So, according to BAR, there were two groups.
One that was the original faith, That faith kept the law (which would have included the Sabbath and the Holy Days) and did not eat unclean meat. The Apostle Jude wrote that Christians are “to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). And the truly faithful did not change to a different faith.
Yet, the other group that BAR mentioned was changed and different. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas was not written by Barnabas, but an imposter who put Barnabas’ name on it. All scholars of this period realize it. It is in Epistle of Barnabas that we read that people are not supposed to believe the Bible literally, but allegorically. And specifically, it pushes the consumption of unclean meats. This Epistle of Barnabas is believed to have originated in Alexandria, Egypt, which later became known for pushing an allegorical, as opposed to a more literal, interpretation of the Bible (see also What is the Appropriate Form of Biblical Interpretation?). Why anyone would point to that false document as somewhat foundational to their faith shows their lack of commitment to the Bible and to the truth.
It seems clear that many in the 21st century do not realize, that according to many claimed as early supporters of the Roman/Alexandrian churches, there were two groups, two types, of allegedly faithful Christians.
Essentially, there were the real Christians that had ties to the apostles John and Philip in Asia Minor and Antioch, and others associated with the Greco-Roman confederation that was mainly made up of the allegoristic churches that emerged in the second century in Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Rome.
The understanding that there were two groups (though not both always considered to be faithful) was the position of several in the second and third centuries, including many considered to be saints by the Catholics of Rome as well as the Eastern Orthodox such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Origen, and Serapion.
Various later historians also seemed to understand some of the truth on this matter. Do you?
Here is a summary for those mainly interested in just a few basic facts, starting with four biblical leaders:
Jesus taught that there would be a large group that would go the wrong way and a few that went the right way (Matthew 7:13-14), which He called “the little flock’ (Luke 12:32).
The Apostle Paul warned against mixing theology with those who used non-biblical practices (1 Corinthians 10:20-21), yet claimed to be Christian.
The Apostle John said there were those who would accept his doctrines and other groups that would not (1 John 2:18-19; cf. 3 John 9-12). Those in the genuine Church of God have continued with the doctrines that he taught.
Jude wrote that it would be necessary to contend for the original faith as there were those who strayed from it (Jude 3-4,12). Some added rituals, whereas others kept to the original ‘liturgy’ (see What was the Liturgy of the Early Church?).
Cerinthus was a first century heretic who taught allegorizing of scripture, that non-biblical tradition was more important than scripture, blended Gnostic teachings with the Bible, claimed to be an apostle, and claimed that angels gave him messages. History records that he was condemned by the Apostle John.
Marcus (c. 135), the first non-Jewish Bishop of Jerusalem, told people that because of the edicts of the Roman Emperor Hadrian that they would not be allowed into Jerusalem unless they abandoned original Christian practices like the Sabbath. Those unwilling to change separated from those who did. Hence, there were two groups in Judea by the second century.
Justin (c. 135), who is considered a saint by the Greco-Roman churches, taught that there were Christians in Asia Minor who had Jewish practices like the Holy Days and the Ten Commandments, but that he did not care to associate with them. Justin also seemed to accept the false “Gospel of Peter”, which the true Christians never did. Hence there were two groups in Asia Minor in the second century–one under the direction of faithful leaders such as Bishop Polycarp and others who more were independent like Justin. Apparently, the true Christians in Asia Minor (who were apparently the majority at that time) did not care to associate with those like Justin either, so Justin went to Rome.
Hegessipus (c. 150), who is considered a saint by the Greco-Roman churches, taught that there were two groups in Jerusalem in the early second century. The faithful one and those affected somehow by Simon Magus.
Bishop/Pastor Polycarp (c. 156) taught that Passover was to be observed on the 14th of Nisan, while Bishop Anicetus of Rome accepted Sunday (which came to be known in English as Easter). Hence, there were two different, but significant, groups in the second century: one mainly affiliated with Rome and one mainly affiliated with Asia Minor.
Irenaeus, who is considered a saint by the Greco-Roman churches, wrote that there were two groups with differing dates for Passover, and that Polycarp’s group was faithful.
Bishop/Pastor Polycrates (c. 192) told Roman Bishop Victor that he and those in Asia Minor were not concerned about frightful words from Rome that differed from the Bible related to Passover and he kept the same practice as the apostles like John. Hence, those in Asia Minor made it clear in the latter portion of the second century that they were separate from Rome. Hence, there was a separation of the faithful mainly in Asia Minor and the confederation that was emerging between Rome, Alexandria, and the changed church in Jerusalem.
According to Tertullian (“the father of Latin theology,” c. 200), there were two groups of who claimed Christ that claimed ties to the original apostles: those associated with Rome and those associated with Asia Minor (see also Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome).
According to Clement of Alexandria (late second century) and Origen of Alexandria (early third century), there were two groups who claimed Christianity: the mystic/allegorical group (that they were part of) and the non-mystic/non-allegorical group. Rome supported the Alexandrians (and still somewhat supports them), while those in Asia Minor and Antioch did not accept them.
According to Justin, one group adopted a mystical Eucharist, that according to Tertullian was similar to practices associated with Mithraism. Something like this was condemned by Irenaeus in the later portion of the second century and was not the practice of the Asia Minor group.
Asia Minor leaders such as Bishop Thraseas of Eumenia (probably around A.D. 157), Bishop Apollonius of Ephesus (third century), and Bishop Apollinaris of Hierapolis (third century) denounced the Montanists, yet leaders in Rome and Egypt accepted the Montanists until some time in the third century.
According to Bishop Serapion of Antioch, there true Christians did not accept the falsely named “Gospel of Peter,” but there were false groups who did (more on where the Bible came from is in the free online book Who Gave the World the Bible? The Canon: Why do we have the books we now do in the Bible? Is the Bible complete?). He also warned of a growing “lying confederacy.”
