Location of the Early Church:
Another Look at
By COGwriter
I. Introduction
The old Church of God,
Seventh Day (CG7) and the Radio Church of God (RCG), which became the old Worldwide
Church of God (WCG), taught that the churches in Revelation 2 & 3 represented
God's true church throughout history (though they did not agree on all of the
specifics[1]). While various groups with origins in those
churches officially still hold to that teaching of church eras (such as the
Living Church of God[2]), some
others no longer do.
Following a habit he has
began, on
Do you realize that the Roman
Catholic and
Do you know much about early
church history?
Do you know where the early
Christian church was based? Was it in
This relatively long paper
will look into the Bible and other early writings to attempt to answer those
questions.
This is a different type of
paper. When looking into early church
history (beyond the biblical account), we are faced at looking at whatever
documents are left that were not destroyed by imperial or religious sources,
hence little to do with early church history is as clearly documented as
historians and theologians prefer. This
is not to say that there is no information, but only that such information that
is available is often incomplete and is usually subject to interpretation.
This paper mainly focuses on
the location of the early Church, with a focus on the first two churches (
And even for those who have a
different view of Revelation 2 & 3, this paper will hopefully provide some
additional biblical, doctrinal, and even extra-biblical reasons (including from
Catholic-approved writings, such as from Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and
Eusebius) why Asia Minor, and not Rome or Alexandria, appears to have been
where most of the faithful early Christians were.
It will attempt to show
through both biblical and historical sources some of what happened to the early
true Church and essentially how and when the Greco-Roman confederation became
predominant.
This paper mentions several
of the early heretics, discusses how those in the early church attempted to
deal with some of these heretics, and shows that there were two major groups in
the second century--one of which apparently was the true church and the other
of which accepted many of the teachings of condemned heretics.
(Note for the purposes of
this paper, the terms “Catholic” or “Roman Catholic” are intended to refer to
the Church headquartered in Vatican City; it is not intended to convey Anglican
Catholics or Eastern Orthodox Catholics unless otherwise specified. The term “Orthodox” or Orthodox Church refers
to what is commonly known as the Eastern or Greek Orthodox Church. The term “Greco-Roman” normally refers to
positions jointly held by the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in areas
once in the ancient Roman and/or Greek empires.)
II.
The New Testament Church
began in
disciples began to preach and
thousands were added to the true Church that day (Acts 2).
And although the apostles
dispersed (see section VI. below), the Bible shows that in the early church,
Jerusalem, and never Rome, was where its leadership conferred on topics of
importance (see Acts 15; Galatians 1:18; 2:1-9).
Actually, three of the four
times that the Bible shows that Paul conferred with Peter it was in
However, shortly after the
deaths of Peter (date uncertain) and Paul (circa 64-67 A.D.), major changes
happened in
Beginning in 66 A.D., there
were revolts in
Dr. M. Germano reported:
…scholars
speculate that the flight of the last remaining members of the church at
Moreover,
at that feast which we call Pentecost as the priests were going by night into
the inner court of the temple...they said that, in the first place, they felt a
quaking and heard a sound as of a multitude saying, ‘Let us remove hence.’
(Josephus, Wars, bk. VI, ch. v, sec. 3; Whiston 1957:825.)[4]
The Catholic Encyclopedia reports,
When
Titus took
The Orthodox Church
recognizes an important role for
The
According to the fourth
century Catholic historian Eusebius,
James,
the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in
Dr. Samuel Bacchiocchi wrote
that,
Nazarenes
were the direct descendants of the Christian community of
The Nazarenes ended up in
“synagogues of the East” (
Interestingly, according to
Eusebius, at
…until
the siege of the Jews, which took place under {
In other words, it is
acknowledged by Catholic, Orthodox, and other historians that the church in
Its first invasion (which
many believe God first provided a warning for Christians to leave Jerusalem)
suggests that God did not intend that Jerusalem would remain as the church’s
headquarters, and history shows that some of its spiritual descendants
(including the Apostles John and Philip) went to Asia Minor.
And while some Christians
returned, eventually there was a change in beliefs and practices in
The
Nazarenes retired from the ruins of
They
elected Marcus for their bishop, a prelate of the race of the Gentiles, and
most probably a native either of
When
the name and honours of the
In other words, after the
first Latin Bishop in Jerusalem (who may or may not have had any direct
affiliation with Rome—the churches that became Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox
at that time were still not unified) was put in charge, those who had been
faithful Christians were accused of heresy there in the second century.
