004 by K. Knight
[8] Bacchiocchi S.? The Sabbath in the New Testament.? Biblical Perspectives, Berrian Springs (MI), 1985, pp.90-91
[9] Jerome.? Translated by J.G. Cunningham, M.A. From Jerome to Augustine (A.D. 404); LETTER 75 (AUGUSTINE) OR 112 (JEROME). Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 1. Edited by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. American Edition, 1887. Online Edition Copyright ? 2004 by K. Knight.
[10] Ibid. Book IV, Chapters 5 & 22.
[11] Gibbon E. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume I, Chapter XV,
Section I. ca. 1776-1788
[12] Ray, Stephen K., in, Upon This Rock. St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome
in Scripture and the Early Church. Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, p. 67
[13] Pope Benedict: Faithful episcopal succession is guarantee that
authentic teaching of apostles carries through history: Vatican City, May 10,
2006.? Catholic News Agency. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6691
June 19, 2007 verification
[14] Prat F. Transcribed by Donald J. Boon.?
St. Paul. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. Published 1911. New
York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort,
S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
[15] Duffy, Eamon. Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes, 2nd ed.
Yale University Press, London, 2001, p. 9
[16] Justin. First Apology, Chapter XXVI. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American
Edition, 1885
[17] Tertullian. Translated by Peter Holmes. A Treatise on the Soul,
Chapters 34-35. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3. Edited by
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885.
[18] Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book 1, Chapter 23. Excerpted from
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James
Donaldson. American Edition, 1885.
[19] Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies. Translated by J. H. Machmahon.
Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts &
James Donaldson. American Edition, 1886.
[20]Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book
1, Chapter 27, Verses 1-2
[21] Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book
III, Chapter 4, Verse 3 and Chapter 3, Verse 4
[22] Arendzen J.P.?
Transcribed by Christine J. Murray.?
Gnosticism. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VI.? Copyright ? 1909 by Robert Appleton Company.? Online Edition Copyright ? 2003 by Kevin
Knight.? Nihil Obstat, September 1, 1909.
Remy Lafort, Censor Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
[23] Knight A. Primitive Christianity in Crisis, 2nd edition.? A.R.K. Research, Antioch (CA), 2003
[24] Tertullian. Against Marcion.?
Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3. Edited by Philip Schaff,
D.D., LL.D. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright ? 2005 by K.
Knight
[25] Brown
HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson
Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, p. 65
[26] NICENE
AND POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. SECOND SERIES TRANSLATED INTO
ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES. VOLUMES I?VII. UNDER THE
EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D. AND HENRY WACE, D.D.,
Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of
[27] Logan A. Marcellus of
Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), 'On the Holy Church': Text, Translation and
Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume
51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95
[28] Polycarp.? Letter to the Philippians. Verse 12.? In:?
Holmes, pp. 218-219
[29] Ignatius.? Letter to the Ephesians.,Verse 0 and Letter
to the Smyrnaeans, Verses 0 & 1.?
In:? Holmes, pp. 136-137; 184-185
[30] Eusebius.? Church History.? Book V, Chapter 23
[31] Pope Benedict XVI. Homily for the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul.
June 29, 2005,
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/647/Homily_on_Saints_Peter_and_Paul_Pope_Benedict_XVI.html
6/19/07
[32] Chapman J. Transcribed by Lucy Tobin. Tertullian. The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Published 1912. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John
Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
[33] Tertullian. The Prescription against Heretics, Chapter 30. Translated
by Peter Holmes. Electronic Version Copyright ? 2006 by Kevin Knight
[34] Tertullian. The Prescription against Heretics, Chapter 30. Translated
by Peter Holmes. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3. Edited by
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition
Copyright ? 2004 by K. Knight
[35] Tertullian.? Against Praxeas,
Chapter 1.? Circa 200 A.D. Translated by
Dr. Holmes
[36] Chapman J. Transcribed by Robert B. Olson. Montanists. The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Volume X. Published 1911. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John
Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
[37] Steele, Daniel. Half-Hours with St. John?s Epistles: A Commentary on
1, 2 & 3 John.? Copyright 1901
CHRISTIAN WITNESS COMPANY. Text scanning and
formatting by Craig L. Adams. This text was scanned from a 1972 reprint by H.
E. Schmul.
[38] Hippolytus. On the Twelve Apostles
[39] FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS. Edited by William Byron Forbush
[40] Ruffin C.B.? The
Twelve: The Lives of the Apostles After Calvary.? Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington (IN), 1997,
pp. 132-134
[41] Ruffin C.B.? The
Twelve: The Lives of the Apostles After Calvary.? Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington (IN), 1997
[42] Excerpt of James Moffatt's review,
p.292. In: Bauer W. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, 2nd ed.