According to the African Bishop Nepos (third century), there were people in Alexandria/Egypt who accepted allegory over scripture (see also What is the Appropriate Form of Biblical Interpretation?), regarding the coming millennium, but he opposed their position.
Many false doctrines were introduced or promoted by a person who claimed to see apparitions of Mary and the Apostle John named Gregory the Wonder Worker. Gregory was NOT faithful to the Bible or many of the teachings and practices of the Apostle John.
Emperor Constantine decreed that those in Jerusalem who still would not eat biblically unclean animals should be killed. Hence, he acknowledged that there were still two groups in Judea in the 4th century–the faithful and his group.
Emperor Theodosius decreed that those who held to the original position of the apostles on Passover would be killed. Hence, there still were two professing groups with differing approaches and practices near the end of the fourth century.
Grwo-Roman Catholic writers such as Jerome and Epiphanius observed that there were two groups in the fourth century.
Although all scholars recognize that early Christians would not kill others or participate in carnal warfare, after Emperor Constantine Roman bishops endorsed killing and other forms of persecution against those not part of their group.
Those who claimed ties to the original Nazarene Christians of the Bible and Jerusalem were long persecuted by Greco-Romans (see Persecutions by Church and State), but their “heresies”, according to even some affiliated with Rome, were mainly to stick to original Christian practices while not accepting the decisions of Imperial and other Greco-Roman councils to change doctrine.
(Note: I used included the term “bishop” above to show that there were those in leadership positions in both groups–even though there were no proven bishops of Rome nor Alexandria until over 100 years after Jesus died: for historical information on this, see the articles What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History? and Apostolic Succession.)
Is it not clear that there were two groups?
One group that kept to the original apostolic practices such as observance of the ten commandments, the Passover on the 14th, not condoning military participation, teaching the gospel of the kingdom, and relying on the correct canon of the Bible.
And another group, which emerged and became larger, that minimized the literal observance of the ten commandments, often preferred allegory and mysticism, required a Sunday Passover, later killed those that would not accept its human council changes, and took centuries to accept the proper New Testament canon.
Now as far as the separation that happened related to the Jews Bar Kochba revolt that the Roman Emperor Hadrian stopped, this resulted in an imperial edict. Basically, Emperor Hadrian said that you could NOT live in Jerusalem unless you abandoned the Sabbath, Passover on the 14th, etc.
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.). Here is the translation of one section of it:
(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.
(As for) those who had given a favorable answer to the Romans they came together and took counsel as to how to replace the Gospel, seeing it was lost to them. (Thus) the opinion that a Gospel should be composed (yunshi`u) was established among them…a certain number of Gospels were written. (Pines S. The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Volume II, No.13; 1966. Jerusalem, pp. 14-15).
The above, which appears to be accurate, would seem to have taken place in the second century–probably around 134/135 A.D.. It is interesting for a number of reasons. It shows that there were two groups 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. Notice also that the Roman-connected group wanted the faithful to be persecuted. And there has been direct and indirect persecution from governmental leaders and/or religious leaders since then.
One had the true gospels, but the other had made their own up–this may be why the ‘gnostic gospels’ started to appear in the early second century–as well as false documents like so-called Epistle of Barnabas.
The historian E. Gibbon related the ultimate result of this compromise (bolding mine):
The first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised Jews; and the congregation over which they presided united the law of Moses with the doctrine of Christ. It was natural that the primitive tradition of a church which was founded only forty days after the death of Christ, and was governed almost as many years under the immediate inspection of his apostle, should be received as the standard of orthodoxy. The distant churches very frequently appealed to the authority of their venerable Parent, and relieved her distresses by a liberal contribution of alms…
The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of Jerusalem to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan, where that ancient church languished above sixty years in solitude and obscurity. They still enjoyed the comfort of making frequent and devout visits to the Holy City, and the hope of being one day restored to those seats which both nature and religion taught them to love as well as to revere. But at length, under the reign of Hadrian, the desperate fanaticism of the Jews filled up the measure of their calamities; and the Romans, exasperated by their repeated rebellions, exercised the rights of victory with unusual rigour. The emperor founded, under the name of Alia Capitolina, a new city on Mount Sion, to which he gave the privileges of a colony; and denouncing the severest penalties against any of the Jewish people who should dare to approach its precincts, he fixed a vigilant garrison of a Roman cohort to enforce the execution of his orders. The Nazarenes had only one way left to escape the common proscription, and the force of truth was on this occasion assisted by the influence of temporal advantages.
They elected Marcus for their bishop, a prelate of the race of the Gentiles, and most probably a native either of Italy or of some of the Latin provinces. At his persuasion the most considerable part of the congregation renounced the Mosaic law, in the practice of which they had persevered above a century. By this sacrifice of their habits and prejudices they purchased a free admission into the colony of Hadrian…
When the name and honours of the church of Jerusalem had been restored to Mount Sion, the crimes of heresy and schism were imputed to the obscure remnant of the Nazarenes which refused to accompany their Latin bishop. They still preserved their former habitation of Pella, spread themselves into the villages adjacent to Damascus, and formed an inconsiderable church in the city of Bercea, or, as it is now called, of Aleppo, in Syria. The name of Nazarenes was deemed too honourable for those Christian Jews, and they soon received, from the supposed poverty of their understanding, as well as of their condition, the contemptuous epithet of Ebionites…The unfortunate Ebionites, rejected from one religion as apostates, and from the other as heretics, found themselves compelled to assume a more decided character; and although some traces of that obsolete sect may be discovered as late as the fourth century, they insensibly melted away either into the church or the synagogue…
It has been remarked with more ingenuity than truth that the virgin purity of the church was never violated by schism or heresy before the reign of Trajan or Hadrian, about one hundred years after the death of Christ (Gibbon E. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume I, Chapter XV, Section I. ca. 1776-1788).