It should be noted that,
because of this Jewish revolt, Emperor Hadrian outlawed many practices
considered to be Jewish. The Christians in
Sadly as E. Gibbon reported,
most, but not all, made the wrong choice in 135 A.D. Jesus, of course, taught
that the true church would be a "little flock" (Luke 12:32). This
clearly led to a separation between the Christian faithful and those who
preferred a form of Christianity more acceptable to the Greco-Roman world. Clearly from 135 A.D. onwards,
Was the church supposed to
change its beliefs and practices throughout history or be faithful to what the
apostles originally received? Notice what Jude wrote:
Beloved,
while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I
found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the
saints (Jude 3, NKJV throughout unless otherwise noted).
III. Early
The New Testament clearly
shows that there were faithful Christians in
While certain Catholics have
tried to persuade the world that Rome was the successor headquarters of the
Christian Church after Jerusalem (as early as 42 A.D. by some Catholic accounts[12]),
and even claim the Church in Rome was started by Peter and Paul, this is not
born out by the Bible nor the writings of certain historians.
The fact is that the Bible
itself mentions nothing about any church of Rome in terms of any leadership
significance for the true church.
Other than Paul’s letter to
those in
(While most Roman Catholic
writers believe that Peter was in Rome when he made this statement in his first
epistle--“She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you,” 1 Peter
5:13--this was not clearly a reference to Rome, there were other towns called
Babylon then—Peter was probably in the one in Mesopotamia--yet even if it was a
reference to Rome, it would not prove that Rome was of central significance to
the church or that Peter was even in Rome.
The essential Catholic position seems to be that since tradition claims that Peter died in
Contrary to certain claims
and foundational traditions (even Pope Benedict XVI is still perpetuating this
myth[13]),
the Bible shows that Paul did not start the Church in
And
so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest
I should build on another man's foundation, but as it is written: "To whom
He was not announced, they shall see; And those who have not heard shall
understand." For this reason I also have been much hindered from coming to
you" (Romans
Also, the following passage
from the Book of Acts demonstrates that no one prior to Paul (circa 60 A.D. according
to The Catholic Encyclopedia[14])
preached publicly to the Jewish leaders there:
And
it came to pass after three days that Paul called the leaders of the Jews
together. So when they had come together, he said to them: "Men and
brethren, though I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our
fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the
Romans, 18 who, when they had examined me, wanted to let me go, because there
was no cause for putting me to death. 19 But when the Jews spoke against it, I
was compelled to appeal to Caesar, not that I had anything of which to accuse
my nation. 20 For this reason therefore I have called for you, to see you and
speak with you, because for the hope of
Therefore, it seems
impossible that Peter could have been proclaiming Christ’s Gospel of the
kingdom as a bishop in
Hence, neither Peter nor Paul
founded the church in
Interestingly, when
personally addressing the leadership for the Christians who lived in
How did Christianity first
get to
It is of course true that
Notice the following
admission from a Roman Catholic scholar concerning the early church in
The
Roman synagogues, unlike their counterparts in
The above account
demonstrates that even Roman scholars recognize that there were a variety of
groups professing Christ in Rome (this subject is covered in more detail in the
article What Does Rome Actually
Teach About Early Church History?).
And that there really was no single Roman bishopric in charge of all
It is not until the middle of
the second century that there were any who actually took the title “Bishop of
Rome” until Anicetus (circa 155) did (some suspect that Pius, who apparently
preceded him, may have been the first—but this is less certain than
Anicetus).
IV. Heretics Mainly in
Every writer of the New
Testament recorded warnings about false or heretical teachers. And many false leaders did arise, as Jesus
Himself foretold they would (see Matthew 24).
In the first and second
centuries, a number of heretics who professed Christ went to, or were based in,
Even those now considered to
be early supporters of the Roman Catholic Church (such as Justin[16],
Tertullian[17],
Irenaeus[18], and
Hippolytus[19])
condemned Simon Magus and his followers
for doctrines such as statues, revering a woman, incantations, mysteries,
mystic priests, claiming divine titles for leaders, accepting money for
religious favors, preferring allegory and tradition over many aspects of
scripture, divorcing themselves from Christian biblical practices considered to
be Jewish, and having a leader who wanted to be thought of as God/Christ on
earth.
In the late 2nd
Century, the Roman-supporting historian Irenaeus recorded the following:
Cerdo
was one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live at
Rome in the time of Hyginus…He taught that the God proclaimed by the law and
the prophets was not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the former was known,
but the latter unknown; while the one also was righteous, but the other
benevolent. Marcion of Pontus succeeded
him, and developed his doctrine...[20]
(Hyginus has been claimed to
have been a bishop in
Irenaeus also noted that
various claimed bishops of
Valentinus
came to
But
Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who
had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the
Church in Smyrna…always taught the things which he had learned from the
apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To
these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have
succeeded Polycarp down to the present time -- a man who was of much greater
weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and
the rest of the heretics. He it was who,
coming to
There
are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to
bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house
without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall
down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp
himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Do you
know me?" "I do know you, the first-born of Satan."
