Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians
Nazarenes? Should Christians be
Nazarenes today?
By COGwriter
While the Roman Catholic and
Eastern Orthodox Churches publicly place great emphasis on early Christian
history, most other major groups which profess Christ such as the various Protestants,
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), and the
Jehovah’s Witnesses tend to minimize the importance of the immediate post-New
Testament teachings and practices of the Christian Church.
Despite varying claims of
“apostolic succession” by the Roman and Orthodox Catholics, some writers have recognized
that there were differing “Christianities” in the two hundred years or so after
Jesus died and that the form that became predominant was not the obvious
leader from the beginning.[1]
Since Jesus taught that the
gates of Hades (death) would not prevail against His church (Matthew
Two Possibilities
Despite the fact that there
were a variety of early heretics, there are really only two possibilities for
the true church in the 21st century.
Either a highly Greco-Roman
influenced group of one or more churches is Christ’s church or some group that
has not come out of that tradition is.
There are no other options.
Which of these would be a
church that truly has ties to the original apostles and holds to their
teachings?
While most people would tend
to go for the Greco-Roman influenced groups, most people simply have not looked
into the teachings of the original church, learned when certain doctrines were
changed by the Greco-Romans, or considered that there could be a group with
ties to the apostles which is not Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or
Protestant.
Could a small group actually
be the continuation of the true church?
Or must the true church be a relatively large organization?
Would Jesus’ true church be
scorned by the world or a major player on the world scene?
The
Jesus, Himself, taught that the
true church would be a "little flock" (Luke
Many within the relatively
small collection of Sabbatarian churches that tend to call themselves
Historically, the old Church
of God, Seventh Day (CG7) and the old Radio Church of God (which became
the old Worldwide Church of God), taught that the seven churches in Revelation
2 & 3 represented eras of God's true church throughout history[2],
that they had ties to the original apostles, and that groups with COG beliefs
can be found throughout history.
While certain groups with
origins in those churches officially still hold to that teaching of church eras
(e.g. [3]), some others no longer teach
church eras (like the new WCG, which does now consider itself to be Protestant, and renamed itself Grace Communion International)
or greatly de-emphasize that belief (like CG7, which is tending to become
doctrinally closer to some Protestants).
But if a very small group
could be “the true church,” does it make sense that God is only working through
a relatively few during the church age?
While many apparently doubt
that, the reality is that if the Catholics and traditional Protestants are
correct, it appears (according to their own writings) that they believe that God
is only going to save a relative minority of all people who ever lived.
The Bible itself is clear
that it is only by the name of Jesus Christ that humans can be saved:
8
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the
people and elders of Israel: 9 If we this day are judged for a good deed done
to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, 10 let it be known to
you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God
raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is
the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief
cornerstone.' 12 Nor is there salvation
in any other, for there is no other name
under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:8-12).
14
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall
they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear
without a preacher? (Romans 10:14).
Since most humans that ever
lived have never had truth of Christ preached to them, for the Catholics and
Protestants to be able to teach that most humans will be saved would force them
to minimize Acts 4:12 and Romans 10:14 or make major changes to their theology
(which may be what the Roman Catholics have taken some steps to possibly do—such
as then Pope Benedict’s 21st century approval of a paper essentially
against “limbo”[4]).
Yet, if the Continuing Church of
God (CCOG) is correct, while God is only working though a relatively small few
in this age, God will ultimately offer
salvation through Christ to all who ever lived—and we in the CCOG believe that the
overwhelming majority of people who ever lived will accept God’s offer and be
saved. We believe that an all-powerful,
all-knowing (Isaiah 46:9-10) God of love (1 John 4:8), was wise enough to come
up with a plan of salvation that saves, and does not doom, the vast majority of
humans that ever lived. And that is why
He sent His Son (John
We in the CCOG not only believe
that such a view is biblical, to a degree we believe this view has had
historical support (as this article will show) even among certain religious leaders
still venerated by the Greco-Roman churches.
(Perhaps it should be mentioned that among the Messianic Jews, some prefer the term Netzarim to Nazarene, though they have the same meaning. It should be mentoned that the vast bulk of the Messianic Jews are NOT part of the Church of God--nor do they hold to the true Nazarene doctrines and practices. Information on that can be found in the article Messianic Judaism Beliefs Differ from the Continuing Church of God.)
The Nazarenes Were in
Most people accept that the
And although the apostles
dispersed, 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).
Three of the four times that
the Bible shows that Paul conferred with Peter, it was in
Furthermore, the the Bible shows that the Apostle Paul commended the
Thessalonians in
13
For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received
the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of
men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in
you who believe. 14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God
which are in
Christians May Have Been Warned to Flee to
However, shortly after the
deaths of Peter (circa 64-69 A.D.) and Paul (circa 64-68 A.D.), major changes
happened in
Beginning in 66 A.D., there
were revolts in
Biblical archeologist Dr. Michael 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.)[6]
The Catholic Encyclopedia reports,
When
Titus took
Notice that the Christians
were NOT involved in the fighting according to Catholic sources:
During
the war of 70 none of the believers in Christ appear on scene, nor are any of
the places inhabited by them mentioned as war zones, Therefore we may assume
that the Christians remained aloof from the war on account of their new
faith…We may, therefore assume that the faithful were indeed disturbed as a
result of the war, but that they were not so involved as to compromise their
community.[8]
The Orthodox Church
recognizes an important early role for the church in
The
According to the fourth
century Catholic historian Eusebius, during the first century,
James,
the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in
The Faithful Were Called Nazarenes
The faithful who claimed to
have fled
Jesus…He
shall be called a Nazarene (Matthew 2:1,23).
Seventeen times the Bible (NKJV) uses the expression “Jesus of
Nazareth,” probably because Jesus used to live there (Matthew 2:23). The New Testament uses the expression
Theological scholar James
Tabor wrote about some definitions of Nazarene (other than “one from
The
Jesus movement was from early on referred to as the “Nazarenes,” which roughly
translates as the “the Messianists” or the people of the “Branch”.[11]
The Protestant historian
Philip Schaff noted:
A
portion of the Jewish Christians, however, adhered even after the destruction
of Jerusalem, to the national customs of their fathers, and propagated
themselves in some churches of Syria down to the end of the fourth century, under the name of Nazarenes; a name
perhaps originally given in contempt by the Jews to all Christians as followers
of Jesus of Nazareth. They united the observance of the Mosaic ritual law with
their belief in the Messiahship and divinity of Jesus, used the Gospel of
Matthew in Hebrew, deeply mourned the unbelief of their brethren, and hoped for
their future conversion in a body and for a millennial reign of Christ on the
earth. But they indulged no antipathy to the apostle Paul...They were,
therefore, not heretics, but stunted separatist
Christians; they stopped at the obsolete position of a narrow and anxious Jewish Christianity, and shrank to an insignificant sect. Jerome
says of them, that, wishing to be Jews and Christians alike, they were neither
one nor the other.[12]
So there were Christians with
Jewish practices that were sometimes called Nazarenes that historians teach
claimed to have originated from the original
They were also not popular
with the Jews in the first few centuries A.D.
The Book of Acts records the following about the Apostle Paul from
Jewish authorities:
5 For
we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews
throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5).
Thus, originally the term Nazarenes appears to be applied to all Christians, and not some small part of it, as it is being applied to those that agree with the Apostle Paul.
Tertullian reported that the Jews called various professors of Christ, Nazarenes (Tertullian. Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 8. Translated by Peter Holmes. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm> viewed 10/02/13).
But apparently some Jews felt
that the Christians were a bit secretive according to Harve
Lewis:
The
title Nazarene was given by the Jews to those strange people outside their own
religion that seemed to belong to some type of secret sect…[13]
Notice how badly some Jews
felt about Nazarenes according to a fourth century writing by the Catholic historian
Epiphanius:
For
not only do the Jewish children cherish hatred against them but the people
stand up in the morning, at
The actual Nazarenes (as opposed to the Greco-Roman faith professors) ended up in
“synagogues of the East” according to the Roman Catholic priest Jerome.[15] The “Nazarenes” referred to essentially ended
up dwelling in
The fourth century Greco-Roman Catholic
historian Epiphanius wrote of this group from the time of 69/70 A.D. until his
day, and he starts out with an interesting admission:
All
Christians were called Nazarenes once…They were so-called followers of the
apostles…they dedicate themselves to the law…However, everyone called the
Christians Nazarenes as I said before.