It should be noted that, because of this revolt, Emperor Hadrian outlawed many practices considered to be Jewish. The Christians in Judea had a decision to make. They either could continue to keep the Sabbath and the rest of God’s law and flee or they could compromise and support a religious leader who would not keep the Sabbath, etc. (More on Marcus can be found in the article Marcus of Jerusalem: Apostolic successor or apostate?)
Sadly as E. Gibbons and Sholomo Pines reported, most, but not all, made the wrong choice. Jesus, of course, taught that the true church would be a “little flock” (Luke 12:32). This clearly led to a separation between the Christian faithful and those who preferred a form of Christianity more acceptable to the Roman world. (For more on the Nazarenes, please see the article Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes?)
Was the church supposed to change its beliefs and practices throughout history or be faithful to what the apostles originally received?
Some in Jerusalem realized that they were not to change in order to save their lives. Perhaps they recalled the teaching of Jesus when He said:
23 When they persecute you in this city, flee to another (Matthew 10:23).
Since the faithful portion of the true Church of God did this in 69/70 A.D., is it not logical that the those in the true Church of God would also do this in 135 A.D.?
What passes for “Gentile Christianity” these days is NOT real Christianity.
By the way, I am a Gentile, but hold to the original faith. A faith many refer to as Jewish Christianity.
That said, I noticed a long article posted at the Banned by HWA site yesterday by someone who is claiming that early Christians really only looked like they kept the Sabbath as the purpose was basically evangelism. Here are some quotes from that post:
When faced with the claim that New Testament examples of Sabbathkeeping mean we, too, should be keeping Sabbath, remember these two hot-knife facts that cut through the soft butter of that argument:
🔪 #1: There is not one example in all the Bible of any established Christian church meeting together in observance of the Sabbath.
🔪 #2: Without exception, every time Sabbath meetings are mentioned in the book of Acts, it is in the context of evangelization — preaching the gospel of Jesus to the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles who associated with them.
I can’t emphasize Fact 1 enough. It’s a shocker to Christian Sabbathkeepers.
Well, the fact is that the Apostle Paul stated he was a Pharisee (Acts 23:6) and he kept the law (Philippians 3:5-6; cf. Acts 28:17), which meant that he kept the Sabbath.
The other fact is that the New Testament never states that the only reason for meeting on the Sabbath was to evangelize.
Another fact is that other than the biblical Holy Day, Pentecost, that falls on a Sunday, there is no time the Bible tells of Christians getting together to meet for church services on Sunday (see also Sunday and Christianity).
Another fact is that the Bible states that the seventh-day Sabbath is supposed to be kept.
Here is some information from the Hebrew scriptures:
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. (Exodus 20:8-10)
3 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work on it; it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings. … 32 …
from evening to evening, you shall celebrate your sabbath. (Leviticus 23:3, 32)
Days, including weekly Sabbaths and Holy Days begin at evening/sunset/twilight (cf. Leviticus 23:32; Deuteronomy 16:4)
Is this applicable for Christians?
Jesus taught:
4 “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'” (Matthew 4:4)
The Apostle Paul taught:
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
So, does the portion of scripture known as the New Testament enjoin keeping the Sabbath for Christians?
Notice what the New Testament Book of Hebrews teaches using five Protestant (including three ‘literal’), one Eastern Orthodox, and three Roman Catholic translations:
3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, “So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest.'” And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. 4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: “And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.” 5 And again in the passage above he says, “They shall never enter my rest.” 6 It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience…9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience (Hebrews 4:3-6,9-11, NIV).
3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, “AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST,” although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS”; 5 and again in this passage, “THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.” 6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience,.. 9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. 11 Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:3-6,9-11, NASB)
3 for we do enter into the rest — we who did believe, as He said, ‘So I sware in My anger, If they shall enter into My rest — ;’ and yet the works were done from the foundation of the world, 4 for He spake in a certain place concerning the seventh [day] thus: ‘And God did rest in the seventh day from all His works;’ 5 and in this [place] again, ‘If they shall enter into My rest — ;’ 6 since then, it remaineth for certain to enter into it, and those who did first hear good news entered not in because of unbelief … 9 there doth remain, then, a sabbatic rest to the people of God, 10 for he who did enter into his rest, he also rested from his works, as God from His own. 11 May we be diligent, then, to enter into that rest, that no one in the same example of the unbelief may fall, (Hebrews 4:3-6,9-11, Young’s Literal Translation)
3 For those having believed enter into the rest, as He has said: “So I swore in my wrath, ‘they shall not enter into My rest.’” And yet the works have been finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has spoken somewhere concerning the seventh day in this way, “And on the seventh day God rested from all His works.” 5 And again in this passage. “They shall not enter into My rest.” 6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter into it, and those having received the good news formerly did not enter in because of disobedience, … 9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one having entered into His rest, he also rested from his works, as God did from the own. 11 Therefore we should be diligent to enter into that rest, so that no one should fall by the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:3-6,9-11, Berean Literal Bible)