Such was
the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even
verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says,
"A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject;
knowing that he that is such is subverted, and , being condemned of
himself."[21]
Valentinus, Cerinthus, and
Marcion are considered by Catholics[22]
and others[23] to have
been Gnostic heretics, while Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus were Roman
leaders. Thus these quotes from Irenaeus
show that the Roman “bishops” did not have a higher leadership role than
Polycarp of Smyrna had, because it apparently took the stature of the visiting
Polycarp to turn many Romans away from the Gnostic heretics.
The heretic Marcion came to
Valentinus was a second
century heretic who attempted to blend much pagan Gnosticism with what he
perceived to be the Christian faith. He
came from
According to a Catholic
bishop called Marcellus of Ancyra, Valentinus’ teachings corrupted the church:
Now
with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the
Hence, it was Valentinus, who
Polycarp renounced, who is believed to have been the first affiliated with
Christianity to teach the Trinitarian concept of three hypostasis or make any
clear statement of ‘equality’ regarding three alleged persons of God .
On the other hand, Polycarp[28]
and the Apostle John (John 1:1-3), specifically referred to both the Father and
the Son as God, but never referred to the Holy Sprit as God. Ignatius did the same in his letters to the
Ephesians and the Smyrnaeans.[29]
Polycarp also correctly kept
the Passover. Eusebius noted that in
Polycarp’s region,
…the
parishes of all
Irenaeus knew and reported
that Polycarp condemned heretics such as Marcion and Valentinus, but Irenaeus
failed to point out that they were still allowed to be affiliated with Roman
bishops until at least two decades later. Sadly, Irenaeus supported the Roman
Church even though Irenaeus knew that its leadership tolerated heretics that
had earlier been condemned by Polycarp (and eventually by Irenaeus himself) (it
may be of interest to note that Pope Benedict stated that Irenaeus was the
“true founder of Catholic theology”[31]).
Notice that this Roman tolerance
was essentially confirmed by Tertullian (“the first of Latin theological
writers”[32]—almost
every theological writing was written in Greek prior to Tertullian) near the
end of the second century:
Where
was Marcion then, that shipmaster of
Antoninus was also known as
Titus Ælius Hadrianus Antoninus (not to be confused with the Emperor Hadrian
who reigned from 117-138) and reigned from 138-161, while Eleutherius (there
are differing spellings of his name) was the Bishop of Rome from 175-189. Thus,
even though Marcion and Valentinus were condemned by Polycarp as heretics about
two decades before Eleutherius became “Bishop of
Montanus was also a heretic
in the second century. The followers of
Montanist were eventually denounced by the Roman Catholics, but only decades
after he was repeatedly denounced by leaders in Asia Minor associated with the
true Church including Thraseas of Eumenia and Apollinaris of Hierapolis (both
towns of which are in Asia Minor). And
while Thraseas denounced Montanus before 160 A.D., Montanus was accepted and
encouraged after this by one or more bishops of
Notice the following report
from Tertullian:
For
after the Bishop of Rome had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus,
Prisca, and Maximilla, and, in consequence of the acknowledgment, had bestowed
his peace on the churches of
According to The Catholic Encyclopedia [36],
the Bishop of Rome mentioned above was either Eleutherius (175-189) or Victor
(189-199). Hence, Montanus was another
heretic tolerated/encouraged by
And why is all of this about
Because it is clearly
documented that those that the Roman Church currently considers to have been
heretics were in Rome, were tolerated by the Romans even after they were
denounced as heretics, and that the Roman Catholic Church continues to hold to
practices that were introduced by these heretics. Furthermore, it shows that leaders associated
with the true Church in
Would the leaders of the true
Church be more likely to tolerate or denounce heretics?
The answer should be obvious
(and to those it is not, recall that Jesus, Peter, Paul, Jude, John and others
denounced false religious leaders in the New Testament).