This appears from the accusation against Paul…[Acts 24:5]…
For
they use not only the New Testament but also the Old…For they also accept the
resurrection of the dead and that everything has origin in God…Only in this
respect they differ from the Jews and Christians: with the Jews they do not
agree because of their belief in Christ, with the Christians because they are
trained in the Law, in circumcision, the Sabbath and the other things…
This
heresy of the Nazarenes exists in Beroea in the neighborhood of Coele
So Epiphanius states that the
remnant who fled to
Modern scholars, like Larry
Hurtado, have realized the Christians who claimed to be Nazarene including most
considered to be proto-orthodox” held a binitarian view of the Godhead:
..."Nazarene"
Christianity, had a view of Jesus fully compatible with the beliefs favored by
the proto-orthodox (indeed, they could be considered part of the circles that
made up proto-orthodox Christianity of the time). Pritz contended that this
Nazarene Christianity was the dominant form of Christianity in the first and
second centuries...the devotional stance toward Jesus that characterized most
of the Jewish Christians of the first and second centuries seems to have been
congruent with proto-orthodox devotion to Jesus...the proto-orthodox
"binitarian" pattern of devotion…[17]
In a binitarian view of the
Godhead, the one God Family began with two. Binitarians believe that the Father is God and Jesus (the Son, also
called the Word) is God, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and
the Son. This Godhead, according to the
Bible (cf. Romans
Scholar Ray Pritz noted:
The
Nazarenes were distinct from the Ebionites and prior to them. In fact, we have
found that it is possible that there was a split in Nazarene ranks around the
turn of the first century. This split was either over a matter of
christological doctrine or over leadership of the community. Out of this split
came the Ebionites, who can scarcely be separated from the Nazarenes on the
basis of geography, but who can be easily distinguished from the standpoint of
Christology.[18]
It should be also noted that
in early
(Perhaps it should be
mentioned for any that should come across it, that the so-called “Gospel of the
Nazarenes” is misnamed and did not come from these Nazarenes according to Ray
Pritz.[19] Also, the modern day so-called “Church of the
Nazarene” was a 19th century development[20]
and does not have the type of "Judaeo-Christian" practices that the original
Nazarenes did.)
There Were Changes in
Interestingly, according to
Eusebius, at
…until
the siege of the Jews, which took place under {Roman Emperor}
In other words, it is
acknowledged by Catholic, Orthodox, and other historians that although there
was a party Paul referred to as “the circumcision”, another part of the church
in
Its 70 A.D. destruction
suggests that God did not intend that
Some Christians returned
after 70 A.D. and seemed to have built a Christian synagogue, sometimes called
the Church of the Apostles. Bargil Pixner wrote the following in Biblical Archaeology Review:
The
earliest Christians were all Jews. Moreover, they did not regard themselves as
having abandoned Judaism…
Not
only were the original Christians all Jewish, but for several centuries
Judeo-Christians and even some gentile Christians referred to their houses of
worship as synagogues…
In
70 A.D. the Roman general Titus suppressed the First Jewish Revolt (66-70 A.D.)
by utterly destroying
The
Judeo-Christian community in
…they
decided to go back to
The
archaeological evidence is consistent with this suggestion…
Early
Church writers identified this Judeo-Christian synagogue as the Church of the
Apostles...[22]
And while their numbers
varied, often these Christians were the majority of the professors of Christ in
The Nazarenes Had to Leave and Heretics Entered
Because of war, compromise,
and politics, there was a change in beliefs and practices in
There is an old Arabic
Islamic manuscript that reports about those considered to be Judeao-Christians. It was published in English in 1966 by Shlomo Pines as The Jewish Christians of the Early
Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source. It was originally
written by an Arabic Muslim around the tenth century named Abd
al-Jabbar and called Tathbit
Dala'il Nubuwwat Sayyidina Mahammad. One
chapter of it is believed to be an Islamic interpretation of a lot of
"Judeo-Christian" writings (some probably from true Nazarenes, others
from Essenes, etc.).
A Harvard journal indicates that the source document
came may have originated from the fifth, sixth, or seventh century (Howard G.
The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Jan., 1988), pp. 117-120),
while others have claimed that part of it could have originally came from the
first century or first half of the second (Pines, p. 21).
Here is the translation of one section:
(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 frequendy. 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." [23]
The above, if accurate, would seem to have taken place
in the second century (130s A.D.).
It is interesting for a number of reasons. It shows
that there were two group that professed Christ then. One called
"Christians" above, and the other (the faithful ones) called
"companions." The fact that the companions would no longer associate
with the compromisers showed that in whatever area the above occurred in, there
were definitely two groups. One group that got the Romans to persecute
and the other group that fled the persecution. The fact that the Romans seemingly wanted them to eat biblically unclean meats is of interest. It is also interesting to
note that the “companions” were the ones with all, or at least part, of the New
Testament. The "companions" were the faithful "Nazarenes."
For additional information, notice what the
historian E. Gibbon observed:
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 but just starting to cooperate) was put in
charge, those who had been faithful Christians were accused of heresy there in
the second century.
The Roman Catholics claim
that “apostolic succession” in
The
shortest-lived
And while is now believed that
Ælia Capitolina was erected in 135 (as opposed to 130 since the Bar Kokhba revolt
was from 132-135 A.D.), this suggests that even Catholic scholars understand
that there should no real “apostolic succession” occurred after this in
Jerusalem—hence Jerusalem does not now have true apostolic succession.
Because of this Jewish
revolt, Emperor Hadrian outlawed many practices considered to be Jewish. The 20th
century historian Salo W. Barron wrote:
Hadrian…According
to rabbinic sources, he prohibited public gatherings for instruction in Jewish
law, forbade the proper observance of the Sabbath and holidays and outlawed
many important rituals.[26]
The Christians in
The Orthodox Church in
In
135 AD the Roman emperor Hadrian builds on the ruins of
Notice the statement that “the
Jewish are not permitted to come in to town”.
That is correct, but only in a limited sense. It was not just the Jews; it was also those
who kept “Jewish” (biblical) practices like the seventh-day Sabbath that were
not permitted to come into
Sadly as E. Gibbon reported,
most, but not all, decided not to be faithful to original Christianity in 135
A.D. He also made the following
observation:
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.[29]
Until one hundred years after Jesus Christ was crucified it appears that (with Alexandria, some Ebionites, and some small groups excepted) the majority of Christian communities not affiliated with Simon Magus or his followers apparently practiced true New Testament Christianity—or at least did not practice a version influenced by compromise to minimize Imperial persecution.
Yet, it should be understood that the faithful considered that they did have apostolic succession, and not through the Greco-Romans:
...these Jewish Christians were not such Judaizantes as arose throughout the history of Christianity--and still do arise among Gentile Christian populations--but preserved an apparently uninterrupted tradition which bore witness to their descent from the primitive (wholly Jewish) Christian community of Jerusalem. ... Writing, as they certainly did, at a time when Christianity, the 'Romanized' Christianity which they bitterly opposed, was triumphant in a great part of what used to be called the habitable earth, they still regretted-- (Pines, p. 20)
Splits in
History indicates that there
were at least three splits in
Something similar may have
occurred in
The third “split” was more of
a takeover. After Hadrian, some
Christians and Jews did return to
Dr. Samuele
Bacchiocchi noted that many scholars realize that the change to Easter-Sunday
and to a weekly Sunday was apparently due to the persecution from Hadrian:
The actual introduction of Easter-Sunday appears to
have occurred earlier in
A whole body of Against the Jews literature was produced by leading Fathers who defamed the Jews as a people and emptied their religious beliefs and practices of any historical value. Two major causalities of the anti-Jewish campaign were Sabbath and Passover. The Sabbath was changed to Sunday and Passover was transferred to Easter-Sunday.
Scholars usually recognize the anti-Judaic
motivation for the repudiation of the Jewish reckoning of Passover and adoption
of Easter-Sunday instead. Joachim Jeremias attributes such a development to
"the inclination to break away from Judaism." In a similar vein, J.B.
Lightfoot explains that
J.B.
Lightfoot himself specifically wrote:
But
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…
…the
Churches of Asia Minor…regulated their Easter festival by the Jewish Passover
without regard to the day of the week, but…those of
Thus change
set in among those in Hadrian’s
It is possible
that the Roman “bishop” Telesphorus made a change to Sunday Passover around 135
A.D. to attempt to distance himself from the Jews in
Christian
leaders that refused to switch from Passover on the 14th to a Sunday
observance have been labeled Quartodecimans (Latin for fourteenth) by most
historians—with the bulk of them apparently being in
Was the
Of course the question is, “Was
the church supposed to change its beliefs and practices throughout history or
be faithful to what the apostles originally received?”
The Bible suggests that the church was not to
change its doctrines as Jude wrote:
3 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).
There were, however,
apparently faithful Christians in parts of
The
followers of the Lord remained also in Capharanum…At Tiberius we have evidence
of the Judaeo-Christians, called Minim,
from Jewish sources which tell of disputes in the 2nd and 3rd
centuries…
Sakin…Nearby
is Bainah, called an “engulfed” village just because it was inhabited by
Judaeo-Christians.[33]
However, by the third and
later centuries, the Greco-Romans tended to minimize the importance of those
that held to original Christian teachings, like the original Ebionites did.
In the third century, there
were very few real Christians in northern
Let
it be admitted, moreover, that there are some who accept Jesus, and who boast
on that account of being Christians, and yet would regulate their lives, like
the Jewish multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law,—and these are the
twofold sect of Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born
of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that He was begotten like other human
beings…[34]
So Origen apparently combined
both groups together under the name Ebionites.
This has caused some confusion among scholars of all persuasions, but it
is clear that there were faithful true Christians who held to Jewish practices
in the first and early second centuries in Jerusalem, while there were others
that the Bible seems to warn about (Titus 1:10). The historian E. Gibbons mentioned that those
who were called Nazarenes were renamed as Ebionites.[35]
And although Origen
apparently did not believe that Christians should have practices similar to
Jews, the New Testament not only calls Gentile Christians “Jews”, it refers to
them more with the term “Jew(s)” than it does “Christian(s)” (four and three
times respectively). Hence from the beginning
God intended that His true church would appear to be somewhat Jewish.