3 for we enter into the rest—we who believed, as He said, “So I swore in My anger, They will [not] enter into My rest”; and yet the works were done from the foundation of the world, 4 for He spoke in a certain place concerning the seventh [day] thus: “And God rested in the seventh day from all His works”; 5 and in this [place] again, “They will [not] enter into My rest”; 6 since then, it remains for some to enter into it, and those who first heard good news did not enter in because of unbelief … 9 there remains, then, a Sabbath rest to the people of God, 10 for he who entered into His rest, he also rested from his works, as God from His own. 11 May we be diligent, then, to enter into that rest, that no one may fall in the same example of the unbelief, (Hebrews 4:3-6,9-11, Literal Standard Version Bible)
3 However, we who have faith are entering into that rest, even as God said: As I swore in my wrath, they will not enter into my rest. And yet, the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 Somewhere [else], God said this about the seventh day: God rested on the seventh day from all his works. … 9 There must still be, then, a Sabbath rest for God’s people, 10 and anyone who has entered into his rest has also rested from his [own] works, just as God did. 11 Therefore, let us do our utmost to enter into that rest, for fear that anyone should fall according to the same pattern of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:3-4, 9-11. THE EASTERN / GREEK ORTHODOX BIBLE NEW TESTAMENT. The EOB New Testament is presented in memory of Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos † 2007 https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/assets/uploads/books/18204/Eastern_Orthodox_Bible-New_Testament.pdf)
3 We, however, who have faith, are entering a place of rest, as in the text: And then in my anger I swore that they would never enter my place of rest. Now God’s work was all finished at the beginning of the world; 4 as one text says, referring to the seventh day: And God rested on the seventh day after all the work he had been doing. 5 And, again, the passage above says: They will never reach my place of rest. 6 It remains the case, then, that there would be some people who would reach it, and since those who first heard the good news were prevented from entering by their refusal to believe … 9 There must still be, therefore, a seventh-day rest reserved for God’s people, 10 since to enter the place of rest is to rest after your work, as God did after his. 11 Let us, then, press forward to enter this place of rest, or some of you might copy this example of refusal to believe and be lost. (Hebrews 4:3-6,9-11, NJB)
3 For we, that have believed, shall enter into their rest; as he said: As I sware in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: and truly the works from the foundation of the world being perfected. 4 For he said in a certain place of the seventh day thus: And God rested the seventh day from all his works … 9 Therefore there is left a sabbatisme for the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, the same also hath rested from his works, as God did from his. 11 Let us hasten therefore to enter into that rest; lest any man fall into the same example of incredulity. (Hebrews 4:3-6,9-11, The Original and True Rheims New Testament of Anno Domini 1582)
3 For we who believed enter into [that] rest, just as he has said: “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter into my rest,’” and yet his works were accomplished at the foundation of the world. 4 For he has spoken somewhere about the seventh day in this manner, “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works”; 5 and again, in the previously mentioned place, “They shall not enter into my rest.” 6 Therefore, since it remains that some will enter into it, and those who formerly received the good news did not enter because of disobedience,… 9 Therefore, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God. 10And whoever enters into God’s rest, rests from his own works as God did from his. 11 Therefore, let us strive to enter into that rest, so that no one may fall after the same example of disobedience.(Hebrews 4:3-6,9-11, New American Bible)
Thus, the New Testament clearly shows that the command to keep the seventh day Sabbath is in the New Testament. It also shows that only those who will not observe it because of their disobedience argue otherwise. And that is why Paul observed it.
Even Origen of Alexandria understood some of this as he wrote in the early third century:
But what is the feast of the Sabbath except that which the apostle speaks, “There remaineth therefore a Sabbatism,” that is, the observance of the Sabbath, by the people of God…let us see how the Sabbath ought to be observed by a Christian. On the Sabbath-day all worldly labors ought to be abstained from…give yourselves up to spiritual exercises, repairing to church, attending to sacred reading and instruction…this is the observance of the Christian Sabbath (Translated from Origen’s Opera 2, Paris, 1733, Andrews J.N. in History of the Sabbath, 3rd editon, 1887. Reprint Teach Services, Brushton (NY), 1998, pp. 324-325).
As it turns out, at least 20 Protestant translations make it clear that Hebrews 4:9 is pointing to the weekly seventh-day Sabbath (ASV, BLB, BSB, CSB, DBT, ERV, ESV, GNT, HCSB, ILB, ISV, JMNT, Jubilee 2000, NASB, NETB, NHEB, NIV, WEB, WNT, YLT).
Yet, one reason that many today do not understand this is that certain translators have intentionally mistranslated the Greek term sabbatismos (ςαββατισμóς) which is actually found in Hebrews 4:9 (Green JP. The Interlinear Bible, 2nd edition. Hendrickson Publishers, 1986, p. 930).
The Protestant KJV and NKJV mistranslate it as does the CHANGED version of the Rheims New Testament, also known as the Challoner version (changes in the 18th century)–all three mistranslate the word as ‘rest,’ whereas there is a different Greek term (katapausin), translated as ‘rest’ in the New Testament. Sabbatismos clearly refers to a ‘sabbath-rest’ and honest scholars will all admit that. Because of the mistranslations, most today do not realize that the seventh-day Sabbath was specifically enjoined for Christians in the New Testament.
If you are Roman Catholic, consider the following:
Codex Amiatinus The most celebrated manuscript of the Latin Vulgate Bible, remarkable as the best witness to the true text of St. Jerome … (Fenlon, John Francis. “Codex Amiatinus.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 21 Apr. 2012 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04081a.htm>)
Here is the Latin from the Codex Amiatinus:
9 itaque relinquitur sabbatismus populo Dei (Hebrews 4:9, Codex Amiatinus. http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=1&b=19&c=4 accessed 10/22/15)
It is clear, even to non-Latin readers that Hebrews 4:9 is definitely talking about the Sabbath.
Now another fact that the one posting against the Sabbath at Banned overlooked is that the Christians in Jerusalem kept the Sabbath for a century after Jesus was killed and resurrected.
Plus after Paul died and shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem by General Titus in 70 A.D., Christians built their own church building and had services there, as opposed to going into Jewish synagogues supposedly to evangelize.