V. Was the Headquarters for Christians Expected to
Remain In
While there are several
churches that claim direct descent from places such as
Let us look at what Jesus
taught on this matter:
And
you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will
be saved. When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly,
I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of
Jesus, of course, has not yet
returned. Whatever Christians there have been in the area of
Thus Jesus must be referring
to more cities than just those in the area of
The concept is also confirmed
in the Book of Hebrews:
For
here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come (Hebrews
For my Roman Catholic friends who may have concerns about translations, let us look at what Jesus taught in Matthew and Paul taught in Hebrews using the Rheims New Testament of 1582—which is the Roman Catholic approved translation of the Latin Vulgate into English:
…and you shall be odious to all men for my name,
but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved. And when they
shall persecute you in this city, flee into another (Matthew
For we have not here a permanent city: but we seek
that which is to come (Hebrews
Thus, even the Catholic Rheims New Testament effectively proves
that no single city, including
VI. Though the Apostles Went Abroad, the New Testament
Focus Was the Church in
Jesus told His disciples to
“make disciples of all the nations” (Matthew 28:19). The New Testament records that in addition to
Jerusalem/Palestine (where the Bible shows all the original apostles, plus
Paul, spent time), the apostles went to
A Protestant scholar has
written:
After
the ascension of Christ, the history of the apostles whom He had trained is
left in the utmost obscurity. Except James, who was early killed with the
persecutors' sword in
Since
Catholic tradition, from the
Roman Catholic theologian Hippolytus in the third century (that may or may not
be valid) makes the following claims:
Where
Each of Them Preached, And Where He Met His End
1. Peter
preached the Gospel in
2.
Andrew preached to the Scythians and Thracians, and was crucified, suspended on
an olive tree, at Patrae, a town of
3.
John, again, in
4.
James, his brother, when preaching in
5.
Philip preached in
6.
Bartholomew, again, preached to the Indians, to whom he also gave the Gospel
according to Matthew, and was crucified with his head downward, and was buried
in Allanum, a town of the great
7.
And Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, and published it at
8. And
Thomas preached to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, Bactrians, and
Margians, and was thrust through in the four members of his body with a pine
spears at Calamene, the city of
9.
And James the son of Alphaeus, when preaching in
10.
Jude, who is also called Lebbaeus, preached to the people of
11.
Simon the Zealot, the son of Clopas, who is also called Jude, became bishop of
12.
And Matthias, who was one of the seventy, was numbered along with the eleven
apostles, and preached in
13.
And Paul entered into the apostleship a year after the assumption of Christ;
and beginning at
Most of the above are also
discussed similarly in Fox’s Book of
Martyrs. But here are some that Fox
words a bit differently (plus he included Luke):
VII.
Andrew
Was
the brother of Peter. He preached the gospel to many Asiatic nations; but on
his arrival at
IX.
Peter
Among
many other saints, the blessed apostle Peter was condemned to death, and
crucified, as some do write, at Rome; albeit some others, and not without
cause, do doubt thereof…
XII.
Bartholomew
Preached
in several countries, and having translated the Gospel of Matthew into the
language of
XIV.
Luke
The
evangelist, was the author of the Gospel which goes under his name. He
travelled with Paul through various countries, and is supposed to have been
hanged on an olive tree, by the idolatrous priests of
XV.
Simon
Surnamed
Zelotes, preached the Gospel in
XVI.
John
The
"beloved disciple," was brother to James the Great. The churches of
It may be of interest to note
that by combining the accounts of the Bible, Fox, and Hippolytus it is clear
that most of the disciples spent some time in Asia Minor (though several
apostles only had to pass through Asia Minor to get to the locations Hippolytus
listed). However, the reader will note
that with Simon Zelotes, for example, Fox and Hippolytus list two differing
locations, and apparently contradictory accounts are mentioned. Hence, early traditions as to where the
apostles ended up should be considered just that, early traditions.
One tradition, which was not
written down until the late 1800s and thus has been criticized concerns Thomas
who is discussed in the Ramban Pattu (also known as the Rabban Song):
The
Rabban Song, which has been passed down orally by generations of Indian
Christians, recounts Thomas' career in
Other traditions include/add
that Andrew founded the church in Bithynia (Byzantium), James brother of John
went to Spain, Bartholomew was in also Asia Minor, Thomas also went to China,
Burma, & Malaysia, Matthew went to Ethiopia & Egypt, and Simon Zelotes
also went to Iran, Africa, & Egypt, Jude (Thaddeus) went to Iran &
Armenia (and is claimed to have began what is now called the Armenian National
Church) and most likely some of those traditions are true.[41]
But what about the Bible?
Jesus told his disciples to
go to all the world to preach the gospel (Matthew 28:19-20). The Bible shows that Paul was in
Since the New Testament
mentions a variety of places that most non-Greek speaking individuals know
little about, very few people are aware that, after the four gospel accounts,
that the New Testament is mainly written to the church leadership in Asia
Minor.
There are a total of 27 books
in the New Testament. At least 10 books
of the New Testament were directly written to the church leaders in
In addition to these 15,
there may be more as 2 Peter and possibly Jude may have also been mainly
directed to one or more of the churches in