But as history shows, most
real Christians left
Was the Headquarters for Christians Expected to Remain
In
Even though there are several
churches that claim direct descent from places such as
Let us look at what Jesus
taught on this matter:
22 And
you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will
be saved. 23 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
The concept is also confirmed
in the Book of Hebrews:
4 For
here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come (Hebrews
Rome since the mid-second
century, however, has been a continuing city (though several Roman Catholic
Bishops were based out of Lyon, France), and thus neither Rome nor any other
single city (as the Eastern Orthodox claim) could possibly have been the
leadership city for Christians for multiple centuries.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Bible clearly supports the idea that there could not have been one city that would be the place where all the top leaders of the Christian world would always be affiliated with. Thus any who claim that one city has always remained a, or the, leader of Christendom from the beginning are in scriptural error.
Furthermore, perhaps it should be mentioned if there was to be one city from
the beginning to the end, it would have had to be
Peter, around 50 A.D., was still in
Irenaeus, considered to be a
saint by the Catholics and the Orthodox, in the second century wrote:
Further,
also, concerning
So while the Orthodox also consider
Irenaeus to be a saint and
John Moved to
Sometime 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 Asia Minor in the last decades of the first century
and from
John…made
his way to
Notice the timing. The Christians had fled
John Was the Last of the Original Apostles And Taught
What He Learned from the Beginning
Paul once noted that it was
"James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars" (Galatians 2:9)
of the Church in
Certainly Peter was an
important and pre-eminent apostle, however, once James and Peter were killed,
this only left one pillar, the Apostle John—and he moved to Ephesus.
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 books of the Bible would be the primary leader of the church
until he died?
Notice that John specifically
taught what he learned from the beginning (which was in
1 That which was from the beginning,
which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked
upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life-- 2 the life was
manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal
life which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- 3 that which we have
seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us;
and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ...
3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we
keep His commandments. 4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep
His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him (1 John 1:1-3;2:3-4).
Thus, the Bible is clear that
John taught the truth of Christianity from the beginning. And he taught it so that others could have
the same fellowship with the Father and the Son. Thus, the Bible shows that faithful would
follow John in order to be true Christians.
Passover & Footwashing: The Bible Teaches that
Antichrists Would Not Follow John
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 (and later the practices associated with it).
The fact that a Roman church and
a Latin-led church specifically decided on Sunday Passover shows that they
intentionally, and at a relatively early stage (probably between 130-150 A.D.
for
Catholic priest and scholar
Bagatti admits this regarding John:
Since
Thus, it was the original
practice of “the mother Church” to keep Passover (often wrongly translated as
“Easter” in English) on the 14th.
Some Catholics have
apparently, however, used human reason and false tradition to ignore John’s
practice. Notice what the medieval
historian and Catholic Priest Bede (also known as “the Venerable Bede”)
recorded from a Catholic Abbot named Wilfrid who was trying to justify near the
beginning of the eighth century why it was acceptable to not follow the Apostle
John’s practices regarding Passover:
Far
be it from me to charge John with
foolishness: he literally observed the
decrees of the Mosaic law when the Church was still Jewish in many respects,
at a time when the apostles were unable to bring a sudden end to that law which
God ordained…They feared, of course, that they might make a stumbling block for
the Jewish proselytes…
So
John, in accordance with the custom of the law, began the celebration of Easter
Day in the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month, regardless of
whether it fell on the sabbath or any other day. But when Peter preached at Rome, remembering
that the Lord rose from the dead and brought to the world the hope of the
resurrection on the first day of the week…he always waited for the rising of
the moon on the evening of the fourteenth day of the month in accordance with
the customs and precepts of the law as John did, he proceeded to celebrate
Easter as we are accustomed to do at this present time. But if the Lord’s day was due, he waited for
it, and began the holy Easter ceremonies the night before, that is on Saturday evening; so it came about
that Easter Sunday was kept only between the fifteenth day of the moon and the
twenty-first. So this evangelical and apostolic tradition does not abolish the
law, but fulfills it, by ordering the observance of Easter from the evening of
the fourteenth day of the moon in the first month up to the twenty-first day of
the moon in the same month. All the
followers of
Does that make any sense?
Let’s look at the facts:
Hence, John and the faithful
in
But Catholics claim there is
a later tradition from an unknown time that Peter supposedly reasoned that if
Jesus was resurrected on the first day of the week, that the anniversary of His
death should be observed on a Saturday night instead.
This is illogical, as well as
inaccurate. Nor do I believe that John
kept the correct date of Passover out of fear of the Jews. There is nothing in the Bible or the historic
accounts to indicate that this was the case (furthermore, it is more likely
that Sunday was adopted out of fear of the Romans). The Catholics should simply admit that although
John kept Passover on the biblically correct date, they changed the date
because of compromise and anti-Jewish sentiments.
Interestingly, in the second
century, the Catholic saint Irenaeus wrote,
…the
Church in
And one of those biblically
observed traditions was the observance of Passover on the 14th for
over a century by those of
Since the Bible warns that
those who do not follow the practices of John are antichrists, those wishing to
be faithful should give heed to follow the examples in the Bible and of John
and observe Passover when he did.
They should not accept later
traditions when they conflict with the Bible.
On a somewhat related note, notice
the following from historian B.W. Bacon, apparently related to the passage
mentioning feet being washed in 1 Timothy 5:10 and John 13:10 in 1st
century Ephesus:
…a
rite of the
It is related because
footwashing is a Passover-related practice that was being done in the Apostle
John’s area.
Furthermore, notice an
interesting passage from another historian:
The
history of feetwashing is tantalizingly elusive...There are passing references
to this rite in the first centuries. Continued for many years in the Eastern
Church, feet washing eventually fell out of favour in the West… in that service Christ washed the feet of his
disciples before he distributed the bread and the wine to his followers.[46]
Cyprian of Carthage in the
mid-3rd century wrote:
Let
them imitate the Lord, who at the very time of His passion was not more proud,
but more humble. For then He washed His disciples’ feet, saying, “If I, your
Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another’s
feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to
you.”[47]
Around the early 6th century,
Caesarius of Arles in a sermon (103.4) taught:
As
often as the Paschal feast comes...Let them...wash the feet of their guests.[48]
John himself recorded that footwashing
was a practice that Jesus implemented the same time He implemented the bread
and the wine (cf. John
Yet now, most who profess
Christ do not do practice footwashing, and the few that do, normally do it once
per year. Since both the practices of bread
& wine and footwashing were implemented by Jesus at the same time, it would
seem that true followers of Christ would follow BOTH practices AND do them at
the same frequency.
Astoundingly, look at what is
admitted by a Lutheran scholar who does not believe Christians should follow
John’s account of Jesus’ words on footwashing:
John
xiii. 13-15. Now the principle argument for feet-washing as a Christian
sacrament is based on the literal
interpretation of these words by our Lord.[49]
And that is true. The true literalists, those who do believe in
sola Scriptura, will do what Jesus
inspired the Apostle John to write.
Those who do not actually believe the Bible
will look for ways to reason around the meaning of the words of Christ, and
instead follow traditions of men.
John lists the church in
Also notice what Irenaeus
wrote in the late 2nd century:
Polycarp…was
also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in
Notice that Irenaeus is
claiming that Polycarp was appointed bishop (pastor/overseer) of the Church in
Notice that Irenaeus is
claiming that there was a list of men who have succeeded Polycarp until the
late 2nd century and that they held to the teaching of the apostles.
Passover Was Kept on the 14th of Nisan in
Polycarp also correctly kept
the Passover. Eusebius noted that in
Polycarp’s region,
...the
parishes of all
An “older tradition” perhaps
would be more accurately conveyed as the “original practice of the apostles”
which was also specifically done by Jesus (cf. Mark
Although I believe that
portions of the text were corrupted and the extant editions contain
non-original additions, there is some interesting information in so-called The Life of Polycarp (if this document
is based upon writings in the second century, it had changes that seem to be
from the fourth century) that suggests that this “tradition” may not have first
came to Smyrna from the Apostle John, but from the Apostle Paul:
In
the days of unleavened bread Paul, coming down from
Hence the above seems to
suggest that New Covenant practice of taking the bread and wine was to be taken
during the season of unleavened bread (which would specifically be Passover)
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.[53]
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 [54]).
The 15th century
Jewish historian, sometimes called Rabbi Ifaac wrote:
Polycarp…Born
late in the reign of Nero, he became a Nazarene.[55]
Perhaps it also should be
mentioned that there is a document known as the Harris Fragments that also discusses Polycarp. Basically it stresses that Polycarp’s
connection with the Apostle John, indicates he was baptized at age 18, states
he was appointed bishop of Smyrna by John, and that he died at martyr’s death
at age 104.[56]
Polycarp and
Regarding
Furthermore, it is
interesting to note that Eusebius records that upon his martyrdom Polycarp’s
critics called him the “father of the Christians”[58]
and that Irenaeus stated,
Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures.[59]
Hence, even these Catholic
writers support the idea that
The Nazarenes Knew the New Testament Canon
A couple of comments on the
New Testament canon probably should be made.