The late fourth century historian Epiphanius recorded that in Jerusalem in Judea a Christian building was mentioned existing no later that by 130-135 A.D. Epiphanius wrote the following (a portion of which I have bolded for clarity):
{Hadrian} found the temple of God trodden down and the whole city devastated save for a few houses and the church of God, which was small, where the disciples, when they had returned after the Savior had ascended from the Mount of Olives, went to the upper room. For there it had been built, that is, in that portion of Zion which escaped destruction, together with blocks of houses in the neighborhood of Zion and the seven synagogues which alone remained standing in Zion, like solitary huts, one of which remained until the time of Maximona the bishop and Constantine the king. (The Epiphanius of Salamis, Weights and Measures, chapter 14. (1935), pp.11-83. English translation transcribed by Roger Pearse. www.tertullian.org viewed 01/03/13)
That building may have been the first Christian building anywhere, but it seems to have been the first in Jerusalem.
The “church of God” Epiphanius mentioned is believed to have been the building which has sometimes been called the Cenacle or Coenaculum. It was located on a Jerusalem western hill that some have called Zion/Sion.
Although the Greco-Romans have built their type of church around it (as well as one next to in by Emperor Constantine in the 4th century), some few of the original bricks, also called ashlars, continue to be part of it. You can see the some of the original building bricks by looking at the front cover of the Jan-March 2013 edition of Bible News Prophecy magazine; a more recent photograph is shown on the back cover on the pdf booklet: Continuing History of the Church of God.
The ashlars also are the foundation of the ‘Cenacle’ building–and are believed to have come from the Jewish temple that General Titus had destroyed.
while the Greco-Romans took over the Church of God building on the Western Hill of Jerusalem for some time, apparently they lost control for parts of the fourth century, though the Greco-Romans got it back and then kept control.
Furthermore:
The fact that Epiphanius stopped at bishop Maximus of Jerusalem (bishop 333–348) suggests that he no longer considered the Judeo ‐ Christian synagogue as a bona fide Christian meeting place but rather from the time of Maximus a seat of heterodoxy. By 325 Greco ‐ Roman Christianity, whose mission then included the eradication of all other forms of Christianity, sought to become the exclusive religion. By then it had distanced itself from the Judeo ‐ Christian Churches of God and all Jewish Christian sects. Nevertheless, the synagogue remained in the possession of the Judeo ‐ Christians until 381, when seized under an imperial decree issued by Theodosius I following the First Council of Constantinople, and turned over to the control of Greco ‐ Roman Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem (bishop 384/50 ‐ 386). (Germano M. The Ancient Church of the Apostles. Copyright © 2002 by Michael P. Germano, pp. 1-4).
Most people simply do not realize that Justin, Tertullian, and others were all aware that there were two significant groups of those who professed Christ. One retained the original Jewish-Christian practices, like the Passover on the 14th, and the other, a confederation of Greco-Roman locations that distanced themselves from those practices and instead implemented shrines and other practices that the original Christians would have condemned (for some details, please see the articles Early Church History: Who Were the Two Major Groups Professed Christ in the Second and Third Centuries? and What Did the Early Church Teach About Idols and Icons?).
Those of the Greco-Roman side preferred more rounded buildings as had Imperial authorities and followers of various pagan deities:
Mithratic temples were usually built in caves…In localities where there are no mountains, the “holy of holies” of the Mithraic temples was given a cave-like appearance by building special domes over it. (Badiozamani B. Iran and America: Re-Kind[l]ing a Love Lost . East West Understanding Pr., 2005, p. 96)
Since Emperor Constantine had been a worshiper of the sun-god Mithras (see Do You Practice Mithraism?), this may be why many of the church buildings that he commissioned often contained domes. And this has affected the Greco-Roman churches, as well as the mosques of Islam, to this day. Constantine and Theodosius commissioned a building, now known as the Hagia Sion, to be built next to the Church of God on Jerusalem’s Western Hill and it is a rounded appearing one (which may have be octagonal):
Photo taken June 2013 of Mosaic of 4th Century Jerusalem in Church of Santa Pudenziana. The building to the right is the original Church of God on Jerusalem’s Western Hill.
Some believe that some of the bricks from the area of Solomon’s Temple (or at least the second temple, which is sometimes known as the Herodian Temple) were also used to build the Church of God on Jerusalem’s Western Hill back in the first century. Notice the following from the biblical archeologist and Catholic priest Bargil Pixner:
I BELIEVE that the famous Church of the Apostles… is really a Roman-period synagogue… not a usual Jewish synagogue, but a Judeo-Christian Synagogue.
At first, places where Jewish Christians worshipped were of course called synagogues. Only later, as I will explain, did Christian places of worship come to be called churches instead of synagogues.
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 Hebrew the Jewish house of prayer was – and still is – called Beit or Beth Knesset, which means simply “house of assembly.” Under Hellenistic influence, this became “synagogue,” a Greek word meaning “assembly.”…
To distinguish themselves from the Jews, the gentile Christians began to refer to their gatherings by the Greek word ekklesia, also meaning “assembly.” This word was then applied to the gathering place and later to the church building itself. Another word for the building was the Greek kyriake, meaning “belonging to the Lord (kyrios),” from which the English word “church” is derived.
…this synagogue – or more precisely, its niche – is not oriented exactly toward the Temple Mount, where the Jewish Temple once stood. As several observers have now noted, the synagogue is oriented slightly off north, rather than toward the northeast where the Temple was located. The difference is small, but important. And with the Temple Mount but a few hundred yards away, the builders surely knew the difference. In fact, the synagogue’s orientation is toward what is presently the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which, at the time the synagogue was built, was believed to be the site of Jesus’ tomb and of his crucifixion at Golgotha.
Was this directional orientation intentional? I believe it was. Would it not be logical that, after the Temple had been destroyed, Judeo-Christians, instead of orienting their synagogues toward the destroyed Temple as was the case with traditional Jews, would orient their synagogues toward the new center of their redemption, the site of Jesus’ burial and resurrection?…
In the lowest layer, Pinkerfeld found pieces of plaster with graffiti scratched on them that came from the original synagogue wall. In his own words: “In the first [Roman] period, the hall was plastered. The fragments were handed over to the late Prof. M. Schwabe for examination.” Both Schwabe and Pinkerfeld died without publishing these graffiti.