Sigler Press Edition, Mifflinown (PA), 1996
[43] Fonck L. Transcribed by Michael Little.? St. John the Evangelist. The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Volume VIII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John
Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
[44] Ruffin C.B.? The
Twelve: The Lives of the Apostles After Calvary.? Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington (IN), 1997, p.
94
[45] Tertullian.? The Prescription Against Heretics.? Chapter 36. Translated by Peter Holmes.
Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3. Edited by Alexander Roberts and
James Donaldson.? American Edition,
1885.? Online Edition Copyright ? 2004 by
K. Knight?
[46] Eusebius. Church
History. Book III, Chapter 23.?
[47] The Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians commonly known
as First Clement. Verse 1. Holmes MW,
ed. As translated in The Apostolic Fathers Greek Texts and English
Translations. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 3rd printing 2004, pp. 28-29
(Note: Since the actual date of this letter is uncertain, another theory holds that the letter was not sent out until after John?s
death)
[48] Ibid.? Verse 58..2, pp. 94-95
[49] Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the
episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, pp. 91,101
[50] Ignatius.? Letter to the
Romans.? Verse 10.? In Holmes. pp. 176-177
[51] Ignatius.? Letter to the
Ephesians.? Verse 0.? In Holmes. pp. 136-137
[52] Fonck L. Transcribed by Michael Little.? St. John the Evangelist. The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Volume VIII Copyright ? 1910 by Robert Appleton Company Online
Edition Copyright ? 2003 by K. Knight Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy
Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New
York
[53] Matrantonis, George. The Twelve Apostles. Copyright: ? 1990-1996
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7065.asp 07/05/05
[54] Lopes A. Translation by Charles Nopar. The Popes.? Pontifical Administration, Rome, 1997
[55] Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the
episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 65
[56] Eusebius.? Church History. Book
III, Chapter 4.
[57] Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses.?
Book III, Chapter 3, Verse 4. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume
1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885.
Online Edition Copyright ? 2004 by K. Knight
[58] I Will Build My Church, Part 1. Bible Correspondence Course, Lesson
49. Radio Church of God, 1954, 1965 Edition.
[59] Justin.? Dialogue with Trypho.
Chapter 10. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Excerpted from
Volume I of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson,
editors); American Edition copyright ? 1885. Electronic version copyright ?
1997 by New Advent, Inc.
[60] Lebreton J.? Transcribed by
Stephen William Shackelford.? St. Justin
Martyr.? The Catholic Encyclopedia,
Volume VIII. Copyright ? 1910 by Robert Appleton Company.? Online Edition Copyright ? 2003 by K.
Knight.? Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910.
Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.? Imprimatur.
+John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
[61] Ibid.
[62] Justin Martyr.? Dialogue with Trypho. Chapter 18.
[63] Eusebius.? Book V, Chapter 24.
[64] Justin.? Dialogue with Trypho,
Chapter 47. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander
Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright
? 2005 by K. Knight
[65] Justin Martyr.? Dialogue with
Trypho. Chapter 11.
[66] Lebreton J.?
[67] Savelli G. Apostate Fathers of Christianity.? Volume 1.?
Justin Martyr. Isaiah 58 Broadcast & Tracts, Louisville.? http://www.isaiah58.com/APOSTATEFATHERS.HTM
8/22/05
[68] Justin. Dialogue with Trypho. Chapter 80.?
[69] Eusebius Church History. Book IV, Chapter 11
[70] Lopes A. The Popes: The lives of the pontiffs through 2000 years of
history. Futura Edizoni, Roma, 1997, p. 4
[71] Ignatius.? Letter to the
Magnesians. Verse 15. In: Holmes ,pp.
158-159
[72] The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 14:2-3. In Holmes M.W. The Apostolic
Fathers, Greek Texts and English Translations. Baker Books, Grand Rapids (MI),
2004, p.239
[73] Eusebius.? Church History.? Book V, Chapter 23
[74] Irenaeus. FRAGMENTS FROM
THE LOST WRITINGS OF IRENAEUS.?
Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Excerpted from
Volume I of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson,
editors); American Edition copyright ? 1885. Electronic version copyright ?
1997 by New Advent, Inc.
[75]? From Wace and Piercy, ?For
although former bishops of Rome, from Xystus to Soter, had never kept Nisan 14,
they had always maintained full communion with any who came from dioceses where
it was observed; e.g. Polycarp, whom Anicetus permitted to celebrate in his own
church, both separating afterwards in peace.? Wace H, Piercy WC, eds.
Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth
Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies. Hendrickson
Publishers, Inc. edition. ISBN: 1-56563-460-8 reprinted from the edition
originally titled A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature, published
by John Murray, London, 1911, reprint 1999
[76] Eusebius Church History. Book IV, Chapter 11
[77] Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III
(Sects 47-80), De Fide). Section VI, Verse 9,7. Translated by Frank Williams.
EJ Brill, New York, 1994, p.411
[78] Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the
Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, p. 103
[79] Joyce GH. The Blessed Trinity. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV.
Published 1912. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1,
1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley,
Archbishop of New York
[80] Polycarp.? Letter to the Philippians. Verse 2.2.? In:?
Holmes, pp. 208-209
[81] Theophilus of Antioch. To
Autolycus, Book III, Chapter IX. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James
Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright ? 2004 by K.
Knight?
[82] Polycarp.? Letter to the Philippians. Verse 13.? In:?
Holmes, pp. 218-219
[83] Vailhe? S.?
Transcribed by Lucia Tobin. Smyrna. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume
XIV.? Copyright ? 1912 by Robert Appleton
Company.? Online Edition Copyright ? 2003
by Kevin Knight.? Nihil Obstat, July 1,
1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.?
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
[84] Eusebius. Church History. Book IV, Chapter 15
[85] Ibid. Book V, Chapter 20
[87] Lake, Kirsopp.? Comments on the Martyrdom of Polycarp. The
Apostolic Fathers (published London 1912), v. II, pp. 309-311
[88]? The Martrydom of Polycarp Bishop of
Smyrna,? Verse 7.1 & 8.1.? Charles H. Hoole's 1885 translation. ? 2001
Peter Kirby
[89] Ibid. p. 223
[90] Jerome.?
[91] Latourette K.S. A History
of Christianity, Volume 1, Beginnings to 1500. Harper Collins, San Francisco,
1975, p.198
[92] Sozomen.? THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF SOZOMEN.
Comprising a History of the Church, from a.d. 323 to a.d. 425. Book VII,
Chapter XIX.? Translated from the Greek.
Revised by Chester D. Hartranft, Hartford Theological Seminary UNDER THE
EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D., AND HENRY WACE, D.D.,
Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Seminary, New York.
Principal of King's College, London. T&T CLARK,
EDINBURGH, circa 1846
[93]? Morrison, M. Sabbath and Sunday in Early
Christianity Part 2: Early Second Century and Justin Martyr. Copyright 1999;
http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/sabbath/history2.htm 7/05/05
[94] Radmacher E., ed.? How the Three Branches of Christianity Came
About.? In The Nelson Study Bible.? Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1997,
pp. 1890a-1890d
[95] Ignatius.? Letter to the Trallians. Verse 9. In: Holmes, pp. 164-165
[96] Stavropoulos DN.? Oxford
English-Greek Learner?s Dictionary, 14th ed.?
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003, p. 487
[97] Hudleston G.R. Transcribed
by Kenneth M. Caldwell. St. Melito. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X
Copyright
? 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright ? 2003 by Kevin
Knight.
Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur.
+John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
[98] Melito the Philosopher..
Fragementf from Melito of Sardis.?
Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Excerpted from The
Ante-Nicene Fathers (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors); American
Edition copyright ? 1885. Electronic version ? 2001 Peter Kirby.
[99] Kirsch J.P.? Transcribed by Donald J. Boon. Millennium and
Millenarianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X. Copyright ? 1911 by Robert
Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright ? 2003 by Kevin Knight. Nihil Obstat,
October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal
Farley, Archbishop of? New York
[100] Catechism of the Catholic Church. Imprimatur Potest +Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Doubleday, NY 1995
[101] Melito. Fragments from
Melito of Sardis.?
[102] Eusebius.? Church History. Book V, Chapter 24?
[103] Lopes. p. 5
[104] Ogwyn J.? God's Church Through the Ages.? Living Church of God, Charlotte (NC), 2004
[105] Roberts A, Donaldson J.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers; American Edition copyright ? 1885, pp. 772-773
[106] Apollinaris. From the Book
Concerning Passover. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson.
Excerpted from Volume I of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Alexander Roberts and James
Donaldson, editors); American Edition copyright ? 1885. Copyright ? 2001 Peter
Kirby
[107] Tertullian. Liber de
praescriptione haereticorum, circa 208 A.D.?