Now John, while living in Patmos
and
Furthermore, Revelation
22:18-19 itself suggests that God had John then finalize all that would be
scripture—and all this occurred in Asia Minor, not Rome.
Interestingly, a review of
Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians
shows that it seems to refer to all
27 books of the New Testament[60] (some scholars believe only most of the books
are referred to[61]) and a
couple from the Old Testament (Psalms, Jeremiah). Thus, Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians helps
demonstrate that
Notice the following from the
late Protestant scholar, James Moffatt:
Was
not the Apostolic Canon of scripture first formed...in
Yet, it needs to be
understood that those in
Perhaps it should also be
mentioned that around the end of the 4th century, the Nazarenes knew
that they had the scriptures and that they came from God, not a Greco-Roman
council. Epiphanius noted about the Nazarenes:
For
they use not only the New Testament but also the Old…[63]
Jerome wrote that the Nazarenes claimed:
…God
has given us the Law and the testimonies of scriptures.[64]
Perhaps it should be
mentioned that Ray Pritz appears to believe that Jerome got some of his
information on the Bible from the Nazarenes and from various synagogues.[65] If that is the case, then it would appear
that the Greco-Roman claim, which I have heard many times, that it (the
Greco-Roman Church) gave the world the Bible neglects to mention that their church most likely got the Bible from
those in the true
Theophilus and other Nazarenes
Ray Pritz
indicated that Theophilus of Antioch was a Nazarene/Ebionite, and then he
quoted R. M. Grant who determined that he:
…found
strong Ebionite leanings in Theophilus, that this Bishop of Antioch "was
following a Jewish or Jewish Christian source" and that "in spirit
and in content he is very close to Judaism".[66]
Thus, we see "Judaeo-Christian"
practices in Asia Minor,
Leaders in Asia Minor such as
Melito of Sardis kept the Passover the same time as the Apostle John[67]
and thus continued to have practices in common with the Christians in
This
fragment is highly significant as the first Christian Old Testament canon. It
is also of interest that Melito traveled to
Thus there were several ties
between the Nazarenes of Asia Minor,
The Nazarenes Continued to Keep Just the Sabbath
What about the seventh-day Sabbath?
In the late fourth century,
Epiphanius wrote:
Nazarenes...They
not only {read} the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews
do. For unlike the previous sectarians, they do not repudiate the legislation,
the prophets, and the books Jews call "Writings." They have no
different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in
the Jewish fashion--except for their belief in Christ, if you please! For they acknowledge
both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and
declare that God is one, and that his Son is Jesus Christ...They are different
from Jews, and different from Christians, only in the following. They disagree
with Jews because they have come to faith in Christ, but since they are still
fettered by the Law-circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest--they are not in
accord with Christians.[69]
Note that the Nazarenes
differed from the Jews and the majority of professing Christians. The Nazarenes
were seventh-day Sabbath-keeping Christians who believed in obeying the law of
God.
Here is some of what the
Catholic scholar Bagatti wrote:
In
fact some Minim of gentile stock,
following
Some Jews…intensified the observance of the Law…especially regarding circumcision and the Sabbath. The Judaeo-Christians in this were in accord with the Jews, but it is possible that some of them allowed themselves to be influenced by the Pauline idea that the rite of circumcision was no longer of obligation.
St. James in his letter (5, 13-16)…commands that in the case of grave illness the presbyters should be called…Jewish sources…describe some Judaeo-Christian presbyters who go to anoint the sick in the name of the Lord Jesus. The Min. Jacob practiced the rite…The custom of anointing the sick seems to have been an ordinary practice of the Nazarenes[70]
Since Epiphanius was of the
Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox form of Christianity, he did not consider the
Nazarenes to be his type of true Christians. But the simple fact is that the
Nazarene form of Christianity was the correct form and the Roman
Catholic/Eastern Orthodox was not faithful to the original apostolic teachings
Notice:
Manichean Faustus, {in} the fourth century ... complained. "Such people practice circumcision, keep the Sabbath, then shun swine's meat and other things like that, all according to the Law. And yet they still claim to be Christians" (As in Frederickson P. When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation. Yale University Press, 2018 p. 100)
"obscure half-Jews." Faust. 33.3 ... catholics argued Fautus ... "I reject circumcision as disgusting," wrote Fautus, "and so do you ... Both of us regard Passover and Sukkot as useless" (Fredriksen P. Origen and Augustine on Paul and the Law. In Law and Lawlessness in Early Judaism and Early Christianity, Lincicum D, Sheridan R, Stang C, eds. Mohr Siebeck, 2019, p. 82)
…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. [71]
Did Gentiles Who Professed Christ Keep the Sabbath for
Centuries?
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. [72]
In the 5th
century, “a certain Eusebius of
The mid-5th
Century historian Sozomen reported,
The
people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the
Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never
observed at
This shows that Sabbath
keeping continued in parts of Asia Minor through the time of
The
Nazarenes Avoided Jewish Traditions, While Observing Biblical Practices
Jerome mentioned that the Sabbath-keeping Christians
he ran into did not adhere to the Jewish traditions--in other words, although
they kept the Sabbath, the Nazarenes did not keep the Sabbath like the
Pharisees did:
Jerome declares:
"On Isaiah 9:1-4
"The Nazarenes, whose
opinion I have set forth above, try to explain this passage in the following
way: When Christ came and his preaching shone out, the land of Zebulon and
Naphtali [the region of Galilee] first of all were freed from the errors of the
Scribes and Pharisees and he shook off their shoulders the very heavy yoke of
the JEWISH TRADITIONS. Later, however, the preaching became more dominant, that
means the preaching was multiplied, through the gospel of the apostle Paul who
was the last of all the apostles. And the gospel of Christ shone to the most
distant tribes and the way of the whole sea. Finally the whole world, which
earlier walked or sat in darkness and was imprisoned in the bonds of idolatry
and death, has seen the clear light of the gospel" (p.64).
In this passage, we find that
the Nazarene Christians -- like Yeshua the Messiah, Peter, James, John and
especially Paul -- rejected Jewish traditionalism, invention, and additions to
the Torah or Old Testament. They referred to them as the "very heavy yoke
of the Jewish traditions." [75]
Perhaps it might be helpful to realize that Catholics do admit that the Nazarene Christians did observe the Feast of Tabernacles:
St. Jerome (PL 25, 1529 & 1536-7) speaking of how the Judaeo-Christians celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles…tells us that they gave the feast a millenarian significance (Bagatti, Bellarmino. Translated by Eugene Hoade. The Church from the Circumcision. Nihil obstat: Marcus Adinolfi. Imprimi potest: Herminius Roncari. Imprimatur: +Albertus Gori, die 26 Junii 1970. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, p.202).
Most Church of God groups with origins in the old WCG, like the Continuing Church of God, still observe the Feast of Tabernacles and have other practices kept by the faithful among the Nazarenes.
Furthermore, some scholars have also concluded based on early writings and circumstances that the Nazarenes would avoid pork (Kinzig W. The Nazoraeans. pp. 471-472, in Skarsaune O, Hvalvik R, eds. Jewish Believers in Jesus. Hendrickson Publishers, 2007).
Various views of the Nazarenes were mentioned by Jerome. Here are a few:
(3) Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 3.30 (on Isa 9:1):
The Nazoraeans, whose opinion I have set forth above, try to explain this passagein the following way: When Christ came and his preaching shone out, the landof Zebulon and the land of Naphtali first of all were freed from the errors of the Scribes and the Pharisees and he shook off their shoulders the very heavy yoke ofthe Jewish traditions grauissimum traditionum ludaicarum iugum). Later, however,the preaching became more dominant, that means the preaching was multiplied,through the Gospel of the apostle Paul who was the last of all the apostles. And the Gospel of Christ shone to the most distant tribes and the way of the whole sea.Finally the whole world which earlier walked or sat in darkness and was imprisonedin the bonds of idolatry and death, has seen the clear light of the gospel. VL 23:388.71-81) 71
(4) Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 9.13 (on Isa 29:17-21):
What we understood to have been written about the devil and his angels, the Nazoraeans believe to have been said against the Scribes and the Pharisees, becausethe 89:69'&6$; 72 passed away, who earlier deceived the people with very vicious tra-ditions and who watched night and day to deceive the simple ones and who mademen sin against the Word of God in order that they should deny that Christ was the Son of God. (VT30:1067.81-1068.86) 73
(5) Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 10.6 (on Isa 31:6-9):
The Nazoraeans understand this passage in this way: 1 Sons of Israel, who deny theSon of God with a most vicious opinion, turn to him and his apostles. For if you will do this, you will reject all idols which to you were a cause of sin in the past, and thedevil will fall before you, not because of your powers, but because of the compassionof God. And his young men who earlier fought for him, will be the tributaries of the Church, and all his power and his rock [stronghold] will pass away. Also the philosophers and every perverse dogma will turn their backs to the sign of the cross. Because this is the meaning of the Lord that this will take place, whose fire or light is in Sionand whose oven is in Jerusalem. VL 30:1122.39-48)
From these passages it becomes clear that, like the Sadducees, the Nazoraeans were very critical towards what they regarded as a tightening up of the Lawby the Pharisees. Not only did the Nazoraeans resent the oral traditiones valued by the Pharisees, 76 but they also had a very clear concept of the history of salva-tion. It is divided into three stages: the preaching of Christ in Galilee; the preach-ing of Paul in the Mediterranean countries; and the spread of the gospel acrossthe whole world (cf. esp. quotation no. 3) (Ibid, pp. 476-477)
So, it can probably be concluded that the Nazarenes were not like the modern Messianic Jews as they tend more towards Pharisaical positions (see also Messianic Judaism Beliefs Differ from the Continuing Church of God).