Ultimately they were published by a team of experts from the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum led by Professors Emmanuele Testa and Bellarmino Bagatti. Their interpretation is as follows:
“One graffito has the initials of the Greek words which may be translated as ‘Conquer, Savior, mercy.’ Another graffito has letters which can be translated as ‘O Jesus, that I may live, 0 Lord of the autocrat.’ …
The historical conditions after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and some new archaeological evidence suggest the circumstances under which this Judeo-Christian synagogue was built…This destruction, indeed, included the western hill, Mt. Zion (Zion III)…
Thus, it is safe to conclude that the building that stood on the site of the adjacent Judeo-Christian synagogue also fell victim to the Roman onslaught…
The Judeo-Christian community in Jerusalem escaped this terrible catastrophe by fleeing to Pella in Transjordan and the countryside of Gilean and Bashan…they realized that the time of Jesus’ return was not yet at hand, they decided to go back to Jerusalem to rebuild their sanctuary…They were free to do this because they enjoyed a certain religious freedom from the Romans (religio licita) inasmuch as they were Jews who confessed Jesus as their Messiah, and not gentile converts.
The archaeological evidence is consistent with this suggestion. On the outside face of the synagogue, at the base of the eastern and southern walls, we can see building stones of the original Roman-period building, which still exists to a considerable height. These large stones (for example, in the third course, 3 by 3.5 feet [96 by 110 cm]) are assigned by most archaeologists to the Herodian period, that is, before 70 A.D. But these stones were not originally hewn for this building. They were brought here from elsewhere and are in secondary use. This is evident because the corners of the stones were damaged during transport. Moreover, squared ashlars (large rectangular stones) of different heights were used in the same course on the eastern wall. Had this been original construction, the heights of stones in any one course would have been uniform.
Someone during the Roman period (after the destruction of Jerusalem) must have erected this synagogue structure by using ashlars brought here from elsewhere. Who would have done this? I believe that the returning Judeo-Christians did it in the late first century, when they put up their synagogue on the site…The most probable period when such an imposing structure would have been built was between 70 and 132 A.D. According to Eusebius, during those years there was a flourishing Judeo-Christian community in Jerusalem presided over by a series of 13 bishops from the circumcision (that is, Judeo-Christians)…
Bishop Epiphanius (315-403 A.D.), a native of the Holy Land, transmitted to us the following information: When the Roman emperor Hadrian visited Jerusalem in 130/131 A.D., there was standing on Mt. Zion “a small church of God…
Who built this synagogue-church — already standing on the southwestern hill in 130 A.D. — in memory of the place of the Last Supper and the Pentecost event? Some information comes from a tenth-century Patriarch of Alexandria named Euthychius (896-940 A.D.), who wrote a history of the church based on all the ancient sources that were available to him. According to Euthychius, the Judeo-Christians who fled to Pella to escape the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. “returned to Jerusalem in the fourth year of the emperor Vespasian, and built there their church.” The fourth year of Vespasian was 73 A.D., the year Masada, the last outpost of the Jewish rebellion, fell to the Romans. The Judeo-Christians returned to Jerusalem under the leadership of Simon Bar-Kleopha, who was the second bishop of Jerusalem after James, “the brother of the Lord,” and, like Jesus, a descendant of the royal Davidic family.
The Judeo-Christians probably built their church, at that time called a synagogue, sometime in the decade after 73 A.D. For its construction, they could have used some of the magnificent ashlars from Herod’s destroyed citadel, not far away. Or perhaps they used the stones from the ruins of the Temple itself…with the intention of transferring some elements of the Holy Temple to a site becoming a new Mt. Zion (Zion III).
If that is so, the event may in fact be referred to in one of the apocryphal Odes of Solomon composed about 100 A.D. by a rival sectarian Judeo-Christian group. The fourth ode begins:
“No man can pervert your holy place, 0 God, nor can he change it, and put it in another place, because [he has] no power over it. Your sanctuary you designed before you made special places.” (Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, p. 736.)
Was this passage in condemnation of the effort of the Judeo-Christians who built the synagogue on Mt. Zion to transfer some of the holiness of the destroyed Temple to their place of worship on the new Mt. Zion by constructing it in part with stones from that Temple?
From this time on, the western hill of Jerusalem was referred to by Christians as Mt. Zion (Zion III). Very few places in Jerusalem can point to such an enduring tradition as Zion’s claim to be the seat of the primitive church. No other place has raised a serious rival claim…
By this time the Judeo-Christian synagogue on Mt. Zion had become known as the Church of the Apostles. It became known as the Church of the Apostles not only because the apostles returned there after witnessing Christ’s post-resurrection ascent to heaven, but also because the building was built, as we have seen, under the leadership of Simon son of Kleophas. Kleophas was known as a brother of Joseph of Nazareth, therefore Simon was a cousin of Jesus. Simon was later considered one of the apostles, outside the circle of the 12. For this reason, the house of worship built by Simon could rightfully be called the Church of the Apostles.
(Pixner B. Church of the Apostles Found on Mt. Zion. Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1990: 16-35,60. Also found at http://www.centuryone.org/apostles.html –yet that site and others who seemed to have copied it have left out important statements on page 26, which are included above and italicized by me as they are left out of the that online version)
The original bricks seem to have come from the old Jewish Temple. I and another with me personally examined some of them on October 24, 2013. The original bricks physically constitute a type of “temple” in the sense that this seems to have been the closest thing to a physical church building (and actually more closely resembled a synagogue) where real Christians attended for services. (I have been informed by one person mentioned as a source elsewhere in this article that the English word church may have actually derived from a German word meaning circle as the Romans had rounded buildings related to sun god related worship–but this building was rectangular–but because of the common understanding of the word church, it can be considered as a church building.)