As quoted in? Chapman J.
Transcribed by Lucy Tobin. Tertullian.?
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Copyright ? 1912 by Robert
Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright ? 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, July
1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley,
Archbishop of New York
[108] Tertullian. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum, circa 208 A.D.? As quoted in?
Chapman J. Transcribed by Lucy Tobin. Tertullian.? The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV.
Copyright ? 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright ? 2003 by
K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur.
+John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
[109]? Irenaeus. Adversus
Haereses.? Book III, Chapter 4, Verses
1,3
[110]? Eusebius.? Church History.? Book V, Chapter 24
[111] Source: Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa. List
of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and all Africa 42 AD up to today.
http://www.greekorthodox-alexandria.org/main.htm 06/15/07.
[112] Eastern Catholics Key for Christian Unity, Says Pope. Zenit - Dec 15,
2006
[113] Nelson Study Bible, New Kings James Version. Thomas Nelson Publishers,
Nashville, 1997, p. 1813
[114] Ibid, p. 1636
[115] Ibid, p. 1813
[116] Ibid, p. 1813
[117] Ibid, p. 2008
[118] Ibid, p. 2052
[119] Eusebius. Church History, Book II, Chapter 16. Translated by Arthur
Cushman McGiffert. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two,
Volume 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1890.
Online Edition Copyright ? 2004 by K. Knight
[120] Ibid, Chapter 24
[121] Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book III, Chapter 1, Verse 1. Excerpted
from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James
Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright ? 2004 by K.
Knight).
[122] Eusebius. Church History, Book II, Chapter XVII. Translated by Arthur
Cushman McGiffert. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two,
Volume 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1890.
Online Edition Copyright ? 2004 by K. Knight
[123] Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the
Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, p. 86
[124] Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book II, Preface, Verse 1. Excerpted from
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James
Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright ? 2004 by K. Knight
[125] Eusebius. Church History, Book IV, Chapter 11, Verse 6. Translated by
Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series
Two, Volume 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1890.
Online Edition Copyright ? 2004 by K. Knight
[126] Coulter Fred. The New Testament In Its Original Order, Appendix U.
York Publishing, Hollister, CA, 2004, p. 859
[127] Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book II, Preface, Verse 1. Excerpted from
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James
Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright ? 2004 by K. Knight
[128] Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book I, Chapter 13. Excerpted from
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James
Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright ? 2004 by K. Knight
[129] Chapman J. Transcribed by Gary Mros. St. Demetrius. The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Volume IV. Copyright ? 1908 by Robert Appleton Company. Online
Edition Copyright ? 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor.
Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
[130] Walvoord, John F.?
The Prophecy Handbook.? Victor
Books,
[131] Arendzen J.P. Transcribed by Joseph P. Thomas. Marcus. The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Volume IX. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M.
Farley, Archbishop of New York
[132] Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the
Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, p. 87
[133] For two examples, see Bauer W. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early
Christianity, 2nd ed. Edited by R. Krafy and G. Krodel. Sigler Press,
Mifflintown, PA, 1996, pp. 44-45 and Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops:
the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah,
NJ, 2001, p. 15
[134] Clement of Alexander. The Stromata, Book I, Chapter I. Excerpted from
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James
Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright ? 2004 by K.
Knight.
[135] Eusebius. Church History, Book VI, Chapter 11, Verses 4-5
[136] Vailhe? S. Transcribed by Lucia Tobin. Smyrna. The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Copyright ? 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online
Edition Copyright ? 2003 by Kevin Knight. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy
Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New
York
[137] Eusebius. Church History, VII, Chapter 14
[138] Kirsch J.P. Transcribed by Michael T. Barrett. Pope St. Victor I. The
Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV. Copyright ? 1912 by Robert Appleton Company.
Online Edition Copyright ? 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1912.
Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of
New York
[139] Chapman J. Transcribed by Lucy Tobin. Tertullian. The Catholic
Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Copyright ? 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online
Edition Copyright ? 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort,
S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
[140] Cited in Eusebius. Church History, Book VII, Chapter V, Verse I
[141] The Acts of Andrew. From "The Apocryphal New Testament" M.R. James-Translation and Notes
[142] Chapmen J. Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter. Paul of Samosata. The
Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. Copyright ? 1908 by Robert Appleton Company.
Online Edition Copyright ? 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort,
Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
[143] Wilkinson BG. Truth Triumphant, ca. 1890. Reprint: Teach Services,
Brushton (NY) 1994, p. 48
[144] Healy P.J. Transcribed by Joseph P. Thomas. Lucian of Antioch. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York