Eusebius and Other Scholars Often Did Not Report About
the
By this time, readers may
wonder why they have not been aware of most of what is in this article.
There are several reasons,
but perhaps the most pertinent is that beginning no later than Eusebius, most
theological scholars have supported the Greco-Roman confederation. And as supporters, they have had a tendency
to not report and/or minimize the reporting of the true church—especially as it
differed from the position later held by the Greco-Roman confederation.
Eusebius was perhaps the most
thorough of the early church historians, but he definitely was selective about
the details of many matters and people he reported about.
For example, even though
Melito and Theophilus were major second century writers, much of their writings
have been suppressed/lost. I believe
that it is clear that Eusebius suppressed many of them and others later “lost”
them.
Notice what the 19th
century Protestant scholar Philip Schaff reported:
Melito
was a chiliast ... Eusebius is the first to give us an idea of the number and
variety of his writings, and he does little more than mention the titles, a
fact to be explained only by his lack of sympathy with Melito’s views. The time
at which Melito lived is indicated with sufficient exactness by the fact that
he wrote his Apology during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, but after the death
of his brother Lucius, i.e. after 169 (see below, note 21); and that when
Polycrates wrote his epistle to Victor of Rome, he had been dead already some
years ... Of the dates of his episcopacy, and of his predecessors and successors
in the see of Sardis, we know nothing.
In
addition to the works mentioned in this section by Eusebius, who does not
pretend to give a full list, we find in Anastasius Sinaita’s Hodegos seu dux
viæ c. aceph. fragments from two other works entitled είς
τό π€θος and περί σαρκώσεως
χριστού (the latter directed against
Marcion), which cannot be identified with any mentioned by Eusebius (see
Harnack,
Eusebius certainly could have
written more, but as Philip Schaff pointed out, Eusebius seems to have shied
away from highlighting much that was different than the religion that his emperor
(Constantine) liked.
Theophilus, according to what
is in the Syrian version of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical
History, was also one who opposed the heretic Marcion in writing[77]. But that document also no longer is
available.
Interestingly, Eusebius never
went into details of what Melito or Theophilus wrote against Marcion. Nor did Jerome, though he acknowledged that
Theophilus did write a treatise against Marcion that still existed in his time.[78]
And I would take this one
step further--I believe that the suppression of writings from both Melito and
Theophilus against Marcion was intentional. I believe that they would make it clear to those interested in the truth
that the early church did support the Sabbath (and not Sunday) and clearly held
to other teachings that the heretic Marcion introduced that were later adopted
by the Greco-Romans.
Eusebius was also one who
falsely cemented the ties between the faithful of
At
that time there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has
gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of
But the fact is that the
Greco-Roman supporters and the
Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church).
But most people seem unaware
of this.
Perhaps I should add that in
his writing known as De Viris Illustribus
(On Illustrious Men), Jerome did the same thing as Eusebius (who he cites
as a major source[80]) by
combining true leaders and Greco-Roman leaders together when he knew that they
had different doctrines.
This lack of coverage,
cloaking together true and heretical teachers, and subsequent “loss” of
documents is not a coincidence. Combing
parts of biblical doctrines with anti-biblical traditions of men is what Jesus
condemned the Pharisees for (Matthew 15:2-14).
Yet that, to a degree, seems to be what happened in the historical
records.
It may be of interest to
realize that after discussing Polycrates, Eusebius says almost nothing about
the Smyrnaeans in
Other scholars have noticed
this as well. For example, The Catholic Encyclopedia confirmed 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
There SHOULD HAVE BEEN more
material, but Eusebius did not report it.
Furthermore, The Catholic Encyclopedia, in a
different article, stated:
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.[82]
I also believe that this is why
the book by Tertullian against the Quartodeciman Apollonius of
Apollonius of
So, because some records were
“lost” some prefer to not believe that there was a pastor/bishop from
Furthermore, as mentioned
previously, Eusebius knew of, and seems to have had, a writing by Irenaeus “to
Blastus On Schism”[87],
yet he did not report what it said. I suspect that it would have revealed more of
the truth that those in
Limited and Contradictory Reporting on the Faithful
Nazarenes
But there is more.
Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and
Protestant scholars tend to accept that the original Christian church was made
up of Jewish converts that retained “Jewish practices”--and that this would have
included the early church in
How can these scholars claim
that the Jerusalem Christians until 135 A.D., the Asia Minor Christians of the
2nd century, and the Antiochian Christians of the 2nd
century were faithful, while on the other hand denouncing the Nazarenes in the
4th century as heretical?
How can any “Christian”
scholar accept the decisions of subsequent church councils to condemn those who
held the first and second century Judaeo-Christian beliefs?
Instead of publicly accepting
that the early church was “Judaeo-Christian”, most scholars tend to instead
accept that the Greco-Romans ended up with a different set of beliefs but they
are not sure why. Notice what two different
books on church history state:
The
scanty and suspicious materials of ecclesiastical history seldom enable us to
dispel the dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church.[88]
For
fifty years after
But those statements are
mainly only true in the Greco-Roman sense. Those in Asia Minor, Antioch, the scattered Christians from Jerusalem,
and others elsewhere continued in the original practices--the fact that some of
their records were destroyed (hence “scanty” is accurate) and some were subject
to Greco-Roman tampering (so some are suspicious) does not change the fact that
the surviving records only show one original faith and that it was not kept by
the Greco-Romans. It was only because of
cowardice, compromise, the toleration of certain heretics, and the acceptance
of allegorizing teachings that “the church” that was “very different” came into
existence.
Yet, if the world truly
understood that the early faithful leaders did have what are known as
“Judaeo-Christian” practices, this could shake the Greco-Roman religious world
to its very foundations.
Furthermore, notice what is
essentially an admission from Catholic scholar Bagatti commenting on how little
Eusebius reported about an early, Judaeo-Christian, church in on
In
the latter text Eusebius takes Sion for the whole city and so does not intend
to describe the state of Sion as such…To
explain the silence on the mother church which certainly was in Sion, we
can only identify this synagogue mentioned by the Bordeaux pilgrim with the
church adapted for use by
Judaeo-Christians, and therefore according to their usage, a
synagogue. This is confirmed by St.
Cyril, who some half a score of years later…calls the place “a church of the
Apostles”…[90]
Perhaps, I should add here
that Roman Catholic scholar Bagatti believed that non-reporting about the Nazarene Judaeo-Christians was intentional. Notice:
St.
Epiphanius, also a witness to the situation…In the Ancoratus, (40, PG 43,89-90)
written in 373, the saint enumerates the Holy Sites of the Passion…Since the
Cenacle, which is not mentioned, is of prime importance…and other places are of
little importance, we must admit that
the omission is intentional. We
guess that he did not wish to record it because he held the Judaeo-Christians
as heretics.[91]
In other words, the place
that probably was the original church location in
I suspect that full coverage of
what really happened with the true church would have disclosed significant
doctrinal differences from
This suppression/destruction
of early information also explains much of why early
On the other hand, perhaps
the reason that there are a variety of binitarian supporting early writings
from leaders such as Polycarp, Melito and others remaining is because Eusebius
himself held to “semi-Arianism” according to Catholic sources.[92]
Are Modern Scholars Aware of This?
But what about modern scholars?
Do they not realize this?
Yes, to some degree they do. But there are a variety of problems that
scholars have.
Those who do not now seem to
have a strong theological bent, such as Bart Ehrman, clearly believe that there
were a variety of “Christianities” and the Greco-Roman confederation is what
most people are familiar with because it emerged as the religion of a
sun-supporting emperor (Constantine).[93]
Since he seems to realize that what now passes for mainstream Christianity
really did not exist from the beginning (plus, I suspect, problems he has seen
with it), he no longer sees himself as the evangelical Christian he once did.
In the early 20th
century, another who turned against Constantinian “Christianity” (and pretty
much all other forms), Llewelyn Powys,
noted that there was only one place church history made sense with any type of
apostolic succession:
… direct
tradition of that apostolic succession which connects primitive Christianity
with the disciples of Jesus. We must go to
Yet, since Llewelyn Powys never found any
church that traced itself and beliefs through
Yet, Protestant, Roman Catholic,
and Eastern Orthodox scholars seem to think that the idea that the true church was
small and persecuted, and throughout history has remained small and persecuted
is beyond what they can personally accept.
Additionally Roman Catholics and
Orthodox scholars, even though they do not follow Polycarp’s teachings, gloss
over this, while still calling Polycarp a saint.