Notice something from the Jewish Talmud about what happened to the Temple:
“Desolate lay Zion, in ruins moldered Jerusalem; the temple was but a heap of stones. Where once stood the sanctuary now grew weeds, and jackals howled in the Temple court where once David the Psalmist and his vast choir of Levites plucked the harp strings and raised their voices in songs of praise to the Eternal.” (Staiman M. Waiting for the Messiah: Stories to Inspire Jews with Hope. Jason Aronson, 1997, p. 29)
So, some Temple stones were left according to the Jews as well.
Here is a photo from October 2013 of some of the original bricks of the Church of God on Jerusalem’s Western Hill that I personally took:
Here is another report about the possible original age of this building:
It was first suggested by Pixner (Pixner, Paths , 333) that the lower course of ashlars are Herodian in the style of 12 their cut and this has not been disputed so far as I am aware. However, this does not automatically mean that the ashlars were cut in the time of Herod the Great, only that the style is consistent with that originating in Jerusalem in the late 1 st century B.C.E. In 1922, L. H. Vincent noted that the lower cours es of ashlars are irregular in shape suggesting that this was due to secondary usage (Vincent, Jérusalem , 435) . In other words, the stones were not cut for this building but were taken from other (demolished?) structures and used to fashion this one . This fact is consistent with the story of returning Jewish Christians arriving in Jerusalem in the mid – 70s after the city’s (partial?) destruction by the Romans and finding that they had to make do with what materials were available in order to construct their building. (Clauson DC, Department of Religious Studies University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Can the Cenacle on Mount Zion Really be the “Upper Room” of Jesus’s Last Supper? c. 2017 https://www.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/Is%20the%20Cenacle.pdf)
Here is more information from Bargil Pixner:
Their adherence to Jewish customs, especially circumcision and observance of Jewish holy days, naturally alienated them from the church of the gentiles. The fissure became a gaping canyon with the strongly anti-Judaic positions taken by the Byzantine church after the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.).
Though recognizing the authenticity of the place, the gentile Christians looked with suspicion and almost contempt at the synagogue of the Judeo-Christians on Mt. Zion, considering their way of life outdated, if not heretical…This was the situation during the second half of the fourth century A.D…
To fend off gentile influence, both pagan and Byzantine (that is, gentile Christian), the Judeo-Christians of Mt. Zion built a wall around their ancient sanctuary. It was this kind of ghetto wall that the Bordeaux Pilgrim referred to when he visited Mt. Zion in 333 A.D. He entered and exited through a wall, he reported…
In 1985, while a sewage channel was being dug in front of the Dormition Abbey, I took the occasion to examine the area archaeologically and was able to locate the foundation of the facade of this Crusader church. The southwest corner of the church is in an exact alignment with the southern wall of the building of the ancient Judeo-Christian synagogue (see Crusader remains). The bases of nine Crusader pilasters and the western section of the northern wall of the Crusader church were also discovered and preserved.
Thus, it was the Crusaders who first included the walls of the ancient Judeo-Christian synagogue, which had become the Church of the Apostles, into their own basilica. As the Madaba map clearly shows, even the big rectangular Byzantine Hagia Sion was separate from the remains of the older Church of the Apostles. (Pixner, Church of the Apostles Found on Mt. Zion, pp. 29-30,34)
So, Dr. Pixner reported that the building was separate from the Constantinian one, but later the Crusaders decided to incorporate some of the original church/synagogue into theirs. The Muslims ended up taking it over and adding their own symbols in the building. It did not remain as the ‘headquarters’ of the faithful Christian church throughout the church age (see also Does the Church of God need to be headquartered in Jerusalem?).
As far as when the Church of God on Jerusalem’s Western Hill was first built, notice the following from Dr. Michael Germano:
The ancient walls of the original structure consisted of worked limestone in a secondary use, laid in irregular courses of ashlars with chipped corners suggesting their origin was as salvage from a variety of destroyed buildings, such as those resulting from the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem, but absent any distinctive markings or stylistic features that would limit this secondary use to 1st–3rd century construction…
The architectural proportions of the original building appear to have been those of the Solomonic Temple with the height one ‐ half of the sum of the length and width…
The implication of these findings is that the original building was a relatively small Judeo ‐ Christian synagogue, with an interior hall of about 54.9 sq. meters, dating to the interim between the two Jewish wars with the Romans (70–130).
Having their own building, early Christians met on the Sabbath.
Furthermore, other Christians kept the Sabbath as well.
Nor was that mainly to evangelize, but to keep the commandment.
Furthermore, there is additional evidence that many Christians kept attending synagogue services, which were always on Saturday, for decades after the death of Paul. One way this can be demonstrated is that some Jews developed a test in the form of a curse contained within a prayer (called the Shemoneh Esreh) around 80-90 A.D. to detect presence of Christians. James Parkes noted:
The purpose of the malediction is to detect the presence of Minim, for if they were invited to pronounce the Eighteen Benedictions, they would inevitably omit that particular paragraph from them. The fact that the test was a statement made in the synagogue service shows that at the time of making it the Judeo-Christians still frequented the synagogue. (Parkes JW. The conflict of the church and the synagogue: a study in the origins of antisemitism. Volume 1 of History of antisemitism. The Soncino press, 1934, p. 78).
Obviously, if Christians were attending to evangelize, they would make their presence known. But the Jews did not want Christians to attend so they wanted to insure that there were no Christians with them as Christians attended synagogues when they did not have other places to keep the command for a holy convocation (Leviticus 23:3).
So, not only Paul, but many after him (called the Minim by Jews who did not like them) attended synagogue services on the Sabbath. Part of the reason for that was not that they were trying to be Jews, but that they wished to observe Paul’s admonition:
25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some (Hebrews 10:25).
And often, Jewish synagogues were the only local locations that Sabbath services were being held as there were not many professing to be Christians in the early days.
Now, the corruption of what is called Gentile Christianity by the allegorists faiths has gotten so bad through the centuries, that the person that the world considers the head of Gentile Christianity went so far as the say something quite absurd yesterday according to the Roman Catholic press:
September 13, 2024
Pope Francis on Friday wrapped up a three-day visit to Singapore, a country with large pockets of at least five different faiths, that “all religions are a path to God.”
“They are like different languages in order to arrive at God, but God is God for all,” the pope said, who had set aside his prepared text and spoke largely off the cuff. “Since God is God for all, then we are all children of God.” https://cruxnow.com/2024-pope-in-timor-leste/2024/09/pope-in-multi-faith-singapore-says-all-religions-are-a-path-to-god
The Bible does not teach that all religions bring salvation and lead to the true God.
Jesus said:
24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24)
Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. are not true and are not the way to reach God.
Contrary to the claims of those who feel that God will save everyone no matter what they believe, the Bible makes it clear that there is only one name that can save as Acts 4:10-12 plainly teaches:
10 let it be known to you all … that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, …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.
Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. do not accept Jesus in the biblical way and hence their faiths are not the way to God.
While God does have a plan of salvation for those not called in this age (see the free online book: Universal OFFER of Salvation, Apokatastasis: Can God save the lost in an age to come? Hundreds of scriptures reveal God’s plan of salvation), the non-biblical faiths are not the way.
Additionally, the Bible is clear that God does NOT want non-biblical religious practices combined with His ways:
19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He? *1 Corinthians 10:19-22)
Yes, all world religions (as opposed to the true religion) are flawed. And we are seeing more emphasis on interfaith cooperation around the world–and Pope Francis is a leading proponent.
So, the result of believing that the true faith was supposed to have changed to one that really does not believe is that supposedly all religions lead to God in this age.
That is a falsehood.
Anyway, yes, there have basically been two groups throughout the church age.
Jesus warned:
13 Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)
There is one group that remained faithful to the original practices, like the Sabbath. That group entered by the narrow gate.
And the other group that accepted a lot of changes and no longer holds to the original faith–it has gone the broad way that leads to destruction.
Sadly, most people who profess Christianity accepted the latter.
What about you?
Some items of related interest may include:
Early Church History: Who Were the Two Major Groups that 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? A related sermon is also available Christianity: Two groups.
The Sabbath in the Early Church and Abroad Was the seventh-day (Saturday) Sabbath observed by the apostolic and post-apostolic Church? Here is a related sermon video The Christian Sabbath and How and Why to Keep It.
Where is the True Christian Church Today? This free online pdf booklet answers that question and includes 18 proofs, clues, and signs to identify the true vs. false Christian church. Plus 7 proofs, clues, and signs to help identify Laodicean churches. A related sermon is also available: Where is the True Christian Church? Here is a link to the booklet in the Spanish language: ¿Dónde está la verdadera Iglesia cristiana de hoy? Here is a link in the German language: WO IST DIE WAHRE CHRISTLICHE KIRCHE HEUTE? Here is a link in the French language: Où est la vraie Église Chrétienne aujourd’hui? Here is a link to a short animation: Which Church would Jesus Choose?
Continuing History of the Church of God This pdf booklet is a historical overview of the true Church of God and some of its main opponents from Acts 2 to the 21st century. Related sermon links include Continuing History of the Church of God: c. 31 to c. 300 A.D. and Continuing History of the Church of God: 4th-16th Centuries and Continuing History of the Church of God: 17th-20th Centuries. The booklet is available in Spanish: Continuación de la Historia de la Iglesia de Dios, German: Kontinuierliche Geschichte der Kirche Gottes, French: L Histoire Continue de l Église de Dieu and Ekegusii Omogano Bw’ekanisa Ya Nyasae Egendererete.
Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God Differs from Protestantism The CCOG is NOT Protestant. This free online book explains how the real Church of God differs from mainstream/traditional Protestants. Several sermons related to the free book are also available: Protestant, Baptist, and CCOG History; The First Protestant, God’s Command, Grace, & Character; The New Testament, Martin Luther, and the Canon; Eucharist, Passover, and Easter; Views of Jews, Lost Tribes, Warfare, & Baptism; Scripture vs. Tradition, Sabbath vs. Sunday; Church Services, Sunday, Heaven, and God’s Plan; Seventh Day Baptists/Adventists/Messianics: Protestant or COG?; Millennial Kingdom of God and God’s Plan of Salvation; Crosses, Trees, Tithes, and Unclean Meats; The Godhead and the Trinity; Fleeing or Rapture?; and Ecumenism, Rome, and CCOG Differences.
Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession? Did the original “catholic church” have doctrines held by the Continuing Church of God? Did Church of God leaders uses the term “catholic church” to ever describe the church they were part of? Here are links to related sermons: Original Catholic Church of God?, Original Catholic Doctrine: Creed, Liturgy, Baptism, Passover, What Type of Catholic was Polycarp of Smyrna?, Tradition, Holy Days, Salvation, Dress, & Celibacy, Early Heresies and Heretics, Doctrines: 3 Days, Abortion, Ecumenism, Meats, Tithes, Crosses, Destiny, and more, Saturday or Sunday?, The Godhead, Apostolic Laying on of Hands Succession, Church in the Wilderness Apostolic Succession List, Holy Mother Church and Heresies, and Lying Wonders and Original Beliefs. Here is a link to that book in the Spanish language: Creencias de la iglesia Católica original.