And they also venerate as
saints early leaders including Melito, Theophilus, Apollinaris, etc. who all
held doctrinal positions that the Greco-Romans do not. Instead of stopping and considering that
Polycarp, Melito, Theophilus, Polycrates, Apollinaris, etc. were not in the
same church as the Greco-Romans, they have chosen to gloss over the MAJOR
doctrinal differences while at the same time indicating to the world that their
FAITH NEVER CHANGED.
This is intellectually dishonest,
but they do this all the time.
For more documented proof, check out the free online book: Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church.
And as has been reported in
this paper, many Greco-Roman Catholic scholars, at least, do recognize they really do not
have “apostle to bishop” transfer in ANY of the five so-called “Apostolic Sees”
of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.
Even though Roman Catholic and
Orthodox scholars know that Polycarp did have the original type of “apostle to
bishop succession” they claim as essential to be part of the true church, they
overlook the genuine Church of God as an insignificant, essentially upstart sect. The fact that we hold better to the teachings
of Polycarp and his spiritual successors than any other church seems to be
impossible to them—even though it, as clearly documented in this paper, is
true.
Notice the following written
by the Roman Catholic scholar Bagatti:
There
is a text, which is not very clear, in which St. Epiphanius speaks of
pre-Constantinian Sion (PG 260-1); at
first he says that “the small church” of the Christians had remained standing
despite the change wrought in the city by Hadrian; then as if there had
remained a “synagogue”, to which was connected the legend of the seven
tabernacles. When the Saint wrote there
was secret strife between the Judaeo-Christian and gentile Christian
communities, which kept the saint from expressing himself more clearly; but
there is no doubt that he speaks in this text of the primitive
So he admits that Epiphanius
knew of a primitive church (which probably did cease to function in
On the other hand, the
Protestant scholars may be worse. Pretty
much all 21st century Protestant scholars know that Polycarp and
Polycrates were known as faithful early Christian leaders who stood up against
the bishops of
Why?
Because few Protestant
theologians believe in the Sabbath, only rarely do any publicly advocate
adherence to all of the Ten Commandments, and almost never advocate original
Nazarene Christian practices. Protestant
scholars tend to consider all of them burdens that have somehow been done away
through Christ. Thus, they simply cannot
emphasize that the early faithful church must have been more prevalent in Asia
Minor,
The fact that Protestants
have so many Greco-Roman teachings, while often publicly professing loyalty to sola Scriptura, essentially gets them to
gloss over or de-emphasize these facts of early Christian history.
There are some occasional
exceptions. In addition to various
admissions in Roman Catholic and other writings, Paul Brooks Duff for example
observed:
The
familiarity of Christians with Jewish practices in
But it is more than
striking--the original
Notice the following facts
about the original church from E. Gibbon:
The
first fifteen bishops of
In other words, the original
apostolic church that the Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all admit was
faithful held to the law of Moses combined with the doctrine of Christ and they
were the standard for every area until too many Gentiles who had polytheistic
practices took over and ignored the original teachings.
Amazingly, a leading
Protestant scholar (H. Brown) has admitted:
It is impossible to document what we now
call orthodoxy in the first two centuries of Christianity.[98]
And that is true. And he was specifically referring to
doctrines like the trinity and other teachings that are contrary to what the Continuing Church of God holds.
Speaking of the trinity and
its lack of ability to be documented, another trinitarian scholar (W. Rusch) has
admitted:
The
binitarian formulas are found in Rom. 8:11, 2 Cor. 4:14, Gal. 1:1, Eph. 1:20, 1
Tim 1:2, 1 Pet. 1:21, and 2 John 1:13...No doctrine of the Trinity in the
Nicene sense is present in the New Testament...There is no doctrine of the
Trinity in the strict sense in the Apostolic Fathers...[99]
Interestingly, H. Brown also wrote:
What
we now call orthodoxy is a traditional
understanding. Is it the correct
one? The fact that heresy preceded orthodoxy, and appears to have been suppressed and
supplanted by it, would seem to suggest the contrary…
If
not, it would be necessary to concede that the history of orthodoxy is the
history of usurpation—as indeed many eminent scholars have argued and continue
to argue.[100]
Thus, some scholars will
admit that many doctrines that are now denounced as heretical, clearly were in
fact documented earlier, hence some were probably the original, Christian
teachings.
Since many scholars have
suppressed the truth, most have misunderstood it, and some others have
destroyed documents that prove more of the truths of the early true church,
most lay people do not have a real clue as to what happened.
For documented proof that Protestantism does not hold to original Christianity or sola Scriptura, check out the free online book: Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God Differs from Protestantism.
Fourth and Later Centuries
It may be of interest to note
that the Roman Catholic scholar Bagatti stated that:
Gregory
of Nyssa…He could not understand the mentality of the Judaeo-Christians…[101]
The
same situation of two opposing communites appears in
two letters of St. Gregory of Nyssa…in 381…he himself was not considered a true
Christian by some who held the three resurrections, the millenarianism, the
restoration of the Temple with bloody sacrifices; these are all doctrines of
the Judaeo-Christians…[102]
From
the phrases of the contemporary St. Cyril and others we learn that the
Epiphanius
vouches (PG 41,401-2) for the desire
of these Christians of Jewish race not to be called Christians or Jews but Nazarenes. A late confirmation that the community of
Jerusalem was not considered “Christian” but Nazarene is found in the relation
of Severus ibn al Moqaffa
(10th century) inserted into the History
of the Councils…: “These are prodigies of the cross which are worked among
the Syrians, called Nazarenes, on account of their history and way of life”.[104]
We in the
Like the Judea-Christians
mentioned above, we in the Continuing Church of God do believe in the three
resurrections, millenarianism, the restoration of bloody sacrifices (but we do
not believe that a Jewish Temple has to be rebuilt in this age for that to occur--nor
is it clear that was a required position by the Judaeo-Christians
of the late 4th century—but we do accept that will occur in the
millennium as per Zechariah 14:21).
Jerome, in a letter to
Augustine wrote that the Nazarenes were “a most pestilential heresy”.[105]
But the Nazarenes were not
new, just new to being considered to be a heresy. The Nazarenes had long existed, but until the
time of
…the
earliest heresiologists did not include the Nazarenes
for the simple reason that they did not consider them to be heretics…we arrive
at this important conclusion: the lack of polemic against the Nazarenes until
the fourth century does not show that they were a late phenomenon; rather it
shows that no one until Epiphanius considered them heretical enough to add them
to older catalogues…no one until Epiphanius felt it necessary to include the
Nazarenes, even though they existed from the earliest times...[106]
Jerome also mentioned the
Nazarenes when he wrote about the book of Isaiah:
The
Nazarenes, who accept Christ in such a way that they do not cease to observe
the old law…
The
rest of the Nazarenes explain the passage this way…God has given us the Law and
the testimonies of the scriptures. If
you are not willing to follow them you shall not have light, the darkness will
always oppress you.[107]
Dr. Ray Pritz’s
comment on that particular commentary discussing the Nazarenes by Jerome:
We
may note that the complete lack of condemnation of the Nazarenes by Jerome.[108]
So what does all of that have
to do with the Councils that agreed to the trinity? In one sense, quite a bit.
Notice an interesting, but
highly important, observation by the Roman Catholic priest Bagatti:
In
conclusion, regarding the Nazarenes,
both St. Epiphanius and
And that is a major
difference between the true
History clearly shows that it
took a Council, and not the Bible, to declare the Holy Spirit the third person
of a non-biblical trinity. History also
shows that the idea of the Holy Spirit being a separate divine person was NOT
held by most prior to the late 4th century.
The Truth About Early Church History Is Not Widely
Known
On the other hands, scholars
like Bart Erhman, Ray Pritz,
and Bellarmino Bagatti have at least recognized that
what happened to the early Judaeo-Christian church has not been widely
known. The Catholic priest Bagatti, to cite
one example, wrote:
The
study of Judaeo-Christianity is still in its initial stages and I await new
literary studies and new archaeological researches to get a better knowledge of
a historical-religious situation that has now completely vanished.[111]
Of course, this religious situation has not completely
vanished.
Jerome's Commentary on Isaiah Mentioned the Nazarenes
As shown before, Jerome mentioned the Nazarenes in his Commentary on Isaiah. Here is a translation into English of parts of Jerome's Commentary on Isaiah where he mentioned the Nazarenes:
On Is. 8:14
The Nazarenes, who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to
observe the old law explain the two houses as the two families, viz. of
Shammai and Hillel, from whom originated the Scribes and the Pharisees.
Akiba, who took over their school, is called the master of Aquila the
proselyte, and after him came Meir who has been succeeded by Joannes the son
of Zakkai and after him Eliezer and further Telphon, and next Joseph Galilaeus
and Joshua up to the capture of Jerusalem. Shammai then and Hillel were born
not long before the Lord; they originated in Judea. The name of the first
means "scatterer" and of the second "unholy", because he scattered and defiled
the precepts of the Torah by his traditions and deutroseis. And these are the
two houses who did not accept the Savior who has become to them ruin and
scandel.
On Is. 8:20-21
For the rest the Nazarenes explain the passage in this way: when the Scribes
and Pharisees tell you to listen to them, men who do everything for the love
of the belly and who hiss during their incantations in the way of magicians in
order to deceive you, you must answer them like this: "It is not strange if
you follow your traditions since every tribe consults its own idols. We must
not, therefore, consult your dead about the living ones. On the contrary, God
has given us the Torah and the testimonies of the scriptures. If you are not
willing to follow them you shall not have light, and the darkness will always
oppress you. It will cover your earth and your doctrine so that, when you see
that they have been deceived by you in error and they feel a longing for the
truth, they will then be sad or angry. And let them who believe themselves to
be like their own gods and kings curse you. And let them look at the heaven
and the earth in vain since they are always in darkness and they can not flee
away from your ambushes.
On Is. 9:1-4
The Nazarenes, whose opinion I have set forth above, try to explain this
passage in the following way: When Messiah came and his proclaiming shone
out, the land of Zebulon and Naphtali first of all were freed from the errors
of the Scribes and Pharisees and he shook off their shoulders the very heavy
yoke of the Jewish traditions. Later, however, the proclaiming became more
dominant, that means the proclaiming was multiplied, through the Goodnews of
of the emissary Paul who was the last of all the emissaries. And the goodnews
of Messiah shone to the most distant tribes and the way of the whole sea.
Finally the whole world, which earlier walked or sat in darkness and was
imprisoned in the bonds of idolatry and death, has seen the clear light of the
goodnews.
On Is. 29:20-21
What we have understood to have been written about the devil and his angels,
the Nazarenes believe to have been said against the Scribes and the Pharisees,
because the deutrotai passed away, who earlier deceived the people with very
vicious traditions (And they watch day and night to deceive the simple ones),
who made men sin against the Word of God in order that they should deny that
Messiah was the Son of God.
On. Is. 31:6-9
The Nazarenes understand this passage in this way: O Sons of Israel, who deny
the Son of God with a most vicious opinion, turn to him and his emissaries.
For if you will do this, you will reject all idols which to you were a cause
of sin in the past and the devil will fall before you, not because of your
powers, but because of the comparison of God. And his young men, who at a
certain time earlier fought for him, will be the servants of the assembly and
any of his power and stone will pass. Also the philosophers and every
perverse dogma will turn their backs to the sign of the cross. Because this
is the meaning of the Lord that his will take place, whose fire or light is in
Zion and his oven in Jerusalem.
(From Ancient Nazarene Commentary on Isaiah (Jerome) Posted by James Trimm on June 28, 2012 at 10:26am in "Church Fathers" on Nazarenes and Ebionites. http://nazarenespace.com/group/church-fathers-on-nazarenes-and-ebionites/forum/topics/ancient-nazarene-commentary-on-isaiah-jerome accessed 07/17/15)
Of course, true Christians would reject idols , even if Jews and Greco-Roman Catholics 'venerate' them.
Summation
The subject of early church
history and what happened in the beginning centuries of Christianity is
controversial. But that does not mean
that it is not relevant to Christians today.
All Christians were at first
called Nazarenes.
Surely the believers and the Jews, Nazareans and the Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day, and whosoever does right, shall have his reward with his Lord and will neither have fear nor regret. (Quran 2:62; Ahmed Ali)
It is only some of the Churches of God that claim descent through the Apostle John, Polycarp, Melito, and Polycrates while still adhering to their Quartodeciman and other practices and teachings.
In the Fall of 2007, the
Protestant publication, Christianity
Today, had an article on church history that stated:
We are now in a period when it is not enough to know only about the Bible. The apologetics of the past is no longer adequate. Today’s questions involve not only how the Bible came to be, but even if there was originally such a thing as orthodoxy. It is a crucial question. Christians need to know a lot more about the second century. Roots matter, especially in the founding of a movement.[112]
And that is certainly true. However if people look into their roots, the
fact is that neither Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or other non-Church of God
groups can document many of their “mainstream beliefs” as being accepted by
true Christians in the second century--see also the documented, free, online books Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church and Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God Differs from Protestantism.
While ever detail of early
Christianity has not been preserved, it is historically accurate to conclude
that there were Nazarene Christians in the Gentile areas of Ephesus and Smyrna
who considered themselves as part of the true Christian Church who used the
same Old Testament that non-Roman/Orthodox churches do, used the same New
Testament that the Roman/Orthodox/Protestant churches do, who continued to keep
various practices as they understood from scripture, 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.
I believe that those in the
Continuing Church of God truly are the descendants of the only faithful group of
first, second, third, and fourth century Christians as they hold to all true
early Christian beliefs.
The original Christians were
called Nazarenes and held to many doctrines and practices that many considered
to be Jewish. But as there is no
historical doubt that early Christians had those practices, those who wish to
be true Christians should be following the practices of the Nazarenes today.
"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches"
(Revelation
More on the history of the
true church can be found in the following articles:
What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History? Although most believe that the Roman Catholic Church history teaches an unbroken line of succession of bishops beginning with Peter, with stories about most of them, Roman Catholic scholars know the truth of this matter. This eye-opening article is a must-read for any who really wants to know what Roman Catholic history actually admits about the early church.
Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome What actually happened to the primitive Church? And did the Bible tell about this in advance?
Apostolic Succession What really happened? Did structure and beliefs change? Are many of the widely-held current understandings of this even possible? Did you know that Catholic scholars really do not believe that several of the claimed "apostolic sees" of the Orthodox have apostolic succession--despite the fact that the current pontiff himself seems to wish to ignore this view? Is there actually a true church that has ties to any of the apostles that is not part of the Catholic or Orthodox churches? Read this article if you truly are interested in the truth on this matter!
Early Church History: Who Were the Two Major Groups Professed Christ in the Second and Third Centuries? Did you know that many in the second and third centuries felt that there were two major, and separate, professing Christian groups in the second century, but that those in the majority churches tend to now blend the groups together and claim "saints" from both? "Saints" that condemn some of their current beliefs. Who are the two groups?
What Was the Original Apostles' Creed? What is the Nicene Creed? Did the original apostles write a creed? When was the first creed written? Are the creeds commonly used by the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics original?
Do You Practice Mithraism? Many practices and doctrines that mainstream so-called Christian groups have are the same or similar to those of the sun-god Mithras. Do you follow Mithraism combined with the Bible or original Christianity?
END-NOTE References
[1] Ehrman BD. Lost Christianities: The Battles
for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew.
Oxford University Press, USA, 2005
[2] 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
[3]Statement of Beliefs of the Continuing Church of God. http://www.ccog.org/statement-of-beliefs-of-the-continuing-church-of-god/ viewed 09/28/13.
[4] Sanna I, et al. The Hope of Salvation for
Infants who Die Without Being Baptized. International Theological
Commission. This present text was
approved in forma specifica by the members of the
Commission, and was subsequently submitted to its President, Cardinal William Levada who, upon receiving the approval of Benedict XVI in
an audience granted on January 19, 2007, approved the text for publication.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
viewed 8/02/08
[5] Ruffin C.B. The Twelve: The
Lives of the Apostles After Calvary. Our
Sunday Visitor, Huntington (IN), 1997, p. 94
[6] Germano M. Pella.
http://www.bibarch.com/ArchaeologicalSites/Pella.htm 06/20/07
[7] Fortescue A. Transcribed by Donald
J. Boon. (Jerusalem (A.D. 71-1099). The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII
Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company, NY. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910.
Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of
New York, pp. 355-361
[8] Bagatti, Bellarmino. Translated by Eugene Hoade. The Church from the Circumcision. Nihil obstat:
Marcus Adinolfi. Imprimi potest: Herminius Roncari. Imprimatur: +Albertus Gori, die 26 Junii 1970. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, p.7
[9] Archim. Titos (Chortatos). THE CHURCH OF JERUSALEM. Greek Orthodox
Patriarchate in Jerusalem http://www.jerusalem-patriarchate.org/ May 24, 2005
[10] Eusebius. The History of the Church History, Book III, Chapter V,
Verses 2,3. Translated by A. Cushman
McGiffert. Digireads.com Publishing,
Stilwell (KS), 2005, p. 45
[11] Tabor, James D. The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His
Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity.
Published by Simon and Schuster, 2007, p.133
[12] Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, (Oak Harbor, WA:
Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997. This material has been carefully compared,
corrected¸ and emended (according to the 1910 edition of Charles Scribner's
Sons) by The Electronic Bible Society, Dallas, TX, 1998
[13] Lewis, Harve Spencer. The
Mystical Life of Jesus. Published by Rosicrucian press, AMORC college, 1929.
Original from the
[14] Epiphanius. Panarion 29, 9,3 as
cited in Pritz. Nazarene Jewish
Christianity. Magnas,
Jerusalem, 1988, p. 35
[15] 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, Chapter 13. Edited by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. 1886. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA),
1999 printing, p. 339
[16] Epiphanius. Panarion 29 as
cited in Pritz, pp. 30-34
[17] Hurtado LW. Lord Jesus Christ, Devotion to Jesus in Earliest
Christianity. William B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand
Rapids, 2003, pp. 560-561,618
[18] Pritz, p. 108.
[19] Ibid, pp. 85-86. Pritz states
the earliest appearance of the term “Gospel of the Nazarenes” did not occur
until the ninth century and was then misnamed based upon a misunderstanding of
another writing.
[20] Church of the Nazarene.
Wikipedia. Viewed 08/02/08
[21] Eusebius. The History of the
Church, Book IV, Chapter 5, p.71.
[22] Pixner B. Church of the Apostles Found on Mt. Zion. Biblical
Archaeology Review, May/June 1990
[23] 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
[24] Gibbon, pp. 389-391
[25] Wilhelm J. Transcribed by Donald J. Boon. Apostolic Succession. The
Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company.
Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy
Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New
York
[26] Barron SW. Social and Religious
History of the Jews, Volume 2: Christian Era: the First Five Centuries. Columbia University Press, 1952, p. 107
[27] The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem.
http://www.holylight.gr/patria/enpatria.html viewed 11/30/07
[28] Bagatti. Bellarmino. Translated by Eugene Hoade. The Church from the Gentiles in
Palestine. Nihil obstat:
Ignatius Mancini. Imprimi potest:
Herminius Roncari.
Imprimatur: +Albertus Gori,
die 28 Februarii 1970. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem,
pp.11,71-72
[29] Gibbon E. Chapter XV, Section I.
[30] Bagatti. The Church from the
Gentiles in Palestine, pp.26,71-72
[31] Bacchiocchi S. God's Festivals in Scripture and History. Biblical
Perspectives, Part 1, The Spring Festivals. Befriend Springs (MI), 1995, pp.
101,,103
[32] Lightfoot, Joseph Barber. Saint
Paul's Epistle to the Galatians: A Revised Text with Introduction, Notes and
Dissertations. Published by Macmillan, 1881. Original from Harvard University.
Digitized Oct 16, 2006, pp. 317, 331
[33] Bagatti. The Church from the
Circumcision, pp.21,22
[34] Origen. Contra Celsus, Book V, Chapter 61.
In Ante-Nicene Fathers by Roberts and Donaldson, Volume 4, 1885. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA),
printing 1999, p. 570
[35] Gibbon E. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume I, Chapter XV,
Section I. ca. 1776-1788. The Modern Library, NY, pp. 390-391
[36] History of the Orthodox Church.
St. Basil´s Cathedral, Nashville 2007.
http://www.stbasilscathedral.org/custpage.cfm/frm/3087/sec_id/3087 viewed
11/28/07
[37] Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book IV, Chapter IV, Verse 1.
[38] 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
[39] Ruffin , p. 94
[40] Bagatti. The Church from the
Circumcision, p. 80
[41] Bede. Edited by Judith McClure and Roger Collins. The Ecclesiastical History of the English
People. Oxford University Press, NY,
1999, pp. 156-157
[42] Eusebius. The History of the
Church, Book V, Chapter XXIV, Verse 6, p. 114
[43] Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses.
Book III, Chapter 3, Verse 4, p. 416.
[44] Eusebius. The History of the
Church, Book V, Chapter XXIV, Verses 2-7, p. 114
[45] Thomas JC. Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine
Community. Published by Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004, p. 151
[46] Hardinge, Leslie. The Celtic Church in
Britain. Teach Services, Brushton (NY) 2000, pp.
111,116
[47] Cyprian. The Epistles of
Cyprian, Epistle 5, Chapter 2. In Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V
[48] Cited in Thomas JC, p. 145
[49] Bergstresser, Peter. Baptism and Feet-washing. Published by
Lutheran Publication Society, 1896. Original from the New York Public Library.
Digitized Aug 2, 2006, p. 189
[50] Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 4, Verse 3 and Chapter 3,
Verse 4
[51] Eusebius. The History of the
Church, Book V, Chapter XXIII, Verse 1, p. 113
[52] Pionius, Life of Polycarp, Chapter 2. Translated by J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic
Fathers, vol. 3.2, 1889, pp.488-506.
[53] Irenaeus. Fragments from the Lost Writings of
Irenaeus. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume
1 by Roberts & Donaldson.
Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1999 printing, p. 569
[54] 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
[55] Hoffman , David. Chronicles from Cartaphilus:
The Wandering Jew. Published by , 1853. Original from the University of
Michigan. Digitized Sep 7, 2007, p. 636
[56] As cited and discussed in Hartog P. Polycarp and the New Testament: The Occasion, Rhetoric, Theme, and Unity of the Epistle to the Philippians and Its Allusions to New Testament Literature. Published by Mohr Siebeck, 2002, pp. 32,39,41,153-154
[57] 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
[58] Eusebius. The History of the Church, Book IV, Chapter XV, Verse 26, p.
80
[59] Ibid. Book V, Chapter 20, Verse 6, p. 112
[60] Thiel B. Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians with New Testament
Scriptural Annotations. Trinity Journal
of Apologetics and Theology, published June 18, 2008
[61] Holmes, p. 203
[62] Excerpt of James Moffatt's review. In:
Bauer, p.292
[63] Cited in Pritz, p. 33
[64] Cited in Pritz, p. 63
[65] Pritz, pp. 49-53
[66] As quoted in Pritz, p. 75
[67] Eusebius. The History of the
Church, Book V, Chapter XXIV, Verses 2-7, p. 114
[68] Stewart-Sykes
A. Melito of
[69] Epiphanius 29:7,1-5; Williams 1987: 117-118
[70] Bagatti. The Church from the
Circumcision, p. 108
[71] Jerome. Letter 112 to
Augustine.
[72] Latourette K.S. A History of Christianity, Volume 1, Beginnings to
1500. Harper Collins, San Francisco, 1975, p.198
[73] Bagatti. The Church from the
Circumcision, p. 93
[74] 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
[75] The Mysterious Relationship of The Early Nazarene Christians and
Rabbinic Judaism. http://hope-of-israel.org/nazarene.htm 07/08/06
[76] NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. SECOND SERIES
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES. VOLUME I, Chapter
XXVI, by PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D. AND
HENRY WACE, D.D., Eusebius Pamphilius: Church
History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine. Melito and the
Circumstances which he records, 1890. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA),
1999 printing, Note 1, p. 203
[77] Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Syriac version, Book 4
(Extract), Chapter 24. Spicilegium Syriacum (1855). This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, Ipswich, UK, 2003. Greek text is rendered using the
Scholars Press SPIonic font/Polytonic
Greek
[78] Jerome. De Viris
Illustribus (On Illustrious Men), Chapter 25
[79] Eusebius. The History of the
Church, Book IV, Chapter 21, verse 1, p. 86
[80] Jerome. De Viris Illustribus
(On Illustrious Men), introduction
[81] Kirsch, Johann Peter. "Pope St. Victor I." The Catholic
Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 10 Jul. 2008 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15408a.htm>
[82] Chapman, John. Tertullian.
[83] Grey F.W. Transcribed by Paul-Dominique Masiclat,
O.P. Apollonius of Ephesus. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Copyright ©
1907 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight.
Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John
Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
[84] Eusebius. The History of the
Church, Book V, Chapter XVIII, verse 1, p. 110
[85] Jerome. De Viris Illustribus
(On Illustrious Men), Chapter 40
[86] Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm. The Revelation
of ST John: Expounded for those WHO SEARCH The Scriptures, Volume 2. Published
by T. & T. Clark, 1852. Original from Harvard University. Digitized Nov 16,
2007, p. 422
[87] Eusebius. The History of the
Church, Book V, Chapter XX, Verse 1, p. 112
[88] Gibbon, Edward ; Eckler , Peter. History of
Christianity: Comprising All that Relates to the Progress of the Christian
Religion in "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire," and A Vindication of Some Passages in the 15th and 16th Chapters.
Published by P. Eckler, 1916. Original from the New
York Public Library
Digitized Jun 19, 2006, p. 106
[89] Hurlbut JL. The Story of the Christian
Church. Zondervan, 1967, p. 33
[90] Bagatti. The Church from the
Gentiles in Palestine, p.64
[91] Bagatti. The Church from the Circumcision, p.11
[92] Bagatti. The Church from the
Gentiles in Palestine, p. 49
[93] Ehrman BD. Lost Christianities: The Battles
for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew
[94] Powys, Llewelyn. The Pathetic Fallacy: A Study of
Christianity. Published by Longmans,
Green, 1930. Original from the
[95] Bagatti. The Church from the
Gentiles in Palestine, p.26
[96] Duff PB. Who Rides the Beast?:
Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse.
Oxford University Press US, 2001, p. 148
[97] Gibbon & Eckler, p. 117
[98] Brown, p. 5
[99] Rusch W.G. The Trinitarian Controversy.
Fortress Press, Phil., 1980, pp. 2-3
[100] Brown, p. 5
[101] Bagatti. The Church from the Gentiles in
Palestine, p. 49
[102] Bagatti. The Church from the Circumcision,
p. 11
[103] Ibid, p. 12
[104] Ibid, p. 13
[105] Jerome. Letter 112 to
Augustine.
[106] Pritz, p. 75
[107] Cited in Pritz, pp. 58,62,63
[108] Ibid, p. 58
[109] Bagatti. The Church from the Circumcision,
p.35
[110] Ware, pp.19,35
[111] Bagatti. The Church from the Circumcision, p.2
[112] Bock DL. Roots Matter: The Gnostic Hunger For Secret Knowledge.
Christianity Today. Issue 96, Fall 2007, Vol. XXVII, No. 4, Page 42
Back to home page Back to the Early Christianity
Page